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

poet123

onlyroz wrote: »

The trouble is that it will be the teacher, and the school, that will be judged lacking when the kids fail to reach their potential due to low attendance and difficulties catching up.

Actually, the schools are judged purely (as a separate criteria) on attendance, and it is that rather then the very unquantifiable achievement which schools worry about most. Or put another way; their figures;)

flimsier wrote: »

Completely untrue.

Completely true in my experience, and the worst offenders (also in my experience) are teachers who are not themselves parents. They speak from a purely academic viewpoint and are often much like converts to a religion, more evangelical than those who live it.

gregg1 wrote: »

I do not think it is the wisest thing in the world to do, no! As I said before, that is my opinion, I am not going to change it.

Surely it is a matter of personal judgement ? And whether it is wise is only evident when one views the results. I have no problem examining the wisdom of my decisions and no problem reaching a conclusion, which is that I did not lack intelligence when making those decisions for my children.

I

gregg1 wrote: »

t is not irrelevant as some school have their own variations on the policy regarding taking holidays during term time. Some are more lenient than others.

The point was it is a national policy not a school rule. Few schools (very few) authorise term time holidays for the reasons mentioned above,therefore there is little or no choice available to parents.

FBaby

Is it really common for kids to be taken out of school for more than a week at a time? In my school, the tendency is for people to take the rest of the week when there is an inset day, or the week just before christmas (when kids to mostly christmas activities) or just before summer holidays. I don't know anyone who has taken their kids for a full two weeks in the middle of term time.

We have been discussing this matter for 17 pages now. Surely like everything else, it comes down to reasonability. I have been defending my position here of taking my kids out of school, that is once 3 days, once 5 days in 6 years because I felt this was acceptable and the benefits outweighted the risks, but I would never take them out for 2 weeks at a time, or do it every year. In the end, it is about how you value education overall. I might have taken my kids out for a few days for what I considered to be exceptional reasons, but I constantly talk to my kids about the importance of hard work, dedication, learning etc... Surely over their entire education, this will have more of a positive affect than a parent who has never taken their kids off school, but never really bothered to check their homework, read with them, ask them about their day etc...

Last night, I went to the first parents information evening. I found it very informative. Both deputy heads were there, as well as the heads of math and english for year 7 and they explained with dedication how our children would be assessed this year and beyond. I really appreciated them making their time to tell us about this, I'm sure like everyone, they would have preferred to be at home with their families, so it really shocked me that out of 8 classes of about 25 kids, there were only about 35 parents there. Disgraceful! I think the 'bullying' should focus on those parents who just don't care and don't support their kids overall rather than those who dare take their kids out for a few days.

gregg1

poet123 wrote: »

Actually, the schools are judged purely (as a separate criteria) on attendance, and it is that rather then the very unquantifiable achievement which schools worry about most. Or put another way; their figures;)



Completely true in my experience, and the worst offenders (also in my experience) are teachers who are not themselves parents. They speak from a purely academic viewpoint and are often much like converts to a religion, more evangelical than those who live it.



Surely it is a matter of personal judgement ? And whether it is wise is only evident when one views the results. I have no problem examining the wisdom of my decisions and no problem reaching a conclusion, which is that I did not lack intelligence when making those decisions for my children.

I

The point was it is a national policy not a school rule. Few schools (very few) authorise term time holidays for the reasons mentioned above,therefore there is little or no choice available to parents.[/QUOTE]


There is a choice though. If you do not like the rules, home school.

gregg1

FBaby wrote: »

Is it really common for kids to be taken out of school for more than a week at a time? In my school, the tendency is for people to take the rest of the week when there is an inset day, or the week just before christmas (when kids to mostly christmas activities) or just before summer holidays. I don't know anyone who has taken their kids for a full two weeks in the middle of term time.

We have been discussing this matter for 17 pages now. Surely like everything else, it comes down to reasonability. I have been defending my position here of taking my kids out of school, that is once 3 days, once 5 days in 6 years because I felt this was acceptable and the benefits outweighted the risks, but I would never take them out for 2 weeks at a time, or do it every year. In the end, it is about how you value education overall. I might have taken my kids out for a few days for what I considered to be exceptional reasons, but I constantly talk to my kids about the importance of hard work, dedication, learning etc... Surely over their entire education, this will have more of a positive affect than a parent who has never taken their kids off school, but never really bothered to check their homework, read with them, ask them about their day etc...

Last night, I went to the first parents information evening. I found it very informative. Both deputy heads were there, as well as the heads of math and english for year 7 and they explained with dedication how our children would be assessed this year and beyond. I really appreciated them making their time to tell us about this, I'm sure like everyone, they would have preferred to be at home with their families, so it really shocked me that out of 8 classes of about 25 kids, there were only about 35 parents there. Disgraceful! I think the 'bullying' should focus on those parents who just don't care and don't support their kids overall rather than those who dare take their kids out for a few days.

