Category: Government Policy

Changes to the T-code guidance

Spot the difference!

Below are the sections of the guidance relating to how schools should record the absences of children of economically nomadic families. The left-hand column shows the guidance in force until the 19th August 2024, the right-hand one the guidance applying after that date.

Working together to
improve school
attendance

Guidance for maintained schools,
academies, independent schools, and
local authorities
Published: May 2022
Applies from: September 2022
Code T: Traveller absence
  1. A number of different groups are covered by the generic term traveller – Roma, English and Welsh Gypsies, Irish and Scottish Travellers, Showmen (fairground people) and Circus people, Bargees (occupational boat dwellers) and New Travellers.
  2. This code should not be used for general absences by those groups. It must only be used when the pupil’s parent(s) is travelling for occupational purposes and the school has granted a leave of absence following a request from the parent. This code should not be used to record any other types of absence by these groups.
  3. Pupils from these groups whose parent(s) do not travel for occupational purposes are expected to attend school as normal. They are subject to the same rules as other pupils in terms of the requirements to attend school regularly once registered at a school.
  4. Where a pupil has no fixed abode because their parent(s) is engaged in a business or trade that requires them to travel, there is an expectation that the pupil attends at least 200 sessions per year. The pupil must attend school as regularly as the business permits and therefore, if the business or trade permits the pupil to attend for more than 200 sessions per year, they should do so.
  5. To help ensure continuity of education for pupils, when their parent(s) is travelling for occupational purposes, it is expected that the pupil should attend school elsewhere when their parent(s) is travelling and be dual registered at that school and their main school.

Working together
to improve school
attendance

Statutory guidance for maintained
schools, academies, independent
schools and local authorities
Published: 29 February 2024
Applies from: 19 August 2024
Code T: Parent travelling for occupational purposes
  1. The pupil is a mobile child and their parent(s) is travelling in the course of their trade or business and the pupil is travelling with them. A mobile child is a child of compulsory school age who has no fixed abode and whose parent(s) is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require them to travel from place to place.
  2. Schools should not unnecessarily ask for proof that the parent is travelling for occupational purposes, this should only happen when there are genuine and reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the reason for absence given. If there is doubt over the reason given, the school may ask for proof that the family are required to travel for occupational purposes during the period of absence.
  3. To help ensure continuity of education for pupils, when their parent(s) is travelling for occupational purposes in England, it is expected that the pupil should attend a school where their parent(s) is travelling and be dual registered at that school and their main school.
  4. This code is classified for statistical purposes as authorised absence.
  5. Whilst for statistical purposes this is counted as authorised absence, if a pupil’s attendance was to fall below an acceptable level consideration may be given to attendance enforcement.

The law has not changed and ACERT is unclear what the purpose of the change is. This change has not been discussed at the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Stakeholder group.

In 2011 the Coalition Government proposed the repeal of section 444 of the Education Act 1996 which :

protects travelling parents from being found guilty of school
attendance offence if their child is absent from school, in certain
circumstances.

Improving educational outcomes for children of travelling families

ACERT along with many other organisations responded to the consultation arguing that this change would increase the difficulties faced by nomadic families and would not improve attendance. The Government did not go ahead with the repeal so parents can still argue that they are not guilty of an offence provided that they are of no fixed abode when travelling and:

(a) parents are engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to
require them to travel from place to place, and
(b) the child has attended at a school as a registered pupil as regularly as the nature of that trade or business permits, and
(c) if the child has attained the age of six, that he or she has made at
least 200 attendances during the period of 12 months ending with the date on which the proceedings were instituted.

Improving educational outcomes for children of travelling families

Friends and Families of Travellers received this clarification from the DoE.

“No fixed abode’ means that someone either does not have a settled place where they can live full-time, or they have a place where they can live full-time but they spend substantial periods of time not living there. So a mobile child could be a child whose family travels all year round as part of their trade or business and has no permanent address at all, but it also includes a child who does have a fixed place to live (like a house) but does not live there for a substantial part of the year, if their parent is engaged in a trade or business that requires them to travel from place to place. If the child is absent from school while travelling with that parent, then code T applies.”

FFT has drafted a template letter which parents can send to schools.

ACERT doesn’t know if this change in the guidance will make any significant difference to the experiences of families but we would like to hear from those who travel if they are facing new problems as a result.

ACERT makes the case

The House of Commons Education Committee has conducted an inquiry into the Education Challenges facing children and young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds

The Committee invited written submissions which address any or all of the following areas:

  • The educational challenges faced by children and young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds, including those in fixed housing. 
  • How the Government’s £1 million education programme for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children should be targeted.
  • Whether other initiatives and recommendations are needed to support the educational attainment and employment outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.

It also invited to give oral evidence our Chair, Lisa Smith, Pauline Anderson of The Traveller Movement, Emma Nuttall of Friends and Families of Travellers and Baroness Whitaker of the all-party committee on Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. You can watch the session below and read our written submission.

ACERT-submissionDownload

House of Commons Briefing paper

The House of Commons Library has just published a briefing paper on Gypsies and Travellers By Hannah Cromarty

Contents: 1. Who are Gypsies and Travellers? 2. Inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers 3. Racial discrimination 4. Hate crime 5. Accommodation 6. Planning 7. Health 8. Education 9. Employment and training 10. Benefits and tax credits 11. Criminal justice system

Icon

House of Commons Briefing Paper on Gypsies and Travellers 0 82 downloads

...
Download

Please add any comments below.

Pickles discriminates against Gypsies and Travellers – official

Mr Justice Gilbart, in a judgment handed down on 21 January 2015, found that Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government breached the Equality Act 2010 and of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The case involved two Romani Gypsies applying for planning permission for single pitch sites for themselves and their families in the Green Belt. The local planning authorities ( Bromley and Dartford ) refused them planning permission. They appealed to a Planning Inspector but the Secretary of State decided to make the decisions himself because the appeals involved “a traveller site in the Green Belt.”

The judgement said, “These are not to be dismissed as technical breaches. Although the issue of unlawful discrimination was put before the Minister by his officials, no attempt was made by the Minister to follow the steps required of him by statute, nor was the regard required of him by Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 had to the matters set out there.”

The Article 6 challenge succeeded because substantial delays have occurred in dealing with the appeals.  In the context of delay, Article 6 of the ECHR does no more than encapsulate the long standing principle of the common law that justice should not be unreasonably delayed, as it was and has been here.

The implications of this judgment are enormous.  The vast majority of all Gypsy and Traveller planning appeals that were recovered since the July 2013, when the change of policy was announced may now be challengeable due to the fact that the  practice of the policy was unlawful and discriminates against Gypsies and Travellers, fails to have regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and has caused unreasonable delays in terms of Article 6 of the ECHR. In future the Secretary of State will not be able to intervene in this way.

Congratulation to the Community Law Partnerships who ran the cases. Commenting in response to this ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission,  who intervened in the case, said:

“We have a duty to protect everyone from discrimination and ensure that the law is applied fairly, consistently and equally for all.

“We understand the need to be sensitive about green belt development but this should not be used to single out individuals for unlawful discrimination.

“Planning decisions should be taken on the merits of an application, not the characteristics of the applicant.”