Penalty Notices - Based on days or weeks

[wigglywoowoo]

Can anyone please tell me whether taking a Friday and a Monday (long Weekend) would count as 2 weeks or are the fines based on five days being a week?

Its based on 1 period of absence. SO it would count as 1 absence.

A friend who is attendance officer at a local secondary tells me she calculates it as a percentage based on a rolling 12 week period. As far as I know each half day is 1 so a Friday/Monday would count as 4 absences out of a possible 40 sessions in a fortnight.

For the purposes of a penalty notice this should be treated as one period of absence. Note however that both parents can be fined for this.

our info says it is per half day so it would be 4 session absences

So just to clarify, as a single parent taking my dd away (just the two of us) I should expect 1 £60 fine because it is a continuous period?

To be precise, the regulations don't specify so in theory it could be a fine for every half day. However the school must follow the Code of Practise laid down by the LA. This will specify when a fine can be issued. I have yet to see one that would allow a school to issue more than one fine to the same parent for a single period of absence so I think it unlikely that you would get more than a single £60 fine in these circumstances and you may not get fined at all. Even though you are a single parent the father could also be fined.

Wow thanks for that if they did fine her dad he'd be fuming given that he hadn't taken her out of school. But I guess the fine would come to me.

Can't you just say she was poorly? It's only 2 days.

Just to be clear, they are entitled to fine both you and the father. You could be fined £60 each.

Can't you just say she was poorly? It's only 2 days.
... and expect the child to maintain the lie on return to school when staff and friends ask if they are better?

I do not tolerate lairs in my class - pupils or adults!

Out of curiousity, Ihatespiders, when you say you 'do not tolerate liars in my class - pupils or adults' - what do you mean?

Would you, for example, tell a six, seven or eight year old off for lying/hold them accountable for the lie....even if the parent had told them to lie... (ie require them to defy their parents)? Would you go to the office and demand that the 'sickness' code was turned into an unauthorised absence? Would you do this if, for example, your head refused to authorise absence for a wedding/a one off trip that even last year would have been authorised, but is no longer under the new, stricter, regime? Would you do this even if the child/you suffered no ill effects from the absence?

I hate this system as I feel it encourages people to lie: sixty quid is a lot of money in a system that does not have much flexibility (and in an area like my own where a very large percentage of children come from very low-income families).

(fwiw - i do not lie re absences, and have not asked my own child to lie, but then my child has always had a sympathetic head and an LEA that only fines after a sustained period of absence).

I think it is awful. So many people are being priced out of holidays this year. Companies are now having everyone trying to book holiday for the 6 week period. The only people benefiting are travel companies and that might not last if people take fewer holidays in term time and can't afford to go in the holidays. I just can't get my head round why this is a good idea. It won't raise attainment in schools and most teachers I know think it's a silly rule too, the schools didn't set this.

For clarity you did not previously have the right to take your child out of school for holidays. That was a common myth. The school could grant up to 10 days leave for holidays in special circumstances. It was not the intention that term time holidays being cheaper should be treated as "special circumstances". Many heads and teachers were complaining that parents were treating this as the right to take 10 days off each year thereby disrupting classes and damaging the education of their own child and others in the same class. And often it was the better off families who said they could not afford holidays unless they took them in term time.

It won't raise attainment in schools

All the research evidence says it will. There is plenty of evidence to show that the level of absence is a good predictor of a child's academic attainment.

While I agree that attendance and attainment are linked but I honestly don't think penalising people for taking term time holidays if attendance is otherwise good is going to make a difference.

There is a correlation between absence and attainment. That's not the same as causality. And it's a silly argument anyway: if there is a causal link, it's only in specific circumstances i.e. a child who comes from a family that does not value education and pulls that child out for any old reason (to look after a sick relative, have a haircut, watch telly, because the parent can't be bothered to get out of bed or 'doesn't feel like it'). That's not the same as a one week holiday, once every two years from an otherwise committed family.

That's what I meant.
:)

4Fags
Genuine quotes from my pupils:
"Mum says I've got to be poorly tomorrow."

"I'm not supposed to tell you this but we're going to [insert name of destination] next week."

I asked during register "Are you better now? We missed you last week?"
"Wha'? I wasn't ill! I was on 'oliday."

