Holiday - Exceptional Circumstances

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Okay, I know this has been done to death, but dd is about to start school next week and this topic is really stressing me out, especially given we have just had the wonderful 6 week holiday and my children have developed so much I feel they are an essential part of their childhood.

DS has ASD, and is in a special school, who are flexible to his needs and would grant any term-time holiday on the basis of his sensory issues and need for places to be less busy, with more space, less queuing and quieter etc. We've done some camping and selected sites carefully but this won't be an option until next summer.

DD is starting a mainstream primary and unless they agree to termtime holidays we won't be able to go away, or even simply visit museums etc. as a family. In fact, because ds will be at home in DD's holidays, she will never get the opportunity to go places that children from typical families get to go to.

How likely is it that the HT will authorise absences? She stated in the open evening that she NEVER authorises absences for family holidays.

What do you think she 'would' authorise an absence for that would enable us to spend time as a family on fun things and also educational things?

[HattyJack]

The phrase

""the impact upon the child’s learning and well-being must be central to the decision made"

is from my councils new guidelines, issued last month.

[HattyJack]

Thanks Tiggy - I'm nearly ok with that, I think, because I think I could make a decent case, especially as DD will go to school when she is well enough and I don't think she will be behind as she's already ahead of most of her classmates and picks things up very quickly.

It does seem odd though - my reasons for wanting to go up north in June are genuine, and, I believe, educational, but obviously a week in a tent in the far north of Scotland could be construed as a holiday if that's what one wanted to see it as, even if we are there to see the longest day, learn about pine forests and map reading and look at nesting sea birds. It's a shame it's entirely the decision of the head with no grounds to appeal. If it comes to it I'll just pay the fine I suppose - it's not like it will be an annual thing.

The government - helpfully as ever - doesn't seem to give examples of what 'exceptional circumstances' might mean, but it's interesting to me that there is provision for children to have leave if the circumstances are exceptional but not educational, but not for them to have leave if the circumstances are educational but not exceptional.

Thus, a week off to lean nothing because an close relative is getting married in Santorini might be permissible, whereas a week off as I've described might not.

[afussyphase]

I agree, HattyJack. It seems that there are multiple, distinct reasons that we should make efforts to ensure DC are in school:
-- good for their education
-- disruptive of other students if teachers constantly have to backtrack

And there might be genuine circumstances where these drawbacks aren't a factor, including situations like yours and including more able DC who won't fall behind.

And there might be genuine costs and drawbacks to the current policy, not usually considered in evaluating it:
-- families more disrupted / less family time / weak links with family abroad / lack of support from extended family as a result (eg if mother refuses to go to first cousin's wedding because DC is in school, what is the onward result on family support? This can matter hugely in some cultures and families)
-- inevitably some parents are resentful, consequently less keen on the school, on supporting it by volunteering, contributing, etc. Home/school relationships are a big factor as far as I know.
-- inevitably some parents lie and encourage their DC to lie, because there is an incentive of many hundreds of ££ to do so. This has bad consequences.
And so on.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare two scenarios: (1) DC miss no school and there are no onward negative consequences, just positive ones; (2) DC miss a bit of school and there are no counted positive consequences, only negative ones. Research I've heard about basically does this.
You'd have to include multiple, hard-to-measure, diverse outcomes both ways. I will google it. But given how hard it is just to count how many people have TB at the moment, I have my doubts that this has really been done!

[afussyphase]

In addition, at least one document I just read from this link prh47bridge helpfully supplied on American attendance data looked at chronic absence missing 10% of the school year looks at correlations. This is not the same as cause. For example, low attendance can be caused by students being mobile - they miss school while moving and finding a new home/school. Maybe it's the moving from school to school multiple times that, at least in part, reduced their outcome. Low attendance can also be related to lower parental expectations, lower parental support for education, etc - many of these factors could themselves explain BOTH attendance numbers AND lower outcomes. They don't apply to Hatty taking her DD to northern Scotland.

There is little about the subtleties on this thread and little about the details of the data analysis. Lots of "one hypothesis for this is ..." and speculation. Nothing about statistical methods used. Which is fine they don't have to answer my questions I just want to point out, as a researcher, that "research studies" aren't all equal, and policy should really be informed by research that can answer the right questions.

And the differences between races looked just as big as the differences between absentee categories! Pretty shocking.. just as an aside

[northernlurker]

OP I think you need to adjust your expectations I'm afraid. The fine is £60 per parent per child as I understand it btw.

IThe problem is I can't work out how you can couch your circumstances as exceptional 'enough' to count.

You want to holiday at 'quiet times' - but it can be argued that you can pick quiet locations, go away in the less popular times....
You want to attend attractions at 'quiet times' - but it can be argued that you can do that at weekends or if for the benefit of your daughter go with her alone. I don't think wanting to attend a museum on a weekday as a family is going to be enough.
Your dh's holiday is limited - definate non-starter, so is nearly every parents. Teachers for a start.

I think if there is some place your ds particularly wants to go to then yes you can argue for his benefit you need to take him out of school and that cannot be done at other times but I just do not see you have any case for your daughter at all. And to be fair 86% attendance over the majority of a year isn't good enough. My dd2's dropped to 88 I think at October last year and I had a letter from school. I was pretty cross about that because they knew she couldn't walk and the reason they knew that was she hurt herself in a PE lesson! Over the year though it improved and was much better by the end of the term.

[HattyJack]

"Exceptional" just means unusual or not typical.

I'd say the circumstances of the OP are a very good example of something that might be described as exceptional.

