Changes to holidays - debate on woman's hour

[fivecandles]

Apparently Nottingham LEA is piloting a change to school holidays such that the long summer holiday is reduced to 4 weeks but the half-terms become 2 weeks long so no time lost in total, just redistributed. I think it's a really good idea for all the reasons given on the programme and I'm a teacher. Anyone else got thoughts?

Hmm, I can see that might ease the pressure of finding childcare for 6 weeks in the summer if you don't work term times only. It might also help teachers out as some have said to me that they are so stressed and exhausted by the summer break it takes them ages to get back to normal energy levels. It still allows for a good four weeks in the summer which is a long break. So, I think generally it's OK but I will be interested to see what other teachers say (am starting ITT in the autumn so this is really relevant to me - it would be a bugger if I had to move out of county to get work so my school-age kids had radically different holidays to me)

I think it's probably a good idea to have the holidays more spread out - though we only have 6 weeks in summer, so it would be more holiday in total.

For me personally, it would be a pain - I'm a uni lecturer with long summer breaks between terms and no half terms. Half terms are a problem for me already, without making them longer!

For the greater good, however, I think I approve. It would give a wider range of times when families can taker a long holiday and generally pace things better over the year.

Yep, on Woman's Hour several people said it would have to be national to really work otherwise it would make life more rather than less difficult for working parents.

One of the main arguments in favour is the way that children end up going backwards over the holidays - this is more pronounced in children from more deprived backgrounds and is therefore one more factor widening the gap between the attainment of children from different backgrounds.

when we lived in the state some schools did this, but then they closed other schools in the area and slightly jigged the school term times so that they could fit 2 schools into 1 building (saving money etc) with the pupils working on a year round rota system so the building was never over capacity, some kids in some on holiday. The teachers however ended up working longer, but it worked for the parents as the kids got time off a strange times when holidays were cheaper.

Just purely from a child's perspective - when I was little I loved loved loved long summer holidays running around the fields. I can see how they can be a problem for parents if they have to go to child care though of course.

Here in Ireland we have different school holidays anyway, the summer hols are 8 or 9 weeks in primary school, 12 weeks in secondary school. The first half term is one week, christmas hols are two weeks, easter hols are two weeks, there is a two day half term also, then three bank holidays. Supposedly kids in primary school do 183 school days a year here.

I think the arguments are child-centred in that they're about improving children's ability to learn. A month is still a very long summer holiday but children and their families would also benefit from longer half-term holidays of 2 weeks. This would make it easier to go away out of peak season.

but would it holiday companies are not stupid they would just make all year peak season, in Germany they rotate the summer holiday through areas, so as not to have the huge demand for holidays at one time. One area (like a county) start in May through to the last area in August. Well guess what German holiday companies charge peak prices from May through to September to cover the whole period and make the most money, we would end up with peak periods at half term for 2 weeks not 1.

Personally I like the long summer holidays (mine get 9-10 weeks) when we lived in the USA you got 3 months and it was great, plenty of time for day trips or a big camping holiday driving around. I am however a SAHM so the childcare is not an issue for me.

Oh, fabulous - more holiday at the bloody miserable Feb half term. Great for those who can afford to go somewhere hot - bloody miserable for the rest of us, and expensive to arrange days out in cold weather.

We already have more than a fair share of bank hols on the cold, windy and rainy months - PLEASE let them not take away more hol time in the summer.

How will we all be able to book hol cottages, caravan sites, holiday park places for the summer hol if the whole country is taking it's hols within 4 weeks?

How will businesses be able to be family foiendly and give leave during school hols if everyone wants it within one of two 2 weeks slots?

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea.

fivecandles - but peak season would then become whenever the 2 week half term would be. Half terms are already peak season.

Though peak season in a caravan holiday park in Feb or Oct is not my idea of a great time.

Wheresthepimms - I agree that this is what would happen!

Fivecandles - I don't know the stats but I presume children from countries with long summer hols such as Ireland do not end up any worse off academically in the long run in comparison to kids in the UK.

Personally, it makes no difference to us as I work from home.
However, would these changes not have abhugely detrimental effect upon all those businessess who rely on holiday cash in the summer months?

The little ice cream parlour in a seaside town in Scarborough isn't going to be able to make up the shortfall in February is it?

wordfactory do you not go out eating ice cream at the beach in the snow? Honestly you need to get out more

Having 2 weeks in May/June wont work at GCSE-A level age (ie yr10-13). Unless of course the exam boards change their exam schedules too. So the extra weeks will be in October and February which isn't when I'd choose to have my holidays (skiing excepted).

I don't really think a 6 or 7 week summer holiday is all that harmful - after all independent schools have 8 or 9 weeks and seem to do OK.

