Term time holidays - minister orders schools to continue to fine parents

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

More news on the fraught question of term-time holidays.

You might remember that a recent high court ruling overturned a fine imposed on a parent who'd taken their child out of school for a family holiday. Today, however, schools minister Nick Gibb has ordered headteachers to continue to fine families whose children are absent without permission during term time.

Do let us know what you think - and if you're completely confuzzled and bewildered, we've got more information on what's what over here.

What happens to the schools that have children working on the West end or in the entertainment industry that have below 70% attendance who still go on to get all their gcses

They get leave of absence for this and, for an engagement of any length, the theatre will put in place tutors and work with the school to ensure that the children still receive a full education.

How many of these children who are off school for 'months at a time' have SEN/SN or mental health difficulties? De-registering children is a terrible idea

None. The absences I saw were ALL unauthorised 'don't give a damn' absences, no sicknesses, no compassionate.

Where I grew up the system is now that kids can go on holiday for a week or 2 as long as some homework is arranged and attendance generally good. I often wonder if English politicians have looked at all at other systems that seem to work elsewhere.

None. The absences I saw were ALL unauthorised 'don't give a damn' absences, no sicknesses, no compassionate.

But de-registering isn't going to help those children, all it will affect is the data. Oh. I. See.

As I understand it, the court case hinges on the definition of the word regularly. Which bloody obviously doesn't mean every single day, or not in any dictionary I can find anyway.

As well as saying that children who are enrolled in a school should attend regularly, the Education Act 1996 also says this:

In exercising or performing all their respective powers and duties under the Education Acts, the Secretary of [F1State and local education authorities]shall have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

My bold.

Seems to me that by fining parents who take their children out of school, they are signally that they don't give a crap what the wishes of parents are.

They are signalling that a parent's desire to take children out of school for a term time holiday is not compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training.

They are signalling that if you oppose the state, no matter how many courts you win in, the state will hound you mercilessly and throw all its financial resources at you, no cost too high. How much is this going to have costed by the end? Millions i would expect.

They are signalling that a parent's desire to take children out of school for a term time holiday is not compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training.

A child taken out of school for a term time holiday does not affect the provision of efficient instruction and training.

I'm interested to know if we 're the only country with this dictatorial approach to attendance.
Does anyone know?

This may have been linked to already but there's a petition here. Going to parliament in July.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129698

efficient instruction and training.

Studies have shown a clear link between absences and outcomes.

The absence statistics show that it does work. The overall level of absence and the level of persistent absence are both down since fines were introduced in 2003 and have reduced further since the regulations were tightened up in 2013.

Which would suggest that outcomes have improved considerably since 2003. Is this the case prh47bridge?

Millions i would expect

Rubbish. Unless the government lose and are forced to repay fines that have already been levied the total cost is likely to be less than £1M.

A child taken out of school for a term time holiday does not affect the provision of efficient instruction and training

Yes it does. Ask a teacher. It is very disruptive and results in the teacher having to spend time helping the absentee to catch up, which in turn takes away time that could otherwise be spent teaching the rest of the class.

Yes it does. Ask a teacher. It is very disruptive and results in the teacher having to spend time helping the absentee to catch up, which in turn takes away time that could otherwise be spent teaching the rest of the class.

Asks self does a child being absent affect provision
No. We have to differentiate many different ways for each lesson anyway so the learners needs are always covered.

Yes perhaps just a million
Awesome use of taxpayer funds as per usual. Cant believe you think that is in any way justifiable for one man taking his daughter out of school on a short holiday.

I see its cost the Isle of Wight council 25k so far. Bargain i'm sure.

Oh and i was a teacher too. It makes naff all difference if someone misses a week or so due to illness or holiday or bereavement unless its an exam week ('real' ones not end of year assessments)

Yes it does. Ask a teacher. It is very disruptive and results in the teacher having to spend time helping the absentee to catch up, which in turn takes away time that could otherwise be spent teaching the rest of the class.

then why has my Dd been removed from classes for 13 days so far this year? To participate in rehearsals and help out the admin staff in running messages about school?

Bran, unless there's more to it, taking a child out to run messages is totally inappropriate. Most school do not do this. I'd take it up with the school.

All schools in my city do 'message days' absence.

Bran, unless there's more to it, taking a child out to run messages is totally inappropriate. Most school do not do this. I'd take it up with the school

As I said, I did. It not a long thread. I have broken down the days she has missed lessons.

Yes kids are taken out of lessons to be runners. They did it at our school back in the 90s. If you read the thread you would see, I did in fact take it up with the school.

But the point is, if a a days missed learning causes such disruption, why is it ok when the school want it to happen?

And what about the children with SN whose parents have been fined for absences relating to their additional needs? That's happening too.

Everybody is fixated on the idea that this whole case is about what regular means in the context of attendance levels.
If you read what the judge said (not in the papers) but in the judgement, which came out some time after the newspaper headlines, they never considered what the word regular meant. The focus was on two sets of facts that were not in dispute. The attendance of the pupil prior to the holiday was at circa 95%, that with the holiday it dropped to just over 90% based on the academic year todate but by the end of the academic year, overall attendance was circa 93%. The other set of facts is that the LA (Isle of Wight) had publish information that confirmed that attendance at school over 90% was considered acceptable attendance. On the basis of those two facts the judge agreed with the magistrates that it was a perfectly reasonable decision to not find the parent guilty.
I am intrigued to know what the government and the LA are therefore basing their appeal on. Presumably that the judge failed to consider the matter correctly, in other words they want somebody to make law about what is regular attendance.
The honest truth is that this whole situation over holidays, fines etc is a mess because so much of it is based on wording that was written a long time ago and is open to interpretation that for the government has one meaning and for other people a different meaning. There is no easy answer to this but as others have said the rules need to catch those whose attendance is poor, not those attendance is on the whole good.

HTs are still authorising, just not as much.

Even if it's a wedding, major family event etc, authorisation cannot be given if it could have reasonably been scheduled for holiday times.

Not true. In out school we've m authorised 3 days for a funeral and the same for a wedding in the last Week, as well as several authorised single days for funerals. What we won't authorise is a week for a funeral which doesn't require that amount of time to travel, weddings if thy aren't close family etc, stuff like that.

What would happen if a huge number of parents all took their children out of school for a specific day and all refused to pay the fines? Would they all go to court? Anyone up for it?
They wouldn't be fined for one day. If they all took 5 days? Then yes they would!

apple Your school may still be authorising weddings etc, but my kids' primary is refusing all authorisation for anything, possibly parents or siblings funerals excepted. And claiming they aren't allowed to authorise.

I've only taken them out for 1 day in 3 years (wedding abroad on a Friday) and got told they couldn't authorise but have a nice time (no fine), but next year I'd like to take a week around Easter to see family abroad for first time since the kids were born, before they die. £50 per day per child per parent would make it prohibitive, so would probably claim the d+v bug that everyone else swears their kids get near the end of term...