What happens when school starts proceedings against you for low attendance

[katalex]

I met with the deputy head in early January to discuss my year 11 son's low attendance (he hasn't been in since the beginning of September due to poor mental health) and how to get him back to school. I have been working with the SENCO on strategies since late September but I don't think he knew anything about this. He just treated me like I just couldn't be bothered to get my child to school, which couldn't be further from the truth.

We talked about a staggered return, which I agreed to try (even though we already tried this in October and it didn't work) but he said that they had already started proceedings against me for failing to carry out my legal duty to make sure my son attended school regularly. However, I haven't heard anything from the council yet. Are they so overloaded with referrals from schools that it takes over a month to contact a parent whose child hasn't been to school all year?

What should I expect when they do contact me? I have plenty of evidence that I can supply regarding all of the doctor's appointments, resort from the psychiatrist assessment and subsequent diagnosis, weekly therapy with a clinical psychologist since July plus emails and meetings with the SENCO and all the things we have tried. DS also has an Early Help worker. The school referred him to the county council back in September to provide some help to get him back to school. They have not contacted me so far. They also tried to refer him to the local health needs school but that request was denied. DS is going to try starting the staggered return tomorrow. Unless I've forgotten to list something here, I honestly don't know what else I could have done.

Any advice would be very helpful as I'm quite worried.

Well that's a ridiculous projection.

I don't think you do it for personal gain. It's because you believe you are right. You need to spend more time listening to parents and understanding that your employers have an agenda which often does not align with the needs and interests of the child.

@lifeturnsonadime

You told me I don't care about children's education which was the first ridiculous comment. Do you think an EWO or similar profession chose the career for the money? Or the appreciation?

You are so much calmer than I am about this!

This is what frustrates me. All of the 'some parent's don't care' is actually levelled to parents who have been ground down by a system that is set up to fail children.

There are some who genuinely don't care but I think that those are rare and already known to authorities in the main.

It is a full time job (and some) to navigate the system. It's costly too as many pay expensive legal fees to find that LAs are paying barristers to defend the indefensible. It's not a level playing field and children are caught in the middle.

For those reading :

www.ipsea.org.uk

and

www.sossen.org.uk

are invaluable resources.

Beware of Sendidas, they are supposed to be impartial but are funded by the LA.

Why don't you tell me what your job is and maybe I can offer my opinion about what you need to do in your job, based on whatever subjective experience I have of it? That's what you're doing to me. You're repeatedly bashing me on this thread because you didn't like an EWO once. You're telling me what I need to do in my job, making huge great big assumptions and sweeping statements like I need to listen to parents. I do nothing but listen to parents. How can you justify coming on here and telling me what I need to do in my job and what my employers agenda is? What do you know? Why do you think it's ok to be so aggressive?

I have nothing to do with your issue. But you clearly don't understand what it is to be an EWO. That's ok, you don't need to. But it's unfair and inappropriate to tell me I don't care about children's welfare and that I need to listen to parents?

Who the hell are you to be making such comments?

I didn't say that, this is what I said:

If you were really interested in the welfare of children you would not make assumptions that children who are unable to be at school cannot have SEN if no one has noticed. It's not in anyone's interests to notice, it costs money.

Which was a plea on a specific point that you made regarding assumptions about children not having SEN if it hadn't been identified.

I don't think any professional takes on a career in bad faith, I do think that that professionals can become disillusioned and make mistakes and act in ways which are discriminatory and against the law. I'm not sure why you think this doesn't happen. It clearly does? I have now had 2 successful Local Government and Social Care claims, compensation and apologies as a result of mistakes!

It is not "rare" that parents do not enforce school attendance. Neither is it usual, common or normal, and there are varying degrees of severity but it is certainly not rare.

@lifeturnsonadime DC not receiving the correct provision, myths being perpetuated and unlawful behaviour being excused does rile me (understatement), I just have years of experience at directing it at ensuring children and young people get the provision they need and are legally entitled to.

It is relentless.

It isn’t a level playing field, but just to reassure anyone reading, spending ££££ isn’t essential, it is possible to secure and enforce provision without spending significant amounts of money &/or having representation.

No it is because you are misrepresenting the legal position and making assumptions about parents, SEN and children.

