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!

mrz and going by your example, that mother is to blame, not her children.

Giving out a 100% prize to her son isn't going to alter the price of fish is it

Actually this year he has achieved his highest level of attendance (not 100%) because he is asking to come to school and is old enough to get himself ready to come.

And in schools where attainment is low - or where it could be even better?

(The school with the best attainment in my area is also the one with the lowest added value - ie the school takes in very bright, privileged kids and they make less progress than they ought to, though the absolute attainment is still very high. Its attainment could be even better.)

I really don't buy the 'well, don't worry about attendance unless you have low attainment' argument. Either attainment and attendance are genuinely not connected - in which case no schools should worry about it - or they are connected, in which case all schools should be encouraged to maximise attainment and progress via maximising attendance. Attendance is either important for all, or important for nobody. It's not true that 'only the less privileged / less bright need to attend school all the time'.

Vintage - I would rather they went in and got sent home if they are feeling unwell.
DS1 was a main part in his Y4 play and came down with a horrible throat infection. He felt really ill but wanted to go into school so he didn't let everyone down. He was a real trouper! I kept him dosed up with Calpol and Ibuprofen and he got through it. It was his decision to go in and I respect him for making the decision.

I did keep him off when he was throwing up but if had had his way he would have gone in.

The amount of people who have the odd day off here and there is astonishing and authorised absences should not be included as the HT does not really want them to be off but has to authorise them by law. Families should not take holidays in term time.

Although you are talking about primary; my DD is in secondary

She has chronic asthma; her peak flow is between a third and half what it should be and it has been like that for nearly 2 years now with maybe 10-15 days in that time where it was on target. So that is like using half of your lungs all the time; it makes you tired.

She attends school like that most of the time; she gets chest infections & sore throats these are treated by anti-biotics; she is often off for 1 or 2 weeks at a time. We often send her in with a cough, a cold, a bit off colour but not when her temperature is above about 38.

Then she gets letters off the school questioning her absences and informing her she has had 89% attendance & she is "at risk of her attendance being too low" & "might not make enough progress" & "may not achieve expected outcomes" - this was an Amber letter, last term it was Red (as was the end of Autumn terms)

How do you think she feels? Ashamed of her illness
How much does she feel the school values what she does (struggling in with half her lungs working)? She doesn't think they care at all

Does she feel it is her 'fault' she is ill - well yes.

Does she wish she was 'better' - well yes.

Does the letter make her attend more often? Umm no
Does the letter improve her attendance? Umm no

Is it contributing to her self esteem? Umm no
Does it help to give her a positive self image and accept that her illness is 'part of her'? Umm no

Are there any positives to this letter? I can't think of any; oh yes it contributes to the school targets for OFSTED

How do I feel about the system? You really wouldn't like my opinion of attendance rates

Hi Katymac - that's awful - your poor dd.

You illustrate the reasons why I'm arguing against the stupid certificates and the complete unfairness to it all.

Note that in the main, the people who have agreed with it are those whose children have attained 100% or those who work in schools.

What I really don't understand is why Ofsted uses days off ill within their targets. Surely it should be about involving the EWO in such cases where the children are not being taken in regularly because parents can't be bothered.

Years ago, when our parents were young, Ofsted didn't exist and apart from a few naughty little monkeys who skipped school now and again, the vast majority went unless they were ill.

We now live in such a nanny state that well meaning parents who keep the kids off for the odd day here and there because they're throwing up, feel patronised by schools who choose to use attendance certs to give the appearance they're trying to improve rates of attendance.

How do they know that the following year, rather than their certificate system improving attendance rates, there were fewer ill children?

Answer - they don't.

My child got star of the week for turning up to the school play in the evening despite having a severe pain in her ear for the whole afternoon. Reality was I gave her nurofen when she got home and she lay on the sofa - when the time came for the school play a few hours later, she was behaving normally and was in no pain so she went in - no bravery involved, had she still have been ill I would have kept her at home - what a shit unimaginative reason for an award...I couldn't even congratulate dd - we both agreed it wasn't a moment to be proud of...then again the star of the week thing was pants too - I attached no weight to it because it had no reflection on input.

Schools really need to reflect on these daft award giving rituals - most of them lack credibility with the adults - the kids too, if they have more than 2 brain cells between their ears.

I just don't see the point

Either the parents care in which case the letter makes them feel bad & guilty but changes nothing

Or the parents don't care in which case the letter gets binned

Or the child is truanting in which case they are unlikely to care about the letter

The only small positive is that if the parent didn't know their child was truanting

But once you've been dragged into school 2 or 3 times to talk about attendance & illness you would think they could suppress the letter

Katymac your poor DD, that's exactly why I hate these attendance awards.

teacherwith2kids
That's a prime example of why I think if you have to have attendance targets (I'd rather you didn't, but can also appreciate the pressure from the LA/Ofsted to be seen to be doing someting) then you could be slighltly smarter & should set individualised targets for children with chronic health problems, so that they at least have a fighting chance of meeting the target.
It can't be that difficult to work out that if you need to achieve 95+% overall, then set all the "well" kids say a 98% target & the "ill" kids something appropriate to their circumstances & then hopefully you achieve 95+% overall, and then every child has a reasonable chance of achieving.

camaleon
Reading between the lines from what what we've been told from DDs school this year, the 100% attendance awards have lead to a slight increase in both those achieving 95+% & those achieving 100% (as much as you can tell by comparing one year to another, probably not a statistically valid comparison, and definitely not proof of correlation of cause & effect!) However I don't think it's had much impact on the habitual poor attenders (I'm talking for non-health reasons) and late arrivers - fortunately at her school these are a very small proportion of the overall numbers. IMHO it's these kids/families that need the big stick help the most, not the kids who are high attenders anyway, so their efforts are missing the mark.

