School Term Time Fines

lrr_2

It doesnt matter where you are taking them on holiday. Are you not allowed to have a life for 12 years because of school but they are allowed to spring 'in service' days on us every now and again. I try to take the holidays outwith school term but if I need to take them during term I will. As long as you are not abusing it I cant see the problem.

Rant over

monkeyspanner

I have always believed that contracts are two way agreements with each party agreeing to certain conditions.

I would be happier to pay a fine to the school for holidays during term time if I could fine the school for days of education missed in the last week of terms because the teachers use videos to occupy the kids. Or fail to provide suitably qualified replacement teachers due to teacher illness or even disrupt an entire years schooling in a subject with a procession of useless supply teachers as happened in science with my daughter in year 9 despite written complaints to the school. This resulted in many parents paying for private science tuition to prevent their children falling behind.

When state schools actually provide the reliable quality service for which they are paid then perhaps parents would see a few days taken off school as a valuable resource they cannot afford their children to miss.

covlass

I do not consider my self selfish because I have taken my children out of school on a number of occasions to various places around the world. My daughter has often complained about watching DVD's in school because she could have done that at home.

May be us parents should fine the schools for distrupting our childs education for all the extra days off they get for teacher training and strike action.

dwileflunker

Rosie75 wrote: »

No one is saying the parents aren't in charge of the child, nor is the child being forcibly kept in school. The school simply levies a fine for unauthorised absence. I think this is fair enough, given that the state pays for a child's education - those costs are still incurred whether the child is in school or on holiday during term time. Why should taxpayers be expected to pay for a child's education during a period when its parents have chosen to take him or her on holiday? This is the same principle whereby I, as a university lecturer, am asked to keep a record of my students' attendance, since they too (despite their belief that their fees entirely cover the cost of their education) are subsided by the government, a right which they can lose should they not maintain regular attendance.

As one of those taxpayers who pay for the State that you not only quote, but also work for I don't think you have any right to tell me, or anyone else, what my portion of taxpayers money should or should not be used for. I would argue that financially penalising parents for taking children out of school is a form of forcibly keeping children in school and, as such, means parents are not in charge of their child due to pecuniary disadvantage, contrary to what you say. As a government employee perhaps you and your employer should be listening to what the people who pay your salaries are telling you. Your analogy with the university is totally irrelevent because, unlike school, nobody has to compulsory attend university. Your argument may be quite valied for universities, although having paid many thousands of pounds towards my daughter's university education I may disagree with you on some issues, but that is a totally different matter.

Unfortunately, we have a governement and their various departments, including education, who propagate the nanny state, advocating that they know better than the people who pay their wages. Only when we get back to a situation where the government, and in this case the educationalists, realise that they are paid to work for us the parents, rather than pontificate what is or is not right for our children, will this country have a chance of returning to some sort of normality. Make no mistake, in the main (and there will always be exceptions), the people who know best for their children are the parents, even regarding taking their children out of school, contrary to what the government, local authorities, and perhaps even more sadly the educationalists try to tell us.

Rosie75

dwileflunker wrote: »

As one of those taxpayers who pay for the State that you not only quote, but also work for I don't think you have any right to tell me, or anyone else, what my portion of taxpayers money should or should not be used for. I would argue that financially penalising parents for taking children out of school is a form of forcibly keeping children in school and, as such, means parents are not in charge of their child due to pecuniary disadvantage, contrary to what you say. As a government employee perhaps you and your employer should be listening to what the people who pay your salaries are telling you. Your analogy with the university is totally irrelevent because, unlike school, nobody has to compulsory attend university. Your argument may be quite valied for universities, although having paid many thousands of pounds towards my daughter's university education I may disagree with you on some issues, but that is a totally different matter.

Unfortunately, we have a governement and their various departments, including education, who propagate the nanny state, advocating that they know better than the people who pay their wages. Only when we get back to a situation where the government, and the educationalists, realise that they are paid to work for us the parents, rather than pontificate what is or is not right for our children, will this country have a chance of returning to some sort of normality. Make no mistake, in the main (and there will always be exceptions), the people who know best for their children are the parents, even regarding taking their children out of school, contrary to what the government, local authorities, and perhaps even more sadly the educationalists try to tell us.

I can't even begin to explain the flaws in this thinking. The job of educationalists is to teach, and to help young people to achieve their potential. It is not to pander to parents and their needs - which in the case of this thread, relate to holidays which working parents are telling us they (not their children) "need". You may argue that you have paid for your daughter's university education, but that is a financial relationship between you and her, and not between you and the university.
And please spare me the Daily Mail bile that says, because I work for the public sector, you pay my salary. It can just as easily be argued that you and I pay the salaries of thousands of people who work in the private sector though our various patterns of consumption. Despite your assumptions that teachers and lecturers exist to "propagate the nanny state" I can assure you that I have yet to meet any colleagues who have any affection for current government policies.

creased-leach

Our secondary school inevitably sends a snotty letter if they authorise an absence. However, this year our trip will coincide with a trip they're organising. They're going to the same country, at the same time, and doing a lot of the same activities.

A letter back, quoting the reasons they're giving for why it's acceptable may be in order methinks.

PolishBigSpender

Rosie75 wrote: »

No one is saying the parents aren't in charge of the child, nor is the child being forcibly kept in school. The school simply levies a fine for unauthorised absence.

It should be up to the parents to authorise the absence. Of course, you can't overdo it, but if the kid is ill or simply you're all going somewhere, you just write a letter stating that you authorise it. Simple?

dwileflunker

Rosie75 wrote: »

I can't even begin to explain the flaws in this thinking. The job of educationalists is to teach, and to help young people to achieve their potential. It is not to pander to parents and their needs - which in the case of this thread, relate to holidays which working parents are telling us they (not their children) "need". You may argue that you have paid for your daughter's university education, but that is a financial relationship between you and her, and not between you and the university.
And please spare me the Daily Mail bile that says, because I work for the public sector, you pay my salary. It can just as easily be argued that you and I pay the salaries of thousands of people who work in the private sector though our various patterns of consumption. Despite your assumptions that teachers and lecturers exist to "propagate the nanny state" I can assure you that I have yet to meet any colleagues who have any affection for current government policies.

Let's first disregard the university aspect as it really has nothing to do with this thread. I don't read the Mail but it obviously hits a nerve with you, Guardian I suspect, but even so if you don't think the taxpayer pays your salary then you must be in denial. I think most teachers are good hardworking people who in the main agree with the same things as the parents of the chidren they teach. I have a small number of teacher friends who say outside of the big exam times children being missing from class is no great problem as most catch up in some way. I don't know if this correct but suspect it is the commonsense approach, however, the governmental world we now live in means they are not allowed to voice these opinions. The problem is not the teachers, but the people who employ them, who as far I'm concerned forget that they are puiblic servants. Like the PC brigade they now think they are more important than the people they serve, or should I say suppose to serve, because I don't see much coming my way in the way of service. The responsibility for the results of a child being taken out of school during term time is that of the parent, and only when the parent is allowed to undertake that responsibility without financial penalty will some sort of normality return to this ragged society that has been created by this and previous governments, along with the myriad of selfimportant local authorities.

Curlywurli

I wish that I could take ten days off work during term time, but I think that this would possibly cause uproar! People are quite happy to let their children take ten days off, but how would you feel if your child's teacher took ten days off?

dwileflunker

Curlywurli wrote: »

I wish that I could take ten days off work during term time, but I think that this would possibly cause uproar! People are quite happy to let their children take ten days off, but how would you feel if your child's teacher took ten days off?

I for many many years worked in an industry (not education) where I was not allowed to take time off during school holiday times in the same way that you can't take time off during term. If, as a teacher, I said to you that you can't have a holiday during school holidays I suspect you'd be quite upset. Industry has to manage both work and holidays, surely it is not beyond the limits of the highly educated teaching fraternity management to come up with something that will broadly satisfy parents and teachers the whole year round.