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?

Abby this gets tested a lot of the time. It does not tend to work in the parents favour. If its taken to court you can pretty much guarantee a much harsher penalty, often costs plus a fine upto £1000 I have witnessed and others on other threads have said community service, though this isn't often used in my area.

Also if you chose to home educate and the LA agree that is fine, if you send to school, or come up with a home/ school mix that is fine but you can't just dip in and out as you please.

Abby

You are completely right, a child doesn't have to attend school nor be taught by a teacher.
However, where a parent would come unstuck is the responsibility aspect.

The law states it is the parents responsibility to provide an education for their children be it school or otherwise.
H.ed falls into the otherwise category and children are deregistered from the school system.
If you have opted for school you are registered into the system and have agreed to have this system educate your children.
So I suppose if you take your children out of school unauthorised you are not sticking to your agreement.

This isn't to say I agree that dc should not have time out of school for a holiday. I would take my dd out if she was at school.

Listento mum flexi schooling is the 'bit of both' solution, and I'd like to do it, but the government has made it even more difficult to arrange as it now insists that even with an agreed flexi approach, the child has to be marked as absent when they are being educated at home (it was previously 'Educated off site' which is not an absence code - it's the one they use for school trips) Obviously this plays havoc with the school's records, so it's almost impossible to get agreement with the school. They did ban it outright for a month earlier this year, presumably until someone pointed them in the direction of The Education Act that morethanpotatoprints mentions, which allows for it under the 'otherwise' category.

The section quoted actually says:
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
(a)to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b)to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Now this doesn't appear to cover my offspring at all as 'he' is a she, but we'll gloss over that. I'd be interested to know of a legal test for what is an education suitable.

It goes on to say:
In exercising or performing all their respective powers and duties under the Education Acts, the Secretary of State and local education authorities]hall 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.

In my case of wishing to take DD on educational trips to see things that don't happen in the holidays, such as the longest day and full, vibrant sea-bird colonies, it would be education in accordance with the wishes of the parents, it wouldn't disrupt the school as it'd be near the end of the year (and she is above average anyway) and it would cost the public nothing. So until they change the Education Act (and I bet that's next - it won't apply to Academys though ...) I think I'm ok ...

Hattyjack

As long as they don't change the law to stop H.ed I don't care what they do.

Hopefully it can be changed in favour of flexi school then most people would be happy

Of course the otherwise would cover home ed or flexi. In the ca where the school agrees to this as long as trips etc were arranged on the absent days there would be no fine.

There are many schools who do agree to flexi, I'm just saying you can't just opt in and out as you please it must be a formal agreement. I agree if it is made difficult then that needs revision.

It was made impossible between the end of February and March this year, Listentomum - the Dept of Education stopped it, and then started it again with the caveat that even agreed flexi days had to be marked as absences that will affect the school's overall attendance figure. I don't fancy my chances of getting a school to agree to that, do you? I've heard anecdotal evidence of some schools stopping long-standing arrangements as a result.

morethan We can't commit to Home Ed, but would love to flexi as I think it'd suit DD. It's looking problematic at the moment.

This government did not change the law with regard to academies and the National Curriculum. The law already exempted academies from the National Curriculum. That is how the last government set them up. The last government then wrote into the funding agreement for a few academies that they had to comply with some parts of the National Curriculum (but not all of it). Most academies did not have this in their funding agreement and were therefore completely exempt from the NC.

Removing the National Curriculum completely for maintained schools would involve legislation, as would imposing the NC on academies. If you trust teachers and want to give them the freedom to decide what to teach and how to teach it the simplest way, avoiding any need for legislation, is to reduce the scope of the NC, make it less prescriptive and encourage schools to become academies. I am not a cheerleader for the current government but that is exactly what they are doing.

