Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on August 12, 2015, 11:38:26 AM
-
.
-
It's a nonsense that children suffer is they are taken out of school towards the end of term. A friend of mine is married to a farmer and they have to grab time away when they can - never in July or August - and now they have to face prosecution to get a family holiday. This takes away the fundamental right if parents to decide what is best for their child.
The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to - the senior head and I were both concerned about the fact that my eldest was getting repeated viral infections and she suggested we finish term a week early so we could get away. She passed that onto the junior head who granted us some much needed family time. It made a huge difference and I worry about a system that criminalises parents if they try to do as we did.
-
It's a nonsense that children suffer is they are taken out of school towards the end of term. A friend of mine is married to a farmer and they have to grab time away when they can - never in July or August - and now they have to face prosecution to get a family holiday. This takes away the fundamental right if parents to decide what is best for their child.
I think the original trigger for all this was the growing number of children who were being taken 'out of school' over exam periods - especially GCSE's and A-levels. These are often related to other children who are in different situations.
The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to ... It made a huge difference and I worry about a system that criminalises parents if they try to do as we did.
Such a case would be taken into account and a decision made on a number of circumstances.
I think that there are 'educational holidays' and 'educational holidays'. Rose suggests that a holiday to Egypt with visits to the Pyramids and temples. Now, I think we would all agree that such a holiday is educational, but is it 'educational' within the parameters of the current school /syllabus context. From reports I've heard on this issue over the years, the majority of parents taking their children on term-time holidays aren't going on such trips. They're simply sitting around on sun-drenched beaches.
Finally, one has to remeber that it isn't only the children who have been taken on holiday who suffer. It is the members of staff who have to give extra input to the children when they come back; and its the classes as a whole who will often have to put their progress on hold as returning pupils catch up.
-
The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to - the senior head and I were both concerned about the fact that my eldest was getting repeated viral infections and she suggested we finish term a week early so we could get away. She passed that onto the junior head who granted us some much needed family time. It made a huge difference and I worry about a system that criminalises parents if they try to do as we did.
First off, Rhi, you do seem to have an exceptionally negative view of state schools - from many of your posts you appear to think they cannot do anything right. I wonder whether that says more about you than them.
But on your actual example, this isn't a simple case of a parent wanting to take their kid on holiday in term time, but one based on health grounds and perhaps compassionate grounds. And guess what you get exactly the same in the state sector. Just a few months ago a friend of mine's daughter had a bout of health issues which were eventually diagnosed as appendicitis which required an operation. The family had also had a series of other major issues over many months. The parents asked the school whether as a family (including her brother, who was fine) whether they could go on holiday during term time as the family really needed it - the daughter was well enough to return to school but the whole family was emotionally exhausted.
The request was granted by the head.
But this isn't the same as parents wanting a week off in term time to sit on a beach because it is cheaper than in the school holidays.
-
The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to - the senior head and I were both concerned about the fact that my eldest was getting repeated viral infections and she suggested we finish term a week early so we could get away. She passed that onto the junior head who granted us some much needed family time. It made a huge difference and I worry about a system that criminalises parents if they try to do as we did.
First off, Rhi, you do seem to have an exceptionally negative view of state schools - from many of your posts you appear to think they cannot do anything right. I wonder whether that says more about you than them.
Quite extraordiinary. First you make an assertion about the person being too far from a notional middle position, then you take the position that anything not in any random middle position is by definition wrong, followed by an argument that any such position reflects on the person.
What a lazy, unsubstantiated, and quite unpleasant ad hom!
-
The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to - the senior head and I were both concerned about the fact that my eldest was getting repeated viral infections and she suggested we finish term a week early so we could get away. She passed that onto the junior head who granted us some much needed family time. It made a huge difference and I worry about a system that criminalises parents if they try to do as we did.
First off, Rhi, you do seem to have an exceptionally negative view of state schools - from many of your posts you appear to think they cannot do anything right. I wonder whether that says more about you than them.
Quite extraordiinary. First you make an assertion about the person being too far from a notional middle position, then you take the position that anything not in any random middle position is by definition wrong, followed by an argument that any such position reflects on the person.
What a lazy, unsubstantiated, and quite unpleasant ad hom!
I think that last sentence rather better relates to your comment about me, than to mine about Rhi.
I have had a number of discussions with Rhi that relate to state vs private schools and she unerringly seems to be negative about the former.
My comment about this saying more about her than them relates perhaps to the reason. I gather (again from her own posts) that she has had a negative experience in one school linked to her kids and now prefers the private school they are at. A single (or even a couple) of negative experiences does not mean that all state schools are similarly negative, or even that others attending that particular school would have a negative impression.
That's what I meant by it saying more about her than about state schools in general.
And I have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you go on about 'being too far from a notional middle position' and 'anything not in any random middle position is by definition wrong' - what on earth are you on about.
-
"Parents can be issued with on-the-spot penalty notices of £60 per child by schools, rising to £120 if unpaid after three weeks, if their child has an unauthorised absence."
Seems a bit low. I would have larger immediate charges, to be set by the school or local authority within some given limits. Ie large enough to make it impractical to take a child out merely to save money by avoiding peak times. Shouldn't be a court matter unless there is truancy or a dispute over payment. Obviously medical or educational and some family reasons are valid, so non-chargeable as long as planned home study or catch up are undertaken.
Some other education systems are more flexible, where if you don't meet a particular standard you have to repeat the year until you do.
-
I think that last sentence rather better relates to your comment about me, than to mine about Rhi.
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
I have had a number of discussions with Rhi that relate to state vs private schools and she unerringly seems to be negative about the former.
My comment about this saying more about her than them relates perhaps to the reason. I gather (again from her own posts) that she has had a negative experience in one school linked to her kids and now prefers the private school they are at. A single (or even a couple) of negative experiences does not mean that all state schools are similarly negative, or even that others attending that particular school would have a negative impression.
That's what I meant by it saying more about her than about state schools in general.
And by doing it you have said that her position is invalidated because of her experience, and where it is in some model of what is an acceptable level of negativity you hold in your head.
And I have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you go on about 'being too far from a notional middle position' and 'anything not in any random middle position is by definition wrong' - what on earth are you on about.
