100% attendance prizes.

[vintageteacups]

I'm sure it's not me and dh but I cannot believe that primary schools actually make a huge deal of giving out prizes to children with 100% attendance.

For goodness sake - it's punishing the children who have been ill or been to hospital. In the assembly this morning, they actually added on 2 more children who's parents had obviously complained as their kids couldn't have their hospital apps at any other time than in the day! I mean - who gives a toss?!

My kids came home and without us saying anything, dd said she thought it was really unfair to punish her because she had been to hospital and had been off sick.

Out of 250 kids, 12 got the book prizes. It's basically just to make the parents feel utterly bad for keeping them at home.

Well fine - next time dd is throwing up, I'll send her in so she can vomit all over their carpet and not mine!

I give my dd a day off if I think she is really tired or coming down with something because she is young and I work from home so I can. She is never going to have a 100% attendance certificate.

I don't care - I would rather look after her in the way I think best. She doesn't care either because, frankly, she would rather have a day off when she is peaky than struggle into school. I think it is actually great to reward kids who have been there every single day - I am really quite impressed!

I see what people are saying about attendance prizes, but I quite often see kids with there parents at shops, etc, when they should be at school. We have always been able to book dental checkups etc outside of school. I see people taking there kids into school late time and time again, is it so difficult to get them there on time? I really think some people don't make an effort, sorry. We get 100% attendance year after year.

rp1608, dd's head was also keen on achieving 100% attendance: he did it by making life very unpleasant for parents with chronically ill children, in the hope that they would move their dcs. It worked to some extent; giving a school a reputation for poor pastoral support or an unwelcoming attitude towards SN can deter parents with problems.

Of course you can book dental appointments out of school. But you won't be able to book MRI scans, consultant appointments, physio, counselling, X-rays etc etc. Typically, the specialist consultant will have a clinic once a week and that is when you have to attend. If you need two specialists, that's two mornings or afternoons gone. That is why children with chronic health problems have such a hard time: parents and teachers genuinely don't realise the difference. They think you can have your scan or see the specialist at your convenience.

Remember that a child you see in town with their parents may be a) on a visit from abroad b) waiting for the bus on the way back to school from hospital (we often pop into shops under such circumstances) c) home educated

I am sure there are children who skive. But tarring everybody with the same brush is not helpful.

rp1608 or a private school child who has exeat or longer school hols.

100% attendance certificates are unfair.

My DS got 99.7% because he was late one morning when my car didn't start and we had to wait for the RAC.

It's giving the message that attainment is more important than effort and in a school, that is absolutely the wrong message imo.

Are your kids never ill, rp1608?

We gave out trophies for good attendance (over 95%) and children with chronic illnesses also got trophies.

fairenuff has hit the nail on the head...

"It's giving the message that attainment is more important than effort and in a school, that is absolutely the wrong message"

I do have primary aged children, with normal, fairly robust immune systems and I am quite frankly astonished that so few children make it through the academic year turning up every day! My kids go to school every day unless they are ill, and a cold is not ill - chicken pox, throwing up, nasty ear infection is ill. Part of the reason that schools had attendance prizes is that parents think they'll "just give the kid a day off", which plays havoc for the teachers when everyone's at it. And it's abundantly clear from this thread that plenty of people are at, thereby proving that there ought to be some kind of merit to incentivise attendance on those days when we'd all rather stay under the duvet...

sugartongue, I spoke to a consultant in immunology about this and he said it is perfectly normal for children of junior school age not to have fully developed immune systems and end up with several bad bugs a year: just because some children are naturally robust that doesn't mean there are a number of perfectly normal children who simply haven't got such a well developed immune system

I agree with vintageteacups - 100% attendance prizes are ridiculous and gives pupils the idea that in life they can succeed if they turn up every day but not put in any effort. If you want punctual attendance and no skivving - reward the parents, not teach the child a fallacy or punish the children who are absent for reasons they can't control. I don't see how rp1608 can possibly tell if children in shops are 1) foreigners on holiday, 2) had a day or afternoon off because of a school inset day, 3) from an independent school whose term dates are different, 4) are home educated. And if they are children from the local area who are consistently kept off school by the parent even though they attend at other times, then a measly little certificate or book handed out to their child is not going to convince those parents to change their behaviour.

