The vote turned on a collision between family budgets and the value of attendance. Yes won comfortably, with its strongest case saying peak prices make term-time travel “a case of go during term time, or don't go at all”.
Yes voters argued that holidays can educate as well as school, and that a short absence need not derail learning. One called travel “a genuine break from the mundane with family”; another said, “This is all about control. not education.” The case was strongest on affordability and parental discretion, less conclusive on where reasonable absence ends.
The No side’s best-respected argument was a complaint about the question’s negative phrasing: “Why not reverse it to ‘Should parents continue to be fined’?” Its substantive case was that children can miss “key learning points” that cannot always be caught up; one No voter also warned about disruption to classmates and extra demands on teachers. Those concerns put the cost of absence in view, but the Yes case left unanswered how to distinguish a limited holiday from a pattern of missed school.
The debate reached beyond the fine itself to who should bear the cost of school-holiday prices: a Yes voter blamed companies that “hike up their prices during school holidays”, while a No voter countered, “Holidays are not essential, education is.” The result was a clear rejection of fines, but not a settled account of how schools should manage term-time absence.
47 Opinions
The truth of this is that, especially in the early years, there is little evidence that a child being taken out of school for a week a year has any long-term effect on attainment. Add to that the fact that the penalties simply don’t work, and there is little point in continuing the farce.
You can't just tell me something has been tried & hasn't been working and expect me to still support it. 🤔 Make them volunteer or something - it might allow both teachers & parents to see that a lot has changed in education as a whole & they can work together for the best outcomes for their children. Just one idea - I know we are all stretched thin... (don't chew my head off 🙃) We can figure out an impactful penalty. Penance! Bart Simpson style. 🤣 😎
If the government introduced a policy stopping holiday companies and private providers, like holiday homes and lets, from hiking their prices by £600–£1800 during the summer holidays, parents might not feel the need to take their kids out of school just to be able to afford a family . If the holiday industry doesn’t like it, then let them go out of business. Charging people excessively during peak seasons is simply ripping them off.
Yes it clearly doesn't act as a deterrent, good parents will know what is right for there children.
Education is not at a great standard. Don't care if kids don't learn when on strike or bit of snow. Don't mention Covid ! Not going to be end of world having a couple of weeks off on hols.
According to the question, fines only kick in after 10 sessions, so a week long holiday can be had without fines. I appreciate that some workers can’t choose when they have their holiday. The current situation as described is fair. This is after all a choice. Holidays are not essential, education is.
Families out-rank schools. And kids with loving parents who bother to take them on holiday will do ok, anyway. Children get much more valuable experience from even just going on a package holiday than they do in an over-crowded classroom plodding through a dumbed down curriculum.
It hasn't worked.
Kids pass whether they attend school or not so what's the difference?
I understand the aim of the fines, and it is not an unreasonable thing to want to do, but at this point I think it's also fairly clear that it hasn't worked