School declined holidays and branded the kids truants

poet123

As I said before I am a school Governor, and work in education, and believe me the 10 day rule is sufficient to ensure schooling does not suffer. What it is not sufficient to do is satisfy OFSTED, and the lower % of absence figures across the board (sickness included) factors into the ofsted judgement. So, any head authorising holidays in term time has to think about that.....as a parent that is not my concern.

As Governor I sat in on recent meetings regarding the boycotting of SATS because the head was in agrement with her union that they were purely for stats purposes and put undue pressure on all concerned. In the end in my school the SATS went ahead, not because not do so would have been flouting the rules, but because we decided that the kids had worked so hard, and to stop them sitting the test at the last moment would have been unsettling for some of them.

So, rules are bent and flouted in all areas of life and by all kinds of people, but in this case no rules are being flouted or broken, just applied or not, as certain heads see fit, and for reasons other than those a parent need concern themselves with.

In my school we have issues with the fact that we are near a large teaching hospital and as such, have a lot of foreign doctors, who have children in our school. They routinely, and without problem (because it it their custom and practice) take their children back to their home country for up to 6 weeks in term time, for religious and family reasons. The LEA indicate that leeway has to be given to accommodate this, yet this too impacts the figures and in many of these cases, it also impacts the education of the child (language issues re surface) and the class (6 weeks missed work is a lot to catch up on).

It really is a numbers exercise.

sunshinetours

blue_monkey wrote: »

My friend is a nurse, she can pick and choose when she goes on holidays without question.

Indeed as can many in the public sector, which is why I mentiond the private sector.

Point is there is still a process and HR rules to follow for the employee. You don't just go on holiday without booking that time out via manager etc etc

sunshinetours

poet123 wrote: »

As I said before I am a school Governor, and work in education, and believe me the 10 day rule is sufficient to ensure schooling does not suffer. What it is not sufficient to do is satisfy OFSTED, and the lower % of absence figures across the board (sickness included) factors into the ofsted judgement. So, any head authorising holidays in term time has to think about that.....as a parent that is not my concern.

As Governor I sat in on recent meetings regarding the boycotting of SATS because the head was in agrement with her union that they were purely for stats purposes and put undue pressure on all concerned. In the end in my school the SATS went ahead, not because not do so would have been flouting the rules, but because we decided that the kids had worked so hard, and to stop them sitting the test at the last moment would have been unsettling for some of them.

So, rules are bent and flouted in all areas of life and by all kinds of people, but in this case no rules are being flouted or broken, just applied or not, as certain heads see fit, and for reasons other than those a parent need concern themselves with.

In my school we have issues with the fact that we are near a large teaching hospital and as such, have a lot of foreign doctors, who have children in our school. They routinely, and without problem (because it it their custom and practice) take their children back to their home country for up to 6 weeks in term time, for religious and family reasons. The LEA indicate that leeway has to be given to accommodate this, yet this too impacts the figures and in many of these cases, it also impacts the education of the child (language issues re surface) and the class (6 weeks missed work is a lot to catch up on).

It really is a numbers exercise.

And a lack of consistency in applying rules across the board

sunshinetours

blue_monkey wrote: »

I don't go when it is cheaper, I go when it is quieter and when it is cooler because my son has Autism and could not cope with lots of people or it being hot. Obviously school holidays it is manic and summer holidays overseas are very hot. Should he not be allowed to go on holiday because he has a disability that stops us going at 'convenient' times other people can go?

Shame you felt the need to post that

Clearly there will be extenuating circumstances for some and clearly something like that would presumably fall into such a scenario.

Murphy_The_Cat

poet123 wrote: »

In my school we have issues with the fact that we are near a large teaching hospital and as such, have a lot of foreign doctors, who have children in our school. They routinely, and without problem (because it it their custom and practice) take their children back to their home country for up to 6 weeks in term time, for religious and family reasons. The LEA indicate that leeway has to be given to accommodate this, yet this too impacts the figures and in many of these cases, it also impacts the education of the child (language issues re surface) and the class (6 weeks missed work is a lot to catch up on).

