Our kids refused time off school during term time - please advice

notanewuser

ViolaLass wrote: »

There's a big difference between a pass mark and an A grade.

3x more pupils achieve an A* now than when I did my GCSEs (1994). Think that's because kids are brainier?

(Pass mark is generally around 40%. I believe in some years A* has been awarded for 65-70%. So there's not that much difference. If the marks across the board are lower, the average is lower and the grade bands drop accordingly. So an A* from a poor year will mean the mark was significantly lower than the A* gained ina. Strong year.)

ViolaLass

notanewuser wrote: »

3x more pupils achieve an A* now than when I did my GCSEs (1994). Think that's because kids are brainier?

Many more people climb Everest each year now, does that mean it's got lower?

governorjohn

Hi all.
If all families could have two flexible weeks per year there wouldnt be any issues, the travel and holiday companies would stop ripping us off by charging massive prices in holiday time and perhaps then we`d all have a bit more money to pay those Voluntary Contributions ( dont get me started on that one but if anyone wants to know the exact rules on VC`s please - make my day and ask !!

notanewuser

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/may/01/gcse-alevels-easier-says-ofqual

Tigsteroonie

SeduLOUs wrote: »

It is against the law to take your child out of school, unless it is for an exceptional circumstance (which does not include a 'normal' family holiday).

Headteachers have absolutely no discretion to permit a parent to break the law, regardless of their own or the teachers' opinions on the matter.

Phone call from our son's school yesterday to say that the Head has approved our leave request for a family holiday next week as 'exceptional circumstances'.

It is a 'normal' family holiday. But then again, we're not a 'normal' family

(SEN schools have to abide by the same rules, they don't have any additional legal rights when it comes to authorising leave. But they do tend to be a little more understanding.)

raq

SeduLOUs wrote: »

I'm just surprised this debate is still going on after 5 pages when the answer is simple:

It is against the law to take your child out of school, unless it is for an exceptional circumstance (which does not include a 'normal' family holiday).

Headteachers have absolutely no discretion to permit a parent to break the law, regardless of their own or the teachers' opinions on the matter.

If you don't like the law, take it up with your MP.

Primary school my son attends to is a bit hit and miss. Every February 25 children go skiing for a week, don,t get penalised with a £60.00 per child fine but when a mother pulls her son out for 3 days for a holiday with family then this mother gets fined and nothing more said. School said " Going skiing is all about interaction and confidence building". Hang on a minute don,t families do this when THEY go on holiday.???

Personally I think one rule should be the same all the way down the line.

p.s. Thank heavens it our last year at the primary school.

Jagraf

ViolaLass wrote: »

Many more people climb Everest each year now, does that mean it's got lower?

Week's funniest post :j:T

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

suejb2 wrote: »

In my d.d secondary school there are a number of 'showmen' families,different times, when I grew up they were known as travellers. They work the fairs and every so often go to Scotland or the East coast for a few weeks at a time, they take school work with them from a primary and secondary school, they don't receive a penalty charge.

Yet at the same school there are families who receive a penalty for taking them on a holiday. None of the families have any influence on the choices I make for my school aged children but I don't like the inconsistency .

The provision for traveller children is specifically to increase their levels of education and health. Levying fines on traveller parents who have to work across the country (not quite the same as going off on a jolly to sit in the sun for a fortnight whilst the natives bow and scrape to overweight and sunburned tourists for a living) would mean that they'd simply not enrol their children in school in the first place, which is how you get thirty and forty year olds completely unable to read or write. And women too frightened to seek medical attention because they're expecting to be punished/their children taken away.



In any case, target grades for many subjects are set (by computer) on the basis of results in unconnected subjects - a good SATs level at age 11 determines the expected grade at several GCSE subjects they may never have had a single lesson in.


Mind you, I only got a B in GCSE maths. Turned out that I answered every single question correctly. Except for the last one. I'd been ill with meningitis for four school days in early November and I'd missed an entire topic - I had asked what I'd missed, but that one slipped through the net, and with catching up on the other ten subjects, I hadn't realised it even existed. So I dropped from the highest grade to a B in maths and apparently missed one piece of Business Studies coursework being set (only found that out after the final submission date when it was too late to do anything about it), also going from highest down to a B, all because of being absent for probably two hours in each subject.

missbiggles1

ViolaLass wrote: »

There's a big difference between a pass mark and an A grade.

There is but an A grade doesn't necessarily indicate a high level of achievement.

FBaby

But if schools made decisions based on the child's ability to catch-up for missed week(s), there would be an absolute uproar from parents whose children were not as bright as others on the basis it's unfair.

At the moment it is unfair to pupils who are not affected. If one system has to be unfair, it might be better to be the flexible one that punishes those who indeed are affected negatively by the decision.

It is against the law to take your child out of school, unless it is for an exceptional circumstance (which does not include a 'normal' family holiday).

Except interestingly, it is more subtle than that since a number of LAs are now offering some flexibility around that law. I personally believe that allowing 5 days a year is perfectly reasonable and a good half-way compromise, so I'm glad we live in one of those LAs.