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

LKRDN_Morgan

martinsurrey wrote: »

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

But some people can afford more. Just because you can't doesn't make them wrong

martinsurrey

LKRDN_Morgan wrote: »

But some people can afford more. Just because you can't doesn't make them wrong

If they can play by the rules (ie, not take their kids out of school or pay the fine), then thats up to them, but don't play the "we can ONLY afford a holiday if we go in term time" card as in 99.99% of cases its not true, they would prefer a holiday that they can afford in term time over one they can afford in the school holidays, but schools are in the business or educating your children, not facilitating your every want.

TBagpuss

One-Eye wrote: »

I really don't get this. I can think of many kids whose presence in school has a disruptive effect, but none whose absence would. And why does she think it is only unauthorised absences that have such effects.

I think the disruptive effect is that it means that you then have a child coming back into the classroom after their absence having missed lesson, so you have to either spend time bringing them up to speed and filling in what they missed, or spend time dealing with the gaps in their knowledge and the knock on effect that has.

Any absence has such impact, but with an an authorised absence you may be able to plan to avoid the worst effects.

I think part of the problem is that the effect (both on the individual child, and on the class) are likely to vary a lot from one child to another, and it is very hard to legislate for that, particularly if you also have to try to ensure that you are not discriminating - ideally that could be done by schools / head teachers, but they may well decide that it is simpler to refuse everyone, to avoid any allegations of favouritism or discrimination.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

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



Strawman? - perhaps, but it's also not the reality for many

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. - So you'd be ok if it was from a list of pre-defined holidays?

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). - Indeed. I don't see your point, you asked if it was the only option, I said no, but to some it is

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" - 'spout on', so you think none of that actually happens?

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. - I agree some do that. Just for clarity I don't holiday abroad and we take in historic sites whenever possible. Typically it's 1 day fun, 1 day educational on a rota. I just think parents should have a choice to raise their kids as they wish

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" - it's likely the kids prefer it too.

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).

So if you're poor then you shouldn't have nice things?


Holiday firms often say the rates are discounted during term, rather than increased during holidays. So poor people aren't allowed to be involved in the 'sales events'?

LKRDN_Morgan

martinsurrey wrote: »

If they can play by the rules (ie, not take their kids out of school or pay the fine), then thats up to them, but don't play the "we can ONLY afford a holiday if we go in term time" card as in 99.99% of cases its not true, they would prefer a holiday that they can afford in term time over one they can afford in the school holidays, but schools are in the business or educating your children, not facilitating your every want.

Do you really think if that was the case the issue of term time holidays would be such a bone of contention? It's not a very extra quid difference we're talking here. It's hundreds sometimes thousands. The difference between being able to afford the holiday and not.

You might be happy with a weeks camping in the UK or a trip to Lanzarote in the summer holidays but believe it or not that's not everyones idea of a holiday. Far away places should not be reserved for the rich. If we can only afford such destinations in term time then thats what we do. A £60 fine is not a deterrent

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

I just think parents should have a choice to raise their kids as they wish

So if you're poor then you shouldn't have nice things?


Holiday firms often say the rates are discounted during term, rather than increased during holidays. So poor people aren't allowed to be involved in the 'sales events'?

Parents should have the choice to raise their kids as they see fit, but there are rules to play by, and one of them is £60 fine if you take your kids out of term time, you CHOOSE if you want to suffer it or not.

If you're poor you should be cutting your cloth accordingly, and I agree that at the very bottom that makes things difficult on a day to day basis let alone holidays.

Holidays are entirely priced as supply and demand, you are allowed to be involved when ever you want, but part of that is now a £60 fine if you CHOOSE to use school time.

WestonDave

I don't particularly see a problem with expecting kids to be in school in school term time but I can see the issue for some parents in terms of costs.


I think it can also feel a bit one sided. Its illegal to take your kids out of school in term time because it disrupts their education. Shouldn't it therefore also be illegal for teachers to strike on the same grounds - those days are never made up despite the education system saving a days pay on the staff who refuse to work. Strike days at random are a pain in the rear for parents who suddenly have to arrange alternative child care so they can go to work. Similarly maybe all these inset days should be made to be standardised across a local authority area - again it becomes a nightmare if you have kids in two different schools that choose to have their days on different dates through the calendar.

martinsurrey

LKRDN_Morgan wrote: »

Do you really think if that was the case the issue of term time holidays would be such a bone of contention? It's not a very extra quid difference we're talking here. It's hundreds sometimes thousands. The difference between being able to afford the holiday and not.

"THE" holiday, not "A" holiday.

if its saving you thousands, pay the fine and move on...

maman

Guest101 wrote: »

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

To me, the main reason for not taking children on holiday in term time is because it sends the wrong messages to children. They know all their peers are at school while they go away simply because their own parents are choosing to ignore the rules. That's not a good message for children (or adults). I believe that's the reasoning behind today's ruling.

That's a spurious argument about holidays being cultural and enriching. Yes, they can be, but they aren't any less educational during holiday periods.


I'd agree (although I don't think it's what you meant) that it is all about money. In the main, it's about parents wanting to save some money because holidays are cheaper in term time. This ruling won't affect that. The level of fine compared to the potential saving means that parents who care nothing for school rules will just take the hit.

LKRDN_Morgan

martinsurrey wrote: »

"THE" holiday, not "A" holiday.

if its saving you thousands, pay the fine and move on...

???? How bizarre!
I have nothing to move on to as I wasn't aware I was dwelling in the past? I thought I was participating in a discussion? My mistake

Enjoy camping :beer: