What is classed as a possible attendance day?

[yodabo]

I am really wondering what people think of how schools have to register absences from school, (Primary) whether it be, sickness, holiday, or other reasons.

We received a letter to see an attendance officer after my sons school (he is 9) reported his attendance at 89%, obviously this being below the minimum requirement.

I am sure most school use the same system of 1 full school day = 2 possible attendances. Therefore, at the time of the letter, my son could have attended school 250 times (125 days), however he attended 222 sessions (111 days) hence 14 days when he did not attend. Now this may seem horrendeous to most parents, however, he did have that terrible australian flu in January, and was off school for 2 weeks, and the other 4 days, were the usual stomach bugs going around the class etc and me adhering to the 48hr rule. This was a one off year that he missed such a big chunk of time due to flu. The whole family had it and it was awful!

we received a letter from the headmistress, stating my sons attendance was below the required standard, and then she started mentioning unauthorised absences etc, and a potential meeting with an attendance officer. To be honest this got my hackles up! none of the absences were unauthorised, in fact it states in the Education Act 1996, that when a child is sick, and the school are informed, it is an authorised absence. Therefore, i queried the head, and asked why unauthorised has been mentioned, and her reply was that, this is the letter she is required to send as per the Education Department (GOV).

I delved a bit further, and found that again, as the per Ed Act 1996, a child is deemed to be prevented to attend school by reason of sickness, and therefore, i have argued that as my son was prevented to attend school, due to sickness, then this is not a possible attendance, day, and furthermore, as he was able to attend 222 sessions, and he attended all of these 222 sessions, then his attendance is 100%!

Now you all might be thinking that i am a dog with a bone here, but to a deeper level, if schools are having to report children as absent to the County Council and including the days which are deemed are preventable to attend, and in turn, not possible, then the schools are doing themselves an injustice in any league tables, and furthermore, had i have accepted the offer of a meeting with an attendance officer, we would have both been wasting our time, as my son was just sick, not playing hooky, or on holiday, just sick!!

I really am after trying to get some support to take this inaccurate reporting further, and to get schools to provide maybe 2 attendance reports, one for days attended out of the school term, and the other for the individual childs possible attendance.

I also appreciate schools have an incredible job to do, the teachers at my sons school are awesome, and it is this injustice to the schools that i am really questioning. The irony is that if the County Council had sent the attendance officer to meet me at my sons school, they wouldnt have had a clue whether this child with 89% attendance was tall, short, thin, fat, or any other combination, he was purely a statistic that fell below the Governments standard.

Any comments (please be kind!) would be appreciated!!

[Thundercracker]

Read your school's privacy policy before you go rushing off to the ICO. Bet it covers sharing info with the EWO either because they are employed by the school/trust so it is not going anywhere anyway, or they are a third party and they are covered and don't need your consent. (The "welfare" in their job title is a clue - all this regulation isn't there just for shits and giggles.)

[ThalassaThalassa]

The thing is, OP, illness isn't just illness. At our school, some parents will keep their child off for every sniffle and headache, while others will only keep them off if they're actually vomiting or have a raging fever. That's why schools still pursue absence through illness, because they're trying to reduce the first category - we've got parents with sub 85% attendance just through low level repeated 'illness'. I'm not making any judgment in your case - sounds like your son was really ill - but just trying to explain why schools don't just say 'Oh it was sickness absence, so there's nothing we can do'.

[yodabo]

Pendinginvoices - I have to say I find your comments contradictory! So you state i should meet with an attendance officer, however, on the other hand I have wasted the headteachers time by questioning her letter? Surely meeting with the attendance officer from the LA is wasting her time, and the headteachers time, as well as my own. I am the parent, and if i feel that my son is too unwell to attend school, and the Doctor agrees, i do not have to justify this to an attendance officer.

I also note that you state the school doesnt need me to fight their corner - ironically, the headteacher had no problem with me challenging her letter, and actually was grateful that a parent does take the letter seriously. I havent spoken to the school again since. However, why shouldnt us parents fight for our schools? or shall we just leave the school to fend for itself? My OP was that I am in complete support of the school, but i find the DFE and the Education Act 1996 contradict each other.

And no, no prior letters or communication before the 89% one. You also mock that ' lets make the school to generate 2 reports' , however, surely its more time consuming getting an attendance officer, and the headteacher into a meeting to discuss my sons attendance for half an hour, and then the next parent who received the letter, and the next and the next blah blah!

iamagreyhoundhearmeroar - the Education Act states, in simple terms, that a child prevented from attending school due to reason of sickness. I questioned how a preventable day can also be a possible day? If a child has ie, sickness and diarrhoea and cannot attend school, how can it be possible for them to attend? So yes, i questioned, not argued, how prevented and possible can be used in the same context.

