http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36277940
Though I'm glad that the ruling wasn't against the family, I think there should be better guidelines for both parents and teachers.
The Government say they will look at the law and change it. H'mmmmm, what can go wrong?
For a child with good academic performance and excellent attendance record, I don't see an issue with time off during term as exceptional trip or event (and I fully realise some parents will attempt to exploit the rules).
The problem is that in making that judgement many schools are simply taking the easy route and refusing any time off for any pupil. Because they can.
I'm sure someone will claim it's favouritism. After all HOW good does your child's performance need to be, before they can qualify for term time off?Originally Posted by Scepticalist
I'd agree though (and my daughter's teacher did when she was a similar age, although it was a while ago - to say the least - now). At that age a week visiting anywhere different is almost certainly more 'educational' than a week at school!
I'd say the 93+% attendance record (even arriving a little late can knock that down as I recall) is the important thing here.
As the court has clarified what is "Regular attendance" (ie about 90%) then I guess this clears the way for the odd week off.
M.
Last edited by snowman; 13th May 2016 at 14:39.
At lunch I heard a woman ranting on Jeremy Vine's radio show that 93% attendance was appalling. 93% equates to about two weeks off, it may sound a lot but given children often pick up all sorts of bugs and viruses it can soon add up.
At our school children aren't allowed to return to the classroom until 48 hours after sickness, even if they're absolutely fine. So half of a child's absence can be down to the school not allowing them to return.
There has to be some form of compromise, but what exactly is the million dollar question.
Maximum say two weeks a year, a % attendance level, a certain level of achievement maybe.
How much has this lack of common sense cost the taxpayer?
I'd like to think I know what's best for my kid, and don't want the ability to make that decision taken out of my hands just because there are some parents who don't know what's best for their kids.
Isn't the issue "unathorised absence" - Sickness would be authorised (Assuming you had evidence).
I can remember my kids' attendance, which was 100% in reality being hit by appointments at the doctors before school and arriving before the first lesson.
Was the woman on JV saying 93% was LOW or too high to attain?
M
Why should they risk a child failing his/her exams if they don't have to? After all, they're judged by their results and get a hard time when they don't come up to scratch.
I'm not a parent but I can sympathise with the situation re. cost of holidays during inter term time.
Would not the government addressing the outrageous profiteering by travel companies during these periods go a long way to alleviating the problem?
I cannot understand why this inflation of prices is tolerated, or even the need for it - surely these companies profit sufficiently from demand without having to increase prices?
I suppose the same can be said for Mother's Day, Valentine's Day etc, restaurant prices!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't see how the government can intervene here. Travel companies, hotels and airlines will all claim to make a loss during quiet (discounted) periods and gain back a profit during peak times.
The only way to even out peak times is to allow parents flexibility in when they can take holidays, it's not good for small businesses to have staff off all at the same time, it's not good for resorts to be empty and it's not good for my wallet to have to take a holiday during term time. Especially when my 5 year old's education isn't going to suffer one bit.
I hope the government see some sense with this issue.
I have a great deal of sympathy with hard-pressed families wanting to take a holiday together, and struggling or not being able to due to the complete rip-off operated by holiday companies.
However, this is a much more complex issue than it appears.
Firstly, 90% attendance sounds good. It isn't. It is terrible. It is the equivalent of one day off per fortnight, or, spread across the 190 school days of the year, effectively one month off school. Per year. If you took a day per fortnight off work, how long would you remain employed?
A child with 90% attendance does significantly worse in terms of overall education outcome than a child with 95% (which incidentally is the minimum target for most good schools). Over the course of a child's education up to 18 years of age, 90% attendance equates to nearly one and a half years of school missed.
Such a child will, almost certainly, not do as well as they could, should, or as their better attending peers. The actual difference, statistically, is quite horrifying.
That is point one.
Point two is also very significant.
Imagine just for a moment that parents could take their children out of school for a holiday whenever they wished.
The result of this would be totally unmanageable in teaching terms - rarely a full class, kids missing homework and coursework all over the place, constantly trying to catch the absent up with the others, all students at different places in the course, endless disruption to tests and assessment... Tracking and progress data would become next to useless.
It would massively disrupt the learning and progress of the whole class so Billy's cheap holiday would have a negative impact on many other children due to the teacher's tie being taken with trying to catch him back up etc.
And then imagine the situation with children of parents who like to go skiing a couple of times per year, then some long weekends at the house on the coast / caravan park, and then a nice fortnight in May, just before SATs or GCSEs...
