Holiday in term time not authorised, will I be fined?

bizywizy

This week we each received a fine for my child.

we did request authorisation but got turned down.

It was for a holiday but I WON a cruise and we felt as we have never been/taken the kids on a proper warm holiday it would be an amazing experience for them

Plus the cost to us would be fairly minimal as food was included.

My husband got made redundant a few weeks before we went too which added to everything.

BUT.... the thought of celebrating out 40th birthdays and our 18th wedding anniversary on a ship --- couldnt be turned down.

We asked the school for work and lesson plans. Some work was supplied for my elder son (who doesnt get a fine as over 16)

The rules I have found say that they will send it to the welfare officer if the child misses 10 sessions (5 days) My son was off for 8 1/2 days (the 1/2 was because the school shut for half day to get ready for open evening!!!!!!)

whilst I dont agree with taking your kids out of school I am annoyed really because we are talking about a child who has received attendance letters from the head on numerous occassions. His grades arent bad. and He has caught up on the work he has missed.

Also what about the times the teacher doesnt show in the classes/dvd's are stuck on ect,..

I feel my child was being educated off site.

I am appealling to the head teacher at hte moment and have a coupld of weeks extra on the lower rate to pay.

poet123

It may be worth you looking for a term time holiday calculation sheet which some authorities use to "score" requests from parents. If you score above a certain amount you are refused, even if your authority is one where they issue blanket refusals you may be able to use this score to in your appeal to show how it is done differently elsewhere. I think Solihull in Birmingham have an online example.

ETA this is one from Leicester.

http://www.holywell.leics.sch.uk/info-for-parents/Guidance%20to%20Parents%20on%20holidays.pdf

Scroll to page four, but the whole doc is quite interesting in the light of this thread.


This one is also interesting, apparently no blanket refusal policy is allowed. Certainly not the impression I had, and overseas visits to family are nor necessarily counted as holidays for the purposes of the policy.

http://www.solihull.gov.uk/Attachments/Term_time_Holidays___Penalty_No.pdf

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

A child can be missing from school for a couple of days before sickness is confirmed by note. UA is not solely truancy, what rubbish. That may be the umbrella term but there are sub categories.

Hence there are registration marks to differentiate;

Registration Marks

H = Holiday leave is authorised (authorised absence).

G = Holiday leave is not authorised (unauthorised absence). This mark should
be used for holiday absences that have NOT been authorised by the
school or for days taken in excess of an agreed period.

F = Extended family holiday leave is authorised (authorised absence

N This is the default mark given to absences for which no explanation
has been received or no decision taken as to what mark accurately
reflects the absence. This mark may not be used in any legal context.
If no reason is provided after a reasonable period of time it should be
replaced with code O.
N should not be left showing on a pupil’s attendance record
indefinitely.

O Unauthorised absence (e.g. shopping, birthday ‘treat’, couldn’t get up
etc.)

U Current code is @ = Pupil arriving late after the close of registration.
– This represents a missing mark, it is therefore impossible to know
whether or not a particular pupil was present or absent. This counts
statistically as an unauthorised absence.

Unauthorised absence is the calculated truancy figure. All you've done is list different forms of truancy (and some that aren't). And one mark for when the school is incompetent. You haven't reinforced anything at all.

Now, can you show me those "sickness" unauthorised absences please? That was favourite one. How do I report that to the DFE on the ASC?

mrcow

bizywizy wrote: »

I am appealling to the head teacher at hte moment and have a coupld of weeks extra on the lower rate to pay.

I doubt you'll get anywhere considering they denied authorisation in the first place. it would be like admitting they were wrong.....neeever gonna happen.

The fines are there to discourage this type of thing. The thing is, you knew that and made your choice accordingly. If you're happy with that, then pay the fine and put it all behind you. It's too late to do anything else about it now.

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

Unauthorised absence is the calculated truancy figure. All you've done is list different forms of truancy (and some that aren't). And one mark for when the school is incompetent. You haven't reinforced anything at all.

Now, can you show me those "sickness" unauthorised absences please? That was favourite one. How do I report that to the DFE on the ASC?

N would be the original mark if no contact had been made, this would then revert to O if there was no further information. Hence, in some cases of sickness where the parent has not provided written confirmation, sickness would be included in the UA figures as an O.

All forms of UA may come under the umbrella term "Truancy" but not all are treated or recorded in the same way, which was my point.

I think my point has been well supported by the above, whereas you just want to use the emotive T word to make yet another dogmatic point. You really do teachers no favours with this attitude.

My other point (which you also disparaged;)) was that some heads were sympathetic to requests for term time hols, this is evidenced by the scoring system shown in the links given in my previous post where they can insert and score mitigating circumstances, and if they wish remove points for those issues.

flimsier

mrcow wrote: »

I doubt you'll get anywhere considering they denied authorisation in the first place. it would be like admitting they were wrong.....neeever gonna happen.

The fines are there to discourage this type of thing. The thing is, you knew that and made your choice accordingly. If you're happy with that, then pay the fine and put it all behind you. It's too late to do anything else about it now.

Yes, sounds like good advice. I don't know what I'd do in your (not yours but the person you're replying to) situation. 8.5 days sounds like a lot, but it's also not realistic that you're going to turn it down. Tough one.

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

N would be the original mark if no contact had been made, this would then revert to O if there was no further information. Hence, in some cases of sickness where the parent has not provided written confirmation, sickness would be included in the UA figures as an O.

So your argument is that when we don't know the reason for an absence, we can assume that some of them are sickness. My word; scraping the barrell. When we know it's sickness, it's not UA, and it's certainly not categorised as unauthorised absence - sickness, which is what you embarrassingly suggested.

All forms of UA may come under the umbrella term "Truancy" but not all are treated or recorded in the same way, which was my point.

Thanks. Finally you've accepted UA is truancy. Two ways of saying the same thing. Truancy is not a sub-category of UA as you embarrassingly suggested.

I think my point has been well supported by the above, whereas you just want to use the emotive T word to make yet another dogmatic point. You really do teachers no favours with this attitude.

What point? That truancy and UA are the same thing? I said that in response to you saying that "truancy is one reason for UA". It is the same thing. You might not use the term (though you actually were the first to use it, so heaven know how you blame me for "wanting to use the emotive T word").

My other point (which you also disparaged;)) was that some heads were sympathetic to requests for term time hols, this is evidenced by the scoring system shown in the links given in my previous post where they can insert and score mitigating circumstances, and if they wish remove points for those issues.

I'm sure some heads do (though that's not actually what you said - you said they refuse reluctantly, or something like that). I don't believe you that you have spoken to many heads and had conversations with many of them personally where they have said they refuse with a heavy heart or whatever words you use. The reason I don't believe this is because every head I've worked for has far too many things to discuss than expressing their personal feelings on a very small part of their job. But maybe you've sought out a dozen heads and asked them their personal feelings on an obscure question. I doubt it though. Even you must see how that is scarcely believable.

onlyroz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy

Spendless

Out of interest bizywisy - how much is the fine? Care to share?

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

So your argument is that when we don't know the reason for an absence, we can assume that some of them are sickness. My word; scraping the barrell. When we know it's sickness, it's not UA, and it's certainly not categorised as unauthorised absence - sickness, which is what you embarrassingly suggested.

Did you read that copy and paste whiich was from a DCFS guidance paper? It specifically mentioned absences which have not been confirmed, they could be any sort of absence including sickness hence they would, at that stage, be categorised as UA.

flimsier wrote: »

Thanks. Finally you've accepted UA is truancy. Two ways of saying the same thing. Truancy is not a sub-category of UA as you embarrassingly suggested.

Truancy is the umbrella term and other categories are sub categories. If there are no sub cats why are there differing codes?

flimsier wrote: »

What point? That truancy and UA are the same thing? I said that in response to you saying that "truancy is one reason for UA". It is the same thing. You might not use the term (though you actually were the first to use it, so heaven know how you blame me for "wanting to use the emotive T word").

As above, UA due to ter time holidays is certainly not categorised in the same way, or by the same code as truancy in the accepted sense of the word, that is absence without known reason. Is it?
,

flimsier wrote: »

I'm sure some heads do (though that's not actually what you said - you said they refuse reluctantly, or something like that). I don't believe you that you have spoken to many heads and had conversations with many of them personally where they have said they refuse with a heavy heart or whatever words you use. The reason I don't believe this is because every head I've worked for has far too many things to discuss than expressing their personal feelings on a very small part of their job. But maybe you've sought out a dozen heads and asked them their personal feelings on an obscure question. I doubt it though. Even you must see how that is scarcely believable.

In my job, in my parental experience and in my role as a governor I come into contact with many heads. I sit on various forums, cluster groups, and even, heaven forbid;) I meet with them socially, and we talk, and we have talked about this subject. Whether it is scarcely believable to you is immaterial, it is the truth.

Again, you evidence your limited and blinkered knowledge and experience by doubting this fact. Maybe you don't come into contact with many heads but others do have different experiences you know. We don't all live in a one school bubble. Many of them do refuse reluctantly, many of them don't refuse (even though it is widely believed it is blanket policy) some do refuse point blank. The point is not everyone in education agrees with your opinion....strange though that may seem to you.

As an aside, your signature is really not something to boast about or be proud of; to be argumentative purely for the sake of it is pretty juvenile for someone past puberty.:D