School wants GP sick note for any further absence!

[RaisinBoys]

DS off school for 4 days, then additional 1 day following week. Called on each day of illness to report and sent email to office and teacher when he returned explaining illness and confirming dates.

He is not a sickly child so rare for him to be off school. In 6 years aside from this period of illness we can only remember 1 other week long period for chickenpox.

Scroll foward 2 weeks - just had letter from Education Welfare Officer stating that "any further days of sickness must be supported by GP letter!" and "if your [DS] continues to have days off sick we wil refer him to th school nurse who will contact your GP to determine if there are any underlying issues/problems".

We are fumiing!! (Well I am, DH just thinks "schools are agencies of the state whose sole function is to train children to conform in the future and this is par for the course").

I think this is a ridiculous over reaction and that GP's have better things to do than authorise childhood illness in children who for the most part attend school.

Aside from the difficulties in actually getting a GP's appointment in the first place....

Oh and lastly
In this country we are still innocent until proved guilty. So if the school want to prove that you are not telling the truth them tell them they are welcome to but it is not up to you to provide evidence that you are telling the truth - you are telling the truth - big full stop.

but remember a doctor's certificate is cheaper than a fine ...

The hypocrisy of this government never fails to amuse me.

They came into power saying they believed in 'gentle nudge' rather than 'nanny state' and are now doing - and promoting - the exact opposite.

We all know the links between attendance and attainment. All of us who work in the classroom and in schools on a regular basis know who the worst offenders are. They are not the children who go on a holiday once a year that means they will be off school for one or two days either side of the school holidays. They are not the children who suffer from shingles or whooping cough once in their school career but need 11 days of school to recuperate properly.

The worst offenders are those who have a day off a fortnight for 'cold' or 'sore throat' or, worse still 'not well'.

I totally agree that good attendance is really important (DS missed one day in reception and that was a medical excusion for having the squits in aftercare and that's it). However, I think things have gone totally overboard.

cheaper than a fine - a fine for what?

TBH I think this whole business needs someone to refuse to pay the fine and get the school to take them to court and prove that the child was not sick and not fit to be in school.

As the whole process is built on fear and scaring parents rather than facts and law

You mean like that mum who was jailed ivykaty?

"The Government has accepted this recommendation and from September 2012, headteachers will be able to impose a fine of £60 (a £10 increase) on parents whom they consider are allowing their child to miss too much school without a valid reason. If they fail to pay within 28 days it will double to £120 (a £20 increase), to be paid within 42 days."
the quote is from my previous link ivykaty

The government reduced the percentage of time a child can be absent before a school should take action ...

Whistlingwaves we have a pupil who has only attended 8 days this year (and one was a school trip)

90% in our LEA.

8 days must be about 11%? That's low!

It was 20% absence now it is 15%

OP - I think your school is being a bit OTT in your case and yes, they can and should consider each case individually. We accept an appointment card or sight of a prescription (or prescribed meds) as evidence initially.

That said the law does allow for fines for not ensuring regular attendance at school. Non payment of fine will mean an increased fine and possible suspended sentence or imprisonment for repeat offenders. Anything below 85% is considered persistent absence.

so a head teacher can act as judge and jury and decide that one day or 3 days is to many and the parents need to be fined or another head teacher may decide 5 days or 6 days is to many. Then if they don't pay the fine within a set time frame the fine doubles.

Is this actually lawful?

I think I would say no I am not paying the fine take me to court.

The fact that the fine will double if not paid will stop many parents letting the time elapse and stating to the school that they want to be taken to court and a real judge deciding whether there child was sick and couldn't attend school.

mrz Fri 07-Dec-12 21:31:29
"but remember a doctor's certificate is cheaper than a fine ... "

One doctor's certificate, yes, but if you have a child like mine who is off sick every few weeks, then it adds up very quickly. Fortunately, dd's school has now agreed not to ask for individual medical certificates for "the usual" (meaning her two underlying conditions), but only for the extra illnesses dd also attracts because her underlying conditions lower her immune system. The latest £20 was for a kidney infection that laid her low for over 3 weeks and required 4 courses of antiobiotics. She hadn't been able to go back to school in between her relapses: otherwise, 4 medical letters would have been required - that is half our monthly food budget.

And it's no use saying a fine would be more expensive- that doesn't help us. Having a child with frequent health problems is a very heavy drain on your finances. Luckily dh and I are not on minimum wage- but if we were, dd wouldn't automatically get cured.

mrz - was the mum jailed for her child being ill and kept home from school?

cory I think most schools are aware of the children who have conditions that may cause frequent absences ...or they should be.

Ivykaty- what usually happens is that once you hit the 85% you get a penalty warning notice which says no time off in the next 20 days without medical evidence. If you have time off with no proof you are issued with a fine. Your local authority will have a written policy setting out their timescales.

The legislation is section 444 of the Education Act 1996.

She was jailed for failing to pay the fine issued for non attendance ivykate ...

cory - it's about time they stopped hassling you re dd and made a case for excluding her from their data.

mr - so the judge found her guilty or was it for not paying the fine she was jailed?

The bit I am not getting is the fact that the no proof, with a parking fine there will be proof that the car was parked - photos etc, so the council has proof. But with this system the child is ill so not sent to school, the child has more illness so can't attend school and then the mother is fined for not sending a sick child to school and they put her in prison for not paying a fine - which I take it in the case of the mother who was sent to jail the child was sick but the mother didn't pay the fine.

I guess it is the point that if you stand in the dock and say my child was sick - you don't need proof as you are in the dock and therefore telling the truth/ But a school is asking for proof that you are telling the truth so saying you are not telling the truth unless you prove it - which is not surely wrong.

So there is no appeal with this - either you have to prove you are not lying, or face a fine. But either way you have to pay money either in the evidence you are not lying or a fine

Do you honestly believe a judge will accept your word in court without proof?

The offence is 'failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil'.

The LA provide evidence of non-attendance in the form of the registers, the parent has to counter that with proof that the child was ill ie medical evidence. IME if you engage with the school/Education Welfare then it doesn't come to fine/imprisonment. You are warned so if the child has valid absence in the warning period and you provide evidence it won't progress to court.

I'm most shocked that the school nurse is logging into computer systems to check if children have been ill and seen their GP. That is not what the computer system was supposed to be used for.