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]

Iainiekazan why does it come across as "crap"? You know as much about my DD and her interests as does central government - nothing.

The educational professional who runs her school knows rather more about her, on account of seeing her most days around and about the school. As her parents we know her better than anyone.

Under the old system, those that knew the individual child best had the discretion to allow term-time leave. Now, those that know the individual child not at all have removed that discretion. This seems to me a rather backward step. It is especially so for those with SEN at either end of the spectrum, I think. A child who is being left behind might well benefit from a day a week of one to one tuition with a parent who is unable to home school full time. That now cannot happen. Equally a child who is well ahead of its peers may benefit enormously from the extra stimulation that may come from a few days outside the classroom - and the teacher may even be secretly grateful for a few days in which they do not have to prepare extension activities for the one child who is way ahead. But of course that now cannot happen as a far-away politician has decided that school=good not school=bad.

As others have said, policy makers have made a calculation that appears to make the assumption that all time in school is positive and all time out of school is negative in terms of learning.

[lainiekazan]

But your dd's interests are irrelevant. It's the fact that you think it's acceptable to cause disruption in their name.

[HattyJack]

Why are my DD's interests irrelevant to her education?

And how do you know her missing a week in June will cause disruption?

(She's already met most of her goals for this key stage, with two years to go, if that helps)

[HattyJack]

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a stipulation that leave will only be granted for approved educational activities though would it?

I had a friend when I was at school whose father was given a chance to have a sabbatical after working for the same employer for however long it was - ages I suppose. This was three months off, paid, in which he was to recharge his batteries, as it were. At the time both his kids were in school so their parents arranged with the school what would be taught to their kids over three months - they basically ended up with their own curriculum and as far as I recall it went fine. They went off around Europe with a trailer tent, my friend had no problem picking up his school work again and also had better French and some Spanish and Italian, and a nice tan.

I don't see anything negative at all in that arrangement, and yet it is one that simply could not happen now, and I think that is sad. As I am self-employed it is conceivable, if not very likely, that I could afford to do the same with DD when she is a teenager, but if I did it she'd lose her school place.

What did exist was an opportunity for those that know the children to use their judgement as to what is best for the child. That has now gone.

[Flibbertyjibbet]

Agree with Laineykazan and tiggytape.

'It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a stipulation that leave will only be granted for approved educational activities though would it?'

But school IS the approved education activity for term time!

btw I've been to finland and Norway in late July. We were only just in the arctic circle and it was still plenty light enough at night. Cheap flight to Finland (Ryanair do a couple), train up to the far north, plenty of light all night long. Would work just as well at May half term hol. See, there are ways round everything.

This thread has been an eye opener of the various reasons why some parents believe that THEIR wanting to take the child out of school is exceptional circumstances, when its not.

We took the kids out for 4 days last year to visit a close relative who was working in a European city for a year, but only term time (he was teaching and came home at hols). If he had been there this year I could have convinced myself that our trip in term time was exceptional - relative not there in hols, language, culture, etc etc. But it wouldn't be exceptional at all would it, it was just a holiday that we didn't have to take when we took it.

also, the lady who took her child out of school for her 'wedding' - I read the link.... wedding was in the carribean so he was out of school for 11 days and very soon after a 2 week easter break. I think the rules about letting kids have time off for weddings is more likely intended for a weekday afternoon when someone is getting hitched down the road, not over 2 weeks of school...

[HattyJack]

Flibbertyjibbet - "But school IS the approved education activity for term time!"

That's not what the Education Act 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."

[tricot39]

i do agree that there should be rules about school attendance but the lack of flexibility is silly.

my scheme would be that special needs related to health and social needs would be ok as now. the recently changed 10 discretionary days would remain but i would expect that the lesson plans / topics missed in class were provided to families and evidence produced on return that work had been done. No evidence = no future permission.

ultimately parents are responsible for their child's education and they delegate that to the school. so if there is a detrimental effect then parents should be given the evidence to make an informed choice. like healthcare it really should be down to the individuals to choose. but then i know i am probably in the minority with that view!

[HattyJack]

You can also have time off for religious observances.

[afussyphase]

at HattyJack

I can completely understand that Heads don't want to get into 'but you let X go to Scotland, why can't Y go to Tenerife?'. Solution: does Y's teacher think it will disrupt Y's education; are key things planned that Y is likely to miss entirely? How is Y's attendance to date this year? Over some threshold and no likely educational loss and good description such that school convinced that educational activities will really happen? OK then!

And anyway if this is the argument that we've moved to (now that harm to the child's own education is under question) namely that it is disruptive to the rest of the class, then we need some data on that. How disruptive? Under what circumstances? I doubt it's that disruptive if, for example, it's the last week of term for 1-2 days that would mostly be films and parties anyway.

