Welfare check after three day absence - is this normal?

[SnottyLittleMango]

Hi, I have no experience of this as DD8 has had 100 percent attendance for the last two years, but has had a really nasty virus this week and has been off since Tuesday. I've called the school each morning to let them know but we had a welfare officer turn up this morning asking to see her. No problem with that- she was sat on the sofa with DH both in PJs as he's also got the bug now, I was just surprised especially as he was a bit rude to DH, asking why he was dressed like that (in his PJs I assume) in a pretty snarky way. Is this normal for a three day absence from primary? No problems at all with the school.

The thing is, child abuse is a serious crime; but it's far from the only crime. Any of us - including you - could have potentially committed any manner of serious crime. Why aren't we demanding 24/7 cameras in every room of everybody's private homes, as well as impromptu visits from the police at any time to have a look around and check if the householder may have done anything illegal and/or harmful?

We cannot live in a society where paranoia and vast overstepping of the authorities as a norm are seen as the only way to stop anything bad happening?

It seems very unusual to me. Is it possible for you to check on the school website or the council website what their policy is? Or check with other mums whose children have been off school for 3 days if the same happened to them? Failing all that, I would speak to the school to query it and ask if they have any concerns about your child.

You still don’t understand my post. I’m simply trying to get you to understand why schools have these policies and procedures in place.

You seem to be suggesting that schools shouldn’t do this as there isn’t CCTV everywhere all the time so children are therefore vulnerable so what’s the point in checking that an absent child has been seen?

Maybe just try to understand why a school does this and not focus on the fact that children can be vulnerable anywhere at anytime so therefore let’s not have any safeguarding measures in place at all because we can’t police everyone and everywhere all of the time.

If the law requires them to make a home visit for every child who is off school ill for three days, there are loads of schools who don't feel the need to do this - when parents keep them regularly updated and there are no causes for concern - who must therefore be prosecuted for endangering and not safeguarding thousands of children up and down the country.

And where exactly does the DfE stipulate that a man wearing pyjamas in his own private home must be soundly berated in order to safeguard children?

It very much sounds like you don't understand my posts either, so I think we may just need to agree to disagree on what is or isn't proportional in safeguarding children.

You have no idea what I do for a job or what documentation I have read as part of that training. You have sanctimoniously decided that everyone commenting is ignorant and you yourself are the oracle of knowledge.

I believe the school has overstepped here and as a parent I would want to know why.

People get ill. There are easy things government and schools could do to reduce illness (and therefore increase attendance when well for both pupils and teachers). This sounds more like a tail wagging dog, boxticking for attendance exercise. It’s so sad to see those who want help not getting it, whilst resources are wasted without a shred of evidence. It’s so many shades of screwed up. So sorry to the poster who got a knock on the door on the day of her husband’s funeral.

This seems excessive in my opinion.

My DD was off sick the other week, 4 days I think, we didn’t go to the GP because it wasn’t necessary (it was a virus. What is the GP going to do except say to rest and take in fluids? Thankfully she didn’t get worse). There was no welfare check. I do have another child at the same school who was fine so going in and I notified the school as is required. Both children have 100% attendance this year apart from this illness.

I am onboard with safeguarding and would certainly cooperate if someone wished to check on us but this specific situation seems a waste of time and money. Completely understand if you hadn’t phoned in, it had been a really long length of time or the school or SS had other concerns, but none of that is the case. What would happen if we weren’t home? Last time my DD was taken to her grandparents the last day or so of her illness so DH and I could work.

I’m a primary school governor and our DSL absolutely does keep in touch over the holidays with families where she has serious concerns. Sadly, we have some families where it’s actually not safe for her to do so directly, so she spends her summer holidays checking in with the social work team. She’s a hero.

The key here is ‘with families where she has serious concerns’.

Gosh. My DD was off for a whole month once with dibilitating migraines. I phoned the school but in the end said she was off until she wasn’t. No one showed up at my door. Three GP visits (no paracetamol/ibuprofen did not work), and two A&E visits (none of their meds either), then the severity eventually lessened and she went back (four years later she was diagnosed with MS at 17, which may, or may not, be related).