If you correctly stated the law and didn't make erroneous comments about the legal obligations of local authorites, school and the fact that many cases of school 'refusal' are connected with SEN then I wouldn't have taken issue with your posts.

It's not personal.

When have I said that discrimination doesn't happen? I really cannot fathom why you are SO invested in what I do or don't think, say or believe. You just didn't like the EWO you once knew and you're projecting all that onto me.

Good for you with your outcomes. You clearly stuck up for your kids. Glad you got the outcomes they needed. You know, because I care about children's welfare or something like that.

I haven't stated the law. I really haven't. Go back to the beginning of this thread, take a deep breath and read it again.

I agree.

I didn't have representation but I did have time because I gave up work.

IPSEA and Sossen are so useful.

If you need to spend money spend it on reports rather than representation.

Evidence is more important.

Ok you stated that LAs don't have the money to comply with the law.

That is the part that isn't true. Money is not a consideration or a defence to not providing an appropriate education.

You just didn't like the EWO you once knew and you're projecting all that onto me.

No, it's not personal this is what I don't like:

I don't like that you are claiming that the fact that there isn't enough money is a defence for an LA in not making appropriate provisions. It isn't.

I don't like the fact that you infer that professionals always act in the best interests of the child and never make mistakes or act on the bias of employers or their funding streams.

I don't like the fact that you have implied that many children are out of school because their parents aren't interested when it's my experience that this is actually rare. Parents are put off by a system that fails children and is unnecessarily adversarial.

I don't like the fact that you assume that a child who refuses who hasn't been diagnosed with SEN probably doesn't have SEN when you know that waiting lists are extensive and it is in the interests of schools/ LAs and Health services not to diagnose because it costs £££ to diagnose then to manage.

Actually this I will agree with.

I did not 'enforce school attendance' when it came to the point that it was actively harming my child.

No decent parent would.

We have to put the safety of our children above school attendance when the school is causing harm.

Education is another matter. Every child deserves an education most parents want that.

@katalex Similar situation here. After the attendance officer threatened to start proceedings against us and we replied that we would welcome the opportunity to ask for help for our dd from a higher instance things finally started to shift for us and all of a sudden they were able to offer more possibilities other than forcing dd in to help her “snap out of it”. Ultimately for us it was too little too late and she now attends an online school, having gone back a year.

In our LA the schools should inform the LA of a pupil's absence of fifteen days thereby alerrting them to the LA need to meet their statutory duty under S19. Schools here are reluctant to do so because our LA forces the school to fund the first 13 weeks of alternative provision and so it pays for the school to keep quiet.
The formal complaint process is laborious in our LA not least because the LA try and frustrate the process at every turn but you should pursue it and through to LGO if you have to. Dd received about £1800 for the LA's failure to make provision after fifteen days. The LA paid £125 for each week they had missed reasoning that was the cost they would have incurred had they met their statutory duty.

Your experience is that parents not making their child go to school is rare. Yes in your experience that is rare because you are not doing the job that I do. So I do the job, and it is not rare. Doesn't matter what your experience is.

In my experience people having heart attacks is rare because I've never come across any of them. Yes, this logic is good.

One of my friends is in this position. Her dd (also year eleven this year) hasn't been to school at all since lockdown ended.

Eventually, the school have provided a tutor for a couple of hours a week but this took a long time. Of course, after the pandemic a lot of things took a long time.

She's going to do maths and English GCSE only and has registered to do a photography course next year although whether that happens or not she doesn't know. But at least it's something to work towards and look forward to.

I don't like that you are claiming that the fact that there isn't enough money is a defence for an LA in not making appropriate provisions. It isn't.

I don't think it's been used as a defence for the LA, more as a reality statement of what life is actually like (legal or not).

Try recruiting AP staff, you pretty much can't, especially 1:1 home tutors. No one wants the job. So the reality is that the education isn't provided. Even the LA can't magic up people. Online schools are starting to fill this void l, although engagement rates are pretty bad.

@TankFlyBoss You describe my experience with EWOs. You've been incredibly patient on this thread. Your job is thankless, incredibly difficult and you get shouted at from both sides.

@Hercisback

Thank you.

Yes, it definitely comes from all directions.