[afussyphase]

And can I claim some kind of humanist observation as my "religious observance"?
For what it's worth off-topic of the thread but maybe vaguely related to the OP because some people could put "pagan" as their religion and argue that they want to observe the solstice I don't think religious DC should have more or better opportunities than non-religious ones.
The insane arrangements re faith schools indicate that many people disagree with this. But we already have one set of rules for the religious and another set for the rest of us -- so 'one rule for all' really needn't be taken altogether seriously. So there need not be a blanket rule on term time absences either.

[chicaguapa]

I've just entered a competition to win a holiday. I've often wondered if DH (a teacher) would be allowed the time off to go on it if we won as they're always in term time. Now I'm wondering if we'd get fined if we took the DC out of school, or if that would be an exceptional circumstance. I still enter though.

[HattyJack]

I don't think the government defines religion in any of it's documents, afussyphase does it? I don't think it's a term that has a legal definition

[admission]

Sorry but this whole discussion is actually now not very relevant. The powers that be, that is Mr Gove, have made a decision that in effect says that as a pupil you will not be ill, you cannot have a holiday in term time and head teachers can only give authorised leave in exceptional circumstances.

Most people would disagree with his decision but unfortunately he is always going to win, as he happens to have the force of law behind him and a big stick to beat you with, namely daily fines to start with and then prosecution. Nobody likes it and certainly head teachers and governing bodies do not like this situation, but there is nothing that we can do but obey the law and that that is refuse nearly all requests and when pupils are off on unauthorised leave, end up doing the paperwork leading to the family being fined.

[HattyJack]

So there is no point protesting about something that is plainly silly, admission

We just have to suck it up?

The law is not as clear cut as you make out I don't think. I also don't think 'we want to go away because it's cheaper then' is a particularly good reason to be out of school, but then nor do I think it's necessarily bad for a child to be out of school.

What do you take "exceptional circumstances" to mean?

[prh47bridge]

The law is absolutely as clear cut as admission says. The head teacher can only authorise absence in exceptional circumstances provided the parents apply in advance. It is up to the head teacher to decide what constitutes "exceptional circumstances". The head teacher cannot authorise absence after the event. Unauthorised absences can lead to a fine. All this is laid out in The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 as amended by The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 and The Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 as amended by The Education (Penalty Notices) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. These regulations are made by the Secretary of State under powers granted by various acts of parliament and are approved by parliament. They have the same legal force as if they were themselves acts of parliament.

Absence for genuine illness will not attract a fine. And very few LAs will allow schools to issue daily fines, but under the law that is the LA's decision.

[tricot39]

i don't think that hattywas suggesting that current statute was flexible. there will of course be flexibility in its application though. no i assumed that she meant that the law can be changed. it is subject to political will and gove can be lobbied by the electorate. he has already had to back down on a few things and this might eventually be another.

[HattyJack]

Thank you tricot39

I also meant that the law depends on various terms that are not defined, such as "exceptional" and "religious"

And The Education Act still makes it my legal duty as a parent to

"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."

Of course "suitable" and "efficient" aren't defined either.

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 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."

I don't have the means to test it in court, sadly - but someone else may do.

[HattyJack]

I meant to add that "full-time education" isn't defined either.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Hatty

suitable is defined as being age appropriate, to their ability and aptitude and any SEN. That's what is meant as suitable.

[HattyJack]

So "suitable" doesn't preclude me from taking DD on educational trips then.

The new directive is thus at odds with The Education Act. It remains to be tested in court which has primacy.

[admission]

What exceptional circumstances are is the big problem because as usual the DfE has declined to give detail on what it means and it is going to end up with head teachers making one off decisions, which could come back to haunt them later. In effect they will be defined more widely only when it goes legal.

What is clear is that the wording has been changed so that time off in term time for a holiday is not an exceptional circumstance. At my school anything that says holiday will be rejected, anything that says something else will be considered on a one-off basis, though as time progresses we hopefully will build up a better picture of what is realistically allowed and what is not.

To give an example time would definitely be given as authorised absence for a funeral of a close relative. However as soon as that funeral becomes a request for a week off then the red flags are going to start appearing and further questions will be asked. Gut feeling says UK funeral, 2 to 3 days maybe appropriate above that starts to look excessive. If the funeral is overseas then it really is about what is reasonable on a one off basis. There is however a difference between attending a funeral and grieving and also a difference between attending a funeral and medical issues following a death in the family. The head teacher will end up being a cross between a doctor, a psychologist and a detective when it comes to some of these requests for time off.

If you applied to our school for time off for an educational holiday, I am sorry but it would almost certainly be rejected

[shebird]

Why can't we be treated as grown ups and be allowed to decide what is best for our children. The majority are being punished because of the minority that regularly miss school. I thought this government wanted to be less interfering. My family live abroad and my nephews christening is on a Sunday in Nov. If I go it means my DCs will have to miss the Monday to travel home as there is only one flight a day. I really want them to attend an important family event but I risk being fined or being forced to lie.