MP's to debate school holiday rules/fines on 24th February

[mummymeister]

Please can I ask anyone who feels as strongly as I do to write to their MP and ask for the changes in the rules regarding school holidays to be reversed. there is a back bench debate at 4.30pm on the 24th February and it is really important to bring this issue to the fore. There have been so many stories on MN of people wanting a day for funeral, to attend a family event, to visit family abroad that I know if all of us affected or who feel strongly write in at least we will have tried.

I did not say it was the thing that most affects the performance of pupils. Of course it isn't. But it does have an effect.

Lorely Burt appears to be making up figures. Not one of the figures he quotes is correct.

Authorised family holidays accounted for 10.7% of absences in primary schools which translated into 0.5% of sessions missed. When a child goes to secondary school the figure falls to 3.2% representing 0.2% of sessions missed. Overall authorised family holidays represent 0.3% of sessions missed.

Another way of looking at it is that if you factor out sickness and medical/dental appointments (which between them account for nearly two thirds of all absence), family holidays are the biggest single cause of absence. In primary schools they account for over half the total remaining absences. So if you want to improve primary school attendance it is the obvious target to go for.

Burt is also wrong when he states that absence for family holidays is lower among persistently absent pupils. Persistently absent pupils miss at least 1.2% of sessions due to family holidays. For other pupils the figure is only 0.4%. Given that I am not aware of any LA that will fine a parent unless the pupil has missed 5 days in one term or 10 days in a year it is the parents of persistently absent pupils that are being fined.

My dd is a bridesmaid for sil on Friday, she's tr 7, excellent attendance record and yet I'm having to lie and say she's ill to attend wedding and we have to drive up there in the day to avoid another day off.
I'm too scared to ask for the time which is a real shame.
Surely a church wedding of a close family member is part if our heritage and culture.

The fact is it's consistent truancy that has an impact on GCSEs,not doing homework etc.

The odd 5 days off no more than once a year during primary school for any otherwise good attender is not going to have an impact.

If it is then they'd better scrap sport fixtures,music lessons,PPA time.......

It is not about prices, it is about government continuously clawing at individual liberties and attacking the family unit. We already are being commanded at what our children can and cannot have, from haircuts to lunchboxes, now penalising people for trying to have their lives a little bit less dull.
Call me selfish and entitled, but family holidays are a lifetime opportunity and memories, just another ordinary day at school, especially end of term, really isn't.

prh47bridge - I hope that you are really sure of your facts here because it is not a good idea to accuse an MP of not telling the truth in the HoC. That aside, we are still only talking about 0.3% . so the other figures are for sick leave etc. The children I know about my DC's school who are persistently off are calling in sick. so what this proves is that there is even more reason to look at the other 99.9 or 99.7% of reasons for being off rather than the 0.1 or 0.3%. If you want to improve primary attendance holidays is NOT the target to go for. Persistent days off due to imaginary illnesses are. separating those with real health problems and not witch hunting them but targeting the effort at the others, this is what should be being done. Those with real health problems just don't need a standard letter telling them about attendance. they need time taken to understand their needs. sorry, but the figures you quote back at me make me even more angry. Oh, lets argue over whether its 0.1 or 0.3% because there is such a huge gulf between these two figures. Well there isn't is there. Its pathetically small and when other MN see that all this crap is going on for 0.1 or 0.3% I hope they feel as cross as I do.

Lorley Burt is a woman. If 'he' was making things up then it was a man impersonating her.

I agree with her sledgehammer/nut point

We used five days of term time the last two years to afford a week in the sun. Single parent, three kids, can't afford it now. My eldest two are 1/2 years ahead academically at the moment so they haven't suffered at all. Attendance 98%

It's bloody unfair that our head has no authority to let is have a little time off anymore

Gordy - I know shes a woman. I watched it and read along with the transcript. prh47bridge is an expert yet strangely wont tell us how they have all these stats at their fingertips yet claim not to be political. whether its 0.1 or 0.3% all this goes to show is that Gove slid this measure in through the back door with no consultation and is actually doing bugger all about the real issue of the other 99.7/99.9% of reasons why kids aren't in school.

