Has the High Court abolished school term time?

[Green Cross Code Man]

I accept your apology. Those sort of bugs are more infectious before the symptoms show. Children do recover quickly, and can be fine the next day without being infectious.
I do accept that parents have to work nowadays and school is sometimes used as a child minding service rather than an educational establisment.

Btw I managed to catch chicken pox from my children as I'd never had it as a child myself. I would want every child, to have it as a child, because as an adult I was very, very ill for two weeks. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Thanks for your gracious reply.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the timeframe of infection though. This is from the NHS about norovirus which is the most common infection of its type:

And sympathy about the chicken pox, my nan had that in her late 80's and it was terrible.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thanks for your gracious reply.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the timeframe of infection though. This is from the NHS about norovirus which is the most common infection of its type:

And sympathy about the chicken pox, my nan had that in her late 80's and it was terrible.

Norovirus hadn't been discovered when my kids were little. We called it gastro enteritis.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Norovirus hadn't been discovered when my kids were little. We called it gastro enteritis.

Lol, yes, the next generation always invents new words for old things to distinguish itself from its predecessors.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Friend of mine, a hippy chick in Byron Bay, Oz, just decided to take her three kids, aged, 8, 10 and 12 out of school for six months and went off travelling with them. Never did any of them any harm, they learnt more about the world than they ever would have done in school and they all graduated from Uni with flying colours. Not saying it would work for everyone, but needs a bit of flexibility built into the system. Compromise would be that the kid had to take homework on holiday with them. After that, it would be down to whether the parents are chavs or not.

As with most laws, legislation etc. it is for the idiots, cheats and the ignorant. For most people, taking their kid on holiday, or out of school for a while won't have that big an impact, because most parents will be helping their kids with their learning, and broadening their experiences.

However, as a governor at a school with some at risk kids, not all parents do look after their child's educational welfare. They won't be reading to them, buying them books, taking them on educational days out. They'll be out of school because they couldn't be arsed to get out of bed, or had something better to do. So we end up with effectively a small percentage of disadvantaged kids who through no fault of their own, and despite a schools best efforts, will go through the system behind, unable to ever catch up.

These are the parents that the legislation is for. The ones who just simply don't give a monkeys. If impacts on all of us, but then that is the same with most legislation - most of us don't need it because it is common sense. Too many kids fall through the net to ignore it. It isn't then easy to have separate sets of attendance rules for different circumstances.

 

[GT49er]

Thanks for your gracious reply.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the timeframe of infection though. This is from the NHS about norovirus which is the most common infection of its type.

Yes, but every child puking up his/her breakfast/lunch or whatever isn't necessarily suffering from norovirus. My experience of going through school (never caught anything from another kid vomiting, although it made me feel sick whenever it happened!) is exactly the same as my three children experienced. Which would suggest that norovirus is a lot less common than some kid throwing up!

 

[Steve in Japan]

Can't really see a problem with allowing up to 2 weeks out of school at the parents discretion, yet again its the state trying to control our lives.

Amazing parents have been jailed for refusing to pay the fine, it could only ever happen in this country

I agree. Was overseas for many years and when I came back was genuinely shocked that any parental flexibility had been completely removed. Overly controlling and deserved to be challenged.

 

[nicko31]

I agree. Was overseas for many years and when I came back was genuinely shocked that any parental flexibility had been completely removed. Overly controlling and deserved to be challenged.

I tell my friends in Australia about what goes on here and they think we are a laughing stock. Does anyone realise a foreign holiday is an education in itself.

People go on about rules and regs from the EU, the biggest problem is our own bureaucracy, you only have to look at Health and Safety as an example

 

[GT49er]

As with most laws, legislation etc. it is for the idiots, cheats and the ignorant. For most people, taking their kid on holiday, or out of school for a while won't have that big an impact, because most parents will be helping their kids with their learning, and broadening their experiences.

However, as a governor at a school with some at risk kids, not all parents do look after their child's educational welfare. They won't be reading to them, buying them books, taking them on educational days out. They'll be out of school because they couldn't be arsed to get out of bed, or had something better to do. So we end up with effectively a small percentage of disadvantaged kids who through no fault of their own, and despite a schools best efforts, will go through the system behind, unable to ever catch up.

These are the parents that the legislation is for. The ones who just simply don't give a monkeys. If impacts on all of us, but then that is the same with most legislation - most of us don't need it because it is common sense. Too many kids fall through the net to ignore it. It isn't then easy to have separate sets of attendance rules for different circumstances.

Yes, but you're mixing up two completely different sets of circumstances - just as the government seems unable to understand the difference. Yes, the law should be used against parents who don't bother to ensure their kids go to school because they 'can't be arsed to get out of bed', as you put it. This is entirely different to caring parents, who send kid(s) to school every day, on time (except if sick, of course), wanting their children to experience all the benefits of a family holiday - at a time when they can afford it. A memorable week on a family holiday is, to be brutally honest, probably worth a lot more to the wellbeing of the child than a week in primary school. That should not be an offence. End of.
The government has (yet again) got it wrong on this one, but is too pig-headed to admit it.

 

[withdeanwombat]

As a parent I have no issue with this. The whole idea of fines for holidays was always political anyway.

