To be scared about unauthorised absence?

[lakeful]

We currently live abroad but will be moving back to England in the next year, have two DCs who are in primary school. I sometimes have to do foreign travel with my job my DH (who is self-employed and very flexible) and DCs have occasionally come with me. I'm talking a period of maybe 4 weeks in total over the past two years. Where we live now, schools do encourage attendance but things are more relaxed than in England and there has not been any problem with me taking them out of school. I have been reading up on the English system and am a bit alarmed! Would I really have to get a Head Teacher's permission to take my own children abroad? Would I really be fined if I did this without their "authorisation"? And is it possible that they authorise children to miss school for reasons such as mine?

mummymeister I agree, the fining system is too hit-and-miss and as a result, unfair.

I do agree with the person who said that the dcs going off disrupts other chn. In my class we have different partners and groups for maths, phonics,general speaking and listening etc etc so it's as simple as the OP says 'they get a smaller class' The class dynamic can change completely through absences.

the man who took the council to court had more money than sense. this is not an avenue open to most people because of the cost.

Just to be clear, Mr Platt did not "take the council to court". He refused to pay a FPN issued by the LA - just like many parents do, and he was prosecuted by the local authority for doing so, just like many parents are.

What happened then is that not only did the magistrates fail to uphold the prosecution, agreeing instead that Mr Platt had ensured that his DC attended school regularly despite the absence for holiday, but the local authority decided to appeal that decision in The High Court. It is costing the LA a significant amount of money, and Mr Platt has launched a crowdfunding appeal to cover his own High Court legal costs. Mr Platt had, and has, no choice in the matter once the magistrates had made their decision. The LA is following the legal process open to it and it can't be stopped if Mr Platt decides he'd rather it didn't go any further.
I very much doubt he anticipated he'd be facing a £20,000 legal bill when he blithely decided not to pay the FPN!

In the meantime, Mr Platt as received another FPN from the same LA for further holiday absence, which he is also refusing to pay. He will be facing a further magistrate hearing shortly.

So , to summarise:

State school - get fined.

Independent school - don't get fined.

Doesn't seem 'equal' to me.

Why fine parents of state school children anyway? It doesn't help with persistent absence which is the type of absence that may have a negative affect on a child's education.

tiggytape and disappointedone apologies for the maths. I was clearly suffering from a lack of breakfast this morning so have just had a banana.

tiggytape under the old system our head would say yes to some and no to others. it felt like a partnership between her and the teachers and the families in our community. she said no to the families whose kids were the one day off a week ones not the ones who had persistent illness. she also did things like sorting out a walking bus that deliberately went past the homes of those kids who missed school to help them to get to school on time. it wasn't done in a obvious judgey sort of way. just the school and other parents offering support to a parent who was struggling.

we only took holidays pre-agreed with her first. we asked her which weeks would be the least disruptive - usually the last week before Christmas hols or Easter or just before summer hols or first week back and these are the ones that we took.

I have continued taking mine out in senior school and again the heads know why we have to take leave when we do because of our jobs and its done under discussion and agreement. my dc also buddy up with other kids so that notes are copied and e mailed to them so they can do some reading even when away.

I do feel it is my responsibility to make sure that they haven't missed anything in lessons not the individual teachers.

And unbelievably secondary schools did have parents ring up and ask if controlled assessments or even GCSE exam dates could be changed because "last year that exam wasn't so late in May and we've already booked our holiday"

Has imposing fines stopped this and made those parents care more about their children's education?

Bold fail, top paragraph is tiggy.

tiggytape I can see where you are coming from but one of the reasons the old system didn't work is because heads didn't want the confrontation.

no one does obviously want this in their work life. but when you manage people, you have to accept that saying no, sticking to it and it being unpleasant is part of life. Its not easy but heads were/are paid to do this. to tell people know and to deal with the fact that they will kick off about it. as long as the reasoning behind the no is sound and consistent then if the parents don't like it they can get their kids educated elsewhere.

it seems to me, from what you are saying, that heads supported the change because they really don't want to deal with the issues of consistency and confrontation. if that's the case, then that is very worrying. they are paid a decent enough salary to expect to have to deal with stroppy parents.

so what if someone asks for leave and is refused because their little darling misses a day a week. how is that unfair?

is the child who misses one day a week or who is late every day or tired or hungry any less disruptive than the one away for a week?

my reading of the situation now is that most heads can see that by bringing this in, their ability to use discretion has been eroded and that this makes them look more like the sort of "computer says no" head than someone in a profession . Initially it must have looked great, no need to explain the reason, just say the law is the law. but now of course it can be seen in the context of taking management away from heads and giving it to non teachers through the new legislation on academies.

jellyfrizz the stats suggest that long term absences - those pupils who miss many days and weeks of school - has actually gone up.

so, we were all told it was about dealing with absences and the effect on grades and on that measure it has been a spectacular failure.

maybe now Gove is no longer the wunderkind he was in call me daves eyes the government might get rid of this piece of legislation.

They won't. Thicky Morgan is cut from even worse cloth than Gove!

Tiggy, sorry but I just don't get it. it isn't about only allowing healthy, brainy children take holidays in term time. if little jonny is usually a 100% attender and his parents ask for a week off in term time then surely whether he is an A* candidate or in the bottom quartile, it should be given.

also, if a child is always off sick then it could be argued that a regular programmed period of absence would be more beneficial.

With all the testing that goes on teachers will know if little jonny has progressed since reception and that is surely the important thing. not some artificial high jump bar of attainment.

If I were a head teacher I would be very worried that having supported this particular rule, its left the door open to bring in far worse - namely administrators running academies not people with teaching qualifications. it happens in the NHS and its coming to schools. you can see it in the tone and language of the various education papers and bulletins from govt.

How many parents are going to turn around now and say, well what actual decisions do heads really make that needs them to be qualified teachers. the minute you bring in anything where it allows people to give the "computer says no" answer they lose their relevance and a clear definition of their role.

I was shocked at the time that heads and teachers didn't put up more of a fight against this because surely they could see what was ahead of them.

Yes I agree with this.
I work in a (completely different) job that involves saying no to clients sometimes. sometimes there are really subtle reasons why something can be approved in one context and not in another. sometimes someone gets arsey about this and says "but it is aapproved!" pointing at another slightly irrelevant example. I explain carefully and nicely that there is no such thing as "pre-approved", that everything is approved or not on a case by case basis, and in this case there are subtle but important differences. they always get it in the end -

BUT - I learnt a long time ago that the way to retain respect and authority is to OWN these decisions. Understand them, help them to understand them as far as you can, and be clear that I'm the guy who can tell you yes and no, because a. I'm an expert and b. I have legal contractual powers to take these decisions. This way they respect you

IF on the other hand, because people do get arsey and it can get very unpleasant, you just want to be everyone's friend and say "I am not allowed to approve this" all that happens is they think you are waste of space and they spend all their time trying to take things over your head, and you can't do your job any more

I don't understand why you say you can't home-educate? You say that you can cover the bit of maths and English that they will miss whilst you are travelling abroad. If this is all you think they are missing then I don't see why you can't apply the same principle to home education and fit it in along side your job?

PrettyBrightFireflies It doesn't cost anything extra to administer the public vote on the school budget because it's part of a wider vote. We vote once a year on various things - presidential/federal/state/town elections. The question is added on to that ballot each year. Some years we have a very long ballot with various elected posts listed, plus referendum questions, plus budget questions such as school budget and town budget.

Plus the effect of having the school budget scrutinised by the people who are paying for it ensures a fair amount of efficiency and accountability that would more than cover any cost of administering a vote.

lertgush it's simplistic to think it doesn't cost anything extra, as each question will have to be counted and ajudicated, but I am impressed with such a thorough embrace of democracy by your community.
What is the average turnout each year?
Has there ever been controversy, or does the community have a good grasp of the issues? My own experience of local government is less positive; the general
public mistrust politicians and public servants and would suspect fraud and backhanders, I think!

The "I'm not allowed to approve this" line and this draconian rule really undermine the community feeling, too. A cooperative community has mutual support, understanding and a role for human judgement. Not costly inflexible bureaucracy that's insensitive to medical needs, allocated leave and individual situations.

And there are plenty of essential roles outside the armed forces where people can't take leave in school holidays. What if we had no surgeons, gp services or police for 13 weeks, because hey, that's when we ALL MUST TAKE OUR HOLIDAYS? Not to mention customs, tfl..
Ridiculous. Why should armed forces be more prioritised than doctors? Or, why should their dc be allowed to suffer these apparently dire losses of critical days of education? The whole thing is silly and I hope the high Court knocks it completely out of practice.

The whole thing is silly and I hope the high Court knocks it completely out of practice.

The case being taken to High Court will not result in the legislation bring overturned.
It will, hopefully, provide a definition of what the term 'regularly' means in relation to parents ensuring their DCs attend school.

In practice, that will create less flexibility for HT to use their discretion about issuing fines. If the High Court defines 'regularly' as "less than 10 days absence", then all families who take their DCs out for 10 days or more will face fines - which is not the case at the moment, as each case is considered on its merits. A definitive decision in court will remove the current opportunities for HTs to use their judgement.

Wouldn't that also mean that children missing 10 days or more in independent schools would have to be fined too if HTs have no descretion to authorise? Parents of children not 'regularly' attending would be breaking the law.

jellyfrizz interesting point. but, I think as someone said upthread, the LEA only know if someone isn't being educated/attending school if the head teacher tells them. and I guess that the HT in the independent schools don't have that sort of relationship with the LEA and wouldn't tell them.

so there may well be lots of children out there in the independent sector having many more than 10 days off but who would know?

the head can just mark it down as authorised absence cant they so even a school inspector might not pick it up.

The law has always been there about making sure your child is regularly attending school. it can only be enforced if someone complains I suppose.

All of this just widens the gap between those that can afford to be privately educated and those that cant. Of course most of those in parliament either don't have school aged children or they have them privately educated so they fail to see why this is such an issue for us, the great unwashed!

good point from afussyphase what are you supposed to do if you cant take leave in school hols because of your job. just hope that you get a good head teacher who understands this and approves it as exceptional. we have been lucky but we hear of lots of friends who haven't and have been denied leave.