What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
Do we have any evidence these regulations make any difference to anything except the blood pressure of some parents ? The idea that a struggling child (usually because of parental disinterest) is suddenly going to do well because they don't miss a couple of weeks of school in a non-critical year seems a little fanciful.
Yes, it does seem absurd. I went on a few holidays and visits to places like Hampton Court Palace and Hatfield House during term time, without my education suffering.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
I agree with the general gist of why HMG has imposed these restrictions and accept that there will always be a few hard luck stories. Perhaps after consultation between school and parent, the final say should be with the head teacher.
The head of a small primary school is not going to want to say no to someone who might end up dragging them to Supreme Court even if they end up winning. "Discretion " and "Common sense " are open to accusations of favouritism or even corruption. I wish this weren't true mind, but if I were a head I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole.
As usual, the media have omitted to mention that parents have the statutory right to cause the deregistration of a child from a school with immediate effect, which they can trigger by notifying the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school. (The exceptions are if it's a "special school" or there is a school attendance or educational supervision order.) The school has no authority to delay the deregistration. Source: s8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. The statutory responsibility for ensuring that a child is educated is the parents', and they do not have to delegate that responsibility to anyone, nor to continue delegating it if they have previously chosen to delegate it.
Australia will want to do a deal with the UK once the UK-EU relationship is sorted out (which could take a LOT longer than people here assume). Brexit doesn't have much going for it in terms of a Britain open to the world, but Australia should be one of the easier ones.
As usual, the media have omitted to mention that parents have the statutory right to cause the deregistration of a child from a school with immediate effect, which they can trigger by notifying the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school. (The exceptions are if it's a "special school" or there is a school attendance or educational supervision order.) The school has no authority to delay the deregistration. Source: s8(1)(d) of the the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. The responsibility for ensuring that a child is educated is the parents', and they do not have to delegate that responsibility to anyone.
Presumeable a couple of weeks later if they are not shown to have enrolled in another school, or notified the local authority of their intention to home school the child they will receive a visit from a couple of people from the council bearing a School Attendance Order, and subsequently if no action is taken, a summons.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
I'm with you on this one. Seems a bit rigid, but that's the law I guess.
The problem, for me, with this case is that the law is about habitual truency and is being used to target someone who took their child out for a week and otherwise had a spotless record.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
I agree with the general gist of why HMG has imposed these restrictions and accept that there will always be a few hard luck stories. Perhaps after consultation between school and parent, the final say should be with the head teacher.
The head of a small primary school is not going to want to say no to someone who might end up dragging them to Supreme Court even if they end up winning. "Discretion " and "Common sense " are open to accusations of favouritism or even corruption. I wish this weren't true mind, but if I were a head I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole.
My daughter is at senior school and is fortunate enough to play in the orchestra and sing in the choir. She has excelled in both but we are at the point where we are having to refuse to allow her to take part because the school has at least a couple of external concerts/competitions a term and for school 'pride' they have the children take a whole day off from normal lessons to practice prior to each concert. When my daughter was in years 7-9 this was not so much of a problem. In years 10 and 11 leading up to GCSEs it is a problem. We would not take my daughter away during term time and yet they are happy to have 10 or a dozen days a year when she is taken out of classes for the benefit of school glory. There is a huge amount of double standard going on.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
Afternoon Macl.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll
California? Paris? You've never gave me the impression of being a globe trotter? You learn something new every day...
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
Richard. With you on this. School is an incredibly inefficient use of kids' time. Any parent wanting to take kids on holiday can simply ask the teacher(s) what will be covered in the time out of school for each of the kids on each subject, and the kids will be able with access to the internet, to be able to do the work in perhaps 20% of the missed school time.
My daughter ended up her last 3 years as essentially self-schooled. In dropping school, she rediscovered her love of inquiry and learning that school so effectively drummed out of her. She has gone from a C student at school to top of class at a top US university, accepted into a top ten medical school after only 2 years of her 4 year BSc course. School is vastly overrated.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
One is minded to think the root of this is the target driven school culture.
"Ryanair has warned it will have to halt flights from the UK for “weeks or months” if Theresa May does not seal an early bilateral Brexit deal on international aviation."
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
One is minded to think the root of this is the target driven school culture.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
If I were being cheeky I would say that says something about the Scottish education system...
