School Holiday Fines

heartbreak_star

Cirias wrote: »

So if your kid misses a few weeks of school they're going to badly fail at their exams and the rest of their lives? I really doubt it. At worst they'll miss a few things about the Romans or how to work out the circumference of a circle. Come on, this stuff can be caught up on easily. Plus parents should ultimately be responsible for their own childrens' education, if they want them out of school then so be it, their responsibility.

With all due respect, it's not all about that kid.

What about all the other kids in the class, who lose teaching time while the teacher recaps? I have two friends who are teachers and it drives them up the wall.

I do recall a teacher when I was at school would only provide any form of recap at all if a child had been ill. If they were away on holiday and missed something, that was their problem as the class had moved on.

HBS x

foxster99

Cirias wrote: »

... if they want them out of school then so be it, their responsibility.

And that's exactly why there are laws about this stuff.

Children have a legal right to an education guaranteed by our courts and also as a basic human right. Parents do not and should not have the ability to deny that right to their children.

A child is not an object owned by their parents to do with as they wish, they are human beings and it is a parent's job to uphold their rights. Failing to ensure a child gets the education they are legally entitled to is neglect.

foxster99

Cirias wrote: »

So if your kid misses a few weeks of school they're going to badly fail at their exams and the rest of their lives? I really doubt it. At worst they'll miss a few things about the Romans or how to work out the circumference of a circle. Come on, this stuff can be caught up on easily.

Actually no, it doesn't get caught up with easily.

It is not just the weeks they are out of school, it is the long-term knock-on effect.

What happens is that they miss a bunch of lessons, then when the get back they often can't participate fully in the lessons because of what they missed. This leads to them becoming disengaged for some time. Some students eventually bounce back, some don't and it can the beginning of a spiral of ongoing problems.

This is not some guesswork or academic theory, it is based on the last 11 years working in a high school. That experience tells me that kids that miss school do less well than kids whose parents have a "You are going to school no matter what" attitude.

Don't really care if your child does well at school? Your suntan is a higher priority than your children? You have found a website that supports your views and so you have justified denying your children a full education by taking a term-time holiday? Well go educate your kids yourself and stop being a burden on our schools.

motorguy

Cirias wrote: »

So if your kid misses a few weeks of school they're going to badly fail at their exams and the rest of their lives? I really doubt it. At worst they'll miss a few things about the Romans or how to work out the circumference of a circle. Come on, this stuff can be caught up on easily. Plus parents should ultimately be responsible for their own childrens' education, if they want them out of school then so be it, their responsibility.

And you'd be happy to let the about 50% of so in society that seems to be knuckle draggers make decisions about whats best for their children??

Yeah thats going to turn out well....

maman

I'm another that thinks it's irresponsible to take children out of school for a holiday. I get as angry as the next person about the inflated prices but it still doesn't make it right for me.

Aside from the difficulties caused by missing lessons I'm unhappy about the messages it gives to children. Would the same parents take time off work when they hadn't agreed leave with their employer? Or are they the ones who 'take a sickie' when it suits them? Irresponsible parents bringing up their children to be like them IMO.:(

FBaby

A child is not an object owned by their parents to do with as they wish, they are human beings and it is a parent's job to uphold their rights. Failing to ensure a child gets the education they are legally entitled to is neglect.

What a strange statement! Parents make decision affection their kids life and future every day, not because they own their kids but because they are responsible for them.

Taking a child off school for a holiday might impact on their education or might not. Sometimes schools know better if that might be the case, some time parents know better.

I've taken my kids off school for a holiday an handful of times. I did so with a strong belief it wouldn't impact on their education and future. I was proven correctly.

As for the impact on the rest of the class, I know very few teachers who do recap only for the benefit of a child who's been absent for the purpose of a holiday. Recaps are parts of the curriculum. If a child is absent, then it should also be the responsibility of the parent to fill the gap.

I do wonder how many teachers feel so strongly about this subject as a result of their own frustration to not being able to go on holiday in term time.

foxster99

FBaby wrote: »

What a strange statement! Parents make decision affection their kids life and future every day, not because they own their kids but because they are responsible for them.

Few if any of those decisions though deny them their rights, or I at least hope not, whereas taking them out of school does.
I have met a lot of parents who cannot draw the line between their children being "owned" by them and a child being a human with their own rights. They think they have complete autonomy and control of their children, overriding their safety, wellbeing and their rights.
There are obviously ranges to this. Extending from severe physical punishment through to taking them out of school for a holiday, but in all cases it is denying the child's rights.

Taking a child off school for a holiday might impact on their education or might not. Sometimes schools know better if that might be the case, some time parents know better.

There's the problem: "might impact". Parents are not experts, kids come with no instruction manual. Parents might guess there will be no impact but, as it has time and again been shown, there can be. So parents are not permitted to take that gamble with their children's wellbeing.

I've taken my kids off school for a holiday an handful of times. I did so with a strong belief it wouldn't impact on their education and future. I was proven correctly.

I've heard that so many times as a justification for a cheap holiday. The answer is: How do you know there was no impact? Just maybe they could have done even better than they did. Did they get A* in every exam, a first at uni, with never a problem along the way?

As for the impact on the rest of the class, I know very few teachers who do recap only for the benefit of a child who's been absent for the purpose of a holiday. Recaps are parts of the curriculum. If a child is absent, then it should also be the responsibility of the parent to fill the gap.

Really? If a class is doing an extended study of, say, geometry over several weeks or months, you are going to be able to assess the gaps in your child's understanding and plug them from your extensive knowledge and training in the subject?

I do wonder how many teachers feel so strongly about this subject as a result of their own frustration to not being able to go on holiday in term time.

None that I know of. This because teachers know there is a "deal" with school holidays: You get a lot of them but they are fixed. They know that before they take the job so why would they be frustrated by it?
Parents have to accept this too. They have been to school and know how it works. So when they send their children to state schools they should know the deal exists for them too. Their children get a 1/4 of the year off school but there is no flexibility about when.
This restriction is there because it is not practical to arrange education for students who are randomly present for lessons through the year. Snowflake parents just have to accept the reality of this, suck it up and get on with it. Not seek ways to avoid their responsibilities and deny their children their education.

alwaysskint96

foxster99 wrote: »

None that I know of. This because teachers know there is a "deal" with school holidays: You get a lot of them but they are fixed. They know that before they take the job so why would they be frustrated by it?
Parents have to accept this too. They have been to school and know how it works. So when they send their children to state schools they should know the deal exists for them too. Their children get a 1/4 of the year off school but there is no flexibility about when.
.

The law and fines only came in in |Sept 2013. That means that anyone who had a child since then knew the deal- before that headteachers had leeway. So any child above year 2 wasnt even born when the rules changed

foxster99

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

The law and fines only came in in |Sept 2013. That means that anyone who had a child since then knew the deal- before that headteachers had leeway. So any child above year 2 wasnt even born when the rules changed

It's not the laws and penalties that I was talking about. The "deal" is of long but fixed school holidays for practical reasons. That has been a feature of our education system for a long time, certainly as long as any of us were at school.

It is arguable why the Education Act 1996 and subsequent revisions were felt needed to tighten up the law and penalties. It's fairly interesting to guess as it is socially interesting…

We had changes in society that meant many more families were taking foreign holidays than when the long/fixed holidays idea was introduced early in the 20th century. This set expectations by some of the "need" to go to Florida for two weeks, even if it meant taking their children out of school to afford it.

Then there is the lowering of the respect for government and its institutions. Quite rightly in some cases. This has extended to a wider mistrust of "the establishment" in general. Leading to the death of children who are not inoculated against serious diseases, a lack of engagement by parents with schools and a wider willingness to ignore inconvenient laws.

At one time the only people whose children missed school were those of "bad" parents who would have been looked down upon by their neighbours. Now middle-class snowflakes make bleeding-heart cases why little Chlamydia and Marzipan simply must spend June on Easter Island or they will be scarred for life; they then set up web sites to encourage others to do similar.

Not forgetting political dogma and ambition. Mr Gove, we are looking at you.

However, we shouldn’t lose sight that in the UK it is bloody hard to get a law passed or changed. A really good case has to be made. I’d say the justification for the changes to the regulations and penalties were made, in a large part, with the wellbeing of children in mind. There were a number of drivers at the time:

The UK slipped behind other countries in the education league tables. The countries seemingly doing better were those with more regimented education systems and, generally, better levels of attendance. The obvious thought being that if a child is missing school then they aren’t learning and so aren’t going to reach their educational potential.

Areas of the UK varied widely in educational outcome. Poorer inner cities and rundown coastal/rural areas being particularly bad. One stand-out factor these places had/have in common was poor school attendance.

Schools were facing a stall in the previously improving attendance levels. Some otherwise seemingly “normal” families wanting to take their children out of school for long periods each year, lowering their children’s attendance level to those of children from more “challenging” families. Schools rightly said they didn’t have the tools to tackle this.

So, there was a whole bag of things that led to the apparent need for tougher regulations and fines. Three groups have been impacted by them:

1. Children. Attendance levels increased sharply following the introduction of fines. This means that the majority of children get more of the education that is their legal right.

2. Schools. They got some better tools to tackle growing attendance problems.

3. Parents. They could no longer as easily abuse their children’s right to an education. They could no longer arrange implication-free cheapo holidays to the Algarve because their spray-on just wasn’t cutting it anymore.

maman

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

The law and fines only came in in |Sept 2013. That means that anyone who had a child since then knew the deal- before that headteachers had leeway. So any child above year 2 wasnt even born when the rules changed

The reason why Gove introduced fines is probably because he was trying to think of a why of forcing parents to behave responsibly. The educational arguments, or the principle of taking time off when it wasn't a leave time obviously weren't working so he decided that maybe hitting them in the pocket might.


Unfortunately the £60 figure is too low so some parents are prepared to take a hit as they still save masses.


It seems most of the parents who find it acceptable to take term time holidays have academically brilliant children with fantastic attendance so believe it's not affected them in any way. I believe anyone child who has been brought up to believe that only mugs respect school rules (and the law) has been let down.