By the way, maintained schools employ non-qualified teachers as well. Officially they used to be called "instructors" and should only have been employed temporarily when no qualified teachers were available. In practise schools referred to them as teachers and employed them long term, sometimes to teach subjects where a qualified teacher could have been found if they had searched hard enough. Most non-qualified teachers in state schools (including academies) hold teaching qualifications that are not recognised in this country and have not yet fulfilled the requirements for achieving qualified teacher status in the UK. Without fanfare the government regularised the position of the large number of non-qualified teachers in maintained schools last year. A maintained school can now employ a non-qualified teacher if the governing body is satisfied with their qualifications and/or experience. There is therefore now no difference between academies and other schools with regard to teacher qualifications.

prh47bridge "All the current government has done is to bring them all into line so that no academies have to follow the National Curriculum."

prh47bridge "This government did not change the law with regard to academies and the National Curriculum"

only one of these can be correct - which one are you going for?

tiggytape It's certainly true that it may be easier to change the planet's orbit and persuade the sea birds to nest at a different time than arrange term time leave. But I like a challenge :)

prh47bridge some clues for you:

"Academies set up before 2007 were able to set their own curriculum, but those which came afterwards had to teach the national curriculum in English, maths and science. Those academies will have to renegotiate their agreements with the government to to get the new academy freedoms over the curriculum."

The above is from a BBC article that explains that although Academies and Academies have the same name, they are different - www.bbc.co.uk/news/10161371

And this is from the Academies Act 2010 - www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/32/pdfs/ukpga_20100032_en.pdf
"(6) The characteristics are that—
(a) the school has a curriculum satisfying the requirements of section 78 of
EA 2002 (balanced and broadly based curriculum)"

It's quite clear that this government has not simply followed what the last did (although if they had it's still valid to ask why, and "they started it" isn't a good justification) They have deliberately made it so that the Academies don't have to follow the curriculum that Mr Gove also introduced and said was going to give kids the best education in the world. My question is why.

only one of these can be correct - which one are you going for?

Both my statements are correct. The government has brought all academies into line so that they do not have to follow the National Curriculum. They did so without changing the law regarding academies and the NC.

The NC was introduced by the Education Act 2002. This Act is clear that the NC does not apply to academies. Academies have always been exempt from any legislative requirement to follow the NC.

When an academy is set up the government enters into a contract with the academy. This is known as the funding agreement. Under this agreement the government funds the academy provided it meets the (fairly extensive) responsibilities set out in the agreement. The last government used the funding agreement to impose on some academies a requirement to follow the NC for English, Maths, Science and, in a few cases, ICT. Most academies were not subject to any such requirement.

Changing the funding agreement for an academy does not require a change to the law. It simply requires the government and the academy to agree the changes. The BBC article to which you link understands this and suggests that the academies concerned would need to renegotiate their funding agreements to free themselves of the requirement to follow parts of the NC. What actually happened was that the government informed the academies concerned that they would not be enforcing the relevant part of their funding agreements.

The extract you reproduce from the Academies Act 2010 makes it quite clear that this government were following what the last government did. It shows them reiterating the requirements of the Education Act 2002 which exempted academies from the NC. The Academies Act 2010 did not change the law regarding academies and the NC at all.

I have already answered your question as to why they continued what the last government did. This government want all schools to be free from the requirements of the NC, giving teachers freedom to decide what is taught and how it is taught. That is one of the reasons schools are being encouraged to convert to academy status. It is also why the government is reducing the scope of the NC and making it less prescriptive. This gives maintained schools as much freedom as possible without introducing legislation to repeal the relevant parts of the Education Act 2002.

"This government want all schools to be free from the requirements of the NC, giving teachers freedom to decide what is taught and how it is taught."

So why have they introduced a new National Curriculum, rather than simply scrapping the old one?

And why haven't they extended the freedoms Academies enjoy to all schools?

And why would the Minister for Education want any education establishment not to teach the National Curriculum he believes to be the best curriculum in the world?

As I have said "they did it first" isn't a reason that has any weight.

I think the whole issue about academies not having the follow the NC is an instance where we have abandoned the 'one rule for all' principle.

Why should DC who are in an academy or free school area have an advantage or a disadvantage compared to others? Either the NC is "the best in the world" etc etc and its presence is likely to provide a better education than its absence, or not. Either way, different rules for academies and other school means different opportunities.

Now, different schools meaning different opportunities is nothing new. But codifying this difference into policy practice is setting up different rules for different DC.

So if we're doing that anyway, why shouldn't we allow term time absence, for "good" reasons, for DC if and only if they are ahead enough and/or that the activity will be educationally beneficial enough that it won't damage their education? Given that we are abandoning the principle that the same rules have to apply to everyone, why not apply rules differentially if we can do it in such a way that no one's education is hurt?

I like you, afussyphase :)

So why have they introduced a new National Curriculum, rather than simply scrapping the old one?

As I have already explained they cannot simply scrap the NC. The Education Act 2002 requires the government to set an NC. If they want to scrap the NC completely they have to repeal part of that Act. Their objective is to get all schools to become academies. Changing a law that only applies to maintained schools is therefore, in the government's view, a waste of time and money. Much quicker, easier and cheaper to change the NC to give teachers in maintained schools as much freedom as possible within the requirements of the law.

And why haven't they extended the freedoms Academies enjoy to all schools?

Regarding the NC, extending the freedom to maintained schools would, as I've explained, involve repealing part of the Education Act 2002 - exactly the same as scrapping the NC. Most of the other freedoms enjoyed by academies could only be given to maintained schools if they were removed from LA control, which means they would become academies. The government is, of course, trying to get all schools to convert.

And why would the Minister for Education want any education establishment not to teach the National Curriculum he believes to be the best curriculum in the world?

Children in academies still take part in national assessments so the schools will be rated poorly if they ignore the NC completely. But take some of what the government has said about the new NC with a pinch of salt. Of course they have to talk about how wonderful it is and how it is the best in the world. That is politics. But their intention is that all schools should be able to choose to what extent they follow the NC. The new NC is itself a step in that direction.

As I have said "they did it first" isn't a reason that has any weight.

I was pointing out that your repeated assertion that the current government has changed things was wrong.

The Education Act is something the government can change if it so wishes. It has made many changes to it, to alter things it did not like. It hasn't changed the requirement for a National Curriculum. This implies that it feels there is some value to having one, but the fact that some schools do not have to teach it suggests they feel there is some value in other schools not following it. This seems utterly contradictory.

Your agument that the new NC is a 'step in the direction' of getting all schools to become academies is true - I've emailed the DofE to ask, and their reply was basically "we've rewarded the institutions that have done as we wish by giving them more freedom, and we've encouraged the others to change by lumbering them with a rubbish curriculum" I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's the gist of it.

It's be laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that they are using the education of our children to force through a policy that the majority did not vote for as part of a coalition that no-one voted for.

Many of the opponents of academies are against any schools having the additional freedoms granted to academies. Trying to extend those freedoms to maintained schools would reduce the incentive for such schools to become academies and open up another political battle for the government as people fought against schools having these freedoms forced on them (especially since giving them the full set of freedoms would involve removing all schools from LA control). If schools volunteer for the additional freedoms it makes life much easier for the government. That is why the last government did not extend the freedoms to maintained schools when academies were established. It is also why the current government, although it has extended the freedoms offered to maintained schools a little, will only go so far.

Note that I am not offering an opinion on whether the policy of either this government or its predecessor is right or wrong.

Exactly, tiggytape. Reading about people wanting to take their dcs pumpkin picking or to see the changing seasons... it comes across as crap, frankly, and insulting to other pupils (especially, as has been mentioned, those with less articulate parents) who are towing the line. Same as flex-schooling. "Horace would benefit from dipping in and out." As was said on another thread, why should 29 kids and a teacher have to accommodate Horace? What if there were six Horaces? It would be chaos.