#23

And from the other side - I missed 2 days of school once when my parents took me on a holiday to Disneyworld.

I do not feel that holiday was in any way lifechanging and think that if it hadn’t happened I’d have turned out exactly the same.

#24

I don’t know about this guy - he sounds like a self-righteous pillock

but massive price hikes in all kinds of travel & kids activities during school holidays means that a lot of parents are priced right out of the only foreign holiday that they would otherwise be able to afford if they left early/late & missed a couple of days of school

it’s pretty divisive to have foreign holidays only available to the kids of wealthier parents - doubly so if there’s an extra layer of ‘I can afford the fine’ in taking kids out of school

also, Gove is a 24karat Mach5 Turbothundercunt

2 Likes
#25

As a parent I should be able to decide when I can afford to take my child on holiday, at the expense of a few days of missed school

3 Likes
#26

Hah! A bloke from the council has just said that a government expert on mathematics has told him that 90% attendance means one day off school every fortnight. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

I think if the guy gets much more publicity today he might just explode. He seems to be unravelling by the hour.

#27

The divisive thing there is the wealth of the family, not the policy of the school. Rich kids get lots of things that poor kids don’t get, why should foreign holidays be a special exception?

I realise I’m being serious here, which belies the intention behind my original post. The problem with this guy is not that he took his kids out of school for a holiday. Whether he or anyone else does is none of my business. The thing that’s funny is that he chose to make a martyr of himself and now it’s exploded in his face.

1 Like
#28

The schools should look after the kids while the parents go on holiday (to Hedonism).

#29

Exactly this!

1 Like
#30

this is some really odd thinking …The hard line on both taking time off school & fines for doing so, coupled with school holiday premium price hikes AMPLIFIES the gap between haves & have nots - it isn’t neutral, it’s a contributing & exacerbating factor to social division

4 Likes
#31

Just make the fines punitive. 2% of annual income & capital gains of the legal guardian for every relevant day of absence concerned or something. The system will be expensive to administer, so we can also load the costs of collection onto them as well. Can’t think of a single problem with that system…

#32

#33

Oh do you know Simon too?

#34

I keep singing this thread title to this tune:

1 Like
#35

Really think fining people for this just makes the divide greater as the ‘haves’ will be able to either easily afford the fine or easily afford a holiday somewhere in normal holiday times.

Meanwhile those who might have just enough to take their kids somewhere special at term time now can’t do anything at all. The whole industry needs regulating to make it fairer before just fining the parents.

4 Likes
#36

yeah, pretty much what I said upthread

also, 100% convinced that Gove’s motivation for introducing this law was nothing other than total authoritarianism

2 Likes
#37

I think this might be my first ever tentative foray into the medium of clickbait.

#38

Nobody’s disagreeing with your second point, that’s part of what makes it hilarious. Your first is still as misdirected and woolly as it was when you first said it.

#39

??

I disapprove of a law that locks down and promotes social division that was hitherto open to a workaround

how is that misdirected & woolly ?

1 Like
#40

We all disapprove of it. That wasn’t the point you were debating. You were making the case for people being able to take their kids out of school during term-time. That was already discouraged/prevented/fined before Gove got involved.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your point seriously.

Firstly, Gove’s policy is as you said authoritarian, unhelpful and needlessly punitive. The fact that it’s hilariously snared a twat doesn’t detract from that. But that’s not the point under discussion.

The argument against taking kids out of school in term time is supposedly that it’s been demonstrated to be harmful to children’s education (not just the one taken out, also their classmates). That may also be bollocks, but that’s the case that’s made. One could suggest that alllowing poorer children to receive a substandard education would be a bigger social injustice than depriving them of Disneyland (a place most children will never go to).

It seems to me a preferable scenario would be something like the old one, where headteachers were allowed to exercise their skilled judgment in considering applications on a case by case basis, and were able to agree mitigating learning plans for the kids. That would seem to be a grown-up way to approach things.

The reason your argument is woolly is that you make this instance of rich privilege equivalent to other forms. That is not true. Expensive holidays are not a human right, and nobody ever suffered in any significant way from not ever having one.

1 Like
#41

completely agree that a case-by-case system seems sensible. give parents some windows in the term calendar when holiday requests will be considered (e.g .not near exams etc), and ensure that the students catch up through self-study supported by their parents and with minimal disruption or burden on the school or other students.

#42

wrong, I was making the case that this law further divides social class by locking poorer parents into obedience while freeing wealthier parents to be able to carry on taking their kids out of school during term-time by paying a fine

agree 100%

it’s also been demonstrated that social anxiety and relative poverty/diminished status are harmful to childrens’ education & that holidays away from home are beneficial to their education and general mental health & wellbeing

was never arguing that they were - quite the opposite

2 Likes