AIBU to tell you it is not illegal to take your child out of school to go on holiday

[Pseudonym99]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34543101

your definition of unreasonable is at odds with most people here.

But most people here are at odds with the current government. And several teaching unions. So I'm definitely not alone!

the problem cases are not arbitrarily defined. they are kids who HT's deem are wbeing held back because of attendance. by definition, problem cases would be a minority.

But what if the parent disagrees with the HT? HT already have the discretion not to issue a fine, even if the absence was unauthorised. In the case of the OP, the HT deemed it appropriate.

But what if the parent disagrees with the HT? HT already have the discretion not to issue a fine, even if the absence was unauthorised. In the case of the OP, the HT deemed it appropriate.

fining people isn't going to help anyone. No one should be fined. Ever. what should happen is that parents who can't get their kids to school most days should be given a talking to and help. Everyone else should be left alone.

what should happen is that parents who can't get their kids to school most days should be given a talking to and help. Everyone else should be left alone.

But that's your definition of the 'problem cases', and your suggested solution.
Even using your approach Someone still has to decide when intervention should kick in - and what happens when a 'talking to' doesn't work and they refuse help.
Everything is subjective. And someone has to decide.
HTs already have discretion based on their knowledge of the child and family circumstances.

But that's your definition of the 'problem cases', and your suggested solution.

No. "problem cases" should be a problem, not just a problem because you define them to be.

yes, you have to set a bar somewhere, and that place should be where most people don't get ensnared by it for taking their kids somewhere fun for a few days. those simply aren't problem cases those are ordinary families.

Everything is subjective. And someone has to decide.

yes. things are subjective. so let's use that subjectivity to help families have a good family life, and not take a hard line at the cost of goodwill and flexibility.

No. "problem cases" should be a problem, not just a problem because you define them to be.

But what you think is a problem may not be to someone else. What you think is a hard line will be too soft in someone else's opinion.

There has to be a standard against which all HT can judge the case in front of them.
Someone has to define what that standard is.

Currently, the government of the day does that. Arguably, that's the most democratic way of doing it because if the electorate doesn't agree, they can vote for a government with a different standard.

SouthAmericanCuisine the government research and the conclusions it reaches are flawed. I have read the background papers and the research on this and it is obvious. Someone somewhere in government wanted to be seen to be "doing something about education standards and feckless parents" Instead of going after the serial offenders those kids who miss one or more days a week every week, they did what all politicians do: they went for the quick win.

this way the minister can stand up and show that X% less days have been lost and this will correlate to and increase of Y% in results.

Its all bollocks.

anyone with Maths O level can work this out. they are tackling the easy quick wins and not the real problem.

my DD went to school in Primary for 7 years with a girl who never ever did a full week in school - never. she has carried this on in senior school. I am in no doubt because of this her educational attainment will be less than it could have been. so why wasn't the resources put in to supporting her mum who kept her off to keep her company when she was ill/depressed/fed up/bored? not taken to court or fined or given support.

I have and will continue to take all 3 of my DC's out of school in term time for a holiday. I am self employed and my job means that I work all school hols and most weekends. if I didn't do this the opportunity to have time altogether as a family would not be there. being self employed means we all in effect "live above the shop" and I am working odd hours and thinking about my job more than if it were 9-5. its not a choice. if I don't do this then my staff will be made redundant and I will struggle to get another job in my late 50's.

and before you type it SouthAmericanCuisine eldest has 13 GCSE's all A* and A and 4A's at AS looking at studying STEM subject at uni, middle is taking 13 and predicted the same. youngest taking 10 no predictions but expecting a similar level of attainment. that's how much their education has suffered because I have insisted on taking them out of school for 2 weeks each and every year to go and do something they are interested in like look at architecture or paintings or history or brush up on a language.

I could be fined. the girl in DD's class who misses a day a week is still missing a day a week and no one gives a shit about it. that's the tragedy in all of this. the quick easy wins means the tough nuts never get polished let alone cracked.

I have and will continue to take all 3 of my DC's out of school in term time for a holiday.

And I don't have an issue with that.

I also dont have an issue with the fact that people disagree with the Governments legislation or the research being used to support it.

What I do struggle with is parents who know the law, disobey the law, but because they disagree with it, expect dispensation from being held accountable for breaking it.
There are lots of laws people don't agree with, but on the whole they abide by them and if they don't, they are punished.

I think if you're willing to remove your child from education to sit on a beach for a couple of weeks then you don't value education very highly.

But mummy how on earth do you know what was put in place to support this child. The child could be on a CP plan for all you know. Maybe they do give a shit just haven't informed you about it.

I think if you're willing to remove your child from education to sit on a beach for a couple of weeks then you don't value education very highly

It's not as simple as that. All parents place different priorities on education and family time. When a parent who places a high value on family time has limited opportunity to spend time with their DCs during school holidays, they may prioritise that family time over education.

The government has regulated the state education system which means that when those parents make that choice they are punished.

SouthAmericanCuisine this is not technically "a law" in the same way that wearing a seatbelt is and not smoking in pubs. It is the law to make sure that your child is being educated. it isn't the law that you cant take them out on holiday.

I am obeying the law. I am ensuring that all of my children are properly educated. their results bear this out. they are receiving a good standard of education and I am supporting it. there are no laws being broken here. that was why the court case was won. the law says your child has to be properly educated and this father was able to demonstrate this so the case was thrown out.

