Be Excellent To Each Other

A lot in news this week about fines for parents who take their kids out of school a few weeks before the end of term to avoid the 100% or worse school holiday price increases.

Anyone do this ?

Will be a few years before I have this issue, but I can't see how people are getting fined as long as they just take the last week off. Surly you can just call up and say your kid has the shits or something and then self cert for a week as you can as an adult? I can't see that they can do anything about that.

Some of it makes me laugh, not sure what its like these days, but when I was at school we did fuck all for the last week of term other than play board games or if you were unlucky help the teacher take down stuff in the class for the next term.

Read about a school that was marked as inadequate in an OFSTED inspection and now fines parents £60 a time for kids being late for registration for their 2nd rate education!!

Somebody else suggested that the school holidays are staggered which will give the holiday firms more weeks of the year to overcharge people!!

Not sure who keeps the fines, if its schools won't be long before this will the same as parking fines are to councils, key operating income.

I will be doing it when my son is at school as I can teach him to tidy up a room and play snakes and ladders in Spain, don't need a week at the end of term for that

Things are more expensive when they're more popular. Everyone with kids needs to go on holiday during the holiday periods, so they're more expensive at those times. *shrug*

I love parents for subsidising my cheap holidays.

You're allowed to take kids out of school for two weeks in an academic year, here. You just have to write a letter and make sure they catch up when they get back. It's not really advisable to take them out in years 10 or 11 because they're constantly doing tests and assessments. They have a week in July where they do fuck all, the school themselves take something like 80% of the kids off island for various reasons then, anyway so I'd have no issue taking mine out then.

Between us, we have one doing GCSEs, one doing A-levels and one in year 7, plus one who's out working. It'd be an expensive trip taking them all away during school holidays so fuck that, frankly.

Given that attending school is not mandatory, I can't see how the school can be allowed to fine for lateness or for missing school.

If I wanted to take the kids out of school (and I have done this in the past) it should be my call.

I do get that some parents are less responsible than others, but I've never liked measures that only catches a small number of offenders whilst inconveniencing the vast majority of innocent people.

Malc

My sister does this very occasionally and it's thus far never done my niece any harm. Aside from my sister herself trying not to get raped by airlines she tends to go on holiday with my folks so the difference in prices across all four of them is significant if they have to pay the inflated prices. If they can't do this it'll very likely mean them not going on holiday abroad together again which is a bit of a shitter. I understand that schools want kids to, y'know, actually be in school all the time though so it makes sense from their point of view, it's just a shame the holiday related companies gouge the fuck out of everyone.

Between 5-16 it is.

That's 5-18 now and no it's not. You can home educate just fine if you so desire.

Malc

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Well, of course. But I suspect you have to provide some kind of proof, rather than just saying "oh, they're being home*-schooled for the next fortnight."

* - Marbella

It's compulsory between 5 and 17. Next year it'll be compulsory to 18.

I think if you expect the state to educate your kids, you have to take on board their rules. If you home educate them, they're still getting their compulsory education.

Yep, it’s a requirement to be in education between 5 and 16, or registered as being homeschooled. It’s a criminal offence as a parent not to ensure this.

People were taking the piss with absences before this rule came in, particularly at our middle class primary school I'm governor at, and it's a bloody good thing it did.

Previously you could take up to 2 weeks off with the head teacher's permission, but that was a bit of a stress for the head as they had to apply a common standard to everyone, and loads of people were making up family reasons for it other than "it's cheaper".

Now the head can only authorise absence for exceptional circumstances, such as funerals and the like. Now it's the local authority enforcing the rules about attendance, and it's them that enforce and collect the fines. Any LA can fine parents £60 per day for any unauthorised absence. Our LA is being reasonably lenient, in that you only get fined if your kid is absent for more than 10 half days in a 7 week period and is then subsequently absent again in the following 12 months.

We are now seeing people suspiciously disappear off ill on successive Fridays and such like. Of course, parents never seem to remember that their kids will tell all their classmates about the long weekend holiday they had to Centre Parcs.

And this “they never do any work in the last two weeks of term” is bullshit, as any primary school teacher can tell you.

The age range that BN was quoting was wrong, I was correcting that, and then explaining my original meaning. I was doing this in rushed short sentences, rather than explaining myself fully.

Malc

But it isn't, currently.

I think they should bash it straight to 5-18, and then 17-year old kids that have been at work for a year will have to go back to school again. I imagine them wandering around, bewildered.

Why is it such a big deal if a parent wants to take their kid out of school for a week?

Because they'll miss a week of classes?

Is it gouging? Or is it the real price, and the term time prices are discounted...

Quite.

