To think including Exclusion in absence reporting is stupid?

[MaddyHatter]

Just had a letter from the school Attendance officer complaining my DS's attendance is too low at 90.4%

I had a look through the record, and in that he is including the 5.5 days of fixed period exclusion that the school punished him with since september.

Without those, his attendance figures are 94.6% (7.5 days sick and 1 medical appt)

Can they include fixed-term exclusion in the absence percentage? Its not exactly us keeping him home for no reason

Some of you people are so up yourselves about the shock horror of being excluded it is unbelievable.

the first time my son was excluded was in year 7 when after weeks and weeks of being bullied and followed around every day and he finally cracked and gave the boy a shove and a kick. After weeks and weeks of having 'gayboy' shouted at him and missiles thrown at his head....

naturally the bully suffered no consequences in fact he got a pat on the back. That is what some schools are like these days. So those of you that are getting all catsbum mouthed about exclusion and the 'behaviour that led to it' should maybe think again.

OP, dont worry about the letter, I do agree with you, but it wont matter really.

Surely they should have a code?
several years ago, those taking music exams were "educated off site" so maybe they should have some sort of code to allow it?*
They do: (E) it's an authorised code.

94.6% May warrant an attendance letter anyway.

I haven't read your other posts, is it multiple exclusions or one serious incident?

The point is that every child on the school register is either present or absent. There isn't a code for 'not here but not absent either'.

It is in fact (bizarrely) good for your position that your son's attendance is low, because it will mean that the school will be really looking out for ways to improve it, including not excluding him again - it provides a useful check and balance between e.g. a class teacher wanting an exclusion and an attendance officer saying 'no, we need to keep him in school because it affects our absence records - what can we do about this?'.

(If you think about it, at a whole school level, it would encourage some very unhelpful behaviour from schools if exclusions did NOT count as absences - schools want to keep their attendance figures up, so they have to keep the level of exclusions down. This means they have to work on the behaviour which leads to the exclusions, which is a good thing.)

What has happened to the "educated off site" code that was used if a child was e.g. educated in the hospital school? I know it existed in our day; dd's primary just didn't use it, her secondary did.

Agree with teacher that this could be positive if it leads the school to review their management of your ds. Just carry on as you are doing: keep calm, keep the paperwork, get everyone on your side.

Cory - still exists as 'D' - dual registration. Also used for children attending a PRU on a temporary basis while remaining on the register of the original school to allow return without going through the admissions process. It doesn't count as a possible attendance in the official data, so e.g. a child attending the main school for 4 weeks, then a PRU for 4 weeks, would have 100% attendance if they attended every day of the 4 weeks in school.

'E' - excluded - is an authorised absence code, like e.g. illness, medical appointments, study leave, Traveller absence . So a child who is excluded with no alternative provision made for their education is counted as absent. In an 8 week half term, a child excluded for 5 days (the maximum consecutive number of days before alternative provision must be made) will be deemed to have missed 1 of the weeks, so have 87.5% attendance.

This is useful for explaining all the codes.

Ah, thanks teacher. Very glad I don't have to know about this any longer as my dd has left school.

What dd's secondary did was to count any absence due to her SN as D (counting her as educated at home- as indeed she was) and any absence due to ordinary illness etc as authorised absence. I was happy to go along with this as I trusted them to do their utmost to help dd, so didn't really need a record of her absences. They clearly trusted me to report accurately and make sure dd was studying at home and I was always very conscientious about that.

In the OP's case, I agree with you and it is probably vital to have all this recorde, however painful.

Cory, we'd code that as C now and it would count as an absence. To be coded D they would need to be attending another school

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518586/Advice_on_school_attendance.pdf (page 7 onwards)

What about flexi-schooling, apple? What dd's school in fact agreed to do (and I am aware it was probably a bit irregular, but dd was a known suicide risk and highly stressed about attendance) was to agree that dd would be regarded as flexi-schooled.

But hospital schooling would count as a D, wouldn't it? (not that dd's primary managed that- they recorded it as unauthorised absence though they knew perfectly well dd would be hospitalised for 5 weeks and educated at the clinic).

