100% school attendance now will not be..

Sambucus_Nigra

Person_one wrote: »

I wouldn't bother.

If every child had an appointment outside school hours they couldn't start seeing people till 3.30, think what that'd do to the waiting lists!

There is no real need for a change, somebody else might have a more urgent or genuine reason for needing the last appointment of the day.

Obviously you aren't as much a schmmozing chancer as me.

Kaz2904

My DD was going to get a certificate for 100% attendance this term but she broke her arm (at school :eek:) so missed the rest of that day and the first 3 days of the next week.
Her school did give her a certificate for bravery though which was nice .

Mado

Person_one wrote: »

There's no reason to be gutted, being in such good health beats any kind of certificate or prize!

I know, but I'm not a 14 year old who thinks everyone else seems to be getting a free day off!:rotfl: I remember being just like her; always had to take notes for others who were ill but never ill enough by my parent's standards to miss school.

I think that is the crux of the problem for schools and precisely why they reward attendance. Some parents let their kids off if they are tired. I've certainly seen it and never allowed it.

YORKSHIRELASS

Well all I can say is that I am glad my son doesnt go to this school. I think its wrong to expect 100% attendance.

My son is an unusual case because has missed most of the last 3 years of school due to serious health problems. He will probably never return to mainstream schooling full time.

The point is that he feels bad about this (he is 13). He knows that he should be at school and feels like he has somehow failed by not being there. Seeing other children rewarded for 100% attendance would only reinforce this idea and make him feel even more guilty.

Our school sensibly encourages parents to keep their children at home if they have a vomiting and sickness bug or something similar. I think my 11 year old has had 2 days off in this school year which I think is reasonable. I dont see what you can do about your son and the prize draw but I would be making my feelings known to the school.

Four_leaf_clover_2

Person_one wrote: »

Right, because viruses seek out the less well cared for children.

That is not how I meant it at all, as I am sure you are well aware. Why do some people on here choose to see the worst in what someone writes and take it out of context?

Maybe you can explain that as it something I notice you do often.

daisiegg

ringo_24601 wrote: »

10% is a huge drop in your attendance. There are 190 days in a school year, so that's like almost 4 weeks off.

Lets assume a far more reasonable 4 days off a year (and I think that's a bit high) - this is only 2.1% of the year. There's a fine line between encouraging school attendance and penalising genuine illness.

You'd be surprised. There's a girl in my form whose attendance is at 52%. She is cared for by her grandmother who thinks it's being kind to just let her stay off if she has a headache, a sniffle, didn't sleep well, doesn't fancy doing a test....etc. I can think of loads of pupils I teach whose attendance is probably less than 90% - it's not as uncommon as you think.

ruby-roo_2

Person_one wrote: »

Right, because viruses seek out the less well cared for children.

Children who have poor diets, who have parents that cant afford to buy them warm coats and proper shoes or who live in homes where there is damp etc are more likely to have regular coughs and colds. So yes, the way a child is cared for does effect whether it will be susceptable to viruses. Common sense would tell you that. No?

[Deleted User]

ruby-roo wrote: »

Children who have poor diets, who have parents that cant afford to buy them warm coats and proper shoes or who live in homes where there is damp etc are more likely to have regular coughs and colds. So yes, the way a child is cared for does effect whether it will be susceptable to viruses. Common sense would tell you that. No?

Common sense also tells me that the child who goes to school while feeling lousy is the one who passes illnesses on to other children who will then have to take days off school.

What I do remember from school is that none of the high achievers from our year were in the list of kids who attained 100% attendance

Person_one

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Obviously you aren't as much a schmmozing chancer as me.

Good luck getting past a consultant's PA by 'schmoozing'! :rotfl:

Person_one

ruby-roo wrote: »

Children who have poor diets, who have parents that cant afford to buy them warm coats and proper shoes or who live in homes where there is damp etc are more likely to have regular coughs and colds. So yes, the way a child is cared for does effect whether it will be susceptable to viruses. Common sense would tell you that. No?

Colds are nothing to do with temperature. Yes, poor housing and nutrition can lead to illness but that tends to be more long term and serious than a cough or a cold.

The point is, a child can have the best parents in the world and still get every bug going round, especially if they do a lot of social activities with a lot of different children. Its not very nice or accurate to insinuate that they must have sub standard care!