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?

"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."

So while "religious observance" and "belief" are open, the religious body and the exclusivity of the day would presumably be questioned if the parents line of argument against a fine was a belief in sitting in the sun. Do they define "religious body"? Surely that can't also refer to a lack of religious body!
But if someone did set up a "religious body" with particular days set aside, I see no reason that it would be unacceptable.

Or a religious body that required families to spend two weeks in June in a location at least 100 miles from their usual residence in order to appreciate better the wonder of creation, or something like that.

Think some people are getting a bit nit-picky over words and definitions in an attempt to find justification for their own absences to be approved

Our head told me personally (sat next to him for half an hour at the leisure centre while my kids had swim lessons cos he was driving the school swim team in the mini bus...) that he is in no doubt that people will still book holidays in term time, but that as the authority for approvals has been removed from him, any such breaks WILL be unauthorised.. and he has no doubt that many families will continue to take such trips and just shrug their shoulders at the 'unauthorised' reply.

Even he is not sure what would be seen as 'exceptional' but feels that he needs to be strict about it otherwise the floodgates will open and he'll end up in the same situation with everyone getting leave authorised and quoting numbers of 'allowed' days again.

Any fines etc are out of his control also, and will be imposed by the local authority.

I volunteer to do a particular activity with children one lunchtime a week. Even that activity can't run smoothly as every single half term or holiday, some child or two has an extra week off, or some are missing mid term. Even I as a volunteer am fed up of going back over stuff almost every week for the one who was missing last week/fortnight/whole month (and yes the whole month does happen a lot with an extra 4 weeks added on to easter or xmas because in a multicultural school there are families who go 'back home' for extended visits once a year)

Anyhooooo, Hatty why don't you wait and see what happens this year regarding what gets approved and what doesn't- and do the trip next when you have another year of good attendance on record and would be therefore hopefully be unlikely to be slapped with a fine?

Don't take me entirely seriously, Flibberty - I'm amusing myself by ridiculing that which I find ridiculous.

It's interesting that headteachers don't understand what 'exceptional' means though, as they are the ones that have to make the decisions. I'd imagine that would make the law very dubious.

As I've said before (I think - I've certainly meant to say it) I don't think there will be any issues with DD getting behind. One of the reasons we would like to take her out is because we fear the opposite; that she will get so far ahead as to be bored. If we thought taking her out would leave her falling behind we wouldn't do it - and I can absolutely see the problems created for schools if parents do take children out and they get behind. As I've said, the regs need flexibility and to be applied by someone other than the head - but with input from the head.

These changes also strike at flexi schooling, which the government obviously wishes to ban. My ruminations around religious observance and so on were more around finding a way around the problems they have created with regard to those arrangements, which I accept is entirely off-topic :)

Tiggy, I agree.

Also, at the very core of this needs to be some notion of fairness.

Many children I have taught who have struggled in school have been ones with home lives that made one want to weep - young carers, those with parents in prison or addicted to various substances or bitterly divided or simply absent through having 3 jobs each to make ends meetetc etc etc.

Had one of them come with a proposal of a genuinely once-in-a-lifetime holiday (by which I mean the holiday would in fact be the only one in their young lives so far) that might, for a short time, completely transform their existence, then on any level of fairness that request might carry more weight than that from a child excelling in school in line with their relatively comfortable home life.

Any idea that 'being clever / ahead' makes it OK to miss some school should be balanced against the fact that some children are 'behind' for reasons that in fact make them much more deserving / in need of flexibility.

Such individual considerations just aren't feasible - and have never existed in that form. The current rules mean that both requests would be refused - which at least passes the fairness test.

(Also, IME, parents who do not have the funds to pay fines do not 'get let off' - they are instead prosecuted and, eventually, go to prison. You might say that they are punished much MORE than those for whom a fine is less than the difference between costs of holidays taken at different times)

As I said, don't take me too seriously.

I only mentioned my expectation that DC would not get behind as one of the objections raised here was that it would be inconsiderate to the rest of the class if the teacher were to have to spend time re-capping and so on - I was merely pointing out, via personal example which might not have been the clearest way - that this objection is not always valid.

It is, however, codified in the government guidance. Their document 'guidance and advice on school attendance - updated aug 13 -final.pdf says

Code C: Leave of absence authorised by the school
Only exceptional circumstances warrant an authorised leave of absence. Schools should consider each request individually taking into account the circumstances, such as: the nature of the event for which leave is sought; the frequency of the request; whether the parent gave advance notice; and the pupil’s attainment, attendance and ability to catch up on missed schooling.

media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/guidance%20and%20advice%20on%20school%20attendance%20-%20updated%20aug13%20-%20final.pdf

It's not difficult to think of circumstances in which those guidelines would seem to suggest that leave should be granted. But I bet it will be very difficult to get. We shall see I suppose, as term goes on across the country.

