School truancies lead to rise in prosecution of parents

[Bubbles]

.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Udayana]

"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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Rhiannon]

'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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.