I think it is very sensible. I've been teaching 15 years now, and remember years ago my local LEA looked at that model and I roughy it sensible then. I think a month is long enough for the summer hols, and the weeks could be added to the other hold when a week really is not long enough. Agree that the mat holiday would have to change nationally to make the exam boards follow suit.

Hmm.. a month is actually still a very long summer holiday and I think a lot of people would argue that it would be hugely beneficial to have 2 week half-terms which mean you could get away more if that's your bag.

However, the principle arguments are about the advantages to CHILDREN of shorter summer holidays.

Of course, it's great if your family can afford to take you travelling the world for 6 weeks and do all sorts of wonderful educational and social things with you but sadly this is just not possible for most families. It's not so great if you're from a disadvantaged background and you're pretty much left to your own devices. One thing that was said is that vandalism and petty crime soars during the summer holidays.

And as far as the stats go, YES, there is evidence that kids from poorer backgrounds go backwards each year and this has a long-term cumulative effect. Middle class kids plateau.

I understand people may have their personal gripes but I would like to think that people are able to take into account what is best for people and children in particular as a whole. We only have such long summer holidays because historically kids were expected to help bring in the harvest. Perhaps, in the 21st century, it's time to accept that things can and should change?

'I don't really think a 6 or 7 week summer holiday is all that harmful - after all independent schools have 8 or 9 weeks and seem to do OK.'

The thing is that it's not about what you personally might think is it? It's about EVIDENCE that long holidays have a negative effect on children and disproportionately affects those children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Yes, indepednent schools have long holidays but children from well off backgrounds are affected least plus their parents are more likely to be able to fork out for holiday clubs, activitiy schemes, nannies etc.

Link to the prog is here by the way www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012lkk8

Don't independent schools "do ok" because they have class sizes of 12 (my hairdresser's DC) rather than 32 (my DD)?

The argument about the effect of a longer break on kids from less advantaged backgrounds is a powerful one. I hated the post-summer holiday lag with DD. She struggled to get back into the right frame of mind and she is not an academically confident kid to start off with (but she must be middle class as I have a butter dish ). I'm not sure the fact that February is cold and wet is much of a case. You don't actually have to take your kids on loads of expensive outings, you may be pressured or pestered into it.

changeforthebetter outings don't have to be expensive, but with 4 DCs in my house when it is school holiday time we have to get outside. We go to the park, feed the ducks, take a trip on bikes, have a picnic whilst people watching at the train station (strange but fun when you have list of people wearing x you must tick off to win the chocolate biscuit). My eldest DD (10) reads about 2 books a day so we walk to the library a lot so in the cold wet Feb this would not be nice.

OK, so this benefits poorer children who regress, but middle class children who don't are losing out on their long holidays (I admit I love the long holidays, which always seem to be over all too quickly imo). So wouldn't a better solution be to have American style summer camps, with poorer children having a 2-week (say) entitlement?

snorkie you forget everything in this country is aimed at making life easier for the poorer children, us middle class families just have to put up and shut up as we are not considered wealthy enough or poor enough to count [wait for the flaming]

I love the long summer break. Leave it as it is. I don't think it is harming anyone's learning. I hear what you are saying wheres.

But being a child isn't all about school. Long summers lazing around are what we all remember with affection. Two wet weeks in Feb - who wants that? Schools accept that a few children may regress during the long break and teachers will teach accordingly. The majority are fine IME (infants). Summer camps sound good, if they were free and targeted accurately.

Well said hocus. Childhood should be about fun! Ok they need an education, but I think there needs to be more of a balance, just doing nothing is an important part of childhood. There has to be another way in terms of impact upon kids from poorer backgrounds, shortening the summers hols cannot be the only option, there is never just one way of sorting out a problem.

It just wont work logistically for examination courses. Most are modular or pupils are resitting in January often and extra holidays in the middle of the term ( half terms) shortens the available teaching weeks. A long summer holiday ( and I would advocate an even longer one for older pupils is ideal. There is little to be done after the exams until the results are known anyway.

Besides this idea ( like BST all year round) is an old one. Tried , failed and being suggested again. The evidence does not support anything more than a slight , short lived improvement in the results of those from
"disadvantaged" homes and then its only with those who are from homes which are so designated but are marginal anyway.

When is anyone going to get real and work out that some kids do not do well because of other factors? When will people realise children need holidays and time with their parents instead of being " busy" all the time? Its part of growing up. Busy parents might need busy kids but the poor kids can do without. One day they will get up when they are adults and will not thank you for making their childhoods a misery! Roll on that day is all I can say. Further boredom toleration and doing nothing is a good education for coping with other scenario's in life. They are lessons well learned young.