Attendance incentives...here we go again

[Anastasie]

I've just had a letter in DS2's book bag (he is 8). Basically saying his attendance is at 92.2% (how many sessions is that? I don't know) and that if it's up to 96% by Dec 4th, he'll get to go to a pantomime for free.

I'm reluctant to support this strategy as I feel it is unfair, counterproductive and irrelevant as I make the decisions about his attendance, not him.

It seems so short sighted. I'm not even going to tell him about it - imagine how he will feel if he doesn't achieve it due to illness?

WHY do primary schools do this? Secondary, where there may be a problem with truancy, then sure - good idea. In some ways.

Primary - I totally don't see the point, unless it is to provide a useful carrot for parents whose children don't want to attend, and who give in rather than try to address the causes of this?

If that's so then they are presuming rather a lot in sending it to me.

If not, then I can genuinely see no point to it at all, except to get their figures up?

A sore throat or a cold is nothing, classrooms are full of bugs and there always seems to be someone with the sniffles. If they all stayed off when they had a cough there'd never be anyone in.

Routine medical appointments can be organised during the 13 weeks holiday.

ha bloody ha!
ime the nhs does not consider school terms when giving out appointments.

Sirzy
No, a child is unlikely to get a school trip if they run the fastest, or you could argue that they could get to go to a regional event if they are the fastest. Which is the point I am making

A child IS likely to get a cup or award for running the fastest, and other children will not.

Not everyone gets 'excuses' for things whether they are fair or not.