Unauthorised absence from school

[smutchin]

I should also point out that your point is moot if a trip to Disney Land during school holidays is unaffordable to the family.

That's neither the school's fault, nor their responsibility.

This is a decidedly middle class problem. The rich can afford holidays at any time of year, the poor can't afford holidays at any time of year.

 

[Tin Pot]

The problem with taking your child out of school is that it can damage other children's education.

Which is absolute horse shoot.

 

[smutchin]

I was honest with the Head about what I was doing and said I have no problem with whatever she put down on the official register, I think deep down she approved.

This sums it up for me. If you strongly believe that your reason for taking your child out of school is merited, you will do it regardless and take any consequences on the chin.

I don't know John Platt, but his campaign and his insistence on dragging the case through the courts for several years is suggestive a certain kind of small-mindedness. All the time and money he has put into this would probably have been better spent on his kids.

 

[Crackle]

I generally complied with the school rules. I think there were two occasions or maybe one when I needed to take them out during school time, I don't think either were holidays.

I think schools should still be allowed to exercise discretion and in their own way, they still do but it's more a working of the system. What used to frustrate me was the end of the summer term, when effectively, nothing was done for two weeks as various activities were undertaken which were of no benefit to the curriculum. I was sorely tempted to work the system at that time but never did.

This summer marks the end of the need to accommodate school wishes and rules, I've been to my last parents evening, complied with my last abscence request and have generally served my time.

 

[PK99]

Which is absolute horse shoot.

I've run this argument here previously:

When I was a school Governor and your kid was off school ill for two weeks and missed an important topic, I would have happily signed off on funding extra 121 catch up tuition - funded out of general school funds. That, inter alia, is what contingency funds are for.

If you take your child out of school for a two week cheap holiday, the same catch up tuition is needed, but why should that be funded from general school funds when you have had the benefit of the cheap holiday?

If you don't like the rules of a club - don't join it.
If you don't like the rules by which school operate, don't use them. Home schooling is where you should be.

 

[KneesUp]

The problem with taking your child out of school is that it can damage other children's education. Why should teachers be forced to go over already taught things for the returning holiday makers, therefore missing out on time that could be better spent reinforcing the knowledge of the attending pupils.

It's the standard "me me me" attitude of a small selfish portion of the population.

A teacher ought to be differentiating lessons by ability anyway.

So if Kid C is normally in the 'middle' group but misses a key part, it should be no problem for them to drop into the group below for the rest of that topic. There should be virtually no whole class teaching any more precisely because it meant that some or most of the class were being held back by those who were taking longer to grasp concepts. Or those taking longer were never given the time they needed.

I'm not sure how your argument about holding up other kids stacks up in a school that isn't 'holding kids up' all the time by doing too much whole class teaching.

Of course if Kid C is ahead of the rest of the class your argument is completely irrelevant, so should the cleverest kid in the class be allowed to do as they please re: attendance?

 

[Tim Hall]

This sums it up for me. If you strongly believe that your reason for taking your child out of school is merited, you will do it regardless and take any consequences on the chin.

I don't know John Platt, but his campaign and his insistence on dragging the case through the courts for several years is suggestive a certain kind of small-mindedness. All the time and money he has put into this would probably have been better spent on his kids.

Didn't need to spend it on his kids, as the holidays he took them on were dead cheap.

<misses the point of the thread>

 

[User482]

The Education Act says

"'The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full time education suitable a) to his age ability and aptitude, and b) any special educational needs he may have, either by attendance at a school or otherwise.'"

If the child is 'being educated' whilst out of school, it is fine, legally. This means, as you say, one can home school full time, but it is also perfectly legal to flexi school, whereby the child is educated sometimes at school and sometimes elsewhere. Unfortunately the government have put up barriers to make flexi effectively impossible to achieve, without actually making it illegal.

In which case, you need to reach agreement with the school. I suggest that a cheap holiday won't meet their definition of "being educated".

 

[User482]

No it's not, it's fundamental to a free life in the U.K. I take my family wherever I want in the world whenever I want, we do what ever we want - we *choose* to send out children to school, and we choose when not to.

I also choose to be reasonable and raise my family is a reasonable way, that is healthy for mind and body.

*I don't need the law to compel me to have my children in school at every hour of every school day for nine years.*

This is not violence, it is not theft, it is not speeding a motor vehicle.

When you send your children to school, the school is acting in loco parentis. In other words, if you want everything to be up to you, home-school.

 

[KneesUp]

That's neither the school's fault, nor their responsibility.

This is a decidedly middle class problem. The rich can afford holidays at any time of year, the poor can't afford holidays at any time of year.

And for some reason 'middle class problem' appears to be a euphemism for 'not a problem at all' I've never understood why things that affect the middle class (i.e. most people) are considered by their very nature to be insignificant.

 

[Sara_H]

A couple of year ago I took my 7 year old (at the time) daughter out of school to attend Glastonbury festival. She missed one day of school which was 'bring your favourite toy to school day'. I feel no guilt whatsoever and feel that she learnt a hell of a lot more that weekend than anything she would have learnt at school (she rolls a mean spliff now). My wife is a teacher and fully supported this. I was honest with the Head about what I was doing and said I have no problem with whatever she put down on the official register, I think deep down she approved.

Would I take my kids out of school for a week in Disneyland - No, do I support others in doing so, probably not either. A week experiencing India, maybe. i think this is where it gets tough, what is ok and what is not? It is hard to create a one size fits all rule.

When I got married, my wedding was overseas. My two nephews were in primary school. We thought it'd be ok because there is a rule in place in my local authority about children being allowed to take time off during term time to visit family or attend family events overseas.
Anyhow, my sister in law got threatened with a fine for one child but not the other. Ironically the rest of the class of the fined boy were on a residential trip learning how to make stick dens in Derbyshire at the time.

 

[KneesUp]

In which case, you need to reach agreement with the school. I suggest that a cheap holiday won't meet their definition of "being educated".

And an expensive one?

 

[Drago]

Lifestyle choices.

 

[User482]

And an expensive one?

We saved up for an expensive holiday this year. In August.

 

[KneesUp]

I've run this argument here previously:

When I was a school Governor and your kid was off school ill for two weeks and missed an important topic, I would have happily signed off on funding extra 121 catch up tuition - funded out of general school funds. That, inter alia, is what contingency funds are for.

If you take your child out of school for a two week cheap holiday, the same catch up tuition is needed, but why should that be funded from general school funds when you have had the benefit of the cheap holiday?

School Governor here also.

What if the child doesn't need catch up tuition because, actually, they already knew more about the topic than the school taught the pupils anyway?