And yes, I do go to the office and tell them of the discussion. The parents are contacted and the register entries are changed when we have been lied to about a holiday.

I have not yet had a wedding / ill relative / etc situation: only holidays.

No ill effects? So far in this half-term three children have missed one week and two have missed a fortnight from my class. They are all families who regularly take time out of school for holidays. It IS having an effect on the children. Next week's maths builds on one of the fortnight's missed by a child. It'll take me away from children who genuinely need my support in order to bring one up to speed, so it affects other children too.

If you think I'm mean - see my post in response to a recent thread about an OP needing to take her DCs to New Zealand to visit an elderly ill grandparent. I fully support that visit.

Just don't ask your children to lie to me!

How do feel about Father Christmas then? Let's face it, that's a bloody huge lie!

And it's a silly argument anyway: if there is a causal link, it's only in specific circumstances

Those who have researched this are of the view that there is a proven causal link and it is general, not in specific circumstances. Of course a one week holiday every two years is less damaging than regularly missing school for the obvious reason that there is less absence involved, but there is still a measurable effect on the child's academic performance.

The school is required to conform to the LA's code of conduct when imposing fines for unauthorised absence. I have yet to see a code of conduct that allows fines to be issued for short, one off absences.

IME, as for prh, fines (and in 1 case prosecution which could have led to imprisonment) have been imposed due to patterns of unauthorised absence or a very extensive period, not for a single one-off short absence.

And yes, if a child's account does not match the 'sickness' code in the register, then I change the register entry. The office informs parents of this change. We have not yet had any comeback on this - it seems to be 'fair cop, guvnor' in general.

Gallic, and as it happens - though it is not relevant - I do not (either to my own children or to my class) state that Father Christmas is real.

I never actively debunk the story, I read stories including him, I point to the school's Father Christmas and say 'look at the Father Christmas', but I do not elaborate in any way that suggests that he is 'real'. No child would learn that he ISN'T real from me, but no child would believe more as a result of anything that I say.

As I understand it, the legislation allows for a fine to be issued:

per parent, per child, per session.

So in theory, 2 days unauthorized absence could cost 2(days) x 2(sessions per day) x £60 = £240 for our family (2 parents, 1 child)

In practice I think most LEAs would issue a £60 fine per child per parent (£120 total)

The new legislation assumes learning can only happen in a classroom, which is incorrect.

It also assumes that all children will suffer if they are taken out, which is also incorrect. If a child is ahead of it's peers, a week or two out will make no difference academically.

"IME, as for prh, fines (and in 1 case prosecution which could have led to imprisonment) have been imposed due to patterns of unauthorised absence or a very extensive period, not for a single one-off short absence."

Our LA is Lambeth. The fine is applied regardless as far as I know. One parent took her son out for the day for a wedding, which the school wouldn't authorise, and was fined. That's one example. It is getting so that parents are reading end of term reports like hawks as the office does make mistakes and more than one person has had an authorised absence marked as unauthorised, or an absence marked where a child was at school.

But also as the fine is the same, instead of taking them out for one day they make it a couple on the basis that it will cost them anyway.

One parent took her son out for the day for a wedding, which the school wouldn't authorise, and was fined

If that was the only absence the fine was in breach of Lambeth's code of conduct and should have been rescinded.

The new legislation assumes learning can only happen in a classroom, which is incorrect

It assumes no such thing. It assumes that school attendance is important, both for the pupil concerned and to avoid disruption affecting the other pupils in the class.

If a child is ahead of it's peers, a week or two out will make no difference academically

The available research says you are wrong. They may still do well academically but in most cases they will not do as well as they would have done had there been no absence.

prh47bridge - it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would be beneficial to a child to be out of school, which is why the rigid rules are a mistake - heads are paid to use their judgement, and these rules take the chance to do so away from them.

('Imagines' scenario in which the child is ahead of her peers and has to have special work set by the teacher, taking time away from the rest of the class - and instead, for two weeks that child is taken away by its parents to camp in the forest and learn about wildlife and orienteering so the teacher has more time to spend with the rest of the class and the child learns something different)

Of course I suppose most time out of school isn't like that, and is spent having fun somewhere warm, but there is still some learning going on. The point is, though, that headteachers now no longer have the option to use their judgement, and that is a shame.