 Poster: A snowHead
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| Don't forget it's the DfE setting the rules here and not the individual schools. So while one school might want to have better attendance than another it becomes slightly irrelevant when the DfE is issuing the same guidelines to all. Do i think that the Government get bragging rights at the G7 because attendance has improved? Not really. |
But it's applied differently in different council areas. The underlying rule should be the same, but it's not.
e.g. the River School in Kent state:
| Quote: |
If a parent, due to the nature of their work, cannot possibly take time off during the regular school
holidays, then this might constitute an exceptional circumstance. This will need to be evidenced by a
letter from the employer. Factors indicated above will still be taken into account.
|
I don't think we'll ever agree, as we're now descending into opinion and interpretation rather than fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
feef, the key document is the "code of conduct" statement by the LEA. A careful reading of the Kent LEA code of conduct makes it pretty clear that it is improbable that a penalty notice would be issued because of up to 5 days unauthorised absence. It also provides for authorised term time holidays if it is not possible for parents to get leave during school holidays or in the case of a family crisis. All LEAs are required to produce a "code of conduct" but it appears that most parents prefer to get half-arsed information from the Daily Mail which provides much more satisfying raw material for a good old rant about human rights and family values. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
feef, I'm not sure anyone would or has suggested otherwise. I have no doubt that I can find a study proving that children who get plenty of sleep do better at school. Would that then provide an argument for children to stay at home and sleep instead of going to school? Of course not. As you know, the discussion has nothing to do with the merits of holidays, family time, skiing, cultural trips etc. It is about whether those trips should happen during the holidays, except in 'exceptional circumstances'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
foxtrotzulu, the discussion does have lots to do with the merits of holidays; because the new legislation will result in some children no longer getting holidays. Why can you not see beyond your own personal bubble? There is a parent stating this morning on the fb page concerning this that they are going on holiday in a few days time. They are going on holiday in this Country as they cant afford to go abroad. They are going during term time as otherwise they would not be able to afford to go at all. Some people really do have to watch every pound. I would rather children in that situation have a holiday and have it with the schools blessing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Another example is a friend of mine who works in the financial services industry. He is required by the FSA to take a two week holiday every year, everyone in the organisation in similar roles to him are required to take a break like this, and no two at the same time, as it is supposed to help highlight any fraudulent or unusual activity. He can't always choose when that two week block is taken and it comes out of his total holiday allocation. A family who's breadwinner was in that position, where the required holiday time fell outside the school holidays would just, simply, not have a holiday. Amongst other things, it's as Shimmy Alcott says, about allowing those who CANNOT take a holiday during the government prescribed times to spend time with their family without being penalised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feef,
| Quote: |
Another example is a friend of mine who works in the financial services industry. He is required by the FSA to take a two week holiday every year, everyone in the organisation in similar roles to him are required to take a break like this, and no two at the same time, as it is supposed to help highlight any fraudulent or unusual activity. He can't always choose when that two week block is taken and it comes out of his total holiday allocation. A family who's breadwinner was in that position, where the required holiday time fell outside the school holidays would just, simply, not have a holiday. Amongst other things, it's as Shimmy Alcott says, about allowing those who CANNOT take a holiday during the government prescribed times to spend time with their family without being penalised
|
I don't quite understand your point. I've never heard of anyone in the FS industry who was only entitled to two weeks a year, most get at least five, so in the event that there 'required' holiday falls outside school term-time then why can't they take their family holiday with the other three weeks of their allocation? Then again, AFAIK these recommendations from the FSA only(?) apply to traders and in my experience most of them seem to send their children to private schools anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
feef,
| Quote: |
Who's going to pay the fines for all these children not attending school during term time?
|
I'm assuming that wasn't a serious question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
feef,
| Quote: |
Another example is a friend of mine who works in the financial services industry. He is required by the FSA to take a two week holiday every year, everyone in the organisation in similar roles to him are required to take a break like this, and no two at the same time, as it is supposed to help highlight any fraudulent or unusual activity. He can't always choose when that two week block is taken and it comes out of his total holiday allocation. A family who's breadwinner was in that position, where the required holiday time fell outside the school holidays would just, simply, not have a holiday. Amongst other things, it's as Shimmy Alcott says, about allowing those who CANNOT take a holiday during the government prescribed times to spend time with their family without being penalised
|
I don't quite understand your point. I've never heard of anyone in the FS industry who was only entitled to two weeks a year, most get at least five, so in the event that there 'required' holiday falls outside school term-time then why can't they take their family holiday with the other three weeks of their allocation? Then again, AFAIK these recommendations from the FSA only(?) apply to traders and in my experience most of them seem to send their children to private schools anyway. |
Not just traders but those in compliance and other critical services too, who certainly aren't in the same ballpark when it comes to income and the ability to send sir kids to private schools.
