School says I have "No right to take my child out of school during term time"

[Easy]

Okay, first I understand that school is important, and I don't necessarily intend to take my ds on holiday during term time but .....

We have just received the bumf from school regarding ds's first term next Sept.

In amongst it is a section on absences which says "You do not have the automatic right to take children on holidays during term time. The school must agree to this beforehand"

Now I feel that the school does not have a "right" to tell me when I can have access to my own child, I find the wording somewhat heavy handed, to say the least.

I'm not disagreeing with the principle involved, I just feel that the way it's being done is wrong. Is it just me who feels the 'Nanny state' interfering here.

Right!

Glad we never had to do that one.

It is embarasing enough to read dds school book, this weekend we watched a video, this weekend we watched a video, this weekend we watched a video......no mention of the swimming or trips to parks, country houses etc, just the bloody videos!

Hmm, interesting "if people don't like the rules, home educate". So who makes the rules? I sense a lack of interest in "partnership with parents" here... if you don't like it, go, doesn't sound like a partnership which includes compromise, negotiation, respect, equality - all those things that all of us expect from our relationships with individuals and institutions. No wonder so many people are opting out, if that's the attitude they get from schools (not that I've had any experience of it, I hasten to add - the school my DS attends tries to be as respectful and considerate of individual needs as it can be, given the constraints they're under).

But the rules are there for the benefit of everyone. You're not going to have rules that make everyone happy and provide the best environment for learning. It is only possible to compromise so far before it disrupts things for other pupils.

I send DS1 to school and abide by their rules because I trust them to know how best to do their job. I expect people who come to my house to abide by my rules and therefore I expect DS and myself to abide by school rules when dealing with school stuff. If people can't abide by my house rules (and I don't have many! ) then I'd expect them to go elsewhere. Ditto for school really. If I didn't like the rules set my DSs school and wasn't prepared to abide by them, I'd send him elsewhere.

Nicely put soupdragon!

And where do you draw the line. What about those parents who take their kids out of school at the drop of a hat? The children have a right to an education. If the parenet will not let the school do it then they have ther responsibility to educate the child themselves.

And what about standards of behaviour? Do you think that the school has to let a child behave in any way s/he likes because the parent thinks it is OK.

You can't please all the poeple all of the time, and the vast majority are OK with the rulings.

Hmb, the twins' mother says she's going to HE - with work she hopes the school is going to provide! And if the school won't give her any work she says 'so what'.

Tbh, I was amazed to hear what she was planning as I'd have had her down as someone who went strictly by the rules. To judge from the reactions of everyone who has heard of this extended break, she's going to meet with a lot of disapproval from other parents.

I suppose the point I was trying to make is that "the rules" aren't set in stone and are supposed to be the result of a consultation between parents and school - and as such, they change according to the expectations of each generation of parents and teachers. Parents are constantly being told that they are ?partners? with schools, so when they receive literature which addresses them in a way which makes it clear that the partnership is not remotely equal, then they are bound to react with resentment, confusion, or some other negative response. And I don?t really see how that is helpful to the school.

I absolutely sympathise with the logistics problems, educational problems, etc. that taking kids out of school causes teachers; but this thread is interesting because it isn't discussing that issue per se, it's discussing how Easy?s school communicated to her about it. (She made it very clear at the beginning that she didn't disagree with the principle.) And in my view, they communicated badly. It?s not enough to say that schools are far too busy doing real world things to worry about fluffy communications issues, communicating well with parents ensures that you have a well organised, supportive bunch of people who are on your side when you try and push through sensible rules. You don?t get support by alienating people, and I think that?s all some of us are trying to say.

The other way of approaching it, of course, is to say, we don't need parent's support, we make the rules, and if they don't like it they can home ed. Which is one way of doing it, but if they are going to take this approach, then schools need to be clear about it. Then everyone knows where they stand. Then when something like Easy's document comes through the door, parents won't be surprised or offended by it. A bit like when the Inland Revenue write to you (I don't have a "partnership" with them, but I don?t get annoyed by their letters either!!!)

Message withdrawn

Off topic somewhat, has anyone seen the adverts for the new 'Wife Swap'? One of the mothers is heared saying 'I don't mind my children swearing it doesn't worry me' She swears a lot!

Our school bans swearing in class. If a child tells me to f off they get 3 days exclusion. If I tell them to f off I'd get suspended. And all quite correct as far as I am concerned. The pattern of behaviour that you expect in a school has to be strict, as other wise anarchy would reign.

Now I think that this woman is a fool to allow her kids to behave that way. It isn't doing them any favours to be foul mouthed. But they are her kids and so I suppose that she has the right to raise them that way. And as a teacher I have the right to demand that I am treated in a reasonable way by those kids when they come to school. In that respect the school sets the standard. Home school partnership can only go so far. If that woman insists of her kids' 'right' to swear I have the right to tell her of her resposibility to educate them herself.

Similarly I have the responsibility of educating the children placed in my care. I take this very seriously. I want a good working relationship with parents as well as the kids. Without that they child will not fulfill their potential. But I can only do my work if there are minimum standards of behaviour and attendance. Sadly there are parents who are not concered about their children's education and the law is in place to help to protect these kids. In the vast majority of cases taking kids out of school deprives them of an education.

The letter may well have been badly worded and somewhat tactless, but it is a statement of fact. Whan parents chose to send their child to a school they are accepting the rules as they stand. They have a democratic right to try to change those rules, but not, I think to simply ignore them for the sake of a cheeper holiday. Children's educations are more important than that. And in the vast majority of cases the kids are taken out to save money, not for any high minded beliefs on parental rights.

Oh how I wish our school did a 3-day exclusion for swearing .

I think I've posted before about the behaviour of some kids in DD1 class - teacher told to f off on a daily basis, called a b* - and then yesterday, a supply teacher who was covering DD1s usual teacher was hit by same kid.

Bloss, I agree with you - I think the whole idea of parent-school partnership is an absurdity; I patently cannot be an equal partner in running a school, and I know damn well that my child's individual needs within school are sometimes going to be ignored for the sake of the majority. I don't have a problem with that. I just wish schools would be more honest about it, and stop telling me I'm their partner. You can't be an equal partner one minute and a benign dictator the next. Personally, I am far more irritated by the touchy feely equal partner literature I receive from my DS's school than by the legalistic stuff.

I think that the home school agreements were started with the best of intentions, but are a waste of time for the school and the parents. For the school they are meaningless since you cannot compel a parent/child to sign and can do nothing if they break the conditions of agreement, over and above what you can do anyway.

And as with parent teacher meetings, when the parents you need to see will never turn up, the parents you want to sign have no intention to do so.

I think easy's school's statement should read:

You must seek the school's agreement if you intend to take your children on holidays during term time. You do not have the automatic right to take your child out of school. ie put the element of negotiation first, followed by the firm reminder of the school's power to say no.

That's how it should be in real life too. This no holiday rule IMO shouldn't be set in stone. Individual circumstances should be taken into account. Holidays can heal and educate. Sometimes time off is vital. Parents who take children on the odd term time holiday may support the school and their child in a hundred other ways. No parent should feel rapped on the knuckes for even contemplating a term time holdiay. Schools should encourage negotiation.

Up to a point I agree, however I would also like to insert a phrase that states that children should not be withdrawn from school during examination periods and the time immediatly before them. These dates should, where ever possible, be listed. Parents should also be informed that withdrawing children during these period will risk the child underperforming in the examinations and that they cannot demand that catch up work is set by the school. It should be the responsibility of the parent to make sure that the child catches up.

I haven't read all this thread and this point has probably already been made, but it is virtually impossible to book a holiday to fit exactly with a school holiday (unless its the 6 week one). Flights usually go midweek and it generally means children missing some school. I feel taking a child travelling abroad is just if not more beneficial than them spending that time in school. Travel agents also need to be taken in hand as most parents cannot afford to holiday when schools are out. Does that mean they have to miss out every year???

do you know what?. i am sick of this "we cant afford it business. "

If you cant then go somewhere else!

Me too Coddy ... there are always financially constrained choices to be made, and holidays are just one. Last year for various complicated family reasons our 'main holiday' was 5 days in London, by train, staying at the TravelInn old County Hall. Just today (for about the 100th time) both my boys were BEGGING me to take them again. We had a superb time, a very memorable holiday: they talk about it ALL the time, and it certainly didn't break the bank.

oh dear I cant affor to go to barbados in february
SO i dont go!

