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

vax2002

flimsier wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that. There's no trial. There is a judgement, but you can take it to court. The punishment, ditto. I don't know what "right of innocence" means. It's not by a school teacher.

Cheers.

Really you believe this and you are teaching OUR children.

sunshinetours

flimsier wrote: »

Agreed 100%.

Do you agree with the first part aswell?

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm talking of personal experience. I suggest you read my posts. They're reinforced by research. One of your posts seemed to suggest that an opinion was more valid (even though one can't have degrees of validity) if it comes from a parent!

I presume you mean professional experience not personal experience? Or do you have children who you have taken out of school for carefully considered reasons and time periods who have then gone onto achieve academically?

I do think that some teachers confuse professional experience of "parenting" and personal experience, (the two are very far apart)and so make judgements based on one aspect rather than those based on a more complete and holistic picture. I can think of several personal and professional examples of this.

flimsier wrote: »

You have generalised (and now you're calling it "common sense") - so no research but based on your children. A sample size of 2.

Is it not common sense to assume that if "even one day" can have an affect then multiples will have more? And my sample size is 3 and counting;)

flimsier wrote: »

Yes, but attendance now comes under a whole different section,recognising the impact it has across the board.

But the stand alone figure is still scrutinised and challenged by Ofsted....which was my point;)

flimsier wrote: »

However, the school I was seconded to had a few problems, one of which was that parents assumed they could have up to ten days off for holidays per year. They no longer assume that. I believe that's held to be a very common problem in schools who are categorised as Persistent Absence schools.

One of which- what was the main problem?

Ten days per year is excessive imo, but there will still be cases where that amount is acceptable given family circumstances and a degree of flexibility is needed and a sense of proportion applied to requests of that nature. Especially in view of the actions of some schools re closure and other allied issues.

flimsier

The main problem was unauthorised absence. Unauthorised absence was due to truancy, very often with parents support. This includes holidays.
Authorised absence, usually through sickness, is actually a much less variable figure from school to school, though in small schools it can vary a lot more.

You have clearly not been in a meeting with Ofsted over attendance, and it's not just about the figure. Still, at least you've backtracked.

I like how now it's not "experience" you're claiming is relevant to refer to, but the particular type of experience you have. You might as well say "only my opinion is valid". There were four separate qualifiers on the type of experience you would accept.

You're quite right. It is almost exclusively parents who take their children on holiday when they should, by law, be in school who think it is ok to do so. Most of the rest of society think that kids should be in school (including most parents) unless sick or there are exceptional circumstances. The price of a holiday isn't one of those. You do what you like; you clearly do.

I will maintain that I think it's the wrong thing to do even though you think I am not entitled to this opinion because I don't have personal experience of taking my children out of school in term time to go on a holiday and have the impression that it has made no difference to their academic achievement.

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

The main problem was unauthorised absence. Unauthorised absence was due to truancy, very often with parents support. This includes holidays.
Authorised absence, usually through sickness, is actually a much less variable figure from school to school, though in small schools it can vary a lot more.

You have clearly not been in a meeting with Ofsted over attendance, and it's not just about the figure. Still, at least you've backtracked.

I like how now it's not "experience" you're claiming is relevant to refer to, but the particular type of experience you have. You might as well say "only my opinion is valid". There were four separate qualifiers on the type of experience you would accept.

You're quite right. It is almost exclusively parents who take their children on holiday when they should, by law, be in school who think it is ok to do so. Most of the rest of society think that kids should be in school (including most parents) unless sick or there are exceptional circumstances. The price of a holiday isn't one of those. You do what you like; you clearly do.

I will maintain that I think it's the wrong thing to do even though you think I am not entitled to this opinion because I don't have personal experience of taking my children out of school in term time to go on a holiday and have the impression that it has made no difference to their academic achievement.

So, to recap the main category of UA was truancy?

Where have I backtracked? It is you who backtracked by conceding that which you previously denied, namely that the UA figure is a separate stat. This is set by the school and is either challenging or not, if it is not then it can be queried by Ofsted. What it is tied into does not alter that fact. I have sat in on an Ofsted meeting (more than one in fact) in my capacity as Vice Chair of Governors.

You have professional experience, but not overall experience, my point was that you are seeing the issue from only one angle.

You also make assumptions, where have I said that I removed my children due to monetary issues? I may have said I understand those who do, but that wasn't my reason. I did it primarily for occasions such as family weddings abroad, and because my husband has annual leave constraints due to the nature of his business, or because my college holidays did not marry up with the children's.

You are perfectly entitled to maintain you think it is wrong, what you are not perfectly entitled to do is believe that your opinion supercedes the opinion of others, or that you are better placed than parents to make decisions for their children, or that your opinion is universally shared by those in education.

Many heads that I know refuse holidays with a heavy heart, knowing that for that family they are denying quality family time or because it makes them feel judgemental, off the record if it is not a regular occurrence they give their blessing. These are schools judged as "Outstanding" by Ofsted too, partly because they work with parents and do not issue dogmatic edicts, nor allow their staff to do so.

FBaby

We received the OFSTED report following their inspection of DD new secondary school today. It came up with an overall rating of '2', Good, but received a '4' for pupils' attendance.