It is pretty simple - you attribute to Rhiannon that her view is 'exceptionally' negative i.e. that there is a middle position, neither too hot or too cold, which you have defined and she is too far from it. You then use that to state that anyone being far from this position, a notional middle, not needing salt or too salty, entirely made by up you, which can be judged as being problematic, says more about them because it is not what you deem a middle position, not too sort or too hard but just right
-
I think that last sentence rather better relates to your comment about me, than to mine about Rhi.
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
Nope - I understand what an ad hominem attack is and also can stop a kind of passive aggressive approach by which a clearly personal attack masquerades as an attack on a comment. I think the strength of your personal attack - lazy, unpleasant etc was significantly stronger than mine on Rhi (if is was an attack at all - indeed it wasn't meant to be, and that's why I clarified my position if this had been misinterpreted.
I have had a number of discussions with Rhi that relate to state vs private schools and she unerringly seems to be negative about the former.
My comment about this saying more about her than them relates perhaps to the reason. I gather (again from her own posts) that she has had a negative experience in one school linked to her kids and now prefers the private school they are at. A single (or even a couple) of negative experiences does not mean that all state schools are similarly negative, or even that others attending that particular school would have a negative impression.
That's what I meant by it saying more about her than about state schools in general.
And by doing it you have said that her position is invalidated because of her experience, and where it is in some model of what is an acceptable level of negativity you hold in your head.
My issue is that Rhi seems to extend her personal bad experience of a single state school to a generalised negativity to all state schools. I am not invalidating her personal experience, merely saying that it is not valid to imply that her experience extends throughout the state sector. Indeed I specifically 'validated' her personal experience by implying this may be the reason why she seems so negative about the state system in general, despite (of course) having no experience of the vast, vast majority of state schools.
And I have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you go on about 'being too far from a notional middle position' and 'anything not in any random middle position is by definition wrong' - what on earth are you on about.
It is pretty simple - you attribute to Rhiannon that her view is 'exceptionally' negative i.e. that there is a middle position, neither too hot or too cold, which you have defined and she is too far from it. You then use that to state that anyone being far from this position, a notional middle, not needing salt or too salty, entirely made by up you, which can be judged as being problematic, says more about them because it is not what you deem a middle position, not too sort or too hard but just right
Nope you are still talking gobbledegook.
This isn't an issue about 'middle position' merely about pointing out that Rhi's example that Heads in state schools' can't let kids go on holiday in term time when there are health/compassionate reasons, and that private schools can (and the implication being that that is an example of private schools being better that state school) is flat out wrong, seeing as I have a friend with kids in the same state school that my children attend who were given permission by the head to do exactly what Rhi claims can't happen in the state system.
-
Private/state is a bit of a red herring here ... if you are paying for a private education, you are hardly going to take your children out of school unless they really need to be away. Also many private schools have slightly shorter terms anyway.
-
Private/state is a bit of a red herring here ... if you are paying for a private education, you are hardly going to take your children out of school unless they really need to be away. Also many private schools have slightly shorter terms anyway.
That may be the case (certainly the latter point), but it is also a red herring because the same rule apply to all schools, whether state or private.
In both cases there is discretion of the head to grant absence but only in exceptional circumstance:
The relevant wording from the official government document is:
'Code H: Holiday authorised by the school
Head teachers should not grant leave of absence unless there are exceptional circumstances. The application must be made in advance and the head teacher must be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case which warrant the leave. Where a leave of absence is granted, the head teacher will determine the number of days a pupil can be away from school. A leave of absence is granted entirely at the head teacher’s discretion.'
And that applied identically to state and private schools.
-
I don't think private = better but I do appreciate the greater autonomy that heads have. And it isn't state schools I object to - we can scarcely afford the fees even with two scholarships and I would much rather not have that headache - but the pressure that schools have been under from successive governments that leave the wellbeing of pupils at the bottom of priorities.
State schools can only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, not on compassionate grounds. There are recorded cases of parents being fined for taking pupils out for family weddings - including their own. My daughter wasn't sick by the time we took a break, just exhausted, but her siblings were fit and well and there were no 'exceptional circumstances' to justify their leave - and no medical reason for my eldest to have leave either, no doctor's letter or diagnosis of anything.
-
Private/state is a bit of a red herring here ... if you are paying for a private education, you are hardly going to take your children out of school unless they really need to be away. Also many private schools have slightly shorter terms anyway.
That may be the case (certainly the latter point), but it is also a red herring because the same rule apply to all schools, whether state or private.
In both cases there is discretion of the head to grant absence but only in exceptional circumstance:
The relevant wording from the official government document is:
'Code H: Holiday authorised by the school
Head teachers should not grant leave of absence unless there are exceptional circumstances. The application must be made in advance and the head teacher must be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case which warrant the leave. Where a leave of absence is granted, the head teacher will determine the number of days a pupil can be away from school. A leave of absence is granted entirely at the head teacher’s discretion.'
And that applied identically to state and private schools.
State schools cannot sanction visits to relations, or term time holidays in general without risk of sanction. Private schools can and do, although generally they expect full attendance.
Eta link
http://tinyurl.com/ngt4g7z
Edited to replace long URL
-
I don't think private = better but I do appreciate the greater autonomy that heads have. And it isn't state schools I object to - we can scarcely afford the fees even with two scholarships and I would much rather not have that headache - but the pressure that schools have been under from successive governments that leave the wellbeing of pupils at the bottom of priorities.
State schools can only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, not on compassionate grounds. There are recorded cases of parents being fined for taking pupils out for family weddings - including their own. My daughter wasn't sick by the time we took a break, just exhausted, but her siblings were fit and well and there were no 'exceptional circumstances' to justify their leave - and no medical reason for my eldest to have leave either, no doctor's letter or diagnosis of anything.
I am glad you in the start of your post you seem to be less negative about state schools.
But sadly you can't seem to help yourself with your further comments:
'State schools can only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, not on compassionate grounds', while in your view you 'do appreciate the greater autonomy that [private schools] heads have.
Firstly compassionate grounds are a very good example of 'exceptional circumstances'. But private schools don't have more autonomy - they have to abide by exactly the same rules as state schools.