Take one child out of school for a fortnight. Add maybe 10 days off through illness (which wouldn't be that unusual) and that's 10% of the days they are expected to be at school missed. One week holiday, one week ill - that's still 5%.

I don't think that's in a child's best interests, not year in, year out at least.

These figures are more pertinent than holidays add a % of all absences, imo.

as a %

Sadly schools are not doing bugger all about the 99+%. Some at least are pursuing heavy handed and officious policy in relation to sickness absence as well.

We have had the most ridiculous letter home telling us we should be taking our children to the GP or walk in centre every time they are ill, even if it's just one day. This is clearly a message that they don't trust parents to tell the truth about children's illness but is putting their desperate scrabble for attendence figures above the health and wellbeing of the majority of children who are actually ill. Not to mention it would be incredibly costly for the NHS, would spread disease and further breaks down any pretence at a partnership between parents and the school.

10 days through illness?? blimey Johnny add together what all 3 of mine have had over the last 10 years and it doesn't come to 10 days. very, very few kids have 2 weeks off sick per year. how many days have your kids had in the last 12 months. I go back to the figures 0.1/0.3 % lost due to holidays. tiny amount. investigate the sickness statistics surely. can more support be given to those with long term health problems. if so how. can support be given to the cant be arsed parents who ring in sick once a week. if you are going to tackle something then surely you start with the 99.7/99.9% first not the 0.1/0.3%

I hope that you are really sure of your facts here because it is not a good idea to accuse an MP of not telling the truth in the HoC

Being pedantic, she (sorry for getting her sex wrong last night) wasn't in the House of Commons. This debate was in Westminster Hall. And yes, I am certain of my facts. I got them from the official statistics. No idea where hers came from. And to be honest I don't really think she made the figures up. I just think she needs a new researcher. These figures are not difficult to find.

Yes, days off due to imaginary illnesses are also a target to aim for but the evidence suggests that these are relatively low. And absences for illness are a much lower proportion of total absences for persistently absent children than for other children. For what it is worth schools are trying to reduce this by demanding evidence of illness when there is any doubt (and sometimes even when there is no reason for doubt).

Rather than look at percentages that are inevitably very low (even persistently absent children manage 79% attendance and overall attendance is around 95%), let me translate that into what it really means for a class. In total 0.7% of sessions are missed due to family holidays, both authorised and unauthorised. If we add in days for weddings, funerals, etc. that rises to 1.3%. For a typical primary school class of 30 children that means on average 2 days every week there will be a child missing for one of these reasons.

prh47bridge is an expert yet strangely wont tell us how they have all these stats at their fingertips

I have not refused to tell you how I found these figures. You haven't asked. A simple Google search for "school absence statistics uk" turns up the correct stats in seconds. To assist you, they are in this spreadsheet. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are the relevant ones. These figures relate to 2011/12. The 2012/13 figures have not yet been published.

Gove slid this measure in through the back door with no consultation

The regulations went through the normal route for a statutory instrument. That means parliament had the opportunity to reject these regulations.

It's bloody unfair that our head has no authority to let is have a little time off anymore

Your head does have authority to let you have time off. The head can still approve absence in exceptional circumstances.

Just to criticise my own methodology, the 2 days a week figure assumes the relevant absences don't overlap, i.e. if Joe is off on a family holiday there is no other child in the class missing on a holiday, wedding, funeral or similar. So I have overstated the case. I don't have any statistics that help us get to the true figure. My guess would be that it is somewhere between 1 and 2 days per week. Mea culpa.

Also I've just noticed that I failed to say that persistently absent children only manage 79% attendance in primary school. Overall attendance including secondary and special schools is around 75%.

Thanks to Paintyfingers, Medetrina, Tiggytape and anyone I've missed for your kind comments.

If you go to education boards, and see how much worried parents are having to supplement education already in primary, worried to death about supporting their dc because they have no faith in schools, its embarrassing.

