AIBU to say that summer hols are a driver of inequality

[Teaandcrisps]

Myself and OH have had mixed personal fortune over the last 10 years - so from personal experience know the difference.

Summer holidays with no money is shit - especially when the weather is crap. If you can afford it however, it's great fun.

It's not just the obvious things - summer hols, trips, activities, camps, increase in food costs; it's also if you have the kind of job that can give you time off.

Given that food bank have launched the holiday hunger campaign, AIBU to say that summer holidays is an unequal construct and the 6-weeks off needs to go.

People have more children than they can afford and it is everyone else’s fault?

YANBU mine are old enough to entertain themselves now but when they needed childcare it was almost impossible to put in my full time hours as playschemes didn't always run the full 8 hours plus my commute. I was a less than efficient employee during those years and for some reason my job was the one that suffered as XH earned more he didn't concern himself with any of it.

Children should not be considered a luxury item.
Unfortunately society and the state doesn’t really value anything child related; child care, teaching, so it is expensive to pay privately and people who work in these professions are underpaid and undervalued.

Life is ridiculously expensive, so 2 parents are forced to work, whether they want to or not.
Until family life is valued and supported by the state (for all levels of society) there will always be an inequality.

"If you do your homework there are heaps of fun free activities for kids - now that it’s so easy to research there is no excuse for bored kids - most councils, sports clubs, churches etc have really reasonable clubs and play centres for kids whose parents are working."

That depends on where you live and the needs of your child. Where I live and for children like mine there is nothing.
His learning difficulties are too severe too amuse himself for long.It ends in frustration and challenging behaviour.

I think it also depends on the children and their ages.

Some children with SEN really struggle with the lack of routine and structure. Depending on their needs there's no suitable childcare available.

Then when it comes to age, there's very few things available to begin with for older kids and they tend to be quite expensive. It's easier to entertain younger ones and make even a trip to the shop fun and exciting , especially if you pass a park on the way.

It also seems to me that some posters really don't understand poverty, and that some people don't even have a spare few quid.
My friend's husband got fired. She's on a very low wage and has 2 kids . They are getting some benefits now , a whooping 300£ something a month to cover the loss of a wage.
He's desperately applying for everything and anything. Their car broke down. Both kids outgrew their uniforms and neither of them are entitled to free school meals anymore (ks2). It might be temporary, but it's fucked up.

I completely disagree with OP but I do understand some people struggle.

Children should not be considered a luxury item.

if you read this thread, then many poster only say that 2 groups should have children:

those who are rich and can afford childcare and those on benefits who will not need childcare but the working poor who cannot afford endless childcare shouldn't have kids.

YABU. Everyone should live within their own means and not blame the other for seemingly having a better life.

Totally agree that it's really hard if you don't have the money to be always doing fun stuff. We went away for a week but apart from that we haven't done any fun days out. Just been at home or seeing friends or doing free things like playing at the river or parks. The holidays have gone really fast and I think the children have had a good time but I would have liked to have been able to do more. I work in a pre school so I get all school holidays off and I do enjoy that time with my children but I think 4 weeks In the summer would be enough.

I understand that it’s very hard for many people to look after their kids in holidays but this should not dictate life for everyone else. Unfortunately life is unfair. I don’t see why everyone else should suffer with reduced holidays to make it easier for a minority. That is a separate issue that needs dealing with. If a family is put into a situation of poverty for no fault of their own then it is unfair but a couple that has children without being able to afford them in the first place then what do they expect?

If, in a family, both parents are working full time and they still don't make enough money to afford a basic standard of living, then we need to look at wage levels in this country rather than smugly saying they shouldn't have had children.

There is a responsibility on people to ensure they can afford children rather than thinking they are entitled to them and benefits will fund them. If a couple goes into having a family in that situation so be it but then they face these issues. I agree this country is expensive and wages may not reflect what is needed but you can’t blame everyone else if you knowingly had children when already hard up.

I'm completely bemused that teachers would leave in droves if they didn't get 6-weeks unpaid holiday - really? this proposal is simply reducing thier unpaid holiday by 3 weeks!

Yeees. And that reduction is the problem. There are literally teachers here who've told you they'd go in this scenario.

The priority is children who are barely eating, whose parents are struggling during this time because of the extra pressure, whose summer is miserable - this will lead to MH issues, not reducing holidays.