And as I have already mentioned exactly the same rules (imposed by government) apply to state schools and private schools. The autonomy of a private school Head is identical to that of a state school Head. The issue isn't related to the public funding of state schools, but to the overarching requirement of children to be in full time education.
So again - these are the rules (which apply to both state and private equally):
'Code H: Holiday authorised by the school
Head teachers should not grant leave of absence unless there are exceptional circumstances. The application must be made in advance and the head teacher must be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case which warrant the leave. Where a leave of absence is granted, the head teacher will determine the number of days a pupil can be away from school. A leave of absence is granted entirely at the head teacher’s discretion.'
Here is the whole document if you want to read it:
http://tinyurl.com/lzszwfm
Edited to replace long URL
-
State schools cannot sanction visits to relations, or term time holidays in general without risk of sanction. Private schools can and do, although generally they expect full attendance.
For crying out loud Rhi, the rules on authorisation of absences are identical for state schools and private schools. Both have discretion to do exactly what you say, both have exactly the same autonomy and must abide by exactly the same rules, as set out here.
http://tinyurl.com/lzszwfm
Edited to replace long URL
-
My daughter wasn't sick by the time we took a break, just exhausted, but her siblings were fit and well and there were no 'exceptional circumstances' to justify their leave - and no medical reason for my eldest to have leave either, no doctor's letter or diagnosis of anything.
Sounds exactly the same situation as my friend - her daughter had recovered from her operation and was well enough to go back to school, her brother was fit and well but the whole family was pretty exhausted by the whole experience and really needed a break for the well-being of everyone.
The Head had the discretion and authority to grant this, and she chose to do so. Oh and this is a state school remember.
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
Nope - I understand what an ad hominem attack is and also can stop a kind of passive aggressive approach by which a clearly personal attack masquerades as an attack on a comment. I think the strength of your personal attack - lazy, unpleasant etc was significantly stronger than mine on Rhi (if is was an attack at all - indeed it wasn't meant to be, and that's why I clarified my position if this had been misinterpreted.
[/quote]
Except as would be obvious to anyone with a reading of 7 we are talking about the fallacy - indeed anyone with any form of common sense would assume that in context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-
'For crying out loud' you should know that advice is just that - advice. Advice ignored by the school my children attended included how to stage SATs exams for KS1 and how to introduce a new uniform policy.
The biggie is Osfted and the pressure they bring over attendance figures. Children taking holidays in term time are unlikely to get that sanctioned in a state school, therefore it is recorded as an unauthorised absence, affecting the overall report. Hence head teachers tend to report parents for taking term time holidays with the resultant prosecutions. Most independent schools belong to an association which exempts them from Ofsted inspections and hence independent heads have greater freedom with parents going far less likely to face sanctions.
-
My daughter wasn't sick by the time we took a break, just exhausted, but her siblings were fit and well and there were no 'exceptional circumstances' to justify their leave - and no medical reason for my eldest to have leave either, no doctor's letter or diagnosis of anything.
Sounds exactly the same situation as my friend - her daughter had recovered from her operation and was well enough to go back to school, her brother was fit and well but the whole family was pretty exhausted by the whole experience and really needed a break for the well-being of everyone.
The Head had the discretion and authority to grant this, and she chose to do so. Oh and this is a state school remember.
I would think any head that didn't do this was unstable. But my daughter hadn't had anything like such a serious incident. Certainly nothing involving surgery, or even a diagnosis.
By the way, I did take your 'says more about you' comment to be a way of diminishing my argument by attacking my character. But hey, this is a discussion forum, whatever.
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
Nope - I understand what an ad hominem attack is and also can stop a kind of passive aggressive approach by which a clearly personal attack masquerades as an attack on a comment. I think the strength of your personal attack - lazy, unpleasant etc was significantly stronger than mine on Rhi (if is was an attack at all - indeed it wasn't meant to be, and that's why I clarified my position if this had been misinterpreted.
Except as would be obvious to anyone with a reading of 7 we are talking about the fallacy - indeed anyone with any form of common sense would assume that in context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[/quote]I think when you start using rather personal terms nominally about a 'comment' it becomes quickly apparent that the terms are just that ... 'personal' and therefore ad hominem. How can a comment be 'lazy' - lazy is a trait applied to a person, so a 'lazy comment' is a comment made by a person acting in a lazy manner, with regard to that comment.
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
Nope - I understand what an ad hominem attack is and also can stop a kind of passive aggressive approach by which a clearly personal attack masquerades as an attack on a comment. I think the strength of your personal attack - lazy, unpleasant etc was significantly stronger than mine on Rhi (if is was an attack at all - indeed it wasn't meant to be, and that's why I clarified my position if this had been misinterpreted.
Except as would be obvious to anyone with a reading of 7 we are talking about the fallacy - indeed anyone with any form of common sense would assume that in context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I think when you start using rather personal terms nominally about a 'comment' it becomes quickly apparent that the terms are just that ... 'personal' and therefore ad hominem. How can a comment be 'lazy' - lazy is a trait applied to a person, so a 'lazy comment' is a comment made by a person acting in a lay manner, with regard to that comment.
[/quote]
Which is entirely irrelevant to the use of ad hom which was about you using the fallacy not any attack, as again made clear, and underlined as being obvious.
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
Nope - I understand what an ad hominem attack is and also can stop a kind of passive aggressive approach by which a clearly personal attack masquerades as an attack on a comment. I think the strength of your personal attack - lazy, unpleasant etc was significantly stronger than mine on Rhi (if is was an attack at all - indeed it wasn't meant to be, and that's why I clarified my position if this had been misinterpreted.
Except as would be obvious to anyone with a reading of 7 we are talking about the fallacy - indeed anyone with any form of common sense would assume that in context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I think when you start using rather personal terms nominally about a 'comment' it becomes quickly apparent that the terms are just that ... 'personal' and therefore ad hominem. How can a comment be 'lazy' - lazy is a trait applied to a person, so a 'lazy comment' is a comment made by a person acting in a lay manner, with regard to that comment.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the use of ad hom which was about you using the fallacy not any attack, as again made clear, and underlined as being obvious.
[/quote]NS you really aren't making any sense, what fallacy, what clarity, what obviousness.
