AIBU? DS was ill and the school have marked it as an unauthorised holiday and are threatening to fine me!

[WeAreEternal]

A couple of weeks ago DS (7) had an upset stomach, he D&V over night and most of the next day.
First thing in the morning (a Thursday) I called the school and let them know he was ill.
He was feeling better by the evening but as he had D&V school policy is 24 hours off, so I kept him off Friday too.

I received a letter from to school yesterday saying that those days have been marked as an unauthoried holiday as "although we received a phone call from you stating that (DS) was ill, we are led to believe that DS was in fact on a holiday to XXXX on these two dates"

The letter goes on to say that if he was genuinely ill they expect me to provide evidence such as a doctors appointment card, a prescription, a medication receipt or something simmilar that can "verify my version of events".

I am a medical professional, I know when when my DS needs medication or to see a GP or when he just has a bit of a stomach bug and needs rest and fluids.
Who would take a child to the GP or buy medication for D&V anyway?

How on earth can I prove that DS was ill?
And why are they even querying this?
AIBU to think this is bloody ridiculous?

Anyone have any ideas?

I still want to know what Peeking's angle is on this. She has the tone of someone who brushes off pesky members of the public for a living and has an internalised contempt for them as inconveniences. Maybe she is a doctor's receptionist. More likely one of those people connected to some form of education who keeps wistfully thinking that the whole thing would be so much easier without the pupils / students / parents getting in the way all the time

mildred there are sensible heads out there with open door policies where this sort of stuff wouldn't escalate.

An open door policy is vital as a head especially in a primary school where reputations matter. My previous head at a school was a crap teacher but he knew how to handle parents. They liked him, respected him and he listened to their concerns. The new head was not like that and I know the parents did not warm to her.

The head's reputation is so important for a school. Parents talk and I bet some heads who have never been at the school gate don't really appreciate how much they talk.

placemark

The time wasting caused by all this sort of stuff is pathetic; I'm all for procedures at a nuclear power plant but much stuff even in professional life comes down to personal relationships.

HOW did I miss that? When did this become a CRIMINAL matter?

1870, I think (S.74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870). I'm not quite sure of the status of byelaws made by school boards in Victorian England.

It's certainly criminal by 1944 (S.37(5) of the Education Act, 1944).

Is this a criminal offence or a civil offence?

Also - I get that the parent must "satisfy the authority that the child is receiving efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude either by regular attendance at school or otherwise." - but I don't see where it lays out that missing TWO DAYS means that the child is no longer receiving "efficient" education

Actually the more I think about it, the more I am boggling about the fines thing being a criminal matter. Is it? Are you sure? Technically?

If I get a fine from, say Sainsburys, for parking in one of their parent / child bays without a small child, and I refuse to pay (suppose I am saying I did have a small child on that day) - this is not a criminal matter. If it were, I would have to be tried, and a jury would have to come to a decision beyond reasonable doubt that I parked there without a child and deserve to pay the fine.
You can't just have someone slap a fine on you as a matter of opinion and then get a criminal record if you don't pay it. can you?

BOGGLE

Is this a criminal offence or a civil offence?

It's criminal. One of the parties is the government, after all.

The current legislation (the question asked was "since when") is S.444 of the Education Act 1996.

"If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence."

"A person guilty of an offence under (this) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

You can't just have someone slap a fine on you as a matter of opinion and then get a criminal record if you don't pay it. can you?

No, you can't. But do you seriously need a lesson in how fixed penalty notices work?

Well this has gone a little bit mad.

When I said that I plan to contact the LEA (I am pretty sure in my area they are still called the local education authority) I mean after this matter has been dealt with by the school.
I didn't mean to complain about the school, I mean I plan to complain about the entire situation, how it has gotten to the point where parents are being asked to prove their child is 'really' ill and being threatened with a fine if they can't do so.

There is a tendancy on MN to attack people who simply give information from the other darkside.

She is merely giving us a heads up why attack her.

She is saying that the letter was so vile, she wouldnt have given the shcool a chance to aplogise nicely but hit fire with fire and gone straight for formal procedure.

As much of a hassle as it is for us to go down that route, I imagine it would be a real pain in the arse for the school too.

I don't think that has anything to do with the LEA. It's to do with central government. If you complain to the LA all they will tell you is that it is nothing to do with them and you need to complain elsewhere.

If I get a fine from, say Sainsburys

Sainsbury's can't issue fines. They can demand payment on vague contractual theories, and attempt to pursue it as a debt if you don't pay. It's entirely different.

