We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Holiday in term time not authorised, will I be fined?
Comments
-
Did you read that copy and paste whiich was from a DCFS guidance paper? It specifically mentioned absences which have not been confirmed, they could be any sort of absence including sickness hence they would, at that stage, be categorised as UA.
But not when they've been confirmed as sickness. There is no unauthorised absence category for sickness. Just accept you are wrong. And the DCFS don't exist.Truancy is the umbrella term and other categories are sub categories. If there are no sub cats why are there differing codes?
Obviously. Hence truancy is unauthorised absence. You said truancy was a subsection, but not you're agreeing with me. Thanks.As above, UA due to ter time holidays is certainly not categorised in the same way, or by the same code as truancy in the accepted sense of the word, that is absence without known reason. Is it?
,
Wrong. Truancy is the umbrella term, an unauthorised absence for a holiday is truancy. It's a different form of UA/ truancy. Now you're contradicting your previous paragraph.In my job, in my parental experience and in my role as a governor I come into contact with many heads. I sit on various forums, cluster groups, and even, heaven forbid;) I meet with them socially, and we talk, and we have talked about this subject. Whether it is scarcely believable to you is immaterial, it is the truth.
Of course you do. You happen to have spoken to many heads about something that happens to fit your argument. Of course.Again, you evidence your limited and blinkered knowledge
Splutter. My limited knowledge. OK then. We're back to embarrassing. You even refer to the DCSF!!...and experience by doubting this fact. Maybe you don't come into contact with many heads but others do have different experiences you know.
I come into contact with very many headteachers, obviously given my role(s), which include strategy meetings, being a consultant on attendance, and any number of "fill in for the head" meetings.We don't all live in a one school bubble. Many of them do refuse reluctantly, many of them don't refuse (even though it is widely believed it is blanket policy) some do refuse point blank. The point is not everyone in education agrees with your opinion....strange though that may seem to you.
Haha. Do you want to look through your own posts for another contradiction, or would you prefer me to quote? I'll give you a clue. You said that privately schools want to be flexible, despite them all toeing the line, or words to that effect. Now because you've seen a document, you're claiming you know heads that don't refuse - and you're claiming you've had that discussion with numerous of them. That's convenient that it fits your argument.As an aside, your signature is really not something to boast about or be proud of; to be argumentative purely for the sake of it is pretty juvenile for someone past puberty.:D
Sad effort having lost. This is an example of me putting you straight I'm afraid. You're wrong on several things and it's pretty tiresome and somewhat dangerous to let you get away with it - you started off like you knew what you were talking about because you disingenuously insisted you are a teacher. We now know it's a teacher in a different type of institution.
Funny though; it's all because you don't want to feel bad about your own kids' unauthorised absences from school and you've managed to divert it by just writing some terribly misinformed things about sickness being a sub-category of unauthorised absence and other absolute drivel.Can we just take it as read I didn't mean to offend you?0 -
But not when they've been confirmed as sickness. There is no unauthorised absence category for sickness. Just accept you are wrong. And the DCFS don't exist.
I think you will find I said "initially" and then they are re categorised if further info is received.
I know the DCFS was disbanded in 2010, but that document is still the one in current usage regardless of the name of the dept. I mentioned them by that name because that what they were called when the doc was written.Obviously. Hence truancy is unauthorised absence. You said truancy was a subsection, but not you're agreeing with me. Thanks.
Truancy as the word is commonly understood i.e. not Edspeak,;) is an absence from school not known about by parents or sanctioned by the school. Aka wagging it. Therefore, whilst to those in education truancy may be the umbrella term, to parents it represents something very different. To insist that term time holiday is on a par with the commonly understood usage of the term truancy is to show how far removed you are from parents.Wrong. Truancy is the umbrella term, an unauthorised absence for a holiday is truancy. It's a different form of UA/ truancy. Now you're contradicting your previous paragraph.
I don't think I am contradicting anything, you are attempting (and failing:D) to use semantics to appear knowledgeable.
Of course you do. You happen to have spoken to many heads about something that happens to fit your argument. Of course.
I am on the attendance committee too and so of course we discuss such issues. You do know what governors do?Splutter. My limited knowledge. OK then. We're back to embarrassing. You even refer to the DCSF!!
So, because that dept no longer exists I should have referred to a document issued by them as being issued by someone else? I do hope you don't teach History!!I come into contact with very many headteachers, obviously given my role(s), which include strategy meetings, being a consultant on attendance, and any number of "fill in for the head" meetings.
And you have never spoken about this issue with those heads? How strange. Clearly you are doing a great job.;)Haha. Do you want to look through your own posts for another contradiction, or would you prefer me to quote? I'll give you a clue. You said that privately schools want to be flexible, despite them all toeing the line, or words to that effect. Now because you've seen a document, you're claiming you know heads that don't refuse - and you're claiming you've had that discussion with numerous of them. That's convenient that it fits your argument.
