[Closed] Term Time Holidays - The Arguments Can Continue.

What if you can afford it but just don't particularly like getting utterly shafted for a holiday that was literally a third of the price the previous week?

Suck it up buttercup. You chose to have the kids, deal with the consequences of your choices.

convert - Member
Its been a long day, either im missing something or i womt be investimg im Footlaps Corp.
For my own interests I had a quick look at TUI's figures over the last few years - in a former life I worked for a firm that was bought up by TUI. In the last 10 years they don't seem to have posted figures with a profit margin ratio of greater than 6% and that was a standout year from one of the most successful firms in the sector. That's dire - healthy in most industries would be around 30%. Whilst it might seem like you are being 'ripped off' by greedy companies in high season that's a very sucky return. Definitely not to be invested in!

You do know its 2017 right? For any company in most sectors to be posting double digit growth would be a good if not exceptional year. To suggest thast 6% growth is "dire" and 30% acceptable is frankly quite bonkers, especially when you consider the threat on airline & european business from multiple directions such as terrorism and the weaker £1.

Your earlier post was clearer to you and footflaps acknowledging my first which remains correct; The higher prices and volumes of non term holiday makers supplement the lower prices empty planes/hotels of term time, thats obvious and undisputed. For footflaps to suggest plane seats are rationed is - at least without evidence - ludicrous - as mentioned in the last three summer holidasy period theres not been an obvious empty seat to span that I've been on.

Vis a Vis, yesterday I re-created our August holiday that we originally booked in February. Its 25% more expensive and about 50% more expensive than if we flew out next week. So I could get on the same plane, go to the same hotel and have the same experience with the exception of a slighly cooler climate and pay 50% less. Just to apply that to the current argument roughly speaking that equates to £1800, yet I'd have to pay £60 to take jnr out of school with permission.

So I'd save £1740. Not really to be sniffed at is it? The moral fact then becomes is that £1740 worth Jnr missing school for 7 school days? My choice is to accept that, or go on a £1740 cheaper holiday in August and allow jnr to remain in school.

newrobdob - Member
Poor analogy - you don't have to go on holiday so you can choose not to pay the £3000 extra.

reluctantlondoner - Member
Suck it up buttercup. You chose to have the kids, deal with the consequences of your choices.

Or... I can choose not to "suck it up", take my kids out of school, go on holiday, and not pay £3000 extra for it. 😀

I'm a bit confused by what the argument is now, the parents taking their kids out of school to go on a cheaper holiday are saving what? Hundreds, potentially thousands of pounds and are complaining about a £60 fine? Is it the money that annoys them? Or is the principle? (was tempted to do a cr*p pun then, but thought better of it!). A couple on here seem to have no problem with being able to afford it after all.

If the latter then surely they can appreciate that the rules are there not to target them, but to control the "lowest common denominator" and make life easier for those who are in what is already a pretty unenviable trade? Do I just have more empathy for the teachers? Or too little empathy for the value of cheap holidays for my kids?

Or... I can choose not to "suck it up", take my kids out of school, go on holiday, and not pay £3000 extra for it.

Please do us all a favour and announce to the forum exactly when you do this so that we can all make sure to be somewhere very different.

Peyote: my argument is basically

A) the fines only punish people who would save less than £60 on their holiday

B) there are pretty clear reasons why people take kids out: some people can't get time off during the school holidays and some people don't want to get shafted by 300% price increases. You won't stop people taking kids out unless these are addressed somehow.

some people don't want to get shafted by 300% price increases.

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.

Please do us all a favour and announce to the forum exactly when you do this so that we can all make sure to be somewhere very different.

Well presumably you'll all be stuck at work with you kids in school. 😉

But for the record, this year I took my kids out for four days before the Feb half term so we could go skiing in the 3 Valleys.
The kids are 3 & 6, I had the school's permission, and I don't think it massively hurt their degree prospects.
They spent a week in the mountains being active, trying new foods and learning some French. We caught up what little missed schoolwork there was during half term.

No regrets.

It's not as if this is a new thing, holidays have always been more expensive around kids holidays. Kids holidays are going to be more anyway as they are based around public holidays and the best weather.

If you can save £3k by going in term time then you must be going on some seriously fancy holidays - no sympathy from me -sorry!

Bragging rights? 😆
My "new Audi" is a ten year old second hand Ford Focus. My mountain bike is a steel hardtail from 2003.

We don't go on "fancy holidays" to brag about it. We go because we enjoy them. Most of our holidays involve camping in the UK.

Screw the kids education, they just want to show off.

Or they want some time with the family as one week away has no effect on their education.

