To not understand the fuss over attendance?

[CestLeWhy]

disclaimer: I didn't go through the state schooling system in the UK, DS is in reception, so I have no experience of school quotas/ funding/ social services. I'm not trying to be goady, I'm genuinely asking.

What is the fuss about attendance? I see so many posters proudly stating their kids have 100% attendance, and that is to be celebrated as it shows they are very conscientious, but why is it such a big deal?

DS just received his reception report and got 'Exceeding' in every category and glowing praise (not even a stealth boast, I am so proud) but his attendance was below 90%. So what? He's only 5. If he's poorly, which he is often, I keep him home rather than send him in for a miserable day for him and disruption to the class. A large chunk is also accounted for as we are from a different country so I take 2-3 days off a year for him to celebrate our cultural holidays. I think it's more important for him to grow up assimilating both cultures than attend every single day. I don't want to drip feed, we had a family emergency which caused some of the days off, but even without, his attendance would have been below 95%.

I can understand lots of reasons to monitor attendance: it can be a safeguarding indicator, it's important in higher years where they learn at a very fast pace etc but I just can't understand why it's considered so important in isolation for all year groups.

Educate me, please, MN!

what kind of a shitty message is it to give your kids as well: " do not give 100% in PE and the various school competitions you are doing representing the school, you might get injured and you would ruin your attendance". Stick with reading and music to be on the safe side.

Supportive parents will support either way. Instead of wasting time and resources on these ridiculous ratings, they should think about ways to support teachers and give them a way to catch up, or have the TA catch up, with kids who have missed school - if only for the ones who had medical and emergency issues.

bakingdemon as a school governor I really appreciate your input on this thread. I don't know how to copy your text but you say a really 'clear link' between low attendance and educational outcomes. Don't you think this is a clear example of the causation correlation fallacy?

I'm certain poor attendance must be correlated with poor educational outcomes. That's because the types of children who will suffer from chronic absences are likely to be a similar group who are likely to achieve poorly. For example, parents without resources to get their kids to school on time, children of unmotivated parents, children whose parents undervalue education.

However, this doesn't mean that poor attendance causes for the entire loss in educational outcomes, surely?

GahWhatever I love your examples

I guess we're very lucky, DS's school already does this, but surely the right way is to have a blanket target but then assess kids with low attendance on a case by case basis and follow up with parents of the absences are part of a pattern/ unreasonable?

I think it's stupid I mean people can't help getting ill what do they want you to do about send them in ill when they would be miserable and couldn't concentrate anyway and spread germs around ? People get ill I don't see why people who send their kids in ill and infect others are celebrated. Il always keep my little boy off if he's ill ( not for a mild cold ECT) but if he's ill he's ill and he will stay at home.

*D & V

I agree with other PP's in that all the fuss is over minorities of parents who cause an issue. I say that at both ends of the spectrum.

You have the parents that take the Mick and think that a holiday sat near a beach is more important than schooling or that second cousin auntie dorises 4th wedding is a reason to be off for the day.

On the other end those that apply importance to 100% attendance regardless of the circumstances foster an unhealthy need for awards because they can't think deeply enough to recognise that simply getting 100% attendance out of context is not a reason for smugness

Ds1 was quite low in attendance (I think we came in at 89%) I'm not proud and I'm not embarrassed it is what it is, ds1 has SEN and there were genuine medical or educational need for the absences in full agreement with the school

He has not ever had the day off for a holiday (and no I think it's a ridiculous excuse for going in term time because the prices go up in the holidays....a holiday is not essential to life and go somewhere cheaper in the holidays then)

Nor had any time off for anything other than appointments etc

I do think the awards are silly but they pander to the over excited living through the school life mob so all power to them

There's also a relevance to what happens at home,due to SEN ds1 attendance was never likely to be perfect , we follow the curriculum and match at home what we learn, we have a learning timetable at home to boost his education in line with his school and with their help , so we up the practising at home if he has been unwell so he doesn't miss out

If common sense is applied all is well, but there are always people who haven't got the sense to realise life is complicated past a % on a sheet of paper

itchytights it really annoys me when obviously unwell kids are sent in, but I appreciate it's incredibly hard to make that call for the parents who want to avoid losing attendance.

A couple of weeks ago, DS came home saying his best friend was really quiet at playtime, and told him 'mummy says I'm only a little ill do not to mention it'. 2 days later my son was down with a horrible virus and I kept him off school.

Gettingbackonmyfeet you sound like you have a really sensible attitude to attendance

Schools can't win, they have to try to reach targets, but they also have to call parents and ask them to pick up the kids when necessary. Will the attendance-crazy refuse to pick up their child until the second registry is signed to ensure 100% attendance for their little darlings?

3stonedown and that's precisely why DS1's too ill to work, but children with CF are still expected to go to school in between secondary infections.

Do people send children in unwell to get attendance awards though? Or do they send them in because they have no childcare?

If you’re missing 10% of work a year because your child has a cold or something, you’d be sacked.

Paid emergency childcare for unwell children when you don’t use any childcare normally is almost impossible to get in most areas...

So I’d assume usually it’s parents not wanting to miss work rather than obsessing about meaningless awards.

Re paid time off for funerals, my boss told me to go home the day my partner's dad died. I declined, as I'd never met the man.

Well, I'm also a primary school governor and I think the current focus on attendance is really excessive. I'm also the parent of a child who happens to have had 100% attendance this year, for what it's worth.

Yes, it's important that kids should turn up to school as much as possible. No, it's not at all reasonable to expect teachers to put in extra work to help children catch up on what they have missed. And of course, there are some children whose poor attendance gives genuine cause for concern. These cases certainly need to be addressed.

However, in most cases, parents will make sensible decisions about whether or not their child should attend school on any given day, and children from homes that are generally supportive of education will very rarely fall behind because of the odd absence here and there.

Awards for 100% attendance are pointless, as it's rarely the child's choice as to whether they stay at home or not, and it certainly isn't their choice as to whether they get ill. These awards are also potentially discriminatory to children with disabilities, who have a much lower chance of reaching the required threshold through no fault of their own. As a governing body, we decided to get rid of them.

Schools really need to be able to exercise a bit more discretion and common sense with regard to attendance. Each and every situation is different, but the school should be able to identify when there is a genuine problem. Having said that, I do understand why schools take a more blanket one-size-fits-all approach.

I can hand on heart guarantee that my children would have been better served on a beach than at school this week.

They have learned NOTHING.

It's their last day of school today and in the past four days, they have played Pontoon, sat and played on their phones (encouraged, much to ds2's dismay as he has a Nokia brick), watched Gnomio and Juliet, watched War Horse, and very very little else.

What have they learned this week? That their education doesn't matter anywhere near as much as presenteeism. Thazt it doesn't matter what they do as long as they turn up. That it's appropriate to fill time with meaningless activity rather than be somewhere else doing something interesting.

PerfectlySymmetricalButtocks It's terrible that they still expect your son to attend. Sorry if I caused any offence with my post. I meant in circumstances, when parents keep their children off because they don't want to go, knee hurts, want to go to a theme park etc. Not for children who are genuinely really sick.

The Ofsted feckers will want to see your attendance figures during their visit👍

ProfessorMoody, I don't quite see your point. Are you saying that you don't believe there is a link between attendance and performance (based on your son's experience)?

I think there is quite a lot of evidence that poor attendance correlates with poorer exam results. This is fairly logical - if kids aren't at school, they can't learn. This thinking has driven government policy about attendance and schools are being forced to respond to government initiates to monitor and chase up poor attendance. However, I'm sure there is lots of nuances in the stats and these aren't fully reflected in government or school attendance policies.

Personally, I'm not remotely convinced that taking my kids out of school for two days for holiday is going to seriously damage their long term academic prospects. If anything, I think the holiday would broaden their life experiences, provide alternative perspectives, enhance family relationships etc.

And I think this is the fundamental problem. Lots of people think the focus on 100% attendance is just silly and for them, in their family circumstances (i.e. wealthy, healthy & motivated), it may well be. But for others, where poor attendance is due in part to big risk factors (such as low aspirations, low motivation, caring responsibilities, poor health, special educational needs, mental health issues, poverty etc), missing large amounts of school may have a very significant impact on their future prospects.

Personally I think it's because it's easier to get everyone to 95% than it is to get the people who are really struggling up to 90%

ie. They go after the easy targets to get the number up, rather than deal with the actual problem by helping people.

I'm not blaming the schools for this, they're stuck in a box-ticking exercise. My eldest used to go to a school with 48 pupils. If one of their pupils was off for 2 weeks with something, then that affected their overall rate much more than the school up the road with 600 pupils, and yet they were both targetted in exactly the same manner. It's ridiculous.

It's the end of the year here. For the last couple of weeks, you can see coaches parked in front of the school ready to take the children to zoo, fun parks, and fun farms. I applaud the fact that they are doing it, but you can't tell me that attendance or not will have any impact on the kids schooling.

There's nothing remotely academic in the outings. If they were at the beginning of the school year, they could build work around them - and it's a shame they can't do that. They won't be mentioned at all after the summer, it's just a bit of fun for the kids - probably not so much fun for the teachers to be fair!

"Attendance below 90% is appalling and the poster above should be ashamed that her child's education is so unimportant to her."

My child's attendance in mainstream was usually around 80% because his school couldn't cope with him when he was even mildly unwell. If I sent him in he got sent home. Presumably the school didn't value his education.

This is way off topic, but Perfectly you wrote Re paid time off for funerals, my boss told me to go home the day my partner's dad died. I declined, as I'd never met the man
I don’t understand why you did this. You hadn’t met the deceased, but presumably you had met your partner? Wouldn’t he have appreciated your support that day?

He came to my work, but he didn't want me to come home. He hadn't seen his dad in years.

Its also part of our stupid culture - we drag ourselves into work when we are ill. Acting as though we are troopers, battling on. cold and flu meds are aimed at us being better workers if we can just suck-it-up and carry on. Balls to it. I want my bed.

(I'm ill and at work today... not feeling like a trooper....)

So rather than deal with a tiny minority or parents who can't be arsed to get out of bed in the morning to take their kids to school they go after everyone

Hmm, yes it's really easy to deal with people who can't be arsed!