Why have you decided this is an either/or OP? Do you think there are only a certain number of mental health issues to go round?

Here's my idea. Apologies if I'm repeating others but I can't be arsed to read through it all. Lose two to three weeks in summer. Add to February, October and Christmas. Cheaper in costs for heating schools. Less time lost due to bad weather when the snow hits which seems to be more often now.

Add to February, October and Christmas.

However that would add pressure on the parents to have the heating on. The weather is miserable so you can't just have them out in the garden or go to the park. Days are much shorter. It's bloody cold ,wet and miserable.

And more importantly OP doesn't want the 3 weeks of holidays moved, she wants them removed completely.

A couple of teachers have also said that they would support a 4-week summer @MerryChristmasHarry but what is not clear is if they would support this as a reduction or rejig. I favour a reduction overall preferably to 3, but possibly 4.

Also, this kind of poverty where there is no food is not a lifestyle choice. Extreme poverty is not something that anyone ever plans for and there is very little understanding in this thread of that.

Child poverty is going up, not down so telling folks that they should not have had children in be first place, or budgeted better is not a solution.

We have to find ways that the structures we have created work better for all of us - and a shorter summer is one solution.

6-week breaks have been constructed from a bygone era that no longer works for families. The break has now become an inequality gap for children.

Some children have holidays, access to clubs, day trips, culture, parents that are able to have the time off or can afford 1 person at home.

For other children and families, summer is stressful and expensive.

And for a growing number of children, the long break is misery.

I haven't seen a single teacher on the thread specifically support your proposal OP, which as you pointed out is very different to a rejig, but you're still creating a problem even if hypothetically the majority of them would be happy with it. We would still lose some, because of course you're going to when you impose worse T and Cs on people, and we cannot risk that when there is already a recruitment and retention crisis.

Well, I like 6 week holidays. I work full time in a pressured job. Share my kids with their dad. My kids have a holiday over Summer with my partner and I and then with their dad and step-mum. That often takes up 4 weeks alone and we have a week at home in between. Then the kids like some time at home to chill out. I think 6 weeks is just fine if not too short. Why should others have to suffer in their lifestyle because the system doesn’t work. Life is stressful enough and we work hard to provide nice holidays for my kids and look forward to time off in nice weather not dark and dismal weather. No point making everyone’s life shit. Those that need help in holidays should be dealt with individually rather than putting in a broad brush solution in place that impacts negatively for many who enjoy the long holidays and it helps their mental health from having a break in the summer with their family.

The problem in your thinking op is that you are only looking at problems and solutions for one demographic in the population and not the whole population. There are many different situations that people live in that have their own unique problems and needs where what you are suggesting would make their lives far worse. You cannot change things in such a big way based on the needs of one population, especially when this would have a negative impact to many more than it would help. It is very sad that some families struggle during the holidays but as I’ve said these issues need to be dealt with without negatively impacting on others.

I agree with OP. I grew up in the late 70s and early 80s and while we weren’t well off I and my friends had availability of parents ( didn’t need 2 parents working full time to afford a roof over our heads ) so there was less stress about childcare over holidays . The thing is the country was a more equal place in the 70s for multiple reasons and where I lived friends has a similar experience. I live in London now and am aware of families who cannot afford holidays or houses and those families who are privately educating and taking a whole month abroad in summer holidays ! These families live a short distance from each other which I find remarkable and all work! The other difference between families is property wealth and this is now driving a huge difference in lifestyle. I know of a family local to me who have 45 houses for example another with 13 and then friends who cannot afford 1 of their own because it’s so expensive.
Maybe the answer is for huge reform - but then there’s quite enough going on politically at the moment 😂😱

Again, the solution is tax the rich and fund the poor. There is no alternative that will actually work. Poor people should be given more money, unconditionally, because this makes life better for everyone. If someone who is very poor gets more money, it goes straight back into the local economy. When the very rich are given bigger tax cuts, the money is literally drained out of the economy and hoarded in offshore accounts.
But we've had years of propaganda to the effect that poverty is the fault of the poor (rather than the truth, which is that it has been deliberatedly created to further enrich the already wealthy) - and, as is shown by this thread, there are enough selfish, selfrighteous, wilfully ignorant people who believe this bullshit to keep us in this awful, unsustainable situation for longer than necessary.

