Just Had A New Kitchen Fitted By B&Q
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Selfish Cheapskate Parenting Now Legal.........
183 Answers
http://
In order to get a cheaper holiday it's ok to degrade your child's education. Wonderful. Brainless parents win again. When will our dopey judges move to this planet?
In order to get a cheaper holiday it's ok to degrade your child's education. Wonderful. Brainless parents win again. When will our dopey judges move to this planet?
Answers
Oh dear! A topic (almost) as dear to my heart as the wretched EU! “When will our dopey judges move to this planet?” Alas it’s not the fault of dopey judges (even dopey New Judges!). It’s down to sloppy legislation. The 1996 Education Act simply says that parents must ensure that their children attend school “regularly
18:34 Fri 13th May 2016
> Incidentally, can I just point out that among the parents who "should not have had children", by NJ's, and TTT's, and implictly by ellipsis' argument, are my own parents? It's really quite hard *not* to take that personally.
Really, Jim, that kind of straw man argument is beneath you. I never said or implied anything of the sort. All that I've said is that, unless in truly exceptional circumstances, children should go in holiday during the 13 weeks of school holiday per year, rather than taking up to 3-4 extra weeks out of term time. How can you take that to imply that I'm saying they shouldn't have been born?
> NJ....however much we disagree and whatever you think you know about my daughter's education I am the one who knows everything about it ....where she was educated...how she was educated and what absences she had.
It's as I posted earlier: "whenever anybody argues in favour of taking children out of school during term time, it's normally with personal examples. This makes arguing against it difficult because it looks like we're attacking you personally. But the point is, in the general case, it's a really bad idea."
Most arguments in favour of taking children out of school during term time are about the positive effects on those children, which may or may not be the case depending on the circumstances.
Most arguments against taking children out of school during term time are about the deleterious effects on other children, on teachers, on schools, on school finances and on the quality of state education generally. For these reasons, the sooner the law is rewritten to what was intended in the first place, the better, IMO.
Really, Jim, that kind of straw man argument is beneath you. I never said or implied anything of the sort. All that I've said is that, unless in truly exceptional circumstances, children should go in holiday during the 13 weeks of school holiday per year, rather than taking up to 3-4 extra weeks out of term time. How can you take that to imply that I'm saying they shouldn't have been born?
> NJ....however much we disagree and whatever you think you know about my daughter's education I am the one who knows everything about it ....where she was educated...how she was educated and what absences she had.
It's as I posted earlier: "whenever anybody argues in favour of taking children out of school during term time, it's normally with personal examples. This makes arguing against it difficult because it looks like we're attacking you personally. But the point is, in the general case, it's a really bad idea."
Most arguments in favour of taking children out of school during term time are about the positive effects on those children, which may or may not be the case depending on the circumstances.
Most arguments against taking children out of school during term time are about the deleterious effects on other children, on teachers, on schools, on school finances and on the quality of state education generally. For these reasons, the sooner the law is rewritten to what was intended in the first place, the better, IMO.
Well possibly I shouldn't have included you, but NJ said it explicitly, and you said "Completely agree, NJ", so either you didn't read NJ's post or you didn't mean you completely agreed, or you *do* agree that "parents [who] struggle to afford a holiday without having to pay over the odds... should not have had children." So which of those is it?
NJ's was a long post with which I agreed, but the bit in question is:
> “That is a facetious remark TTT. Many parents struggle to afford a holiday without having to pay over the odds.”
>
> Then they should not have had children. They don’t pay “over the odds” during school holiday time. They pay the going rate. It’s called supply and demand and it’s not just happened.
To be clear: I don't agree with the idea that people should not have children if they can't afford to take them on holiday during the school holidays. I am sorry if you thought I was saying that. I wasn't, because I agree with the wider point that it's supply and demand and that it's not so much a choice of whether you have a child or not, but a choice of holiday - for the same money, a "nicer" holiday during term time or a "not so nice" holiday (or worst case even no holiday away) during school holidays.
