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

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

I don't accept that the premise entails those conclusions at all.

However I accept or partially accept all the conclusions for different reasons. First, "a blanket policy will never work" - that depends. I mean, I think there should be a policy, and I think that policy should apply to all. Is that a blanket policy? It works, the same as other such policies work. However, the exceptions and terms for revision (including timescale) should be in the policy.

The second statement certainly doesn't follow. I agree not all children are adversely negatively affected, or rather, we can't tell. They're certainly not negatively affected if they would have been bullied severely that week, or run over by a bus. Of course not. But one can never tell. In the same way one can never tell that wouldn't have been the Eureka week that made a significant different to their lives (even when they're geniuses already and capable of out performing the whole country!) However, I'd posit (and again, there is no way of knowing) that all children are affected, some positively, a higher proportion negatively, and some differently. I was talking about academically affected, and again, there's some difference; clearly there must be. But we have no idea for individuals, and never ever will have unless we get into the philosophically difficult area of 'possible worlds' (David Lewis of Princeton university does this when talking of Causation).

No, level 7 is a B grade. Actually a B is one point higher (on the 6 points is one level/ grade scale), but I wasn't bothering to go into detail. KS 2 levels are points as follows:

Not awarded a test level 15 points
Level 2 15 points
Level 3 21 points
Level 4 27 points
Level 5 33 points
and so on

A GCSE C grade is 40 points, a D grade 34 points, and so on.

You can probably google all this nowadays, but a few years back it was technical for us to use.

I think the point is that you can posit as much as you want, but unless, and until, schools admit that they are being hypocritical in condemning parents for actions they take themselves when it suits, parents will always feel resentment when it happens to them.

I really don't believe that my actions have hindered any of my children's academic progress or decreased their learning outcome, and in the absence of hard quantifiable evidence to the contrary you cannot say I am wrong. Even if evidence was available, when compared to summer learning loss it would be less acute, it has to be.

I agree there has to be a policy, but I think the more flexible approach would be to do as my sons school does which is that although it almost always goes down as unauthorised absence (due to LEA constraints) they usually wish you a happy holiday off the record, to show their human side.

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

I think the point is that you can posit as much as you want, but unless, and until, schools admit that they are being hypocritical in condemning parents for actions they take themselves when it suits, parents will always feel resentment when it happens to them.

I really don't believe that my actions have hindered any of my children's academic progress or decreased their learning outcome, and in the absence of hard quantifiable evidence to the contrary you cannot say I am wrong. Even if evidence was available, when compared to summer learning loss it would be less acute, it has to be.

I agree there has to be a policy, but I think the more flexible approach would be to do as my sons school does which is that although it almost always goes down as unauthorised absence (due to LEA constraints) they usually wish you a happy holiday off the record, to show their human side.

You are blaming schools for things outside of their control. There is hard evidence that suggests that over a big sample size, every day counts. That's obviously true. How would I show you "hard, quantifiable evidence" about your children? Of course I can't. I also can't prove that the attainment of any individual kid would be affected by taking 50% of the year off. Or 100%. But over a big sample size, there's very hard correlation - as is obvious. That is hard, quantifiable evidence. Your defence is equally as valid for any parent who allows their child to be permanently off. ie not at all.

You once again make a number of unsustainable and sweeping points while rejecting anything sweeping applied to you/ yours. eg "parents will always...". Your personal problem with the summer holiday, which I agree with incidentally, is irrelevant.

SINBAD_2

bestpud wrote: »

Not everyone thinks it is wrong to take their child out of school per se!

Also, I think you will find the thread was ok until a teacher started bashing parents. I presume you mean me.....but actually I wasn't 'bashing parents.' Please read what I've put- it's best (and legal) for your children to be in school learning, not on holiday. It's always the sanctimonious teachers who cannot see beyond their little domain who start hurling insults -looks like it's you hurling the insults here- and it's actually quite scary to have such blinkered people teaching the next generation! Feel free to train as a teacher yourself!!

Thank goodness some parents are able to provide a more rounded view of life!! That's exactly what try to do with for our pupils- your children- during school time.

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? Er, no! That isn't education - that's force feeding prescribed facts in order to gain prestige for oneself!

Er, no! It's because we care about our pupils' futures!

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

You are blaming schools for things outside of their control.

What things outside their control? Afternoon school closure for open days, school trips, days off site for sporting issues.

flimsier wrote: »

There is hard evidence that suggests that over a big sample size, every day counts. That's obviously true. How would I show you "hard, quantifiable evidence" about your children? Of course I can't. I also can't prove that the attainment of any individual kid would be affected by taking 50% of the year off. Or 100%. But over a big sample size, there's very hard correlation - as is obvious. That is hard, quantifiable evidence. Your defence is equally as valid for any parent who allows their child to be permanently off. ie not at all.

I have always been careful to state my comments were within certain parameters, ie a few days absence, not weeks, or 50% of term time, by using ridiculous figures you show the lack of substance to your argument.

flimsier wrote: »

You once again make a number of unsustainable and sweeping points while rejecting anything sweeping applied to you/ yours. eg "parents will always...". Your personal problem with the summer holiday, which I agree with incidentally, is irrelevant.

