The Weather Wreaks Havoc In Spain
News16 mins ago
Are parents, the proverbial hanky on the rope.?
70 Answers
Taking children out of school for a holiday = a far cheaper holiday but a fine can be imposed. (plus other threats ?)
Taking children on holiday during term time = rip off travel agents who are allowed to get away with it. Non government intervention = couldn`t care less.
All in all its the parents who are the victims of it all. Agree/Disagree
Taking children on holiday during term time = rip off travel agents who are allowed to get away with it. Non government intervention = couldn`t care less.
All in all its the parents who are the victims of it all. Agree/Disagree
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Manwithnoname. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Slightly off thread, I know, but whether or not they attend school, jno, It is not "other people's kids" who will be paying my pension.Here's an extract from another unrelated thread where I commented on the topic:
"Most working people have provided for their own pensions. Many have paid into private or occupational schemes and all have paid income tax and, in particular, National Insurance throughout their working lives in the expectation that those funds will be invested on their behalf to provide income in retirement.
Of course the private and occupational schemes do just that. But their contributions to the State scheme have been frittered away by successive governments and a large part of those funds have been used to provide so-called “pensions” (i.e. benefits) to people have contributed little or nothing to the pot.
It is not the fault of the current pensioners that State pensions are run like a glorified Ponzi scheme. They have had their cash taken from them at source and they would have been able to do a lot better with it had they not been forced to provide for those who have not provided for themselves. And when it comes to payout time, because of means testing they usually receive less State pension than those who have contributed nothing."
And in any case, even if it they were to provide for me in my old age, all the more reason why they should attend school properly so that they can earn more (and so pay more) to keep me in my dotage!
"Most working people have provided for their own pensions. Many have paid into private or occupational schemes and all have paid income tax and, in particular, National Insurance throughout their working lives in the expectation that those funds will be invested on their behalf to provide income in retirement.
Of course the private and occupational schemes do just that. But their contributions to the State scheme have been frittered away by successive governments and a large part of those funds have been used to provide so-called “pensions” (i.e. benefits) to people have contributed little or nothing to the pot.
It is not the fault of the current pensioners that State pensions are run like a glorified Ponzi scheme. They have had their cash taken from them at source and they would have been able to do a lot better with it had they not been forced to provide for those who have not provided for themselves. And when it comes to payout time, because of means testing they usually receive less State pension than those who have contributed nothing."
And in any case, even if it they were to provide for me in my old age, all the more reason why they should attend school properly so that they can earn more (and so pay more) to keep me in my dotage!
We have to request permission in writing to the headmistress. I asked for 2 days tagged onto the back of the Easter holidays and i was given permission (although the head did warn me of the the pitfalls, exactly like new judge put in this thread). Another child in my eldest's class was refused permission for the same days.
The school my daughter attends has really clamped down on it since they've had a new Head. I'd never get away with a two week school term holiday now even if I wanted to.
Last September we attended a family wedding - my daughter was a bridesmaid. The wedding was on the Friday, but as it was in West Wales we wanted to drive there on the Thursday.
We put a request to the school for the two days - they granted the Friday but not the Thursday. As a result we had to lie to the school on the Thursday and tell them our daughter was sick.
I agree two weeks is too much - but I think the odd day or two, especially for things such as weddings, should be OK.
Last September we attended a family wedding - my daughter was a bridesmaid. The wedding was on the Friday, but as it was in West Wales we wanted to drive there on the Thursday.
We put a request to the school for the two days - they granted the Friday but not the Thursday. As a result we had to lie to the school on the Thursday and tell them our daughter was sick.
I agree two weeks is too much - but I think the odd day or two, especially for things such as weddings, should be OK.
This is great! My wife's a teacher, and we've always been fed up that we have to pay such high prices for holidays.
Now I can simply "take her out of school" for two weeks on top of the 14 weeks she already gets, and we can save £££s. I'm sure the parents will understand - it's only two weeks out of their kids' education, after all ...
Now I can simply "take her out of school" for two weeks on top of the 14 weeks she already gets, and we can save £££s. I'm sure the parents will understand - it's only two weeks out of their kids' education, after all ...
...and this takes us back full circle to the original question. Travel companies are cashing in on the fact most holiday makers are constrained to certain dates. As far as I know aviation fuel isnt hiked, airport staff arent paid anymore, hotel staff arent paid any more in these periods. Yes, peak time may mean more staffing but not to the sum of double which is what holiday companies are charging.
grffindoor2011
"Any parent refused being allowed to take their child out of school for a holiday should threaten the school with being taken to court. Worked for me. "
Not sure that's a good idea, are you saying , the court ruled in your favour or did it get that far? or did the school just back down?