Again, my point here was to see see if other parents agree that 'possible' and 'preventable' can be one and the same, and to take this to the DFE (not the schools) and question this further, as i feel that schools are being short changed by inaccurate reporting.

Terri84 - i think you understand?!?! :)

[ButterChickenwithyellowrice]

Just make sure that the attendance of your child improves and you will not have to worry about it any further.

[MaisyPops]

Pendinginvoices - I have to say I find your comments contradictory! So you state i should meet with an attendance officer, however, on the other hand I have wasted the headteachers time by questioning her letter?
I don't see how they are contradictory.
The attendance officer is someone whose job is to deal with this sort of thing day in day out.
The head is running the school.

I'm still not following your logic of '100% attendance except the days they weren't in because they don't count'. It seems like you've had a letter you don't like and are now looking for an issue.
A potential session at school is one where the school is open and students can attend.
Students either attend those sessions or they do not.

So I've taught children with less than 50% attendance because of very severe medical issues. The fact they are severly unwell doesn't change their attendance %. We had things in place for them.
I've also worked at schools that had school transport failure which wiped out 1/3 school being able to attend. For those students we reduced their possible attendances down by a day like we would for a snow day.

If the school is open for students to attend and the student doesn't attend then it's an absence.

[PandaPieForTea]

Just make sure that the attendance of your child improves and you will not have to worry about it any further.

That comment is as ridiculous as the letter. The OP’s son had a serious bout of Flu and two instances of D&V with the associated 48 hour rule. How is she meant to prevent that happening again? He probably caught all of those at school.

[yodabo]

Maisiepops - just to clarify , our school does not have an onsite attendance officer, the LA offices are 35 miles away, hence I do believe that 10 minutes of the head teachers time to dictate a letter is far more time efficient than a 70 mile round trip. However, I appreciate that you dont know geographically where I live, so it may well be different in a busy town or city.

I do however prefer your use of the word 'potential' over the use of 'possible'. ie, potentially my son could have attended all 250 sessions, if he had not been ill. The use of 'possible' changes the intimation of the attendance, with the adjective meaning 'able to be done or achieved'.

Its all down to interpretation, and whilst a good few MN's think I have wasted huge amount of the schools time arguing and questioning this, all i did was email the head and state it was not possible for my son to attend the full amount of sessions, all his absences were authorised, and decline the meeting with the attendance officer, and ask her how a prevented day is also classed as a possible day. She replied the same day, quoting the LA attendance blurb, and a week or so later as she welcomed parents into the playground, she asked if i was happy with her reply, to which i said i felt it was unfair on the school to be associated with poor attendance, and she totally agreed and said she would welcome parents support when it came to challenging hierachy! we then chatted about yoga!! No rows, no arguments or unpleasantries!

Hence my OP was asking whether others agree with my interpretation of 'possible' versus 'preventable', as schools are having to report absenteeism on a basic equation, and being accountable for low attendance, regardless of whether it be authorised or unauthorised.

Its a hazard of my job i guess, that I like things to be accurate and correct!

[MaisyPops]

Potential/possible same thing unless you're trying to find or create issues.

School is open and students can attend.
Student doesn't attend. It's non attendance.
Non attendance is an absence.
However you dress it up, the child isn't on site when school is open.

Persistent absenteeism is under 90%.
It's as simple as that.
There may be entirely valid reasons. It's still persistent absenteeism.

[yodabo]

Maisypops - i disagree wholeheartedly - a long bout of illness which places a child under the 90% attendance is not persistent absenteeism.

Again, just because a school is open, a child cannot always attend.

simple as that! I am only referring to illness.

I am not trying to make issues, i am trying to question why schools are being assessed on a a simple in or out reporting rule that is in place by the DFE, ultimately, and its not 'as simple as that'!

[sirfredfredgeorge]

Why? Because the reasons don't actually really matter much, schools aren't really being assessed, it's a reporting rule, consistent reporting here needs to be all cause otherwise the reporting demands go up to recognise different reasons for non-attendance.

You're nitpicking of possible is just nitpicking your interpretation of a word, that is clearly not the interpretation of the system. The intention of the language is well understood by the people using it, I think you need to accept that.

[Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar]

It really is not "down to interpretation", op. It's extremely clear to everybody else. God love whoever had to deal with you at the school, tbh, you sound like a tedious bore.

[ButterChickenwithyellowrice]

God love whoever had to deal with you at the school, tbh, you sound like a tedious bore.

Bravo.
Dfe definition of a persistent absentee A pupil enrolment is identified as a persistent absentee if they miss 10 per cent or more of their own possible sessions. Your son is a persistent absentee.

[ButterChickenwithyellowrice]

The OP’s son had a serious bout of Flu and two instances of D&V with the associated 48 hour rule. How is she meant to prevent that happening again? He probably caught all of those at school.

So that is 14 days. If that is his only absence then he won't be PA by the end of the year.

[MaisyPops]

Exactly butter.
At this stage in the year (15-20 days to go) for a child to have an attendance under 90% isn't one bout of illness.

In October it's really easy to get a low % and most schools tend to be of the view 'have a chat, obviously if they're unwell then they can't come in, get well soon and we're sure your attendance will pick up'

90% attendance is a child who on average has missed one day off a fortnight for the school year (or 20 days, so a month out of an academic year, 2/3 of a half term).
Then factor in that attendance is an indicator of pupil outcomes and it's easy to see why schools pay attention to attendance.

The intention of the language is well understood by the people using it, I think you need to accept that
This. Where we have ongoing medical issues etc schools are trusted to manage it. Someone can ask a question about child X Y Z, we say 'this is what is going on and here's the provision for medical needs' and we're left alone.

Funnily enough, it's never the parents of poorly children who have an issue with attendance, nor is it parents of those with good attendance. The ones who tend to complain the most (in my experience anyway) are the ones with attendance between 80-90%.

[ThalassaThalassa]

OP you've ignored my point. One parent's definition of 'too ill to attend school' is totally different from another's. So how would your suggested system be workable? Insist on a doctor's note for every single day of absence?? Totally unworkable. Quite apart from the fact that even doctors disagree on what constitutes 'too ill to be at school'. You could not possibly come up with a fair and robust definition of when it is 'impossible' for a child to attend due to illness. Which is why every day counts as a possible attendance except when a child genuinely cannot attend (i.e. when the school is shut). And you're incorrect in your implication that if you say your child is too ill to attend school, then that's that. In fact, it is entirely a headreacher's discretion whether or not to authorise an absence. If a head has reason to believe a parent is lying (or persistently keeping a child off for a very minor illness) they can and will mark it down as an unauthorised absence.

[MaisyPops]

ThalassaThalassa
You're spot on.

The definition would be 'when the OP decides her child's days don't count then they don't count because then technically their child can miss a month of school abd be on 100% attendance' and it'll be doubleplusgood

[BackforGood]

I have to say the school is fabulous, I just feel they are doing unnecessary work to conform to the DFE ulitmately

Welcome to the world of working in a state school in the 21st Century.
Probably 60% of a teacher's workload is to jump through DfE hoops, with no direct benefit to any child in the school.
Quite frankly, if you really want to campaign on behalf of your dc's wonderful teachers, there are a whole list of things they could give you before this even gets on the radar. All you are doing at the moment, is adding to the HT's workload by being pedantic about one word in an automatically generated letter, over which she has no control. Please use your energy to campaign for so many other things that are going wrong in Education. This is not a battle that is worth getting worked up about.

[yodabo]

Backforgood - I am not adding to anyones workload - I responded to a letter, simple! I am merely asking on here if others feel the same that DFE and the Ed Act contradict each other - I feel they do, others dont, purely a matter of opinion.....

I think you have all misunderstood my intentions, its never to cause the school additional work, it is to lessen time wasting on genuine authorised absence procedures.

And Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar - you are just unkind - I am no bore whatsoever, I am not a persistant moaner at the school at all, I was asking on a public forum what others felt, so i could see if it was worth taking further with the DFE. But hey, you sit behind your keyboard and be judgemental and cruel, its thats what makes you feel good...... You are the exact reason why people leave forums such as this as you - nasty girl

[ButterChickenwithyellowrice]

Backforgood - I am not adding to anyones workload - I responded to a letter, simple!

Of course you are. You state that you met with the head and now you want to escalate it to challenge the national definition of a possible attendance day, which will just come back to the school. You also want the school to provide 2 reports not 1.

Meanwhile your Head is sitting up at midnight answering emails and doing the work that she couldn't do whilst managing your indignation.

You are the exact reason why people leave forums such as this as you - nasty girl

Sadly , you are the reason that people leave teaching and why primary schools cannot recruit Heads. Unreasonable and irrational parental demands and expectations.

[ButterChickenwithyellowrice]

Sorry to correct. Unreasonable and irrational and ill-informed parental demands and expectations.

