Take YOUR Kid Out of School Without Permission? Court Will Take Your Furniture...or Jail Term.

originally posted by: greencmp
For a group of people who are absolutely adamant that new laws must be created to right existing wrongs, this is a very cavalier attitude that I cannot reconcile.

I'm not sure which group of people you are referring to who wish new laws to right existing wrongs, but as you are from the US I am not surprised that you find such a cavalier attitude hard to reconcile.
We are policed by consent in the UK. Our police mostly carry extendable batons and less than one in ten will have a tazer. Even then they only use them if you are being a prick to them.
Every single parent I know laughs at the penalty for taking kids on holiday during term time. Everyone lies that their kid was sick and doesn't have to pay it, aside from my friend who fronts it and pays because it is still a saving on flights compared to school holiday time.

You live in a fear controlled society with cops who enforce the rules and seem to think nothing about shooting you dead if you fail to comply. In the UK we do not, so we can pick and choose with stupid laws and laugh to ourselves after we get away with it because no roid-rage cop is gonna break our door down to enforce it.
The US is far from the land of the free as some claim. It is a better description of the UK if you ask me.

a reply to: grainofsand

So, you are sympathetic to the libertarian point of view that laws against non-violent behavior are at best useless or at worst harmful and destructive?

a reply to: greencmp

I don't respect any law just because it is a law.
It is against the law in Saudi for women to drive, so would you respect that law because it is 'the law'?
I pick and choose as most folk I know do, and live a life based on moral reasoning, not what the government tells me.
Perhaps you drop to your knees with a begging mouth to 'the law' but I don't, and I don't really know anyone who does in the UK because we are certainly not as oppressed as you poor folks in the US.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: greencmp

I don't respect any law just because it is a law.
It is against the law in Saudi for women to drive, so would you respect that law because it is 'the law'?
I pick and choose as most folk I know do, and live a life based on moral reasoning, not what the government tells me.
Perhaps you drop to your knees with a begging mouth to 'the law' but I don't, and I don't really know anyone who does in the UK because we are certainly not as oppressed as you poor folks in the US.

So you agree that the law against going on vacation with your children is at least foolish but, you defend it anyway?

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: jude11

"An academy" sounds as if it is a private school. Is that the case?

Sounds like it really should be a badge of honour doesn't it?

'Academy status', however grandiose it might initially sound, actually means the opposite usually..it means the school is basically a crap school, which cannot manage it's own budgets and finances and / or is put into what 'they' call 'special measures'..academy status is a euphemism for "don't even think of sending your kids to this dump".

The family could have however chosen an alternative to just taking the kid on holiday 'without permission' (sheesh..1984 is real)...they could have written to the school prior to the anticipated trip, and declared (NOT asked by the way, but declared) that from now on, their child will be home schooled, by themselves.

They do not have to follow the curriculum, they do not have to provide an exact replica of the classroom framework the schoolkids have to, but the only requirement under law, is that they are providing an effective education covering at least the basics of the 'Three R's' , which will be gauged by testing the child from time to time by the local education authority.

Then, the kid could have been re-enrolled at the school after the trip...no fine, no court case and no problem.

I don't think the issue about this matter is a parental right to take your kid on holiday during the term. This issue never arose when I or my kids were at school. Books got taken with teachers notes and a well wish for a good break.

What this should be about is the steps our government has slyly taken in order to ratchet massive draconian legal costs onto the public should they not toe the line. Its another means of screwing the public simply because to grant the ability of increasing a £120. fine up to £3.500 is legal theft and sheer intimidation. Our law enforcement agencies and importantly the courts are supposed to focus on what we recognise as criminals, not support themselves to rip the public off to pay legal fees extorted from them.

Its not only theft, its pure legalised intimidation and intended to replace money lost from the legal aid deficit cameron robbed. It works well at keeping people down simply because despite cameron trying to get £1,000,000 allowance for the 5% elite to pass on their goods and houses wealth etc today - most of us couldn't manage to absorb £3,500 worth of legal theft. Its the governmental means that has been put into place to slyly strip money from ordinary people legally that is way out of proportion for a few days holiday. (Its not the only draconian law passed to grab people's financial assets that lot of lawyers sitting in our parliament have passed into law),

I read earlier that the budget is affected for schools if you remove your kid for some reason, but who pays when your is sick and can't attend school - no one - so the argument you are stealing from the education budget is disingenuous.