More seriously the law isn't aimed at nice middle class families who go round museums in Paris or can home tutor. I suspect it is hard to write a law that doesn't apply to people who are doing something for good reasons and only to those who take the piss. As Mr Tyndall pointed out earlier though, enforcement is a problem.
As usual, the media have omitted to mention that parents have the statutory right to cause the deregistration of a child from a school with immediate effect, which they can trigger by notifying the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school. (The exceptions are if it's a "special school" or there is a school attendance or educational supervision order.) The school has no authority to delay the deregistration. Source: s8(1)(d) of the the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. The responsibility for ensuring that a child is educated is the parents', and they do not have to delegate that responsibility to anyone.
Presumeable a couple of weeks later if they are not shown to have enrolled in another school, or notified the local authority of their intention to home school the child they will receive a visit from a couple of people from the council bearing a School Attendance Order, and subsequently if no action is taken, a summons.
See the bit I've now emphasised. All the parents have to do is "(notify) the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school".
It's not the local authority the parents have to notify; it's the proprietor of the school, as I stated and as is clearly stated in the statute I linked to.
When I was at school, my friends were always going off on holiday during term time. No one was really bothered. I think my parents took me out of school for one holiday when I was six, but I don't think the school cared too much.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
As far as I can recall pupils holidays have always been taken in school holidays with very rare exceptions. Most teachers have a timetable and lesson plans to organise and syllabus to follow and they cannot do it properly if more than 10% of the class is regularly absent, as I said 2 weeks per school year per pupil limit in term time for holidays and no more than 10% absence per class per week allowed
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
I agree with the general gist of why HMG has imposed these restrictions and accept that there will always be a few hard luck stories. Perhaps after consultation between school and parent, the final say should be with the head teacher.
The head of a small primary school is not going to want to say no to someone who might end up dragging them to Supreme Court even if they end up winning. "Discretion " and "Common sense " are open to accusations of favouritism or even corruption. I wish this weren't true mind, but if I were a head I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole.
My daughter is at senior school and is fortunate enough to play in the orchestra and sing in the choir. She has excelled in both but we are at the point where we are having to refuse to allow her to take part because the school has at least a couple of external concerts/competitions a term and for school 'pride' they have the children take a whole day off from normal lessons to practice prior to each concert. When my daughter was in years 7-9 this was not so much of a problem. In years 10 and 11 leading up to GCSEs it is a problem. We would not take my daughter away during term time and yet they are happy to have 10 or a dozen days a year when she is taken out of classes for the benefit of school glory. There is a huge amount of double standard going on.
Agreed: this causes just as much frustration to the poor teachers whose lessons are being missed.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
Do we have any evidence these regulations make any difference to anything except the blood pressure of some parents ? The idea that a struggling child (usually because of parental disinterest) is suddenly going to do well because they don't miss a couple of weeks of school in a non-critical year seems a little fanciful.
Yes, it does seem absurd. I went on a few holidays and visits to places like Hampton Court Palace and Hatfield House during term time, without my education suffering.
How do you know?
If you hadn't had those days off, you might be a Nobel prize winner.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
As far as I can recall pupils holidays have always been taken in school holidays with very rare exceptions. Most teachers have a timetable and lesson plans to organise and syllabus to follow and they cannot do it properly if more than 10% of the class is regularly absent, as I said 2 weeks per school year per pupil limit in term time for holidays and no more than 10% absence per class per week allowed
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the avel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
As far as I can recall pupils holidays have always been taken in school holidays with very rare exceptions. Most teachers have a timetable and lesson plans to organise and syllabus to follow and they cannot do it properly if more than 10% of the class is regularly absent, as I said 2 weeks per school year per pupil limit in term time for holidays and no more than 10% absence per class per week allowed
I believe you recall incorrectly.
In my schooldays I recall hardly anybody taking holidays in term and that was 20 to 30 years ago
"Ryanair has warned it will have to halt flights from the UK for “weeks or months” if Theresa May does not seal an early bilateral Brexit deal on international aviation."
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
"warned" is another word like "could" and in this context has similar credibility without even mentioning that Mr "European Businessman of the Year" O'Leary isnt exactly known for being a leaver.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
Quite right. A child takes a fortnight off - that would be the whole trigonometry class up in smoke. Who's then going fill in the child's knowledge? The teacher in their own time or at the expense of the rest of the class? The parents? What if they know no maths? I'm sorry if middle-class parents can't get the out-of-term cheap holiday deals to the Seychelles (or wherever they go these days). Do what my parents did for me - a day trip to Littlehampton and I felt lucky!
