When my child first went to school, we had no compunction about heading to the sun in the last week of term. We felt that the experience of being away, including sitting on a bar stool with a 1000 peseta note in hand ordering “dos cafes con leche y una ague con gas pro favor” was as good for him as anything the school had to offer.
In later primary school years, however, the school got clever, holding an annual talent competition on the very last day so that put paid to that.
I don’t think that, as a rule, parents should be prevented from taking their kids on holiday during term-time. A blanket ban, such as that introduced in England by Michael Gove, favours those who can afford to take the financial hit.
I’m glad to see today’s ruling in favour of a father who refused to pay the £120 fine imposed by his local council for taking his 6 year old to Florida during term-time. Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh has now called on the Government to change its policy:
I have argued that current rules hurt families on low and middle incomes. It was an arbitrary threat that hurt those who work hard, save and want to take their family away for a few days.
Liberal Democrats believe head teachers should be given the power and freedom to grant up to 10 days absence a year. Otherwise, the combination of steep prices during school holidays and seasonal working patterns mean some families will never have the chance to take a break together. Enabling children to visit extended family or visit new places can also be a valuable learning experience.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
The Joy of Six 1538
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Peter Hirst
Neil Sandison
David Allen
Nick Hopkinson
30 Comments
It all depends when the holiday time is taken, and why. If someone takes time out of school in the last week of term before the summer holidays, frankly little damage is done. The problem comes – and I have seen this happen – when parents try to take pupils out at a completely inappropriate time and then argue the toss with schools. As an example, I remember one parent taking their S4 child away on holiday the last two weeks before the Easter break. Sounds OK, but they were starting their exams within a couple of weeks of coming back so therefore would miss the teaching of the last part of the course. The parents couldn’t understand why the school wouldn’t authorise it, but took them out anyway.
I agree.
But you can’t campaign for this and not also campaign for an end to the ludicrous “accountability” that teachers now face- where every fraction of a level of progress is analysed and discussed and explanations demanded- and which is used to inform pay awards.
Does it really make sense, post the Paris climate change agreement, to take long haul family holidays? If you want disney, there is Euro Disney, and if you want sun and sea the mediterranean is a lot less fuel burn away. I know that personal decisions like this won’t actually solve the problem, but I wonder how many children know just how many litres of kerosene they are burning to get to Florida and back.
I agree with Keith Legg, I am not convinced that John’s idea is sound.
Some guidelines are needed, as the government policy is now in tatters.
The guidelines need to be based on the reason, the time in the school year, the absence history of the pupil.
However we must avoid a free for all, and avoid every child having the right to have ten days off
I have yet to see any evidence that taking a child out of school at an appropriate time, even for one day as is alleged, actually damages their educational prospects. It is certainly inconvenient for the teachers to have to help them catch up – I used to be one so I know how it feels – but where is the evidence? The policy now in tatters was based on frequent truancy and the 10 days absence rule never related to that at all.
Not sure the decision is one to celebrate , the law was broken , fix the law otherwise where is the rule of law ?!
I am not keen on judges , very unacountable ,without jury trials, which are not possible in such cases, overturning rather than interpreting laws.
I am not keen on meddling local bureaucrats , council or any either.
Yet it seems the fine , which according to the father was originally £60, was in keeping with the usual procedure and that actually for such a trifle the father could be argued as wasting the courts valuable time.
Yet he brought it to court on a matter of principle , got to hand it to him , he won !
The solution is more or less what John Pugh alludes to in his sensible contribution.
Why do some people , even on here sometimes deconstruct and decry the “common sense ” approach we Liberal Democrats , or most of us , advocate ?!
Who is going to teach the missing pupils the intermediate stages of simultaneous equations, or Pythagoras’ theorem, or basic trigonometry, which they may have missed whilst holidaying ? Or any other sequential school topic ? Education is not like pouring syrup over your sponge pudding, where it is absorbed ( though admittedly some runs out at the base) – it is a structured building process with an essential structural foundation.
Lorenzo, the law was not broken according to the High Court and the fine was therefore what was against the law as you cannot be fined when no offence has occurred. The rule of law was upheld not undermined.
The default now is whatever “reasonable” is defined as. So you don’t need a law change only some case law. That might come with the cases for refunds.
The argument that a week out during term causes damage to educational prospects is fatally undermined by heads that have the power to suspend for a week kids for short back and sides haircuts and trivial uniform infractions. Or kids that pick up bugs end are off sick for a week and still somehow do well.
Until the present system came in, Heads had discretion to approve or disapprove absence within limits. This meant that an application had to be made, and in many cases the case for the absence was overwhelming. Depriving the pupil the opportunity of attending a major family event or of a holiday with both parents may well be worse than than missing a bit of non-critical schooling that the individual could make up.
The pernicious thing about the 2013 system is that it deprives the school and parents of the opportunity for that negotiation to reach a decision in the pupil’s best interest.