If it were, I would have to be tried, and a jury would have to come to a decision beyond reasonable doubt that I parked there without a child and deserve to pay the fine.

And that's exactly what would happen over school attendance (well, magistrates, normally). You get issued with the penalty notice. You refuse to pay it. The people that issued to penalty notice then attempt to prosecute you (they'll need to get the CPS to do this). There's a trial, to a reasonable doubt standard, as to whether you failed to get your child to attend regularly. At the end of it, the magistrate gives a verdict and a penalty. It's a criminal trial. Any prosecutor that attempted to do this for a single day would get laughed out of court, but that's besides the point. Failure to ensure school attendance is a criminal offence, and people can (and do) get jailed for it.

Fixed penalty notices were introduced in the middle of the 20th century for traffic offences. Only in 2003 were they extended to truancy.

So I guess the part that is confusing me is that:

while I get and have always accepted in principle that it is an offence not to facilitate the education of your child;
And while I understand that a fixed penalty notice have been recently extended as cheap, quick ways of addressing various forms of anti-social behaviour;
and while I understand that "A fixed penalty notice is not a fine[1] or criminal conviction and the recipient can opt for the matter to be dealt with in court instead of paying However if the recipient neither pays the penalty nor opts for a court hearing in the time specified, the penalty may be increased by 50% and registered against the recipient as a fine. [2] It may then be enforced by the normal methods used to enforce unpaid fines, including imprisonment in some circumstances.";

the bit that I am boggling about really is that it is so easy (apparently) to issue a fixed penalty notice for incredibly minor and unproven truancy and that this then sets in motion a train of events that can lead to a criminal conviction or even imprisonment.

I mean - your choices (if innocent) are to pay anyway or to set in motion a chain of events which in theory you could lose (even if innocent, miscarriages of justice do happen) that have very serious ramifications, and this is for two days out of school.

It seems easier to slap a fine on someone than to take someone to court (which is why these measures have been extended, easy and cheap) and yet if you do not pay it leads to the same thing - so in other words, it matters how much the fine will hurt you as to what you decide to do - so in other words one rule for the rich and one for the poor

x-posted with you, Friday.
I suppose the bit we are all relying on is "Any prosecutor that attempted to do this for a single day would get laughed out of court, " - but you also say that "that's beside the point" and that's the fact I find scary

Still want to know what Peeking's background is

Afaik Peeking hasn't got an axe to grind. She very kindly gave us the benefit of her professional experience instead of the usual made up expertise and has been totally unjustifiably slated for it. Totally out of order.

It seems that the op is rather more sensible than some of the outraged hysteria here and will no doubt get a better outcome as a result.

Lay off peeking though eh?

Mildred if you read her ousts you'd know. She used to work at an LA dealing with school complaints etc. the operative word there bring "used" because that post is no longer necessary since LAs have been totally taken out of the whole complaints equation. The still is now school then governors then Department of education.

In the end the whole process is a rather large sledgehammer when a rational conversation with the person in charge would suffice!

I completely agree with BitOutOfPractice. Peeking wasn't defending the school or the system so much as just explaining how these things work. I am at a loss to understand why that elicited such unpleasant responses.

Who actually gets fined then? Both parents? If it came to it, who would be slapped into prison?

the bit that I am boggling about really is that it is so easy (apparently) to issue a fixed penalty notice for incredibly minor and unproven truancy and that this then sets in motion a train of events that can lead to a criminal conviction or even imprisonment.

Is it easy? The OP hasn't yet been served with a fixed penalty notice, merely threatened with one. An authority which issues a fixed penalty has to have a code of practice, against which notices are issued. Tickets outwith that code aren't valid. After you fail to pay they have to decide to prosecute, which also has a code of practice. And the school can't do that, the LA has to, with a massive weight of process to deal with.

Read the full details here.

Here's a random authority's code of practice.

Note why the OP isn't covered:

A Penalty Notice for truancy will only be issued to a parent/carer if the pupil has at least ten sessions (5 school days) lost to unauthorised absence recorded within the previous six months.

That's standard in almost all such policies. Hence the school is blowing smoke.

Really good question, Ezza!

I suppose the bit we are all relying on is "Any prosecutor that attempted to do this for a single day would get laughed out of court, "

And the fact that any prosecution has to follow the statutory guidance, which almost certainly has a floor of ten sessions within six months. Perhaps the OP could ask the school for a copy of the authority's guidance.

Eldrithc

Always happens.