http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36277940
Though I'm glad that the ruling wasn't against the family, I think there should be better guidelines for both parents and teachers.
The Government say they will look at the law and change it. H'mmmmm, what can go wrong?
For a child with good academic performance and excellent attendance record, I don't see an issue with time off during term as exceptional trip or event (and I fully realise some parents will attempt to exploit the rules).
The problem is that in making that judgement many schools are simply taking the easy route and refusing any time off for any pupil. Because they can.
I'm sure someone will claim it's favouritism. After all HOW good does your child's performance need to be, before they can qualify for term time off?Originally Posted by Scepticalist
I'd agree though (and my daughter's teacher did when she was a similar age, although it was a while ago - to say the least - now). At that age a week visiting anywhere different is almost certainly more 'educational' than a week at school!
I'd say the 93+% attendance record (even arriving a little late can knock that down as I recall) is the important thing here.
As the court has clarified what is "Regular attendance" (ie about 90%) then I guess this clears the way for the odd week off.
M.
Last edited by snowman; 13th May 2016 at 14:39.
Why should they risk a child failing his/her exams if they don't have to? After all, they're judged by their results and get a hard time when they don't come up to scratch.
At lunch I heard a woman ranting on Jeremy Vine's radio show that 93% attendance was appalling. 93% equates to about two weeks off, it may sound a lot but given children often pick up all sorts of bugs and viruses it can soon add up.
At our school children aren't allowed to return to the classroom until 48 hours after sickness, even if they're absolutely fine. So half of a child's absence can be down to the school not allowing them to return.
There has to be some form of compromise, but what exactly is the million dollar question.
Maximum say two weeks a year, a % attendance level, a certain level of achievement maybe.
How much has this lack of common sense cost the taxpayer?
Isn't the issue "unathorised absence" - Sickness would be authorised (Assuming you had evidence).
I can remember my kids' attendance, which was 100% in reality being hit by appointments at the doctors before school and arriving before the first lesson.
Was the woman on JV saying 93% was LOW or too high to attain?
M
I'd like to think I know what's best for my kid, and don't want the ability to make that decision taken out of my hands just because there are some parents who don't know what's best for their kids.
Spot on.
We usually go the the middle 2 weeks of July before they break up for the holidays ....most of their academic work is done by then.
I'd like to think I can safely drive my car at 140mph down an open motorway at night however as others can't then I'm "penalised" at can only do 70mph. Not exactly the same I appreciate but you see the point, in society we usually have to go to the lowest common denominator becuase not everyone DOES have the ability to drive their cars at 140mph....or know what's best for their kids
I'm not a parent but I can sympathise with the situation re. cost of holidays during inter term time.
Would not the government addressing the outrageous profiteering by travel companies during these periods go a long way to alleviating the problem?
I cannot understand why this inflation of prices is tolerated, or even the need for it - surely these companies profit sufficiently from demand without having to increase prices?
I suppose the same can be said for Mother's Day, Valentine's Day etc, restaurant prices!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure I agree with that - or perhaps it's just the analogy; the Germans seem to manage that quite well (although I admit that there are an ever decreasing amount of de-restricted Autobahns).
I'd like to think that, having done the polite and expensive thing and taken my kids away in the school holidays when they were young, the government would be doing everything in its power to make my early July and late September holidays child-free
Nanny state, innit. Hope all aggrieved parents sue for astronomical damages, just to teach the useless bunch a lesson.
PS I'm waiting for someone to mention sliding terms in some civilised countries.
Last edited by VDG; 13th May 2016 at 19:10.
As you say, it's not the same situation. The situations are not meaningfully comparable.
There is no reason whatsoever why the "lower common denominator" argument could possibly apply to when parents choose to take their kids on holiday.
I can't see how the government can intervene here. Travel companies, hotels and airlines will all claim to make a loss during quiet (discounted) periods and gain back a profit during peak times.
The only way to even out peak times is to allow parents flexibility in when they can take holidays, it's not good for small businesses to have staff off all at the same time, it's not good for resorts to be empty and it's not good for my wallet to have to take a holiday during term time. Especially when my 5 year old's education isn't going to suffer one bit.
I hope the government see some sense with this issue.
I have a great deal of sympathy with hard-pressed families wanting to take a holiday together, and struggling or not being able to due to the complete rip-off operated by holiday companies.
However, this is a much more complex issue than it appears.
Firstly, 90% attendance sounds good. It isn't. It is terrible. It is the equivalent of one day off per fortnight, or, spread across the 190 school days of the year, effectively one month off school. Per year. If you took a day per fortnight off work, how long would you remain employed?
A child with 90% attendance does significantly worse in terms of overall education outcome than a child with 95% (which incidentally is the minimum target for most good schools). Over the course of a child's education up to 18 years of age, 90% attendance equates to nearly one and a half years of school missed.
Such a child will, almost certainly, not do as well as they could, should, or as their better attending peers. The actual difference, statistically, is quite horrifying.
That is point one.
Point two is also very significant.
Imagine just for a moment that parents could take their children out of school for a holiday whenever they wished.
The result of this would be totally unmanageable in teaching terms - rarely a full class, kids missing homework and coursework all over the place, constantly trying to catch the absent up with the others, all students at different places in the course, endless disruption to tests and assessment... Tracking and progress data would become next to useless.
It would massively disrupt the learning and progress of the whole class so Billy's cheap holiday would have a negative impact on many other children due to the teacher's tie being taken with trying to catch him back up etc.
And then imagine the situation with children of parents who like to go skiing a couple of times per year, then some long weekends at the house on the coast / caravan park, and then a nice fortnight in May, just before SATs or GCSEs...
The real answer is some kind of regulation against the profiteering holiday industry, but there never seems much political appetite for that.
Last edited by TheFlyingBanana; 13th May 2016 at 20:34.
So clever my foot fell off.
While I agree with a lot of what you have written, I think you have gone to extremes. Of course there has to be a cut off point re attendance, when the school says 'no, sorry, your child has had too much time off.
My 8 yr old daughter is excelling in school. She's in year 3 but for maths she studies with year 4, her handwriting is used as an example to other students, in how well you can do if you try hard. Her attendance is currently at 100% for the academic year, are you seriously suggesting that having a week/fortnight off in term time is going to disrupt her education THAT much?
If the govt wants to interfere with people's liberties I have a suggestion.
make it illegal for airlines and hotels etc to charge more at "peak" times.
But oh no, that couldnt possibly be done could it?
If your child is very able, no, probably not. But then should only the smartest kids be allowed to have holidays in term time?
How would that work?
The difficulty here is you are (with the greatest respect) thinking only of your own situation, not the bigger implications. Many parents would, and could say the same as you, and give the same justification.
And then we would be back to exactly the scenario I described in my second point. How would you feel if your daughter's education was constantly being disrupted by the absence of her classmates?
Please don't think I am unsympathetic (because I really am not), but the problem is a systemic one, and while there may be exceptions to the rule, the bigger picture remains unchanged from what I outlined above.
So clever my foot fell off.
It's not just during school holidays either. Price up the cost of a flight to Scotland the weekend of a rugby international, likewise the cost of a room. It winds me right up. I'm struggling to get a hotel room for less than £200 a night in North Wales during the Eisteddfod.
It is a difficult situation, and I agree there is no easy answer. I think a fair system would be maximum of 10 days off but only if the child's attendance is 98% or above and they are hitting their targets in school. That was the system used in my kids school up until the 10 days at the head teachers discretion was removed.
Although I just read in that link that the 10 days at the heads discretion is now back.
In an ideal world, all children would attain the same results when leaving school but some kids just simply aren't as bright as others, regardless of their attendance.
The private system doesn't have the same rules and it seems to work fine for them.
I've a view on this...
I have taken my kids out of school for the odd day or two, but, was persuaded by a comment made my little brother (a teacher) that, although it probably wouldn't do them any direct harm taking them out of school, it sends a message to your child about how much you do/ do not value education...
As I stated, this made perfect sense to me, and my kids won't miss a day of school in order to go on holiday...
Now how about the teachers perspective on this issue .
Imagine a class of say thirty two 10 year old's .Monday morning they start the basics of algebra or geometry ,two weeks later one of the class returns from a fortnight in the sun .
How is he going to catch up in this or any other challenging subject without holding back the rest of the class ?
What if several of the class have mid term holidays ? the disruption to a smooth progressive curriculum would be horrendous .
As has been said, private schools generally have shorter terms but achieve better results.
I don't think missing just a week or two makes much difference to results.
How much learning time is lost to disruption by poorly behaved pupils, by supply teachers who don't know pupils, by unqualified or trainee teachers, by room changes, by rehearsals for plays, or by watching DVDs in lessons or countless other things? Teachers can also have training days or go on strike or organise school skiing trips during term time but apparently the time missed for all of this is okay?
A lot of redundancy is built in to the state school calendar.
Last edited by vortgern; 14th May 2016 at 01:05.
You'd maybe be surprised how many pupils have private maths tutors. Schools also put learning resources online and run catchup and booster sessions at lunchtimes, after school, in holidays, etc. I don't think there's a problem catching up.
There is a number of other questions / statements in your post, but let's start with this one.