It is rather immature to start waving the "bullying" flag just because others disagree with you and respond accordingly.

FBaby

why do you think I put it in brackets then!!!!

Quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)[1] are punctuation marks at the beginning and end of a quotation, direct speech, literal title, or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it, and are often used to express irony.

I also wasn't referring to any one in particular on this forum, just the overall pressure put on parents. Is there really a need to stop and analyse every single word written as argumentative means??

flimsier

thatgirlsam wrote: »

eh? No, I don't want to use that fact at all - My child attends school and personally I wouldn't take her out for more than a couple of days

But I can see why many parents would want to reserve the right to do so IF they beleive that their child wouldn't suffer

You have already said that you can't comment on a child you don't know so really you have no idea wether my child would be affected or not

Good grief woman, are you this militant in other areas of your life?

:rotfl:

So reserve the right to not abide by the law.

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

Actually, the schools are judged purely (as a separate criteria) on attendance, and it is that rather then the very unquantifiable achievement which schools worry about most. Or put another way; their figures;)

You're wrong. The new framework ties attendance in with the SMSC measure, which is very significant and poor SMSC would immediately put a school in a category.

Completely true in my experience, and the worst offenders (also in my experience) are teachers who are not themselves parents. They speak from a purely academic viewpoint and are often much like converts to a religion, more evangelical than those who live it.

Well first I am a parent (ironically I'm off because she's had a fever for three days and the childminder can't have her), and secondly you were talking about me and I'm right to say that it's "completely untrue" that those were my assumptions.

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

Is it really common for kids to be taken out of school for more than a week at a time? In my school, the tendency is for people to take the rest of the week when there is an inset day, or the week just before christmas (when kids to mostly christmas activities)

If that really is what they do before Christmas, and there's no learning going on, I think there's a problem. If that is what they do, take them out. But I would take them out of the school completely.

I think the 'bullying' should focus on those parents who just don't care and don't support their kids overall rather than those who dare take their kids out for a few days.

There is a very strong correlation between those who don't engage with school and those who take kids out due to anything other than illness.

Terrible use of the word bullying; even with the punctuation. It belittles how serious bullying actually is.

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

If that really is what they do before Christmas, and there's no learning going on, I think there's a problem. If that is what they do, take them out. But I would take them out of the school completely.

what do you mean no learning? There is plenty of learning, about the value of Christmas, getting involved in Christmas play, working on costumes, memorising lines etc... but because it is learning that week is less centred around math and english, a number of parents think it will be less detrimental to their learning. you do seem to have a real issue with this school (which I should maybe my kids don't attend any longer as we have moved 1/2 hour away). Maybe I could PM you the details and you could email the headteacher to express your concerns directly?

flimsier wrote: »

There is a very strong correlation between those who don't engage with school and those who take kids out due to anything other than illness.

Another statistic that doesn't apply to me and my family. I seem to defy many of them!

flimsier wrote: »

Terrible use of the word bullying; even with the punctuation. It belittles how serious bullying actually is.

Terrible thing to imply that a poster is lying without any evidence! Belittles how serious victimisation can be.

Am home too because of child with fever

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

what do you mean no learning? There is plenty of learning, about the value of Christmas, getting involved in Christmas play, working on costumes, memorising lines etc... but because it is learning that week is less centred around math and english, a number of parents think it will be less detrimental to their learning. you do seem to have a real issue with this school (which I should maybe my kids don't attend any longer as we have moved 1/2 hour away). Maybe I could PM you the details and you could email the headteacher to express your concerns directly?

So there is learning going on and they shouldn't be removed. I do wish you'd make your mind up as you seemed to be saying it was ok to remove them at this time because there were Christmas Activities going on. As for inspections, no, because I don't take the word of a parent that they don't challenge students for three months. OFSTED carry out inspections if parents can provide evidence of concerns though.

Another statistic that doesn't apply to me and my family. I seem to defy many of them!

Which is it? Doesn't apply or defies?

Terrible thing to imply that a poster is lying without any evidence! Belittles how serious victimisation can be.

I never did that. The word imply indicates intention, and since you can't know that, you've used that word wrongly as well. I don't care if you are telling the truth or lying; I'm confused that you contradict yourself all the time.

Still, now you're not saying it's bullying but appear to be implying "victimisation". Which would be hilarious if I didn't read it as more "woe is me" rubbish.

Now, I did think you said you couldn't be bothered with me. Lots of posts ago. Yet you still keep coming back and contradicting yourself.