Child benefit docked if truanting fines unpaid

Isn't that what the Head of Ofsted suggested not two months ago before he was shot down in a hail of comments about why it would be unsuitable?

 

Welcome back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefits_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

At my school (primary) the FLO and attendance officer actually go to the homes of persistent offenders to collect the children so that their attendance record improves. In some cases the main carer may be suffering from illness that prevents them from getting children up and ready for school and schools are usually sympathetic in these situations.
So if you are a higher earner, not eligible for child benefit, you can get away with community service and maintain your income, if you don't pay truanting fines.find more info on child benefit.

 

?

@lissacoffey Nu TES is tricky at first, so here's some guidance on how to insert other poster's quotes into your own post:

TES: How to guide

 

I am not sure that a higher earner who isn't eligible for child benefit would deem community service as getting away with it; since either they would have to spend their work time otherwise engaged or indeed their free time, in either case such people put a premium on their time (as do their employers hence the higher earning capacity), and as such would presumably prefer to spend their time gainfully employed or sunning them selves in the holiday home in Tuscany, the Caribbean or perhaps skiing?!

I didn't think we were talking about parents who's illness prevented them from taking their child to school; I thought it was the issue of the school refuser or parents that might deliberately prevent attendance through their behaviour and values (perhaps lack of them) that was being alluded to here.

 

@needabreak I like your response above. But, just for your info - the comments posted by @lissacoffey were not his/her own. The first of the comments was mine - that's why I posted a link to the TES How to... pages so that lissa could include quotes posted by others correctly. I am sure lissa did not intend to pass off the post as his/her own opinion.

 

@snowyhead - Ooops *slightly embarrassed that I had no idea and actually didn't scroll back. Thanks for the heads up. Now I would be interested to know what Lissa actually wanted to say! Been caught out by updates myself oh too many times (and probably will again).

 

Hmm.
Looked after children never truant, do they? And have such good educational outcomes.

 

In loco parentis, but with handcuffs. The "care" system is shackled by right-onness. The very kids who need the firmest expectations and routines are denied them by their "rights".

 

Of course being that they are in care to fine the care givers (probably government funded would be interesting but not impossible). I do think that children in care who truant may well do so for slightly different reasons but the effect is essentially the same so why not ensure care givers are held as responsible as parents and jointly with the school refusers... after all care givers enter the agreement usually being all to aware of the challenges therein and there are often support networks available to them sometimes more readily than parents with no history of social services intervention.

Homeschooling or tutoring can be an acceptable alternative should the school environment be completely unsuitable.

Every action has consequences even those of minors and the sooner they are made aware of it the better for them. They will be ill prepared for an improvement of the circumstances sometimes thrust upon them without an adequate education. If carers are facing penalties perhaps it forces them jointly with the school refuser and relevant authorities to find a way forward and perhaps a solution. This may become the catalyst to find out why the student won't attend... are they being bullied? Can it be rectified?

Unfortunately in the case of school bullying I know of several bullies who have inadvertently affected the schooling of their victims, at a time when excuses were made for the bullying behaviour because they had a "difficult life" and HT's had a dialogue with the bully's parent and found their hands were tied in terms of action or simply because the victims were not forthcoming because they felt threatened. In each of these cases either the victim's became school refusers or had changed schools to get away from the bully. I don't think either scenario actually deals with the bully who appears in each case to have "won".

School refuser issues may be complex but if nothing else a system of imposing consequences ups the anti and may even place value on finding out causes, perhaps looking further into prevention rather than pretending nothing is really the matter and all is well.

 

Ah answered the phone and missed the opportunity to amend my *sp and any typos.. silly me

 

If, as FolkFan suggests, repeat truants should be taken away from parents and put in the care system, what should happen to the repeat truants who are already in the care system? Or those who are removed for repeat truanting yet continue to do so?

Maybe, just maybe, we need to tackle the reasons repeat truants even exist.

 

Which are?

 

Improve the care system? Maybe by taking children at risk away from bad parents earlier this problem will be lessened....

 

'Bangs head against nearest brick wall' . Why is spending vast amounts of money on the care system preferable to investing in support for new babies and their parents? It isn't hard tk identify those in need of intensive support. It will result in huge savings to taxpayers in having well brought up, happy, healthy and well educated children. It's a basic utilitarian argument.

 

Or even paying to sterilise druggies .

 

Absolutely agree with getting social interventions in place at the beginning of a child's life especially if a family have a history of dysfunction. Most parents cope fairly well if they have the support of their extended family, health visitors and later schools. Unfortunately, identifying families that need intensive support isn't as simple as it might seem. For example, some young people who accidentally become parents in their teenage years, live with extended family who don't have a history of dysfunction or intervention by Social Services and the child isn't deemed to be 'at risk'. It's only when the young family are given LA accommodation and their support network shrinks that cracks start appearing in their ability to parent well, by then health visitors (who are often the first to make referrals to Social Services or voluntary organisations like Home-Start) are a distant memory. Much relies on these families being pro-active and requesting support, but as the saying goes 'you don't know, what you don't know'.

 

It could be worth giving hmrc a ring and speaking to them about this, crazy!
( http://govcontactnumbers.co.uk/ )

 

"Don't build a bridge - drain the river " - lateral thinking suggests we take the simple but drastic step of swapping the miscreants with a Chinese family. Due to the cultural differences you get compliant, hard working children with parents who would be ashamed if their children did not attend school. China on the other hand gets a bunch of social misfits that are ignored or despised.
Not a very practical solution but so many countries see education as the only way out of poverty - so why are some here turning their backs on it ?

 

That is the basis of the rapid improvement in results in some inner city deprived areas who have a very multicultural mix.