Supposing it were true (which actually it isn't - the best state schools equal or out perform most if not all of the best private schools and state students tend to do better at university), but taken as a general point - why do you think private schools could achieve better results?
By the way, the widely accepted source is The Sutton Trust, quoted in this 2016 article:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/the-best-state-schools-have-pulled-ahead-of-private-schools-why-is-that-so-hard-to-accept/
And here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...e-schools.html
And here's the bit about state students outperforming private at university:
http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchi...same-a-levels/
Last edited by TheFlyingBanana; 14th May 2016 at 01:53.
My point is that for many reasons a simple count of hours or days in the classroom does not correlate to performance in examinations.
When I was teaching I was quite pleased when certain students were absent, preferably the longer the betterSeriously this matter should be left to the Heads discretion as they will be able to judge the individual circumstances. A blanket ban by the thought police just gets people's backs up.
I see no issue with a child taking a floating week off as long as they are up to date with work
Plus the bloody teachers have time off hand over fist with training days and date I say strikes?
That's the thing about compulsory education, isn't it? There has to be a element of compulsion. Otherwise it would be called 'optional education'.
I was very tempted to slip into a few days before term ended for my Summer Holiday, it would have saved me almost £900! But the potential grief from the school put me off!
Last edited by Paulie; 14th May 2016 at 16:01.
I must be missing something, the 5 INSET training days were taken from the school holidays, not added on as extra & my union voted for one strike day in the 19 years I was in class.
I appreciate I wasn't making my point clealry. I just meant that rules are there for the benefit of all and just becuase you believe they don't need to apply to you, they are there for the benefit of ALL.
These kind of threads always intregue me with peoples views of how it's a God given right that they need to take their precious little darlings out of school during term time "to have quality family time and enhance their world experience" where lets be honest, in MOST cases parents want to save some money on a cheap holiday.
If a week out during term time doesn't affect the childs education, would you be happy to receive a letter from the school saying "Mrs Smith won't be in next week as she got a cheap holiday to Spain going during term time so don't bother sending little Suzie to school. It''s just a week so won't have an adverse effect on her education anyway will it?"
Why not tackle the issue from the opposite direction and stop the holiday companies charging higher prices in school holidays. That's where the real issue lies.
Paul
Here's another radical thought for all those "precious" education days that absolutely cannot be missed:
How about having your inset days during the 22 weeks of holidays and half terms you skive off for eh? Lazy bar stewards.
Because the clue is in the word "holiday"? I guess you'd be quite happy to come into your work unpaid for training during your holidays? I'm certainly not!
I would guess these inset days are already accounted for when the curriculum for the year is made up so aren't taking anything away from the childs education. Taking the child out during term time disrupts their education and everyone else in the class when the child returns and the teacher is expected to spend more time with them so they can catchup on what they missed
That's where they were taken from, the holidays.
Prior to the INSET days there were five extra holiday days, get it? Or are you suggesting teachers have more training days taken from the holidays?
No I'm suggesting the lazy sods make do with their already staggeringly generous holiday allowance.
Some parents are low earners. The difference in cost of holidays between term time and school holidays could be the difference between having a family vacation or not. So why should a child who is studious, has excellent timekeeping, and is top of their class miss out simply because of a blanket ruling.
It's a load of BS. There could well be kids in their class who are poorly and as such have a lot of time off school due to medical reasons, do we clamp down on their parents too?
It's not always black and white.
Lazy?
You haven't got a clue have you.
So just like everything else in life they need to learn to live within their means. If they can't afford a holiday abroad outside term time then they do whatever they can afford instead. I never went abroad until I was 25 and spent all of my holidays with my parents in the UK, often not going away but with days here and there to the beach, parks, castles, in the UK.
You can't help children being ill and that's totally different to delberately taking them out of school during term time so you can get a cheaper holiday. My work pays for me to have sick days as they are something you have no control over, they don't pay for me to take time off outseide my holidays if I want a cheap break away and my allowance is used up
Why even have them called inset days, have the kids holidays run from x-y and the teachers holidays finish a day earlier . As far as I can see the inset days are not counted as part of the school holidays when published, why not? It would stop these arguments.
I might.
I know there's like marking and stuff so they don't actually finish at 2 and sometimes need to work all the way through till 3. It's tough.
And then once a year it's parents evening and they need to go till 7. Except half of them who bugger off at 5.
Diddums
I am not a teacher but know some. The "marking and stuff" takes up to midnight most days after they have B'd off home to do it!
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
They must read and write pretty slowly then. The quality of feedback I've usually seen from teachers could be knocked out by a moron in 2 minutes.
OK
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
