Leave declined for wedding....

[eleanorrubysmummy]

Oh dear! My husbands brother is getting married in Feb (on a Friday), been planned 2 years, hub is best man & DD is bridesmaid. just moved up to year3 at a new school so did the right thing & applied for authorized day off......declined & also intimated that an application to fine us will be made if we go!! I'm so stuck......can anyone help/advise/guide us for this pls???

[D0oinMeCleanin]

We had exactly this with my Aunt's wedding a few weeks ago. I only wanted the afternoon off as they'd already married in Vegas but were having some kind of ceremony for family on Friday evening in which dd1 would be acting as 'bridesmaid', unfortunately it was out of town so to get there in time and get dd1 ready we had to leave at lunchtime.

We were turned down. When I made an appointment with the school to discuss this the parent advisor told me their hands are tied, they have very strict guidelines now on what they allowed to grant leave for and family weddings are not covered (she showed me the documentation they had been sent and it covers things like holidays for shift workers where the children might otherwise not get family time with both parents, supporting close family through terminal illness or bereavement and a few other things). She then advised me to take them anyway and told me that yes it would go down as unauthorised but unless their attendance falls below 85% no-one will take any notice of one unauthorised absence.

[prh47bridge]

it was a STUPID thing to change the legislation in the way it was changed

After illness, parents taking holidays during term time was the most common cause of absence by far. The problem was growing with more and more parents thinking they had the right to take 10 days holiday each year. Many heads and many teachers were fed up with it but felt (wrongly) that the previous regulations gave them no option but to allow parents to take these holidays regardless of the problems it caused the school and the damage it did to the children's education. Teachers groups and others have been lobbying the DfE for this change for some time.

In reality little has changed. Schools can still approve days off in "exceptional circumstances". Legally that is really no different from the previous provision that schools could give up to 10 days off for holidays in "special circumstances" with additional days in "exceptional circumstances". So why are schools clamping down? Because teachers are fed up with continual absences which disrupt their class.

If you want to blame someone I suggest you blame those parents that abused the previous regulations.

[rabbitstew]

Bllcks. Our school specifically wrote to the DfE saying it DIDN'T want the rules changed. And no, I will not blame parents, what a silly suggestion. I blame government for its silly guidelines and rule changes. If the law hasn't actually changed, then WHY WAS IT BLOODY CHANGED?????

[rabbitstew]

What schools ever allowed more than 10 days off at a time? Exceptional was expected to be truly exceptional. Thus changing the wording from "special" to "exceptional" means that now lots of people think ANY leave whatsoever has to be for truly exceptional circumstances and nobody can get their mind around what could be that exceptional that it could possibly be allowed, unless the DfE has told them it is definitely exceptional. I think the ludicrous behaviour of the HT in this instance is a demonstration of the effects of the DfE's and Ofsted's bullying stance on everything - HTs start getting anal about the few things they think they have any control over that tick a few boxes for the powers that be.

[ivykaty44]

How does a child not present in class cause a disruption to the teacher? I can see it may cause the child problems but not sure how the child causes disruption when not in class.

[rabbitstew]

You know perfectly well if HTs are advising parents to just go off sick, or to go anyway and not worry about the unauthorised absence that the rules are a stupid farce to do with statistics, not human beings.

[5madthings]

doooin the paperwork she showed you do you know where you can get a copy of it?

We took our four school age away for a week, so five days missed of school as DPs job is shift work and no holiday in school holidays. The schools said to go, have a good time and they wouldn't fine us but they 'technically' couldt authorize it. I do have it in writing that they said go, gave a good holiday! They said it shouldn't be a problem unless attendance falls below 95% and even then the ht would provide our documentation (employers letter etc) and back us up. But ht knows the ewo and said it would be fine as she would understand our circumstances and there are no other issues I'd kids doing well, never late, no other unauthorized absence etc. He said the ewo for our area looks at the whole picture iyswim and its the families with persistent absence/lateness etc they are interested in fining.


It does seem to vary by school and Lea.


Op I would go and hope you don't get fined, would your brother pay the fine if you did? On the basis its his wedding, he wants your child to attend and yet organized it for a school day.

