Penalty Notice for Non Attendance

Martin_the_Unjust

Malthusian said:

T.T.D said:
The keyword in section 444(1) of the education act is as you know is “Knows”. 

I am not an expert but the really key words seem to be in 444(1b), i.e. the all-purpose "reasonable" clause, "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) to prove that he had a reasonable justification for his failure to cause the child to attend regularly at the school".
If the parent is on the other side of the country and can prove the ex and the child kept them completely in the dark, or that they protested vociferously but the ex ignored them, that would seem a reasonable justification for their failure to a layman.
I agree that it stretches credibility that a parent who is invested enough in their child to take custody of them during holidays wouldn't be in regular electronic contact and likely to know of any upcoming major trips they were taking. 
I'm also curious as to why fining two cohabiting parents is double dipping but fining two separated parents is not in your view.

Spendless said:

I am aware of one case where the child's adult sibling was issued with one - no idea what happened next. 

Were they their sibling's legal guardian? If so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

The problem is you are asking someone to prove their innocence rather than making the state (school) prove their guilt, which is why it’s a horribly bad law.

T.T.D

Malthusian said:

T.T.D said:
The keyword in section 444(1) of the education act is as you know is “Knows”. 

I am not an expert but the really key words seem to be in 444(1b), i.e. the all-purpose "reasonable" clause, "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) to prove that he had a reasonable justification for his failure to cause the child to attend regularly at the school".
If the parent is on the other side of the country and can prove the ex and the child kept them completely in the dark, or that they protested vociferously but the ex ignored them, that would seem a reasonable justification for their failure to a layman.
I agree that it stretches credibility that a parent who is invested enough in their child to take custody of them during holidays wouldn't be in regular electronic contact and likely to know of any upcoming major trips they were taking. 
I'm also curious as to why fining two cohabiting parents is double dipping but fining two separated parents is not in your view.

Spendless said:

I am aware of one case where the child's adult sibling was issued with one - no idea what happened next. 

Were they their sibling's legal guardian? If so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

If you go on the legislation Gov website via a Google search for the legislation in question the very second sentence state’s 1A)If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails F2... to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.]

eamon

There are times when a fine is the only way of getting the attention of parent(s). Yes family holidays are important but we don't need to have one that involves the expense of "going away". If your child is missing school for a non valid reason then unless they are motivated then catching up is nigh on impossible, especially in secondary schools. I'm sure that numerous studies have been done on this issue. For state schools the issue is fraught with many dangers and that is why most have attendance people that monitor and address this problem. If they don't it will be uncovered by an Ofsted inspection and the school coverted into an academy.

Morglin

Absense doesn't seem to be bothering teachers too much, if it suits them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teachers-strike-today-school-closures-salaries-b2273316.html

london21

Should be £60 instead of each parent.

Contact them do not ignore the fines in order to get clarity. Pay it and move on.

pollypenny

Morglin said:

Absense doesn't seem to be bothering teachers too much, if it suits them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teachers-strike-today-school-closures-salaries-b2273316.html

i think you'll find that teachers have been driven to strike. Furthermore, any positive result from the strike would benefit pupils:
* increased salaries to attract/keep good teachers
* better conditions, such as smaller classes. 

And I know that teachers will bust a gut to ensure that classes are up to date and syllabuses met 

The_Unready

Morglin said:

Absense doesn't seem to be bothering teachers too much, if it suits them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teachers-strike-today-school-closures-salaries-b2273316.html

And don't forget that teachers are being 'fined' as well for striking as they're not being paid.

So, that's fair all round, then. Teachers don't turn up - 'fined'. Kids don't turn up - parents fined!

Martin_the_Unjust

The_Unready said:

Morglin said:

Absense doesn't seem to be bothering teachers too much, if it suits them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teachers-strike-today-school-closures-salaries-b2273316.html

And don't forget that teachers are being 'fined' as well for striking as they're not being paid.

So, that's fair all round, then. Teachers don't turn up - 'fined'. Kids don't turn up - parents fined!

I’m not entirely comfortable with suggesting that not paying someone because they are not doing the work is a ‘fine’

I’m also more than a little uncomfortable with this current round of strikes, including the teachers, as some appear to be driven more by politics than pay and working conditions.

Spendless

Malthusian said:

T.T.D said:
The keyword in section 444(1) of the education act is as you know is “Knows”. 

I am not an expert but the really key words seem to be in 444(1b), i.e. the all-purpose "reasonable" clause, "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) to prove that he had a reasonable justification for his failure to cause the child to attend regularly at the school".
If the parent is on the other side of the country and can prove the ex and the child kept them completely in the dark, or that they protested vociferously but the ex ignored them, that would seem a reasonable justification for their failure to a layman.
I agree that it stretches credibility that a parent who is invested enough in their child to take custody of them during holidays wouldn't be in regular electronic contact and likely to know of any upcoming major trips they were taking. 
I'm also curious as to why fining two cohabiting parents is double dipping but fining two separated parents is not in your view.

Spendless said:

I am aware of one case where the child's adult sibling was issued with one - no idea what happened next. 

Were they their sibling's legal guardian? If so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

No, they weren't. Just an older sibling  aged 18+ that lived with their parent and school aged younger sibling. It was the child's parent that posted about it (think it was Mum).
That's how we knew the LA was using the electoral roll to send a Penalty notice to adults living at the house - she never posted an update so can't tell you what happened/ 

BungalowBel

pollypenny said:

Morglin said:

Absense doesn't seem to be bothering teachers too much, if it suits them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teachers-strike-today-school-closures-salaries-b2273316.html

i think you'll find that teachers have been driven to strike. Furthermore, any positive result from the strike would benefit pupils:
* increased salaries to attract/keep good teachers
* better conditions, such as smaller classes. 

And I know that teachers will bust a gut to ensure that classes are up to date and syllabuses met 

I think you will find they could have negotiated that without going on strike, even though it might take a bit longer.