School Holiday Fines

sheramber

My neighbour was a fireman at the airport. His holidays were on a rota where they each got a chance of holidays in the school holidays once every so many years depending on the rota.

One year his summer holiday was in April.

His wife was a nurse who was also restricted with her holidays.

They never took their kids out of school.

fred246

When I started work I remember being told we had factory shutdown in August. "All the staff want to be off, so we shut down and let the maintenance staff in for 2 weeks. Everyone is happy." Later we were told that was "uneconomical" and we had to carry on working. The worst part was they then bought some software. "Everyone has to book holiday on the computer." No doubt they bought the software because they were told it would reduce costs. The software wouldn't allow more than a couple of people off at a time. It's nasty. Parents can't take their children out of school or take their holidays in school holiday time. All for employers' economic reasons. I remember looking up the EU law - 'respect for family life' and wondering if that would say 'right to a holiday together'.

FBaby

In the end, fiends or not, some families will continue to take time off during term time. Some will be fined, some won't and all the outrage by some teachers and other scgoll staff will not change a thing.

There will continue to be kids who do well at school and others who won't, often due to many parental factors, of which going on a term time holiday likely to be a minor aspect, some because teachers or the school are not up to scratch. It's life!

I certainly have no regrets and would do it all again, maybe even more often.

ThumbRemote

heartbreak_star wrote: »

It bemuses me when holidays became so super-duper important. When I was younger it was "a nice thing to have" not "a necessity that must happen at least once a year"...

(Just an observation btw - ymmv, as ever )

HBS x

I have no idea of your age. However at one time there was often a stay-at-home parent, so household jobs and cooking could be done during the day, leaving evenings and weekends more free for family activities. If both parents work, evenings these times may need to be used for cleaning, DIY jobs, shopping and more.

Also, I would suggest that schools are significantly more pressured than they were in the past. Certainly the expectations on children are higher, and the amount of tests and assessments didn't exist previously.

Finally, I think in the past holidays were considered important. They may have been spent in a caravan or guest house rather than Majorca, but they were still important.

heartbreak_star

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I have no idea of your age. However at one time there was often a stay-at-home parent, so household jobs and cooking could be done during the day, leaving evenings and weekends more free for family activities. If both parents work, evenings these times may need to be used for cleaning, DIY jobs, shopping and more.

Also, I would suggest that schools are significantly more pressured than they were in the past. Certainly the expectations on children are higher, and the amount of tests and assessments didn't exist previously.

Finally, I think in the past holidays were considered important. They may have been spent in a caravan or guest house rather than Majorca, but they were still important.

That's fair - both my parents worked, however I was always brought up with the view that holidays were a luxury, and therefore I valued them more when we could have them.

We went abroad as a family three times in the 18 years I lived with my parents, and probably had a holiday on average once every 2-3 years as we just never considered it a necessity - we were more inclined to go to a museum or some such activity in our local area. I suppose you could consider those very small holidays

HBS x

chattychappy

An example of political decision making by the supreme court. Obligation is to send your kids to school regularly. Typical dodgy decision by Lady Hale to twist the interpretation to mean "every day" because those are the school "rules".

I would never seek the "authorisation" of the school to take my kids out. I would just tell them. They don't authorise "baker days" or half-term holidays with me.

In the event of a fine, sorry civil penalty, I would just pay it and deduct it from any voluntary contributions I make to the school.

State has too much power, as usual.

Les79

chattychappy wrote: »

An example of political decision making by the supreme court. Obligation is to send your kids to school regularly. Typical dodgy decision by Lady Hale to twist the interpretation to mean "every day" because those are the school "rules".

I would never seek the "authorisation" of the school to take my kids out. I would just tell them. They don't authorise "baker days" or half-term holidays with me.

In the event of a fine, sorry civil penalty, I would just pay it and deduct it from any voluntary contributions I make to the school.

State has too much power, as usual.

Do those civil penalties go towards funding your child's school? I only ask as, if they don't, it might be a sort of double jeopardy in that you:


- Pay a civil penalty which goes to somewhere other than your children's school.


- Pay LESS voluntary contributions to your children's school and thus less funding for the education of your children.

foxster99

Les79 wrote: »

Do those civil penalties go towards funding your child's school? I only ask as, if they don't, it might be a sort of double jeopardy in that you:

- Pay a civil penalty which goes to somewhere other than your children's school.

- Pay LESS voluntary contributions to your children's school and thus less funding for the education of your children.

The money goes to the Local Authority, not to the school. It costs the school time and money (you have to pay the LA for the Education Welfare Service if an academy, as most school are) and that is resources not being spent directly on education.
So not only is this person selfishly depriving their children of part of their education just so they can top up their tan, they are also costing the school money and reducing the voluntary contributions they plan to make. Sounds very typical of the me-first attitude of too many parents these days.

OscarFoxtrot

foxster99 wrote: »

The money goes to the Local Authority, not to the school. It costs the school time and money (you have to pay the LA for the Education Welfare Service if an academy, as most school are) and that is resources not being spent directly on education.
So not only is this person selfishly depriving their children of part of their education just so they can top up their tan, they are also costing the school money and reducing the voluntary contributions they plan to make. Sounds very typical of the me-first attitude of too many parents these days.

Nothing wrong with putting your own family before other people's. In fact I judge quite harshly people who don't do that.

maman

OscarFoxtrot wrote: »

Nothing wrong with putting your own family before other people's. In fact I judge quite harshly people who don't do that.

That's natural of course but schools can't possibly operate on that one to one 'me first' basis they have to think of the majority. So while it might suit some parents to have two weeks off in June to go on holiday, schools are committed to a national exam timetable so don't have that flexibility.

chattychappy wrote: »

An example of political decision making by the supreme court. Obligation is to send your kids to school regularly. Typical dodgy decision by Lady Hale to twist the interpretation to mean "every day" because those are the school "rules".

I would never seek the "authorisation" of the school to take my kids out. I would just tell them. They don't authorise "baker days" or half-term holidays with me.

In the event of a fine, sorry civil penalty, I would just pay it and deduct it from any voluntary contributions I make to the school.

State has too much power, as usual.

I think you're showing your age there (Baker was Secretary of State 30 years ago) and your ignorance. When you enrol your child in school you know there will be set holiday periods including five days of staff development which the school will notify in advance. It's like any group you join, you know the rules when you sign up.


What chance do schools have if parents are teaching their children that they can stick two fingers (metaphorical of course) up at school rules.