How could I say they all toe the line, and I think you will find I said despite ostensibly toeing the line, some privately wish parents a good holiday. There is a difference, maybe it is too subtle for some, but it is there.Sad effort having lost. This is an example of me putting you straight I'm afraid. You're wrong on several things and it's pretty tiresome and somewhat dangerous to let you get away with it - you started off like you knew what you were talking about because you disingenuously insisted you are a teacher. We now know it's a teacher in a different type of institution.
I lecture in a college,(although I don't feel the need to advertise that fact in my signature) having previously been a teacher many years ago, and then moved up by taking the required further quals. I never stated I was currently a teacher, I said I was an education professional, and when asked I clarified the position for another poster.
Au contraire, it is you who have been put straight, and you clearly don't like it. You have posted opinion dressed up as fact, and even now I think you still believe it should be swallowed as such.Funny though; it's all because you don't want to feel bad about your own kids' unauthorised absences from school and you've managed to divert it by just writing some terribly misinformed things about sickness being a sub-category of unauthorised absence and other absolute drivel.
And you have clearly shown that your arrogance and ill founded opinion are why several on this thread have an even poorer opinion of teachers than when the thread began. A spectacular own goal and one which is at odds with your stated aims of getting the best exam results out of every child. The alienation of parents through supercilious semantics when they can all see the reality of the situation is certainly the way forward. Well done.
I will reiterate, over the last 24 years (from the time my eldest son started school) to the current date, their absences have amounted to approx three days every three years. I hardly think that I need to feel bad about that, and given their learning outcomes I think I can safely conclude my decisions have been vindicated.
In any event that was certainly not my intent on this thread, my sole aim was to show that there are those in education (many of them in fact) who are not patronising, dogmatic and paternalistic, who are in touch with the average parent and who do realise that life sometimes intervenes. Some of those are heads too.;) We provide the foil for the other type of teacher who does fit the unattractive mould detailed above.
On this thread you have provided an excellent example of the latter. My thanks for illustrating my point more eloquently than I could ever have hoped to achieve.:TBelligerence is not a virtue!0 -
Are you two not ready to lay down swords yet?Herman - MP for all!
0 -
Wouldn't it be funny if poet and flimsier actually worked at the same school without realising it. They could even be golfing buddies
One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
Poet and flimsier are never going to agree on this, I should imagine a Deputy Head would have very different opinions on attendance to a teacher at a college! I work at a secondary school and any holiday in term time is frowned upon, they will simply not be authorised in September for any years, in Years 10 and 11 or if a childs attendance is below 95%. Some of our local schools will not accept or authorise holidays in term time full stop!:heart2: Newborn Thread Member :heart2:
'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan0 -
Poet and flimsier are never going to agree on this, I should imagine a Deputy Head would have very different opinions on attendance to a teacher at a college! I work at a secondary school and any holiday in term time is frowned upon, they will simply not be authorised in September for any years, in Years 10 and 11 or if a childs attendance is below 95%. Some of our local schools will not accept or authorise holidays in term time full stop!
Which is as it should be except in the most exceptional of circumstances.
It is actually not allowed to have such a blanket policy, the govt guidance states each case must be judged on merit, although that is not how schools present it.0 -
Poet and flimsier are never going to agree on this, I should imagine a Deputy Head would have very different opinions on attendance to a teacher at a college! I work at a secondary school and any holiday in term time is frowned upon, they will simply not be authorised in September for any years, in Years 10 and 11 or if a childs attendance is below 95%. Some of our local schools will not accept or authorise holidays in term time full stop!
Quite. I'm annoyed that s/he has claimed to have written something they actually didn't write but am refraining from carrying on, partly because this is not a discussion I'm learning anything from. I've refrained from picking him/ her up on other points (like "having the right to be in any ofsted meeting") and am going to bow out now; frustrated that s/he won't listen when s/he plainly doesn't understand several of the intricacies of attendance.
Still s/he sits on an attendance committee.
I'll let him/ her have the last word now.Can we just take it as read I didn't mean to offend you?0 -
Quite. I'm annoyed that s/he has claimed to have written something they actually didn't write but am refraining from carrying on, partly because this is not a discussion I'm learning anything from. I've refrained from picking him/ her up on other points (like "having the right to be in any ofsted meeting") and am going to bow out now; frustrated that s/he won't listen when s/he plainly doesn't understand several of the intricacies of attendance.
Still s/he sits on an attendance committee.
I'll let him/ her have the last word now.
No surprise there;) However, I think you could actually learn a lot from the other opinions on this thread if you were open enough to do so.
I did not say governors "have the right" I said we can ask to attend any meeting (implicit in the word ask is the right of refusal) or we can be invited to attend. I am a governor in a VA school, are you saying that we cannot do the above?
What did I claim to write that I didn't actually write? Veiled accusations are pointless, come out and say what you are referring to, and I will address the issue.
"Several of the intricacies of attendance" means what? That you wish to use the Edspeak umbrella definition of truancy and include term time holidays in that category despite that not being the common usage of the term? I understand it, but I disagree with it, I am not surprised that you agree with it, that does not make it how most parents see it though.
When someone says I let xx have the last word that usually signals their argument is flawed and has run out of steam.;)0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards