Holiday fines?

[frozen1234]

Hi.

Im after some advice.

We have been on holiday and took our son in september. We paid the fine.

We have another holiday in march and wondered what the process is? Would we get another fine or do they take you to court for the second time you do it. Out of curiosity can you keep having hols each year and paying the fine? Or will they eventually take you to court?

Thanks for any answers on the above questions..

If anyone seriously imagines heads are little hitlers and this is a scheme calculated to give them job satisfaction I seriously wonder what message they give about school to any children they have.

who thinks that ilovesooty. I don't. I think the head teachers are the most well informed professionals in relation to my DC's how they are working at school etc. I would much sooner they made decisions about leave than some edict on high from someone who has no idea about my personal or work circumstances. We should be giving power back to people. decisions need to be bottom up not top down.

do you honestly think that the change in the law will lead to a measurable increase in standards

That's an interesting question that doesn't have a simple answer. Research into the subject seems to suggest a strong causal link - high levels of absence lead to lower GCSE grades. So if we can reduce the level of absence it should help. However, those already achieving high grades generally have low levels of absence (and in any case, if you are getting an A* there is nowhere higher to go) so there will be little effect at that end of the scale. The effect will be greatest for those pupils who would have been persistent absentees. Whilst the fall in persistent absentees is significant (around 16.5%) the reduction only represents 0.8% of the total school population. So that 0.8% should perform measurably better but that won't represent much change for the school population as a whole. And I doubt it will be possible to identify that increase specifically and separate it from the effect of other changes intended to improve standards.

It's stupid in any age group until about year 9 to suggest its a major educational issue

So you are suggesting that the things pupils learn up to Y9 aren't as important and don't form the building blocks for the things they learn when studying for GCSEs.

The research available suggests that the effect of high absence rates is the same regardless of when they occur during the child's school career. Statistics also show that those pupils who have high rates of absence in primary school are the ones most likely to play truant in secondary school. This seems to apply regardless of whether the absence in primary school is down to parents that can't be bothered or parents taking holidays during term time.

I dunno, ph47. You can quote stats all you like but it seems obvious that other things in kids' lives matter hugely more in determining eventual success at school than whether they had cheap term time hols.

And what about the kids I mentioned who have oodles of time off for fixtures,music lessons,rehearsals,courses,productions etc?

They must all be trailing behind.

... it seems obvious that other things in kids' lives matter hugely more in determining eventual success at school than whether they had cheap term time hols

I'd suggest the thing which make most difference to a child's progress/eventual success is parental attitude and behaviour. We see this in prh47's point about primary absence leading to secondary truancy, as well as in comments about heads loving being "little Hitlers" and telling the school "to get stuffed." The kids attach little value to their own education because they've never been taught to at home

I personally think, that school is there to teach ACADEMIC SUBJECTS -- to read, to write, to count, etc. Everything else shouldn't be any of their business really.
Ok, we can put up with some petty and silly rules, as some sort of unavoidable evil, however, just because many families can't afford private education or home ed, doesn't mean that they subscribed to some sort of totalitarian regime.

Exactly.

This lets turn a blind eye to the naice m/c kids who are off school for all sorts of things(and probably going on holidays in the holidays)whilst the poorer kids who can't afford holidays,music lessons,sports out of school (which often are more likely to lead to fixtures),G&T courses etc can just keep their noses to the grindstone and lead an enrichment free life pisses me off.

A lot.

Also don't forget how many just "become ill" at convenient times

But schools can't teach academic subjects if children aren't there or just go when if suits parents.

And I assume as they can only teach academic stuff then they should stop helping children who are being bullied, or providing support for the children who are having a tough time at home and all the other stuff which is part and parcel of school?

So. I have a 15yo who truants at least once a term (yes we punish him for that). Sure enough he has had ~12 weeks of holidays in term time since yr1. And is probably underachieving in other respects (although claims to be on track for As & A*s anyway). So that fits PP's views nicely (aside form the assertion that we must not give a damn).

Except I also have a 13yo who would be horrified to truant, who knocks her heart out with hard work at school. Is it because she has only had 9 weeks of holidays in term time so far in her life?

I humbly submit that personality and a few dozen other factors matter more than term time holidays to eventual academic success. Is it worth the damage to Cornwall economy?

I would like a nice neat single list of all the damage I am supposed to have done to DC so far. You know, risk of truanting, GCSE low-grades, all that. So I can tick off or not, as things unfold.

Im becoming increasingly tempted to do the "weekend break" type deals, leave friday (1.30, get the afternoon registration in ;)) and miss monday of school. I'm not sure the odd monday would arouse enough suspicions.

In mad paranoia we booked out Australian visit (to visit husbands family) for just over 2 weeks over Easter. (Easter coming, booked last year.) I really now wish we'd booked for longer....

When I went to school there was none of this. My parents took me on some holidays in term time and to the best of my knowledge did not even get a telling off over it.
I do remember when I was 15 and I took the day off for a family funeral. My Latin teacher pulled my mum over it at parents' evening and said he was very disappointed that I had missed one class. My mum went absolutely ballistic at him and told him it would be a cold drink in hell before learning an ancient and useless language would be prioritized over the death of a family member. She even called him an idiot. I was earwigging at the door and found the whole thing quite amusing.

Nope raltheraffe - it wasn't at all until Gove introduced it as a govt initiative. I'm pretty sure the infant school my children now go to pretty much allowed anyone with a reasonable attendance record/doing ok at school to go for 2 weeks every year if they wished...

I told the teacher when he asked at the next class I had been to a funeral so he knew about it. I think my mum was right to give him an earbashing over it. The death of a close relative should always take priority over one day at school.

I know that the occasionally few days out here and there will not make one jot of difference to their education.

How can you possibly know that, amouse?

Just have to love Daily Mail.
Why not just penalise those who went over the discretionary limit?
Even universities allow certain number of lectures to be missed without authorisation.

Tiggytape "...People can still have time off for things like funerals of course ..." Hmm. have you not read the other threads here on MN where parents have been refused time off for family funerals? I can recall at least 3 different threads clearly. I don't think there were lots of families taking more than 10 days off - not in my 3DC's (different) schools anyway and not amongst my friends. Common sense and discretion were not given the chance to work because head teachers never really had the power did they. it was all up to the LEA or the governors. Heads are the ones that should have all of the power in these matters and there should be a proper system to apply for leave and clear unequivocal country wide guidelines. Look at the fines. None in Cornwall, huge numbers elsewhere including my county. whats this all about then if it isn't discretion in action leading to unfairness just like the last system pre- Gove.

prh47bridge - wont lead to anything measurable. I rest my case. if it isn't measurable then it is pretty bloody pointless. and the whole idea of it was that it would radically improve the education of children up and down the country.

I have absolutely no doubt that high absence rates affect school performance. where we differ is that I don't consider one week off a year to be high and needing such draconian legislation.

lljkk - well now, I read the link. if Cornwall's economy is shrinking that's a lot less tax for the government. maybe that's what will swing a change. Money. it usually does. certainly more compelling than prh47 bridge with "not much change in the school population as a whole" you lost your argument there bridge. sorry.

Come and live in Scotland. None of this nonsense.

It isn't as if common sense discretion wasn't given a pretty healthy chance to work

I agree, but unfortunately some parents don't want common sense, reasonableness, etc; they want their own way,they want it now and they'll ignore any inconvenient issue to get it. Neither are the "new rules" purely about increasing academic outcomes; for me, they're also about showing the importance of keeping to a commitment - a vital lfe skill

I'm reminded of a class who were recently denied a privilege after unacceptable behaviour. It's not just that many of the kids cried "unfaaaaiiirrr!!!" (you'd expect that) - the thing is, they simply couldn't understand the concept of behavioural consequences, even when carefully explained

That's what this "entitlement," "stuff the school," "it's not for them to decide about my children" and all the rest has led to ...

But if the previous system didn't work that wasn't the fault of the parents. There was always the power to fine in cases of unauthorised absence and the HT could decide what that meant.

Why not tighten that system and make it easier for HT to fine the piss takers. Why a blanket ban on holidays that don't discriminate between an odd day off and two weeks?

Common sense and discretion were not given the chance to work because head teachers never really had the power did they. it was all up to the LEA or the governors

Of course headteachers had the power to make decisions within their own schools, and up to a point they still do for genuine exceptional circumstances - LEAs and governors got dragged in mainly due to those parents who simply couldn't accept a refusal of something they wanted

Common sense isn't just an issue for schools; it's to be hoped that parents will use it too, and as others have said it was only when the previous system became massively abused that changes were brought in. It's sad that some simply refuse to see their own part in this, but that's life ...

Why not make a system whereby head teachers have discretion to authorise up to 5 days holiday in exceptional circumstances. The current system doesn't allow for enough discretion (although I know it is allowed to a point) the old system just let people take the piss and they felt they were entitled to 10 days off just for a bit of a jolly rather than because they needed to holiday at that point