OldAfricaHand

Children holidaying in school time

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539378/Couple-took-children-school-weeks-holiday-Rhodes-face-jail-refusing-pay-fines.html

 

Is it reasonable that parents should be prevented from taking children on holiday during term time - particularly if it is only for one or two weeks?

 

What strikes me as unfair about this case is the suggestion that as the parents did not pay the fine within 21 days, the amount they are required to pay has been doubled. Does this happen in the case of other fines - I seem to recall people being fined for more serious offences and being given a lot longer tyhan 21 days to pay?

 

All-in-all, it seems the thin end of the wedge to me!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the difference between holidays in term time and those out of term time weren't so ridiculous then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

The fine is less than the difference in the holiday so, financially, it's worth paying.

 

Missing a week isn't going to be a problem for the kids - what if they got ill for a week?  They could make the work up without too much fuss.

 

The fine is just a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or an excuse to take some money off hard-working parents.

 

But that's Government for you - plenty of stick, no carrot.

 

And potentially sending the parents to prison for wanting time with their kids?  Interesting idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the chap is an idiot, he is putting his job on the line, for a principle.

He should have paid the fine, then appealed.

Mind you, the holiday companies must be loving it!.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539378/Couple-took-children-school-weeks-holiday-Rhodes-face-jail-refusing-pay-fines.html

 

Is it reasonable that parents should be prevented from taking children on holiday during term time - particularly if it is only for one or two weeks?

 

What strikes me as unfair about this case is the suggestion that as the parents did not pay the fine within 21 days, the amount they are required to pay has been doubled. Does this happen in the case of other fines - I seem to recall people being fined for more serious offences and being given a lot longer tyhan 21 days to pay?

 

All-in-all, it seems the thin end of the wedge to me!

 

Yes it's perfectly reasonable to prevent parents taking children on holiday during term time,and I'm glad it's being enforced. I think it's outrageous that parents are sacrificing their children's education purely on a monetary basis. You either want your children educated or you don't - you can't just pick and choose depending on when you want to go on holiday. Schools work out their syllabus extremely carefully and they are based upon a child attending the whole of the term, not just when they feel like. If everyone decided to break the law in this way then schools might as well just give up and go home, it would be total chaos.

 

The argument about being ill is a complete non starter, that can't be helped,but a holiday in term time can. Anyway even a week of illness at GCSE stage (the daughter in the above example was 15) can have a detrimental effect.

 

The fine is a way of making sure that those rather selfish people who couldn't be bothered to abide by the rules - do!

 

As for going up by 50%, I seem to recall that the last parking ticket I got mentioned something about that? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm. 

 

I knew CP would have a 'tough s**t' approach. 

 

 

What this does is enable those that can pay get the holidays when they want, and those that can't................well, it's tough s**t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In My view the holiday companies are partly to blame. Straight after Xmas the papers were full, and I mean FULL of advertisements for cheaper holidays, all well out of school holiday time when things must be slack for tour companies and pester power, put on the parents must be very difficult to combat.

 

Whilst it is not advisable, or even disallowed to take the children out of school can you blame the parents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm. 

 

I knew CP would have a 'tough s**t' approach. 

 

 

What this does is enable those that can pay get the holidays when they want, and those that can't................well, it's tough s**t.

 

Personally I would say that it's less of a 'tough sh*t' approach, but more of a concern for my children's education that I am prepared to put it above my holidays. The guy in the example obviously doesn't give two stuffs about his daughter's upcoming GCSEs, however I do.

 

If because of that I can't afford to go to Rhodes then oh well, we'll have to think of something else a bit cheaper. 

 

 

 

 

What this does is instil the idea in his children that if they want something but it's against the rules, then they should just say 'f**k it, I'm going to do it anyway', and don't worry about anyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legislation, they talk about....... I fail to see from the wording of it, how this family have committed an offence. I mean, what exactly is 'regularly' ? I would say that a child attending school on every school day of the year except 5 to be quite regular, wouldn't you ? I would suggest that the legislation is designed to deal with parents who fail to make their children attend school, routinely.

444 Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil.

(1)If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence.

[F1(1A)If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails without reasonable justification to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.]

(2)Subsections (3) to (6) below apply in proceedings for an offence under this section in respect of a child who is not a boarder at the school at which he is a registered pupil.

(3)The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school—

(a)with leave,

(b)at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause, or

©on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs.

(4)The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school if the parent proves—

(a)that the school at which the child is a registered pupil is not within walking distance of the child’s home, and

(b)that no suitable arrangements have been made by the local education authority F2. . . for any of the following—

(i)his transport to and from the school,

(ii)boarding accommodation for him at or near the school, or

(iii)enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to his home.

(5)In subsection (4) “walking distance”—

(a)in relation to a child who is under the age of eight, means 3.218688 kilometres (two miles), and

(b)in relation to a child who has attained the age of eight, means 4.828032 kilometres (three miles),in each case measured by the nearest available route.

(6)If it is proved that the child has no fixed abode, subsection (4) shall not apply, but the parent shall be acquitted if he proves—

(a)that he is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require him to travel from place to place,

(b)that the child has attended at a school as a registered pupil as regularly as the nature of that trade or business permits, and

©if the child has attained the age of six, that he has made at least 200 attendances during the period of 12 months ending with the date on which the proceedings were instituted.