Don't forget that my comment about Rhi and the reasons why she might come across as negative towards state schools was completely separate to my rebuttal of her argument, namely that somehow state school Heads didn't have the authority and discretion to grant holidays in term time.
I rebutted her claim initially by demonstrating this not to be the case using a clear example where a state school head had very recently done just that, which demonstrates it cannot be impossible. And then later by referring Rhi and others to the government rules on authorising absence, which clearly give state school Heads absolute discretion and authority in this regard, and also are identical for all schools.
Nothing in my rebuttal relied on any personal comments - it was based entirely on evidence entirely detached from Rhi herself. Indeed my rebuttal would have been equally as strong (or weak - take your pick) had I not included those first two lines in reply 6.
-
But my daughter hadn't had anything like such a serious incident. Certainly nothing involving surgery, or even a diagnosis.
Out of interest when was it that you were granted holiday in term time. Is this very recently or several years ago. I only ask because the rule (which apply in exactly the same manner to both state and private schools) changed recently, hence all the discussion. It used to be the case that parents would regularly be granted leave in term time of up to two weeks and the 'exceptional circumstances' justification was only required to periods longer than 2 weeks.
For up to 2 weeks justification of 'special circumstances' only was required (a lesser hurdle than 'exceptional circumstances).
-
But my daughter hadn't had anything like such a serious incident. Certainly nothing involving surgery, or even a diagnosis.
Out of interest when was it that you were granted holiday in term time. Is this very recently or several years ago. I only ask because the rule (which apply in exactly the same manner to both state and private schools) changed recently, hence all the discussion. It used to be the case that parents would regularly be granted leave in term time of up to two weeks and the 'exceptional circumstances' justification was only required to periods longer than 2 weeks.
For up to 2 weeks justification of 'special circumstances' only was required (a lesser hurdle than 'exceptional circumstances).
Summer 2014.
-
But my daughter hadn't had anything like such a serious incident. Certainly nothing involving surgery, or even a diagnosis.
Out of interest when was it that you were granted holiday in term time. Is this very recently or several years ago. I only ask because the rule (which apply in exactly the same manner to both state and private schools) changed recently, hence all the discussion. It used to be the case that parents would regularly be granted leave in term time of up to two weeks and the 'exceptional circumstances' justification was only required to periods longer than 2 weeks.
For up to 2 weeks justification of 'special circumstances' only was required (a lesser hurdle than 'exceptional circumstances).
Summer 2014.
Ok - that may be relevant as the new rules were only really brought in place from Oct 2014
http://tinyurl.com/lzszwfm
So it may be that your Head was working from the older 'special circumstances' for up to 10 days rules, rather than the 'exceptional circumstance' for anything rules. To reiterate both the old and the new rules have always applied equally to state and private schools.
-
The biggie is Osfted and the pressure they bring over attendance figures. Children taking holidays in term time are unlikely to get that sanctioned in a state school, therefore it is recorded as an unauthorised absence, affecting the overall report. Hence head teachers tend to report parents for taking term time holidays with the resultant prosecutions. Most independent schools belong to an association which exempts them from Ofsted inspections and hence independent heads have greater freedom with parents going far less likely to face sanctions.
That argument doesn't really stack up at all on two grounds.
First. Sure OFSTED look at attendance, but they are (not unreasonably) rather more focussed on unauthorised absence levels. They are very unlikely to delved into specific decisions to authorise absence (and indeed may not be able to see the individual details due to confidentiality) so for a school to look better in the eyes of OFSTED if they think a parent is likely to take the kid out anyhow, they would be better to authorise that absence rather than flag it up more overtly to OFSTED as unauthorised.
Of course if the absence is likely to detrimentally affect progress to an extent that it would affect the inspection outcome then preventing the absence is always going to be the best policy. But if educational progress will be detrimentally affected then the school has a duty to prevent that anyhow in the best interests of the pupil regardless of any inspection.
Secondly. The Independent Schools Inspectorate (which is the main alternative to OFSTED for independent schools, although many independent schools also use OFSTED too) also assessed attendance as part of its inspection regime.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
I am well aware of the importance of OFSTED - not only am I also a governor of a state school that is outside LEA control, but also own a 'private' school (albeit one that caters for very young kids) that is regulated and inspected by OFSTED.
Regarding the 'personalisation' of the matter - as I pointed out to NS the two lines on that (which seem to be taking over the debate to an extent I rather regret posting them) weren't used within my rebuttal of your claim at the time, nor since.
Your choice of school is entirely a matter for you, and your bad experience in the state sector does seem to be a major factor in that choice (I think you'd freely admit that). But your individual bad experience doesn't mean all state schools are tarred with the same brush. On the specific issue of discretion and authority for Heads to grant (or not) absence in term time I have demonstrated that your assertion that state schools don't have that option (while private schools do) is simply non-sense. Both through the example of the school where I am a governor where this has happened actually rather more recently than your example and within the more rigid recent framework. And also, by reference to the government framework itself (including linking directly to government documents) demonstrated that the rules that govern state school authority in this area are identical to those for private schools.
Now I am sorry if you have taken offence by my comment - trust me this wasn't intended. My comment about this saying more about you than about the state schools was perhaps ill judged, but let me try to explain what I mean. I sorry if you don't like this, but you do come across to me as someone who's bad experience in one state school seems to have somehow clouded their judgement of the whole sector, which of course includes thousands of schools both good and bad that neither you nor I have experience of. I have no problem with you bad-mouthing a particular state school that you have experience of (and how could I anyway because only you have that experience). Where I do have a problem, and will pull you up on it, is where you by inference bad mouth the whole sector. Again that may not be your intention, but that can be the impression given.
When I have engaged in these discussions I have always been at pains to point out (without prompting) that when defending the state sector that I freely accept there are good and bad schools in the state sector, just as I also accept that there are good and bad schools in the private sector. I trust you also accept both of those points.
Now I hope we can get back to discussing the issue in a less personalised manner (albeit we will bring our own individual experiences to bear but I trust we can accept that individual experience either good or bad of individual schools can never be a proxy for a view of the whole of a sector).
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Actually I am perhaps one of the few people here (maybe there are others) who has seen the effect of OSTED and inspection regimes on both state and private schools at the sharp end. For the former as a governor and the latter as the owner of a private school that I helped set up at times literally with my bare hands.
And actually the threat of a bad inspection is far greater for the private school. In the state system a poor inspection hits reputation, it hurts but in most cases it isn't an existential threat. As a private school owner a poor inspection can put you out of business - less parents sending their kids, some pulling kids out can make the school financially non viable, potentially with substantial personal financial loss as well as reputational loss. That is a step up from the threat in the state sector.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fine. It would be interesting to hear how Rhiannon reconciles the two , apparently divergent, views on Ofsted!
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fine. It would be interesting to hear how Rhiannon reconciles the two , apparently divergent, views on Ofsted!
No idea - possible that they are scary, as they have power, but incompetent (which wouldn't be an uncommon view).
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fine. It would be interesting to hear how Rhiannon reconciles the two , apparently divergent, views on Ofsted!
No idea - possible that they are scary, as they have power, but incompetent (which wouldn't be an uncommon view).
I always found them intimidating, but usually thorough; but by no means free of criticism.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fine. It would be interesting to hear how Rhiannon reconciles the two , apparently divergent, views on Ofsted!
No idea - possible that they are scary, as they have power, but incompetent (which wouldn't be an uncommon view).
I always found them intimidating, but usually thorough; but by no means free of criticism.
Not sure I'd entirely agree form my experience. Actually the most important aspect of OFSTED (and in fact almost any inspection regime) is what they achieve when they aren't inspecting. What do I mean by that - well that the knowledge that there will be an inspection at some point in the future forces organisations to up their game in preparation. And that's the same in other contexts too - in universities we have the REF (assessing research quality) and a variety of measures of teaching quality. Sure, just as with OFSTED there are plenty of academics who rail against the inspection philosophy, but if truth be told these measures have forced UK universities to up their game.
Where there can be an issue is complex game playing - a kind of elaborate dance between the inspectors and the inspectees, each trying to be one step ahead. It think this is more an issue in universities that schools, because we think we are smart arses!!
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
I'm not sure you understand what an ad hominem is either. The Prof did claim Rhiannon has a bias but that was his conclusion, not his argument. Merely casting aspersions is not ad hominem.
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong". His evidence for why he thinks she is wrong involves a single anecdote which is a logical fallacy but not ad hominem. Although it wouldn't surprise me if, on reading my post, the prof can provide other evidence.
-
PD, I've been a governor, I know how important Ofsted are; independent schools are able to have much more flexibility. And they fall outside LEA control, who are responsible for fining parents for term time holidays.
You personalised this discussion by saying that my 'disapproval of state schools' (a position I don't hold) ''says more about me'. I'm sorry if I have made choices for my children that you don't like, and for believing I know them better than any teacher ever can. Quite what that 'says about me' I have no idea.
So what did you mean when I referred to Ofsted in the Parenting thread, and you repied, "seriously?"
Context please?
Read the thread, PD. I was suggesting that Ofsted was an important check on schools and their treatment of individuals, and that was Rhiannon's reply. See, M88 and 89, in Modern Parenting.
Yes found it - somehow I thought you'd suggested it was me, rather than Rhiannon that posted 'seriously'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fine. It would be interesting to hear how Rhiannon reconciles the two , apparently divergent, views on Ofsted!
No idea - possible that they are scary, as they have power, but incompetent (which wouldn't be an uncommon view).
I always found them intimidating, but usually thorough; but by no means free of criticism.
Not sure I'd entirely agree form my experience. Actually the most important aspect of OFSTED (and in fact almost any inspection regime) is what they achieve when they aren't inspecting. What do I mean by that - well that the knowledge that there will be an inspection at some point in the future forces organisations to up their game in preparation. And that's the same in other contexts too - in universities we have the REF (assessing research quality) and a variety of measures of teaching quality. Sure, just as with OFSTED there are plenty of academics who rail against the inspection philosophy, but if truth be told these measures have forced UK universities to up their game.
Where there can be an issue is complex game playing - a kind of elaborate dance between the inspectors and the inspectees, each trying to be one step ahead. It think this is more an issue in universities that schools, because we think we are smart arses!!
I agree; but this kind of situation compelled us to keep up our standards, to the extent that it all became what it should be: routine best efforts.
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
I'm not sure you understand what an ad hominem is either. The Prof did claim Rhiannon has a bias but that was his conclusion, not his argument. Merely casting aspersions is not ad hominem.
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong". His evidence for why he thinks she is wrong involves a single anecdote which is a logical fallacy but not ad hominem. Although it wouldn't surprise me if, on reading my post, the prof can provide other evidence.
Thanks for wading in Jeremy.
Actually I'm not sure I used my view that Rhi appears to be a bit biased in any argument against her assertion.
Lets remind herself what that assertion was - she claimed that state school Heads don't have the discretion to grant term time holidays and that private schools do (on the basis of a single anecdote in each case). Clearly all I need to disprove this is a single anecdote of my own - namely that a state school Head has demonstrate her ability to exercise that discretion. Thats what I did, and also backed it up with further evidence on the regulatory framework that demonstrates that the discretion and authority is identical for Heads, whether form the state or private sector.
So I have no idea where NS's claim of ad hom comes from, nor how his response (lazy, unpleasant anyone) can somehow been seen as lesser in that context than my original comment.
-
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong".
Actually I think I said that I thought Rhi was biased (an assertion I fully accept, but one that seems borne out by quite a number of discussions on the state vs private schools with her on many threads over many years) potentially because she had a bad experience in the state sector with her own kids (which wouldn't seem to be an unreasonable view).
-
Re the OP.... absolutely appalling.
Once again, the control of the people by the elites.
-
PD, the only issue I gave with state schools in general is that they don't make enough of a stand against the endless shit dished out from governments. The thing that saddened me the most as a governor was that we were required to sanction more and more hoop jumping, to the detriment of the welfare of the children - the pressure got so intense that parents were asked to make their five year olds account for reaching their targets or not that week. But I thought I'd made it clear that it is what successive governments have done to state education that I find so objectionable, not state schools.
