Are parents, the proverbial hanky on the rope.?

[Manwithnoname]

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

[Ellipsis]

New Judge, I agree 100% ...

[karenmac60]

Look, Christmas cards are full price in the run up to Xmas, because that is when there is a demand for them. Holidays are full price during the summer because that is when people want to go on them. It's all about supply and demand. If you don't want to pay the prices then don't go!

[joko]

i dont agree NJ...i think there are other things that add to a childs education and development rather than just sitting in a class room...

i would rather a child had great family holidays rather than none at all if the parents cant afford it...

[Ellipsis]

> there are other things that add to a childs education and development rather than just sitting in a class room...

There are and, as NJ pointed out, each year you have half a year in which to add those other things. You say you believe in compulsory education, but then you don't back it up.

> i would rather a child had great family holidays rather than none at all if the parents cant afford it...

... and so it comes down to money.

I said earlier that my wife's a teacher. I also have two children of school age. So, does my family deserve great family holidays at low prices like your family? Are my kids to be denied the opportunity of those great family holidays because their mother happens to be a teacher? Or can my wife take time off outside of school holidays to save money on family holidays?

My wife made a commitment when becoming a teacher to fixed holidays and turning up during school hours to teach other people's children. And, when we became parents and put our children into the state system, we made a commitment to make sure that our kids were there to receive the education offered by other teachers. That's compulsory education, from both sides.

Does that mean we miss out on great family holidays? No. Does it mean we can't go on the kinds of holidays we could go on were we to go off-peak? Yes, of course. We, like most other people, have to cut our cloth to fit when it comes to holidays. Just as we have to with our choice of house, car and everything else money can buy.

But that's life. Life's about choices, and one of the choices you make is whether you honour your commitments. Compromising your honour to save money is not a great lesson for your kids - particularly when it damages their education and that of their friends.

[joko]

honour does not really come into it....its as though you're saying wanting to give your kids a great holiday is somehow immoral...

the issue of your wife being a teacher is irrelevant ...thats her choice and she is paid to do that...not everyone can afford holidays, and yes sometimes the issue is totally about money...

i dont believe taking kids out ruins their friends or their education - bit over the top

[Ellipsis]

> thats her choice

And having kids and putting them into state education is your choice and your commitment.

You expect teachers to pay high prices for their holidays and turn up to teach your children at all times that school is open, but you're not prepared to keep your own side of the bargain ...

[joko]

that 'commitment'.. is not my choice... it is the law...

[rowanwitch]

I'm with craft...I hate having kids running around being a pain when I am away I want my off season child free weeks when I can afford a holiday that is... mind you a colleague asked to take his kids out of school for a weeks holiday in europe....the kids thought they were going to eurodisney he took them to Auschwitz and Birkenau I think in that instance the benefit to their education was significant

[Ellipsis]

> that 'commitment'.. is not my choice... it is the law...

OK, you made the choice to have children in the first place. Then to put them into state education, rather than private education or home education. But assuming you didn't really have a choice in all of those things (or, more likely, the cost of holidays wasn't a significant factor in that choice) then you're right, it is the law, yes ...

Why would it be the law? It's the law for all the reasons New Judge has pointed out in this thread - it contributes towards making state education work as well as it possibly can. You may not agree with that but there are good, well-meaning reasons behind it that have children's interests at heart.

[joko]

i agree there are good reasons to make it that way ..too many parents let their kids run wild and couldnt care less if their kids can even read properly...so yes there do need to be rules...but i feel allowing kids the odd bit of time off in order to have the time of their lives should be more relaxed...

there were no rules like that when i was a kid and i dont believe we or our classmates suffered one bit.

some of my greatest childhood memories are of my holidays, i hated school and id have resented the fact that we couldnt go away due to cost.

i played truant, messed about, and generally didnt give a toss... i now have a degree, a hnd, 2 NVQs, a city and guilds, and various diplomas... because i wanted to.

it is also perhaps for many the only time they will get to go abroad...who knows.