And no, it it's just 2 weeks, but it does add significant additional restrictions on what can and can't be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
feef, Not surprised that it includes back office and compliance as well, after the Leeson debacle. I agree it does make life harder and add additional restrictions as you say, but that's a very long way from saying that they would simply not have a holiday. I guess the point is that for every single law or regulation you can think of there will always be a few people who are unfairly impacted by it. That isn't necessarily sufficient reason to say that the whole regulation is a mistake and should be revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Equally, I wonder if the law is adversely affect more folk than actually were persistent truants. A sledgehammer for a nut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Equally, I wonder if the law is adversely affect more folk than actually were persistent truants
|
yes - this impacts all the parents who make sure their child attends school for the majority of the time and won't impact the ones who do not give a toss.
But then I get the feeling I'm failing as a perfect parent so it serves me right
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| feef wrote: |
| Equally, I wonder if the law is adversely affect more folk than actually were persistent truants. A sledgehammer for a nut. |
A bit like speed bumps imho: we all have to endure them to potentially slow down the speeders, and many of those will continue to speed anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It struck me that this change (fine parents for taking kids on holiday) is the thin end of the wedge. They are already talking about giving fines to parents who don't read to their children, don't make sure they do their homework etc etc.
I personally feel it is a really worrying trend.... or maybe I am just influenced by all the scifi I read as a kid, 1984 anybody....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| feef, Not surprised that it includes back office and compliance as well, after the Leeson debacle. I agree it does make life harder and add additional restrictions as you say, but that's a very long way from saying that they would simply not have a holiday. I guess the point is that for every single law or regulation you can think of there will always be a few people who are unfairly impacted by it. That isn't necessarily sufficient reason to say that the whole regulation is a mistake and should be revoked. |
It's been the case in most Big financial organisations that You we 'supposed' to take a 2 week break during every 12 months to reduce, as discussed the risk of fraudulent activity. The argument being that most fraud would be spotted if someone in a position to do so was not around for 2 weeks.
At least since I starting working in the FS sector in 1989 anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
feef,
| Quote: |
Equally, I wonder if the law is adversely affect more folk than actually were persistent truants. A sledgehammer for a nut.
|
I think they have always made clear that the new rules were never intended to tackle persistent truants. They were intended to tackle the issue of more widespread but lower-level absence.
NickyJ,
| Quote: |
It struck me that this change (fine parents for taking kids on holiday) is the thin end of the wedge. They are already talking about giving fines to parents who don't read to their children, don't make sure they do their homework etc etc.
|
That would indeed be a worrying trend, but the fundamental difference is that you are required by law to ensure your children attend full-time education. You are not required by law to read to them. Of course, some bright spark might change the law and that would be a worrying trend. However, the key point is that the fines follow the law.
balernoStu,
| Quote: |
A bit like speed bumps imho: we all have to endure them to potentially slow down the speeders, and many of those will continue to speed anyway.
