School declined holidays and branded the kids truants

thommy

thommy wrote: »

yes, absoultely. but you believe there is a risk of damage to a child's education if he/she is taken out on holiday. is that correct?

:wall:
please! yes, or no?

Murphy_The_Cat

malkie76 wrote: »

Not really - people are constantly attempting to put words into my mouth, and ask me to provide evidence for claims I've never made.

Conversely users post definite statements, yet are unable to support them with evidence.

Hello Malkie

I am right, you are wrong

& the proof of this is that I've just seen a magpie walking across a road.

mogadon

If I decided to take 2 weeks unauthorised leave from by job, it's not going to cause the immediate collapse of the company. It would certainly be an inconvenience for the people who have to pick up the slack, but in the big scheme of things, it wouldn't cause massive insurmountable problems for anyone. So why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

If I did, I am quite sure that my employer would not be understanding about it. And offering to take it unpaid would not mitigiate that. There are perhaps a few situations were I could argue my case on compassionate grounds, or similar. But feeling I deserve a holiday, or wanting to save a few quid, are not going to be considered suitable excuses.

I suspect that that's the case for the majority of jobs (although not all, obviously). Is anybody here going to defend my 'right' to behave like that? I suspect not. For the simple reason that everyone knows I would have no job to return to, and that no court would take my side, because my position would be indefensible.

The only difference between that, and taking kids out of school without permission, is the consquence. At the moment, there is little or no consequence when parents do it. If there was, (and a £100 is so trivial it is laughable) they would think twice about it. Too many people want their own way all the time, and don't care how inappropriate their behaviour is, or whether it inconveniences anyone else, as long as they get what they want, if they can get away with it, they will. Then they teach their children to behave the same.

blue_monkey_2

I'd like to add though, my kids school have sent my daughter home from school this year on 5 separate ocassions because 'she looked peaky'.

She missed her school trip last month because she had been to the toilet (she gets very nervous which they know about, so had a poo before going) and they said to her 'have you got diarohea' (sp - sorr). And to which she replied 'yes'. I was waiting outside the school to see them off and they came running out and said 'DD has bad diarohea I am afraid so cannot go'. And I knew she didn't because she has never had S&D in her life and would not even know what it was. I was really annoyed. Whats more they called me the next day to tell me that my daughter had told her teacher that she did have D and why had I sent her in. I said 'one poo in the entire day is not D' and they said 'oh, so she has not been to the toilet' and I said no, not at all, she gets nervous she had a poo.

I think they are too quick to send them home, let me see vomit before they call me, her being peaky because she has been sitting in a hot dining room that also has the heating on full is just wrong. It takes just one child to say 'I feel sick' and the others go 'yeah, so do I' and they are reaching for the telephone to have them collected.

Murphy_The_Cat

mogadon wrote: »

If I decided to take 2 weeks unauthorised leave from by job, it's not going to cause the immediate collapse of the company. .

How about if your Contract of Emplyement allowed you up to 10 days additional unpaid leave per year, as long as it fit into the Emploters criteria nad was done with a suitable notice period ?

blue_monkey_2

mogadon wrote: »

If I decided to take 2 weeks unauthorised leave from by job.... snipped

Yeah, but employees get 28 days a year of whatever date they choose to be able to go on holiday and can choose the cheapest times. That works out to about 6-8 weeks off if you include Xmas in that as well. Of any date you choose.

To go on a 2 or 3 week holiday the only time the LEA 'give' you is in Late July/August and for some children the heat in other countries is simply too hot for them. Maybe the LEA should make the summer holidays shorter and extend the half term breaks to 2 weeks then everyone would be able to go different times of the year and everyone would be happy.

poet123

mogadon wrote: »

If I decided to take 2 weeks unauthorised leave from by job, it's not going to cause the immediate collapse of the company. It would certainly be an inconvenience for the people who have to pick up the slack, but in the big scheme of things, it wouldn't cause massive insurmountable problems for anyone. So why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

If I did, I am quite sure that my employer would not be understanding about it. And offering to take it unpaid would not mitigiate that. There are perhaps a few situations were I could argue my case on compassionate grounds, or similar. But feeling I deserve a holiday, or wanting to save a few quid, are not going to be considered suitable excuses.

I suspect that that's the case for the majority of jobs (although not all, obviously). Is anybody here going to defend my 'right' to behave like that? I suspect not. For the simple reason that everyone knows I would have no job to return to, and that no court would take my side, because my position would be indefensible.

The only difference between that, and taking kids out of school without permission, is the consquence. At the moment, there is little or no consequence when parents do it. If there was, (and a £100 is so trivial it is laughable) they would think twice about it. Too many people want their own way all the time, and don't care how inappropriate their behaviour is, or whether it inconveniences anyone else, as long as they get what they want, if they can get away with it, they will. Then they teach their children to behave the same.

That is not really a comparable situation though is it? The employer may be refusing for exactly the operational reasons you highlight, but those reasons are not applicable to children in school.

All classes include children of differing ability and speed, so all the children will be at a different stage at any one time, no catching up will be required, their absence causes no one else to be inconvenienced, nor are they paid to do a job.

The constraints are not in place for the benefit of the child, but for the benefit of the school and the LEA and how they translate into stats for the league tables.

All educational professionals know this, like many of the hoops we are required to jump through it lacks substance, and is all top show. Of course, if it was a month long holiday in the middle of pre exam work/exam time/induction etc then the factors you mention may well come into play.

There are other more wide reaching rules and guidelines that schools would rather parents rigidly adhere to, than the guidelines surrounding taking a term time break.

blue_monkey_2

I have been told that some schools do not allow holidays because of the number of absences this causes on their records and that these have to be reported (maybe for league tables). Our LEA seems not to worry about this so much but some areas are quite strict on it I believe. Someone might like to verify this.

littlemissbossy

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said.

I personally have no kids and always choose to take my holidays during term time as I like the fact that everywhere is less busy and no kids making a racket. If children could be taken out of school during term time I would never know when was "safe".

poet123

littlemissbossy wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said.

I personally have no kids and always choose to take my holidays during term time as I like the fact that everywhere is less busy and no kids making a racket. If children could be taken out of school during term time I would never know when was "safe".

Now I can quite understaNd someone objecting for this reason:T