Like so many things governments come up with, Ofsted and the national curriculum were good ideas. The school we left was failing until Ofsted came in some fifteen years or so ago and kicked it up the arse. Similarly I can remember rocking up to my secondary school from an 'old fashioned' primary only to find that the rest of my new classmates hadn't been taught to punctuate a sentence. I can see exactly why both were necessary. But now they have become political footballs. Teachers are confronted with continual curriculum changes, extras according to the fashionable issues of the day, and are expected up make up for weaknesses in parenting. And Ofsted have gone beyond making sure schools are producing good teaching and instead encourage the pressurised atmosphere around SATS, targets and teaching to the test.
I don't know how the politics can be taken out of education, but until it is I don't see how it will ever go back to placing child welfare at its heart, however dedicated individual professionals may be.
-
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong".
Actually I think I said that I thought Rhi was biased (an assertion I fully accept, but one that seems borne out by quite a number of discussions on the state vs private schools with her on many threads over many years) potentially because she had a bad experience in the state sector with her own kids (which wouldn't seem to be an unreasonable view).
Leaving aside the fact I don't think we've discussed things over 'many years', I think I've made my point crystal clear that I object to how the state system is run by government, not state schools. I would have loved to have good state schools to send my children to and I am glad for those who manage to find those that flourish in spite of Ofsted and its masters at the DofE.
-
PD, the only issue I gave with state schools in general is that they don't make enough of a stand against the endless shit dished out from governments. The thing that saddened me the most as a governor was that we were required to sanction more and more hoop jumping, to the detriment of the welfare of the children - the pressure got so intense that parents were asked to make their five year olds account for reaching their targets or not that week. But I thought I'd made it clear that it is what successive governments have done to state education that I find so objectionable, not state schools.
Like so many things governments come up with, Ofsted and the national curriculum were good ideas. The school we left was failing until Ofsted came in some fifteen years or so ago and kicked it up the arse. Similarly I can remember rocking up to my secondary school from an 'old fashioned' primary only to find that the rest of my new classmates hadn't been taught to punctuate a sentence. I can see exactly why both were necessary. But now they have become political footballs. Teachers are confronted with continual curriculum changes, extras according to the fashionable issues of the day, and are expected up make up for weaknesses in parenting. And Ofsted have gone beyond making sure schools are producing good teaching and instead encourage the pressurised atmosphere around SATS, targets and teaching to the test.
I don't know how the politics can be taken out of education, but until it is I don't see how it will ever go back to placing child welfare at its heart, however dedicated individual professionals may be.
I'm no great fan of government intervention, and most definitely no fan of the current government, but the fact remains that state funded schools are, well, err funded by the state and it is right and proper that there is appropriate oversight over how that money (which is a huge amount) is spent and what outcomes are achieved.
One of the reasons I have a big problem with free schools is exactly that lack of accountability - effectively schools that increasingly can do what the heck they like, sucking up disproportionate amounts of money for dubious benefit. And money thrown at the Gove pet project free schools is money not available for existing schools.
But in spite of all that there are many, many fantastic state schools up and down the country, achieving exceptional things with our young people (and I don't just mean academic results and box ticking) and demonstrating a level of professionalism that is inspirational. And doing so always with limited resource, so providing exceptional value for money.
It is easy to achieve great headline results, with a phenomenal quality intake of kids, backed up by motivated and engaged middle class parents plus with the ability to tap into huge levels of resource. To do so with challenging kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose parents are (at best) disinterested and with very limited resources really is something. And yet that is the reality within many, many state schools.
I know which is the better school, and I suspect in your heart of hearts so do you.
-
Wow, that's quite some mind reading there.
-
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong".
Actually I think I said that I thought Rhi was biased (an assertion I fully accept, but one that seems borne out by quite a number of discussions on the state vs private schools with her on many threads over many years) potentially because she had a bad experience in the state sector with her own kids (which wouldn't seem to be an unreasonable view).
Leaving aside the fact I don't think we've discussed things over 'many years', I think I've made my point crystal clear that I object to how the state system is run by government, not state schools. I would have loved to have good state schools to send my children to and I am glad for those who manage to find those that flourish in spite of Ofsted and its masters at the DofE.
We have - no idea of the actual thread, but I remember distinctly discussing this matter probably 2-3 years ago when I was holed up in a rather uninteresting hotel on the outskirts of Paris where I was at a conference.
But again, just because your experience was that there wasn't a state school that fitted our preference nearby doesn't mean that is the case elsewhere.
Where I live there are 4 or 5 exceptional primary schools within a couple of miles. The two nearest secondary schools (both mixed non faith 'bog standard' comps - both now academies) are amazing both academically and in terms or extracurricular activities. Plus if your flavour is faith school etc there are others of similar academic standard nearby. The issue isn't trying to find a good state school, but the challenge of decide which of them to put first choice.
And this isn't just a leafy middle class issue. Where I work (in one of the most deprived areas in the country) the two nearest state secondaries are genuinely inspirational, particularly considering the demographic of the kids. Both are Outstanding across the board from OFSTED, have attracted a jaw dropping list of inspirational role models who support the schools and in one case the quality of the Head teacher was such that he was knighted.
-
Wow, that's quite some mind reading there.
Don't understand your point here. Can you explain please.
-
The problem is that I live in a well- heeled middle class area and the local state school has exactly the kind of wealthy, motivated pupils you associate with the private sector. Its facilities far outweigh those of the school my kids go to. Maybe it is the demands of that kind of parent that contribute to the skewing of education away from the pupil in favour of statistics and headlines. And it is just as much based on purchasing power - house prices /rental rates in the guaranteed catchment area are well out of the reach of those on average incomes, let alone low income families. One woman I spoke to at the weekend told me her rent has just been put up by £300/month.
-
Wow, that's quite some mind reading there.
Don't understand your point here. Can you explain please.
You appear to think you know what is in my heart.
Look, I don't live or work in an area of deprivation or difficulty, I live in an area of leafy hypocrisy. And I'm more impressed with the school my kids go to that takes on a rag tag of different kids of a whole range of backgrounds, incomes and abilities and creates a family where they all feel valued.
Being accountable to the state is not the same as being dictated to by it or manipulated by it.
