Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Original poster

School wants GP sick note for any further absence!

134 replies

RaisinBoys · 05/12/2012 20:51

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....

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
DingDongKethryverilyonHigh · 07/12/2012 23:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cory · 08/12/2012 00:03

DameSaggarmakersbottomknocker Fri 07-Dec-12 22:14:21
"cory - it's about time they stopped hassling you re dd and made a case for excluding her from their data."

They aren't actually hassling, Dame, they are lovely and supportive (unlike her previous school), but they do have to have something to show to Ofsted in the case of an illness that falls outside dd's usual conditions. The problem is, if you have a chronic condition, you are quite likely to be generally weakened and so catch a lot of other things too. Or take a long time to recover. As with this UTI, which took 4 weeks to clear.

Being aware is all very well, but they also need to satisfy the EWO and Ofsted, so they need the evidence- and that, unfortunately, is getting very expensive these days.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just part of the general shit that comes with having a sickly child. But I really don't think I could have coped if we had had to do this on the minimum wage: it's just extra expenses every time you turn round.

Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 15:14

Just checking back!

Mrz you keep posting stuff about persistent absence, poor attendance, parents not ensuring regular attendance, etc.

My DS is Y5. This is his 6th year at the same primary school. He has had 12 days sickness in that time (5 days chickenpox, 5 days with fever, severe headache and a bloody rotten cold, 2 days D&V). That is it!

He is not persistently absent. He has attended school on every day that he is well enough to. We have never been fined for absence. We do not take holidays in term time (although we know many who do).

It seems to me that schools home in on the easy cases, people like us, instead of concentrating resources on tackling the persistent offenders.

We all know there are children that attend only when the parents can be bothered, those who take days off at will, those who miss every Friday or every Monday.

That is not us! I would expect a bit of latitude as we support the school; get our son in on time, make sure our son does his homework, attend parents' evenings, take in junk for model making, make costumes for plays at 5 minutes notice, help with PTA, support plays, concerts and assemblies, stand for and elected as parent governor, bake cakes, volunteer to help at class trips, etc etc.

Schools cannot expect all this and then treat parents with contempt, whether it's "procedure" or not.

OP posts:
Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 15:19

Interesting to read all comments.

ivykaty44 Thanks for the data protection info. Had just asked an ex-colleague who now works at the Information Commissioner's Office to find out as I had a feeling that this was probably unlawful

OP posts:
mrz · 08/12/2012 15:35

Then you've missed the point RaisinBoys (and the link to the government policy) the law says if a child's attendance falls below the level dictated by law schools must demonstrate they are taking action. They can't pick and choose. Much as I'm sure the school would like to say RaisinBoys son is never absent ...that wouldn't be acceptable to inspectors.

Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 15:52

Yes, clearly I've missed the point Mrz because, silly me, I thought schools had the best interest of the child at heart, not the best interest of the inspector.

I read your link (again, as I've already read it in my capacity as a governor) and none if it applies in our case as

  1. my DS is not in Nursery or Reception
  2. my DS does not have a "pattern of absence"
  3. my son's absence has been over 95% in all his years at school, so he has never reached the threshold quoted for persistent absenteeism (missing 15% or more of school in a given year)
  4. we have never been fined for asbesnteeism
  5. we have never taken a term time holiday
OP posts:
Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 15:53

Ooops!

Obviously tha should say "my son's attendance has been over 95%"

OP posts:
mrz · 08/12/2012 16:15

and obviously because your son's attendance this year is currently below 90% the school is pointing out that if he is off again they will need a doctor's certificate (because as you read 85% is now the cut off whether you are in nursery, reception, have a pattern of absence ...) no one is saying it's right or fair just that is how the law stands since Sept.

Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 16:25

No it's not.

My DS's attendance so far this year is 92.1875 and if he completes the final two weeks of term illness free his attendance so far this year will be 93.24%.

If he then follows his pattern of great attendance he will be well over the LA requirement of 95% attendance for the full year.

OP posts:
mrz · 08/12/2012 16:32

Obviously your son's school started the term earlier than the one where I teach because 5 days absence would equate to 12.5% here

mrz · 08/12/2012 16:33

and if he continues his pattern of great attendance you won't be asked to produce the doctor's certificate will you.

catkind · 08/12/2012 17:07

I think I'd politely invite them to consider the practicalities of their suggestion. Say child vomits at 7.30pm on a Sunday. Are you to take him to the doctors on the Monday? What evidence would the doctor have to show he'd thrown up even if you did? My doctors' wouldn't give an appointment anyway, they triage urgent appointments on the phone, and anything else would be a 2 week or so wait.