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
Do we have any evidence these regulations make any difference to anything except the blood pressure of some parents ? The idea that a struggling child (usually because of parental disinterest) is suddenly going to do well because they don't miss a couple of weeks of school in a non-critical year seems a little fanciful.
Yes, it does seem absurd. I went on a few holidays and visits to places like Hampton Court Palace and Hatfield House during term time, without my education suffering.
How do you know?
If you hadn't had those days off, you might be a Nobel prize winner.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
The younger years are the most important foundation for future success. And you seem not to have understood the point being made.
I have been told that it is easy to opt for homeschooling, and that there is remarkably little check on the education of children in a homeschooling regime. I have no clue whether this is actually true.
As usual, the media have omitted to mention that parents have the statutory right to cause the deregistration of a child from a school with immediate effect, which they can trigger by notifying the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school. (The exceptions are if it's a "special school" or there is a school attendance or educational supervision order.) The school has no authority to delay the deregistration. Source: s8(1)(d) of the the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. The responsibility for ensuring that a child is educated is the parents', and they do not have to delegate that responsibility to anyone.
Presumeable a couple of weeks later if they are not shown to have enrolled in another school, or notified the local authority of their intention to home school the child they will receive a visit from a couple of people from the council bearing a School Attendance Order, and subsequently if no action is taken, a summons.
See the bit I've now emphasised. All the parents have to do is "(notify) the school in writing that the child's education will be otherwise than at school".
It's not the local authority the parents have to notify; it's the proprietor of the school, as I stated and as is clearly stated in the statute I linked to.
The local authority has a statutory duty to ensure the child is being adequately educated, which means if they are not enrolled in a school, or notified as being homeschool in accordance with the guidelines, someone will be calling to ask why, see my link.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
One is minded to think the root of this is the target driven school culture.
If you want to frighten a teacher whisper "OFSTED" in their ear...
I suspect the reason TSE thinks Reckless is the Cunto De Tutti Cunti is because he is an apostate. From the religion of Dave n George. The wellspring of TSE's very being. Reckless, like Carswell, has not altered his political views about the EU since forever. Under the gimps the Tory party drifted away from the common man and into bed with Clegg and views shared by (shudders) Heseltine, Clark, Ashdown, Mandelson, and god-only-knows what manner of pondlife. When Dave, who got himself elected as party leader on the false prospectus of being a Eurosceptic, basically gave up trying to get EU reform Reckless had had enough and walked. The timing was most unhelpful to project Daveosexualist. The party left Reckless and Carswell really, not the other way around. Post-Brexit and with that nice MrsMay in charge, the party has come right back to where it bloody well should have been all along (and mostly was but in a quiet, resentful sort of way). Simples.
The modernisation project was based on a belief that in order to win a general election outright, the Tory party had to attract middle class Liberal Democrat and Labour voters by becoming more socially liberal, and took its inspiration from Blair and the New Labour Project of 1994-1997.
It was potentially a sensible conclusion to draw in the 2001-2008 period, but looked very out of date by 2014 as a political strategy, even though it probably helped secure a few more Lib Dem seats in the 2015GE.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
I agree with the general gist of why HMG has imposed these restrictions and accept that there will always be a few hard luck stories. Perhaps after consultation between school and parent, the final say should be with the head teacher.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
As far as I can recall pupils holidays have always been taken in school holidays with very rare exceptions. Most teachers have a timetable and lesson plans to organise and syllabus to follow and they cannot do it properly if more than 10% of the class is regularly absent, as I said 2 weeks per school year per pupil limit in term time for holidays and no more than 10% absence per class per week allowed
The 2 weeks limit might be a goer, a 10% absence limit would be unworkable. I'm imagining parents snapping up cheap holidays, their kids requesting the time off and finding the limit for that week had been reached, and the parents merrily taking the kids out of school anyway.
