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

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

So there is learning going on and they shouldn't be removed. I do wish you'd make your mind up.

Please re-read, I never said there wasn't any learning, it was you, who AGAIN, jumped to conclusions. I wrote 'they do mostly christmas activities', you read 'there is no learning' and then say that I'm the one contradicting myself!!

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.

Inspections, what inspections, did I mention anything about inspections???

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.

You play with words and hide behind them to justify yourself. What is the point of writing 'if the poster is telling the truth' if there is no intention of pointing to doubt.

English is not my first language, can you speak another one fluently?

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

Please re-read, I never said there wasn't any learning, it was you, who AGAIN, jumped to conclusions. I wrote 'they do mostly christmas activities', you read 'there is no learning' and then say that I'm the one contradicting myself!!

You were implying that that week was a good week to take them out. Why is that?

Inspections, what inspections, did I mention anything about inspections???

No, nor did I say you had.

You play with words and hide behind them to justify yourself. What is the point of writing 'if the poster is telling the truth' if there is no intention of pointing to doubt.

I don't hide behind words. I use them for my argument. Just because you get a different meaning from them, and want to claim I wrote something I didn't actually write, doesn't mean that you can justifiably do so.

English is not my first language, can you speak another one fluently?

:rotfl:And you wanted people to stick to the point earlier in the thread.

FBaby

flimsier wrote: »

You were implying that that week was a good week to take them out. Why is that?

Honestly flimsier, I am really concern that you could have such a problem with interpretation and be a teacher. Again re-read. I didn't imply that it was a good week to take kids out, I said it was a reason for other parents to do it. I NEVER took my kids out of school that week.

No, nor did I say you had.

So why bring it up as a response to one of my quotes?

I don't hide behind words. I use them for my argument. Just because you get a different meaning from them, and want to claim I wrote something I didn't actually write, doesn't mean that you can justifiably do so.

But unfortunately, you argue purely for the sake of arguing and that's where it becomes pointless. You don't read properly, say people have said things they've never said (well at least me!), and then throw another attack. I just defend my words.

:rotfl:And you wanted people to stick to the point earlier in the thread.

If you had done so yourself in the first place rather than pointing at my wrong usage of words, I wouldn't have felt compelled to share that piece of information!

flimsier

FBaby wrote: »

So why bring it up as a response to one of my quotes?

It was a response regarding who might be concerned with a school based on a parents' report. In your desperation to justify taking them out of school, you threw a lot of mud at the school saying that it was hypocritical. One of the things you claimed was that your daughter wasn't challenged for three months. That's failing your child, though you seem to think it's fine now. So I have responded to what you have said about the school. Now you're correct, I certainly wouldn't take your word for it, hence I used phrases like "if that is true".

You get involved in a discussion and then have a problem if people disagree with you, and then you take it personally and liberally use the word "bullying" and "victimisation". If you don't like discussing things with me, do as you said you would several days, and don't. Many thanks.

However, I think your last line shows your mentality, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is why you think it's ok to take your kids out of school. It's claimed it's not the right thing to do, so you fling mud at the school.

In the same way, I point out your hypocrisy, and it's my fault!! :rotfl:

sunshinetours

Noone exactly covering themselves in glory here is there........?

A few more people it seems should have a signature like flimsier's - as they certainly seem to live up to it.

FBaby

I think I am going to leave it here flimsier, there comes a time when arguing for the sake of arguing becomes boring and pointless and you are probably a bit stressed at the moment

CH27

FBaby wrote: »

I think I am going to leave it here flimsier, there comes a time when arguing for the sake of arguing becomes boring and pointless and you are probably a bit stressed at the moment

You have been just as bad.

poet123

gregg1 wrote: »

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.

Why would I home school for a national policy which rarely affects me? I don't think that taking the odd few days off once in several years put me in the category of needing to do so because I disagree with policy per se.

flimsier wrote: »

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.

So, you agree it is all about figures? If a school has an attendance problem in most cases it is not about term time holidays but truancy and unnecessary sick days. Those aspects are tied into figures for overall school performance too, as schools with lower ratings usually have the highest rates of UA, so even removing term time absence from the pot, those schools stil have a lot to work on to ensure they dont get put into a category.

flimsier wrote: »

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.

You may believe you don't make those assumptions but that is belied by the tone and content of your posts I am afraid.

flimsier

Haha, so my underlying assumptions are not what I think they are? That's a poor effort at an argument by anyone's standards. "You say a, but I am arguing against b and argue you are saying b but you don't know it". Pathetic.

I don't agree with you; no. You are wrong about how attendance affects a schools' inspection. Then you write a load of bluster about reasons. If a school has an attendance problem, it is usually a wide variety of things; one is condoning absence by not challenging holidays. It's certainly very rarely about one aspect but not another as schools are not binary institutions in the way you want to point out in that post. The problem is that when it suits you, you're happy to claim that broad generalisations can't apply (such as the very strong correlation between attendance and achievement/ progress and hence attainment - well you can't take that into account when looking at an individual), and then you make other sweeping generalisations (alongside stating some "facts" that are wrong - such as attendance being in its own category).

I've successfully worked closely with a national strategies consultant on changing a school's systems to improve attendance as it was judged that the attendance was the primary factor in it's poor attainment. It was a secondment; and the first thing to change was the attitude amongst the school that "it's only one day".

As for Fbaby - stressed - yes, I'm quite stressed by my job at the moment; and my ill child. I'm far from stressed by words on a screen from a stranger though, and certainly not stressed/ upset/ weird enough to post up personal details about a child's report.

thatgirlsam

Flimsier I find your posts really offensive!

You do sound quite bitter about something - Can you just not accept that people have different opinions?