Thank you all so much for this thread ladies!
I am very much enjoying the banter - even if I have no intention of taking a term time break!

Soooo.....

prh - I think your view of how the private sector behaves is mistaken

Quite possibly but I didn't have the education sector in mind when posting. My point was more about the difference in viewpoint of those offering a service paid for by taxation and a service paid for at the point of delivery. I'm sure that teachers wish many pushy parents would go away and leave them alone, but in a commercial setting that would put them out of work..... (hence my comment about a captive market).

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

Ignoring the reality that many parents probably are incapable of facilitating a reasonable education for their children, you have the principle back to front: Responsibility for education of the child rests with the parents. In most cases parents delegate their responsibility to the state system - in which case they are responsible for ensuring that the governors are themselves competent!

Anyway, enough of the topical debate - sign me up for the Pastafarians!

I think it's best to become a Pastafarian Minister so that you can spread the gospel. R'amen.

You can do that here.

www.venganza.org/

Did I mention that every Friday is a Holy Day for Pastafarians? I did? Ah, ok.

R'amen!
Perhaps I'll inform the school that because I am so very moderate in my beliefs, I will not be taking DD out of school every Friday. I'm sure they'll be delighted. And I could also volunteer to do a worship of a collective nature on a Friday assembly! Everyone will be so pleased.

And then there's the Free School we should start .. a Pastafarian school! On Fridays, the Holy days, we will eat spaghetti.

:) @afussyphase

So (semi) seriously, where have we got:

1. Code R (authorised absence) can be used for absence due to religious observance
   Caveat: no-one seems to know what counts as a religion
   Possibly of use for flexi schooling, not likely to be much use for longer breaks unless the religion requires a pilgrimage. pAstafarians have a Holy Day every Friday. Did I mention that?

2. Code C (authorised absence) can be used in 'exceptional circumstances' and schools must consider requests. The suggested criteria from the DofE imply that an ocassional proposal to take a child with good attendance and good attainment on an educational trip should be approved. I would suggest this would be especially true toward the end of the summer term when traditionally less work is done, so catching up will be less of an issue, if it is an issue at all. ("Schools should consider each request individually taking into account the circumstances, such as: the nature of the event for which leave is sought; the frequency of the request; whether the
   parent gave advance notice; and the pupil’s attainment, attendance and ability to catch up on missed schooling.")

3. Code H (approved holiday) still exists and can be used at the head's discretion. I am not sure why this still exists though, and in what way it is different to code C.

4. Code B (educated off-site) can no longer be used for flexi-schooled pupils when they are educated off-site which effectively prevents most people from arranging a flexi place as doing so will affect the school's attendance figures and thus their OFSTED report. Flexi schooling is still legal though, and it could be argued that in some cases it is a parent's legal duty to provide it - ref Education Act requiring parents to provide an education suited to the child.

Anyway, I'm looking around the internet for a pirate costume to use when I am a Pastafarian minister.

surely in the true spirit of the religion you need not be literal. you could choose just to think pirate thoughts - unless you are on a propaganda campaign?

@ all those saying it is unfair to simply target those with high truancy or poor performance at school.

Why? Why should my family have to follow insanely rigid rules because someone else's child is struggling in school? I am all for helping such a child. By all means, give that child extra resources. But why is my family forced to do something because of some misperceived unfairness?

I think it's "unfair" that I am from another country and I have to pay crazy high airfares to see my family because I always have to travel at high season. Why is that not "unfair"?

I think they could actually help kids who have really chaotic home lives that cause truancy if they focused on them. Don't come after me and my DD because she missed 5-10 days of school by going on a holiday. What a waste of resources and effort.

"Any idea that 'being clever / ahead' makes it OK to miss some school should be balanced against the fact that some children are 'behind' for reasons that in fact make them much more deserving / in need of flexibility.

Such individual considerations just aren't feasible - and have never existed in that form. The current rules mean that both requests would be refused - which at least passes the fairness test." - teacherwith2kids

No, it doesn't. Now you have just further disadvantaged a disadvantaged child (I certainly don't think that's good), and pissed off another set of parents. I think this word "fair" needs to be binned. It's "fair" if we just have a rule that all kids get spanked everyday. That's "fair" isn't it? Every child is treated the same, so it's ok, right? About flexibility being feasible, where I grew up (Canada), school attendance was more flexible than it is here and still is from talking to my family and friends with kids. Some kids missed school because they were on holiday. No big deal. Some kids missed a ton of school because they have tragic home lives. That is a big deal and we should try and help them, not hurt everyone else. Have system that make sense, not one that has rigid rules. If a child is suffering because their parents can't get them to school regularly, help that child and parents, don't force everyone else to do something inconvenient. that isn't going to help that child at all, and it's just going to create friction between the school and parents.

it's not nice to lie to teachers and schools. My daughter had a wonderful reception teacher and I would hate to lie to her about such a thing. I am sure that would hurt our relationship with her if we did. When we took a trip, we just told her the truth. However, I don't blame parents for lying about such things. This crazy system has pushed them to it.