The real answer is some kind of regulation against the profiteering holiday industry, but there never seems much political appetite for that.
Last edited by TheFlyingBanana; 13th May 2016 at 20:34.
So clever my foot fell off.
While I agree with a lot of what you have written, I think you have gone to extremes. Of course there has to be a cut off point re attendance, when the school says 'no, sorry, your child has had too much time off.
My 8 yr old daughter is excelling in school. She's in year 3 but for maths she studies with year 4, her handwriting is used as an example to other students, in how well you can do if you try hard. Her attendance is currently at 100% for the academic year, are you seriously suggesting that having a week/fortnight off in term time is going to disrupt her education THAT much?
If the govt wants to interfere with people's liberties I have a suggestion.
make it illegal for airlines and hotels etc to charge more at "peak" times.
But oh no, that couldnt possibly be done could it?
If your child is very able, no, probably not. But then should only the smartest kids be allowed to have holidays in term time?
How would that work?
The difficulty here is you are (with the greatest respect) thinking only of your own situation, not the bigger implications. Many parents would, and could say the same as you, and give the same justification.
And then we would be back to exactly the scenario I described in my second point. How would you feel if your daughter's education was constantly being disrupted by the absence of her classmates?
Please don't think I am unsympathetic (because I really am not), but the problem is a systemic one, and while there may be exceptions to the rule, the bigger picture remains unchanged from what I outlined above.
So clever my foot fell off.
I've a view on this...
I have taken my kids out of school for the odd day or two, but, was persuaded by a comment made my little brother (a teacher) that, although it probably wouldn't do them any direct harm taking them out of school, it sends a message to your child about how much you do/ do not value education...
As I stated, this made perfect sense to me, and my kids won't miss a day of school in order to go on holiday...
Now how about the teachers perspective on this issue .
Imagine a class of say thirty two 10 year old's .Monday morning they start the basics of algebra or geometry ,two weeks later one of the class returns from a fortnight in the sun .
How is he going to catch up in this or any other challenging subject without holding back the rest of the class ?
What if several of the class have mid term holidays ? the disruption to a smooth progressive curriculum would be horrendous .
You'd maybe be surprised how many pupils have private maths tutors. Schools also put learning resources online and run catchup and booster sessions at lunchtimes, after school, in holidays, etc. I don't think there's a problem catching up.
As has been said, private schools generally have shorter terms but achieve better results.
I don't think missing just a week or two makes much difference to results.
How much learning time is lost to disruption by poorly behaved pupils, by supply teachers who don't know pupils, by unqualified or trainee teachers, by room changes, by rehearsals for plays, or by watching DVDs in lessons or countless other things? Teachers can also have training days or go on strike or organise school skiing trips during term time but apparently the time missed for all of this is okay?
A lot of redundancy is built in to the state school calendar.
Last edited by vortgern; 14th May 2016 at 01:05.
There is a number of other questions / statements in your post, but let's start with this one.
Supposing it were true (which actually it isn't - the best state schools equal or out perform most if not all of the best private schools and state students tend to do better at university), but taken as a general point - why do you think private schools could achieve better results?
By the way, the widely accepted source is The Sutton Trust, quoted in this 2016 article:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/the-best-state-schools-have-pulled-ahead-of-private-schools-why-is-that-so-hard-to-accept/
And here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...e-schools.html
And here's the bit about state students outperforming private at university:
http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchi...same-a-levels/
Last edited by TheFlyingBanana; 14th May 2016 at 01:53.
That's the thing about compulsory education, isn't it? There has to be a element of compulsion. Otherwise it would be called 'optional education'.
I was very tempted to slip into a few days before term ended for my Summer Holiday, it would have saved me almost £900! But the potential grief from the school put me off!
Last edited by Paulie; 14th May 2016 at 16:01.
I am not a teacher but know some. The "marking and stuff" takes up to midnight most days after they have B'd off home to do it!
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
They must read and write pretty slowly then. The quality of feedback I've usually seen from teachers could be knocked out by a moron in 2 minutes.
I see you understand the concept.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Here's an idea.....
Each school should take all inset days in one stretch, allowing every school to have a extra week off during any period within the school year allowing children the chance to go away when other schools are still in term and hopefully paying in term hotel prices.
I guess inset days in one hit won't work for teachers.
And many parents would complain about an extra week of child care.
Ok bad idea.
A holiday is not a basic human right.
It galls (and costs) me. But I would think long and hard before taking my kids out of school to go somewhere warmer.
Sent from the top of a hill using semaphore.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote