AIBU For thinking that all schools in the U.K should have correct and lawful attendance policy that puts the child’s best interests, i.e; education, mental health and physical health at heart?

[Evenquieterlife33]

I found out that our schools attendance policy is not lawful. It goes directly against DFE guidelines and The Education (pupil registration) (England) Regulations 2006. It’s a Primary Academy that has an attendance policy that states; children with an attendance level of 90 or below will be automatically marked “unauthorised.” This is unlawful. The register legally must reflect the situation as it is known by the school. So if the school know a child is ill then they have to mark them as sick. There is no legal obligation for parents to provide medical proof or appointment cards or doctors notes for children who have self limiting illness that can be treated at home.
In our case our youngest had caught every school bug going around this year, and his attendance was just nearing 90%. We were referred to the local authority welfare and told we would be marked unauthorised. This prompted me to challenge them and the mark and it was changed. What I’m wondering is how many schools in England have policies like this? Now reading our eldest secondary attendance policy I see that its even worse. If a child is late 5 times (obvs nobody wants this.) the parent will be referred to the Council for a fine. With no right of appeal, if they won’t pay or challenge they could end up with a criminal record. Their policy means that any late child is marked unauthorised for the entire day. So at afternoon registration the child who is well and in the building is being illegally recorded unauthorised.
Does your school have a dodgy unlawful attendance policy and have you challenged them to change it? Perhaps you have contacted your M.P. How have you got on?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739764/Guidance_on_school_attendance_Sept_2018.pdf

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1751/regulation/6/made

www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/gp-practices/service-provision/supporting-pupils-at-school

WRT lateness, if they arrive past register closing the mark of u is recorded- this is classed as an absence mark- but that is legally what it's supposed to be marked as.

With the exception of the first half term (when 3 days sickness obviously shows up as a huge percentage) no child should be missing 10% of their education, that's one day a fortnight. And yes 5 lateness is not acceptable. Kids with long term medical conditions or specific illnesses are not the issue it's those who regularly take a day or two off and it's common

@ReganSomerset the school I am talking about states that 5 late marks will result in a pan rally notice being issued to parents. In order to qualify to issue they must have 10 sessions unauthorised. So the school must be marking children unauthorised for all 5 days at both morning and afternoon to qualify.

yanbu - of course schools should operate within the legal framework and it's totally unacceptable that they get away with openly going against it.
who checks these things?

@stucknoue children who are not the issue as you say, are often being stung by schools at the moment who have punitive attendance policy.

@orangeshoebox I’d love to know too. I have been listening to some really heartbreaking stories recently. It seems to me from what I’m heating that academies are the worst for flouting the law and often have unlawful policy and I’m presuming they just hope parents don’t ever find out.

Yes. Fight the teachers some more. I mean, why should anyone get their fill entitlement to education. Surely they should be able to skip lunchtime registration too and still be marked present.

I bet you will be the first parent to start a petition when your kid doesn't get the qualifications needed for their course / job ( despite not going to school enough or respecting the staff)

I don't think they are doing anything wrong with marking lates as U, that is standard IME.

We were referred to the local authority welfare and told we would be marked unauthorised. This prompted me to challenge them and the mark and it was changed.

Is the LA backing up the school's policy?

I didn’t think there was a minimum for when penalty notices can be issued. I thought it was up to schools / LAs to decide that for themselves.

@ShawshanksRedemption -they say they are to parents in meetings face to face. However this policy is not displayed on their local authority website.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay all schools have an attendance policy and all local authorities also. These should however always be in line with DFE guidelines and attendance legislation.

It sounds like the primary school don't believe parents when they say their child is sick when heading towards the 90% mark. I wonder why that is?

But isn’t the DfE’s guidance on issuing fines that it is at the discretion of the HT what point they set to start issuing a fine?

Yes they have to have a policy, yes that policy has to follow the LA’s code of conduct but I don’t think it’s as clear it as the DfE saying you can only issue fines after x number of lates.

Rafals- sorry what I’m trying to say is that school policy is not always in line with DFE guidelines. I’m wondering how many people have experience of this. The HT has discretion to refer parents for a fine to the LEA. If however that HT has an attendance policy which goes against the education legislation for attendance and still refers a parent if they fall foul, and the LEA then don’t challenge; something a bit off is going on. So for eg schools can’t just have a blanket policy that states all absence at or under whatever percent will be marked unauthorised. I have read many accounts now of children with long term mental health or physical health issues known to the school and their G.P’s having genuine illness marked as unauthorised causing further stress and financial pain to them when being fined.

These should however always be in line with DFE guidelines and attendance legislation

Well, guidelines are just that...they're advisory, not legally binding so it's at the schools discretion whether they follow them. If you have evidence that the school are breaking the law then that's another matter and you're within your rights to report it.

As for marking kids as being U when their parent has called to say they're sick, the reason given for their absence may still be recorded. For example, if parent rings up stating that their DC has sickness bug but the child actually told a member of staff the day before "Mum says I can have the day off tomorrow because we're both getting our nails done" (and yes, this actually happened) we would mark it as U for unauthorised but with a note on the system to explain that Mum reports DC is sick but we have reason to believe this is untrue. Schools don't have to authorise sickness where they have good reason to suspect it's not genuine and no medical evidence is provided.

Shaw- why is that indeed. Why is this the attitude? How does it help to send a sick child into school? Of course some parents and kids will not be genuinely ill, but many will be why shouldn’t they be believed, the child cared for and sent back to school when well, keeping transmission rates down and so general attendance up?

Minister- agreed- if a school has good reason to suspect the child is not in fact ill then they should be marked U.

It’s a Primary Academy that has an attendance policy that states; children with an attendance level of 90 or below will be automatically marked “unauthorised.”

I'm a little sceptical that they would do this- it is not in there interest to record sickness absence as unauthorised absence incorrectly.

Does the policy not mean that they will seek to verify large amounts of sickness absence and record as unauthorised where they don't have evidence?

There is no legal obligation for parents to provide medical proof or appointment cards or doctors notes for children who have self limiting illness that can be treated at home.

That does not mean a school must be credulous. Sadly, there are bad parents who just lie, rather than make their child attend. While bad schools will choose to believe bad parents, because it's frankly easier, a good school will investigate large amounts of illness absence.

While bad schools will choose to believe bad parents, because it's frankly easier, a good school will investigate large amounts of illness absence.

This. Schools have absolutely nothing to gain by being punitive about attendance purely for the sake of it. But sadly there have been Serious Case Reviews where failure to robustly investigate poor attendance has been a contributing factor in children coming to significant harm or worse. As with so many things, schools are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As a previous poster has said, the school can mark a child unauthorised and record a note with it saying "mother called in sick but x, y, x" and the register it still accurate.

Whether an absence is authorised or unauthorised is irrelevant when looking at percentage attendance - both still count towards the percentage.

You "challenging them" and getting the "marked changed" means the system worked (although they probably didn't change it tbh): The school were concerned about the welfare of your child, the LA investigated, the LA decided it wasn't an issue. There are many cases where the LA decide it is an issue and take action.

Any child with an attendance approaching 90% or below is a safeguarding concern unless there is a very clear and evidenced reason why this is the case. Just because you deem it to be not a safeguarding concern in your situation, doesn't mean it isn't in lots of others.

Finally, he school and LA have to demonstrate that they have put steps in place to support the child's attendance to school before they can issue an penalty notice - they don't just issue the PN out of the blue (obviously taking holiday during term time is different) - so they are difficult to appeal because of this.