Supreme Court: Parents CAN'T take kids on term-time holiday without risking a fine

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

Are saying that the ONLY choices are: - obviously not

A) A week in Florida in term time - why just specify a social holiday, does that better suit your argument. Yes some parents will go to Florida, some will go to places of historic and educational significance. Some will go visit relatives of other cultures. or
No family holiday ever - for some people that could well be the case , we'll have to spend all our time scrubbing floors - unlikely, and the parents will likely get divorced - statistically it's quite likely ?

Whats wrong with a weeks camping in the UK - nothing , or a week in Lanzarote in August (£500 pp so MUCH cheaper than a week in Florida in term time)...

again nothing. But I don't understand where you've got this fixation of Florida from.

Guest101

tea_lover wrote: »

It's far more disruptive to have individual pupils missing different days/weeks and then thinking they're entitled to extra teaching time to catch up. If all pupils are off for a training day it's far easier to organise.... probably why there's a set system of term times and holidays in place.

It's far more disruptive to have a government reduce school budgets year on year by 'ring fencing'

alinwales

Random thoughts.

1. So the bigger picture here is if you're entitled to take your children out of school, then so is everyone else. You can see how this would be disruptive overall, the teacher would be running around trying to understand what each child has or hasn't done as they'll all be off at different times.
2. £60 is hardly a deterrent when you could save several hundred pounds. I guess the only way it can be done is by ensuring that if the majority of children stay in school, then it becomes socially/morally unacceptable to take children out.
3. Part of the school ratings is for attendance. Not much, but it could make the difference between a ratings boundary (our school could have gone into the red a couple of years back if it wasn't for the overall attendance increasing), so this is the other pressure on heads to refuse unauthorised attendance.
4. Child achievement is linked much more highly to stability of teaching - and the quality. I read somewhere about a study into children with regular supply teachers who performed a lot worse.
5. Attendance percentages. There are typically 190 teaching days in a year (195 minus 5 inset days). Taking 5 days off would still maintain a 97% attendance rate - if you don't have sickly kids that is. Our school has started doing 100% attendance certificates every half term - these have absolutely no effect on me. If your child is in good health and rarely ill, should a week off be authorised, or does it discriminate against kids who are ill more often?
6. A holiday on a beach in Marbella is very different to a camping and activity week somewhere in the great outdoors, or trekking around museums, castles etc. Could it be that providing evidence that a child will be gaining extra curricular input whilst on a holiday offset any 'loss' from not being in the class?

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

again nothing. But I don't understand where you've got this fixation of Florida from.

This court case was about a holiday to Florida, so seems like a good example.

LKRDN_Morgan

martinsurrey wrote: »

Whats wrong with a weeks camping in the UK, or a week in Lanzarote in August (£500 pp so MUCH cheaper than a week in Florida in term time)...

Maybe because that's not everyone's idea of a holiday?

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

This court case was about a holiday to Florida, so seems like a good example.

Oh silly me, so it only applies to holidays in Florida?.... try California everyone.....

onomatopoeia99

Guest101 wrote: »

It's far more disruptive to have a government reduce school budgets year on year by 'ring fencing'

But completely irrelevant to the post you are quoting. The fact you used the same opening clause does not increase the relevance.

Guest101

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

But completely irrelevant to the post you are quoting. The fact you used the same opening clause does not increase the relevance.

That's your opinion.


I don't see how a government (and this isn't political, I couldn't care less which party is doing this) can chronically underfund education, to such a degree that teachers are leaving at record levels and school children with ability are left to fend for themselves and yet fine parents for wanting to provide some alternatives.


If this was about education, the govt could simply increase the fine to £500. No-one would be off. The govt knows that there is a certain amount of additions 'tax' which can be claimed from parents by leaving the fine at £60


it's purely about money, not education

VT82

worldtraveller wrote: »

I just don't understand why a parent would, now clearly illegally, take a child out of school purely to suit their holiday plans.

WRONG. The ruling says it is illegal to take then out and not pay the fine. If anything, this gives the impression that taking them out is perfectly OK as long as you pay a fine.

martinsurrey

LKRDN_Morgan wrote: »

Maybe because that's not everyone's idea of a holiday?

Well, my idea of a car is an Aston Martin, but I cant afford one, so I drive something else!

Guest101 wrote: »

Oh silly me, so it only applies to holidays in Florida?.... try California everyone.....

Strawman?

You say "don't the kids deserve a holiday", and I agree they do, but I don't agree that kids deserve what ever holiday their parents want whenever they want to take it.

There are VERY few examples I can think of where the only option for a family holiday is in term time (and that is mainly parents who cannot get time off at all in school holiday time).

When ever this come up people spout on about "enriching their children s lives", "quality time as a family" and the other classic "learning about other cultures"

And most of them are off on beach holiday or a theme park where the highest concentration of culture is in the yogurt for breakfast.

Most of the time it comes down to money, they are going way before the holidays as its cheaper, but again, my guess is almost all of these are "we can afford to go to X in term time or Y in the school holidays, but would rather go to X so no school for you"

And if financially you cannot find a single holiday anywhere in the school holidays, then I do feel sorry for you, as there are plenty of "cheap" options so you must be really hard up if you can afford to go during term time (marginal difference on the cheaper end of the holiday market).