-
The problem is that I live in a well- heeled middle class area and the local state school has exactly the kind of wealthy, motivated pupils you associate with the private sector. Its facilities far outweigh those of the school my kids go to. Maybe it is the demands of that kind of parent that contribute to the skewing of education away from the pupil in favour of statistics and headlines. And it is just as much based on purchasing power - house prices /rental rates in the guaranteed catchment area are well out of the reach of those on average incomes, let alone low income families. One woman I spoke to at the weekend told me her rent has just been put up by £300/month.
Sure - I completely get the issue of house price premium in the appropriate catchment area of a good state school. But someone paying an additional £300 a month for their rent so their kids can get into a good state school doesn't increase the resources of that school one iota. Quite the reverse in fact as that parent has less disposable income that they might otherwise support the school with.
And where I live is also one of those areas - indeed has some of the highest housing costs outside of London in part because of that reputation (well deserved) for great schools.
But that's why I also use the area where I work. Where these schools are are in some of the most deprived areas (by postcode) anywhere in the country, yet the schools are exceptional.
-
And I'm more impressed with the school my kids go to that takes on a rag tag of different kids of a whole range of backgrounds, incomes and abilities and creates a family where they all feel valued.
And so am I - why do you think that 'mission' is somehow the preserve of private schools - it isn't. Indeed if you really want a range of backgrounds and the ability for a school to create a community from that demographic try the schools near where I work. In one three quarters speak English as an additional language with a bewildering array of first languages. Yet agains that background the school is astonishing and gets results (even raw headline grades) that compete with the leafiest of middle class suburbs and outperforms many private schools.
-
And I'm more impressed with the school my kids go to that takes on a rag tag of different kids of a whole range of backgrounds, incomes and abilities and creates a family where they all feel valued.
And so am I - why do you think that 'mission' is somehow the preserve of private schools - it isn't. Indeed if you really want a range of backgrounds and the ability for a school to create a community from that demographic try the schools near where I work. In one three quarters speak English as an additional language with a bewildering array of first languages. Yet agains that background the school is astonishing and gets results (even raw headline grades) that compete with the leafiest of middle class suburbs and outperforms many private schools.
Where have you got the idea from that I think only private schools create that? In my catchment it is - I never said it was universal.
I don't think we're ever going to be in agreement on this, and I need some sleep. Thanks for the discussion. I guess we both have better things we could be doing. :)
-
Is that because you have misunderstood what an ad hom is? I have attacked your comment. I haven't said it is wrong because of some irrelevant personal issue as you have done with Rhiannon (in this case where on some faux scale her remark can be placed).
I'm not sure you understand what an ad hominem is either. The Prof did claim Rhiannon has a bias but that was his conclusion, not his argument. Merely casting aspersions is not ad hominem.
The prof didn't say "I think you are wrong because you are biased", he said "I think you are biased because you are wrong". His evidence for why he thinks she is wrong involves a single anecdote which is a logical fallacy but not ad hominem. Although it wouldn't surprise me if, on reading my post, the prof can provide other evidence.
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
-
Lets remind herself what that assertion was - she claimed that state school Heads don't have the discretion to grant term time holidays and that private schools do (on the basis of a single anecdote in each case). Clearly all I need to disprove this is a single anecdote of my own - namely that a state school Head has demonstrate her ability to exercise that discretion.
Yep, that sounds reasonable. You did not attempt to rebut her argument by reference to her person. You provided a counter example.
-
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
That reading has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
-
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
That reading has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
Or rather asserted
-
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
That reading has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
Or rather asserted
The post where it was pointed out that Rhiannon was shown to be wrong with a counter example is the demonstration.
-
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
That reading has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
Or rather asserted
The post where it was pointed out that Rhiannon was shown to be wrong with a counter example is the demonstration.
Except that is irrelevant to the base of Prof D's approach, that I am talking about, which was to define Rhiannon's position as extremist and then assume that any extremist position by that definition must be wrong.
-
Except that is irrelevant to the base of Prof D's approach, that I am talking about, which was to define Rhiannon's position as extremist and then assume that any extremist position by that definition must be wrong.
But he hasn't done that. He didn't define her as an extremist and he didn't state that extremist positions are always wrong.
In the post you first complained about, he did two things
1. Suggested Rhiannon's position was coloured by her personal experience.
2. Demonstrated that her position is wrong.
Because 2 followed 1, you seem to have assumed he said "if 1 then 2" but that connection is not there.
-
Not my reading of it - which was 'You have a position that is extreme, because of it is extreme as I look at it you are wrong'.
That reading has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
Or rather asserted
The post where it was pointed out that Rhiannon was shown to be wrong with a counter example is the demonstration.
Except that is irrelevant to the base of Prof D's approach, that I am talking about, which was to define Rhiannon's position as extremist and then assume that any extremist position by that definition must be wrong.
First off - I find it very hard to understand how anyone would read those first two lines of reply 6 and come to your conclusion.
But nonetheless you appear to have. But straight away I made it clear that your interpretation of what I meant was wrong - that isn't an assertion, but a fact, because I was the person who made the post and I know what I did and did not mean by it. Perhaps my wording left me open to misinterpretation (albeit it only seems to be you who have tried to causally link the first comment and my rebuttal of Rhi's point on discretion for heads in state vs private schools) - but even so I rapidly clarified what I meant.
So rather than continue to act like a dog with a bone why not simply accept that your interpretation of what I meant was wrong and move on.
-
Have you accepted that I am not biased against state schools?
-
Have you accepted that I am not biased against state schools?
No, because you continue to post in a manner which implies you are. Most recently an stary-eyed appeal to the diversity and feeling valued within private schools, while only when pressed a grudging acceptance that perhaps some state schools might just achieve the same 'I never said it was universal'. On diversity you are on really dodgy ground because without a shadow of doubt state schools have a far broader demographic than private schools, for pretty obvious reasons.
But that has no bearing on my rebuttal of your assertion that state school heads don't have the discretion on granting term time absence for holidays while private school heads do. Let's remind ourself of your wording:
'The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school that they now go to'
I didn't rebut this by appealing to a view that you were biased, I rebutted it first by demonstrating that state school heads do have that discretion using an actual example, and secondly by referring you to the rules which govern term tie absence from schools, which apply identically to state and private schools.