Or they want some time with the family

Which can easily be done in the school holidays for minimal cost.

What none of you will admit is that you could have a perfectly good cheap family holiday in your kids holiday periods - but not to the fancy places you feel you [i]have[/i] to go to to keep up with the Joneses.

there are pretty clear reasons why people take kids out: [b]some people can't get time off during the school holidays[/b] and some people don't want to get shafted by 300% price increases.

And this is where I have some sympathy. There is a system in place that allows headteachers some discretion. Is it being used amicably and fairly however? Is the stage of schooling the child is in and the time in the academic year being taken into account? A parent that simply can't take away with their child in the holiday period (and maybe has a letter from their employer backing this up) should be treated differently to a parent wanting to save a few quid or more accurately get a more salubrious holiday than they could otherwise afford. Provided that it's not 4 times a year and they are doing their best to mitigate the issue and their child is not in dire straights academically or the time of year is not catastrophic for their child's educational welfare.

This is where I have to declare my hand - in my role in an independent school I get requests all the time for students to have time off. It is my role to be the arbiter, although I have one person more senior than me to back up my judgement. Some are pretty clear cut easy to grant situations. Other parents quite frankly need saving from themselves, or rather their kids need saving from their parents' whims. The school takes a tough line and will not sanction time away that is not considered reasonable- we don't get strong armed by fee paying parents. Parents who remove their kids anyway in this situation anyway find themselves in a meeting with the managing head with a pretty clear message that their child's place in the school is at risk unless they abide by what they signed up for. To be honest that has more bite than a £60 fine will ever have but with are in the enviable situation to be able to act like that although it rarely happens. Mostly it's about educating the parents about being a responsible parent. I am talking about 6th form here mind - the stakes for missing vital weeks of school for a skiing holiday are pretty high.

Which can easily be done in the school holidays for minimal cost.

Not if you're not off during the holidays.

What none of you will admit is that you could have a perfectly good cheap family holiday in your kids holiday periods - but not to the fancy places you feel you have to go to to keep up with the Joneses.

It's not about that in my case.

And this is where I have some sympathy. There is a system in place that allows headteachers some discretion. Is it being used amicably and fairly however? Is the stage of schooling the child is in and the time in the academic year being taken into account? A parent that simply can't take away with their child in the holiday period (and maybe has a letter from their employer backing this up) should be treated differently to a parent wanting to save a few quid or more accurately get a salubrious holiday than they could otherwise afford. Provided that it's not 4 times a year and they are doing their best to mitigate the issue and their child is not is dire straights academically or the time of year is not catastrophic for their child's educational welfare.

Precisely.

Are you saying you can never get any time off at all during your kids holidays? Not buying that.

If you can save £3k by going in term time then you must be going on some seriously fancy holidays

You think? Here is an example I posted last time this came up. This isn't cherry-picked, this is a "fancy holiday" we went on, a week skiing in France:

[img] [/img]

That price is per-person. There were five of us. How much did going in term time save?

Thanks Graham

A) the fines only punish people who would save less than £60 on their holiday

So "increase the fines to make them work" I suppose would be the response to that

B) there are pretty clear reasons why people take kids out: some people can't get time off during the school holidays

Surely these people have made a choice to take that job/career path and should accept the consequences of their choices though? Expecting others to work around this seems a bit... ...selfish (for want of a better non inflammatory word)

and some people don't want to get shafted by 300% price increases.

Again, isn't this something that people should take into account when choosing where/when to go on holiday though? Or even when they factor in having/accepting responsibility for having kids, same as the additional food, clothes, utilities that having to support 1+ additional lives requires.

Are you saying you can never get any time off at all during your kids holidays? Not buying that

I'm not a teacher, neither is my wife. Getting a week off together is rare and usually outside the school holidays. Not sure why you think I'd be lying.

Surely these people have made a choice to take that job/career path and should accept the consequences of their choices though? Expecting others to work around this seems a bit... ...selfish (for want of a better non inflammatory word)

Yeah **** 'em.

Yeah **** 'em.

Who? The education professionals or the parents who want the holidays?

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.

Not sure what rules they are breaking - could you enlighten me?

What rules did [i]I[/i] break?

I informed the school (in writing to the head and informally to the teachers) and I received their consent back.

What is it that upsets you all so much about that? The feeling that I "cheated"?

you choose to disrupt your kid's education and their school just so you could do something you wanted - me me me

Correct I did. (Well it was "us us us" rather than "me me me").
It was a considered decision that we made as a family and wasn't made lightly.

You get free education but that requires you to take responsibility..

And I do take full responsibility for making that decision.

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....