Geoff, I have an A in O’Level Maths and in the nearly 40 years since have never used Pythagoras’ theorem once. I don’t think my life would have been changed had I missed that week. That said I have vague recollections of having been given homework when ill, and when we took my niece on holiday to Spain just before her GCSEs she took her books, revised around the pool, and passed them all with flying colours. We took my nephew to Australia for 3 weeks when he was 9 and you could not fit it into the Easter break. We kept up his reading assignments and he had to do a project about his experience. So there are ways to mitigate for loss of classroom time if parents and teachers can be bothered.
In my opinion John Pugh is 100% spot on here. I am very disappointed that the Government’s initial response is to talk of tightening up the law. I feel the Party should make a massive issue of opposing any attempt to do that. It’s the liberal point of view, empowering parents and teachers to make decisions, and I believe would be both a distinctive and a popular position. Principled, distinctive and a vote-winner – what’s not to like?
Worrying to see the number of authoritarian responses on this topic. Whatever happened to the Liberal philosophy of “Trust the People”? Truancy and an anti-education ethos amongst parents and pupils are what undermine our education system, not parents making an informed decision to take their children out of school for a short time occasionally.
As to the point about holidays costing more during the school holidays, who says one has to go abroad?
@Billy
“Principled, distinctive and a vote-winner – what’s not to like?”
Well, as a parent myself I certainly wouldn’t “like” the idea of my children’s teachers having to waste valuable lesson time helping other kids to catch up because they’ve been off on holiday.
There’s an air of unreality about much of the criticism of this law. I’m not so much worried about the progressive middle-class parents who want to remove their children from school for a week so they can take them on some fabulous educational experience (though I’d question why such parents apparently lack the imagination to provide their kids with that great educational experience during the 13 weeks a year they are off school anyway). I’m much more worried about those parents who aren’t really all that bothered about their kids’ education and just want to save money on a week sitting round a pool in Spain.
If expensive holidays are the only problem, there are much better ways of solving that. My kids’ primary school used to have an extra week off a the start of June that 95% of schools of didn’t have. As a result we used to have great holidays at low-season prices every year. Just stagger holidays – it isn’t that difficult.
Stevan : If only teachers could be blessed with second sight, and therefore know which pupil would need what ! More to the point, revision and homework rely on having been taught the topic. Missing the instructional teaching is not so easily compensated – unless the teacher is prepared (or able) to spend extra time giving “catch-up” lessons. Should we expect that ?
@tonyhill
“Whatever happened to the Liberal philosophy of ‘Trust the People’? Truancy and an anti-education ethos amongst parents and pupils are what undermine our education system”
So you’re saying we should trust the people who follow an anti-education ethos? Right.
I thoroughly agree with Ian Sanderson about Heads’ discretion on this – that should result in more common sense. In primary schools anyway, such cases were reported to Governors, who should challenge any decisions that “don’t seem right”.
Over the years since at least John Patten and Kenneth “the slug” Baker, the Tories have had some darned stupid Education Secretaries, not least the current one and her predecessor!
No Stuart, I am clearly not saying that, but if it needs spelling out, the problems with education in this country are massive because too many kids are alienated from the system and have parents who don’t care whether they are at school or what they do there. Using draconian laws to intimidate people whose children have a good attendance record and have a valid reason for taking time off is political grandstanding rather than tackling the fundamental problems.
One of the things about this case that depresses me is that 90% attendance is considered good enough (I’ve even seen the word “exemplary” used). That means missing one day a fortnight.
I completely agree, Caron. I was always astonished that this policy was ever put in place. Childhood holidays are memories we all take to the grave and have huge educational value. We should be encouraging parents to ensure that children have rich experiences and for many – perhaps most – this is financially impossible during the school holidays.
Well good to see some common sense from John Pugh.
The policy to take away discretion from Heads was introduced by Michael Gove in September, 2013 – twelve months after David Laws became his number two with a seat in the Cabinet. We could have done with a bit of common sense from Mr Laws then.
We could also do with a bit of radical common sense in tackling the Travel Companies on price fixing in the school holidays (Vince’s responsibility in 2013)..
@Kay Kirkham,
Sorry I can’t provide a link, but if you search the internet for the petition-
‘Make an allowance for up to 2 weeks term time leave from school for holidays’.
The petition was closed and debated in October 2015. The evidence that was given for the government’s approach is laid out in its response which can be found on the page.
I believe that it was wrong to take away the discretion of the headmaster when a decision was required.
Thank you Stevan see your point and yet the whole thing seems unnecessary .
David Raw , glad you utilise the word common sense , it appears not everyone likes it on here , some rot about social constructs , dominant position, or jargon I find nonsensical , when I use it it may differ to when you do , so though we may share it on issues , guess as no two people can always agree , that is the objection.
@Robert Pinkster
“We should be encouraging parents to ensure that children have rich experiences and for many – perhaps most – this is financially impossible during the school holidays.”
That is plainly nonsense. Parents can give their children an almost limitless number of rich experiences – many of them completely free – any time they choose, on any of the 170 days or so of the year when the schools are closed.
If the issue is purely one of cheap holidays for parents – there are much better ways of achieving this than taking children out of education.
We seem to have got to a situation where if you don’t agree that every day in school counts the media thinks you want a free for all where kids turn up when they want to. What I would love to see is the state trusting parents to know what is best for their children. Lets look at each individual situation and be reasonable.
Always surprising to find the illiberal and unthinking on here.
1) Family holidays are important. They can be educational. They allow children to grow and develop as people. To experience new cultures and environment or simply relax away from home. They also make home life more pleasant.
2) Any holiday, even in the UK, is orders of magnitude more expensive when demand is high.
3) Not everyone is able to take time off during school holidays – seasonal workers, doctors & nurses covering summer shortages, etc. etc.
Therefore… the liberal, sensitive, sympathetic and non prescriptive arguement is thus:
Allow the school & the parents to negotiate an appropriate time together, based on the curriculum & the progress of the child. The school should be understanding – not authoritarian, and the parents should appreciate the importance of the time being missed and compensate how they can (e.g. Taking homework, ensuring they write a report).
A child’s education is a co-operative process between school and parents. By suggesting that the school alone has a monopoly on education is undermining the parents’ role – and enabling those parents who already see education as “not my job”.
@Stuart – Further to the above – to address 2 of your points.
Teachers will rarely, if ever, waste class time helping students catch up. I trust they have a bit of sense. I imagine they’ll either ask the student to come back after class or take the opportunity to recap a concept for everyone – free revision for the whole class!
Also – One doesn’t need to be middle class to be progressive. One can have fabulous educational experiences even in working class families (shocking I know) – and as Caron said, there’s value In being away in Spain/Turkey/Cornwall – learning or practicing rudimentary Spanish/Turkish/Cornish, playing with other kids from around the world (or even your own siblings), exercising – availing themselves of all the activities & swimming. I’ve yet to see a kid lounge by the pool on Holiday… usually they’re running around enjoying it.
(I don’t mean to sound hostile – but I do disagree rather strongly – and I’m hungry so probably come across grumpier than I should).
John Pugh says, “Liberal Democrats believe head teachers should be given the power and freedom to grant up to 10 days absence a year.”
But what do Lib Dems think should happen if a head teacher says no to a request but the parent takes the child out of school anyway?
“Liberal Democrats believe …”
John Pugh’s comments make me wonder what Lib Dems do believe, even ignoring that Lib Dems were in the government department behind this policy (which along with the Pupil Premium was the only education idea from the Coalition that I didn’t disagree with!)
Many factors get munged together when debating this. Unavoidable absence due to illness gets thrown into the mix (which is surely compounded by elective absenteeism), along with confusion over what are “exceptional” circumstances (e.g. a funeral might be unplanned, but what about a wedding?). The importance of holidays is also cited, but this does not depend on when or where and can look like a distraction from less noble cost-saving reasons for timing of a holiday. Often the debate (particularly in chattering-class circles) seems to throw up images of good parents exposing precocious children to educational experiences and foreign languages, with the implication that head teachers should have the freedom to say yes to people like us but perhaps no to those who are less worthy.
Is any holiday acceptable at any time in any school year? Is the price of a holiday enough to justify absence from school? Should that “right” to a cheaper term-time holiday be extended to teachers? And why 10 days, not 5 or 20? Is 90% attendance good? If the last week of term can be written-off, then what stops the previous week from becoming the new last week of term and then being written-off itself? Why is it the headteacher’s decision and not the parents’? Is a free-for-all acceptable? Sometimes the liberal approach appears to dump managing all this on to teachers, but is this fair without giving them guidelines?
And what is Lib Dems’ advice for teachers to minimise disruption to children’s education without increasing their own workload? Potentially 10% of their classes could be missing at any time (compounded by absence due to illness). Is it okay to do nothing to prevent this?
Ultimately, what is the best way to ensure good attendance in school (assuming that everyone thinks attendance is important)? If Gove’s approach is wrong (like most of his others), what is the alternative? A different stick or is there a new Lib Dem carrot?
@AM
You’re completely missing the point. Schools are closed for approximately 170 days of the year. There is no reason whatsoever why parents should not be able to do all those fabulous things you talk about during those 170 days, without disrupting the education of their own children and other’s chldren. The problem of high season prices can be fixed simply by staggering holidays – why is that not a superior solution?
I’m afraid you reveal the real reason some liberals get so het up about this – they see compulsory school attendance as some sort of authoritarian imposition on their liberty. It isn’t.