[exexpat]

I can see why there are rules, but I still think heads should be allowed some discretion. They know the children and the families, they can judge (or can ask class teachers) whether a particular child is likely to fall behind if they miss a few school days, they can assess the importance of whatever activity is planned, they will know if the dates when absence is planned are likely to be winding-down, end-of-term, DVD-and-clearing-up days, or full-on dealing-with-new-topics days etc.

A blanket ban is just too rigid - and again favours well-off families. If my children were still at a state primary and I wanted, for example, to extend a trip back to their birth country (Japan) by a few days in term time (as I have done in the past, with authorisation, under the old system), I would just go ahead and do it, as I could easily afford the fine if it came to that. Another family might have a much worthier reason for taking time off, but would not be able to afford the fine.

[HattyJack]

Oh come on exexpat, you don't imagine this government gives even a passing thought to the needs or well-being of poorer families, do you?

[exexpat]

HattyJack - no. And I don't think they trust head teachers' judgements either. Statistics are everything.

[HattyJack]

Strange that they trust the academies so much that they let the ignore Mr Gove's new curriculum entirely isn't it?

I cannot think of a sound educational reason why there would be different rules re: the curriculum for academies and non-academies, but there are different rules: Mr Gove says it's excellent and schools have to teach it, but academies don't.

It's most odd.

[HattyJack]

It's just a way of raising money, though.

Does anyone at the Dept of Education thinks a fine of £60 x 2 parents x 2 children = £240 is going to put a family off booking a holiday at a time when they can go for £1000 less if that's really what they want to do?

[HattyJack]

I got the impression from my council's literature that it was £60 per parent per child per period of absence - so one block of absence would incur one fine. I didn't realise it was per day.

[prh47bridge]

In theory it could be per day but most LAs will only allow you to be fined once per period of absence.

I agree with Tiggytape that the fine is intended as a deterrent, not a way of raising money.

exexpat - You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. There is no blanket ban. Heads ARE allowed discretion. They can authorise time off in exceptional circumstances. It is entirely up to the head to decide whether or not your circumstances are exceptional. It is also up to the head to decide whether or not to impose a fine for unauthorised absence, provided they don't attempt to impose a fine in a situation where the LA's Code of Conduct says no fine should be levied.

HattyJack - The current government has, of course, set up the Pupil Premium so that children from poorer families attract more funding and allowed academies to give priority to pupils attracting the Pupil Premium. Gove has been quite vociferous on raising the standard of education supplied to children from deprived backgrounds and getting rid of the culture of low expectations that seems to exist in some schools.

[prh47bridge]

It was, of course, the last government that introduced these fines.

[Lethologica]

afussyphase. The reason that the last week and first week of school terms in Canada was boring and pointless was BECAUSE so any kids were missing... The teachers couldn't do anything of any use as they would only have to repeat it.

[HattyJack]

prh47bride Why do the academies not have to teach the curriculum Mr Gove introduced (after three attempts at writing one), saying that the changes ""can't come quickly enough" though?

It seems odd to have established schools staffed with experienced and qualified educators and tell them what they have to teach, and yet allow new academies to open up employing non-qualified staff, and to let them teach what they like.

[asandwichshort]

The comments about taking the fixed penalty fines rather than paying extra £100's or thousands in holiday time is ok for a one off - however it is my understanding that repeated unauthorised absences will result in prosecution, as in criminal record!

[HattyJack]

My understanding is that as long as you pay the fines it doesn't go to court - I could be wrong though. It's only something I plan on doing once so I guess it doesn't matter.

It is very inflexible though. I was never taken out in term time at school and instead spent a lot of time - especially in summer - doing not much at all. In fact I had to repeat one year in it's entirety because I was put ahead a year but the secondary school wouldn't take me aged 10. It wouldn't have done me any harm at all to have been taken out, in fact, as afussyphase says, the analysis is entirely one-sided and takes no account of the benefits that may occur.

[prh47bridge]

Most LAs have a limit on how many fines you can have. My LA for example will fine you at most twice in 12 months. After you have been fined twice they may move on to more punitive measures which ultimately will result in prosecution.

HattyJack - Perhaps you should ask Tony Blair that question. It was his government that gave academies freedom from the National Curriculum. A few of the academies set up under the last government were required to follow the National Curriculum for English, Maths and Science (and, in a few cases, ICT) but not for other subjects. Most academies have never been required to follow the National Curriculum for any subject. All the current government has done is to bring them all into line so that no academies have to follow the National Curriculum. At the same time the new National Curriculum is intended to be slimmed down and less prescriptive than its predecessor, giving greater freedom to those schools that are required to follow it.

[HattyJack]

So why change the law with regard to academies and the NC so that none have to teach it? Clearly this government thinks some schools should have the freedom to ignore it, and others not. Other governments that no longer exist may or may not have thought the same. That doesn't absolve this one from the responsibility of explaining why it thinks the same.

[AbbyR1973]

I wonder if anyone has legally tested the fine issue by being taken to court and making an argument rather than paying up?
The fine is meant to be a penalty for parents who "fails in their legal responsibility to ensure their child attends school regularly." I am not a lawyer but I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to challenge this assertion in court, provided a child has otherwise exemplary attendance and has less than 10 days absence. The first thing is that there isn't a legal obligation to send a child to school, only to ensure they are receiving education, hence parents being allowed to choose to home educate. Since the law/government therefore accepts that 1) education doesn't have to be provided by teachers and 2) education doesn't have to occur in a school building. It would be reasonably easy to demonstrate that a parent was still ensuring their child received education during the holiday as long as the entire thing wasn't spent on a sun lounger knocking back sangria.