> “That is a facetious remark TTT. Many parents struggle to afford a holiday without having to pay over the odds.”
>
> Then they should not have had children. They don’t pay “over the odds” during school holiday time. They pay the going rate. It’s called supply and demand and it’s not just happened.
To be clear: I don't agree with the idea that people should not have children if they can't afford to take them on holiday during the school holidays. I am sorry if you thought I was saying that. I wasn't, because I agree with the wider point that it's supply and demand and that it's not so much a choice of whether you have a child or not, but a choice of holiday - for the same money, a "nicer" holiday during term time or a "not so nice" holiday (or worst case even no holiday away) during school holidays.
Jim, I don't agree that NJ's remark was meant tastelessly, but I do see how it could be taken that way. I didn't take it that way despite coming from I guess a similarly poor background to your own. In your specific case, your parents had a choice of holidays to take, or not take, and they chose to take you during term time. I disagree with their choice to do that, not with their choice to have you.
My interpretation of NJ's remark was that it is all about choices, mostly about choice of holiday or even whether to have a holiday. Many arguments in favour of taking children out during term time are to give quality family time, but this can be had anywhere, including at home - it should not need Disneyland or even Cornwall to achieve it. And where I do agree about the ultimate choice of whether to have children or not is, for example, if someone already has seven children and can't really afford to keep them, then I don't agree with their choice to have an eighth child and expect the state to support them in doing so, including educating them for free, and especially including letting them take their eight children out of school to get cheaper holidays! ... to the detriment of the education system as a whole.
I am yet to hear a general argument that taking a child out of school for a holiday during term time, rather than during the 13 weeks of school holidays per year, is somehow good for other children, for teachers, for schools, for school finances or for the quality of state education.
My interpretation of NJ's remark was that it is all about choices, mostly about choice of holiday or even whether to have a holiday. Many arguments in favour of taking children out during term time are to give quality family time, but this can be had anywhere, including at home - it should not need Disneyland or even Cornwall to achieve it. And where I do agree about the ultimate choice of whether to have children or not is, for example, if someone already has seven children and can't really afford to keep them, then I don't agree with their choice to have an eighth child and expect the state to support them in doing so, including educating them for free, and especially including letting them take their eight children out of school to get cheaper holidays! ... to the detriment of the education system as a whole.
I am yet to hear a general argument that taking a child out of school for a holiday during term time, rather than during the 13 weeks of school holidays per year, is somehow good for other children, for teachers, for schools, for school finances or for the quality of state education.
I’m back and still this goes on !!!
“This rule only came in late 90s or so (don't know exactly). Still maintain it's balderdash.”
No it didn’t, Prudie. The law in its current form has been inforce since 1944. It was re-drafted n 1996 (with no alteration to the part we are talking about). As I said in my first post, yesterday’s decision was only possible because of sloppy drafting. All is says is that parents must ensure their children attend school “regularly” (which is somewhat vague). The Coalition government sought to tighten up the guidance by stating that authorised absences from school (which up to then had been granted liberally by schools) were no longer to be given for family holidays. This was not legislation but guidance. It is this guidance that the High Court struck down by saying that overall attendance should be taken into account. (Incidentally, I read a report this morning that Mr Platt’s children’s attendance was described – at 92% without the disputed holiday - - as “exemplary”. Standards have clearly slipped because when I was at school any pupil taking fifteen days off a year – a week every term – would be seen as an irregular attender.
“Incidentally, can I just point out that among the parents who "should not have had children", by NJ's, and TTT's, and implictly by ellipsis' argument, are my own parents? It's really quite hard *not* to take that personally.”