-
So based on a few comments and without knowing where I live, the schools my children attended or the demographic of the local schools you judge me. Like, for example, the fact that the local state school has a much lower ratio of students from ethnic minorities than the independent school yet is ten times the size. Ditto children with SEN. Did you know that the 'bad' school I cite is rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted?
Rather I suggest you are biased against me because the choices I have made do not agree with your ideological point of view. So you seek to prove that with personal and derogatory comments that are designed to destroy my credibility - 'starry eyed' being but one example.
So, it seems you are free to make derogatory and inaccurate assertions and call them 'facts' even though you know very little about me, my family or my politics, yet when others do it they are 'asserting' and should shut up.
-
So based on a few comments and without knowing where I live, the schools my children attended or the demographic of the local schools you judge me. Like, for example, the fact that the local state school has a much lower ratio of students from ethnic minorities than the independent school yet is ten times the size. Ditto children with SEN. Did you know that the 'bad' school I cite is rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted?
Rather I suggest you are biased against me because the choices I have made do not agree with your ideological point of view. So you seek to prove that with personal and derogatory comments that are designed to destroy my credibility - 'starry eyed' being but one example.
So, it seems you are free to make derogatory and inaccurate assertions and call them 'facts' even though you know very little about me, my family or my politics, yet when others do it they are 'asserting' and should shut up.
Again you seem to be mixing up the specifics vs the generality.
I have clearly said that your choice of schools is entirely up to you and also that I am in no position to comment on your local experiences, just as you aren't on mine. I've made these points before:
Reply 30: 'Your choice of school is entirely a matter for you, and your bad experience in the state sector does seem to be a major factor in that choice (I think you'd freely admit that). But your individual bad experience doesn't mean all state schools are tarred with the same brush.'
' have no problem with you bad-mouthing a particular state school that you have experience of (and how could I anyway because only you have that experience).'
The problem I have is when you generalise to the whole sector, either directly or in an implied manner. So for example:
'State schools cannot sanction visits to relations, or term time holidays in general without risk of sanction. Private schools can and do'
'The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't. Contrast that to the fee paying school'
'State schools can only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, not on compassionate grounds.'
All of these comments imply that all state schools aren't able to do something, and that lack of discretion is, in your opinion a negative thing. Yet it is demonstrably untrue as state schools have exactly the same discretion under legislation as private schools. If that doesn't imply a negativity toward state schools (al of them, not just the bad one you have experienced), then I don't know what does.
-
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
No it isn't my opinion.
Both state schools and private schools operate under exactly the same regulations when it comes to term time absence, set out in government legislation and associated rules. I've linked to them.
And not only is this the case 'in theory' but also in practice as I've indicated with examples. So it isn't opinion that you are wrong in your suggestion that:
'State schools cannot sanction visits to relations, or term time holidays in general without risk of sanction. Private schools can and do' - nope the same rule apply to both.
'State schools can only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, not on compassionate grounds.' - yes actually compassionate grounds are likely to be considered to be exceptional circumstances, but no school, whether state or private is allowed (under the new legislation) to grant term time absence except on exceptional circumstances.
None of this is opinion but based on evidence - namely the law of the land.
'The head at the state school my children attended wanted to be able to grant term time holidays but couldn't.' - yes he or she could, the rule allow it in exactly the same way as for private schools.
-
I'm sorry, PD, but things aren't that simple. And even if you are correct that doesn't prove me biased, just misinformed.
I really think any further discussion is a waste of both my time and yours.
-
I'm sorry, PD, but things aren't that simple. And even if you are correct that doesn't prove me biased, just misinformed.
I really think any further discussion is a waste of both my time and yours.
Actually I think the term is used was negative toward state schools, not biased - subtle difference.
And perhaps you were simply misinformed, but rather than simply say that your state school would grant a holiday etc you widened it to imply that all state schools were prevented from doing so, while private schools could. This seems to go a touch beyond misinformation don't you think.
So perhaps we should leave it there - I hope you will now accept that the rules that govern absence during term time are identical for both state and private schools.
-
I'm sorry, PD, but things aren't that simple. And even if you are correct that doesn't prove me biased, just misinformed.
I really think any further discussion is a waste of both my time and yours.
Actually I think the term is used was negative toward state schools, not biased - subtle difference.
And perhaps you were simply misinformed, but rather than simply say that your state school would grant a holiday etc you widened it to imply that all state schools were prevented from doing so, while private schools could. This seems to go a touch beyond misinformation don't you think.
So perhaps we should leave it there - I hope you will now accept that the rules that govern absence during term time are identical for both state and private schools.
I think you have amply demonstrated your point, PD.
-
And I thought that you two seemed to be getting on better .....
Reading all this has generated a couple of thoughts in my head.
One
If someone sends their children to independent boarding schools, over the educational life time of each child they may spend £300,000.
Do they get good value for money?
Two
The present government (and its predecessor) are advocating schools leave LEA management and become academies. Academies receive funds directly and are responsible for their own management decisions.
Is this really a covert way for governments to engineer the central control of education?
-
And I thought that you two seemed to be getting on better .....
Reading all this has generated a couple of thoughts in my head.
One
If someone sends their children to independent boarding schools, over the educational life time of each child they may spend £300,000.
Do they get good value for money?
No idea - you'd have to ask those people sending their kids to boarding school.
Two
The present government (and its predecessor) are advocating schools leave LEA management and become academies. Academies receive funds directly and are responsible for their own management decisions.
Is this really a covert way for governments to engineer the central control of education?
I believe so - and with the additional approach of trying to ensure that schools merge into large muiltiacademy trusts.
-
I'm sorry, PD, but things aren't that simple. And even if you are correct that doesn't prove me biased, just misinformed.
I really think any further discussion is a waste of both my time and yours.
Actually I think the term is used was negative toward state schools, not biased - subtle difference.
And perhaps you were simply misinformed, but rather than simply say that your state school would grant a holiday etc you widened it to imply that all state schools were prevented from doing so, while private schools could. This seems to go a touch beyond misinformation don't you think.
So perhaps we should leave it there - I hope you will now accept that the rules that govern absence during term time are identical for both state and private schools.
I think you have amply demonstrated your point, PD.
Thank you.