|
That's not a bad analogy. The point about blasted speed bumps is that they do work 99% of the time in slowing people down. Even if the new school regs cut term-time holidays of your average family but make no difference to persistent truants they will still have worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
NickyJ, if parents are to be fined for missing parents' evenings I do hope they actually have them in the evening instead of from 4-6pm which is what happened in my sons' school. We were often unable to attend as neither of us finsih work until 6pm and needed a replacement pharmacist to be able to leave early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hells Bells wrote: |
| NickyJ, if parents are to be fined for missing parents' evenings I do hope they actually have them in the evening instead of from 4-6pm which is what happened in my sons' school. We were often unable to attend as neither of us finsih work until 6pm and needed a replacement pharmacist to be able to leave early. |
Tell me about it. When Ellie was in infants school the first parents evening was at 3-5pm! Thankfully I asked for as late as possible and got 16:40 assigned which meant I Was able to arrange to finish work early, and attend BUT my husband was unable to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
NickyJ, it was implied by one head of year that we weren't that interested in our son's education due to our lack of attendance at the parent's evening earlier in the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hells Bells,  Schools and working parents really don't seem to mix well, what I find rather ironic though is that a fair percentage of teachers ARE parents and they themselves can't drop out of work to attend a Harvest festival assembly, school play, poetry reading, sports day, teaching parents to teach maths (but then getting it wrong themselves in the example...), and all the other things they dream up that they make you feel guilty about not attending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| you are required by law to ensure your children attend full-time education.. |
But it's the definition of 'education' that's being questioned. Learning a foreign language and experiencing foreign cultures IS educational in my mind, even if it's not part of the Government specified curriculum. If a student is able and willing to catch up on what's been missed while they've been experiencing other things, how is it not educational?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
feef, I don't think it is being seriously questioned. Sitting at home and watching a few documentaries is 'educational', but nobody in their right mind thinks that was what the Act intended. By the same token very few family holidays are really about learning a foreign language or truly experiencing a foreign culture. Even if they were it still doesn't answer the question of why not do those things during the holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because, as said, it's simply not possible for some to take holidays when the Government tells them they can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
consider too, that the Human Rights Act under European law states that...
| Quote: |
| You have the right to enjoy your family relationships without interference from the government |
So for some people who are unable to take time off from work at just the right week, it could be argued the government is preventing them from being able to " enjoy [their] family relationships" and so is breaching their human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
feef, have you read the policy statement for your education authority? Does it give you the impression that you cannot take a child with an otherwise good attendance record off for a week's skiing in term time without risking a fine, let alone being thrown in the Tower of London? If so, it's different from the others I have read and referred to earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Cambridgeshire it states:
| Quote: |
The regulations make it clear that parents do not have any right or entitlement to take a child out of school for the purposes of a term time holiday.
If parents take their child on holiday in term time this will be counted as unauthorised absence - this is the same as truancy and you may be at risk of a Penalty Notice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
feef, I'm not sure you'd get very far in court arguing for the right to family time if the family in question spends every night together, every weekend together, and several weeks of holiday together, but just weren't able to get a clear week for a summer holiday in Spain together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
feef,if I've read it correctly the Code of Conduct states
| Quote: |
Penalty Notices may only be issued in relation to a child whose attendance at school has been below 85% over the previous 4-week period
|
It also notes that a PN will not normally be issued for a first offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| feef, I'm not sure you'd get very far in court arguing for the right to family time if the family in question spends every night together, every weekend together, and several weeks of holiday together, but just weren't able to get a clear week for a summer holiday in Spain together. |
And if the family in question Doesn't spend every night together, due to shift work or perhaps being in the armed forces? It's no longer at the discretion of the head teacher so it's off to court to plead your case to NOT pay a fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| pam w wrote: |
feef,if I've read it correctly the Code of Conduct states
| Quote: |
Penalty Notices may only be issued in relation to a child whose attendance at school has been below 85% over the previous 4-week period
|
It also notes that a PN will not normally be issued for a first offence. |
But again comes down to interpretation
1 week holiday penalty notices are worked on a per day for fines so an authority could say in the past four weeks you had four days off, plus this day now and 15 days in school thus you had an attendance during that four week period of below 80% so well below the 85% you quote.
Now that should not happen that way but it could as it is down to interpretation and only gets worse for a two week holiday.
Also what happens for someone who books a holiday in June to go skiing in March and week before is ill for a couple days ? Now some schools require sick notes before not marking it as un authorised.
A clear statement that you can have 5 days or 10 days ( let those who teach decide, but maybe the 10 day can be used as a reward for excellent attendance the previous year and improving grades ), after that it has to be for exceptional circumstances.
