School declined holidays and branded the kids truants

thommy

malkie76 wrote: »

but you conceed a risk exists, hence you agree parents should not take the children out of school purely to save money!



No. The price goes down during non term time. You can't argue that one point of view is 'true' if the opposite point of view is entirely valid.

so, if you get 'sucked in', to quote you, when the price goes down, during term time, what is happening to you when the price is at its peak during the holidays?! lol.

malkie76

I think you are completely missing the point which is cost is never a rationale for risking your childs education.

poet123

malkie76 wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point which is cost is never a rationale for risking your childs education.

But how do you assess/quantify the risk? and is it not acceptable to minimise/eliminate the risk by ensuring you are selective with timing/ mindful of other factors?

ontheroad_2

malkie76 wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point which is cost is never a rationale for risking your childs education.

I don't think people are missing that point to be fair - I think most of us here who admit to taking our children out of school in term time, with the co-operation of the school, are saying we aren't risking our childs education.

malkie76

poet123 wrote: »

But how do you assess/quantify the risk? and is it not acceptable to minimise/eliminate the risk by ensuring you are selective with timing/ mindful of other factors?

You can't, which means it's a risk which cannot/should not be taken. It's your childs future we're talking about - surely even the slightest of risks is too much.

Beyond that, I unhappy that my taxes are funding a system which parent use when it suits them. I'd prefer my taxes are funding a system which will deliver the next generation of talented workforce.

edit

lastly, we're talking about a holiday; a non essential luxury item. I have to agree with the above poster who pointed out that if you can't afford a non term time holiday, then don't go on holiday.

poet123

malkie76 wrote: »

You can't, which means it's a risk which cannot/should not be taken. It's your childs future we're talking about - surely even the slightest of risks is too much.

Beyond that, I unhappy that my taxes are funding a system which parent use when it suits them. I'd prefer my taxes are funding a system which will deliver the next generation of talented workforce.

edit

lastly, we're talking about a holiday; a non essential luxury item. I have to agree with the above poster who pointed out that if you can't afford a non term time holiday, then don't go on holiday.

All I can say as an educational professional, school Governor, and mother of four, is that provided parents act with honesty (in their assessment of where their child is at with regard to absence and achievement) and with common sense re timing, then the risk (if there is one) is minimal.

It is also offset by the educational value of many of the holidays children are lucky enough to go on these days. My own children have visited Pompeii, Rome, Venice, Naples, USA, Australia, Egypt, London etc etc, in all these places they did "educational" things.

They also learned about interaction with other cultures, and empathy. Valuable life lessons, and probably of more value than the offerings in most schools during the last two weeks of term, DVD's, trips to Alton Towers, and sports days (with the competitive element removed!).

From personal experience you need have no fear that such minimal non contact time will harm the future prospects of the next tax paying generation. My family have managed to produce 3 graduates, and with one still in full time education I have no reason to suspect he will fare any differently.

kelloggs36

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

Have you considered that for business people (one man bands), self employed, agricultural workers etc etc that they have demands place upon them over and above when it fits in with the school timetable ?

Yes, and there should be some exemptions where proof can be provided that it is for purely operational reasons. However, if it is purely on cost (as suggested is the OP's case) then there is no need to go during the term time - you just have to wait and go when you have saved the money! Had I not had the money in a lump sum I would not have been able to go when I did (back in 2008) and as I have been saving into a savings plan for 10 years, I can afford to go again next year. I wanted to go this year, but I didn't have the money, so it was an extremely simple decision - I couldn't go! Patience is a virtue.

malkie76

All I can say as an educational professional, school Governor, and mother of four, is that provided parents act with honesty (in their assessment of where their child is at with regard to absence and achievement) and with common sense re timing, then the risk (if there is one) is minimal.

But you conceed there is a risk? You must also conceed that the full impact if that lost education may not be realised for years. If you conceed there is a risk, and one which cannot be quantified, then why take it?

Again, the main point here is being missed - holidays are a luxury, not essential. If you can't afford it in the summer then go on holiday every other year.

It is also offset by the educational value of many of the holidays children are lucky enough to go on these days. My own children have visited Pompeii, Rome, Venice, Naples, USA, Australia, Egypt, London etc etc

entirely a moot point given that all of these experiences could be achieved during summer holidays.

poet123

malkie76 wrote: »

But you conceed there is a risk? You must also conceed that the full impact if that lost education may not be realised for years. If you conceed there is a risk, and one which cannot be quantified, then why take it?

Again, the main point here is being missed - holidays are a luxury, not essential. If you can't afford it in the summer then go on holiday every other year.



entirely a moot point given that all of these experiences could be achieved during summer holidays.

I concede there may be a risk to some children:D

Life is a risk, why drive, why walk alongside a road, why ride etc etc. People take a view on what is an acceptable and realistic risk for their circumstance.

To me, it is an acceptable risk to remove my child from school for the last two weeks of school, I appreciate others may feel differently, but that was, and is, my view and none of my kids have been educationally disadvantaged because of that stance.

For a family of six, it is debatable whether we could have visited all those places in the peak holiday season because of price. So, would I rather they had seen the pyramids, or watched a DVD? not much contest really.

Holidays are a luxury, but unlike many other luxuries can have the effect of broadening the mind. We love to travel, to show our kids different cultures, expose them to different languages, enhance their language skills. For me, the risk v benefit calculation for the last two weeks of term is clearly weighted in favour of the holiday.

Murphy_The_Cat

moneypooh wrote: »

"The school stayed closed for 'access reasons', which was odd, as the children all live with walking distance of the school. Ho hum, never mind, that was a week of his education that he missed out on"

Our school posted work on the internet for the time they missed during January. 90% of the students managed some work, the others revised for exams that we also on at the same time.

sorry, a bit off topic, but some schools did keep some continuity going even though the school was officially closed.

Sadly, my sons school didn't (in fact they aren't to good at all with utilising t'internet), which is a shame he would have quite enjoyed doing something 'new'.