to think a ski company offering to pay any fines imposed by schools is wrong

[bottlenecker]

The times today have an article about a "A ski company is encouraging parents to take their children on holiday during term time by offering to pay any fines imposed by schools or local councils."

AIBU to think this is wrong on every level? It promotes parents to break the law. It discriminates against those without children having to pay a higher price than those with children for the same dates. I could go on....

Rumbalina Why don't they charge more outside of peak holiday times instead of lowerin g the price off season?

Ivykaty

That is so true, I dread to think what will happen to the children denied a place and the parents don't won't to home school.

After further consideration I do think that every minute in school counts so I'm proposing we don't have school holidays at all for anyone.

Those who currently can afford to holiday when and where they like will of course understand that it's for the good of the child and not complain.

BackOnlyBriefly- I was trying (badly!) to say that the eventual result of not home schooling adequately can result in imprisonment following the issue of and non-compliance with, a school attendance order.

The fact is that if you cannot satisfy the LA, when approached by them, that you are home schooling according to age, aptitude, ability and any special needs they will do something about it. Many, many LAs are very anti home education and allowing a child to do nothing but watch TV all day would give them more than the ammunition they need to take action.

Puzzled, sometimes it takes too long to change immoral laws. Sometimes too much harm occurs while you're waiting (though not in this instance, in the case of missing out on a luxury of course). Sometimes it's not enough to wave a banner or sign a petition. :)

"Will they expect to ignore the boss if they don't happen to agree with what's required? They won't last long if they do" "Believe me, I've employed people who've grown up with this attitude and I know the result only too well"

So do I. I know some remarkably successful people with this attitude. Some work for employers and are valued for their ability to "think outside the box" (sorry for the awful cliche), more still are self employed.

I think it has to be said, on the day that many of us mourn Tony Benn, that sometimes a bit of challenging isn't all a bad thing.

Rumbalina

Floated companies have a legal responsibility to work in the interests of its' shareholders so if prices were to be even they would have to go up during low season not the other way round.

excellent pr and advertising

Bottleneck

Those children will not be educated at a state school which could mean parents could insist the education authority either sends their child to another type of school or home schools or the child doesn't get an education

bottlenecker and ivykaty, local authorities have a legal duty to provide a child with a school place if one is requested so in theory there shouldn't be any children who miss out on a place if they want one. That's not to say that massive delays and fuck-ups won't occur and that LAs won't end up paying thousands in LGO awarded compensation to parents who are made to wait for months for school places, of course.

They may have a legal duty but that doesn't help a family when there just isn't a place offered.

noschoolplacestill

If people choose to take their children out of school during term time, they have to be willing to accept that their children will miss work which might affect their attainment. Parents can be very quick to blame schools/ teachers for their child not achieving the grades they want them too, without looking at the attendance and attitude their child displays. At secondary age, I think taking kids out of school gives the impression that education is not a priority which can impact on their attitude towards school.
I agree that travelling and experiencing different cultures etc is good for children but it isn't essential. Some people can't afford it at any time of year and it doesn't mean their kids are any less educated or well-rounded people because of it

I have never given my children the impression that education is not a priority. yet, because of my job, I have to take them out of school during term time if we all want a holiday together both parents and children as a family. my children are definitely not less educated that is utter bull I am afraid. 1 or 2 weeks out a year when there are no other absences makes stuff all difference. the figures and "facts" that this govt bandy around relate to kids who have less than 90% attendance. if time off in term time is so heinous a crime then why have the govt given an exemption to service families and for religious reasons? it isn't a huge problem but absence levels are and Gove needs a quick win to show how fab he is and feather the nest for when he stands as tory leader. so instead of tackling the institutional problem of families who don't send their kids to school, he targets holiday families to get a quick win. this law is wrong. I know it is wrong and I will keep on challenging it whenever, wherever I can. look at the holiday you took last year in school hols and compare it to this years price. holidays in school holidays are going to get and be a lot lot more expensive because of this rule change so pretty soon only the rich will be able to afford holidays abroad. Job done then eh Mr Gove.

hobbypickpicky the theory will be though, once you have a school place you will not want to be losing it for unauthorised absence……

that will be the crux, fines and whether it is unlawful to take your dc out of school will go by the wayside when parents are told that unauthorised absence will end in the school place being given to another child...

Very wise of the ski company - massive publicity for free!

I could not bring myself to book with this company because of their horrendous misuse of the word "yourselves" in the ad

YANBU. It's opportunist, cynical and anti-education.

ivykaty, that's a very interesting point. I wonder how that would pan out if it was to be implemented. Actually, no, I dread to think!

hunreeeal, anti-education? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's just anti formal, state provided education.

FFS they aren't getting a "better deal". The company isn't giving them cash-back, or giving them a cheaper holiday, they're paying the fines. I agree it sits strangely but it's not discrimination. Its just super cheeky but quite clever. Anyway, what about OAP cheap rates for haircuts? YABU to get so irate about this.

A school is just one of the resources you can use in your education.

Wow how miserable of you. Why would you get so bothered that other people can go on holiday, at a time they normally wouldn't get to due to cost, thanks this this company.

I had loads of school term time holidays back when it was legal as we couldnt afford peak season and I got 11 grade A GCSE's and four A-levels so hardly damaging on education.

I wondered if some types of venues were suffering with the new rules and would come up with some gimmicky marketing angles. Good on 'em.
I noticed a bunch of kids in school uniform come out of local theatre recently; I used to know lots of parents who would take their kids out of school for an afternoon to see cheap matinees of the panto.

So if school does it = education.
Parents do it = criminal act.

There are many, many people who find it hard to afford the cost of a holiday in the school summer holidays, or aren't off work at that time. They're all in the same boat and I wish people wouldn't talk about not affording summer prices as if they were a special case. If every family in this situation went on holiday in term-time that would be quite disruptive for the teachers I think, and giving the wrong priorities. There are other options such going at Easter/autumn half term instead, or not going away at all that year (and yes I've done those).

anti formal, state provided education.

If any parents are that ungrateful for the opportunity of a formal state education they can always home-educate and go on holiday when they like.

My irk on this is because the parents who can afford the fine go ahead and have the holiday when actually they could have afforded a holiday, if not the same one, in school holiday time. The person who's scraping pennies together to get a few days at haven off season won't risk the fine. Unfair. Added to which, our local school knows well that it's not worth the aggro to refuse well heeled parents the holiday so breaks the new rules.

I wish people wouldn't talk about not affording summer prices as if they were a special case

You're quite right, and that's exactly the point. HTs already have the authority to grant leave for genuinely exceptional cases - they've always done it - but in our entitlement culture, once one is allowed something many others cry "me too, me too!!!"

It's just a shame that those who want to take children out for purely financial reasons wilfully refuse to acknowledge their own part in the problem that's developed, as more and more children are absent