(7)In proceedings for an offence under this section in respect of a child who is a boarder at the school at which he is a registered pupil, the child shall be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school if he is absent from it without leave during any part of the school term at a time when he was not prevented from being present by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause.

(8)A person guilty of an offence under [F3subsection (1)] is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

[F4(8A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1A) is liable on summary conviction—

(a)to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or

(b)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,or both.

(8B)If, on the trial of an offence under subsection (1A), the court finds the defendant not guilty of that offence but is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may find him guilty of that offence.]

(9)In this section “leave”, in relation to a school, means leave granted by any person authorised to do so by the governing body or proprietor of the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single week is not going to make a difference here or there.

 

I'd look at the financial penalty, weigh up whether it was cheaper to go on holiday during term time and pay the fine, or take the hit during the holidays - and then decide.

 

Whilst, I'm sure that some parents don't give a s**t about their kids education, most do and can ascertain whether the child will be at a disadvantage in missing a few days of school at the cost of some quality time with their family.

 

The bloke might have some principles about this issue, which is his call, but I'd have just paid the penalty.  In 10p pieces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single week is not going to make a difference here or there. Rubbish, it can make all the difference especially in GCSE year, where it could be the difference between a pass and a fail.

 

I'd look at the financial penalty, weigh up whether it was cheaper to go on holiday during term time and pay the fine, or take the hit during the holidays - and then decide. Fair enough, I accept that's your view but not everyone thinks of things purely in monetary terms with total disregard to the law. 

 

Whilst, I'm sure that some parents don't give a s**t about their kids education, most do and can ascertain whether the child will be at a disadvantage in missing a few days of school at the cost of some quality time with their family. Absolutely, and those who take their children out of school (especially in GCSE year) to go on holiday clearly don't give a sh*t about their kids education, whereas those that don't take their kids out of school in term time, clearly do give a sh*t. The idea of school holidays is that there is 13 weeks of the year to spend quality time with their family. Most other people seem to manage that without needing the extra time.

 

The bloke might have some principles about this issue, which is his call, but I'd have just paid the penalty.  In 10p pieces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks they care more about my kids education than I do is an arrogant idiot.

 

 

Any child could be off school for a week through illness.  That week can be made up without too much effort.  To think otherwise is rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks they care more about my kids education than I do is an arrogant idiot.

 

 

Any child could be off school for a week through illness.  That week can be made up without too much effort.  To think otherwise is rubbish.

You've missed the point. Illness, generally, is unavoidable. Holidays in term time are perfectly avoidable. A week is a long time; it's all very well saying it's easy to catch up, but on top of everything else it's just more pressure that you don't need and if you can avoid it then surely that's best? Why make life difficult for children just because of a hedonistic streak?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about field trips? The child is away from other lessons during the field trip.

 

The schools my kids went to discouraged holidays during term time but would listen to special cases. The year I was ill we went to the US for three weeks at the end of the school year, though I think it was only the last week of term.

 

You can't really predict how important a week will be. It's crucial if the child misses a key piece of knowledge that the rest of the lessons hang on. Some weeks it wouldn't make a ha'porth if difference. I dare say teachers get fed up with having to accommodate children who have missed out on vital information.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks they care more about my kids education than I do is an arrogant idiot.

 

 

Any child could be off school for a week through illness.  That week can be made up without too much effort.  To think otherwise is rubbish.

 

Rather a harsh thing to say about a someones opinion.  The parents were the authors of there own misfortune. I agree that they seem to say we will not comply with a law which does not suit us, which is a terrible example to set. What does trhat sort of mentality say.

 

As for field trips they are a parts of the education syllabus.

 

It is not essential that families have to take holidays abroad. There are many families who would settle for a week in a caravan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A single week is not going to make a difference here or there. Rubbish, it can make all the difference especially in GCSE year, where it could be the difference between a pass and a fail.

 

I'd look at the financial penalty, weigh up whether it was cheaper to go on holiday during term time and pay the fine, or take the hit during the holidays - and then decide. Fair enough, I accept that's your view but not everyone thinks of things purely in monetary terms with total disregard to the law. 

 

Whilst, I'm sure that some parents don't give a s**t about their kids education, most do and can ascertain whether the child will be at a disadvantage in missing a few days of school at the cost of some quality time with their family. Absolutely, and those who take their children out of school (especially in GCSE year) to go on holiday clearly don't give a sh*t about their kids education, whereas those that don't take their kids out of school in term time, clearly do give a sh*t. The idea of school holidays is that there is 13 weeks of the year to spend quality time with their family. Most other people seem to manage that without needing the extra time.

 

The bloke might have some principles about this issue, which is his call, but I'd have just paid the penalty.  In 10p pieces.

 

 

You are right, CP "it can make a difference" but it might not have made any difference in this case because all three children appear to be doing well at school (in the top sets?). So perhaps it is not fair to be prescriptive? However, one interesting comment made by the father is that his children have been better behaved since the holiday - they spent quality time with both parents and, perhaps, this is important too? What does stand out is that this family are being penalised because (a) someone's definition of "regular attendance" is skewed as I would suggest irregular attendance would be three or four instances of absence over a year rather than one 5 days period and (B) he was unwilling to lie about the reason the children were not in school. All that taken together, I find it difficult to condemn their actions.

 

I should also say, I think you are being judgemental about ITYO's approach as I do not think he is totally disregarding the Law -= but that's my personal view; hopefully, I won't offend anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 123 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.