So "increase the fines to make them work" I suppose would be the response to that
You'd just end up punishing poorer families who are going on holidays where the fine is more than they would save.
Look at the example above. You'd have to make the fine five grand to impact that one!
Expecting others to work around this seems a bit... ...selfish
Two things: society makes all kinds of concessions for people with kids. They are a fact of life.
Secondly, if done [i]sensibly[/i], taking the kids out of school should require no significant "working around" by anyone.
isn't this something that people should take into account when choosing where/when to go on holiday though?
It is. So they adjust the "when" by going in term time.
Who? The education professionals or the parents who want the holidays?
The parents who chose a different career to you.
Wrong, they just want to make sure they get bragging rights over the Joneses about the fancy holiday they went in, just the same as buying their new Audi helped in the driveway wars.Screw the kids education, they just want to show off.
I love this bitter bullshit.
Since when is saving £1000's showing off? If I choose to pay extra for a fancy holiday becuase I can afford it, thats my choice. However as I said, some (inc. me) are not in the position where looking a £1000 saving gift horse in the mouth is a luxury to be disregarded.
The choice is a £940 money saved once you take of the £60 fine vs the morals of kids out of school. I'm not going to preach which is wring or right, its your choice.
I don't see that any difference whether you're holiday is £10000 or £100, money saved is money saved vs the moral issue.
You'd have to make the fine five grand to impact that one!
It'd pay for free school meals!
Two things: society makes all kinds of concessions for people with kids. They are a fact of life.Secondly, if done sensibly, taking the kids out of school should require no significant "working around" by anyone.
Agreed, I'm not sure that completely negates my point though. Isn't it a matter of how significant those concessions are? "If done sensibly" is the key bit though isn't it. As ever, it boils down to the those who take the rip, and making rules to cater for them.
The parents who chose a different career to you.
Interesting assumption, but anyway, no don't "**** 'em". Give them as much leeway as you can within the system, ultimately we all make choices in our lives, if you can't live with those choices you change them, no?
Or change the system of course, which is another alternative explored earlier on in this thread...
To those sticking to the 'you made your bed now lie in it' line as a general point to parents - we can ask another question:
Why make someone's life needlessly more difficult?
(Note that I am not advocating parents are able to take kids out whenever they want - I am in favour of mutual planning by school and family and head's discretion.)
Well presumably you'll all be stuck at work with you kids in school.
No.
I don't have children and I actively seek to avoid exposure to them.
I like it when parents play fair and stick to allotted holidays to allow for a degree of segregation.
Why make someone's life needlessly more difficult?
"Why make teachers lives more needlessly difficult for the sake of someone's holiday?" would I'm sure be an appropriate counter-question.
I don't have children and I actively seek to avoid exposure to them.
Then I'd suggest you are not well placed to comment on parenting issues.
I like it when parents play fair
Fair is an interesting term.
Look at the prices I posted. Tell me what is "fair" about that ~300% price increase?
Consider parents who can't get time off together during school holidays. What is "fair" about telling them they just don't get to go on holiday till the kids grow up?
Consider parents who can't get time off together during school holidays. What is "fair" about telling them they just don't get to go on holiday till the kids grow up?
You realise you can't win this Graham, vs those whom you're arguing with. Whilst you and I "selfishly" chose to have children, and "selfishly" do our best to bring them up in the best possible way, there is of course no way we've compromised our own lives is there? Whilst those that "unselfishly" don't have kids and the associated responsibility to another spunk thier money away on themselves.
Its an amazing attitude I've come across before - "I won't have little brats becuase that would impact my life" - who's selfish now?
Becuase wh chose that path doesn't mean we need to piss away our wages needlessly. Nor does it mean we should voluntarly halt the finer things in life within our financial reach and there be subject to penalty.
"Why make teachers lives more needlessly difficult for the sake of someone's holiday?" would I'm sure be an appropriate counter-question
The many teachers I've spoke to say it doesn't.
"Why make teachers lives more needlessly difficult for the sake of someone's holiday?" would I'm sure be an appropriate counter-question.
My question was more general - not specifically related to kids and school holidays.
It's the attitude of 'you had kids, you have to put up with <insert issue here>' that I am questioning, but only lightly.
Its an amazing attitude I've come across before - "I won't have little brats becuase that would impact my life" - who's selfish now?
Can you be selfish at the expense of someone who doesn't exist?
The many teachers I've spoke to say it doesn't.
Well if the teachers are happy with it, then so am I! As Mols almost said "Why make someone's life more difficult if three's no need for it?".
