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?

Hatty

No, suitable doesn't preclude you from taking your dd on educational trips.

It is the fact that you chose school to educate your child, thus agreeing to follow the system of a schooled education. Apparently, it is up to the HT of your child's school whether they authorise a requested absence.

Hatty

'either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'

I rather think this means that either the child is in school full time and you abide by the rules of the state education system,

Or otherwise to mean that you home ed them.

Not that you can have a combination of the two with you sending your child to school but taking them out whenever you fancy an 'otherwise' trip that you have decided should be classed as educational.

But the whole point is, head teachers are no longer allowed to authorise any absence for a holiday - which a trip to Scotland is, no matter what activities you will be doing she you get there. If it is one trip in an otherwise good attendance record then I doubt very much you will be fined but the leave will still be unauthorised. There are plenty of parents at our school who take their children out for a full 2 wek holiday in june, take an extra week at Xmas or added on to a half term etc. it's those families taking 10 or 15 days out every single year, who have spoilt it for the rest of us who might want to do one special trip in the whole 6 years.

For what it is worth the offence is "failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil" (Education Act 1996 S444). That is separate from the parent's duty to ensure their child receives an education.

The majority are being punished because of the minority that regularly miss school.

Exactly - the elephant in the room! The feckless don't bother getting their kids to school (in my old neighbour's case even when the children got themselves up and ready. they were great kids it is so sad) and because of "financial circumstances" presumably don't have fines applied either! Multi agency support doesn't make much difference either. Sigh.... I digress.

I rather think this means that either the child is in school full time and you abide by the rules of the state education system

Absolutely agree - but within reasonable limits.

State education is free at the point of delivery but it is not free. It is funded by taxation and most (?) users are contributing financially. In the private sector customers would never be treated in this fashion. And yes we are paying customers - even though the UK education "system" seems to consider us to be a captive market.

As has been stated before, any politician's decisions can be altered via the usual democratic channels. The changes to this law may only be 9 days old, but I would be surprised if parents accept the changes when they become common knowledge. Sadly it will be the schools on the front line who end up taking the flak.

I should say that I have no plans to take my children out of school but I object on principle

SO, if teachers no longer need to be qualified, and can be simply 'instructors', why cannot parents assume this role for the time that the child is not in school?
Also, doesn't this mean now that infant class sizes are nonsense, as 'instructors' being able to be counted as 'teachers' means that any class with a TA can claim 2 teachers present.

Is "regular" defined at all, prh?

tricot39 - I think your view of how the private sector behaves is mistaken. Most independent schools have in their terms and conditions a clause requiring parents to respect term dates and ensure regular and punctual attendance, so they can expel any pupil who fails to attend regularly. They certainly would not allow you to take your child out of school whenever you felt like it, however educational you thought the day would be. They know that most of the parents paying for places at their school expect certain standards, one of which is that the class is not constantly disrupted by pupils being absent. It is in their interests to keep the majority of their customers satisfied. That means ensuring that the minority of families who insist on taking their children out of school are excluded.

StarlightMcKenzie - A TA cannot be classed as a teacher for the purposes of infant class size legislation. And, as I said, the offence is failure to secure regular attendance AT SCHOOL of a registered pupil, so a parent assuming the role for the time the child is not in school won't work, quite apart from the fact that the governors must be satisfied that the person appointed has suitable qualifications and/or experience to act as a teacher. Most parents would not pass that test and a school that tried to allow parents to act as teachers as a way of allowing term time holidays would soon find itself in special measures.

HattyJack - No. The Act tells us a number of things that do not count as failure to attend regularly, e.g. sickness, but it does not define "regularly". If the parent is taken to court it is up to the courts to determine whether or not the level of attendance achieved meets the requirement to attend regularly. Previous cases suggest parents are very unlikely to win by arguing about the definition of "regularly". As far as fines are concerned each LA must draw up a Code of Conduct which must, amongst other things, set out the criteria used to trigger a fine, effectively defining "regularly" in their area.

Thanks ModeratelyObvious!

I believe that regularly is 25 hours per week.
That is what constitutes a full time education, so I was lead to believe.
Not sure where it states this though.

prh47, where is it please?

Full time education is not defined anywhere in terms of the number of hours per week.

'Regular' has several meanings:

1. Customary, usual, or normal: the train's regular schedule.
2. Orderly, even, or symmetrical: regular teeth.
3. In conformity with a fixed procedure, principle, or discipline.
4. Well-ordered; methodical: regular habits.
5. Occurring at fixed intervals

I'd say that attending school every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for example was 'regular' by any of those definitions, ergo flexi schooling is perfectly allowable.

I'd say going to school every school day apart from the first two weeks of July each year was also 'regular'

There is no legal definition of the term 'regular' that is distinct from it's everyday meaning, as far as I am aware, so I'm surprised if the law has been used against parents. Actually, surprised is the wrong word. Disappointed, perhaps.

I recognise that it was perhaps a problem in some schools that lots of kids were missing near the end of summer term for holidays, but I do not think the changes made are a good solution as (and I'm being generous here) although their intentions might have been good, their effect is not always so in that they could lead children to miss out on educational opportunities. It's the lack of flexibility, the inability of head's to look at each case on it's own merits, that is the issue.

It needn't be the job of the head, tiggytape - as you say that would be problematic.

morethanpotatoprints - 25 hours is what normally classifies as full time education at KS4.

HattyJack - This law is, of course, invoked whenever a penalty notice is issued for unauthorised absence. There have also been a few cases of parents receiving heavier fines or being imprisoned for failing to ensure their child's regular attendance at school.

Where a word is not interpreted in legislation the courts decide what the legislation means. The courts will try to figure out what parliament intended by the law and implement that. In this instance it is clear from the context that this clause is about dealing with absenteeism, so an argument that attendance on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays is "regular" within the meaning of the Act would fail. The courts interpret this clause as parliament intended, i.e. the child must attend every school session unless they have leave of absence, cannot attend due to sickness, or one of the other defences listed in this clause applies.

Full time is still not defined anywhere. One might spend 25 hours at a school and learn nothing, but learn lots in an afternoon out of school.

At my junior school we spent 2 hours every Tuesday morning on 'hymn practice' which was basically sitting about in the hall singing All things bright and beautiful and Kumayah. I suppose I learned how to use an overhead projector, but really I'd have been better off educationally staying in bed and reading a book. It's about quality, not quantity.

I understand that the 'not attending regularly' approach has been taken against parents whose children do not attend regularly - i.e. their attendance is erratic. I don't know of an instance where it has been used against someone whose child has attended regularly but not full time.

S444 is interesting. It seems to be at odds with section 7 (Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age.
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs he may have,either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.) and section 9 (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)

It also says:

The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school ... on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs.

which is interesting, as there is no definition of 'religious body' I am thus considering becoming a Pagan.

If I had the time and energy and really wanted to fight this one, which I don't, particularly, I'd be tempted to join different religions at different times of year and observe all the various days, just to make the point. I really don't think it's fair that one child gets to go to Greece for a christening (this is planned by a friend of mine for next term, in term time, and according to the above, won't be a problem if it lines up with a religious observance), but other good reasons won't be accepted. I guess discrimination against the non-religious is par for the course in this education system, but I think it is wrong and we should not tolerate it. Yes yes to becoming Pagan! At least in June

Also - this business about
"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."

A quick glance at the G&T and SN threads will no doubt reveal that there are many examples where attendance at school does not appear to meet these needs. Perhaps parents could fine the LA or the relevant academy organisation if this suitable education isn't being provided (joking...).

Or perhaps the LA should have to demonstrate that whatever is happening in schools this particular week is 'suitable' in these ways, even more suitable than the proposed alternative activity, before levying fines for non-attendance.

afussyphase I've asked the DofE about that clause, and how it works if a child with SEN is being sent to school but is not receiving an appropriate education.

As I understand it, in that situation you would be breaking the law by sending your child to school and thus ought to be prosecuted - when I asked them to clarify this they refused to comment.

I've applied to be a Pastafarian minister. Every Friday is a holy day for Pastafarians, so this will be a good fall-back if ever we decide that flexi-schooling will be best for DD.

Perhaps we could band together and get the British Humanist Association to designate some days of humanist observance for us. I would be happy to propose some dates. Though I doubt they'd want any LA designating them a "religious body". Hmmmm.
Or we could start our own religion, all those of us who sorely lack some sacred family times to engage in learning and reflection and to observe our most dearly cherished customs. You in Hatty? I volunteer to create a website. All ideas welcome

The flying spagetti monster! I am touched by His Noodly Appendage.

I'm in, and have webspace :)

It's 'Talk Like a Pirate Day' (Pastafarian Christmas) next week by the way.

One of my traditions will be the consumption of much-venerated beverages. These may be of only two kinds: hot and served steaming in a mug, or cool and based on fermentation of plants, typically either grains or grapes. Another may well be the enjoyment of sunlight.

I'm wrong that religion isn't defined in law. In the Equalities Act 2006 section 44 reads:

In this Part—

(a)
“religion” means any religion,

(b)
“belief” means any religious or philosophical belief,

(c)
a reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion, and

(d)
a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief.

So 'Religious Observance' (register code B - authorised absence) can be used if the parents of the child have a philosophical belief that it's important to sometimes learn things out of school. Or sit on a beach as a family. Or anything, really.

I'm not convinced that most parents are unable to make good teachers to their children. They might not have the skills or training to teach in a classroom but that isn't the same thing.

Parents are responsible for their children and are expected to ensure their needs (including educational) are met.

The only sensible reason for refusing absence it because to not use a resource that is paid for by the taxpayer is wasteful.

Having said that, this and pretty all objections IMO could be adressed if the school had a good VLE, there would be no problem with children coming and going, provided no-one expected the teachers to do any additional catch-up as the topics covered can be the responsibility of whoever has got the child. But this would require schools to respect parents as the ones responsible for the child's education and work in true partnership with them, which is a far cry away from the current 'partnership' model of most schools where teacher see themselves as 'outreach' or not at all.

StarlightMcKenzie - "The only sensible reason for refusing absence it because to not use a resource that is paid for by the taxpayer is wasteful."

The Education Act does say that:

"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."

However, I think it's reasonable to assume that in a class of 25, the resources will only be wasted if no-one comes in - end even then I think most schools could make excellent use of a 'spare' teacher in other classes.