I suspect the reason TSE thinks Reckless is the Cunto De Tutti Cunti is because he is an apostate. From the religion of Dave n George. The wellspring of TSE's very being. Reckless, like Carswell, has not altered his political views about the EU since forever. Under the gimps the Tory party drifted away from the common man and into bed with Clegg and views shared by (shudders) Heseltine, Clark, Ashdown, Mandelson, and god-only-knows what manner of pondlife. When Dave, who got himself elected as party leader on the false prospectus of being a Eurosceptic, basically gave up trying to get EU reform Reckless had had enough and walked. The timing was most unhelpful to project Daveosexualist. The party left Reckless and Carswell really, not the other way around. Post-Brexit and with that nice MrsMay in charge, the party has come right back to where it bloody well should have been all along (and mostly was but in a quiet, resentful sort of way). Simples.
The modernisation project was based on a belief that in order to win a general election outright, the Tory party had to attract middle class Liberal Democrat and Labour voters by becoming more socially liberal, and took its inspiration from Blair and the New Labour Project of 1994-1997.
It was potentially a sensible conclusion to draw in the 2001-2008 period, but looked very out of date by 2014 as a political strategy, even though it probably helped secure a few more Lib Dem seats in the 2015GE.
Nah, the modernisation project was based on a belief, articulated by the sainted Tezza, that the Tory party was n*sty. It was a detoxification programme that they embarked upon.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
I have been told that it is easy to opt for homeschooling, and that there is remarkably little check on the education of children in a homeschooling regime. I have no clue whether this is actually true.
I think it depends on your local authority and how much it cares to check. Some ask for a portfolio of work at the end of the year to demonstrate what you have done, others don't. Personally I find living in a country where parents have a consitutional right to educate their child as they see fit gets around the problem
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
I've learnt from my colleague that apparently you get stopped, questioned and all sorts at airports these days if you're seen with kids during term time.
Japan, now Australia. Brexit seems to have encouraged forward movement between the EU and other parties somewhat.....
It's possible it will: an EU without the UK is likely to be less hung up on debating services access within its deals, and doing them on goods and tariffs is easier.
But, I imagine this is a case of both nations wanting to pursue deals with the UK and EU simultaneously as they go their separate ways.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
I have been told that it is easy to opt for homeschooling, and that there is remarkably little check on the education of children in a homeschooling regime. I have no clue whether this is actually true.
If a child has never attended school, a home educating family does not have to notify the LEA or anyone else that they are home educating. The most recent Labour government proposed a compulsory registration and monitoring regime, but their efforts failed because there was opposition in the House of Lords and they lost the 2010 general election. The Tories opposed the proposal.
At that time, the NASUWT wanted to criminalise home education altogether, and OFSTED wanted to require that parents be criminal records-checked before the state gave them permission to do it. And by the way, school attendance has been compulsory in Germany since 1938.
Quite aside from the great benefits of good home education, if the media were to mention parents' statutory right to remove a child from school with immediate effect, then several children's lives would be saved as a result of their removal from environments where they are horribly bullied.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the avel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
As far as I can recall pupils holidays have always been taken in school holidays with very rare exceptions. Most teachers have a timetable and lesson plans to organise and syllabus to follow and they cannot do it properly if more than 10% of the class is regularly absent, as I said 2 weeks per school year per pupil limit in term time for holidays and no more than 10% absence per class per week allowed
I believe you recall incorrectly.
In my schooldays I recall hardly anybody taking holidays in term and that was 20 to 30 years ago
Likewise. The only example I can recall is someone who went to America for two weeks in term time because his Dad was working out there for a while.
The Kippers must be feeling sad. The best they can hope for now is that Theresa agrees to some compromise over EU immigration and they can try milking that - i.e. an unpleasant campaign based on Xenophobia and divisiveness. But that's a far cry from the revolutionary and Utopian movement they once dreamt of forging. Curious that Brexit has had the effect of entrenching Theresa and the establishment Tories in power, possibly for ever.
Labour have a good chance in GE2025, with the right leader.
And so do ContinuityRemainers, if they play their cards right.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
One is minded to think the root of this is the target driven school culture.
If you want to frighten a teacher whisper "OFSTED" in their ear...