I grew up at the same time as you and times have changed indeed but I don’t agree holidays being cut is the right answer. Those in stressful jobs need that time in the Summer with their families to have quality time together and bond. Travel is also important to many and we need this variety in the population. Many blue chip companies allow employees to “buy” more holidays, so this helps with time off. You can’t just think about those in poverty. Other families have their own needs. Time off with your kids is even more important now with both parents working. So I don’t agree. Life will always be unequal. Society wouldn’t function if the population was all equal. I agree that those in need should be looked at and supported. Times have changed and it’s harder in many ways but that does not mean lifestyle should suffer for others as a consequence.

Well, that is quite extreme, Ticketybootoo, and most people don't live in London or rub shoulders with people who own 45 houses.

I think people need to recalibrate. You do not need to be doing something every minute of the day. I've seen threads with people who have planned an outing of some sort every day, and sound quite manic. And I also saw a thread with a poster complaining she couldn't afford a summer holiday. I found a week in Isle of Wight/Norfolk for £200 in August. Oh, no. Not good enough. By holiday she meant Devon/Cornwall.

I have really enjoyed the summer holidays - as always throughout my life. The television these days has 80 million channels (at least) - kids can veg in front of the telly. Libraries are free - kids can read books. Parks are free - they can kick a ball.

Honestly, I think that some people think it's a dud summer unless they have been on at least two holidays, been to Legoland and Thorpe Park and eaten in Nandos three times a week.

SGB, veering off topic, but what constitutes poor? And more to the point what constitutes rich? We all know that these "off shore" rich people won't be paying more tax, it will be middle-ranking schmucks on PAYE who will end up poorer than the "poor".

6-week breaks have been constructed from a bygone era that no longer works for families.

It works for teachers' families. And as professional people, teachers are extremely important to our country's infrastructure. They get a lousy enough deal - with reams of red-tape, diminishing respect for their work and a higher-than-average rate of sick leave - as it is. Teachers deserve to spend time with their families too. And they deserve sufficient time to prepare their year's classes, particularly considering all the box-ticking and differentiation this involves. They are saying they would leave if such a system were implemented. We should listen to them.

It works for blended families, enabling the children to spend valuable holiday time with both parents.

It works for families who have difficulty taking time off in October or February, who can't necessarily afford to jet off to the sun for a week at those times of year, and who don't want two weeks' sitting around in their pyjamas when it's dark and wet/dull outside.

For any family who does care to take holidays, the window of availability will narrow and prices would likely rocket. This doubtless means that fewer of them will be able to take that opportunity. This is a lose-lose situation for everybody.

As to my own circumstances, as a university lecturer I can't take time off at these times (school holidays rarely tally as it is except in summer, as we work in semesters not terms), and would end up having to shove my kid in childcare for all but two days of those October/February weeks. Summer is my compensation for a rigid lack of flexibility the rest of the year. My child has settled into state primary education well and is thriving there, but if the summer break were to be shortened and other holidays elongated, our family time would suffer. In these circumstances - and I appreciate that we're privileged - despite my reservations about public school I would seriously consider moving him there.

This isn't a missive that poor families are poor 'because it's their own fault', or a dismissal of their situation because 'I'm alright, Jack'. Poverty/austerity is a huge problem in the UK and needs tackling urgently. I'd support any sincere measures to do exactly this. But I'm at a loss to see how changing the academic year will achieve it. It's tackling the symptom, not the underlying cause. And any government who attempted this I'd suggest would be guilty of a cop-out of some magnitude.

@sb74 you say - 'You cannot change things in such a big way based on the needs of one population, especially when this would have a negative impact to many more than it would help. It is very sad that some families struggle during the holidays but as I’ve said these issues need to be dealt with without negatively impacting on others.'

4m children currently live in poverty. Why should things not change? I interpret what you and other posters are saying in that why should my lifestyle be affected, I like 6-week holidays, I can afford it and therefore I refuse to look at other options and compromises. Very few posters seem to have a clue or empathy of what this kind of extreme poverty is like.

The entire education system is publicly funded and is there to serve the needs of all the population - and I think it is also there to protect the needs of the most vulnerable. The outrage of reducing school holiday by 3-weeks beggars belief.

I am so pleased for all the posters.that have brilliant summers and dont want change, but I dont believe that public services are here to service the lifestyle wants of wealthier families.

Children in poverty is a crisis for this country and that there are families who are literally struggling to eat for 6-weeks is a national travesty.