Wonder what the driver behind the policy was?
Can you be selfish at the expense of someone who doesn't exist?
The basis is that "not having children" was used as excuse to continue a vastly more materialistic life.
I'm not against that, everyone's free to make thier own decisions but you can't cry foul against the "selfishness" of a parent wanting to save money when using that excuse.
"Not sure why you think I'd be lying."
I worked in retail for 12 years, my wife did the same. I had to book all my holidays off between 14-16 MONTHS in advance. No time allowed off at bank holidays or November/December so you can imagine how crowded the rest of the available spots were. But we always managed to get 4 weeks off together.
"That price is per-person. There were five of us. How much did going in term time save?"
A skiing trip to France? Not exactly a necessary thing to do is it? Sorry absolutely no sympathy from me. Suck it up princess.
Look I am sorry you've got kids. But that's your choice. The increased cost during their holidays is something that's been around for decades so it shouldn't be surprised. You could just as easily rent a lovely cottage in the U.K. for the cost of one of your family to go on the skiing trip. And then you could have precious family time together AND save even more money AND your kids will have 100% of their very precious education.
Why make someone's life more difficult if three's no need for it?".
Exactly. It makes my life more difficult.
But we always managed to get 4 weeks off together.
Must be nice. I work in the NHS as does my wife we're lucky to get 2 weeks off together and it's not in school holidays.
Exactly. It makes my life more difficult.
But is there a need for it? The teachers you've questioned don't appear to believe so. But is that the case for all within the education profession?
If yes, then why is such a policy in place?
If no, then I'm afraid I revert to my original argument. You makes your choices, you take the responsibility of those choices.
A skiing trip to France? Not exactly a necessary thing to do is it?
No you're right, it's not. Not many holidays are "necessary" though are they?
Sorry absolutely no sympathy from me.
Yes we've established that you think a week skiing in France is a "seriously fancy holiday" that I foolishly only take to keep up with the Joneses. So I don't expect any sympathy.
Suck it up princess.
Or... y'know.. don't!
You could just as easily rent a lovely cottage in the U.K. for the cost of one of your family to go on the skiing trip.
UK cottages have notoriously poor snow conditions though. 🙂
Also did you miss the bit where I said most of our holidays are camping in the UK?
newrobdob - Member"That price is per-person. There were five of us. How much did going in term time save?"
A skiing trip to France? Not exactly a necessary thing to do is it? Sorry absolutely no sympathy from me. Suck it up princess.
Genuine question - is your life surround by only exactly what is you need to survive? And you've never bought anything which could be remotely superflous to survival?
But is there a need for it? The teachers you've questioned don't appear to believe so. But is that the case for all within the education profession?
The need to some time together as falmily? Yeah it's a pretty big need.
If no, then I'm afraid I revert to my original argument. You makes your choices, you take the responsibility of those choices.
But when I made my career choice and later to have kids this wasn't in. Up here it only came to effect 5 years ago, 5 years after my kids started school.
the other was on child protection and how to spot and deal with signs of child abuse. So both totally useless!
Good to know you put this in high regard.
I don't know you, but have met plenty of entitled a'holes with the same attitude.
So have I , most of them teachers
Newrobdob is clearly smoking something odd if he thinks a cottage in the UK during term time isn't massively hit by an uplift in seasonal pricing. Typically 3x more expensive in my considerable experience.
The need to some time together as falmily? Yeah it's a pretty big need.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Not a need for family time, a need for this policy of 'no holidays in term time'.
If there is no need for such a policy (as your research suggests) what is the driver? Have any of the teachers you've spoken to explained at all? Curious to find out more as it isn't something I have much knowledge of.
If there is no need for such a policy (as your research suggests) what is the driver? Have any of the teachers you've spoken to explained at all? Curious to find out more as it isn't something I have much knowledge of.
They think it isn't necessary if a child has good attendance and are on target. The drive will be crap government targets at a guess.
I'm happy for parents to arrange term-time holidays, as long as:
a)they (at their expense) employ a tutor to cover what the child has missed, and-
b)there's no 'drag' on my child caused by the teacher having to 'special' the missing kids when they return
Seems the school behind me has sent out letters today informing parents their kids will break up a week earlier this year than planned giving them an extra week off. I wonder hwo they fine for that?
There was a school local to me that organised all the inset days to be in a week before holidays, to allow for early holidays for children and parents. The ones who could afford it anyway!
I have no sympathy for people who take out their kids to save money on a holiday. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it and breaching the rules to satisfy your wants is an appalling example. Parents who could not otherwise have a family holiday because of the nature of their work, I have some sympathy for.
I have no sympathy for people who take out their kids to save money on a holiday. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it and breaching the rules to satisfy your wants is an appalling example.
In essence I agree.
But, those very rules make it favorable, and therefore the jusdement for doing so remains a moral one. If the fine was £1000 they wouldn't be so inclined, I bet.
I have no sympathy for people who take out their kids to save money on a holiday.
Jolly good.
I [i]do[/i] have sympathy for people who would [i]like[/i] to take a holiday, but can't stomach paying 300% more for it just because they are unwilling to "breach the rules".
Maybe if secondary education wasn't a rote learned test of memory providing mass produced molded sausages for the machine, id actually give a plop.
I do have sympathy for people who would like to take a holiday, but can't stomach paying 300% more for it just because they are unwilling to "breach the rules".
Where does it stop? What rules shouldn't be breached to get what you want? It is just selfishness, if you want to go on a more expensive holiday, do some overtime.
I do have sympathy for people who would like to take a holiday, but can't stomach paying 300% more for it just because they are unwilling to "breach the rules".
Then don't look at the prices at the times you can't go. What you don't know and all that.
It costs that amount to go on holiday in the time allowed. Go or not based on that.
I wouldn't go off sick for a week to save money on a holiday at a time when I couldn't get the time off...
Fines should be higher and go into a pot to share out to those families who take their holidays when they're meant to. Like me....
Then don't look at the prices at the times you can't go.
**** sake. 😆 😆
I wouldn't go off sick for a week to save money on a holiday at a time when I couldn't get the time off...
Not even if you were going to the Isle of Man.
All this "Suck it up" and "don't go if you can't afford it" smacks of people trying to reassure themselves.
It's like you are saying to yourself "Oh, he went on a nice holiday when we didn't. But he's cheating! He can't [i]really[/i] afford that. Not properly. He should stop cheating and be miserable like us"
No ta!
Where does it stop? What rules shouldn't be breached to get what you want?
Yep. It's the fall of civilised society as we know it. Taking the kids out of school for a few days is very much the same as an armed robbery 🙄
So it's envy you accusing us of Graham?
Interesting.
No you went on an aspirational holiday you couldn't afford in the prescribed time, it is perfectly possible to go skiing for far less, you just choose not to.
I suppose the point is that education is worth more to some than to others. How many years do those parents who do this intend to do it for? Just infant school? If you just pay the fines is it OK to carry on doing it?
So it's envy you accusing us of Graham?
No, more self-justification I think.
You made your moral choice and it upsets you that someone making a different choice is quite happy about it. He should be ashamed and suck it up like you did.
No you went on an aspirational holiday you couldn't afford in the prescribed time
It's like those bastards that "cheat" by buying aspirational luxury cars second hand instead of paying full price for a new one at the dealership like they are meant to.
FWIW I think that anyone paying over nine grand for a one-week package hotel ski holiday in France (aspirational? really?) has far more money than sense. But if they want to pay that, knowing people the previous week paid a third of that for exactly the same holiday, then fair play to them.
it is perfectly possible to go skiing for far less, you just choose not to.
Quite the opposite: I chose to do exactly that, by shifting my dates.
No, more self-justification I think.You made your moral choice and it upsets you that someone making a different choice is quite happy about it. He should be ashamed and suck it up like you did.
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!
It's like those bastards that "cheat" by buying aspirational luxury cars second hand instead of paying full price for a new one at the dealership like they are meant to.
Not sure what rules they are breaking - could you enlighten me?
Quite the opposite: I chose to do exactly that, by shifting my dates.
Yes it is, you can look at far cheaper resorts and you can go self catering. You choose not too, you choose to disrupt your kid's education and their school just so you could do something you wanted - me me me and then accuse people of jealousy. You get free education but that requires you to take responsibility just like we require those parents who children play truant.
I think there is alot of justification for this law
You only need to look at how the kids from earlier generations panned out before this law was introduced to understand how important it is.
My class mates and I were all allowed to be taken out of school in the 80s and 90s and the consequences have been dire, none of us managed to gain a good education, go to university, or find well paid jobs that contribute to society...
oh wait....
Maybe Peyote 🙂
But then I don't condem others who made the opposite choice or accuse them of being bad parents, irresponsible, selfish, etc.
But then I don't condem others who made the opposite choice or accuse them of being bad parents, irresponsible, selfish, etc.
You are hardly shy of voicing your opinion on other threads, which is why I am enjoying your hypocrisy so much.