When I was clerking a school governing body a few years ago the head told us that he saw no problem at all with children being taken out of school for a week or two, especially at the fag end of Term 6 when they aren't doing any work anyway. He regarded it as inhumane to make families who were struggling financially pay extra to take their kids away in school holiday time, and family holidays are good for children.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Futher edit:
If you want to educate your child yourself, fair enough. But if you want the state to do it, you need to abide by the state's rules.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
Afternoon Macl.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll
California? Paris? You've never gave me the impression of being a globe trotter? You learn something new every day...
hello Gin , spent years in North Carolina as well, lot of time in Austin , Munich , Rome and lots in Paris and travelled a lot on short trips, even spent good few years in England , London and down South and usually took family with me until daughter was doing serious exams. I gave it up and work mostly from home nowadays unless I have to travel. Burnt up a lot of cash but we had a great time.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
"Ryanair has warned it will have to halt flights from the UK for “weeks or months” if Theresa May does not seal an early bilateral Brexit deal on international aviation."
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
Michael O'Leary's business model is based on bullying passengers, airports, Governments and regulators into submission through threats and blackmail.
The Kippers must be feeling sad. The best they can hope for now is that Theresa agrees to some compromise over EU immigration and they can try milking that - i.e. an unpleasant campaign based on Xenophobia and divisiveness. But that's a far cry from the revolutionary and Utopian movement they once dreamt of forging. Curious that Brexit has had the effect of entrenching Theresa and the establishment Tories in power, possibly for ever.
I wouldn't have thought so. Ask most kippers in 2015 what they wanted and it would be for us to leave the EU and be rid of Cameron
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Judging by declining results compared to the rest of the world, no where near enough.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Futher edit:
If you want to educate your child yourself, fair enough. But if you want the state to do it, you need to abide by the state's rules.
Some parents are experts as well
Edit: Also I am sure you would not argue with the parents right to take all political and legal routes open to them to challenge rules with which they disagree
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
If I were being cheeky I would say that says something about the Scottish education system...
More seriously the law isn't aimed at nice middle class families who go round museums in Paris or can home tutor. I suspect it is hard to write a law that doesn't apply to people who are doing something for good reasons and only to those who take the piss. As Mr Tyndall pointed out earlier though, enforcement is a problem.
It included the English one as well, though they would not allow her to rejoin her GCSE class and wanted to put her back a year so she went back to school in Scotland where it was not an issue. pain for me at time as I was down south so had to have two houses. PS: she sailed O Levels , highers and university degree.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Judging by declining results compared to the rest of the world, no where near enough.
Schoolteachers are always saying they're "professionals". Insofar as they get paid for what they do, they are, in the same way as anyone else who's got a job. But being without professional indemnity insurance, they aren't. They're employees. And most don't understand who their employers' clients are: the child's parents. Don't like your instructions? Then you get the sack.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
Only because they are worried about their Government targets. If you really think taking a 6 year old out of class for 2 weeks is going to ruin their education then you are living in la la land.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
Will be outside on worse deal for 5 -10 years with all hte bits they wanted out of and then rejoin at much higher cost as second class citizens.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
Will be outside on worse deal for 5 -10 years with all hte bits they wanted out of and then rejoin at much higher cost as second class citizens.
Decoding the typos - probably yes
When we go back we lose the Pound and we will be in Schengen too.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
Only because they are worried about their Government targets. If you really think taking a 6 year old out of class for 2 weeks is going to ruin their education then you are living in la la land.
You're right.
And only a twat would think a school pupil's education is limited to what they learn at school anyway, either at six or at 15. Even regarding what they are supposed to be learning at school, the home environment is a main determiner of how well they learn it.
Those who are schoolteachers and who want to build a case founded on their "expertise" should butt out of the discussion.
The NASUWT wanted to criminalise home education! What a measure of what kind of people we are talking about.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
Will be outside on worse deal for 5 -10 years with all hte bits they wanted out of and then rejoin at much higher cost as second class citizens.
This would be Scotland wanting to break with its largest trading partner we are discussing I assume...
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
Will be outside on worse deal for 5 -10 years with all hte bits they wanted out of and then rejoin at much higher cost as second class citizens.
Decoding the typos - probably yes
When we go back we lose the Pound and we will be in Schengen too.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Judging by declining results compared to the rest of the world, no where near enough.
Schoolteachers are always saying they're "professionals". Insofar as they get paid for what they do, they are, in the same way as anyone else who's got a job. But being without professional indemnity insurance, they aren't. They're employees. And most don't understand who their employers' clients are: the child's parents. Don't like your instructions? Then you get the sack.
If you work in a state school your employer is the school and its client is the government, or perhaps taxpayers, that's who gives us our instructions. Remember, if something is free, you aren't a customer.
On the subject of professional indemnity insurance: why do you think all teachers are in union, or 'professional association' as they used to be called?