You did however grow up completely unable to make a reasoned sensible argument out of logical points, by the look of it 🙂

To help you out a bit - anecdotes aren't data.

The basis is that "not having children" was used as excuse to continue a vastly more materialistic life.

Who said anything about materialism?

I've given up plenty of experiences I could have had for the sake of my family - including my wife. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it isn't always about material possessions.

You make a choice to have a child (or marry a teacher in my case) then you know that you're stuck on more expensive holidays, that's just how it works. If you want cheaper holidays, don't have kids or don't marry a teacher. Simple.

And as ever, the rules have to work for the lowest common denominator, I'm sure the people of STW would never hurt their child's education for a cheaper holiday, but others may do and you can't have rules that only apply to one type of person I'm afraid.

you can't have rules that only apply to one type of person I'm afraid.

You can if we allow teachers to continue to use their judgement and discretion instead of making blanket rules.

you choose to disrupt your kid's education and their school just so you could do something you wanted - me me me

Correct I did. (Well it was "us us us" rather than "me me me").
It was a considered decision that we made as a family and wasn't made lightly.

If Grahem popped up here and said "hey, but taking my kid out of school I said some money to buy a new bike" I'd understand this attitude. But likely he did it at least to be able to take the kids and his wife someone nice, and perhaps used the saved money for thier clothes, electricity, food etc outside the holiday aka thier benefit.

I don't for one minute believe Graham saved to cash to piss it up the wall at his kids expense.

you can't have rules that only apply to one type of person I'm afraid.

If the rule is 'at head teacher's discretion' then it can easily apply to everyone.

It's not a secret that some kids catch on much faster than others. So some kids could handle the absence, some woudn't. Also, some parents are conscientious enough to make their kids do school work on holiday, some aren't - also not a secret.

You make a choice to have a child (or marry a teacher in my case) then you know that you're stuck on more expensive holidays, that's just how it works. If you want cheaper holidays, don't have kids or don't marry a teacher. Simple.

28 years ago those rules didn't exist or 15 years ago.

but others may do and you can't have rules that only apply to one type of person I'm afraid.

Probably very few so a majority now get punished for a minority.

The school breaks up for summer holidays on a Monday this year. A bloody Monday. What pratt made that decision ?'
They'll be making a few quid in fines this year

If the rule is 'at head teacher's discretion' then it can easily apply to everyone.

It's not a secret that some kids catch on much faster than others. So some kids could handle the absence, some wouldn't. Also, some parents are conscientious enough to make their kids do school work on holiday, some aren't - also not a secret.

It is much, much easier, and some would say fairer, to do as is being done and put a blanket ban on it,

You should have stopped at easier.

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.

yeah, i bet most kids would love that. 'sorry kids, no snow time for you, we're going to a cottage with granddad, maybe fit in some hill walking' 😉

You did however grow up completely unable to make a reasoned sensible argument out of logical points, by the look of it

To help you out a bit - anecdotes aren't data.

Nope just didn't read the rest of the thread and stated my opinion. Did you take it from my not so serious post that I was trying to make a serious arguement out of logical points..?

No need to help me out though. First class honours degree from St Andrews and all that, probably indicates I can do that by myself. And definitely no need for help from intranet know it alls who couldn't take a few weeks off in primary school as they weren't bright enough to catch up afterwards

thanks for the offer though

...

😉

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 really afford that. Not properly. He should stop cheating and be miserable like us"

I'm going to USA for 3 weeks this summer so am not at all jealous of your ski trip...lack the knees and hips for it these days anyway but taking kids out of school to spend a week skiing would be beyond what I would consider acceptable with junior. I have zero sympathy for your position.
Drac on the other hand if he really cant get any time off as a family can have the pleasure of my sympathy...I'm sure he will be thrilled!!
I cant help but think we are coming at this from the wrong angle if employers cannot help out a little here..maybe not every year but at least every other or something what have we created? An unequal, zero hours, overworked labour force that must go on till it drops...sad indictment of our country.

taking kids out of school to spend a week skiing would be beyond what I would consider acceptable with junior.

Out of interest how old is your junior? My eldest daughter is only 6, which obviously influenced my decision. If she was in the middle of studying for exams it'd be a different story.

Mine is six too, although I am a teacher so I expect my views are coloured by experience and I cant take holidays outside term time anyway!!
But hey its only my opinion!!
I had a kid taken on holiday for 2 weeks 3 weeks before his gcse's...the parent was mighty pissed off with the school as he didnt do well enough to do the a levels he wanted...that sort of shit is child abuse imo.
I guess I wouldnt take junior out, if I could as I want to demonstrate to him how important education is.