The majority of parents say that fines for unauthorised absences would not deter them from taking their children on holiday during school terms, a survey has found.
Almost three in five parents – 57% – have or would consider their child missing school for a day or more for a term-time holiday, according to a survey by the charity Parentkind.
The same proportion said the risk of receiving a fine would not impact their decision to take their child out of school.
The poll, of nearly 5,500 parents from across the UK, was carried out by YouGov in April and May before higher fines for unauthorised pupil absences came into effect in England.
The government increased school absence fines from £60 to £80 this academic year in an attempt to boost attendance since the pandemic.
A parent who receives a second fine for the same child within a three-year period will now automatically receive a £160 penalty.
More than half of parents said they were opposed to the policy changes, the poll found.
More on Education
Related Topics:
The Department for Education (DfE) has said other actions, such as a parenting order or prosecution, will be considered if a parent receives more than two fines per child within a three-year period. Those who are prosecuted may receive a fine of up to £2,500.
Nearly one in five – 18% – parents polled said it was harder to get their child to attend school compared to before the pandemic, while almost a third (31%) said they were “more relaxed” about their child’s attendance since the COVID lockdowns.
Advertisement
The poll also found that one in seven parents (14%) admitted their child spends seven hours or more a day on electronic devices such as phones or game consoles, on weekdays outside school.
Parentkind has urged the government to publish the evidence on smartphone harm and introduce legislation to ban smartphones for children.
The charity’s survey also found that some parents reported skipping meals and rationing heating to cope with financial pressures.
More than one in five said they have struggled to afford costs associated with sending their child to school, including uniforms and class trips. Some 11% said they had taken out a loan or taken on debt to pay for these costs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:11
‘Ghost children’ missing education
Jason Elsom, chief executive of Parentkind, said: “Many parents are struggling to make ends meet and get children away from their screens, it is no wonder they are tempted by a term-time holiday.
“We’re calling for a big commitment from ministers to listen to what parents are saying when it comes to making family life cheaper, clamping down on rip-off holiday costs and banning smartphones for children,” he added.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “Ultimately, fines are a blunt tool. Many teachers and leaders are already doing a huge amount to help support children back into school, and attendance figures have started to improve.
“The best way for the government to tackle the causes behind persistent absence is to fund those services that support both families and schools – which faced devastating cuts under the austerity of the last government.”
“We have lost our beautiful daughter, sister, friend and mother. Annabel was a truly wonderful woman,” the tribute read.
“She touched the hearts of so many.
“She gave her life to helping the vulnerable and the disadvantaged whether it was in refugee camps in Africa or setting up MamaSuze in London, to enhance the lives of survivors of forced displacement and gender-based violence.”
When I got to Chequers on Sunday, the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East, as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation.
His primary message was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy.
But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn’t – what he couldn’t – say about the US strikes.
It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Donald Trump.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:00
Starmer reacts to US strikes on Iran
Instead, his was a form of words – repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) – to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon.
He also didn’t want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn’t listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran.
Image: Donald Trump and Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada last week. Pic: Reuters
It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn’t think a US attack was imminent, when I asked him what was going on following President Trump’s abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House.
When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn’t seem to be listening, he told me it was a “fast moving situation” with a “huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7” and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation.
What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
What is Operation ‘Midnight Hammer’?
Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran – something Israel is still saying it is not prepared to do.
The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough.
It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak.
Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks – the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran – is a response that will make the regime seem weak.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger Article 5 of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action.
If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat.
The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes.
Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks.
There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say.
The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.
The prime minister may be deeply opposed to this war, but stopping it is not in his gift.
Initially, only those with a body mass index of over 40 who have at least four other health problems linked to obesity will be eligible.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:21
Can you get pregnant when on weight loss drugs?
Some doctors have raised concerns about the additional workload this new programme will bring, while pharmacists fear it could lead to supply shortages.
Dr Claire Fuller from NHS England said: “We urgently need to address rising levels of obesity and prioritise support for those who are experiencing severe ill health – and greater access to weight loss drugs will make a significant difference to the lives of those people.”
She added: “While not everyone will be eligible for weight loss drugs, it’s important that anyone who is worried about the impact of their weight on their health discusses the range of NHS support available with their healthcare professional.”
More on Nhs
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:22
Weight loss drugs ‘changing way we see obesity’
The chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs welcomed NHS England’s decision to pursue a phased rollout, and said current workloads must be factored in to ensure the jabs can be prescribed safely.
Professor Kamila Hawthorne went on to say: “While weight loss medications have a lot of potential benefits for patients who are struggling to lose weight and who meet all the clinical criteria for a prescription, they mustn’t be seen as a ‘silver bullet’ to aid weight loss.
“We also need to see a focus on prevention, stopping people becoming overweight in the first place so they don’t require a medical intervention later.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:19
‘How I tried to get weight loss drugs’
Her remarks were echoed by the National Pharmacy Association’s chairman Olivier Picard, who says “prescribing these medications alone misses the point”.
He argued that they need to be part of a comprehensive strategy that includes lifestyle coaching, exercise and nutritional guidance – but many GPs currently “lack the bandwidth” to provide this support.
“As a result, we could end up in a situation where patients are prescribed the medication, lose weight, and then experience rebound weight gain once the course ends – simply because the foundational lifestyle changes weren’t addressed,” Mr Picard added.
Estimates suggest about 29% of the adult population is obese.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting says the government “is determined to bring revolutionary modern treatments to everyone who needs them, not just those who can afford to pay”.