School truancies lead to rise in prosecution of parents

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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. 

[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).

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'.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

Have you accepted that I am not biased against state schools?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

In your opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.