I think 100% attendance certificates are a great idea.
Children should know that school (and work when they are older) is not an option, it is a must.
Too many of the younger generation take sick days when an older person wouldn't.
Commitment should be encouraged from a young age.
My eldest daughter has had one for every year she has been at school, 5 years :o. My youngest daughter is unlikely to receive one due to hospital appointments :).

"Part of the reason that schools had attendance prizes is that parents think they'll "just give the kid a day off", which plays havoc for the teachers when everyone's at it. And it's abundantly clear from this thread that plenty of people are at, thereby proving that there ought to be some kind of merit to incentivise attendance on those days when we'd all rather stay under the duvet..."

Even if I were "incentivised" by such schemes (I'm not) it would have the exact opposite effect in DD's case. She had been into school every day this school year, but has been sent home feeling unwell at lunchtime 3 times (once in each term..) suffering with earache (which she is prone to, usually a dose of calpol sorts it out - if she has earache before school she has a dose & lasts the day). So what did she get? Diddly squat... How will that incentivise her to go to school every day next year?
As someone said earlier once you have had one day off what's the point, where's the motivation? If they had awards for high attendance (say 98%) I could live with that better & they could then set a lower (more realistic) target for kids with medical issues so that they need not feel excluded.

"It's giving the message that attainment is more important than effort and in a school, that is absolutely the wrong message"
Completely agree! In my last job we used to take on a fair few graduates and quite a number of them had an awful work ethic "you should be just be grateful I've turned up for work, don't expect me to work hard all day too!" type of thing. Heaven forbid they might have to have a short lunch or stay late 15 minutes to get something important finished for a client! Now I know where the attitude came from, I bet they all got 100% attendance certs at school...

A genuine question for this thread - as the LEA and Ofsted set huge store by attendance and penalise schools with low attendance (even where that is due to haveing larger than normal numbers of children with SEN or medical needs, or e.g. a high proportion of traveller families) what should schools do, and be seen to do by parents, to encourage improved attendance?

Seen from the school side, there is a huge disparity in the level of illness parents judge to be 'too ill for school' - ranging from 'a bit tired today' or 'a bit of a sniffle' to 'has uncontrollable D+V' or 'a temperature of 104'. There is also a wide range of events that parents and carers judge to be significant enough for children not to attend school - birthday, just back from holiday, going to see non-resident parent, family party, event linked to the family's particular culture, funeral, parent away for work etc, and that is before we enter into the world of term-time holidays whether authorised or not.

A school can, and does, set clear guidelines about all these things e.g., what constitues illness. It rings parents whenever a child does not come into school without a good reason. Refers persistent offenders to the appropriate authority (one of our parents recently went to court and was fined). Refuses to authorise holidays except in named circumstances etc. Takes every opportunity to impress on parents the importance of being in school.

Enrolling the children's support, through awards for attendance (we have 100 for half term, whole term and whole year so that children have 'another chance' each half term) is a tiny part of the overall battle but it does add a little 'pester power' to the equation and does give an opportunity to talk to parents and children at the final assembly of each half term about WHY attendance is a good thing (of course attendance is not the ONLY thing - but if a child is not in school they don't have the opportunity to try hard there...).

However, all other suggestions about what a school could do instead of / as well as attendance certificates (though you can take it as read that all the 'invisible in-school / LEA things' outlined above are already taking place) would be most welcome...

perhaps teacherwith2kids a formal letter sent home every term/half term to parents, stating what constitutes 'illness' and what doesn't might serve as a good reminder to parents.

Quite frankly, Ofsted and LEAs need to deal with specific parents who keep their kids off a lot, rather than worrying HTs with petty moans about attendance that's a couple of % below the average.

When you say "so that children have another chance each half term", are you for real? Do you think that children can actually control when they going to vomit and think to themselves "hmm, I know, I really want that certificate so I'm going to hold off throwing up until Friday night".

Get real - this is just a way for HTs to show Ofsted/LEAs that they are trying to get attendance up. However, it is completely discriminating.

I find LAs do deal with specific parents but OFSTED looks at numbers only not reasons.

I wonder if Ofsted look at results compared to attainment?

Because in reality, you could have a child (like dd last year) who was "well below average in attendance" as written by HT yet is a yr 3 working to yr 6 in literacy and maths.

It's all relative.

Vintage, Unfortunately, asking Ofsted to change the way they look at things is not within my power or yours. LEAs do deal with specific parents - including, as I said, taking them to court.

We do send exactly the information you suggest, in the last newsletter of every half term.

The point about 'another chance each half term' was to address the point made elsewhere in the thread that children have no incentive once they have been ill once. By working half-termly as well as across the whole year, we have tried to address this. I apologise that I did not make this clear.

I have heard a child say, when a parent has said 'well, x might not be in tomorrow as his dad is taking him out' 'no mum, I have to be in school, I've been there every day this term'. It may be amazing to MN parents that this kind of thing goes on, but non-attendance on spurious grounds is an issue, and as I said I would love to hear suggestions that are school-based (the LEA process tends to kick off for big problems, but it is often the little, niggly occasions that bring attendance down) that are better than we currently have.

When looking at attendance they do not match attendance to individual performance.

My understanding - may be flawed - is that Ofsted look at attendance on a relatively 'stand-alone' basis. There is a built-in assumption that good attendance = good thing, poor attendance = bad thing, if attendance is lower than expected then a HT is going to have to show that they have done absolutely everything that can possibly be expected (which would probably include incentivising good attandance) to address that.

They then look at progress and attainment for the whole cohort and for sub-groups (e.g. boys / girls , SEN / non-SEN, any significant minorities / the remainder of the school). I would think it unlikely that they would delve as deep as 'do specific children who have less good attendance have good attainment', though if e.g. the lower attandance was for an SEN need then it might form part of the analysis of the progress of SEN children.

maybe they should offer chocolate rewards then - that'd win over a certificate and book anyday

Thank god we don't have these at the DDs school (although the new head is very keen on sucking up to Ofsted, so we probably will soon !) DD1 is as healthy and robust as they come, but she's still had a day off this year when she had a high temperature. Primary age kids get ill - their immune systems are still developing, and they catch things from being in close contact with each other. I would guess that most children who manage 100% attendance do it more by luck than judgement - i.e. they have fortunately managed to be ill at weekends and holidays!

I suspect that might have the MNers even further up in arms though.....

Thing is, I don't much like rewarding 100% attendance, whether by chocolate, certificates, books or whatever for all the reasons described on this thread. That was why I was asking for any successful alternatives that could be used in school, given that we are in an environment where failure to meet target attendance has quite serious consequences for the school.

I'm surprised BetsyBoop that you think a child with 100% attendance just turns up but does little work .
Of the 3 children in my DD's class who attained 100%, all are working above national average. Not to say some of the others aren't mind :).

Our school has an overall target of 97% attendance. I doubt very much that it reaches that, mainly due to the large Asian cohort.
It seems that their statutory visit to Haj is taken when the children are in primary school, which is completely understandable imo. It doesn't take many children off for 3-8 weeks (12 weeks have been known) to knock the attendance percentage down.

The welfare officer is in touch with all families below an attendance of 97%.

Of course a child who is vomiting or otherwise very ill shouldn't go into school, but if these attendance certificates help children with a slight snuffle or a bit of a cold go in when they otherwise wouldn't then they're a good idea imo. It's not fair on those who really can't go in for whatever reason, but little in life is truly fair, and a child not getting a 100% certificate because of chronic illness is no more discriminatory than a child not getting a maths prize because they're dyscalculic or a child not getting a basketball prize because their too short. It's not too difficult to understand that due to bad luck you won't get a prize and unlikely to cause lasting damage I should think.