Legal question (sort of)

RealJohn

Just wondering if parents can legally excuse their kids from school for no reason. Anyone know?

Today for example, 5th year students were doing exams but because of certain unavoidable circumstances, some of the students had an exam this afternoon while many of them did not. Officially, those who didn't have an exam were supposed to stay and study until the end of the school day but a lot of them came in with notes from their parents to say they had permission to leave at lunchtime (once their last exam of the day was over).

I accepted that as fair enough (the year head didn't have a problem with it anyway) but then I got to thinking, are their parents allowed to just say "well I don't think my kid needs to go to school today"?

I suppose it might be a grey area since all the students involved are old enough to legally leave school anyway but I'm just wondering if a child is supposed to be in school, are parents allowed to excuse them "just because"?

gaeilgebeo

RealJohn wrote: »

Just wondering if parents can legally excuse their kids from school for no reason. Anyone know?

Today for example, 5th year students were doing exams but because of certain unavoidable circumstances, some of the students had an exam this afternoon while many of them did not. Officially, those who didn't have an exam were supposed to stay and study until the end of the school day but a lot of them came in with notes from their parents to say they had permission to leave at lunchtime (once their last exam of the day was over).

I accepted that as fair enough (the year head didn't have a problem with it anyway) but then I got to thinking, are their parents allowed to just say "well I don't think my kid needs to go to school today"?

I suppose it might be a grey area since all the students involved are old enough to legally leave school anyway but I'm just wondering if a child is supposed to be in school, are parents allowed to excuse them "just because"?

Why wouldn't they be allowed to? Do you have issue with this? I don't see any problem with it if the exams are over for them or even if they wish to study at home! It's the last week.........everyone is winding down........chill

Rosita

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

Why wouldn't they be allowed to? Do you have issue with this? I don't see any problem with it if the exams are over for them or even if they wish to study at home! It's the last week.........everyone is winding down........chill

I'm not sure this captures the spirit in which the question was asked. The OP doesn't appear terribly unchilled and I doubt he is terribly bothered by the specifics of the issue he mentions but just sees a broader point worth raising.

Let's assume that it's the middle of November - a long way from 'winding down' time - is there a legal impediment to a parent absenting their child from school for no apparent reason along the lines of what would normally be seen in schools as acceptable reasons for absence?

RealJohn

Rosita's got the idea, yeah.

Of course I don't have an issue with students leaving early for reasons such as doctors' appointments, family issues etc. but like I said, if there's no actual reason other than "sure why not let them take the afternoon off?", is it legal to do so? Parents are under a legal obligation to see that their children get their education (as I understand it), be that at home or in school. If they choose to send their children to school, as far as I know, it's not up to the parents to dictate how often it is appropriate for the students to attend.

As class teacher to several of the students who left early today, I have strong doubts that some of them had any intention to do any study at home at all (even though they have exams all day tomorrow) so personally I feel that many of them would have been better off staying in school and studying in a supervised environment.

Many of the notes I received were something to the effect of "my son/daughter has my permission to leave the school at lunchtime" so essentially what I want to know is that if I chose to say "that's good to know but I feel they'd be better off staying so I'm not going to permit them to leave unless I'm told to send them home", would I be in the right?

Now to be honest, it's not my intention to do that (if for no other reason than that it would probably create a certain amount of animosity between myself and the parents of my students) but all the same, I couldn't help but wonder if parents have the right to excuse their children from school just to give them a half day?

Edit: just to reiterate for the benefit of gaeilgebeo, their exams were over for the day but they all have more tomorrow.

gaeilgebeo

Rosita wrote: »

I'm not sure this captures the spirit in which the question was asked. The OP doesn't appear terribly unchilled and I doubt he is terribly bothered by the specifics of the issue he mentions but just sees a broader point worth raising.

Let's assume that it's the middle of November - a long way from 'winding down' time - is there a legal impediment to a parent absenting their child from school for no apparent reason along the lines of what would normally be seen in schools as acceptable reasons for absence?

ah, nice to see Rosita is back fuelling up some vague impartial advice in the teachers forum!

Rosita

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

ah, nice to see Rosita is back fuelling up some vague impartial advice in the teachers forum!

Now I suddenly remember why I don't post here much anymore. :rolleyes:

claire h

RealJohn wrote: »

I accepted that as fair enough (the year head didn't have a problem with it anyway) but then I got to thinking, are their parents allowed to just say "well I don't think my kid needs to go to school today"?

Is there not a policy in place, at least theoretically, for dealing with excessive absenteeism? Which is a different matter.

The relevant point about parental notes is giving permission (and/or acknowledging absences). It's not up to the teacher or the school to decide whether, on any particular single occasion, a reason is worthwhile or not - that's the parent or guardian's call.

EoghanRua

claire h wrote: »

The relevant point about parental notes is giving permission (and/or acknowledging absences). It's not up to the teacher or the school to decide whether, on any particular single occasion, a reason is worthwhile or not - that's the parent or guardian's call.

If this is the actual case legally then the short naswer to the question being raised is 'no' - parents can legally excuse their kids from school for no reason.

It seems a bit paradoxical to have this situation and then have a policy on 'excessive ansenteeism' given that a school apparently has no right to enforce a policy regarding what are acceptable/unacceptable reasons for absenteeism in the first place.

Why does it suddenly become an issue after x number of days?

claire h

EoghanRua wrote: »

If this is the actual case legally then the short naswer to the question being raised is 'no' - parents can legally excuse their kids from school for no reason.

It seems a bit paradoxical to have this situation and then have a policy on 'excessive ansenteeism' given that a school apparently has no right to enforce a policy regarding what are acceptable/unacceptable reasons for absenteeism in the first place.

Why does it suddenly become an issue after x number of days?

You will note that I said 'on any particular single occasion'. There's a big difference between a parent letting their kid miss a few days and miss three months - the latter is the point where their good judgement should be called into question. It's like jobs where you have to provide a medical note if you're missing for x number of days - there's a certain point at which the management stops going on good faith.

spurious

claire h wrote: »

You will note that I said 'on any particular single occasion'. There's a big difference between a parent letting their kid miss a few days and miss three months - the latter is the point where their good judgement should be called into question.

The latter is also the point where in my opinion they should be hit in the Children's allowance. Keeping children out of school is neglect at best. Stop a few bob and watch them change their tune.

TheDriver

mark them absent, NEWB gets on the case, parents don't do anything, it all goes away.Usual story to be honest.

EoghanRua

claire h wrote: »

You will note that I said 'on any particular single occasion'. There's a big difference between a parent letting their kid miss a few days and miss three months - the latter is the point where their good judgement should be called into question. It's like jobs where you have to provide a medical note if you're missing for x number of days - there's a certain point at which the management stops going on good faith.

But arguably three months is merely an aggregate of 100 odd 'particular single occasions' if there is no policy in place to enable the questioning of reasons for absence. You say their (parents) good judgment should be called into question after three months, but this appears to be an opinion rather than a legal remedy. And why three months, why not two months, or six weeks etc. etc?

In industry, there is clear legislation governing absenteeism so while your analogy is reasonable it is irrelevant in the sense that absenteeism is not dealt with on a 'good faith' basis at all but within a transparent legislative framework. Employees are entitled to some days' grace because the entitlement is laid down in statute rather than because the employer is being reasonable.

The question is if there is a similar legal model for schools. If there is not (and there may well be for all I know) it seems to me that the reason for absence of a pupil (which is the opriginal point at issue) irrespective of the length of time of that absence seems to be no business of the school in the same way that a day's absence seems to be no business of the school.

Someone raised an argument about neglect but according to the constitution the home is the primary educator and it has been successfully argued in court in Ireland in recent years that pupils did not need to attend school if an alternative could be reasonably provided for in the home. Neglect is quite another matter - a three month absence could be perfectly legitimate through illness or whatever - the question is if the school has any legal right to expect a genuine reason to be given.

Delphi91

EoghanRua wrote: »

...the question is if the school has any legal right to expect a genuine reason to be given.

Section 17 of the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000:

17.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the parent of a child shall cause the child concerned to attend a recognised school on each school day.


(2) A child shall not be required to attend a recognised school where—


(a)
.
.
.
(g) there exists some other sufficient cause for his or her not so attending.

Section 18 of the same act states:

18.—Where a child is absent from the school at which he or she is registered during part of a school day, or for a school day or more than a school day, the parent of such child shall, in accordance with procedures specified in the code of behaviour prepared by the school under section 23 , notify the principal of the school of the reasons for the child's absence.

I would interpret this to mean that a parent has a legal obligation to notify a school of the reason for a childs absence.

As for the period of time that you suggest, a school has a legal obligation to notify the NEWB (4 reports per year) of any child whose total number of absences is over 20 days (this covers those absences that are both explained and those that are not).

EoghanRua

Delphi91 wrote: »

I would interpret this to mean that a parent has a legal obligation to notify a school of the reason for a childs absence.

As for the period of time that you suggest, a school has a legal obligation to notify the NEWB (4 reports per year) of any child whose total number of absences is over 20 days (this covers those absences that are both explained and those that are not).

I was aware of this all right but this is to do with the school's legal obligation rather than the parents' which is what is up for discussion here - and specifically if that parents' obligation changeds with the passage of time i.e. after three months as opposed to one day.

Your interpretation seems to be reasonable - that parents do indeed have an obligation to give reasons for any absence irrespective of the timescale, though I suspect "subject to the school's etc." clause allows for some wriggle room on that presumbaly to avoid confrontation.

Delphi91

EoghanRua wrote: »

I was aware of this all right but this is to do with the school's legal obligation rather than the parents' which is what is up for discussion here - and specifically if that parents' obligation changeds with the passage of time i.e. after three months as opposed to one day.

Your interpretation seems to be reasonable - that parents do indeed have an obligation to give reasons for any absence irrespective of the timescale, though I suspect "subject to the school's etc." clause allows for some wriggle room on that presumbaly to avoid confrontation.