It’s probably worth you reading the Department of Education’s Keeping Children Safe in Education document. It will help you to understand the legal responsibilities that schools have.

A welfare check after 3 days is obviously not a legal requirement as not all schools do it!
It’s merely a box-ticking excercise. As pp have pointed out - there are long periods of time when schools are on holiday. If it was really about safeguarding the children enrolled with them, despite having zero concerns flagged, presumably they’d employ someone to do weekly checks on each and every pupil throughout the holidays. Doesn’t make any logical sense, otherwise. If every parent is a potential abuser, then this just confirms they need to confine it to holiday times!

It may also help if you'd read current government guidelines @REDB99

There is no strict statutory law in the UK requiring a home visit specifically after a 3-day absence, school policy dependent.

the trigger point for many school policies is that they'd consider 3 days of no contact or unexplained absence for a home visit.

In this instance though, @SnottyLittleMango contacted the school every day.

I do wonder if the "rules/legal requirements" may have updated since your day, as you seem so sure of your position?

I had a safeguarding referral done on day one, I had informed the school - and after five years of 100% attendance.

My thoughts exactly.
We all know abusers will seek roles were they can get access to kids.
We all know especially teens they are likely to be home alone.

I think this is open to abuse.

I know it’s not law, it would be unenforceable. But it is law that staff report safeguarding concerns. It is a concern not to have seen a child for 3 days, regardless of phone calls explaining the absence. It is best practice. I’m just suggesting that for people who don’t understand school’s safeguarding responsibilities they should read this document to understand why schools take the stance they do. Nothing wrong with schools checking they’ve seen a child regardless of phone calls.

But the school hasn’t overstepped if it is in their attendance policy! If you’re sending your child to a school then I’m assuming you’ve familiarised yourself with its policies!.

If you don’t like a particular school’s safeguarding and attendance policies you can send them to a different school.

Don’t choose a school then be surprised or outraged that it enacts its own policies. Or want to know why 😂

It is not a concern not to see a child for three days!

It happens with every child every holiday and bank holiday weekend.

It's completely normal not to see a child for three days.

There are thresholds, for all schools, though @REDB99

I understand you feel the need to defend your original position wrt safeguarding, purely, "in this particular instance"* relating to @SnottyLittleMango's experience, which we are addressing, it is not unreasonable to suggest this particular school *has "overstepped".

Over zealous may be an accurate description here.

But treating everyone as a potential criminal with no right to privacy in their own home is also highly risky. The state - and its agents - aren’t always to be trusted either. The state is one of the worst parents. Look at the outcomes for so- called ‘cared for’ children.

A balance has to be sought between safeguarding and respect for parental rights and privacy. LNo one wants to live in a police state.

And legally those with primary responsibility for safeguarding and rights in relation to deciding what children do etc are called ‘parents’!. The state has to accord them discretion to the maximum extent permitted by law and in the absence of evidence of legal wrongdoing

The other crazy thing is nobody is checking on baby's or toddlers every 3 days.
They are far more vulnerable than walking, talking school aged children.

You have yet to convince me the poster up thread hasn't got it right this is about school fines nothing to do with welfare.

I'd put in a complaint about that, honestly. It's so clearly vexatious and power-hungry. I bet they're also like most schools in declaring that they don't have the slightest whiff of bullying at their school - whilst ironically leading on the bullying from the staff room.

Alternatively, if somebody at the school genuinely is concerned by that situation, they should urgently seek mental health care for their anxiety and/or paranoia, and not come in to the school until such a point as they're competent to return to their job.

I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head when saying that a lot of this has less to do with safeguarding than the school desperately trying to have a good attendance record. So even sick kids parents must be harried to discourage them from keeping sick children off school! That would certainly explain the headmaster’s intemperate reaction.

That could well be the other bit.