AIBU to tell you it is not illegal to take your child out of school to go on holiday

[Pseudonym99]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34543101

You must admit South, your views on every educational are completely in line with current conservative agenda. Usually people might agree with some parts of and not so much with others. You seem to vehemently defend any mentioned so far.
Is there any part of government educational policy that you disagree with?

every education issue mentioned so far

so why not just follow them, even if we don't like them very much.

people have stated why - they are costly to individual families, rigid, and don't take into account various personal circumstances (forces families, people with family abroad etc etc).

When I say "follow the rules" I don't necessarily mean don't take kids out of school, I mean if you do, accept the fine that might be the consequence, don't argue about it.

As I said, I don't have the energy to fight education policy. I've worked in the sector for long enough to see things go round in circles - I've followed labour, conservative and coalition policy. I work within it, making the best of it for the good of the DCs. A lot of my friends and colleagues have fought, argued and disagreed over that period. Many burnt out and fell by the wayside, because it is exhausting to try and fight the system while at the same time operate within it.

But doesn't defending current policy so strongly to random strangers on the internet for no reason take energy too?

jelly I haven't defended the policy in this thread - Ive asked questions to clarify my understanding of other people's pov and shared the knowledge I have of the system through my previous work.

I can't support it, or object to it; I'm not as certain of my opinion on many education issues as a lot of people on this thread - very few of them appear black-and-white to me.

And, as I said, I had the dullest, quietest weekend possible and this thread kept me awake and breathing!

If you are genuinely only interested in the debate then why only question people not supporting current educational policy?

Why not say, oh yes, you're right, when people like egosum point out the discrepancies between what (government provided) data says and what the government is doing?

What did you say that you disagreed with in current educational policy? Weren't you bored enough to answer that?

Glad to keep you awake and alive though!

so all those badly designed so called stats were not put on here in defence of forcing parents under threat of fines to send their cc to school regardless of whatever else is happening in their lives- birth, marriage, death. holidays. etc Now your story is ok take them out of school, pay the fines and shut up. You are def defending this fascist gov edu policy - becuase you need to liven up your weekend?
You've never stood in front of a class but you know better than teachers , who hate this policy and parents who are threatened by it and kids who are bullied by it.

I think you've don't nothing but defend and argue for this policy throughout the thread. I'm astounded that you'd say otherwise.

amarmai. I posted the research that the LA in the OP is quoting to justify its zero tolerance attitude towards abscence, and never disagreed that the figures can be interpreted in different ways. My point was that the government has interpreted them in a way that justifies policy and if we argue with the research used in this case, then why not in others? You could argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer, speeding doesn't increase the risk of serious injury and selling alcohol to young teens isn't a bad thing.

Not all teachers hate this policy - some do, some don't. Some parents agree, some don't. The fact that teaching and HT unions lobbied for the change indicates that there is majority support amongst the profession, otherwise Union membership would have collapsed.

Teaching and HT unions didn't lobby for fining people.

You could argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer, speeding doesn't increase the risk of serious injury and selling alcohol to young teens isn't a bad thing.

and some of those arguments would be good, and others not. it matters what the reasoning is.

I'm not as certain of my opinion on many education issues as a lot of people on this thread - very few of them appear black-and-white to me.

there are two distinct points here. one is that a small number of absences makes a difference, and two is whether that information should be used to fine parents into compliance (and another being if that would make a difference). It appears that at best your ambivalent about the first, but that you definitely do not disagree with the latter.

It appears that at best your ambivalent about the first, but that you definitely do not disagree with the latter.

That's not a bad summary. I am not sure whether there is any unequivocal evidence that supports the government view that maximising attendance maximises progress. It seems obvious, but there are other issues influencing outcomes. However, that is the evidence the Government is using to support their policy. I'm not sure its any weaker than any of the other "evidence" used to support policy - you cam always find research that supports a particular case!

As for FPNs, I don't categorically disagree with them, no. I realise that they are a blunt instrument. I've been involved in cases where the parents of regular truants have been fined, taken to court and eventually sentenced to community service. That didn't work either.

What I do disagree with is parents making decisions knowing full well that the outcome could be a fine, and then bleating that it's not fair when it happens to them. If they feel so strongly about it, then why wait until it affects them to make a stand? It's reminiscent of NIMBYism.

No one on here has 'bleated' that it is unfair after being fined.

I've never been fined and am saying it is unfair, others have said the same.

And just in case you missed it before teaching and HT unions did not lobby for people to be fined as you suggested South.

Agree, the Labour government came up with fines all by itself.

NAHT was in favour of removing the wording about 10 days for a holiday though.

TBH I don't care who introduced it, it's still not fair how it is currently administered.

It was introduced to help with persistent truancy not to penalise people for taking a week out which is what is has morphed into and what people are upset about.

And it was a stupid idea anyway (whichever idiot party thought it up). It is not helping those who it was intended to because persistent truants generally have other issues that they need help with, fining their parents isn't going to solve those issues.

jelly MR Platt is othe one I am referring to about "bleating" - that's what the thread is about.

And yes, you're right, the unions didn't lobby for the fines - they've been around for ages. It was the changes to legislation that allowed fines to be issued when parents removed their DCs for holidays that the HT Union lobbied for.

The fact that teaching and HT unions lobbied for the change indicates that there is majority support amongst the profession, otherwise Union membership would have collapsed.

As I understand it Gove took out the holiday bit and the NAHT issued guidance on hows heads could work within the new framework. I can't find any information about NAHT lobbying for issuing fines for holidays.

And if all the teachers (and HTs) I know are anything to go by, there really is not majority support among the profession for fining parents who take their children on holiday in term time.

I am not sure whether there is any unequivocal evidence that supports the government view that maximising attendance maximises progress. It seems obvious, but there are other issues influencing outcomes.

It's neither obvious nor, I doubt, true. The research the government carried out shows nothing about increasing attendance, and whether or not this is correlated as causal. In fact, I doubt it is causal.

Second, "progress" if narrowly defined as doing well on SATs, is actually not a great measure. I couldn't care less if my DCs did well on the SATs. It does them no good.

I'm not sure its any weaker than any of the other "evidence" used to support policy - you cam always find research that supports a particular case!

it's weak because all it does is show a strong correlation.

What I do disagree with is parents making decisions knowing full well that the outcome could be a fine, and then bleating that it's not fair when it happens to them.

It can be all of legal, predictable and unfair. There is no contradiction there.

And Mr Platt didn't just bleat about it, he fought it, with a lawyer he paid for.

And won.

I don't think the majority of parents are bleating about it are they? Besides Mr Platt there are quite a few well publicised court cases involving families that have refused to pay. No one is bleating, the ones you hear shouting about it are getting solicitors and taking it to court, they're pissed off about it, quite rightly.

And if all the teachers (and HTs) I know are anything to go by, there really is not majority support among the profession for fining parents who take their children on holiday in term time.

In most LAs, discretion for issuing fines has been delegated to HT. However, schools are under no obligation to adopt the policy published by the LA.
Schools are required to record holiday as unauthorised - they are not required to issue any FPNs.
If they don't agree with it, why are they doing it?

if all the teachers (and HTs) I know are anything to go by, there really is not majority support among the profession for fining parents who take their children on holiday in term time.

But HT have the discretion to fine or not; they are legally required to record the absence as unauthorised but the school can choose its own policy on FPNs and the HT decides whether to issue them.
If HTs don't agree - why are so many parents being fined?

Because they have stupid attendance targets to meet.