Apple, under some circumstances, in some counties at least, similar 'flexi-schooling' type arrangements CAN be coded as Code B, but only under very specific circumstances where the school has procedures to satisfy themselves that the education is actually taking place:

This is an example with clear description of when codes can be used

"In certain circumstances, instead of being recorded as authorised absence, the pupil can be recorded as attending ‘an approved
educational activity’ (Code B). This code may only be used if:
• the activity had been approved by a person authorised to do so by the
governing body or the headteacher of the school;
• the activity takes place during the school session
in question;
• the activity was educational in nature;
and
• the person supervising the activity at the time had been authorised to do so by the governing body or the headteacher of the school. "

Ah interesting - to be fair we don't have any kids 'flexi-schooled', although some part time.

As an ex home educator (poacher turned gamekeeper, perhaps?!) the twists of legislation and authorisation around part and full time home educating interests me....

OP you have my sympathies. There are illegal exclusions going on at my child's school and it boils my piss. The stress the poor mother is going through is awful. But then to mark it as unauthorised is a piss take.

Medusa - it hasnt been marked as unauthorised.

Medusa, 'E' is an AUTHORISED absence code - like I for illness, or M for medical appointment.

Absence reports always contain both - and attendance % always include both.

So H for unauthorised holiday of 5 days and C for authorised absence of 5 days will give EXACTLY the same attendance %.

The risk of fines only applies to unauthorised absence. When analysing attendance, if it is a concern, attendance officers and inspectors will look at the different codes and will want to establish why and when each has been used.

(For example, in a previous school, we noticed that a particular child, with low attendance, had an 'I' absence code for many Fridays. We investigated this further, and discovered that the family were actually away for long weekends. As a result, a requirement that all illnesses reported by that family had to be supported by evidence was imposed - the fact that the absence had an 'authorised' code did not make it invisible, while the overall % attendance triggered the concern. Similarly for a family who were all 'ill' for the first week of September every year.

This is why it is good for the OP that her DS's absence appears on the absence statistics - anyone looking at 'children with low % attendance' will see those 11 sessions of 'E' and will tend to probe further)

We were certainly threatened with fines by the primary school over high number of genuinely recorded illness absences (letters from school nurse, GP and consultant). But it may be that they were just trying it on. They tried on a few things which turned out not to stand up when examined in more detail. (or as the charming HT put it "of course we understand that corydd is ill but you can't expect us to be happy about it")

Anyway, sorry to derail, OP; sounds like you are doing a great job there pushing for more support for your ds. Just keep calm, keep going, keep the paperwork.

And absolutely agree with teacher that 11 E's on the record will lead to enquiries: you will be able to show that there was a plan and that that plan was not adhered to, you may be able to ask for more support.

Cory, ouch about the genuinely recorded illness - I mean, I would expect the school to investigate it, but where the evidence trail is so robust and matches their knowledge of the child, then to threaten fines is horrible.

It is when 3 children from the same family return tanned and relaxed from a week of 'tummy upsets' that the situation is rather different.

Yep teacher, I absolutely understand that now. When I was in the thick of it, I thought this was how the system worked (and how it let children down), now I can see that this was how one school was being badly managed. If I had realised that at the time I would have handled it better: been more calm, more cool, more ruthless about the possibility of landing people in the shit and far, far less apologetic.

Thanks Teacher, i hadn't thought about it like that.. i'm in the middle of writing a complaint to the BoG, so i might actually include that in there somewhere!

The sanctimony from some of the replies is laughable though, some people could do with the research into the low attendance issues of children with SEN and the governments concerns with the high level of expulsions among the demographic.

If you haven't already seen it,

This is interesting about what Ofsted inspectors will look for wrt exclusion, including internal excusion. It does talk about e.g.
"When inspectors look at the rate of exclusion for disabled pupils or those with special educational needs, they compare it with the rate for all pupils nationally
. Schools have a responsibility under the Equali
ty Act to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for pupils who are disabled. This includes those whose disability leads to a behavioural difficulty.
Where pupils with special educational needs are being excluded more than their peers, inspectors will ask questions about the provision being made for them in school, both for their learning and to support their behaviour. "

In fairness, OP, you didn't mention any SN until well into the thread.