You shouldn’t take it personally, Jim. My remark was made in response to a comment (I can’t think who by) that parents can scarcely afford a holiday at all, let alone at the “inflated” prices charged during school holidays. Those parents, like many, clearly did not think through the consequences of parenthood very well. (Most common process, if any adopted at all: - "Shall we have some kids?" "Yeah, go on then""). It is well known that holidays cost more in school holiday time. It is well known that children bring a number of other restrictions into parents’ lives. It’s not a surprise and it hasn’t only happened recently so there is no point bleating about it after the event. To be absolutely clear:
“…or you *do* agree that "parents [who] struggle to afford a holiday without having to pay over the odds... should not have had children." So which of those is it?”
It’s neither. Firstly, the issue is not about affordability (Mr Platt could clearly afford the higher prices involved). It’s about the effect taking children out of school has on all pupils. People who are thinking of having children should think through the certain changes in their lifestyles (of which restrictive holiday arrangements is but one) that will inevitably ensue. If they decide to go ahead they should not then bleat about the effect those changes have on them.
(Continued)...
“This rule only came in late 90s or so (don't know exactly). Still maintain it's balderdash.”
No it didn’t, Prudie. The law in its current form has been inforce since 1944. It was re-drafted n 1996 (with no alteration to the part we are talking about). As I said in my first post, yesterday’s decision was only possible because of sloppy drafting. All is says is that parents must ensure their children attend school “regularly” (which is somewhat vague). The Coalition government sought to tighten up the guidance by stating that authorised absences from school (which up to then had been granted liberally by schools) were no longer to be given for family holidays. This was not legislation but guidance. It is this guidance that the High Court struck down by saying that overall attendance should be taken into account. (Incidentally, I read a report this morning that Mr Platt’s children’s attendance was described – at 92% without the disputed holiday - - as “exemplary”. Standards have clearly slipped because when I was at school any pupil taking fifteen days off a year – a week every term – would be seen as an irregular attender.
“Incidentally, can I just point out that among the parents who "should not have had children", by NJ's, and TTT's, and implictly by ellipsis' argument, are my own parents? It's really quite hard *not* to take that personally.”
You shouldn’t take it personally, Jim. My remark was made in response to a comment (I can’t think who by) that parents can scarcely afford a holiday at all, let alone at the “inflated” prices charged during school holidays. Those parents, like many, clearly did not think through the consequences of parenthood very well. (Most common process, if any adopted at all: - "Shall we have some kids?" "Yeah, go on then""). It is well known that holidays cost more in school holiday time. It is well known that children bring a number of other restrictions into parents’ lives. It’s not a surprise and it hasn’t only happened recently so there is no point bleating about it after the event. To be absolutely clear:
“…or you *do* agree that "parents [who] struggle to afford a holiday without having to pay over the odds... should not have had children." So which of those is it?”
It’s neither. Firstly, the issue is not about affordability (Mr Platt could clearly afford the higher prices involved). It’s about the effect taking children out of school has on all pupils. People who are thinking of having children should think through the certain changes in their lifestyles (of which restrictive holiday arrangements is but one) that will inevitably ensue. If they decide to go ahead they should not then bleat about the effect those changes have on them.
(Continued)...
“....nothing I did had an effect on the education of the other pupils....now I know that....there is absolutely no way you can. “
“My daughter attended a very small school.....I ran their Brownie Pack.... the craft club and was on the PTA......I am still friends with some of the teachers.......we meet often after all these years.....so I know......”
Yes of course and when you ask your friends if taking your child out of their school for a holiday caused any problems they were bound to say “Yes it bloody well did, gness. Caused us no end of aggro and you should know better!”
Even assuming you are correct you might accept that your example must be exceptional. Most schools are not small and if you ask Head Teachers (and I know three personally whom I have asked) they will tell you that “authorised absences” cause their schools problems and most of them welcomed the government’s attempts to tighten the rules. Most children do not have the cosy school/home co-operation your daughter was lucky to have. Try asking an inner city school pupil whether he has the opportunity to “…come to my room when I don't have a lesson or better still...join me in the library......that's where I like to do any catch up”. They’d laugh at you.
“what happend before these stupid rules came out?”
What, before 1944, you mean, TWR. Nothing – because education was not mandatory. What happened between then and around 1980 was that parents sent their children to school and took their holidays when schools closed down. It’s only in the last 20-30 years that parents have somehow assumed they are entitled to take their children out of school. It’s a big deal over nothing if you consider the education of children to be “nothing”. Otherwise it needs addressing.
“Because I believe so strongly that education is not schooling....but a partnership between home and school in a way that best suits a child”
Many, many children are nowhere near so fortunate and need the rigours of disciplined school attendance to have a chance of a decent education.
If you think taking children out of school for holidays presents no problems ask yourself these questions:
1. Why do many (probably most) Head Teachers oppose it?
2. Why does the government think a change in the law is necessary? (Be a bit careful with that one because the same government thinks it is a good ides for the UK to remain in the EU!)
3. Why does it not happen (and in many instances, is not allowed) in private schools?
I think that might well be me done on this one - though possibly not. :-).
“My daughter attended a very small school.....I ran their Brownie Pack.... the craft club and was on the PTA......I am still friends with some of the teachers.......we meet often after all these years.....so I know......”
Yes of course and when you ask your friends if taking your child out of their school for a holiday caused any problems they were bound to say “Yes it bloody well did, gness. Caused us no end of aggro and you should know better!”
Even assuming you are correct you might accept that your example must be exceptional. Most schools are not small and if you ask Head Teachers (and I know three personally whom I have asked) they will tell you that “authorised absences” cause their schools problems and most of them welcomed the government’s attempts to tighten the rules. Most children do not have the cosy school/home co-operation your daughter was lucky to have. Try asking an inner city school pupil whether he has the opportunity to “…come to my room when I don't have a lesson or better still...join me in the library......that's where I like to do any catch up”. They’d laugh at you.
“what happend before these stupid rules came out?”
What, before 1944, you mean, TWR. Nothing – because education was not mandatory. What happened between then and around 1980 was that parents sent their children to school and took their holidays when schools closed down. It’s only in the last 20-30 years that parents have somehow assumed they are entitled to take their children out of school. It’s a big deal over nothing if you consider the education of children to be “nothing”. Otherwise it needs addressing.
“Because I believe so strongly that education is not schooling....but a partnership between home and school in a way that best suits a child”
Many, many children are nowhere near so fortunate and need the rigours of disciplined school attendance to have a chance of a decent education.
If you think taking children out of school for holidays presents no problems ask yourself these questions:
1. Why do many (probably most) Head Teachers oppose it?
2. Why does the government think a change in the law is necessary? (Be a bit careful with that one because the same government thinks it is a good ides for the UK to remain in the EU!)
3. Why does it not happen (and in many instances, is not allowed) in private schools?
I think that might well be me done on this one - though possibly not. :-).
NJ....you'd be interesting if you didn't make so many inaccurate assumptions......
You don't know where I've worked.......If I had caused aggravation at any of the schools I'd have been told....well it wouldn't have come to that, would it....as I have said....things were discussed well beforehand.
You must stick to the correct facts and not make up scenarios.
If an authorised absence is going to cause a problem don't authorise it.
If there are times when a child is going to benefit greatly from a term time absence insisting that that cannot possibly happen is damaging that child....but then I've always seen the kids as individuals......not a number to tick a box.
That worked very well for me in my home and work life.
You don't know where I've worked.......If I had caused aggravation at any of the schools I'd have been told....well it wouldn't have come to that, would it....as I have said....things were discussed well beforehand.
You must stick to the correct facts and not make up scenarios.
If an authorised absence is going to cause a problem don't authorise it.
If there are times when a child is going to benefit greatly from a term time absence insisting that that cannot possibly happen is damaging that child....but then I've always seen the kids as individuals......not a number to tick a box.
