Truancy penalties - should they be tougher?

Chickenpox can be a mild disease for some, but for those with a weakened immunity system, or under treatment for cancer, etc, it can be deadly. The current advice is that children with chickenpox should NOT be be brought into contact with strangers, due to this, until the spots are properly crusted over and dry. They can also pass on shingles, which again can be very painful and extremely serious for some people. Nothing to do with 'fashion'.

As for school trips in term time? It will take me a while to compose a sensible answer, but will get round to it when I have time. I can assure you very few trips would go ahead if that was the case, as the amount of time taken to organise such trips, and the enormous responsibility taken already means that many teachers are no prepared to organise them, even in term time.

petallus I don't think anybody would advocate sending a sick child to school for many reasons- the child's own welfare, the risk to others, the fact that he/she is not really going to learn much if (s)he is ill - we know how even reading in bed can be impossible if you are poorly. However, choosing to take children outof school simply for the parents' convenience says that education is quite far down the pecking order - and I think this is one of the fundamental things wrong with this country today - a root cause of appalling literacy standards in (even) school leavers, government ministers who cheerfully admit to being "rubbish " at maths/Franch whatever, our appalling record for speaking anybody's language other than our own(and that inaccurately) our young people's disadvantages oat an international level. Other European countries I know take great pride in educational achievement - in Britain (dare I say, England) that is "not done". Overheard at a Boat Race lunch party some years ago (true- I overheard it) "Are you an Oxbridge chap Charles?" Answer from braying city-type "Me? Good God, no, O levels and a driving licence that's me!" chortle, chortle. I would be ashamed.

For "oat" read "at"!!!!

Heh, heh! Sorry for the word 'fashion', granjura. It was a deliberate provocation . Perhaps twenty-five years ago there was less knowledge about how something like chicken pox could affect people with compromised immune systems?

The trip to France from DD's school was, of course, educational. They had to practise some French at least (e.g. shopping for their lunch) and to immerse themselves in the cultural differences. I'm full of admiration for the teachers who did it. They do it once every two years. I think I'm trying to stress what gbun was implying earlier: that not all education happens in school. I think it's terribly important not to forget that.

gracesmum, I would agree with you except to say that taking children out of school for the parents' convenience (which could cover quite a wide range of scenarios) might mean that schooling is low down in the pecking order. I would never agree that it necessarily means education is low down. I would say that at least (_at least_!) half my children's education was acquired out of school.

Just by the way, my kids had/have some of the best school attendance records on the books.

nellie just read your post

thank you glassxx

Thanks to those who told me all about chicken pox. Rather missed my point though.

If a child is off school for a couple of weeks due to an illness (of any kind not just chicken pox) then there is uually an optimistic view by the school that work can be caught up on. If the child is away for a couple of weeks to go on holiday, consequences for academic performance are seen as potentially much more dire.

It is not logical to say that two weeks off each year for holidays would be an academic disaster but two weeks off through illness would not.

So context effects perception. So there is an ethical/moral dimension to the issue.

Petallus, I have spent 100s of hours supporting children at home because of sickness or accident, or even 2 teenagers whilst heavily pregnant or just given birth. It is hugely time-consuming, + of course preparation, preparing special work-sheets and exercises, photocopying what we've done in class, doing tapes, etc, etc. And so have my colleagues, with the greatest of pleasure, making it easier for those kids to get back into school without too much trouble.
But would I do this for kids having gone off to Benidorm or skiing in St Moritz, no, no and ... well no. A huge difference imho.

My daughter was on tenterhooks when her six month old baby had chicken pox because they were going on holiday and she knew he would not be allowed to travel on the plane until all the scabs were healed. This was 12 years ago.
If a parent is quite unable to take holidays except in term time - for example, he/she might be in the forces, or working abroad, it seems very harsh to say the family cannot have a holiday at all. I am sure none of us are referring to older pupils studying for imminent exams. I am glad head teachers are going to be allowed to use their discretion in the light of the family circumstances.

Of course, there are some very special cases, and discretion should be used. But those are very rare. Usually it is just about cheaper cost. When our kids were young, we went Youth Hostelling or camping in the UK or nearby France on a self-catering basis during school hols, and started travelling further afield when our kids were older. A nice holiday does not have to be in Spain, Greece, St Moritz or Disneyland- which now seems expected by many.