I watched the scruffy haired councillor from the Isle of White trying to justify their actions and suggesting a child not being in school affects other pupils and staff. Strange how so many schools are closed for voting - surely that effects children's education - or indeed the number of inset days in term time. Make inset days in school holidays always. It's a do as we say not as we do attitude from the authorities. Remind me the average number of sick days council employees take each year ?

WIGHT, fool, WIGHT.

 

[Stat Brother]

Teachers don't help themselves in the run up to holidays.

DVD afternoons and 'tiding the classroom/school grounds' in the last week hardly sends out the right message, do they?


For the record Jnr Stat, thanks to an AM hospital appointment, will this year miss his 4th consecutive 100% year.
Lil Miss Stat isn't too bad either.

 

[Albion Dan]

They should reduce the summer holiday to four weeks then allow every family to take the extra two weeks when they want to. That would allow everyone to take a holiday outside of the peak cost periods!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They should reduce the summer holiday to four weeks then allow every family to take the extra two weeks when they want to. That would allow everyone to take a holiday outside of the peak cost periods!

Is the current set up really a problem though?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I tell my friends in Australia about what goes on here and they think we are a laughing stock. Does anyone realise a foreign holiday is an education in itself.

People go on about rules and regs from the EU, the biggest problem is our own bureaucracy, you only have to look at Health and Safety as an example

Agree

 

[studio150]

Oh what a load of bollocks. We took the kids out of school with impunity for holidays and they're education didn't suffer in the slightest. They got all As and Bs in their school exams, then at uni my son got a First, and my daughter got a First, two Masters and a PhD

So whatever your objection is to holidays in school time please don't use the blanket "their education will suffer" argument.

I think you should hang your head in shame. If you had not taken your children out of school rather than getting average As and Bs in the their school exams they would have achieved nothing lower than an A and would have had a majority of A*s. I wouldn't be surprised if your children haven't been scared for life by your willingness to put family holidays before their education. Clearly their post school qualifications reflect that they did not take holidays during university term time.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You seem to all be ignoring the fact that children go to "work" in a hotbed of bugs and viruses... Many of the illnesses that time is taken off for is for child illnesses, illnesses that generally don't often affect adults.
For instance I have never heard of one adult that I have worked with take time off for having nits. Whereas it is many schools policy that a child shouldn't attend when they have nits.

I am sure there are other illnesses and incidents that could explain time off school, other than bad parenting!

That's true enough. I was assuming the attendance data (particularly that reported in the present case) excludes time off for illness.....

If a kid take time off with no sick note, and when the parent(s) are contacted they say 'sick', is there any follow up? I assume, given the present case, there is a lot of follow up, so I'm surprised there aren't more fines, and more contested cases. Perhaps there are . . . .

I seem to have fallen into that old NSC trap of venturing an opinion based on No Facts or Actual Knowledge

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I agree. Was overseas for many years and when I came back was genuinely shocked that any parental flexibility had been completely removed. Overly controlling and deserved to be challenged.

The government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, yet again.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, but you're mixing up two completely different sets of circumstances - just as the government seems unable to understand the difference. Yes, the law should be used against parents who don't bother to ensure their kids go to school because they 'can't be arsed to get out of bed', as you put it. This is entirely different to caring parents, who send kid(s) to school every day, on time (except if sick, of course), wanting their children to experience all the benefits of a family holiday - at a time when they can afford it. A memorable week on a family holiday is, to be brutally honest, probably worth a lot more to the wellbeing of the child than a week in primary school. That should not be an offence. End of.
The government has (yet again) got it wrong on this one, but is too pig-headed to admit it.

I'm not mixing up the difference, I stated how do you deal with different rules for different families? Who makes the call on which family's holiday is approved and which isn't? The head - do they need that responsibility / extra work deciding who can be off and who can't? That's how things have broken down in the first place and how vulnerable kids have slipped through the net.

Affordable holidays needs to be tackled on flexible or staggered term dates - this is what they do in France. This would spread the holiday period. Even a week either end of the 6 weeks would make a big difference. With 14 weeks off each year, none of us should really be needing to take our kids on holiday during term time.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm not mixing up the difference, I stated how do you deal with different rules for different families? Who makes the call on which family's holiday is approved and which isn't? The head - do they need that responsibility / extra work deciding who can be off and who can't? That's how things have broken down in the first place and how vulnerable kids have slipped through the net.

Affordable holidays needs to be tackled on flexible or staggered term dates - this is what they do in France. This would spread the holiday period. Even a week either end of the 6 weeks would make a big difference. With 14 weeks off each year, none of us should really be needing to take our kids on holiday during term time.

It's not always holidays. I know of someone who had a parent dying but lived some way away. They needed to be with that parent, but had no child cover, so took their children with them for the death and funeral. They were fined.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's not always holidays. I know of someone who had a parent dying but lived some way away. They needed to be with that parent, but had no child cover, so took their children with them for the death and funeral. They were fined.

Bereavement leave is allowed, so not sure why that would have happened.

 

[Albion Dan]

Is the current set up really a problem though?

Yes the cost of holidays with children is extortionate because off-the-wall current system.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk