After repeated pushes and further threats of legal action, the Education Secretary has finally confirmed to schools that his hardline approach to attendance does not prevent them from authorising absences for children from clinically vulnerable families.

After making that concession back in October, the Education Secretary then announced an even more uncompromising approach to attendance which seemed to overturn it. Last week, he confirmed to Good Law Project that that was not his intention, but failed to explain that to schools. 

But he has now issued a clarification which is welcome, if overdue, by sending schools updated guidance. This reiterates that, “as usual, schools are able to grant leaves of absence for pupils in exceptional circumstances”. This important disclaimer was missing from the letter he sent to schools in November asking them to deploy enforcement measures in order to maximise attendance.

As a new variant spreads and the country enters ‘Plan B’ measures, many families unhappily find themselves in exactly the kind of “exceptional circumstances” that justify taking their children out of classes. 

Now, parents, children, teachers and headteachers can all read from the same page as to the rules and exceptions. We trust that schools will continue to recognise that they have the discretion, and in some cases the legal duty, to authorise absences for children for whom going to school represents a particular risk. 

You can read more about this saga of Government miscommunication and clarification here. 

Read the full letter from the Education Secretary to Good Law Project here. 

We encourage parents to share the guidance with their child’s school to ensure they are following the most up-to-date instructions.

We have some great news this evening: the Secretary of State has, at last, conceded that schools need to be sensitive to families’ particular needs when considering requests for absence due to Covid.

In an email update to all early years, children’s social care, schools and further education providers this afternoon, he said:

We know many schools have, until now, understood that the Education Secretary’s guidance meant they could only authorise Covid-related absences if a child tests positive for Covid-19.

They should now be in no doubt that such a narrow interpretation is unlawful.

Like the Secretary of State, we believe that attending school is important for the education, well-being and long-term development of most students. But for some families who have clinically extremely vulnerable members, that is simply not possible.

To help explain the Education Secretary’s new guidance, we will soon publish a briefing note, which we hope will help both schools and parents. Schools will need to consider requests for absence fairly and sympathetically, taking into account their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

This is a big win for clinically extremely vulnerable families, but it is only the first step. Our work will now turn to making sure that schools approve reasonable requests for leave, and provide full remote education for children who cannot go into school.

Schools and local authorities should be in no doubt that we will continue to work with our legal team – Fiona Scolding QC, Yaaser Vanderman and leading education law solicitors Simpson Millar – to support individual challenges to schools that fail to live up to their legal duties.

Thank you for your support.

After originally saying it needed until 24 September to respond to our lawyers' letter, Government told us that it needed even more time (until 6 October). We think the matter is too urgent to delay, so we have now sent a formal Pre-action Protocol letter to the Secretary of State for Education, Nadhim Zahawi.

All we are asking him to do is explain to schools and local authorities that children who are vulnerable, or who have vulnerable people living in their household, should not be forced in to school while it represents a serious risk. (And thanks to the lack of mitigation measures in place, schools currently represent an extremely serious risk for unvaccinated children - Chris Whitty has said it is "inevitable" they will become infected.)

Good Law Project has three co-claimants in the proposed legal action:

Claimant 2 is a mother whose 14 year-old son (S) is clinically extremely vulnerable. His second vaccine dose is scheduled for December. Her other son (R) is 10 years-old, too young to be vaccinated. But R's school insisted he had to attend and refused to provide remote education - despite the risk to his brother. Eventually she felt she had no choice but to deregister him. After weeks of fighting, R's school have now agreed to make concessions - but his mother doesn't think she (or anyone else) should have to fight so hard to protect their family.

Claimant 3 is a clinically extremely vulnerable mother who is awaiting her booster jab. Her 12 year-old son is also vulnerable due to severe asthma; he recently became eligible for vaccination, and she wanted to keep him at home until he was fully protected. However, his school refused to compromise, and she felt she had no choice but to send him back. Within 11 days her son had contracted COVID-19. He became seriously unwell and narrowly avoided hospitalisation. Claimant 3 is now infected herself, as is her other daughter. All of this could have been avoided if the school had been flexible.

Claimant 4 is immunosuppressed and awaiting her booster jab. Her 13 year-old daughter is extremely anxious about bringing COVID-19 home before her mother is fully protected; she wants to wait until both she and her mother are fully vaccinated before going back. But it has been made clear to Claimant 4 that further delay will lead to fines and/or prosecution. She does not want to deregister her daughter from a school she loves, but feels she may have no other choice.

We have heard from dozens of families facing similar heartbreaking decisions. All of this could be avoided if Government issued guidance explaining that schools and local authorities should be flexible about authorising absences and providing remote education, instead of insisting on attendance at all costs.

We hope to have a positive update soon. Thank you for your support.

In light of the change in personnel in the Department for Education, where Nadhim Zahawi has now replaced Gavin Williamson as Education Secretary, Government has said it needs until the end of this week (Friday 24th September) to respond to our lawyers' letter. We have agreed to that extension and have reiterated the kind of changes that need to be made to the official guidance to protect vulnerable families.

We are cautiously hopeful that Mr Zahawi will do the right thing and resolve the situation urgently.

A further update will follow as soon as we have Government's response - thank you for your continued support.

Our lawyers have written to Education Secretary Gavin Williamson today, asking him to urgently clarify school attendance guidance so that it considers the needs of vulnerable families - and threatening formal legal proceedings if he does not. 

The Government’s new rules and lack of Covid protections in schools place parents from clinically vulnerable families in an impossible position: either they risk prosecution by keeping their kids at home to protect their family’s health, or risk loved ones’ lives by sending their children to school. 

This is urgent. We are already aware of at least one case in which an immunosuppressed parent was criminally prosecuted for their child’s absence from school. Other parents tell us they’ve been bullied into deregistering their child by schools worried about attendance figures, leaving their child without formal education and causing enormous strain to family life.

We believe the Government’s stance puts lives at risk and is unlawful. 

We want schools, local authorities and Government to stop the bullying, stop the threats of fines and prosecutions, and show some basic compassion by taking this on a case-by-case basis.

We are asking the Government to update the guidance to ensure that schools are aware that absences of children from vulnerable households can be recognised as authorised, and that they should provide remote learning where needed for vulnerable families.

This is no time for politics. 

Vulnerable children or family members are going to die, unnecessarily, if the Government carries on pretending in the face of all the evidence that the pandemic is over.

If you are in a position to do so, you can donate to the legal action here.  

We are grateful to the grass-roots organisations that support us, and whom we support, in this work including ShieldUs, The Hive, Clinically Vulnerable Families, The Vulnerable and Shielding Network, One Voice, Safe Ed for All, Parents United, and Long Covid Kids.