And yet taking dc out for a holiday once a year is supposed to hold them back in some way, as if this is the sole reason for the massive problems with our schools.

schools are demanding evidence from people that they know have long standing illnesses with the use of standard letters. sledge hammer and nut principle yet again. they should know who these pupils are. asking people to provide evidence from doctors of illness is completely and utterly bonkers and you should know that prh47. try getting a doctors appointment for a temperature in a child or d and v. today. no chance certainly not here. then ask that doctor for a sick note. again no chance. I would just take my child into school and ask to see the school nurse and let her decide. doctors are horrified by schools asking for this. they are already flat out. what this shows, yet again, is people in education not thinking through the implication or effect their decisions, their standard letters have on others. Heres the reality. there are parents out there who pull sickies for their kids when they cannot be arsed to get up and take them to school. or they are lonely and want their child home with them. this is what is disruptive. the children that are always late. the children that never do their homework. the children that arrive at school having had no breakfast. the children who are never collected on time. the children who don't know how to sit on the carpet and listen to a story.

Thanks for this OP.
To me it's all about respect for families and parents and a belief in a home-school partnership.
I feel strongly that the "rules and regulations" have gone too far.
I feel things were much better before these changes when HT's could use their discretion.
Fortunately the HT at my DC's school has been very reasonable in authorising occasional half-day absences so that my dd could join exciting and educational trips with other young people in the half-term hols.
When she was in reception I took her out for a week to visit family with her younger brother, whilst my DH was working away from home.

Heres the reality. there are parents out there who pull sickies for their kids when they cannot be arsed to get up and take them to school. or they are lonely and want their child home with them. this is what is disruptive. the children that are always late. the children that never do their homework. the children that arrive at school having had no breakfast. the children who are never collected on time. the children who don't know how to sit on the carpet and listen to a story

The children who do not even know their name!

They also hang onto very sick children at school, unless they are visibly vomiting...to keep stats up

doctors are horrified by schools asking for this

Doctors need to also be complaining then. Our docs is flat out too I cant imagine them welcoming this either, but if they don't want it - they need to speak out or write the letters and put on extra clinics!

My own views for what they are worth...

Given the evidence showing a link between attendance and outcomes it is not surprising that politicians of all colours want to reduce absence, particularly persistent absence.

Pressure on politicians was increased by the report by Charlie Taylor. This recommended a crackdown on primary school absence based in part on evidence that high levels of absence at this level often lead to higher levels of absence at secondary school.

I have yet to find any evidence of an LA that fines parents for a single absence when attendance is otherwise good. The target is to reduce persistent absence. It would therefore in my view be wrong to fine parents in this way. The fines should be targeted at those with higher levels of absence. This does appear to be what is actually happening.

I think head teachers are the right people to decide what absences should be authorised. They are in possession of all the facts and are far better placed to decide than the LA or the government.

Some head teachers are setting too high a bar for "exceptional circumstances". Indeed, I am aware of some who have said they will not authorise any absence. This is wrong. Total consistency is impossible but the current level of inconsistency is too high. Whilst I don't think the government should produce a definitive checklist of what is and isn't allowed I do think it would be helpful if they produced some guidance for schools on this subject.

Some head teachers are telling parents that they no longer have any discretion over holidays. They are either misinformed or, more likely, adopting a blanket approach allowing them to blame the government. This is wrong. Head teachers do have discretion and should not be operating a blanket policy refusing all requests. Such a policy may be illegal.

I am not sure if there is any justification for the different approaches used by different LAs with some using fines extensively, others avoiding them and preferring other methods to reduce absence. Whilst I am broadly in favour of each LA setting its own policy to reflect local conditions it is confusing for parents if neighbouring LAs adopt widely differing approaches. I'm not sure how to solve this one as I wouldn't want to see Westminster impose a uniform approach.

Given that children have 170 days off school every year I find it difficult to accept the argument that additional days off are needed for a normal family life.