I have helped numerous parents across many LAs enforce their DC’s right s.19 provision. Every single time, including times they claimed they couldn’t offer it because of funding/resources/lack of staff, when the LA were forced they could provide it. The LA can claim they delegate to schools but the ultimate responsibility lies with them and parents can force LAs to provide via JR.

It’s the same with the excuses for not providing specified and quantified 1:1. I have helped many parents enforce that, including many situations where the school &/or LA claimed to be unable to recruit/didn’t have the funding. Every single time when the position was funded at an appropriate level (including one where the LA had to fund at the level of the teaching MPS) and the LA were forced to act it resulted in a suitable appointment.

@QuillBill a couple of hours a week is not a suitable, full time education and your friend can force the LA to provide more. They should email the Director of Children’s Services reminding them of their duties under s.19 of the Education Act 1996 and threatening judicial review if they don’t provide provision. Then if that fails contact SOSSSEN for he,p with a pre-action letter.

I totally agree, my daughter now has a full time 25 hour a week bespoke provision.

This is despite the fact that I was initially told it was impossible and many many lies about the legal obligations of the LA, the availability of staff etc. It's after 2 LGO claims, a threat of Judicial Review and an 11th hour settlement of a SEN Tribunal that the LA spent £££ to get to that stage even though it had no prospect of success.

We are supposedly a wealthy economy. It is dire that the expectation is that children who have SEN should either be forced into unsuitable mainstream school that at best provide a substandard education for the child's needs and at worst (and often in my experience) actively harms them.

Most parents reading this have to do little more than to feed, transport and help with home work to educate their child. For SEN parents it is so much more. It shouldn't be this way. I find it flabbergasting that there are people on this thread are still parent blaming saying that many parents don't enforce school without considering why that might be. It is rare that families are so dysfunctional that they don't have their children's best interests at heart. Yes these families exist but most parents who find themselves facing school refusal are just like every other parent. They want the best for their child and it is the ultimate duty of a parent to ensure that the child does not suffer harm at school.

It's bewildering and scary to have a child who can't go to school. You are judged by everyone. School say be firmer and it must be issues at home, well no they are happy to be at home it's school that is the issue. If a child was frightened to be at home and to go home at night questions would be raised about why. A child who can't step foot in school is told they are naughty or defiant. Parents are told they are weak and not parenting properly. Parents are told the ONLY way the child will succeed is if they go to the school that is harming. We are told there isn't enough money. Told lies about the law. Either not told that there is any AP or told that it is impossible to achieve. Told that our child doesn't have SEN, when not being able to attend due to anxiety is SEN of itself, told that EHCPs are not for kids like ours. We go to the GP to be told that waiting lists are 18 months plus for CAMHS and that the child might not make the criteria anyway because school related anxiety and not being educated is not enough. Other parents judge, they would be able to get their 'little Tommy' to go in. Our children lose friends, we lose friends, our children become increasingly withdrawn and traumatised because no one asks they 'why' no one listens to their voices the narrative is that they are 'bad' a burden on society, etc.

It's fucking awful. A mother in a similar position to me in our LA killed herself because her mental health was made so bad by the situation we are put in.

Please to anyone reading this in a similar position don't give up. @JustKeepBuilding has some excellent advice. My children are now thriving.

IPSEA and Sossen are excellent resources.

@lifeturnsonadime we have ‘spoken’ before. DS1 is a few years younger than your DC has a comprehensive EOTAS package of tuition, therapies, other provision and equipment/resources/budget/professional time etc. worth well over £100k. Many people told us it wasn’t possible, “that’s not how things are done”, “it’s too expensive” and other rubbish.

One particular highlight of being told incorrect information by the LA was being told something for DS3 wasn’t possible when DS1 has that exact SEP in his EHCP. They couldn’t get off the phone quick enough when I pointed out we both knew that was a lie.

@JustKeepBuilding ah yes I remember now.

Fantastic that your son's provision is sorted.

I think the lies are like gaslighting. They are persistent and create deliberate myths, all in order to protect the public purse from educating children appropriately.

The fact that this is literally what people are paid to do never ceases to astonish me. What kind of society would pay public money to deny children with additional needs an appropriate education rather than spend that money on creating a level playing field for all children? But that is literally happening up and down the country.