Exactly my point granjura

I meant your post before last.

Not sure how useful it is to judge expectations re. holiday destinations etc. now by the standards of yesteryear.

Well yes, and yet. If your child's education is going to be affected by missing school- what price to pay? Problem with using discretion is that it is likely to fall back on 'class lines'. Want to take the kids to Benidorm = NO. Want to take the kids hiking with Lamas in Peru = YES. How does a Head decide and be consistent. Of course in the case of someone serving in forces and back on leave, it is much clearer.
My OH couldn't take holidays during school holidays for years, Christmas never, and Easter 1 in 4 years - but that was that. Living abroad, I never had Christmas 'back home' with my parents- but they came to us a few times.

20 years ago is hardly yesteryear

I think the point is that illness is unavoidable absence and holidays are avoidable. It isn't possible or fair, except in very exceptional circumstances, for schools to be asked to decide if term-time holidays are "worthwhile" or "not worthwhile". The evidence tells us that pupils who have poor attendance do less well at school. You therefore have to minimise absences as much as you possibly can.

There is a big difference between persistent truanting and a week off with the parent's consent for a holiday.

So pupils who are absent a lot have poorer results - let's look at that a different way - pupils who are getting poor results are absent a lot. If two factors occur together, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that there is a causal relationship in one direction.

Except that when schools improve attendance the results improve. I have worked directly with schools where we have seen this very clearly and there is plenty of evidence that shows that it is the case.

But how do they improve attendance? Do they pay more attention to 'problem' pupils, make the lessons more relevant, get the pupils involved in dealing with bullying, etc? The hen or the egg?

Lots of ways Greatnan. One of my link primary schools had a competition to design a class flag, made the flags in design technology and then flew the flag of the class with the best attendance outside the school for a week at a time. The children got really excited about it and really wanted to win. The governors got the parents into school through various activities (cooking, nail art, supporting literacy, anything to get them through the door) and then spent time working with the them about how they could improve attendance and help the children to learn. The school had children that came in at five well below the national average, but regularly made the top 100 schools nationally for progress by the end of Key Stage 2. Secondary schools work in different ways, following up poor attendance, ringing parents and giving incentives for good attendance amongst many others strategies. Of course, improving teaching is at the heart of all school improvement, but attendance makes a big difference.

My observations suggest that children who are healthier tend to have better attendance records too.

Yes poverty and poor nutrition are significant factors. Add in to that chaotic homes, where children don't get put to bed and therefore don't wake up for school, parents who truanted and don't make the children go to school, negative attitudes to the value of education ; all this contributes towards the kind of poor attendance patterns in primary that lead to serious truanting in secondary. Poor attendance also disrupts continuity in learning so the children miss out all the time. In many cases (not all of course) these are the children who don't get to Level 4 in primary and don't make five A to Cs in secondary. It is really hard for schools and it takes enormous amounts of energy and resources to change things.

School trips and D of E in our school are in holiday time if they are essentially holidays. They are limited as the kids are poor (although only 15 miles from Gracesmum and her school's foreign trips). But the same applies in my nephews fee paying school.
Educational trips e.g. geography field trips are in term time.
If a head is chasing improved attendance, they will have to attack all fronts. Holiday discouragement may be an easy hit compared to getting a school avoider to attend regularly.
Many children get to secondary without the basic skills they need to access secondary curriculum. There has been a lot of pressure on secondary schools in poorer areas over recent years - but we still get kids turning up at 11 who can't read. It must be truly miserable for them. No wonder some of them don't want to come to school.

Any ideas about why these kids can't learn to read by the time they're eleven, jess? I'm presuming various things have been tried during their primary school years. Perhaps I shouldn't presume that? Or, to put it another way, is it reasonable to expect there to be no "school failures"? Ideally, of course, there wouldn't be, but I'm talking about reality.

Just interested by the definition of "not learning to read". We used to talk about a reading age of nine for independence, but now I think most people would see Level 3 as the take-off point. Are there really a large proportion still at Level 2 in Year 7 in your school, Jess? If so it must be really difficult. Are people still using the additional literacy strategies?