Holiday in term time not authorised, will I be fined?

glitter03

bestpud wrote: »

There is something very wrong when a teacher feels they must have the pupils attend all the time so they can get them their GCSE results, don't you think? That isn't education - that's force feeding prescribed facts in order to gain prestige for oneself!

My OH is a secondary school teacher and the thing that frustrates him the most about pupils being absent is that in the next lesson he will have to spend time with the pupil/s who missed a lesson for whatever reason going over what was learnt in the previous lesson/s.

This in itself is not a problem. It's the fact that this will delay the current lesson meaning not all work may get done and have to over run into the next lesson. ( which will repeat and repeat depending on how much work was missed and how many pupil's are missing from fututre lessons)

Also the students who did attend the previous lessons will be delayed by him having to go over last lesson's work. This frustrates him the most as he can see the kids that want to get on with it and want to learn and it's those who are missing out.

flimsier

glitter03 wrote: »

My OH is a secondary school teacher and the thing that frustrates him the most about pupils being absent is that in the next lesson he will have to spend time with the pupil/s who missed a lesson for whatever reason going over what was learnt in the previous lesson/s.

This in itself is not a problem. It's the fact that this will delay the current lesson meaning not all work may get done and have to over run into the next lesson. ( which will repeat and repeat depending on how much work was missed and how many pupil's are missing from fututre lessons)

Also the students who did attend the previous lessons will be delayed by him having to go over last lesson's work. This frustrates him the most as he can see the kids that want to get on with it and want to learn and it's those who are missing out.

This is exactly why a small number of lessons can have such impact. If the student is left behind that can be a whole topic or skill set they miss out on because some building blocks have not been covered.

And of course, it's not as easy as "completing a worksheet" to catch up; it could be modelling, explaining, teaching, experiencing, or various other things they've missed out on. One student was absent for 6 weeks following a serious accident last year - it took me nearly as long to plan the lessons as to set work for her (because lessons are planned for me to deliver; work set at home is a poor second in quality and it is necessary to explain everything in writing in detail).

FBaby

You are so full of contradictions, it's unbelievable! You first write:

flimsier wrote: »

Yes, your kids education might have suffered as a result. I have no way of knowing, not even knowing your kids. But you also have no way of knowing

then in the end states:

flimsier wrote: »

Your kids? I have no idea about them obviously. No-one has said they're not hard working, but as I've said - 5 days away makes a difference, however minimal. Why try to justify it? Just accept it makes a difference and minimise it

On on hand it is only a supposition, they MIGHT have suffered, but no one knows for sure, on the other hand, I am supposed to accept that it made a difference however minimal.

In any case, why do I have to defend myself to agree that having taken my kids off for 5 days might have had a minute effect on their education? If they have achieved 99.8% of what they were expected rather than 99.9%, does it really matter? No it doesn't one bit in comparaison with all what they have gained from going away. If you are so stuck on my admitting that taking my kids out might have made a difference, fine, I'll relent to it, but will I agree that this difference mattered, certainly NOT.

flimsier wrote: »

there is is a lot of evidence that illustrates a correlation between attainment and attendance. You see to think your kids are outliers. Good on you. But you can't know. I don't understand why you don't grasp that I'm just agreeing with research.

I never said I disagreed with research, what I am saying is that research in based on statistics on large scale, so that if it means that, as a majority, kids are affected, it doesn't mean that each individual kids are.

flimsier wrote: »

I'm saying 5 days can make a difference to any child. I don't know you so I don't know why you're getting so defensive.

I'm defensive because you're the one who came to argue my position that I didn't think having taken my kids out it had affected their learning. I strongly disagree, I defend my position!


I think we are going around circles because you are trying to tell me that I can't be sure my kids haven't been affected by my choice to take them out of school and I am trying to tell you that it is not because statistics shows a correlation between poor attendance and attainement that my kids have suffered from me taking them out.

poet123

As a teacher turned lecturer (so now keeping college hols not school hols!) I have, over the course of the last 24 years taken my four kids out of school for short periods (up to 3/4days from memory)several times. Never at critical periods (exam time, beginning of term, crucial years)usually the last week of term or just prior to Easter.

Hand on heart I really do not feel they were educationally adversely affected by my decision. I still have one son in school who is in year 10, and may do the same with him in the last week of term next July. I will not do it when he is in year 11 though.

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

You are so full of contradictions, it's unbelievable! You first write:



then in the end states:


On on hand it is only a supposition, they MIGHT have suffered, but no one knows for sure, on the other hand, I am supposed to accept that it made a difference however minimal.

In any case, why do I have to defend myself to agree that having taken my kids off for 5 days might have had a minute effect on their education? If they have achieved 99.8% of what they were expected rather than 99.9%, does it really matter? No it doesn't one bit in comparaison with all what they have gained from going away. If you are so stuck on my admitting that taking my kids out might have made a difference, fine, I'll relent to it, but will I agree that this difference mattered, certainly NOT.



I never said I disagreed with research, what I am saying is that research in based on statistics on large scale, so that if it means that, as a majority, kids are affected, it doesn't mean that each individual kids are.



I'm defensive because you're the one who came to argue my position that I didn't think having taken my kids out it had affected their learning. I strongly disagree, I defend my position!