Why is something like that beyond the intelligence of our politicians ? Should we really allow people so inept to govern this country on our behalf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
In a nutshell, it should be about the application of discretion and common sense by those that know the children and their families, and know the impact such an absence may or may not have on their academic progress. Instead, it's a sledgehammer piece of legislation which does nothing except wee wee off and alienate a significant proportion of the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
it should be about the application of discretion and common sense by those that know the children and their families
|
I suspect that's exactly what's happening in practice; the Codes of Conduct provide for a fair bit of leeway. I wonder when we will hear accurate reports about a family with kids who attend well and behave and work well being fined for a week's holiday in term time? There's a lot of middle class huffing and puffing but not much hard evidence as yet.
The case somebody on SHs quoted some months ago, from the Mail I think, turned out to involve a family who had consistently taken the Mickey and had big run-ins with the school. The Mail loves this kind of thing but was careful only to tell us a very carefully edited part of the story. What a surprise.  In the only instance of which I have any experience (my grandchildren) my daughter in law was able to take two kids out of junior school for 3 days for a long weekend without any problem. Though ironically after no 1 girl, who really enjoys school, later had quite a lot of missed days because of genuine illness, they did get a letter about her attendance.
Given that parents who, in the worst case scenario, have to pay a fine are still likely to save money compared to the high costs of holidays in school time I'm a bit unclear where these frightful violations of human rights are going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
feef, You say it's about the application of some common sense and discretion. I think that was part of the problem. Under the old regime common sense had disappeared out the window with people taking term-time holidays simply because it was cheaper or quieter or better snow etc.if term-time holidays had been restricted to genuinely 'special circumstances' (parent on leave from the army, illness related reasons, watching a parent take part in a major sporting event, circs beyond their control etc.) then I doubt the rules would ever have changed. Teachers also felt they were often unable to exercise their discretion as they feared refusing permission would damage the parent/school relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| feef, You say it's about the application of some common sense and discretion. I think that was part of the problem. Under the old regime common sense had disappeared out the window with people taking term-time holidays simply because it was cheaper or quieter or better snow etc.if term-time holidays had been restricted to genuinely 'special circumstances' (parent on leave from the army, illness related reasons, watching a parent take part in a major sporting event, circs beyond their control etc.) then I doubt the rules would ever have changed. Teachers also felt they were often unable to exercise their discretion as they feared refusing permission would damage the parent/school relationship. |
But the legislation was already there to deal with those issues.
Another example is the swathes of legislation and taxation changes to try and prevent excessive drinking and related trouble. However, there's been one law that would make a huge difference which I haven't ever seen being enforced, and that's that a landlord should refuse to serve someone who is inebriated. If that happened, I think there'd be a fundamental change in what we see every weekend.
There were already the processes in place to deal with those who's attendance fell below an expected level, why not enforce those properly rather than bringing in new legislation?
I think the parent/school relationship is what needs enforced and supported by the law, rather than changing the law in case a teacher is scared that they aren't pandering to a parent's desires.
The whole thing is very broken, and it requires a change in attitude. Attitude is, however, very hard to legislate against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feef, AFAIK there has not been any change in legislation. The legislation has always stated that parents must ensure their children are in full-time education. The only thing that has changed is the guidance for schools that now replaces 'special circumstances' with exceptional circumstances.
| Quote: |
There were already the processes in place to deal with those who's attendance fell below an expected level, why not enforce those properly rather than bringing in new legislation?
|
This is the point. The expected level of attendance is 'full-time', with obvious exemptions for sickness, hospital appointments etc. Nowhere does it state that you are only expected to attend 90% of the time.
The drinking analogy is an interesting one. People have long accepted that there is more than just one problem with drinking. Yes, you have the binge drinkers who harm themselves and cause anti-social behaviour etc. But there is also the problem of the 'middle-class drinkers' who may never get drunk, never end up in A&E, don't urinate in bus shelters but are still damaging their health with one too many glasses of wine each evening. The change is school rules is not designed to tackle the severe, persistent truants, there are other steps to do that, the changes are to tackle the 'one too many days off' level of absence. They are different problems with different solutions.
| Quote: |
The whole thing is very broken, and it requires a change in attitude. Attitude is, however, very hard to legislate against.