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
And we wonder why the fabric of community and society is being rendered ...
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Judging by declining results compared to the rest of the world, no where near enough.
Schoolteachers are always saying they're "professionals". Insofar as they get paid for what they do, they are, in the same way as anyone else who's got a job. But being without professional indemnity insurance, they aren't. They're employees. And most don't understand who their employers' clients are: the child's parents. Don't like your instructions? Then you get the sack.
If you work in a state school your employer is the school and its client is the government, or perhaps taxpayers, that's who gives us our instructions. Remember, if something is free, you aren't a customer.
On the subject of professional indemnity insurance: why do you think all teachers are in union, or 'professional association' as they used to be called?
Education is not free. We pay taxes. So if you work in a factory, your client is your employer? Businesses run on that basis go out of business.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
Given the amount of holidays kids have ( teachers as well ) another week or two off would make no difference whatsoever. I took my daughter out of school for 21 months to go live in California ( did a bit of home tutoring )and she still easily caught up on her return at age 14 and was a measurably better swimmer as well with all that pool time. Also took her out for months to go to Paris where she lerned much more than she would have at school, going round art galleries , museums etc with her mother.
Afternoon Macl.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll
California? Paris? You've never gave me the impression of being a globe trotter? You learn something new every day...
hello Gin , spent years in North Carolina as well, lot of time in Austin , Munich , Rome and lots in Paris and travelled a lot on short trips, even spent good few years in England , London and down South and usually took family with me until daughter was doing serious exams. I gave it up and work mostly from home nowadays unless I have to travel. Burnt up a lot of cash but we had a great time.
I haven't looked at next Lab leader for a while on BF. David Miliband is at 5.1. Blimey. Presumably come in because of rumours his wife wants to come back to London?
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
It's fine in France to take time off during term time, although I think there are certain periods forbidden around exams. It allows those who may not have that much money to still be able to take a holiday, which is important. To my knowledge they don't have problems with mass absences of children.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out of school during term time. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of parents wouldn't do so because they recognise the damage it might do, but that leaves a significant number of parents who would perceive this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Futher edit:
If you want to educate your child yourself, fair enough. But if you want the state to do it, you need to abide by the state's rules.
Teachers may be expert in some aspects of education (in my experience, even in that limited field, deplorably few teachers are). They are not more expert in parenting or in the overall needs of a child than the parents.
I haven't looked at next Lab leader for a while on BF. David Miliband is at 5.1. Blimey. Presumably come in because of rumours his wife wants to come back to London?
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
A different judgement would have been a significant indicator that it would be fine to take children out this as a green light. With the concomitant disruption to both the children taken out of school, and those left behind, that that would entail.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
And why is an educator's view more important than the parents'? Hint, it is not. Not even close.
Experts eh! What do we know? Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Judging by declining results compared to the rest of the world, no where near enough.
Schoolteachers are always saying they're "professionals". Insofar as they get paid for what they do, they are, in the same way as anyone else who's got a job. But being without professional indemnity insurance, they aren't. They're employees. And most don't understand who their employers' clients are: the child's parents. Don't like your instructions? Then you get the sack.
If you work in a state school your employer is the school and its client is the government, or perhaps taxpayers, that's who gives us our instructions. Remember, if something is free, you aren't a customer.
On the subject of professional indemnity insurance: why do you think all teachers are in union, or 'professional association' as they used to be called?
Education is not free. We pay taxes. So if you work in a factory, your client is your employer? Businesses run on that basis go out of business.
Teacherman, you have to go back to school. Soon.
If I worked in a fee-paying school you would be right: but our bills aren't paid by our pupils' parents, they are paid by the government. They are our client, so we do what they want. Voters tell them (very indirectly) what to do and most parents are voters, but most voters do not have school age children.
having now read the comments, I'd like to associate myself with TSE's first tweet but fear he's clearly mellowed with age as he should have really ripped fat arse a proper one.
I haven't looked at next Lab leader for a while on BF. David Miliband is at 5.1. Blimey. Presumably come in because of rumours his wife wants to come back to London?
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
That is just monstrous.
Again it's due to people abusing it: funerals of aunts or uncles in distant countries which require a couple of weeks out of school...
