compulsory attendance

[Looking for help]

Taken from the http://www.direct.gov.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; website:

Penalty notices

As an alternative to prosecution, authorised local authority staff, police officers and headteachers can issue penalty notices to parents of children who are not attending school regularly. The penalty is £50, rising to £100 if not paid within 28 days. If you fail to pay a penalty fine, you will be prosecuted.

My understanding is that some state headteachers issue these penalties as a matter of course, eg when holidays are taken in term-time which the head has refused to authorise. Such petty behaviour might be appropriate in the gorbals, but certainly not in the independent sector.

I really struggle to understand why following the law of the land is petty. I also struggle to understand why the law of the land is not followed in the independent sector. I really cannot understand though why anyone would want to pay £12,000 a term, and not send their child to school. That is madness.

But this is way off topic.

[push-pull-mum]

But this is way off topic.

Could we maybe have a split thread please, mods? After all, W-F-G has reached a conclusion about her DS2's school and this is a very interesting topic.

[mystery]

I don't suppose anyone would pay £12,000 a term and not send them (well not deliberately anyhow) as that would be boarding school, and if you were willing for your child to board I can't imagine you would really be particularly in favour of bunking off. However, a day school might be another matter. I don't know if it really happens, but I can imagine some scenarios where an independent day school would be a safe haven for the parents of a patchy attender.

Let's say you had a teenager you didn't have much influence over and you were about to get into trouble as a parent for poor attendance, and you could afford the fees for a day school ...... what might you do? Or your child was pretty good a particular sport or something but to carry on with it meant missing a lot of school and the state school was being flexible and you had the money ......... what might you do? Or you wanted to "flexi-school" but the state school wouldn't let you and the independent would and you had the money ......... what might you do?

[moved]

I messed up the splitting of the topic. Hopefully someone more competent than me can sort it out.

[mad?]

I don't know if it really happens, but I can imagine some scenarios where an independent day school would be a safe haven for the parents of a patchy attender.

In my experience it doesn't.

Let's say you had a teenager you didn't have much influence over and you were about to get into trouble as a parent for poor attendance, and you could afford the fees for a day school ...... what might you do?

Pay the £50 fine instead rather than a terms fees? Surely? Er and maybe try to do something about that teenager that you had limited influence over as a parent...like...make them go to school?

Or your child was pretty good a particular sport or something but to carry on with it meant missing a lot of school and the state school was being flexible and you had the money ......... what might you do?

Find a more flexible state school?

Or you wanted to "flexi-school" but the state school wouldn't let you and the independent would and you had the money ......... what might you do?

...maybe...
I think there are lots of reasons for choosing an indie school but I know of no-one who has made this choice because it is (according to this/the last thread) allegedly easier for kids to bunk off.

[push-pull-mum]

I do know of a child 'asked to leave' an independent school because the parents were not enforcing regular attendance. Her results weren't suffering - the schools concerns were about 'safeguarding.'
The issue is exactly the same at DS's state primary school. School is under orders from Ofsted to improve attendance or risk failing their next Ofsted on 'safeguarding.' The (I think, very sensible) argument is that the school cannot ensure a child is safe, if they don't see them often enough.

PS - thanks to whoever performed this wonderful thread bifurcation - sorry, W-F-G - you know I can't resist derailing your threads - hope your sensibilities aren't too wounded.

[T12ACY]

Probably not relevant at all but if you opt to 'home educate' your DC then there is no breaking the law. The issue is around non attendance at a school they are registered to, so if they aren't registered there isn't a problem. I know many people opt for this route for genuine reasons but it's also a loophole for some DC to be let down by their parents, and the system (who don't regulate it properly). You wouldn't be breaking the law tho!

[Loopyloulou]

deleted

[Looking for help]

Ok I'm really stupid, most schools charging £12K are boarding, but the point still stands, why if you pay, would you keep your child away ?

And if you are advantaged, why would keeping your child away be a good thing?

I'm one of those folk who are given directions....go to work, send your children to school, I cannot understand anything else, to be honest, and as the parent of teenagers who are discovering (at an alarming rate, I have to say) other children who are struggling and behaving badly, I think it always best to err on the side of caution and do the right thing so at least i am giving the right impression to my children

[magwich2]

I think children nowadays are bombarded with instructions and directions - "say no to drugs", "say no to alcohol", "use contraception", "do your best, that will be fine" (it won,t), "prepare for the world of work" (wtf!), "you must do general studies as level", etc etc etc ad nauseam.
I prefer to break the silly rules and ignore the daft and misleading instructions so that when something really is important my children completely trust me and know that I will NOT always take the party line.