"Any parent refused being allowed to take their child out of school for a holiday should threaten the school with being taken to court. Worked for me. "
Not sure that's a good idea, are you saying , the court ruled in your favour or did it get that far? or did the school just back down?
NJ - you know quite well thats not what i'm saying, so why make that comment?
2 weeks, once maybe twice, out of the year is hardly going to ruin their education ...and often more valuable in experience to the child...it gives much needed quality family time, adventure, travel, new experiences, new cultures, new languages, and just some fun and priceless memories...
if i choose to give my child amazing holidays full of memories that will stay with them the rest of their lives then thats up to me...
as long as its not during exam time i dont see the harm and think schools should not have that power over parents ...
childhood is for fun too you know..
2 weeks, once maybe twice, out of the year is hardly going to ruin their education ...and often more valuable in experience to the child...it gives much needed quality family time, adventure, travel, new experiences, new cultures, new languages, and just some fun and priceless memories...
if i choose to give my child amazing holidays full of memories that will stay with them the rest of their lives then thats up to me...
as long as its not during exam time i dont see the harm and think schools should not have that power over parents ...
childhood is for fun too you know..
The package holiday firms make a very small margin overall on the price of a ticket.
And they largely bear the risk of unsold rooms/flights - a major element in the past few years of ash clouds, security fears and civil disturbance.
If they are 'ripping people off' how do you explain the fact that several including Thomas Cook are on the verge of financial ruin and others have had to yield to hostile takeovers and mergers in recent years eg Thomson and First Choice?
And they largely bear the risk of unsold rooms/flights - a major element in the past few years of ash clouds, security fears and civil disturbance.
If they are 'ripping people off' how do you explain the fact that several including Thomas Cook are on the verge of financial ruin and others have had to yield to hostile takeovers and mergers in recent years eg Thomson and First Choice?
I know nothing of the sort, joko. You said “It should not be down to the schools to make these decisions...”. The decision we are talking about is when the term starts, when it ends and what days in between those dates that the children have to attend. Just who should make these decisions, then?
I’ve already explained why I think taking children out of school harms their education. More importantly it harms the education of all the other children too, the parents of some of whom are diligent enough to make sure they attend as required.
Your “only two weeks now and then” is not a valid argument. With a school year of about 38 weeks two weeks is about 5%. So, 5% absence for your child, another (different) 5% for his friend, another 5% for a few more, and so on. How on earth do you expect teachers to cope with children coming and going seemingly at will? Most subjects are taught cumulatively and it is difficult to move on until you have mastered the earlier lessons. Somebody has to make sure the absentees catch up. Of course it has to be done in the event of sickness but planned withdrawal from school is, in my view, extremely irresponsible.
Children have to attend school for not much over 50% of the 365 days in each year. You can give your children all the things you mention in the other 50%. If you cannot for some reason you should not jeopardise the education of the entire class by taking them out. Many children are leaving school now utterly unprepared and ill-educated for working life. Taking them away from school simply exacerbates that problem. Thankfully schools do have the power to restrict such absences and many of them are exercising it.
I’ve already explained why I think taking children out of school harms their education. More importantly it harms the education of all the other children too, the parents of some of whom are diligent enough to make sure they attend as required.
Your “only two weeks now and then” is not a valid argument. With a school year of about 38 weeks two weeks is about 5%. So, 5% absence for your child, another (different) 5% for his friend, another 5% for a few more, and so on. How on earth do you expect teachers to cope with children coming and going seemingly at will? Most subjects are taught cumulatively and it is difficult to move on until you have mastered the earlier lessons. Somebody has to make sure the absentees catch up. Of course it has to be done in the event of sickness but planned withdrawal from school is, in my view, extremely irresponsible.
Children have to attend school for not much over 50% of the 365 days in each year. You can give your children all the things you mention in the other 50%. If you cannot for some reason you should not jeopardise the education of the entire class by taking them out. Many children are leaving school now utterly unprepared and ill-educated for working life. Taking them away from school simply exacerbates that problem. Thankfully schools do have the power to restrict such absences and many of them are exercising it.
Sorry to hijack but I just wanted to reply to New Judge - "Your logic suggests that school is not that important, sherrardk. ("The amount of actual learning that takes place in any given week in school is not that great..."). "
I actually think that school is important (my children are there every day, on time, in full school uniform, homework done, books read, etc). However, I do know from experience exactly how much 'learning' is achieved during an average school week so I am fully aware of how much (or little) is missed if a child is not there.
I actually think that school is important (my children are there every day, on time, in full school uniform, homework done, books read, etc). However, I do know from experience exactly how much 'learning' is achieved during an average school week so I am fully aware of how much (or little) is missed if a child is not there.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
News40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
You've Got To Laugh Haven't You?
News48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles66 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.