Schoolteachers are always saying they're "professionals". Insofar as they get paid for what they do, they are, in the same way as anyone else who's got a job. But being without professional indemnity insurance, they aren't. They're employees. And most don't understand who their employers' clients are: the child's parents. Don't like your instructions? Then you get the sack.
If you work in a state school your employer is the school and its client is the government, or perhaps taxpayers, that's who gives us our instructions. Remember, if something is free, you aren't a customer.
On the subject of professional indemnity insurance: why do you think all teachers are in union, or 'professional association' as they used to be called?
No, the parents have the statutory responsibility to ensure that their child is educated, and they delegate it to the school, whether it's state or private. School is only one option that parents can choose. The state has a responsibility to provide "education" only if the parents ask it to. The parents are the clients. It doesn't matter whether they send their children to state school or to private school or educate them at home.
Perhaps you're getting confused with prisons?
Parents can sack a state school or a private school, and then it is statutorily required to butt out of it. A school has no right to involve itself in a child's education if the parents don't want it to.
Are you saying that schoolteacher is a job in which the employee is required to belong to a professional body and to take out, as an individual, indemnity insurance against negligence claims? First time I've heard of employees being required to have that kind of policy.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Their gall just beggars belief. Do they think they're prison officers or something?
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Their gall just beggars belief. Do they think they're prison officers or something?
Probably easier to arrange stuff if you're in the clink.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
That is just monstrous.
Again it's due to people abusing it: funerals of aunts or uncles in distant countries which require a couple of weeks out of school...
Yes, but the note Carolus referred to was aunts/uncles(/grandparents?) full stop.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Their gall just beggars belief. Do they think they're prison officers or something?
TBH what gets me is not the oppressiveness or inhumanity of it so much as the slavish, jobsworth style deference to targets and government diktat. OFSTED counts authorised absences (as well as unauthorised ones, of course) and therefore we must reduce authorised absences, regardless of the consequences for pupils, family members or the community.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
If it happens it will not be as good as that. It is already getting pushed further into the distance.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
Will be outside on worse deal for 5 -10 years with all hte bits they wanted out of and then rejoin at much higher cost as second class citizens.
Decoding the typos - probably yes
When we go back we lose the Pound and we will be in Schengen too.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
That is just monstrous.
Again it's due to people abusing it: funerals of aunts or uncles in distant countries which require a couple of weeks out of school...
Yes, but the note Carolus referred to was aunts/uncles(/grandparents?) full stop.
I can't remember now whether grandparents were mentioned or which side of the line they fell - it was a few years ago.
To be fair if I were a head and someone asked for time out to bury his granny for the third time I'd probably be a bit snarky as well!
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Can authorised absences be granted for other needs or wants ?
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
They can but are very limited in scope.
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Their gall just beggars belief. Do they think they're prison officers or something?
TBH what gets me is not the oppressiveness or inhumanity of it so much as the slavish, jobsworth style deference to targets and government diktat. OFSTED counts authorised absences (as well as unauthorised ones, of course) and therefore we must reduce authorised absences, regardless of the consequences for pupils, family members or the community.
That's bureaucrats the world over. Give one a bit of power and they go insane with it.
If I worked in a fee-paying school you would be right: but our bills aren't paid by our pupils' parents, they are paid by the government. They are our client, so we do what they want. Voters tell them (very indirectly) what to do and most parents are voters, but most voters do not have school age children.
The argument as to who has the responsibility, the authority and the right to decide isn't anything to do with voting or funding. You're an employee, and those who employ you are working on behalf of clients, the parents, who can sack them if they wish. Not by voting, but by writing to the school's proprietor to say that their child will now be educated otherwise than at school and that that particular school, its employees, its funders, its administrators, and its inspectors - they are all now completely out of the picture, with immediate effect, services no longer required, because that's what the clients have decided. (And they don't have to give a reason.)
"Ryanair has warned it will have to halt flights from the UK for “weeks or months” if Theresa May does not seal an early bilateral Brexit deal on international aviation."
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
Michael O'Leary's business model is based on bullying passengers, airports, Governments and regulators into submission through threats and blackmail.
For some reason, he seems to be loved for it.
My guess is that making it more expensive and difficult for Brits to have weekends and weeks away in the sun will not be a popular move. Ryanair gets so many customers because it is cheap and that is what matters to most travellers more than anything else.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/school-attendance-absence/legal-action-to-enforce-school-attendance
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll
California? Paris? You've never gave me the impression of being a globe trotter? You learn something new every day...