Betsy, I think that is entirely fair. Most schools will have a very low percentage of kids with chronic health problems, so an approach of 'excellent attendance' certificates / awards which is set at a high level for the majority and then individualised for the few sounds like a way forward all round. Thanks.

While I am still against the concept of prizes for something outside the scope of responsibilities of a primary school child, your proposal makes sense Betsy. I understand schools are under pressure due to this stupid way of ranking schools using as a benchmark something that the school cannot control either.

In general, I fail to sympathise with the idea that any person working in a public institution needs to undertake policing/social care duties not really related to their work and skills. While it is only normal to ask schools to help detecting cases of possible problems reflected in absentisms, I do not understand how schools and teachers can be required to help resolve these problems too. They were not trained/educated for that and they do not have the means for it. These prizes may be usseful to show that 'something is done'; they do not seem at all useful to resolve the problems behind real poor attendance.

Katymac, sorry to hear your story; I cannot understand how schools cannot stop using protocol when someone does not fit the category for which the protocol (letters with different colors and same wording I guess for each color) was intended.

Thank you Betsy and teacherwith2kids for your answers

In general, I fail to sympathise with the idea that any person working in a public institution needs to undertake policing/social care duties not really related to their work and skills.
Actually the problem is all these things are being added to school /teachers remits, sometimes to the extent that they take over. But they are very much in teacher's "job descriptions".

I don't know if this has been said, but this 100% attendance reward would not be allowed in the work place. You could not reward someone over someone else just because they've been healthy all year!

bonkers20
Have you ever worked for Tesco's? Its like that there. 1 day off ill and you get the big "talk" telling you how much your attendance has disintegrated by. My husband works for them, is hardly ever off, but was made to feel guilty for having taken 3 days off with a bad cold. Which happened to have occurred at almost exactly the same time as the previous year, by coincedence. Apparently it was setting a trend and he was basically told to get a flu jab....for a cold???

Attendance definitely is affected by whether parents are working or not. I've got twins in different classes. One class got the highest attendance award in the school this year and I think it just reflects a very high number of working mums in that class. Everybody knows that there are days when it's marginal about whether your kid is well enough to go to school or too under the weather. Part of your decision about whether you send them or not will inevitably be whether you are able to manage not to go to work that day.

School attendance levels are rarely affected by children having odd sick days.
It is usually a handful of children who are persistently late/absent, not due to illness, which brings down percentages. At primary this is entirely down to parents in my experience. Children cannot "control" their attendance until maybe year 5 and 6. As an attendance officer at a Primary school we never had truanting it was always parental "issues".
The other main factor is holidays during term time.
I never sent letters to parents of children with chronic persistent illness or SEN katymac that is appalling!

mrz,
I agree this is the real problem; they are asking schools to resolve something that cannot be resolved by schools. It happens in many other sectors in relation, for instance, to immigration status.

For instance, hospitals have to be policing immigration status instead of just caring about medical issues (to stop 'health tourism') and Universities are also monitoring 'attendance' to report cases of irregular use of visa status. How lecturers and doctors can perform effectively Home Office duties is beyond me. Worse, how can they perform their real duties effectively with these extra 'tasks'?

I guess the only solution is to not worry at all about these awards... or at least understand their purpose.

jamd Nope, never worked for Tesco's. It sounds horrible. Isn't it illegal to treat people like that?

bonkers20
I thought so,but it is like that all the time , apparently.

bonkers20 exactly. DH (HM forces) says the schools 100% attendance certs are laughable and discriminatory.

If he based his soldiers' reports and promotion prospects on those that were there 100% of the time and those that were off ill for a few days, they'd make a formal complaint.

And whoever said about a higher % for all 'well' kids and a lower % for chronically ill - what about those in the middle who aren't chronically ill but have been off a few days through throwing up/throat infection etc?

Once again - discriminating!

jamdonut Tesco, because they think they rule the world, obviously think they can bully their staff.

If he took them to an employment tribunal, they would lose out because they simply cannnot legally do that to someone who takes one day off ill.

I think it is good to reward the children who are constantly on time and have 100% attendance. It is part of an ethic that will stand them in good stead all through life. DS has taken till Year 5 to get 100% and he is very proud that he has done so and sure that DD might have to wait just as long. At DCs' school usually no more than about 15 children every year get the awards anyway.

Surely it is only one way of rewarding the children and is not so different really from rewarding a child for helpfulness, academic/sporting prowess or the myriad of other things that children get awards for these days.

I think it is what the Councils are aiming for that is driving all these attendance/punctuality campaigns by Heads. As the conduits for these policies the Heads have to be seen to supporting these policies and it is no bad thing to try to encourage the children to strive to achieve these things.

gazzalw - being helpful is a choice a child makes. They could not be helpful at all and be unkind. Therefore rewarding a child who is helpful is teaching them that beiing kind is a ncie trait to have.

A child cannot help catching a virus so for the children who do, it's unfair knocking them out of the attendance equation.

I think there is a growing expectation that every child should be rewarded which perhaps removes the significance of the reward. I work with someone who gives everyone a turn at getting a certificate for writing even if the work produced doesn't warrant it... where do we draw the line? Perhaps the whole reward culture needs a rethink?
Having said that I believe that if a school is awarding attendance they should make some allowance for children with chronic illnesses.

Do schools not get an outstanding on their ofsted if the attendance is below 96%?