Am I the only one who thinks removing the kids from school to go on hols in wrong?

ash23

pwurple wrote: »

You expect The Examiner to put in the research links as well?

Guys, come on, use the internet, yor're most of the way there. There are loads of these studies, all showing the same thing. And in fairness, I don't know why they continue to do them. I would have thought it was blatently obvious that missing out on two or three weeks every year would have an impact. There are 160 school days in a year. Assuming even that the child is never sick or never has a bereavement their whole school lives, taking the 10 days every year for a holiday every year over their lives is the equivalent of skipping a whole year. It makes a difference, whether you like it or not.

There are plenty of cases (especially in the travelling community) of children missing time and failing the junior cert. Children were historically taken out of school for farm-work, and there was an impact on the educational standards and of farmers long term.

Now, you can certainly argue that you know there is an impact, but the money is more important for your family. But saying there is no impact is just head-in-the-clouds.

It's all priorities. Everyone's are different.

When did it go from a week to 2 or 3 weeks?
OP was talking about a week. A one off. Most here saying "what harm" are NOT talking about taking a child out of school for 2 or 3 weeks every single year.

One week for a special occasion is not going to damage the childs education.

There is a difference between allowing the child to miss a week for a family wedding as a once off and a child being taken out of school for long periods on a regular basis.

Ickle Magoo

pwurple wrote: »

There are plenty of cases (especially in the travelling community) of children missing time and failing the junior cert. Children were historically taken out of school for farm-work, and there was an impact on the educational standards and of farmers long term.

I think you are in danger of falling into the old reduction fallacy...my mum was a primary head teacher in scotland and I work in adult education dealing with the 1-in-4 irish people who leave school with significant literacy and numeracy issues and we'd both be in agreement that the biggest hurdle to any child's success in school is the level of parental support ie ensuring homework is done, helping with reading, giving a wider education on top of the school day and more importantly fostering the idea of what success and potential is and encouraging their child to reach theirs.

There is no doubt there are children who have restricted development/education thanks to their parents - but parents who take their kids out of school for a week or so a year does not automatically equal restricted development, that's looking at quite a complex dynamic which has many contributing factors far too simplisticly, imo. I don't find it surprising that those in education are looking to blame those outside education either, anything else would be asking turkeys to vote for christmas...you could just as easily blame the current holiday format for meaning the school terms aren't spread well enough across the year, low teaching standards especially in deprived areas, socio-economic demographics and the psychological barriers to education they cause, a poorly balanced curriculum, lack of support staff and resources and so on...

How Strange

But surely taking your child/ren out of school for holidays sends the message that holidays and saving a few quid are more important than education.

Everyone can rationalise and justify it all they want for their own personal circumstances but is taking your child out for a week to save a few hundred on a holiday more acceptable than the parent who just doesn't want to get out of bed in the morning to bring them to school?

So what if the kids of the money saving holiday parents announce they don't want to go to school because they don't feel like or they want to go see jedward (for arguments sake) do a signing in town. How would you argue that one as a parent?

I think holidays are not a right or an entitlement but a luxury. Education isn't a la carte to suit yourselves and your vacation time.

I say this as a parent who is fully aware I'll be moaning about the huge cost of holidays abroad once my kids start school.

Tombo2001

How Strange wrote: »

I think holidays are not a right or an entitlement but a luxury. Education isn't a la carte to suit yourselves.

Sorry for personalising this but are you saying this from the point of view of not being able to afford a holiday during July August?

What was your holiday this year and when did you go?

Happyman42

How Strange wrote: »

So what if the kids of the money saving holiday parents announce they don't want to go to school because they don't feel like or they want to go see jedward (for arguments sake) do a signing in town. How would you argue that one as a parent?

How about; 'You are going to school, whether you want to or not' :rolleyes:

ash23

How Strange wrote: »

Everyone can rationalise and justify it all they want for their own personal circumstances but is taking your child out for a week to save a few hundred on a holiday more acceptable than the parent who just doesn't want to get out of bed in the morning to bring them to school?

of course it is! Not sending a child to school because you want a lie in does nothing for the child. it's selfish and lazy and isn't done with the childs happiness in mind. A holiday is a family occasion, the child will have fun and make memories. It will get new experiences and learn new things. The two aren't comparable at all.

So what if the kids of the money saving holiday parents announce they don't want to go to school because they don't feel like or they want to go see jedward (for arguments sake) do a signing in town. How would you argue that one as a parent?

You don't need to argue as a parent. You're in charge, you lay down the law in your own house and I think it's perfectly acceptable to say to a child "I believe that it's ok to miss school for a family wedding or a holiday abroad but it is not ok to miss school for x,y and z".

When they grow up and have their own sprogs, they might do it differently but while a child mightn't always agree with a parents rules (and rarely do) a parent doesn't have to justify themselves to a child.

I think holidays are not a right or an entitlement but a luxury. Education isn't a la carte to suit yourselves and your vacation time.

I say this as a parent who is fully aware I'll be moaning about the huge cost of holidays abroad once my kids start school.

Then don't go.
Leave your kids in school during term time. They're your children and it's your choice.

Nanazolie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The holiday home we stayed in this September was €450 a week, but in August it would have been €800 a week. Thats €700 over two weeks.

That was in Mayo.

I agree completely with the principal of the thing.

But a lot of people cant afford the extra.

And in general, in life, I find that the wealthier people are, the more principled and righteous they can afford to be......the likes of Bono and Angelina Jolie being prime examples.

OP, is your choice between paying extra or not paying extra. Or is your choice between not paying extra and not going. Rich persons dilemna or poor persons dilemna?

No dilemna. We can afford the trip only because we do NOT holiday. We stay with family. We don't eat out. We pay for the flights and that's that. I'm not talking about going to foreign trips like visiting Milan or the swedish fjords. We save all year round to pay for the flights. Last year, we only went once because we couldn't afford the trip at Christmas