Being a parent with kids ranging in age from 14 to 28, being a school governor, being in education, being PTA chair for many years etc.etc, I do feel can reasonably accurately represent what a large portion of parents think. In any case these views are also here on the pages of this thread.

You may believe they are sweeping statements but the truth is many parents do feel schools do not practice what they preach in this area.

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

Many of your posts seem to be saying "I might have done wrong but my reply is that the school has also done wrong".

Strange logic.

I have NEVER contemplated that thought let alone shared it! You do have a tendency to read what you want out of what people write.... My thoughts went the other way... that the school is telling me that I shouldn't take my kids out of school, but that they can do so and it is ok. How you came to your own conclusion from what I wrote, i really don't know...

FBaby

poet123 wrote: »

I think it is more that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Or that it is a tad hypocritical to allow higher degrees of importance to be attached to open days/trips/sports etc, in that they seem able to outweigh the core curriculum needs when it suits, and yet not apply the same consideration to parental requests.

Just read your answer, poet, thank you, you word my views in a much more prosaic style

ash28

sunshinetours wrote: »

This is a cost issue then isn't it (not criticising just stating). Holidays can be taken in non term time to provide that missing piece of education. Team building and performance in a show is a form of learning and important skills are learned.

As previously I just wish people didn't make an issue of how systems are failing, or its the schools fault etc when really most of these things come down to people (all of us at the end of the day) want cheaper holidays in difficult times.

Your grandson could complete his year and then go on holiday and benefit from it all at the end of the day

This isn't a cost issue, in the past it's been a "time off" issue - 2 different things entirely. Why do people assume that annual leave taken when you like is a right - it isn't - the annual leave is a right but when it is taken is not.

Taking our holidays in the summer break from school actually suits us far better than taking GS out of school during term time - we like to go away for longer than 2 weeks - this year it was 4 weeks in August. It was exactly the same for our own children - but as OH had done the same job for over 34 years (before we had children) it wasn't an issue that ever went away. It's easy for people to say change jobs - but not quite as simple in practice. The education of our children and our grandson was and is important to us - but not to the exclusion of everything else. Spending an extended period of time with a father or grandfather (when they don't see a lot of them) is important too.

We took early retirement in October last year so the time off issue for us has disappeared - GS will complete his year - I said I would have no qualms in taking him out of school after the SATS - not that I was going to. But I would have absolutely no qualms in removing him, IF we wanted to.

This year (Year 6) GS's school will stop formal lessons after the SATS so that's about 7 weeks with no academic learning. And yes, as you say rehearsing for a school play is a learning experience which will include team building etc - in Year 5 the week long school residential trip in term time was partly to promote team building. And surely if the Year 6 school production promotes team building then so do all of the Christmas play rehearsals.

By the time GS goes back to school in September of 2012 he won't have had a formal lesson since May 2012. A total of about 13 weeks, surely just as damaging academically as parents taking their child out of school for a week or two - more so I would have thought.

If we for one minute had thought taking them out of school damaged our children's or GS's life chances, or had a particularly detrimental affect academically we would have hired a tutor. None of our children or GS are "gifted", they and he are probably a bit above average - but nothing special - currently GS's year (60 children) is split into 3 sets for maths and English, he is in the top set for both. His Year 5 report gave him Level 1 (above national expectations) with an A for maths and English. So not thick, but not outstanding either.

I just think it a little bit hypocritical of schools to preach one thing and practice another.

gregg1

poet123 wrote: »

Or "merely" to facilitate an open evening, day at Alton Towers, two days climbing etc?

Intelligence is often difficult to quantify, and even sometimes difficult to recognise in others if you do not share or understand their thought processes.;)

However, the intelligence I referred to was that of the child not the parent....perhaps you should re read the post?

The intelligence I referred to was that of the parent (or rather lack of it).;)

You are correct on one thing though. I certainly cannot understand the thought process of parents who do everything in their power to get their kids into the best schools around but then pick and choose which school rules they will follow.

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

Yes, but she's replying to me saying that. I'm not her school, nor do I work for them.

To be honest, the school she sends her kids to sounds rubbish, and the kids sound like they are genius despite the school, not because of them. She makes it sound like the school holds them back.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I didn't make it that far reading last night (was helping with DD's homework, bad mum that I am!!) but this one really made me laugh...

Talk about judgemental.... Should I forward you the OFSTED report in a IM, add their school reports with it, or would you still desperately try to prove me wrong that their school is rubbish (based on what I would love to know) and that my kids are not that clever despite what the reports say (or maybe even accuse me or making them up! I have been absolutely delighted with the education provided at this school, no complaints at all, just indeed illustrating the point that the school will also take decisions that can potentially impact on children.

Did I read it right, you are a teacher??? I really hope your subject of teaching is not citizenship....

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

Of course I can see that; several of my posts in this thread have said schools are wrong.

And if the poster is telling the truth, she has a kid who should have been close to (and probably actually doing so) sitting GCSE Maths in Year 6 (Level 7 is basically equivalent to a B grade).

What are you on about? My DD got a level 5A, but was told by her teacher that she was likely to be just at level 6c. We are not at level 7 yet. As for implying that I am lying, that's pathetic. You know what, maybe I will scan the report and show it you because your condescending attitude is really starting to annoy me! There are bright children around, one happens to be mine, is this a crime?