[yodabo]

butterchickenwithyellowrice - you clearly havent read any of my post correctly - you state that i met with the head? when did i say that? or that I want to escalate it, have you read a different post to mine?

so to put this in simple terms for you to understand -

i received a letter concerning unauthorised attendance, with an invite to a meeting with the head and an attendance officer from the LA, some 35 miles away.
i EMAILED a reply declining the meeting, hence saving the heads time, the attendence officers time. I asked the question in said email, how preventable days can be possible days.
The head replied the same day stating thats just what she has to write to me, and she agreed that the education system was time wasting but she has to send the letters regardless.
The head was in the playground doing her normal morning walkaround a week or so when she asked me if i was ok with her letter, to which i replied, yes of course, and she said she would love it if parents would challenge the DFE.

I HAVENT SPOKEN TO THE SCHOOL EVER AGAIN ABOUT IT - I HAVENT WASTED ANYONES TIME.

I then came onto a public forum to ask if others felt that the DFE and Education Act contradict each other, and cause schools additional work.....

and then a whole bunch of keyboard warriers such as you, start a rampage about what a tedious bore i am, and how i could put my time to much better use to help the school, blah blah blah........... Maybe you should take your time to read the post properly and not try and come down on me like a tonne of bricks because i declined a meeting with the head and the attendance officer, but had the gaul to ask the head why i received an unauthorised attendance letter.

Gosh i hope you never ever question anything for fear of being called a tedious bore, or wasting peoples time, Im sure you take everything as red!

[yodabo]

butterchickenwithyellowrice -

Sadly , you are the reason that people leave teaching and why primary schools cannot recruit Heads. Unreasonable and irrational parental demands and expectations

are you serious - Headteachers leave their posts because a parent declines a meeting, and asks a question? are you for real? Can you show me what i demanded of her? My god, i think you have a very colourful imagination if you got all of that from one email!! Maybe you just judged my approach by how you would have approached it, and thats your confusion, I remained calm and kind, whilst you went into a barrage of abuse.

Ironically the head and I were catching about the weather today, and how tired many of the children are after being allowed to stay up and watch the football, please forgive me if that is also wasting her time and making her leave her job ..

[brilliotic]

OP FWIW I think you have been misunderstood/misinterpreted. You are (triggered by a comment your head teacher made) musing about how the school's admin workload could be reduced and how things could be made 'fairer' for schools, that are judged on their absence statistics even though there is little they can do about absences caused by illness.

One way of 'ruling' is to keep the 'ruled' people so busy and tired that they never have time to question anything/do anything to change anything.
I suspect that's what has been happening to teaching. Teachers are kept so busy and tired that they simply have zero time and energy to devote to making things better. In that context if someone comes from the outside (a parent) with a suggestion, even if it would in the long term make things better for teachers/schools, in the short term all that the teachers can see is extra work for no benefit.

I do not think that it is 'parents like you' that make teachers leave their jobs. It is governmental demands and regulations. Teachers would usually love to work with parents if parents are being constructive and helpful, but they can't because they are running on empty.

That said, as much as I like your general idea (that absences due to illness should not be a point that schools are judged on) I think under current circumstances, this is a completely hopeless cause - and there are many other causes you might take up that will probably appear much more pressing to teachers and schools.

So I would say - let this one go. Have a think about how people reacted to your thread and how that might be an indication of them being overworked and busy (rather than 'nasty'). Then if you want to make things better for schools and teachers, perhaps start by asking your child's teacher what would actually help? Or go into politics - the things that would actually help are probably systemic changes that need high level political action. Ideally, political action that is closely informed by the realities of teachers' needs!

[PatriciaHolm]

In reality, government are well aware of the difference between authorised and unauthorised absence, and schools are required to report absences statistics by a variety of codes.

Government could measure schools already by their rates of unauthorised absence, which I think seems to be what OP is getting at. They can already discount authorised absences such as sickness, when measuring/assessing schools, its not a problem of measurement or tracking.

The problem is that the parent facing communications invariably focus on overall "absence", not authorised hence getting letters when overall absence falls below 95%/92% etc. These letters are created by the local admissions authority and are not standard across all authorities. So parents get a letter like OP received when overall absence drops, not "authorised" absence.

[yodabo]

brilliotic - your post seems much more understanding of where i was coming from, and whilst my original question of how can a prevented day also be a possible day has caused such an uproar amongst many, I am also a very busy working parent, and ironically stand in court alot presenting evidence of sorts, so your political comment is actually quite fitting!! It is a such a shame that potentially, a professional such as myself, may be able to drive something forward, in my own time, which may help schools, and yet when the question was posed, I faced real nastiness! All i was after was a cross the board opinion, but instead it turned personal as if i was the one causing the problem.