It adds up quite a bit over the years as well. If you take 2 weeks off a year throughout infant and juniors you've missed 14 weeks of school - half a school year. That has an effect on your education.

It didnt effect my educashun?

I think I disagree with the way the policy is being implemented as I'm pretty sure most kids can miss 1 week, especially in quiet periods, without their education being ruined. This year we are having to go during the summer holidays and it is costing us more, but nowhere double as the hysterical ranters are claiming. For a lot of people it won't mean they can't have a holiday - it just means they might have to go to a lower quality destination if they have a fixed budget.

I'm actually more annoyed with some of the stupid shite that people post on facebook about it. One friend keeps posting links to a petition that would prevent anywhere charging more for a holiday during the school holidays, which is just so daft and unworkable that I don't know where to start. She is someone who insists on going skiing with her two daughters every year, plus various other breaks, so it's not like she's actually doing too badly, and she'll just add it all to the ever increasing credit card debt anyway.

As an aside, if it's so vital that the kids are at school, why are teacher training days always held in term time rather than the last day of the school holidays?

Kids will miss finger painting, OH NOES.

Punishing parents is retarded. Do they fine the kids for being off sick? Nope. Do they cope? Yes. So shut up, schools.

You'd be surprised at the effect disruption can have at KS1 and 2. There's an issue with consistently broken weeks as well, so taking a day off every week for a term will leave you markedly behind your peers.

The teachers at our school see this happening - they've got no vested interest in whether the kids turn up every day or not, to be fair (they're not getting paid per kid), but they actually care about the kids' education.



Or go on holiday during the term and pay the fine, as it may well be cheaper.



Yes, far better to let all feckless parents take the piss and not send their kids to school. Make the kids suffer, eh? Take that, kids!

It'll only be mildly annoying in a few years time, once this has been implemented and is seen as normal practice it'll just be another cost to add to the cost of having children.

Of course, I say this as someone who can still take their children out of school for holidays.

It's all about attitudes really, and they do need adjusting. School is important, socially and academically, even days where all they do is colour in or have stories read to them are days they're learning or practicing skills. Going on holiday isn't a right, and it is frustrating when seemingly every cost is increasing and families are finding themselves with less money to afford the luxuries they once could but not everything is accessible to everyone and that's just the harshness of reality.

Also: it's fine to complain about schools failing children but if 30% of the parents had the attitude of 'What do they learn in primary school, anyway?' and took their kids out of school for two weeks every year, that'd have a massive impact on results. It'd be interesting to see if the attendance record was linked to how well schools perform.

Tote agree with flis.

I think it really depends. If it means that someone is not going to experience family holidays at all growing up, i.e. if the parents simply cannot afford to go away during holiday times then I think that's a real shame and that kid is going to have missed out on a lot more than they would have gained by being in school for an extra week a year. If it just means that mum and dad will have to do without some pointless tat in order to take the kids away then boo hoo.

Hahahahahah, twat!

Warning - daily mail link

Me too. But I don't agree with you.

Good. I'd hate to think you did.

I thought it was till 18 currently, but apparently it's 17 now and 18 next year, which still makes you wrong at the time, as you said it was 16...

Malc

I love the fact they're annoyed after seeing pictures of him doing fun stuff; as if it would've been acceptable as long as he'd been miserable the entire time.



By 'an angry parent' they presumably mean 'a bored Daily Mail journalist looking to add further mock spluttering outrage to this story'. No one actually fucking talks like that.

That's were your skills as a parent come into play and you teach your kids to lie

I would be thinking of doing this for the main summer holiday, that way my kid will have forgotten about the extra week when get gets back to school 6 weeks later!



Maybe true but they don't do a lot in the last week!

In a sense it would have been. "Exceptional circumstances" includes going to funerals and such - this guy claimed he had to go during term time because was going to visit a close family friend dying of cancer. So the pictures of him living it up on the golf course and passed out pissed rather put the lie to his thinly-veiled excuses.

The last week is one of the last two weeks, you know.

We went on holiday to France during school time. I took some books and material with me so I could complete my geography project on the M25 widening.

It wasn't my best work to be honest.

On the plus side, I did learn how to throw a frisbee wicked good, like.

Frisbee!

I spent hours and hours throwing it back and forward with my dad, it's a fond memory.

Also we learnt to curl it round obstacles, stop in the air and gently float down to the receiver, go over the target and then drop back to them, or zip it straight to the receiver's hand.

I hope my little boy wants to play frisbee when he's bigger.

I think it's more a lack of imagination than money for most folk. The poorer weans at my school seemed to be away somewhere every time we got a holiday, which was probably more than most. Their families just borrowed a motor or took the train & went camping or borrowed caravans instead of going away on package holidays.

Christ, your post is as bad as that Mail article. How exactly does one 'live it up' on a golf course? Is that like playing golf and having a party at the same time or something?

Anyway, actually he said they'd gone during term time because not to do so would've cost £6K which they couldn't afford, and part of the reason they wanted to go was because the family friend had cancer. So, if taken at his and the Daily Mail's word, it was a choice between (a) go during term time because they could actually go and see someone who might not be around much longer or (b) don't go at all and, presumably, take the chance of not seeing the family friend alive again. We don't know the stage this guy's cancer is at so while you seemingly wouldn't be happy unless the entire time was spent sitting worriedly at a bedside maybe his mate's still healthy enough to want to enjoy doing stuff like playing golf before things do get too bad? Or it could be all lies of course (I'm certainly not ruling that out), but to assume that based on a fucking Daily Mail article and some context free pictures seems ill-advised.

My parents used to live in Spain, about 6 years ago my dad got really sick (ultimately leading to his death about 6 months later). My mum was stressed about this, leading to a heart attack which also killed her.

At this point My dad was in hospital sick on life support and my mum was dead. My brother and I went out to Spain to attend to the funeral and what not. However, we also hit the beach, went to pubs in the evening and so on.

It is possible to visit a place for really serious things and yet also do something to take your mind off it too.

Malc

I assume so. Everyone I've ever seen play golf round here looks dead miserable while they're doing it, and he looked quite chuffed.

The fact he's taken the photos down off his Facebook page sugeegsts he's a little shamefaced about it.



He could always have gone on his own to see him, of course, if it was that urgent.

And the guys owns a farm. He's not short of cash.



I was mostly assuming it on the basis that he came across as a massive tool from the massive load of quotes. Interestingly, though, they've removed a large section of text from yesterday, which had a lot of quotes from him and his wife, including in which the chap concerned made some fairly weird comments about being in it for the kiddies and being there to "guide them".

Brrrr.

Any way of getting that text off Google cache or something?

Maybe, or maybe there are just loads of people making shitty comments against them due to all this attention. I don't know if that's possible mind as I don't use Facebook.



If you've got a close friend of the family who's been diagnosed with cancer I don't think it's unreasonable to want to take your whole family to visit them, whatever stage their cancer is at. He could've gone on his own and not taken the kids but I can understand the desire to take them and presumably he just didn't realise quite how much bullshit was going to kick off over it. I certainly doubt he'd imagined for a second it would end up all over the Daily Mail.

I agree he likely could have afforded to do it during the Summer holidays and it's more the case he just didn't want to pay the inflated prices and is now trying to justify it to an angry mob. To be fair though, by his account, the money was only one factor. It's 'overal cost' + 'not being able to take time off his work during the Summer when the kids weren't in school' + 'friend diagnose with cancer and for whom some kind of clock is then obviously ticking'. All of that comes with a healthy dollop of 'allegedly' of course as we've only his word for any of it. I'd like to believe the cancer claim isn't a lie though because who the hell lies about something like that?




All that stuff was again just someone trying a bit too hard to defend themselves from an angry mob. The gist of it was that he'd grown up in foster care and knew what it was like to be a child in the system in need of support, so part of there reason he wanted to be a governor at the school was to get involved and maybe be able to help kids who had a background like his. Which is pretty reasonable stuff and, I think, just came across a bit weird sounding due to him being utterly on the defensive. It's probably not entirely relevant to the situation but to me it reads like someone who's walked into a shitstorm with no idea it was coming and just scrambled to defend them self with whatever chat they thought might send a the message of, "I'm honestly not a dick and do care about kids and schooling, honest guv!"

Bobby and I are former national frisbee champions. True story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36277940

High Court rule in favour of a parent who challenged a fine.

Local magistrates had already said he had no case to answer, so I guess the ruling there forced the council to High Court to try and stop people challenging in the future not to mention trying to get previous fines back.

Well they didn't really work out for them

Center Parcs will be delighted with this ruling. Probably no price drop on holiday time breaks (as they will remain popular) but now 40 other weekends of the year will suddenly become more popular.

I was wondering if any if the parents that took their kids out if school for the strike over SATS testing would be called out for truency?

This has gone on for years though before these fines came into place, its still a lot cheaper to go abroad out of term time.

The notion that holidays are more expensive when school is off. They aren't. They are less expensive when school is in.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Both are true. You are arguing semantics in order to establish the norm, but that's not needed, as the two things are comparative.

They should have scored them all zero and made them work through breaktimes and at weekends with their parents until their grades improved