My daughter ended up her last 3 years as essentially self-schooled. In dropping school, she rediscovered her love of inquiry and learning that school so effectively drummed out of her. She has gone from a C student at school to top of class at a top US university, accepted into a top ten medical school after only 2 years of her 4 year BSc course. School is vastly overrated.
......and there was me thinking that Brexit was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
More seriously the law isn't aimed at nice middle class families who go round museums in Paris or can home tutor. I suspect it is hard to write a law that doesn't apply to people who are doing something for good reasons and only to those who take the piss. As Mr Tyndall pointed out earlier though, enforcement is a problem.
It's not the local authority the parents have to notify; it's the proprietor of the school, as I stated and as is clearly stated in the statute I linked to.
If you hadn't had those days off, you might be a Nobel prize winner.
Find me an educator who disagrees with the judgement.
It was potentially a sensible conclusion to draw in the 2001-2008 period, but looked very out of date by 2014 as a political strategy, even though it probably helped secure a few more Lib Dem seats in the 2015GE.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2017/04/06/where-did-it-all-go-right/
2010: "Gordon toyed with a major initiative on constitutional and electoral reform to provide a rocket boost."
This is first I have heard of this. Is this new information? Or did I just miss it in one of the many biogs of the period?
But, I imagine this is a case of both nations wanting to pursue deals with the UK and EU simultaneously as they go their separate ways.
I think the plan is to wait for the baby-boomers to die off in sufficient quantities to deplete the Leavers and then fall back on the old EU tactic of another referendum so that the correct result can be achieved. Rather like the SNP's strategy - keeping voting until the voters get it right
At that time, the NASUWT wanted to criminalise home education altogether, and OFSTED wanted to require that parents be criminal records-checked before the state gave them permission to do it. And by the way, school attendance has been compulsory in Germany since 1938.
Quite aside from the great benefits of good home education, if the media were to mention parents' statutory right to remove a child from school with immediate effect, then several children's lives would be saved as a result of their removal from environments where they are horribly bullied.
And so do ContinuityRemainers, if they play their cards right.
Unfortunately he was told in no uncertain terms by the consultants the school employed that OFSTED would crucify him if he granted authorised absences for holidays.
Edited to add: would you feel the same about someone who ignores medical advice about their child?
Futher edit:
If you want to educate your child yourself, fair enough. But if you want the state to do it, you need to abide by the state's rules.
Edit: "A wedding abroad" seems to be the easiest one to wrangle...
For some reason, he seems to be loved for it.
Edit: Also I am sure you would not argue with the parents right to take all political and legal routes open to them to challenge rules with which they disagree
PS: she sailed O Levels , highers and university degree.
So not even family then, just some 'good friends' who happen to be getting married in Florida for instance...
When we go back we lose the Pound and we will be in Schengen too.
And only a twat would think a school pupil's education is limited to what they learn at school anyway, either at six or at 15. Even regarding what they are supposed to be learning at school, the home environment is a main determiner of how well they learn it.
Those who are schoolteachers and who want to build a case founded on their "expertise" should butt out of the discussion.
The NASUWT wanted to criminalise home education! What a measure of what kind of people we are talking about.
... no don't bother, I'll get my coat now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39507659
On the subject of professional indemnity insurance: why do you think all teachers are in union, or 'professional association' as they used to be called?
For example my son's secondary school sent out a memo informing parents that authorised absences would be considered (!) for funerals of close family members (parents and siblings) but not more distant ones such as aunts and uncles.
Teacherman, you have to go back to school. Soon.
Teachers may be expert in some aspects of education (in my experience, even in that limited field, deplorably few teachers are). They are not more expert in parenting or in the overall needs of a child than the parents.
https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/mar/30/douglas-coupland-the-nine-to-five-is-barbaric?CMP=fb_gu
Perhaps you're getting confused with prisons?
Parents can sack a state school or a private school, and then it is statutorily required to butt out of it. A school has no right to involve itself in a child's education if the parents don't want it to.
Are you saying that schoolteacher is a job in which the employee is required to belong to a professional body and to take out, as an individual, indemnity insurance against negligence claims? First time I've heard of employees being required to have that kind of policy.
To be fair if I were a head and someone asked for time out to bury his granny for the third time I'd probably be a bit snarky as well!
Give one a bit of power and they go insane with it.