Over the last few days there has been a bit of media interest in the prosecution of parents for failing to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school.
This is an offence under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996, which has a maximum sentence of a fine at level 3 (£1,000) on summary conviction.
Sub-section (1A) creates a further offence of a parent knowingly failing to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. This aggravated offence has a maximum sentence of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (£2,500) on summary conviction.
If the court is not satisfied that an aggravated offence under sub-section (1A) is proved, it can make a conviction under sub-section (1) in the alternative.
In cases where two parents have joint responsibility for a child, then they can each be prosecuted. This potentially means two fines, two surcharges and two lots of prosecution costs falling on the family purse. In the case of a single parent, convicted in similar circumstances, they would obviously receive a smaller "hit" on the family purse, which most people would view as being very unfair.
These cases are a regular feature in the private prosecutions court, of which I have spoken so fondly in the past.
In the UK as a whole we are very fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated teachers who work tirelessly, often in difficult circumstances, to improve the life chances of their students. In order to achieve the best possible social and educational outcomes, students really do need to attend school on a regular basis.
I am alarmed at the number of cases appearing before the court where a child's attendance is well below 50 percent.
Prosecution only takes place after several other steps have failed.
1. The school will make informal contact with the parent, establish the reasons for their child's poor attendance and seek to resolve the issue. This would typically involve things like the introduction of a bespoke timetable for the child, arranging transportation, class moves, counselling or referral to outside agencies. In many cases before the court, the parent has failed to engage with the school even at this early stage.
2. Should there be no improvement in the child's attendance the school will refer the matter to the relevant local authority's education welfare service. The education welfare service will write to the parent concerned and inform them that their child's attendance will be formally monitored. At this stage the parent is warned that if their child's attendance is poor during the monitoring period then a fixed penalty notice and prosecution might follow. The monitoring period would typically be 6 to 8 weeks long, which is the length of a school half term.
3. If the child's attendance is poor during the monitoring period the parent will be invited to a formal interview, under caution, to account for their child's non-attendance. As an alternative they will be given the opportunity to submit a written statement to the same effect.
4. If the parent fails to provide satisfactory explanation for their child's poor attendance during the monitoring period a fixed penalty notice will be issued.
5. Failure by the parent to pay the fixed penalty notice will result in prosecution.
To get from step 1 to step 5 would take the best part of a school year. It might then take another 2 or 3 months for the matter to be listed before the court. Prosecution can be avoided at any point before step 5.
In quite a few cases before the court the parent is entirely culpable. I remember vividly a defendant mother, who for sake of argument I'll call Miss Jones, who appeared before the court in relation to knowingly failing to ensure the regular attendance of her two young daughters at the same school.
The girls in question, who I'll refer to as Annie and Daisy, were both under 10 years old. Both very pleasant, clever little girls, who were falling well behind their classmates due to absence.
Miss Jones accepted her guilt and wanted the court to "get on with it" as she had somewhere better to be. She was sat at the back of the courtroom huffing and puffing, rolling her eyes and shaking her head at everything the prosecutor said.
Given the circumstances, we thought it was appropriate for the prosecutor to read through every statement in detail. The Head Teacher's statement described the girls' abysmal attendance during the monitoring period. It also described the steps the school had taken on each day of absence. Here's a snapshot of the sorts of things it contained:
- Monday, 11th - Annie and Daisy failed to attend school. At 9.15 am the school office sent a text message to Miss Jones alerting her to the girls' non-attendance. At 10 am the school's attendance officer rang Miss Jones to ask where the girls were. Miss Jones said that the family had a bad takeaway the previous evening, so had been up all night with sickness and diarrhoea. The girls were very tired, so she was letting them stay in bed.
- Tuesday, 12th - Annie and Daisy failed to attend school. At 9.15 am the school office sent a text message to Miss Jones alerting her to the girls' non-attendance. At 10 am the school's attendance officer rang Miss Jones, but there was no answer. The attendance officer left a voicemail asking Miss Jones to contact the school. At 11 am the attendance officer rang Miss Jones again. This time she answered. Miss Jones said that Daisy was still unwell, but Annie was feeling better. Because Daisy was staying off school, she had told Annie she could do as well. The attendance officer went to Miss Jones' home and collected Annie, who arrived at school at 11.30 pm. By that time she had missed English and Maths.
- Wednesday 13th - Annie and Daisy failed to attend school. At 9.15 am the school office sent a text message to Miss Jones alerting her to the girls' non-attendance. At 10 am the school's attendance officer rang Miss Jones to ask where the girls were. Miss Jones said that her aunt had died overnight. Her and the girls were going to visit family, so they would not be coming to school for the rest of the week.
And so the list of excuses continued, virtually every day of the two-month monitoring period a different excuse for the girls' non-attendance. On several of those days the school attendance officer went to Miss Jones' home to collect the girls and bring them into school late. Several more days of absence were attributed to the illness or death of relatives, consumption of dodgy takeaway food or simply being "too tired" to get to school.
I am not sure what happened to Miss Jones, because we were unable to sentence her on the day. Given the severity of her offences we called for a pre-sentence report. The penny may have finally dropped with Miss Jones when the Presiding Justice indicated it would be a report for a high level community order, with the rider: "But be aware that the Bench that sentences you can still impose any sentence that the law allows, which includes up to 3 months' in prison."
At the other end of the spectrum we had a defendant who I'll refer to as Miss Carr. Miss Carr was another single mother, this time of a 15-year-old boy, who I'll call Mark. The first hint that Miss Carr's case was a bit unusual was when the prosecutor sheepishly addressed the Bench when the courtroom was quiet.
"Your worships, I would like to apologise for this case. I have spoken to the department concerned and I have my instructions that the prosecution is to proceed. I have told them that the court is likely to take a critical view of that, but the instruction still stands."
Entered Miss Carr, who was clearly very overwhelmed at the situation. She cut a very modest and unassuming figure, small in stature and quietly spoken. It was immediately evident that Miss Carr, who worked in a school, was absolutely mortified at being in court.
The prosecutor outlined the circumstances. Mark was in Year 10 and working towards his GCSEs. Unfortunately his attendance was very poor and his interest in education took second place to his interest in his 17-year-old girlfriend.
Mark had life all mapped out. Instead of sticking in at school he was focused on enjoying life, getting his girlfriend pregnant and moving into a flat with her. Miss Carr was absolutely mortified at this, but Mark was infatuated with the girl, who was very bad influence on him. Mark would row with his mother and storm out of the house, drinking with his girlfriend until the early hours of the morning. The police had brought Mark home on several occasions
Mark was a very imposing figure compared to his mother. For all he had never raised a hand to her, it was a constant worry that the day would come. Miss Carr was at her wits' end. She was in regular dialogue with the school and had sought help from various external agencies. She was exhausted and broken. Whatever she did, Mark just wouldn't go to school.
The school was very well aware of the circumstances, but decided to refer Mark's poor attendance to the education welfare service regardless. Miss Carr continued to engage with both the school and education welfare service, but eventually the time came - given the cruciality of Mark's impending GCSEs - that the decision was taken to issue a fixed penalty notice. That notice never made it to Miss Carr, so the decision was taken to prosecute.
Having heard all this the Bench was of the clear opinion that we needed to be as understanding to Miss Carr's plight as possible.
Addressing Miss Carr, the Presiding Justice offered a few words of reassurance - that the court recognised the difficult position she was in and acknowledged she was doing all she reasonably could as a responsible parent.
After telling her she was receiving an absolute discharge, the PJ wished her the best of luck moving forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment