Term-Time Family Holidays - The Reprise

One of my early blogs (over a year ago now – yikes!!!) looked at the phenomenon of term-time family holidays.  I looked at the legal framework and the circumstances in which headteachers could authorise school absences so that families could take holidays during the school term; invariably to keep costs down. 

 

That has proven to be my most popular blog to date, the subject matter being of interest to all working families with children still of school age.

 

In this follow-up piece, I look at changes over the last year to the legal landscape so far as term-time holidays are concerned.  I look at how schools are applying rules introduced last autumn, and moves afoot in Parliament to look at this issue afresh. 

 

What’s Changed?

The baseline legal requirements are the same as a year ago.  Parents have a legal obligation to ensure their children receive what is described as a “suitable full-time education”.  A child must be educated when he or she is of “compulsory school age”:  currently, this means between the ages of 5 and 17 (the upper age will increase to 18 from next year).

 

Headteachers were entitled under the then rules to authorise pupils to be absent for up to ten days each year (and in rare situations, for longer periods) in “special circumstances”.  This was intended to cover life’s unexpected eventualities that might require a child to be away:  illness, bereavement or inability to get to school due to bad weather.  In addition, many headteachers were approving absences under this power so that children could go on a family holiday during the school term. 

 

It was this latter accommodation by headteachers that lead to a legal change on 1 September 2013, with the entry into force of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.  These Regulations do away with the ten-day threshold, as well as the qualifier “special circumstances”.  Instead, headteachers now may only grant leaves of absence in “exceptional circumstances”.

 

I’ll come on shortly to look at whether in reality there is any difference between circumstances that are “special” as opposed to “exceptional”.

 

It’s worth noting that this legislative change was snuck in through the back door.  The Regulations were put before Parliament on 4 April 2013.  There was no request to debate them.  They passed under a negative resolution – which means that they would pass so long as Parliament did not vote against them.  Parliament would have had an opportunity to discuss the Regulations, had anyone tabled an early-day motion, but nobody did.  There was no discussion and the changes wrought by the Regulations became law by stealth.

 

The Regulations also amend the procedures for issuing penalty notices to each parent who fails to ensure their child’s regular attendance at school.  The fine is £60 if paid within 21 days; or £120 if paid within 28 days.  These time periods for payment are shorter than previously.  As before, prosecutions may follow if payment is not made (together with other measures outlined in my earlier blog). 

 

Why is this an issue? 

Primarily due to cost.    Prices sky-rocket during the school holiday periods.  They did a year ago.  They did apparently in the 1960s, when a motion was introduced in the House of Commons expressed thus:  “That this House, recognising the need to extend and adjust the holiday period so as to relieve congestion at the peak period, asks Her Majesty’s Government to set up a committee to examine the question urgently with special reference to the educational, tourist trade and transport interests concerned, and the problem of summer time, with the power to recommend early action.”

 

And nothing has changed…  A Telegraph Travel price checking survey conducted in February 2014 confirmed that parents pay on average between 30% and 40% more for a week’s break during the school holiday period.  A week’s break could be up to 62% more expensive in August than during term time in July.

 

Beyond cost, the issue affects a smaller cohort of families where parents cannot readily arrange their time off so it falls in step with school holidays.  For example, members of the armed forces and those with particularly specialist professions whose absence would leave vital facilities inadequately staffed.

 

What’s happening in practice? 

This seems to differ from school to school.  Some appear to be approaching term-time absences to accommodate family holidays in the same way as they were prior to September 2013, on a case-by-case basis.  After all, all that has really changed is that the test is now one of “exceptional” circumstances rather than “special” ones.  To many, this might look like a matter of semantics.

 

But others appear much more anxious.  In a recent debate by the Commons Backbench Committee (more of which in a moment), an example was cited of a headteacher who wrote in the following terms:  “As from 1^st September 2013 any holidays during term time will not be authorised, unless there are exceptional circumstances, for which there are set criteria.  This is Government policy…”  This was in response, which was refused, to a request to take a child on holiday for a week, following her diagnosis with a brain tumour. 

 

The letter from the headteacher in this particular example cited reads into the new law provisions that are not there.  There are not set criteria for authorising term-time holiday absences.  That some headteachers are proceeding under the misapprehension that there are is troubling. 

 

What’s the solution?

According to Education Secretary Michael Gove, the answer is to stagger term dates.  The logic goes that, if different schools have different term dates, the logjam of demand that causes prices to skyrocket will not occur.  Said Gove last month, “There's no need to sacrifice your child's education in order to secure a cheaper holiday,” he said. “Schools now have the freedom to change their term dates in order to allow students and families the opportunity to go on holiday at different times.”  The Education Secretary’s proposal has the support of two of the country's biggest travel associations, ABTA and the Association of Independent Tour Operators (AITO). 

 

Some parents are adopting a more proactive response.  A petition started by Donna Thresher, an Essex mother, in March 2013 propounds that: “All children who have a good attendance record should be allowed the opportunity to enjoy quality time with their parents on an annual holiday of up to 10 days once per year.”

 

It goes on:  “Good parents or parents that work full time should not be criminalised for wanting to enjoy an affordable annual family holiday.”

 

That petition began life prior to the legislative change in September 2013.  Said Ms Thresher after the new regulations came into force:  “The original petition still stands in its own right but we do feel that the change in legislation has impacted the costs even further”.

 

That petition attracted some 170,000 signatures, significantly more than the 100,000 required to be considered for a debate under the Government’s e-petitions initiative.

 

Ms Thresher is not alone.  A group called “Parents Want a Say” has a number of e-petitions on its website relating to holidays and term-time absences.

 

And so it was that the Commons Backbench Committee came to debate the issue on 24 February 2014.  Both the transcript and a video of the debate are available, and make for engaging reading and viewing, respectively.  There appears to be a degree of appetite on the part of many MPs to ensure that the issue is managed with an element of common sense and that headteachers (rather than Parliament) are the final arbiters when it comes to authorising – or not – holidays during school term. 

 

Particularly outspoken on point is Liberal Democrat MP, John Hemming, who said there had not been enough debate on what was a "big issue".

 

"The problem is half-terms all tend to be the same, leading to a very big demand for holidays all at the same time,” he said. “And reducing the flexibility of people to take their children out of school adds to that."

 

What emerges from the debate, and whether any further legislative amendment is tabled, remains to be seen…

 

Practical Tips

I offered a series of tips in my earlier blog on topic.  To those, I add these three:

 

1. Contact your school now to ascertain how it approaches the changes introduced in September 2013 to the question of term-time absences.  Is there a policy ban on any term-time holidays?  Does the school have a view about what might comprise “exceptional circumstances”?
    
2. Be vocal!  Many parents have – as the recent Commons Backbench Committee debate shows – already contacted their MPs to highlight how their particular circumstances bring them into conflict with the perception by some headteachers that there is a blanket-ban on term-time absences.  As the petitions of Ms Thresher et al show, a groundswell of support can make politicians sit up and take notice.  And with next year being an election year, there might just be a willingness to be more receptive to this issue than otherwise.  Sign the online petitions.  Write to your MP.  Share your particular experiences.
    
3. Shop around and be flexible about where you might want to go.  The Telegraph Travel survey showed that, when different destinations were chosen, the price rises during school holiday periods were far less pronounced.

 

The kids are alright! Research continues to demonstrate the children of LGBTI parents are thriving

The results of what is reported to be the world’s largest study to date exploring the impact of LGBTI parenting on child health and development are expected in September 2013. 

The study is being undertaken by the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS).  The ACHESS is being conducted as part of the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program at the University of Melbourne.  It is the first study in Australia to consider the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex attracted parents.

The ACHESS is based on data collected on five hundred children aged from birth to seventeen years old.  Focussing on mental, physical and social wellbeing, the study also interviewed 315 LGBTI parents.  The adult participants were asked to complete the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ).  The CHQ is a series of internationally recognised surveys designed to test for general quality of life. 

Whilst the full results of the ACHESS are still a couple of months away, an interim report is already available.  It suggests that children brought up by LGBTI parents are happier and healthier than their peers brought up by heterosexuals. 

 

On measures of general health and family cohesion, children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents scored significantly better when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts.  For all other health measures there were no statistically significant differences.

Unsurprisingly, however, the study confirmed that children with same-sex attracted parents continued to face discrimination in a variety of contexts.

Said Dr Simon Crouch, the lead researcher on the ACHESS on this particular finding:

“One of our hypotheses is that this experience of discrimination does have an impact on child health and well being.”

What is perhaps most significant is that this impact appears to be a positive one.  In the face of discrimination, children with LGBTI parents are developing at least as well as the children not exposed to it. 

A detailed description of the ACHESS protocol and background research can be found online.

 

It may be the world’s largest – and to that extent is doubtless an important study – but the trends emerging from the ACHESS duplicate those from similar research around the world.  Earlier this year, a British study undertaken by Cambridge University’s Centre for Family Research confirmed the adopted children of same-sex parents were thriving.  Same-sex adoptive parents were found to be raising children just as successfully as heterosexual ones.  Gay men were found to be faring particularly well in managing the parenting challenges presented by children who had negative and damaging experiences in early life.  There was no evidence to support speculation that children's masculine or feminine tendencies were affected by having gay or lesbian parents.  Family life and the quality of relationships were very similar for children regardless of their parents' sexual orientation.

Professor Susan Golombok, the report’s co-author, commented on the results: 

“Overall we found markedly more similarities than differences in experiences between family types.”

 

Quoted in the Independent at the time, she added: 

"What I don't like is when people make assumptions that a certain type of family, such as gay fathers, will be bad for children. The anxieties about the potentially negative effects for children of being placed with gay fathers seem to be, from our study, unfounded."

And a US study published in October 2012 undertaken by psychologists from the University of Central Los Angeles looking at welfare and development depending on whether adopted children were placed with gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents arrived at the same conclusion.  The children in that study ranged in age from 4 months to 8 years.  They presented with multiple risk factors at the time of adoption, including premature birth, prenatal substance exposure, abuse or neglect, and multiple prior placements.  The psychologists studied the children two months, one year and two years after they were placed with a family.  They found very few differences among the children at any of the assessments over the two-year period following placement.  All children achieved significant gains in their cognitive development, and their levels of behaviour problems remained stable.  This was despite the fact that the children adopted by gay and lesbian families had more risk factors at the time of their placement; out of nine risk factors, they averaged one additional risk factor, compared with the children adopted by heterosexual parents.

Said Letitia Anne Peplau, research professor of psychology at UCLA and co-author of the study:

"The children adopted by gay and lesbian parents had more challenges before they were adopted and yet they end up in the same place, which is impressive."

So let’s see what the final ACHESS report brings later this year, in terms of:

Ø                  whether further analysis of the data identifies the ways in which LGBTI discrimination affects children and their families, and

Ø                  characterising overall health and wellbeing in more detail.

But in the meantime, the evidence-led conclusion is unarguable.  The outcomes of all credible studies are consistent and support one conclusion:  children – whether they join the families through adoption, surrogacy or in some other way - brought up by LGBTI parents flourish!