Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Something to think about, no Southwark secondaries are under LA control (all VA or academies). Some primaries are VA, free schools/academies. They can set their own holidays. This means that parents who eg have children both in primary and secondary can have major mismatches in their children's holiday. This could mean eg to go away to visit family at Xmas, they may miss some school days for one child but not for another child at a different school. The system as it is only allows children to be removed with permission from the Head teacher, so it is discretionary permission and not an automatic right.


Renata

I think this is a much bigger issue reflecting many problems in the education system. thousands of parents are fined every year, many for taking holidays during school time.


Here's a recent link http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10177925.Swindon_parents_fined_tens_of_thousands_of_pounds_for_children_missing_school/


Renata, I'm sure I read recently the goverment is not going ahead with a proposal to automatically take fines from

benefits, can you confirm this please.


I do not believe fining parents is not the answer to truancy, there are many troubled families, with individual

complex problems, where fining and the threat of prison only adds to there problems.


It is a long time since I looked at private companies either running or partly running schools, in relation to truancy,

but there was a significant increase in the amount of parents being fined, eg serco group, whether this is still the

case I can't say. always difficult to get this info.

I've cobbled together (attached) what I believe the relevant regulation 7 looks like both before and after the change. Please let me know of any mistake.


Afaics, there is currently a provision that absence for holiday may be granted in "special circumstances", and that, unless there are "exceptional circumstances", such absence should not exceed ten days a year.


The change apparently removes any reference to holidays or to any limit, and specfies that absence can be granted only in exceptional circumstances.


It looks to me as if any skirmishing or litigation about this will have to deal with problems such as mismatch between holidays as mentioned by Renata, and whether they constitute an "exceptional circumstance". Presumably there may already be some kind of conventional understanding, or maybe even legal precedent, as to what "exceptional circumstances" might be in this context.


What is a "special school" as in para.5?

Agreed there are bigger issues in education. So why is the government even bothering with meddling with something so relatively trivial? Is it just so they can be seen as 'doing something' while actually avoiding tackling bigger issues efficiently?


Considering it from that p.o.v., I'll protest it on principle.

Signed....there may be more important things but it only takes a few minutes. Having 10 days flexible holiday dependent on your child attending regularly and on time the rest of the term is a mature way of giving families flexibility. You don't have to use it but I feel strongly that it is my right as a parent to decide whether a few absences, pre-arranged, are of benefit for my children and family.
Signed too. It was not chaos or a free for all or detrimental to my primary education in the 70s to have a week off school for our main family holiday. I don't like this flexibility being withdrawn. If my children are there for the rest of the year, don't take spurious sick days and are doing well at school I should be able to flex some time as was the case until relatively recently. The sensible majority are suffering because some families take the p@ss.

In the 1990s, as part of my degree, I studied in Holland. There they divided the country up into 3 and had staggered holidays. This was more noticeable during the summer as obviously longer holidays. It was done, I was told,to prevent most of the country shutting down whilst families took their holidays.

For instance Zone 1 summer holiday may be from 16th June to 16th August

Zone 2 could be from 30th June - 28th August

Zone 3 from 14th July - 16th Septemer.


Each zone got their required number of weeks there was abviously some overlap but far more sensible that everyone jostling for end of July/August.


My friend is a lab technician in a Kent school and 2/3 years ago they trialled a 2 week whitsun break and a one week October half term break, and cut down the summer hols by one week. There was talk about cutting down the summer hols again and having 2 weeks whitsun and 2 weeks October half terms, but this did not happen. From what I gathered from my friend was that the teaching staff liked the 2 weeks whitsun break - I think the problem was the exam timetables.


Personally - I favour a 4 term academic year. Many Unis now are doing October - December, Jan - end of February, and April - June.

Completely agree with you number 2! Can just imagine if the children turned up for class and the teacher had taken a few days/weeks extra holiday. How would the school cope? Of course they would have to bring in supply teachers which would have a detrimental effect on the whole class and other classes in the school.


katgod - I'm sure your holidays in the 70s were taken in the 6 week summer break?

No, my holidays were not taken in the 6 weeks break. That is precisely my point. It has until relatively recently been possible to take time off in term time. As provided for in the previous regulations, a 10 day flexibility has worked quite well until now. I see no reason to remove that option.
I agree Katgod. I agree is not the most important issue in education at the moment perhaps, but agree that the government is meddling with this aspect so as to be seen to be doing something. until now it has been acceptable to occasionally take some time off in term-time. however, most people chose not to - and i very much doubt that anyone takes older kids out of school unless there is something like a family wedding or funeral overseas. it therefore does not descend into chaos. i remember most of my holidays being taken over the summer as a kid, apart from once when in primary school we went to visit family in Canada. was a once-in-a-lifetime journey and has stayed with me.
  • 3 weeks later...

Children being away for school term holidays will affect the learning of other children in the class and will be very disruptive for all. Topics/lessons missed, extra catchup work to be set. Teachers spending precious time on those who have been away rather than the rest of the class. More burden on already stretched teaching force.


Agree with EDmummy about lobbying the holiday industry!

I looked at the link re fines in Swindon. At ?50 for an unauthorised term time holiday, it's a fee rather than a fine, and good value when you consider the difference in holiday costs. If this practice is extended and made more uniform there's an obvious risk that more, not fewer parents will take their kids out. That's why it's essential for schools to have a proper discretion to distinguish between cases of truancy (where I would usually understand the absence to be without the knowledge, or at least express consent, of the parent), parents who genuinely don't support their kids education, and parents who do but have a good reason for taking a term time holiday.

bornagain Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Children being away for school term holidays will

> affect the learning of other children in the class

> and will be very disruptive for all.

> Topics/lessons missed, extra catchup work to be

> set. Teachers spending precious time on those who

> have been away rather than the rest of the class.

> More burden on already stretched teaching force.

>


Predicating the education of one child on the presence (or absence) of another is not a good education policy IMHO. The education of each child is an end in itself, not a means to an end. A better solution might be to reinforce teaching staff with better support, not to penalise parents for when and how they choose to educate their children. Holidays are learning experiences too. There's a lot more that could be done to improve education than penalising parents for holidays. In fact, I'd say the two are not related at all, as per DaveR's final point of distinguishing when children are actually truant.

I wonder what the child's perspective is. I remember not enjoying school for periods of time and liking it even less when over-indulged uber-children scooted off for glamorous trips to Tanzania etc, while I remained in class enduring the tedium of Geography classes, with little more than a week in a caravan during the summer holidays to look forward to. To add insult to injury we would often be exposed to a classroom level presentation of their experience when they returned. Still I guess it was good preparation for adult life in which the unglamorous world of knuckling down and getting on with things seemingly pales into insignificance relative to posting "interesting" things on Facebook.

"Predicating the education of one child on the presence (or absence) of another is not a good education policy IMHO. "


Like it or not, we live in a community and actions of one parent can impact on children of others. We can all hope for more staffing and better support but in this current climate it's probably not going to happen.


Term time holidays are probably the preoccupation of the squeezed middle. The rich can afford holidays anytime and the poor don't get to go on holidays at all.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...