Well, the nominal justifications for these laws are not that darling Horace's education is suffering so terribly because of his regular nature-observation and hiking trips in the Swiss Alps each June. The discourse suggests that it is supposed to improve persistant, regular, truancy, and to do so for the reason of preventing harm to childrens' educations.

So I agree with writtenguarantee -- things aren't necessarily good by virtue of being "fair", and more fair policies are not necessarily better ones. They can be inefficient and wasteful. We would be better off providing appropriate resources to support / target families whose children are regularly not attending school, where this is impacting their education. I don't believe that the current policy is doing this, and to the extent that it is, it is at the cost of alienating many parents, and preventing many families from having the flexibility they need.

HattyJack - interesting about Code H.

Another avenue might be to convince Ofsted that attendance figures for schools should not comprise part of the report. I think it's rather unfair for schools to be held accountable for this, as they do not control it.

If a change in law doesn't actually improve academic achievement or behaviour in schools and results in an increased population of people willing to ignore the law in order to do what they think is better for their family, then a change in law is a waste of time.

Does anyone think the law change will actually improve children's behaviour and achievement? It would be interesting to see whether it results in any kind of culture change, rather than a colossal increase in unauthorised absences from schools.

I am not suggesting that HTs flout the rules. I am suggesting the rules should be changed.

If the rule isn't meant to help anyone, I have even less sympathy for them. some parents take their kids out of school for two weeks. So what? If some well off parents want to take their kids out of school for two weeks, why should I care? If it is during exam time then that's their choice. I still don't see the justification for this except possibly that it is disruptive for the teacher. Is it just sour grapes?

And, frankly, I think holidays can be very educational. You can learn a lot by going elsewhere.

I also disagree with your dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options. Target the children that are either away from school often or have trouble in school. Or, target the well off parent taking it too far. THAT can be the rule. So, if a child is there 90% of the days and does reasonably well in school, leave him alone.

I sympathize that teachers don't want to spend a ton of resources on children who have missed school because of holiday. But that suggests that parents should take responsibility and make sure their child catches up. That probably doesn't happen now because parents just lie about holidays and so can't go to the teacher beforehand and ask about what will be covered.

Once you've found yourself willing to break one law, it must be so much easier to self-justify breaking others.... could be the start of a slippery slope of increasingly ignoring the powers that be...

We should replace the word "fair" with "uniform" in this entire thread. That will more accurately convey what's going on. Uniform rules aren't good simply because they are uniform. The actual rule matters.

The main justification for the change to the regulations this year was that there are far too many darling Horaces where the parents regarded 2 weeks holiday during term time each year as a right, disrupting their own child's education and that of the other children in the class. To give some perspective on this, over 6.25 million school days were lost to family holidays in the Autumn term of 2012 alone. In primary schools family holidays were the second most common cause of pupil absence, illness being the most common cause.

The head can still grant leave of absence in exceptional circumstances and has discretion to decide. The fact that so many are using the change to crack down on term time holidays indicates how much of a problem this was becoming for some schools.

And I don't understand why tricot39 thinks I have got things back to front. If you send your child to a state school you have discharged your legal responsibility to ensure they are educated. You are not required to ensure that the governors are competent and you have no authority to take action (other than complaining to Ofsted) if you think they aren't. Appointment of staff is the responsibility of the governors. My statement that the governors must be satisfied that anyone appointed as a teacher has suitable qualifications and or experience reflects the legal position. If they get it wrong the governors will be held responsible, not the parents.

So the law was changed because nobody understood it. So they've changed it in a way that results in.... nobody understanding it. Result! Nobody knows what exceptional circumstances are, not even headteachers. Another piece of quality legislation from the powers that be.

I am dubious about the impact on the education of other children. If parents step up and take responsibility, they can teach their child the missing lessons. It GREATLY impacts on my child's education not to go on trips.

As I said, I sympathize that teachers don't want to do that. They have a hard job and, in my opinion, don't get paid very well for it. I am all for giving them more resources to deal with the difficulties of teaching. But, as I have come from a system that seems to cope very easily with student absences, I doubt flexibility leads to the disaster portrayed above. Yes, it's a little disruptive. I am willing to cope with that (from other parents).

My DD has fellow students in her class who are multilingual. I think it would be shame, actually quite irresponsible, if they are hindered from using that language because they can't, for example, visit their family. it's just too rigid for too little benefit.