I don't disagree with the legislation. I think all children should be properly educated and that action should be taken against all and any parents when this occurs.

should there be some hard and fast rule that 1 week out is Ok but 2 isn't? No, because one size does not and never will fit all.

the right and proper person to decide if my children are receiving an adequate education and that I am not preventing this from happening is the head teacher. that is what he/she is paid for. to make these kinds of judgements. he/she is also paid to tell the lazy arse parents who are late every bloody day or who take their children out once a week every week that this is not acceptable and that action will be taken, initially to support but if this fails then a fine.

what is at issue here is that heads didn't like doing this. they wanted to avoid the confrontation so they got the govt to step in and bring in the draconian one size fits all. now the heads are allowed to be weak and say "oohh out of my hands its the law".

No this is wrong. if you are paid this salary then you should damn well deal with the problem kids and their parents. and if they threaten you or they are abusive, call the bloody police on them. that's the right way to deal with it.

I think if you're willing to remove your child from education to sit on a beach for a couple of weeks then you don't value education very highly

Or you have a different educational philosophy and value very highly some aspects of education that are not given priority within the education system at present? You realise that children don't stop learning because they are not at school, that free play is the most valuable education for children, as that is when they experience, experiment with concepts and creativity and consolidate their learning as well as building confidence? You value relationships with siblings and parents just as much as academic learning? You look at your child's overall education - emotional, psychological, social and academic?

singsongsungagain I have never had a holiday where I have "sat on a beach" in my life and neither have my children. read my thread and work out the kind of holidays that we have.

I value education very highly. but I also take responsibility for that education and ensuring that my kids receive an all round education and that includes what they learn from me.

birdsdestiny I know what was or rather wasn't put in place because I was friendly with the family and tried to offer them as much help and support as I could including calling round for the child to walk her in to school. I sat with the mum on more occasions than I care to think about and can tell you categorically - she got no support at all. it was just accepted by the school that the girl had a cold, had a tooth ache, had a tummy ache, had overslept and a million and one other pathetic reasons.

thank you auntyclot

the right and proper person to decide if my children are receiving an adequate education and that I am not preventing this from happening is the head teacher. that is what he/she is paid for. to make these kinds of judgements. he/she is also paid to tell the lazy arse parents who are late every bloody day or who take their children out once a week every week that this is not acceptable and that action will be taken, initially to support but if this fails then a fine.

In the case highlighted in the OP, the HT decided to issue a fine. They didn't have to.

They make these decisions every day. Whether to authorise an absence or not, whether to fine or not, whether to refer to EWO or not.
As far as I am aware, no one has directed any HT to issue fines for all unauthorised absences.

SouthAmericanCuisine our education authority sent out letters to all parents and all schools on Thursday saying that any absence above 4 days in any given school year running concurrently should be fined. no ifs no buts. this was the policy and all heads must enforce it. the head teachers where I live are up in arms. those that haven't yet broken away and become free schools are now going to look at it again following this letter.

this was the policy and all heads must enforce it.

Despite what some LAs like to imply, they don't have the final say on school policies - governing bodies do.
Plenty of schools have disregarded their LA and adopted their own attendance management policy. The HTs in your area need to look to their GBs to support them.

It really does depend. In my year 11 English class of have a girl who has had three weeks off on holiday already this half term for holidays. Last year she had about seven weeks off. A lot of hard work from me means she has all necessary controlled assessments. Sadly she won't reach her target grade. Dad just pays the fines.

You don't think that if her life was so chaotic that she couldn't even get her child to school, that its possible she may not tell you what interventions were in place. I know one mum who continually talked about the lack of support she received to anyone who would listen, when in fact there were numerous agencies involved and eventually her child was removed. Cases like that are often highly complex and take a long time to resolve. To the outside it can look like nothing is happening. Or it may have been a rubbish school who knows. But not sure how that case proves anything.

birdsdestiny every one of my staff knows at least one child like this around here. there are whole families. the mother I knew couldn't read well so I read all post/emails / correspondence to her. she just kept being offered help, someone would come round and assess then leave their job and a new person would come in.

pieceofpurplesky this dad is breaking the law. he is not ensuring his child has a proper education and should have the book thrown at him imo. why did she have 7 weeks off?

Blimey.... most kids in UK go go school.....most kids in UK have THIRTEEN WEEKS holiday.....if you have kids in the UK you go on a bit of a Shiite holiday unless you can afford it......end of

tshirtsuntan if you read the thread you will see there are a few occupations and jobs where people have to work during the 13 weeks school holidays. if you want a 24 hour society with everything there when you want it and nothing closing its doors for a traditional working day/week then this is the corollary.

52 weeks a year, 13 weeks holiday and it's impossible to take one or two weeks annual leave in that time? Even if booked a year in advance? I find that very hard to believe and believe still(even after reading the full thread) that most term time holidays are financially motivated.

Wow what razor sharp insight "term time holidays are financially motivated".

How about reading the thread it's actually not about why people take term holidays but the legalities of it.

Currently, the government of the day does that. Arguably, that's the most democratic way of doing it because if the electorate doesn't agree, they can vote for a government with a different standard.

governments of the day do a lot of draconian things. Being democratic isn't a virtue in itself. what you are saying is that a government defines what's reasonable, and that's clearly wrong.