Term Time holidays for reception child

[Kes]

Does anyone happen to know if the new stricter rules about term time holiday apply to reception children? I'm probably clutching at straws here, but my understanding is they don't legally have to have started school at that age so do the rules still apply?

I'll ask the head about it but wondered if anyone had any experience?

Thanks

[Pickle]

Yes, they do.

We have had our term time holiday refused (year 1 and 2 children for 3 days before Easter) and the trip is to attend my brothers memorial service and headstone unveiling in New Zealand! Needless to say I've disputed it.

Have a chat to the head, but they're very strict on it these days. Doesn't stop anyone actually doing it, of course :)

[snowboarder]

We had a term time week off authorised for our 4 year old who is in reception and not 5 until April....

As always nothing is clear!

[Pickle]

Having spent the last week trawling through the legislation I completely agree SB. It's lacking definitions and leaves a lot to the discretion of the head teacher concerned.

[Kes]

Pickle I'm so sorry, that really does seem unreasonable. If that's not exceptional circumstances what is?

[Inkmaiden]

Pickle, that's terrible.

A friend of mine recently applied for term time absence was told by the headmistress of her school that the rules don't apply to children under five for Kes's reason that children are not legally required to be there.

Also, if you look at the info for Southwark school holiday dates, it says at the bottom that children must attend for 190 days out of the 195 days, so does that not leave some leeway for absences? Very confusing. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/8698/school_term_and_holiday_dates_201415

[bluesuperted]

I think that 190/195 is to take into account in service days.

Sorry to hear about that Pickle... Not very sensitive handling. Hope the memorial goes smoothly for all.

[Inkmaiden]

Aha, I see. Thanks bst.

[JDR]

We have conflicting accounts within our school. Head says no holidays in term time and just sent a letter saying Southwark will start finig parents, whereas deputy says as long as attendance is 90%+ after the days taken its fine.... Very confusing

[Belle]

I've known children in my son's reception class be taken out for a day or two for planned leave, without apparent repercussions. But no idea if this is cleared with just class teacher or going to the head. We chose not to risk it when travelling to my friend's wedding last autumn - I now think I was crazy as it meant we had a crazy cross London dash in rush hour to Heathrow! Maybe speak to your class teacher first?

[Kes]

Thanks everyone, I guess it just comes down to each schools interpretation of the rules so I'll have to see what they say. I'm only looking to take her out for 2 days but I suspect the answer will be no so as not to set a precedent. Worth a try though I guess!

[ladywotlunches]

I think the rules changed this year, so that all term time absence is 'unauthorised'. It does mean that funerals, memorials etc are classed as 'unauthorised' though I think in practice parents only get sent to the naughty step if the child's attendance is under a certain %age. It does seem a silly ruling as in fact it makes schools 'numbers' look worse - as all absence is unauthorised, even when exceptional circumstances.

Kes, being unauthorised doesn't mean you can't take your child out. And if it got to LEA stage I think at that point you can put your case. Pickle, I do hope you are intending to go to NZ anyway and that all goes well over there. All else fails, a sudden bout of gastroenteritis just before the end of term? :) (and then the children have 2 weeks to have forgotten about it when they get back if they are asked!!)

[SE22mum]

can't she be sick as it's only for 2 days?

[ClareC]

We have booked a week's skiing next Feb, daughter starts reception in September.

As we don't technically have a place yet (not yet awarded) so there wasn't anyone to ask but I plan to rely on the fact she legally doesn't have to be at school then. The term after she is 5 is Easter.

We won't do it from year 1 onwards -have already booked Easter skiing that year and thereafter.

Before the rule changes the head was ok with it, think their hands are tied now although the school has now become an academy so maybe that gives them more flexibility.

There is a ski company that pays the fines ;) to be honest the fines are much smaller than the increased cost of the holiday.

Going forward we will just holiday outside of term time but provided child not struggling at school and doing well I personally think holidays are good and (can be) part of their education.

[minder]

SE22mum, don't give sickness as a reason, as they will prob go down with an illness just when due to go back to school!

[SE22mum]

yep = that would be just typical!

my days of the odd sickie here and there are over now as have 2 kids in same school so bit suspicious if both sick at once!

I do understand that it is disruptive for schools to have kids out of class but I also feel that when they are so young and as long as they are up to date there should be some slack. I also wish there would be some curbs on how much prices can rise in holiday times. we have lots of family overseas and it's so frustrating not to be able to go because the flights go up so much in price.

[Pickle]

I met with the deputy head today to discuss our circumstances. Seems that "unauthorised", but with the schools blessing, is to be the final result for us.

If I had taken the children with me when my brother died last year, in the middle of term due to where Easter fell, meaning nearly two weeks off school, that would have been exceptional circumstances.

Because we took time to consider the impact on the kids schooling, and decided it would be too disruptive, therefore waiting until the anniversary of the death where it works out we can tack onto the Easter break and miss just 3 days of school, it is unauthorised.

This system is absolutely crazy. By doing the right thing, you are penalised. Granted, it's just on paper, but for me the principle of it is totally screwed up. I have been told many times today that the dFe's definition of "exceptional circumstances" is very tight. Funny, when I read the legislation I found there is no definition given, leaving it to the discretion of the head teacher. That would be the same head teacher that today, before telling me to see the deputy because "I don't deal with those things, told me that "you need to provide proof" in relation to my 34 year old brother dying.

The Daily Mail would have a field day. I'm off to have a glass of wine.

[buggie]

No advice I'm afraid, but just wanted to say that I'm so sorry you're being put through this for what I can imagine is a stressful enough time for you & your family.

Can't believe the attitude of the head teacher - surely he's not so busy that

believing or at least being more tactful to you.

Hope all goes ok once you're in NZ x

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Ditto what Buggie said x

[Medusa]

Sounds remarkably like the behaviour of the Head of my kids' former primary close to Dunstan's Road *cough*. The man's an ar5e, Pickle. To hell with it. I hope your trip goes as well as such things can.