Oh dear I can't afford a new car and a £700k house ...

I blame thatcher!

amyaway for many kids itw one of several holdays that year!

I'm not sure I buy into this idea of it being so beneficial to go abroad. Of course it can be- language study abroad, home stays etc- generally stuff where you immerse yourself in the culture, travel independently- and good grief talk to some foreigners (ie NOT family holidays where you eat in the odd taverna and stick to English unless you're asking for a beer). DS2 won't be going on any holidays abroad that involve flying until he's old enough to go alone as there is no way I would ever try an put ds1 on a plane- not for the forseeable future anyway. I'm not sure that ds2 will be missing out that much- we have holidays and I'm sure he learns more about life having an autistic brother than he would from spending 2 weeks on the costa del sol.

Having said that I'm not particularly against children being taken out during term time (providing its not taking the p* - wouldn't do it myself- as its my respite) but I'm not sure that the majority of cases can be justified as a "learning experience". Some may be but I bet 99% aren't.

bonniej - I would disagree that it is impossible to take holidays in school holiday time. As a teacher I have no choice for me, DH and DD (only 2 so not at school) but to go in holiday time. We have managed a 2 week break in the summer every year, and normally a week away in one of the others. With no problems at all. Certainly not cheaper than term time, but where theres a will...

agree on the points you make about exams, hmb. The importance of not taking time off before and during should be stated.

Agree also that if you can't afford a big holiday abroad during the school hols, then you should find a cheaper alternative.

However, I still feel there are occasions when a family simply needs a holiday. That time might not fall conveniently in the school hols each year. I'm thinking of times after a very bad patch (death, divorce, depression, etc).

My hoiday was a week in Hunstanton when I was a child. That holiday was so important to me both as a child, and as an adult, as I have so many memories of it. My sons so enjoy holidays, the little ones as well as the big ones, it's true. But when we have taken them abroad (3 or 4 times), they have experienced and learned things as well, and that has left an impact on them. The oldest speaks so fondly of the big holidays, seeing a different climate, food, language, geography etc etc. He's now having French lessons at school and is eager to learn it, partly because he's heard it spoken abroad. We also had lots of fun together as a family, all of us being strangers abroad bought us closer together. So I do think 'big' hoidays can have big emotional and educational benefits. When push comes to shove if a family have the chance of a hol abroad in term time only, then sometimes going away is the right thing to do IMO.

That's why I think schools should emphasise the negotiation element. Parents should not take their children out with no explanation or assume because they took a hol in term time last year they can do it every year. But I do think that each case should be considered individually.

Tigermoth, what a sensible posting. It should go without saying that most sensible people do not take their children out of school willy nilly to afford that third Caribbean cruise; for most people, they are taking the cheapest holiday they possibly can; the option isn't to find a cheaper one, it's not to have one at all - for the fourth year running. And going on holiday in England is more expensive than going abroad in many cases. Are people honestly saying that a family which only has a holiday every four or five years (most of the families I know) should not be allowed to have even that one if they can't afford to do it in holiday time? For some families, particularly those on low incomes under stress, taking time out together out of their normal environment can be the difference between meltdown and regeneration - and I think that is just as important as school, particularly when exams aren't an issue.

No mean bean, I don't think that people are saying that for those cases. And the school I work in has never, to my knowledge refused the two weeks extra, as long as the request was reasonable. In fact they have even granted it when kids will miss exams, which I think is stupid.

However, in my experience , when I have asked kids about their up coming holidays, these are not a cheap week that couldn't be had at any other time. These are, (and these are actual examples) 2 weeks in Florida, 3 weeks in Hong Kong (that was the girl who missed her exams/revision as a result), 2 weeks in the carribean, 1 week in New York.

While some of thses might have been educational I doubt it!

And I have to go at the most expensive time of the year. We have 2 weeks booked in France in a caravan. Next year I am looking into getting our own tent to save cash. I have calculated that 2 weeks in the peak of peak season in a 5 star campsite with tunnel fees will come in under £600, and that is for the 4 of us.

There are some cases of genuine need when it comes to holidays, but I would estimate that well over 90% of the cases are families either wanting to save cash, or having a flasher holiday than they could otherwise afford. And in the vast number of cases add little, if nothing to the education of their kids. And when they come home the kids will usually make 0 effort to catch up the missed work.