[purpleroses]

Can you not ring on Thursday morning to say that DD has had "slight diarrhoea" so, following the school's strict rules for 48 hours absence being required for vomiting OR diarrhoea, she will need to be off for two days. And then tell no lies about having gone to the wedding. After all, you would probably take her anyway she'd just had a slightly runny tummy. That way she doesn't need to lie, but the school can tick the box for authorised absence. They'll know why you did it, but you're giving them the get out they need to authorise it.

But agree that the head is being quite unreasonable in not classing this as exceptional. Mine both had a day off last year for a wedding (one at secondary school) which got classed as exceptional circumstances (not family holiday, which they don't allow).

[Viviennemary]

That is really bad. You are being penalised for being honest. A lot of people would just say their DC is ill. I wouldn't pay the fine. I hope someone takes this nonsense to the European Court of Human Rights. Which says people are entitled to a family life. And a wedding is part of the celebration of family life. Make a test case. Tell the Head this is what you will be doing. I'd love to do this but not sure I'd have the guts to!

[prh47bridge]

rabbitstew - Your school may have lobbied against the change but many schools, teachers organisations, etc. lobbied in favour.

The problem was not that schools were authorising more than 10 days at a time. The problem was that parents believed they had a right to take their child out of school for 10 days for a holiday. Many head teachers felt (wrongly) that the loose wording in the old regulations meant they had no option but to allow those holidays. They therefore wanted the regulations changed to make it clear that parents do not have any right to a term time holiday.

[D0oinMeCleanin]

I don't know 5madthings, maybe ask your school. This was paperwork sent to the school from our local LEA setting out and explaining the new rules.

The shift workers thing is a bit confusing and open to interpretation from what I gathered. It is, I think, mainly aimed at public sector workers and people who work away from home and should only be applied if the child might not otherwise get to spend time with both parents together. She did tell me that DH and I could possibly take advantage of it if we need anymore holidays as I work nights and weekends and he works day shifts, but my boss would have to provide evidence as to why I could not be granted holidays out of term time.

It is applied differently from school to school, my sister was granted authorised leave from her kid's school for the wedding, as they told her they'd decided that family time was "exceptionally important". Same town, so I assume the same LEA.

[rabbitstew]

You see, my problem with the change, prh47bridge, is that if the government already knew that HTs have a problem interpreting words in legislation, then it seems very foolish of the DfE to have not only taken out references to holidays but also changed the word "special" to "exceptional," when "exceptional" was a word used in the previous legislation to indicate "almost never." Now we are in a situation where some headteachers interpret the legislation (wrongly) to mean they must almost never, ever allow parents to take their children out of school, even for an afternoon, even if to any right thinking individual, they have good reason to want to. I fail to see in what way that is an improvement - it has gone from letting a minority of parents abuse a situation to treating a huge swathe of the population as imbeciles incapable of understanding what is good for their own children.

[rabbitstew]

And what is more, the result will not be a huge improvement of academic standards, but an dramatic increase in the number of people in this country who choose to ignore what petty officials tell them.

[cathpip]

My ds has just had 3 days leave authorised for a family wedding, it's 270 miles away so we are going down the day before and coming back the day after. The head teacher agreed straight away as it was in her words "exceptional circumstances". You have done the honesty route, I would now lie and say she has had diarrhoea in the night!

[swingofthings]

My understanding is that it is still up to the Head to declare the absence to the LA for them to issue the fine. So it might be that he won't authorise the absence (as stated, because it could open gates for other reasons), but that doesn't mean he will report it for you to be fined.

I would ask this question and if he confirms the fine, i would definitely go for the illness bug. How will they prove that she didn't suffer from one? After all, it could very well happen...

[prh47bridge]

Now we are in a situation where some headteachers interpret the legislation (wrongly) to mean they must almost never, ever allow parents to take their children out of school

No, we are now in a situation where most head teachers correctly interpret the regulations to mean they must almost never allow parents to take their children out of school. That was the intention of the previous regulations when they were introduced by Alan Johnson. It was never intended to give parents the right to take term time holidays. Even under the previous regulations an afternoon off for any reason other than a holiday could only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

[teacherwith2kids]

"How does a child not present in class cause a disruption to the teacher? I can see it may cause the child problems but not sure how the child causes disruption when not in class."

Ivy, imagine that Child A was absent on a day that you taught the first lesson in a series about fractions, a critical lesson on which the next 5 lessons depend.