And assure them that there are no underlying issues as problem was xxx and required no GP involvement.
Perhaps they would like to consider other evidence of illness. Timestamped photograph of child with pool of vomit? Sample in a jar? Invite school nurse to visit you at home and wait in with child to see if they throw up again? Wink

Original poster
RaisinBoys · 08/12/2012 17:27

Yes obviously his term must be longer Mrz - maintained primary, they keep them at school for ages!

Do you know what, they can ask away - they won't get.

If our son is ill we, his parents, will decide if it requires a GP appointment. Sick notes' are intended for workers to produce to employers after the 7th day of self cerification. They are not intended for children to be able to prove to schools that they are actually ill. And what GP will countenance taking a feverish, vomiting child to the surgery in order to get a note. It's nonsensical.

If a parent is going to lie about their child's illness to school, they are just as likely to lie to a GP - unless as catkind says, you take in a bag of fresh vomit too.

We certainly won't be wasting precious GP appointments on this nonsense.

If they want to fine us, so be it.

OP posts:
DameSaggarmakersbottomknocker · 08/12/2012 18:17

I'm glad they're supportive cory. dd has a chronic condition and has had a shocking attendance record. I think her college were the least supportive throughout. But at least it gives me a bit more sympathy when I'm dealing with parents of ill children and an insight into what it's like on the other end of the letter.

mrz · 08/12/2012 18:24

I teach in a maintained primary RaisinBoys Hmm

radicalsubstitution · 08/12/2012 19:32

So far this academic year we have been in school for 13 weeks. Taking off 2 training days and one pointless wast of time police commissioner election day (school is a polling station), pupils should have been in school for 63 days by my reckoning. It will be 72 by the end of term.

5 days' absence would equate to quite a bit less than 10%. Then again, our LEA (supposedly) instructs head teachers to write to parents if attendance falls below 95%. I've no idea how this works in practice. It would imply that the parents of any child who has a day off in the first four weeks of term will receive a warning letter. Of course, head teachers (and office staff) have nothing better to do with their time or stationary budgets....

They don't, on the other hand, expect parents to provide letters from GPs.

mrz · 08/12/2012 19:38

In most schools the letters would be generated by the EWO centrally with LEA data not by the school.

radicalsubstitution · 08/12/2012 19:56

EWO intervention after monitoring of registers and referral by headteachers wouldn't take place until absence was significantly higher than 5%. However, our LEA advises headteachers to and supports them in sending letters when absence drops below 95%. These letters are sent by the school.

Like so much else to do with our LEA's attndance policy, it is rather vaguely worded and open to interpretation. It makes the whole system extremely inconsistent and can be viewed as unfair - particularly when penalty notices are being issued in some schools and not others for exactly the same absence.

mrz · 08/12/2012 20:00

Our EWO contacts us with a list of concerns raised by the LEA from submitted registration figures, although we do contact her for persistent non attendance. She contacts parents not the school.

radicalsubstitution · 08/12/2012 20:06

Our LEA is absolutely tiny. I think there have been some 'personnel' issues regarding recruitemnt, retention and attendance (how ironic) of EWO, so the policy is probably pretty vaguely wrriten to allow schools to deal with the issues themselves before needing EWO involvement.

I won't reveal the name of the LEA on here, as the most minor detective work would then reveal my identity based on things I have posted about myself and my school.

mrz · 08/12/2012 20:20

I think EWO retention is an issue in many LEAs certainly is in mine

ivykaty44 · 08/12/2012 21:01

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

Since when in the UK are you deemed to be lying if you have taken an oath to tell the truth the whole truth etc. You are innocent until proved guilty and not the other way around. You do not have to go to court and prove your innocents that is why you have the choice not to take the stand or not and the choice to remain silent -whether you agree or not that is the system.

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

mr could you answer the question though or not?

ivykaty44 · 08/12/2012 21:19

No the case you mentioned in this thread, was the woman jailed for her dc being ill and kept of school or for not paying the fine?

ivykaty44 · 08/12/2012 21:20

Fri 07-Dec-12 21:42:12
You mean like that mum who was jailed ivykaty?

that mum,