I'm not sure that a school has a legal right to an explanation - the obligation lies with the other party. All one can do is ask. One can stipulate the type of information expected and this is usually done in the school's Code of Behaviour which schools will ask parents to sign before admitting the child to the school.

I'm not aware that the parental obligation to notify the school of the reasons for absence is time-dependent i.e. "ah sure it's over 3 months now, you don't have to bother telling us". I take it to mean that the parent is obliged to explain every absence.

RH149

The parents obligation to inform the school might not be time dependent but anyone who submits the reports to the NEWB will know that absences reported under the 'Unexplained' category (school is legally obliged to report the reasons given, if any) can't then become 'explained' a few months later when Johnny brings in a note from his parent/guardian explaining all those absences months ago. Spent hrs once trawling through figures trying find my mistake when the report wouldn't send -just kept getting the Error message. Eventually realised that the 27 days entered under Category A 'Unexplained' which I was now counting as E 'Illness' (Johnny's Mam suddenly remembered in April why he was absent all those different days in November/Dec etc) could not be explained away several months later. The figures once reported can never be submitted as reduced numbers.....Year Heads still accept the notes, months late sometimes, but the NEWB doesnt.......what they actually do about the poor attenders??? Who knows?? Our biggest offenders in terms of absenteeism are 5th and 6th yrs who are mostly over 16 anyway so NEWB has no interest in them. I've always thought that for those students especially, their Childrens allowance should be cut if they don't have acceptible attendance (obviously medical certs /serious health issues aside). I don't understand why they have to get those forms stamped to say they are still in full time Education once they turn 16 if their parents still get the allowance regardless of their attendance.

ulysses32

Parent is the primary educator. Parent is also the primary educator in Lanzarote, well under the Irish Constitution anyway.

ulysses32

I missed sixty days in school. My teachers were unhappy. They made a comnplaint to the NEWB. I got my exams and my place in college (MED). Is there a difference beteween education and schooling?

Chuchoter

Eh they're 5th years and therefore most likely over 16, they themselves are not legally obliged to go anymore.

Powerhouse

crayolastereo wrote: »

Eh they're 5th years and therefore most likely over 16, they themselves are not legally obliged to go anymore.

But this completely misses the point being raised. Nobody is suggesting that anyone after a certain age is legally obliged to attend school. The question here revolves around their responsibilities when they do give an undertaking to attend school. I am not legally obliged to drive a car but if I decide to do so there are legal considerations I have to adhere to.

Powerhouse

ulysses32 wrote: »

I missed sixty days in school. My teachers were unhappy. They made a comnplaint to the NEWB. I got my exams and my place in college (MED). Is there a difference beteween education and schooling?

Is there a difference between education and schooling? I would suggest schooling is a subset of education - seriously educated people (as opposed to those who think merely having a degree makes them educated) will have massively broad reading and experience which schooling per se could never provide. Yet, it would be extremely rare that schooling would not be the basis for such further personal development.

Could you become a Doctor without attending college? Would you be considered 'educated' enough without formal schooling? Not sure about that. I think we need to be careful about drawing trite distinctions when we are talking in generalities.

But notwithstanding that debate, you'll always have the guy who never showed up in college and got a first in his degree and so on. But we tend to have rules which govern the majority of cases for good reasons.

And yes you'll have the person (and I personally know some) who doesn't show up for school but will be found in the local library studying and at a certain stage that is probably a better option for them. However, legislating on the basis of what this minority does would probably be a bad idea given that much school absence is as likely to be just mindless truancy, or indicative of other problems, as it is to be clandestine study.

There is also the small matter of schools being 'in loco parentis' so if pupils can feel free to waltz out of the school at any time of day without explaining anything to anyone because there is some nebulous (and highly challengable depending on the circumstances) constitutional right based on their age, that might well have legal repercussions for schools. If we are removing the 'in loco parentis' aspect and want to turn the senior cycle in second-level schools into pseudo third-level colleges where the college/school has no exceptional responsibility (other than the standard one of reasonable care) for the pupils that is a different matter.

Delphi91

ulysses32 wrote: »

I missed sixty days in school. My teachers were unhappy. They made a comnplaint to the NEWB...

They're legally obliged to - not make a complaint, but to report your absence to the NEWB. Once the cumulative number of absences exceeds 20 days (explained or not), your name will be on the next report to the NEWB provided, that is, that you're under sixteen and have not completed 3 years of second level education.

Delphi91

RH149 wrote: »

...I've always thought that for those students especially, their Childrens allowance should be cut if they don't have acceptible attendance (obviously medical certs /serious health issues aside). I don't understand why they have to get those forms stamped to say they are still in full time Education once they turn 16 if their parents still get the allowance regardless of their attendance.

Sarkozy is attempting to introduce this measure in France and I hope he succeeds. A number of us in my school have been advocating this for ages, but Irish politicians don't have the b***s to do it.

As for the stamping of forms, we refuse to stamp the form for students who don't attend. We've had students in 5th year and 6th year who to all intents and purposes have dropped out of school (they might attend a few days each month). They turn up with the form and are politely told No.