Next day, teacher has to teach the rest of the class the next lesson (and differentiate it for different abilities ) AND catch the child up who wasn't there. Then multiply by 5 lessons, because that's how many lessons there are in many school days..

Under the old system, where heads found it hard not to authorise time off, I would quite often have lesson plans that had several children each lesson needing 'catch up' some of a day's work, some of a couple of day's, some of a week's, some of a fortnight's. In some lessons, not so much of an issue. In maths, where everything tends to build on one another in a 'spiral' fashion, much more so.

[shebird]

The reply to my request to travel abroad for 2 days to attend my nephews christening was 'the school is not permitted to authorise holidays in term time'. Well this is not technically a 'holiday' it is a religious and family celebration. So is our head playing it safe and just saying no to everything? I believe she has also refused a child permission to attend the funeral of a close relative. It seems unfair if some heads are interpreting the rules differently. IMO 'holidays' should only be in exceptional circumstances (e.g parents who work shifts etc.) and other days off for special events ( family celebrations abroad, weddings, funerals) should be assessed on a case my case basis.

[rabbitstew]

prh47bridge - it was NEVER the case that HTs should almost never, ever allow children out of school. Essential medical appointments were allowed, given that the NHS is also a very important organisation that can't go fitting itself around school days and they are quite frequent. Then there are things like family weddings and funerals... it's not as if they almost never, ever happen, just that they don't happen often to each person doing the dying or marrying... Then there are the important family events (rites of passage) that just so happen to be in Australia, or India, or the family that just so happen not to have been seen in years and this is a first and only request for a child who has an excellent attendance record. Then there are the sick relatives who haven't died, yet that the family are desperate to see before they die. Then there are the genuine cases of families who cannot holiday in school holidays.... Then there are the music exams, or the important sporting events or West End stage shows that some children get involved in... No bl**dy way is it almost never, ever the case that children used to be allowed out of school. There are loads of reasons that many people would consider valid on a case by case basis, bearing in mind the child's normal attendance record and any other relevant issues.

[rabbitstew]

And yet the result of the change of legislation is that some schools seem to have become anal about everything, not just "holidays." How is that the case if the law has not really changed?...

[Jellypudmum]

Child in my class has authorised absence for family wedding for 4 days next week. If head persists try govs or lea directly?

[rabbitstew]

I find it quite fascinating that the justification for the current farce going on in schools over letting children out of school is apparently a result of HTs asking for the legislation to be changed, but actually it wasn't really changed at all, it's just that it used to be misinterpreted and now it is more clear... Clear as mud and as clear as a HT specifically suggesting to parents that they take their children out on unauthorised absences, because behind Ofsted and the government's back, they actually approve of them, but daren't make it official, because it's "no longer" allowed.

[rabbitstew]

And actually, it is allowed, because apparently even though the government intended "exceptional" to mean almost never, ever, it doesn't have to mean that if the HT doesn't want it to. Ha de ha, bloody ha, ha.

[prh47bridge]

rabbitstew - The regulations regarding a child appearing in a West End show (or any other performance) have not changed. The school should still grant leave of absence provided the LA has given the appropriate licence.

The situation regarding educational activities (which includes sporting activities) has also not changed. A pupil must not be marked absent if they are on an approved educational activity. Music exams would normally fall under this heading.

For the other situations you mention the new regulations are an improvement.

Under the old regulations:

• Leave of absence for holidays up to 10 days if there are special circumstances
• Leave of absence for holidays of more than 10 days in an academic year only in exceptional circumstances
• Absence due to sickness or any unavoidable cause permitted without any requirement for leave of absence
• Absence on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parent belongs permitted without any requirement for leave of absence
• Absence for any other reason not permitted. This is probably not what was intended (and it certainly isn't what actually happened) but it is what the regulations said

Under the new regulations:

• Leave of absence for any reason in exceptional circumstances
• Absence due to sickness or any unavoidable cause permitted without any requirement for leave of absence
• Absence on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parent belongs permitted without any requirement for leave of absence

So NHS appointments are still permitted (sickness or unavoidable cause). Some of the other events you list should have been refused under a strict interpretation of the old regulations but can now be validly granted in exceptional circumstances.