The report states in its introduction:
'There has been a sustained upward trend in attainment, with the proportion gaining five or more A* to C GCSE grades, including English and mathematics, significantly above average by 2010'.

And further down:
'Strategies to improve attendance are being extended and reinforced but it is too soon to judge their impact, and unauthorised absence remains too high'.

Couldn't help but think of this discussion!

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

So, to recap the main category of UA was truancy?

Um, obviously, since UA is the way of measuring truancy. You've just said that a=a.

Where have I backtracked? It is you who backtracked by conceding that which you previously denied, namely that the UA figure is a separate stat. This is set by the school and is either challenging or not, if it is not then it can be queried by Ofsted.

What? OK, I really can't be bothered with this simplistic version of events. Suffice to say I thought you were familiar with the way this works in schools, but you're clearly not.

What it is tied into does not alter that fact. I have sat in on an Ofsted meeting (more than one in fact) in my capacity as Vice Chair of Governors.

You have professional experience, but not overall experience, my point was that you are seeing the issue from only one angle.

You also make assumptions, where have I said that I removed my children due to monetary issues? I may have said I understand those who do, but that wasn't my reason. I did it primarily for occasions such as family weddings abroad, and because my husband has annual leave constraints due to the nature of his business, or because my college holidays did not marry up with the children's.

You are perfectly entitled to maintain you think it is wrong, what you are not perfectly entitled to do is believe that your opinion supercedes the opinion of others, or that you are better placed than parents to make decisions for their children, or that your opinion is universally shared by those in education.

Many heads that I know refuse holidays with a heavy heart, knowing that for that family they are denying quality family time or because it makes them feel judgemental, off the record if it is not a regular occurrence they give their blessing. These are schools judged as "Outstanding" by Ofsted too, partly because they work with parents and do not issue dogmatic edicts, nor allow their staff to do so.

Shocked at a vice chair of governors in an attendance meeting; do you go to the attainment ones, the progress ones, the leadership of T&L ones and so on, or are you talking about the final meeting, where you're allowed to sit as an observer with the head?

And now you know "many heads" who have all told you they refuse holidays with a heavy heart. That's the conversation you've had with the "many heads" you've met of "outstanding schools" and you know why those schools are outstanding too.

OK then. That's a unique set of circumstances that happens to fit your argument.

I think I'll leave it there. I'm a bit embarrassed for you.

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

Um, obviously, since UA is the way of measuring truancy. You've just said that a=a.

Within the UA category there are obviously sub categories, Truancy, sickness, holidays, that was my point, but then you knew that.

flimsier wrote: »

What? OK, I really can't be bothered with this simplistic version of events. Suffice to say I thought you were familiar with the way this works in schools, but you're clearly not.

It is usually better to be simplistic when discussing such issues. At base level there is a stat of UA, whatever else that is tied into does not affect that fact. You know it and I know it. Hiding behind your pseudo professional veil will not change that.

flimsier wrote: »

Shocked at a vice chair of governors in an attendance meeting; do you go to the attainment ones, the progress ones, the leadership of T&L ones and so on, or are you talking about the final meeting, where you're allowed to sit as an observer with the head?

We can sit in at any meeting we ask to attend or are invited to attend depending on our designated committee areas.

,
We belong to a cluster, many of the heads are those who troubleshoot failing schools, we meet regularly, what more can I say. There are a few Ofsted docs which mention heads who feel this way, especially in rural areas or areas where the local industry has set holiday weeks.

flimsier wrote: »

OK then. That's a unique set of circumstances that happens to fit your argument.

Not at all unique, maybe outside your experience (which I think was a point I made earlier) but certainly not unique.

flimsier wrote: »

I think I'll leave it there. I'm a bit embarrassed for you.

Really? From my position that embarrassment would be better turned inward. Some of the patronising and clearly ill informed opinion, yes, opinion you have spouted on this thread would certainly give you enough cause for that given your position.

Have to go now am off to a governor conference!

flimsier

OK then.

Unauthorised absence for sickness and a failure to understand that UA is truancy. I stopped reading there. As I said, embarrassing.

poet123

A child can be missing from school for a couple of days before sickness is confirmed by note. UA is not solely truancy, what rubbish. That may be the umbrella term but there are sub categories.

Hence there are registration marks to differentiate;

Registration Marks

H = Holiday leave is authorised (authorised absence).

G = Holiday leave is not authorised (unauthorised absence). This mark should
be used for holiday absences that have NOT been authorised by the
school or for days taken in excess of an agreed period.

F = Extended family holiday leave is authorised (authorised absence

N This is the default mark given to absences for which no explanation
has been received or no decision taken as to what mark accurately
reflects the absence. This mark may not be used in any legal context.
If no reason is provided after a reasonable period of time it should be
replaced with code O.
N should not be left showing on a pupil’s attendance record
indefinitely.

O Unauthorised absence (e.g. shopping, birthday ‘treat’, couldn’t get up
etc.)

U Current code is @ = Pupil arriving late after the close of registration.
– This represents a missing mark, it is therefore impossible to know
whether or not a particular pupil was present or absent. This counts
statistically as an unauthorised absence.