I think we are going around circles because you are trying to tell me that I can't be sure my kids haven't been affected by my choice to take them out of school and I am trying to tell you that it is not because statistics shows a correlation between poor attendance and attainement that my kids have suffered from me taking them out.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry, but the lady doth protest too much. If your kids are so great, I don't understand why you have to repeatedly tell the world that you took them out but they're still the highest achieving they could possibly be. Well done.

As for the supposed contradiction; attendance makes a difference to attainment. That is proven. Small differences in attendance make smaller differences. That is also proven and observable. Individual kids - well that's impossible to know.

Though you claim to know.

Let's put it another way (that is my profession, after all; to explain things different ways for those that don't get it). I know you don't think 5 days makes any difference at all. Do you think 6 days does? What about 7? 7.5?

8?
9.5 days? 10 days?

How many days makes a difference? Does 15? What about 14?

At what point would it make a difference? And why? Because that's "only" one day more than the one before. And one day can't make a difference, because 5 doesn't.

ie your logic is flawed.

FBaby

you're just like a broken record, so focussed on your position you are not listening to anything else. Ok, I got the message 'attendance makes a difference to attainment'. It is YOU who goes on and on about debating about this DIFFERENCE. What I'm trying to express is that what's important is how significant that difference is, not whether it makes one or not. What I am desperately trying to say -but I think I could shout it to the top of the roofs and still you would just repeat yourself about how attendance makes a difference in attainment....- is that whereas missing a certain number of days might have a significant impact on some children for various reasons (because they are already far behind their expected level of attainment, because they don't adjust/readjust well to change, because their parents are not supportive etc...,) for other children, the difference is such that it will have little or insignificant impact on their overall education. Now a teacher could argue that he/she knows better the effect a holiday will have on a particular child than the child's parents, it probably is the case in some instances. In my case, both my kids' teachers and myself agreed that my children wouldn't suffer by being away and that is all that mattered. Debating the why and what of the difference was not the reason why I posted in the first instance. . But I'm sure you will be back to have the last word....

thatgirlsam

flimsier wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry, but the lady doth protest too much. If your kids are so great, I don't understand why you have to repeatedly tell the world that you took them out but they're still the highest achieving they could possibly be. Well done.

As for the supposed contradiction; attendance makes a difference to attainment. That is proven. Small differences in attendance make smaller differences. That is also proven and observable. Individual kids - well that's impossible to know.

Though you claim to know.

Let's put it another way (that is my profession, after all; to explain things different ways for those that don't get it). I know you don't think 5 days makes any difference at all. Do you think 6 days does? What about 7? 7.5?

8?
9.5 days? 10 days?

How many days makes a difference? Does 15? What about 14?

At what point would it make a difference? And why? Because that's "only" one day more than the one before. And one day can't make a difference, because 5 doesn't.

ie your logic is flawed.

Very patronising post flimsier

The vast majority of parents do act in their childs best interests and as you say, it is impossible for you to know the difference it would make to children you have never met or taught

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

you're just like a broken record, so focussed on your position you are not listening to anything else. Ok, I got the message 'attendance makes a difference to attainment'. It is YOU who goes on and on about debating about this DIFFERENCE. What I'm trying to express is that what's important is how significant that difference is, not whether it makes one or not. What I am desperately trying to say -but I think I could shout it to the top of the roofs and still you would just repeat yourself about how attendance makes a difference in attainment....- is that whereas missing a certain number of days might have a significant impact on some children for various reasons (because they are already far behind their expected level of attainment, because they don't adjust/readjust well to change, because their parents are not supportive etc...,) for other children, the difference is such that it will have little or insignificant impact on their overall education. Now a teacher could argue that he/she knows better the effect a holiday will have on a particular child than the child's parents, it probably is the case in some instances. In my case, both my kids' teachers and myself agreed that my children wouldn't suffer by being away and that is all that mattered. Debating the why and what of the difference was not the reason why I posted in the first instance. . But I'm sure you will be back to have the last word....

I see. So you wanted this thread to be about your kids. Congrats.
As for the patronising post. That was deliberate.

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

I see. So you wanted this thread to be about your kids. Congrats.
As for the patronising post. That was deliberate.

No, I think what she is trying to say is that to make a blanket statement that "attendance affects attainment" is fine, but unless it can be individually isolated it cannot be shown to be universally true.

Further, it cannot be individually quantified, and for most parents (who know their own child) it is, like many other things in life a calculated risk. We take many such risks every day, both personally and on behalf of our children. I am obviously speaking within certain parameters.

So, whilst as educational professionals we may wish to state with vehemence that term time holidays are taboo, shake our heads with disgust and parrot the party line, the reality is we cannot be so sure that every child will be affected and certainly not even hazard a guess by how much.

To me, it is very much down to parental commons sense how often, when and for how many days in a child's school life they allow them to be absent for holidays. Much like being off sick really, some parents let kids stay home for every sniffle, ultimately, you (the school) do have to put the responsibility where it belongs, with the parents,........and butt out.

flimsier

...except that's exactly what we're instructed not to do because parents often believe that "one day won't make a difference" or in this case "5 days won't".

And the point about not knowing which section of learning (sometimes in a variety of lessons) they're missing out on, which connector, and hence how many other lessons (other than the 5 days) are affected.

In actual fact, FBaby started by saying "5 days won't destroy their education". I replied that no-one suggested it would, but that it's complacent to think it will make no difference. She then went on about her kids being ok, and it making no difference, and I said there is no way to know that.

I agree with your point on risk though; that's a better way of putting my original point.