|
I agree, but how do you change the attitude of parents who think that that taking holidays in term-time is an established right and does no harm at all. This change in rules may not be the answer, or the only answer, but maybe it's better that the DfE take the flack for the rule change than teachers are told to pull their fingers out and enforce the existing rules properly. i.e 'special circumstances' do not include low-season bargain holidays. If that happened then maybe it would not have been necessary to be so heavy handed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feef, that's not actually what the law says it says this:
"Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Given that the full time education is compulsory by law then you're going to have a hard time claiming that your human rights have been breached because you can't take a cheap holiday. Your armed forces example falls a little flat as well the right to family life isn't the right to go on holiday when and where you like. If that were the case there'd be a much higher welfare bill than there is now. Invoking the HRA for something that's just middle-class entitlement issues is a bit much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
This is an awesome thread. I've read it through and everyone is making excellent points. There seems to be two main ideologies here: libertarianism versus socialism (at the extremes, of course). On the one hand the state is better at making decisions for the general good of the society and on the other, people should be free to make their own decisions and take their own risks. As snowsports are an expensive pastime, most of us here are probably middle class, either through upbringing or income. Which, if you're like me, means you feel that you are responsible enough to make sensible decisions for your child but that there are people who are not. And those children shouldn't suffer. So do you forgo your rights and responsibilities for the good of those kids or do you look for other ways to achieve the aims?
And there isn't a right answer. It's down to your personal politics. So while people taking their kids out of school is illegal it's not necessarily immoral.
While the headteacher had the ability to control some absence by authorising it s/he could concentrate on the unauthorised absence, which would contain those children whose parents were making "bad" decisions and therefore maybe find solutions. For example, our infant school arranged taxis to collect children whose parents, due to mental health issues, were failing to get them to school in time for first register. I don't know how it works now because it must be so difficult to discern between kids who are on holiday and kids whose parents don't see school as important. Especially in areas where fining is in place and there is a financial incentive to lie.
And this is the problem with reactionary legislation. The privately educated patrician pushing the change through accidentally imposes greater state control when he is fully committed to reducing it.
I'm a liberal libertarian. My view is this: education is what a child needs to be a full member of society when they become an adult. So it is about the 3 Rs so that they can contribute to the wealth of their society and provide for themselves and their family. But it is also about breadth of experience, ways of thinking, flexibility and health. So holidays are important because you get to experience new places, people and activities. And you spend time with your parents and siblings when they are all more relaxed and more able to spend time with you. And snowsport holidays involve all those things. You are learning how to ski/board or how to be a better skier/boarder. You are meeting people who have the same interests. Your dad is on top of the world because he's just managed to get through some bumpy snow that he wants you to have a go at and your mum is racing you down the hill. The surroundings are beautiful and completely different to the flat wet place you normally live in. People speak different languages, eat different foods and have different attitudes to queuing for lifts. And if you are an only child, you have the sheer joy of other kids, all day, from when you get up until you got to bed.
And I can't do that for my daughter during the school holidays. One of my jobs is in retail and I'm contractually not allowed to take leave between mid-November and mid-January. And competition for time off is really, really fierce during the other half terms and holidays, especially most of us are working there because we have children to look after, and because we've already had to work through one holiday and sometimes a half term. And my wife is a police officer. And their busiest time? Anti-social behaviour goes up significantly during the school holidays. So apart from the competition from other parents there is a reluctance to grant too much leave during busy periods. And then you get situations like the Olympics when all leave was cancelled for four weeks causing a concertina effect as everyone attempts to take leave over a 48 week period rather than 52.
And those aren't my only excuses. We were skiing once over a French school holiday and the pistes were so busy that we really couldn't ski freely and most of our time was spent in queues. I should imagine the same would be true over English school holidays. I've done the same at Center Parc and at theme parks. Hours in queues and very little time spent actually having fun and spending time together.
So quite apart from my personal feeling that I am a free man with rights and responsibilities and that how I educate my child is my and my families decision, I oppose this on the basis that it wasn't well thought our. It only considered education and failed to take into account the societal effects. It's certainly going to be a factor in who I vote for next year. And are the children going on holiday for 10 days in term time the ones that the government need to look out for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
henzerani,
| Quote: |
This is an awesome thread. I've read it through and everyone is making excellent points.
|
Possibly the most impressive achievement I have head on snowHeads, I have been interested in the thread and read bits form time to time but reading it right through is truly impressive.
Suffice it to say that I agree with most of what you say .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