Thanks for confirming that my post from further up the board is true :beer:
So what the OP has been caught out relating to authorided abscence from school (but not the seperate emplyment issue) is being to honest.
Dear Head, I'd like to take Little Johnny to Florida for a fortnight to see Uncle Mickey and the Magic Kingdom and the answer is no, as it will harm his education.

but
Dear Head, I'd like to take Johnny to Pakistan for a fortnight to see Uncle Mohammad and the new local Mosque and the answer is yes

hmmmm, something doesn't seem right with that scenario, I wonder what it could be ?

So OP, the answer is simple.
By easy error, get on the wrong plane and Mohammad (not Mickey) is your Uncle:beer:

poet123

You will never apply the rules across the board though because people are people and have different needs and expectations and rights. If you look at the posts showing the things which should be taken into consideration when a head is deciding whether to authorise or not, there are so many criteria allowed that practically no one should be refused, and yet they are.

Why is that? if they fall into any of those categories, the loosest of which being "the wishes of the parent" then it should be allowed.

Nowhere does it say "if it is affecting your stats do not allow it" but that is exactly what is happening and why refusals are being given. To compound that, as the head in the OP's case did, and lie about a new law is scandalous.

Be honest, do not hide behind the damage to schooling, admit it is for stats, but then of course, more parents would feel inclined to take kids out of school if they were not fallingfor the emotional blackmail.

I am not an advocate of taking kids out of school willy nilly, mine have been taken out sparingly as family circumstance dictated, but knowing what I do, I felt no guilt nor twinge of conscience that my kids would suffer. Interestingly, most of my fellow Governors feel the same way,as does the head in private.

sunshinetours

poet123 wrote: »

You will never apply the rules across the board though because people are people and have different needs and expectations and rights. If you look at the posts showing the things which should be taken into consideration when a head is deciding whether to authorise or not, there are so many criteria allowed that practically no one should be refused, and yet they are.

Why is that? if they fall into any of those categories, the loosest of which being "the wishes of the parent" then it should be allowed.

No where does it say "if it is affecting your stats do not allow it" but that is exactly what is happening and why refusals are being given. To compund that as the head in the OP's case did, and lie about a new law is scandalous.

Be honest, do not hide behind the damage to schooling, admit it is for stats, but then of course, more parents would feel inclined to take kids out of school if they were not fallingfor the emotional blackmail.

I am not an advocate of taking kids out of school willy nilly, mine have been taken out sparingly as family circumstance dictated, by knowing what I do, I felt no guilt nor twinge of conscience that myy kidswould suffer. Interestingly, most of my fellow Governors feel the same way,as does the head in private.

I agree with a lot of that - good post

poet123

I have edited it since then to correct my typing errors....type in haste, edit at leisure!

jackieblack

blue_monkey wrote: »

My husband can take his holidays whenever he likes. Even I have worked at places where they have shutdown and can choose whether or not to get paid for that shutdown. People usually do as it is easier, however, that still leaves 4 weeks that can be taken whenever they like.

Lucky you!
My point is, not everyone is as fortunate.
I know lots of people whose employer has shutdown periods and no-one can have any holiday outside of those times.

blue_monkey wrote: »

The employer does not dictate the whole of the holiday period.

Legally they can, and many do.
Believe me - we have been there and have the scars to prove it!

blue_monkey_2

sunshinetours wrote: »

Shame you felt the need to post that

Clearly there will be extenuating circumstances for some and clearly something like that would presumably fall into such a scenario.

Why is it a shame? If the holiday was given to him because of these circumstances do you think other parents would not be up in arms when they found out Boy x was allowed 10 days off last month to go on holiday? We already suffer because of his disability let alone giving the parents more ammunition to flame my son with this is why the 10 day rule is good, everyone gets the benefit. The rule is there already for 10 days.

This is why it has to be a one size fits all approach and which is why 10 days should be standard across all schools if the rule already exists. Different rules for different children/parents should not be given otherwise bullying WILL occur. Should a child have a high level of unattendance then yes, the holiday would probably not be granted, however, that person is unlikely not to worry about asking permission anyhow. But to single out children or parents because they have a disability is very, very wrong because it will lead to the child concerned being bullied and singled out by other kids who have had their parents ram stuff into their head not to talk to him and crap like that as they have not been given permission to take the same time off. Children with disabilities already suffer enough at the hands of some awful kids let alone tarring them for some more.