taking children out of school for holidays is ILLEGAL

[zippitippitoes]

interesting news report here \link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2075270,00.html\ High Court Ruling}

so will anybody still be taking those unauthorised breaks and days off?

Will schools get tougher

and does your school say no at the moment?

well that situation is of course completely different from anything I have been saying
but I don't see, really, why other parents' fecklessness and lack of judgment should mean that I am penalised by a "no tolerance" policy.

I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions regarding my child.

Well quite, enid. I'm talking about 2 weeks in Benidorm, not family bereavements.

well Enid
not necssarily
soapbox said yesterday - no tolerance
no absences in term time AT ALL
no exceptions
so there you go

So what should our Head do? Ignore it?

hold on YOU may be talking about two weeks in Benidorm
but the answer posited on this thread seems to be NO absences

that's a matter for him for manage with the parents on an individual level and to make his own judgments on a case by case basis
not to impose a blanket ban which assumes all parents are just as irresponsible

"to make his own judgments on a case by case basis "

I want the Head of my children's school to be doing Head-type things, not weighing up umpteen holiday requests.

zippi - when I was at school my dad, working in a factory, had only shut down weeks as holidays and was not able to take holidays at other times. The shut down weeks, at that time, did NOT correspond with school holidays.

At the end of the day I think everyone should, working within the current guidelines, do what is best for their families and their situations.

In non- exam/GCSE/A level years the odd week out of school is not going to jepordise a child's academic success.

And sometimes a family break somewhere away from home and together can be just as beneficial, if not more so, than a week in school.

For Dd we have chosen a school where term time holidays and absence is not permitted. However, in extreme cases, such as bereavements, etc. I would use my own judgement as I know what is best for me, my child, my family, etc. The school would have to just deal with an unauthorised absense on their own records.

Harpsi - using extreme examples to argue commonplace appication just muddles things up!

Of course in exceptional circumstances we might disagree with the rules and act on what we think is right! But these are not exceptional circumstances - they are every day blatant flouting of the rules!

Compulsory education changed the fortunes of many working class children, who were otherwise sweeping chimneys, down the mines or working as a factory or farm hand - from the age of 5 yo!

Education revolutionalised people's approach to children - to allow them a childhood, to be able to read and write and have a chance to 'better' themselves.

This generation discards all of that hard won right to education at its peril, IMO! Class divisions will become more marked if we have an illiterate underclass who cannot work or provide for themselves. And that is not a good thing!

The problem is that rules that govern society as a whole are blunt instruments! They cannot differentiate in application between the child not coming to school because his parents don't care, who cannot read nor write, from the child who needs a duvet day and who is bright and able! It cannot be seen to be one rule for the clever with caring parents and another for the thick with duff parents! It just wouldn't work!

Harpsi - I most certainly did not say that! I said that exceptions as set out in teh Scottish schools policy - which provide for extenuating circumstances, should be allowed!

By soapbox on Thursday, 9 March, 2006 1:02:43 PM

Precisely OO - just ban the lot I think!

Extenuating circumstances only - as set out in the Scottish guidelines!

Otherwise no where in the world shuts down in July and August does it - so do it then!

well soapbox it is only by considering the extreme examples that you can see the gaping holes in your argument
I don't disagree with anything in your post particularly
but all I am saying is: if you say rules are rules - then I am saying soemtimes the rules are wrong
if you say - it is up to the discretion of the head - then I say sometimes people in authority make the wrong decisions
it is piss easy to say - people shouldn't be allowed to abuse the system. Motherhood and apple pie, that. who could disagree?
but if you say - SOME people abuse the system so EVERYONE must therefore have their freedoms restricted without exception - well I don't agree with that.

btw do you like how excited I am about this when it hasn't happened to me yet

But Harpsi - the circumstances you outlined are allowed within the policies outlined - so how on earth does that prove anything!

If anything, it shows that those determining the rules have done so in a thoughtful way which provides for authorised absences in extenuating circumstances!

Why therefore would that show a gaping hole in my argument????

I think the Scottish rules are a lot less ambiguous..there does seem to be an absurd range of interpretation in English schools

if you take two weeks out of school then it just doesn't leave much time in any given half term on either side of that to settle into the rhythm of working, so doesn't it cause more actual disruption than is apparent?

Can children whose parents can't afford to go away on holiday take holiday in this way when their dad has his factory fortnight then?

but soapbox - WHO decides what are extenuating circumstances? the head again, presumably? what about if he makes a rubbish decision, like my (very clever, very able) judge who said - if I let you do it, then everyone will want to?
(btw she didn't die, and I didn't get prosecuted

soapbox - YOU may be talking about everyday flouting of the rules
I am not
I am certainly not justifying taking cheap holidays, I couldn't care less about that
I am just saying - sometimes rules are rubbish and the people that apply them make wrong judgements.

Just 2 points. That Thomas Cook link, all 3 holidays started 21 July... our kids don't finish until the 25th.

Everyone keeps on about "cheap" holidays. When our kids were little it wasn't the cost that was a problem but the fact that we both worked. I was so far down on the leave list that I was not allowed leave during the main school holidays, and DH was not allowed leave during a week with a Bank Holiday in it. That cut out May half term and the 2 weeks of Easter. As our budget didn't permit us to go abroad that meant we were left with February or October half term, neither of which is much fun in a caravan in the UK. (we have done the October one and it was cold and wet and miserable all week).

Now that our LEA has moved to the 6 term year we have an extra week at Easter apart from the Good Friday week and the Easter Monday week, so we are able to go on holiday (in a caravan in the UK) the first week of April.

It's all very well going on about the 13 weeks a year, but those of us in normal jobs don't have the luxury of 13 weeks to choose from.

Well in Scotland the policies are set centrally, although application of these would be down to the head teacher! In England I suspect the LEA would set the policies to be applied by the school.

I think to judge all headteachers by teh standards of one bad decision by a judge is odd!

I think most headteachers are probably more than capable of getting this right!

Tallulah - I think your beef should be with your employers and not with the school, in the situation you outlined!

But in a lot of cases it is about cheap holidays. For the majority of parents in our school who take term time holiday, it's because it's cheaper, or they can go to Spain rather than Brighton. It's not for any other reason.

Did someone mention a duvet day?! Oh sigh! Is there any way I can get one of those with a 5 month old baby and a 3 year old? I'd be willing to lie and plead extenuating circumstances. I just want a lie-in

Sorry - thread digression. Too tired to argue. I agree with Soapbox :)

Talulah that is bad management on the part of employers, leave should be allocated fairly within the business constraints, impartially

the dfes has guidelines which are interpretd by the lea and then interpreted again at the heads discretion, only the lea can prosecute parents no the schools decision

Oh god, this again. I can feel my bp rising already.

spidermama, JennyLee, pashmina I couldn't agree more.

Those with primary school kids just think ahead to secondary school for a moment. My kids have the opportunity to go on an (arguably pointless) school hol most years. So, I would like to know why it is ok for schools to take students on trips/holidays in term time if I can't? Many are not even very educational - theme parks, skiing, and they don't even seem to eat with the natives. They do MacDonalds to keep the fussy eaters happy rather than expand their gastronomic horizons. Our family holidays are a darn sight more educational than that. If the syllabus is so tight how can schools spare the time? And what about those that don't go - do they romp on ahead? I think not. They just tread water until normal service is resumed. What a waste of time.

Many posters have said that taking them out of school sets a bad example - but these double standards set a far worse example imho.

Incidentally, I don't make a habit of taking them out of school. I just don't have any quarms about it if I do. Can't stand holidays anyway, too bloody stressful
And another thing, over the years I have seen so many people crumble and take hols on term time and do you know what? Thay all have exceptional circumstances!!

Good post quangle. Absolutely agree.