Of course and that was a achieved from visiting family in Bournemouth etc. Because you have a lack of imagination is no one else's fault but your own. Frankly your attitude stinks, all those poor families that cant afford to go on foreign holidays must never see their family unless it's in a foreign country right?
High Court Ruling on School Holidays
- Thread starter Cyanide
- Start date
- Status
Of course and that was a achieved from visiting family in Bournemouth etc. Because you have a lack of imagination is no one else's fault but your own. Frankly your attitude stinks, all those poor families that cant afford to go on foreign holidays must never see their family unless it's in a foreign country right?
Bear. You have no argument.
It would be like me telling you that you are forbidden from going on 4 holidays a year because I think I know your circumstances and think I know what's best for YOU.
Summary:
Bears current argument level: -349
Bears current understanding level: -infinity
Bears probability of winning: 0
Bears probability of looking foolish: Guaranteed
Raoh sarcasm level: +655
Raoh win rate: 100%
/Bears discussion
It is you that has no argument. Not once have I said children shouldn't be taken out of school for holidays, not once. I came into this thread because of your excuse of trying to pass off your attempt of broadening children's horizons as an reason for taking them out of school. All I said was the reason was to save money and your desire to go to somewhere you wanted.
I take my nieces out and generally, children don't care where they go so long as they are entertained by doing things they are interested in. To pass off foreign holidays is the only way you can broaden the horizons of your children is guff and I don't have to have children of my own to know that.
That you want to go abroad is your own business, I couldn't care less but don't sell us some BS as to the reason.
So don't preach to parents who still so far have enough enough say in their children's life to decide what is best for them. I didn't bring up BS but you have flagrantly shown how little an argument you have.
The simplest question is: Will the children have an experience?
We know the undeniable answer to that. I will also raise the biggest slap in the face to parents: School trip in Y8 to France (funny they are going out of school) oh and the cost is £850.... Strange I can get a holiday in the exact same place for half the price... How come they can go on away on a school trip without their family? It will be an exciting and educational experience (virtually the exact wording on the letter and the exact wording we used asking can we take her out of school to Rome? No.
School can't do double standards
The simplest question is: Will the children have an experience?
We know the undeniable answer to that. I will also raise the biggest slap in the face to parents: School trip in Y8 to France (funny they are going out of school) oh and the cost is £850.... Strange I can get a holiday in the exact same place for half the price... How come they can go on away on a school trip without their family? It will be an exciting and educational experience (virtually the exact wording on the letter and the exact wording we used asking can we take her out of school to Rome? No.
School can't do double standards
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Unless a child has learning difficulties, there is no reason why they can't get A* grades. If a child has all their faculties about them, the only reason for not getting an A* is a lack of effort (effort can even overcome poor teaching). If that lack of effort is then compounded by lack of attendance, then that child is going to be screwed.
I wouldn't say I'm a genious, but I'm averaging 96% at Uni due to sheer effort (highest marks recorded in the last 10 years), shaming many more of the more academically "gifted" students.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said, I'm not preaching anything what so ever, you're ascribing a position to me to which I'm not stating.
To clarify:
Can children have a great experience abroad, yes. Can children have a great experience in the UK yes.
Is taking them out of school to go on holiday for the experience justified, I don't care it's their business.
Is taking them out of school for holidays to save money, yes and I don't blame them.
Do they have to be taken on a foreign holiday to have great experiences, no.
Is the excuse parents use for taking their children out of school early for foreign holidays "for the experience" bogus, in the main yes, it's because many parents want a holiday themselves which is fine and to save money, just be honest about it don't try and sell us a load of BS. The many parents trying to make out they are taking their children out of school to go on some cultural extravaganza is laughable. There are no doubt some that do (perhaps you), but theme parks and resorts in the main aren't one of them.
Last edited:
Isn't this argument the same used by some to give the reasons why the poor are poor and poo pooed by the left the same fallacy? That if they tried harder, they would be more successful?
I'm 96% certain you're not a genius.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
They wont be so poor if they took up Amiga's amazing offer
Dog = bone.
So to sum up you have no problem with parents taking kids away as long as it suits your mandate of "we are going to save money". Glad we could clear that up and progress the discussion onto what the government now plan to do in light of:
1) people who have paid the fine already (estimated to be more than £10m) can now claim it back provided their childs attendance meets a threshold
2) that we will begin to see ever increasing government control over children and their family life. Even though its 2016, we still haven't arrived at 1984
My view is that parents are the people who should decide what is best for their children. As long as they are sensible and responsible about what they do I don't see it matters all too much.
Mandate has nothing to do with anything, are you sure you even know what it means? What I am saying is parents should stop BSing everyone, I thought I made that perfectly clear. I have a lot more respect for someone's plight if they weren't full of **** and trying to treat everyone like mugs. That's the problem I have.
Laws or rules are made with the lowest common denominator in mind unfortunately. There will be parents that will not be sensible and responsible. Weren't there the example of parents wanting to take their children out of school for a three/four week holiday to Australia a few years back?
The optimal solution would be as stated before and that is for schools to stagger holidays so not everyone is off at the same time. Or perhaps introduce some leeway for pupils that have very good attendance records.
Last edited:
Parents who deem it reasonable to take their children out of education for a week should be allowed to do just that...what right does the state have to punish someone for exercising responsibility, after all isn't that what parenthood is all about.
Parenthood doesn't mean you have complete authority over your children.
The state has a duty of care to those children.
What would you think if a parent deemed it reasonable to miss 5 weeks of school? Not go to school at all?
Or is it only okay because you have a threshold in mind you feel is appropriate, and your opinion is the one that matters.
The law as it stands appears to be that a child can miss 10% of school days (unauthorised) before being deemed persistently truant. It seems that wasn't the original intention when the rules were tightened up, and so the law will be strengthened further to ensure the original intention remains enforeceable.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Of course a parent has complete authority. A parent can take a child out of the school system entirely if they wish.
And I suggest you learn the difference between 'authority' and 'duty of care'.
The state has a duty of care, but we should be encouraging parents to take responsibility for themselves and their children.
The state is not the legal guardian of the nations children, the parents are. They are legally and morally bound to look after the welfare of their children. Not the state.
This is a yet another tax on the working classes. If children meet a level of reasonable attendance over a given time, the parents should be allowed to take them out of school.
The state already wields too much power as it is.
The state is not the legal guardian of the nations children, the parents are. They are legally and morally bound to look after the welfare of their children. Not the state.
This is a yet another tax on the working classes. If children meet a level of reasonable attendance over a given time, the parents should be allowed to take them out of school.
The state already wields too much power as it is.
Don't twist my words.
When did I say parents can't do that. Secondly a parent does not have complete authority.
The state has a duty of care to provide an education to all under 18s.
If parents want to take the child out of education completely (not partially and when they see fit) as long as education is being provided that is fine.
Going on vacation reduces attendance and hence the quantity of education being provided. The state has a duty of care that education is provided or an equivalent is being provided privately. Going on a family holiday is not an equivalent.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
To quantify, what % attendance do you see as minimum standard?
nope it was down to the court to rule on how the law applied - I suggest you read the OP and the associated story as this is the reason for the thread in the first place
if a kid has poor attendance the parents can still be fined
Whilst this happens to be the case. Even if the law set the threshold at 99%, I doubt this thread would be any different in terms of attitude.
Anger is already being expressed in this thread that the law is being tightened up.
- Status