That worked very well for me in my home and work life.
“NEW JUDGE, the law changed in 2013,”
The law did not change, Corby. The government guidance did. The law has been essentially the same since 1944. School attendance is now governed by the Education Act of 1996 but in the respect of the issue under debate here it is exactly the same as the earlier Act which simply says that parents must ensure their children attend school “regularly”.
In 2013 the government instructed Head Teachers to no longer allow authorised absences for holidays. Local authorities then used that instruction to issue fixed penalties to parents taking unauthorised leave for holidays followed by prosecutions for those failing to pay. Few going to court challenged their convictions and none challenged them on the basis that Mr Platt did (i.e. on the interpretation of “regularly”).
As a result of yesterday’s ruling and until the law is changed local authorities will now have to reconsider the issuing of fixed penalties and magistrates, when dealing with prosecutions, will have to take into account the precedent set by yesterday’s High Court ruling.
I’ve made up no scenarios, gness. I’ve simply commented on those which you described. I glad it worked well for you and your daughter (and hopefully everybody else involved). But your experience cannot be seen as a model for all schools and pupils.
The law did not change, Corby. The government guidance did. The law has been essentially the same since 1944. School attendance is now governed by the Education Act of 1996 but in the respect of the issue under debate here it is exactly the same as the earlier Act which simply says that parents must ensure their children attend school “regularly”.
In 2013 the government instructed Head Teachers to no longer allow authorised absences for holidays. Local authorities then used that instruction to issue fixed penalties to parents taking unauthorised leave for holidays followed by prosecutions for those failing to pay. Few going to court challenged their convictions and none challenged them on the basis that Mr Platt did (i.e. on the interpretation of “regularly”).
As a result of yesterday’s ruling and until the law is changed local authorities will now have to reconsider the issuing of fixed penalties and magistrates, when dealing with prosecutions, will have to take into account the precedent set by yesterday’s High Court ruling.
I’ve made up no scenarios, gness. I’ve simply commented on those which you described. I glad it worked well for you and your daughter (and hopefully everybody else involved). But your experience cannot be seen as a model for all schools and pupils.
NEW JUDGE, the law must have been changed at some point because The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 says,
"(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a pupil may be granted leave of absence from the school to enable him to go away on holiday where —
(a)an application has been made in advance to the proprietor by a parent with whom the pupil normally resides; and
(b)the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be granted due to the special circumstances relating to that application.
(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, a pupil shall not in pursuance of paragraph (3) be granted more than ten school days leave of absence in any school year."
"(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a pupil may be granted leave of absence from the school to enable him to go away on holiday where —
(a)an application has been made in advance to the proprietor by a parent with whom the pupil normally resides; and
(b)the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be granted due to the special circumstances relating to that application.
(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, a pupil shall not in pursuance of paragraph (3) be granted more than ten school days leave of absence in any school year."
> I've always seen the kids as individuals......
This isn't only about the individual taking the holiday, though, it's also about all the other individuals in the state education system and how they (and therefore state education generally) suffer from this behaviour, especially if it becomes more common.
The only way to find something beneficial to say about this behaviour is to focus on the individual child being taken out of school for some wonderful reason; and even then many argue that it damages their education, but I don't - I think it depends.
As soon as you look beyond the individual, however, the damage becomes clear ... to other children's education, to teachers, to schools and to the state education system generally.
This isn't only about the individual taking the holiday, though, it's also about all the other individuals in the state education system and how they (and therefore state education generally) suffer from this behaviour, especially if it becomes more common.
The only way to find something beneficial to say about this behaviour is to focus on the individual child being taken out of school for some wonderful reason; and even then many argue that it damages their education, but I don't - I think it depends.
As soon as you look beyond the individual, however, the damage becomes clear ... to other children's education, to teachers, to schools and to the state education system generally.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
ChatterBank39 mins ago
The Tories Want You To Just Stop It!
ChatterBank43 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.