Winding up a fine of £120 for each parent to £3,500 with costs for auctioning their belongings its so wrong because its taking yet more freedoms away from all of us and getting away with intimidation and robbery. I can't help wondering how many of these 'debt collection services are privately owned by MP's relatives knowing the law protects them? Social Services are the people to deal with kids who miss school, it should not the above legal swindlers who love their jobs way too much as well as their power and can intimidate the public who have no redress but to pay these bast--ds.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: greencmp

I don't respect any law just because it is a law.
It is against the law in Saudi for women to drive, so would you respect that law because it is 'the law'?
I pick and choose as most folk I know do, and live a life based on moral reasoning, not what the government tells me.
Perhaps you drop to your knees with a begging mouth to 'the law' but I don't, and I don't really know anyone who does in the UK because we are certainly not as oppressed as you poor folks in the US.

So you agree that the law against going on vacation with your children is at least foolish but, you defend it anyway?

Nope, nowhere have I defended it, I've mocked it. Nobody forced the parents in the OP to enter into a contract with their local education authority by enrolling their child at a state school. They could home school if they wish, but they didn't and were too stupid to lie that their child was sick as everyone else I know does. Tough #.

I just disregard that penalty as I do many other laws. What, do you want me out on the streets protesting? I probably would if the law was not so easy to get around, but as it stands it is just a laughing point for every parent I know.
The parents in the OP were just stupid, naive, or media whores.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Right-on brother, Citizen Smith much? lol
The penalty is a laughing point for every parent I know as it is pretty easy to say little Johnny was sick.
Hardly the worst case of oppression in the world, get over it, at least we don't have roid-rage cops shooting us dead to enforce it.
Be happy you live in the UK.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Hear hear Shiloh7.

Well put together post if i may say.

Besides...who gets fined when the teachers decide to 'deprive' our children of their education, in their hundreds when they decide they require a teacher training day, often on 4 or 5 separate occasions annually?

If the child is so terribly deprived of his or her education of the parent decides to take them on holiday (educational trip or not), why are they not similarly and seriously deprived when the schools decide to close the gates and essentially force all the kids out of school?

Double standards is what i cannot abide...either missing school is detrimental to a child's education or it isn't.

Perhaps we ought to fine the schools when they decide to refuse our kids entry on these days, and take them to task and apply fines to the schools when our kids aren't doing so well under their system.

I'd imagine if we did that, these draconian and intimidatory tactics appearing recently would dry up quite quickly.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

A new report from the U.S. Department of Education documents that schools serving low-income students are being shortchanged because school districts across the country are inequitably distributing their state and local funds.

The analysis of new data on 2008-09 school-level expenditures shows that many high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding, leaving students in high-poverty schools with fewer resources than schools attended by their wealthier peers.

I understand that, but that doesn't make a good school bad or a bad school good. In many areas you could double the money for the schools and they will still be bad. If the neighborhood sucks so will the school. If due to your income you are forced to live in a location of high crime, drugs, dysfunctional families etc., money to the school is not going to make a difference and today you have zero choices other than to just suck it up hoping your kids don't get beat up or worst everyday of the week.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: greencmp

I don't respect any law just because it is a law.
It is against the law in Saudi for women to drive, so would you respect that law because it is 'the law'?
I pick and choose as most folk I know do, and live a life based on moral reasoning, not what the government tells me.
Perhaps you drop to your knees with a begging mouth to 'the law' but I don't, and I don't really know anyone who does in the UK because we are certainly not as oppressed as you poor folks in the US.

So you agree that the law against going on vacation with your children is at least foolish but, you defend it anyway?

Nope, nowhere have I defended it, I've mocked it. Nobody forced the parents in the OP to enter into a contract with their local education authority by enrolling their child at a state school. They could home school if they wish, but they didn't and were too stupid to lie that their child was sick as everyone else I know does. Tough #.

I just disregard that penalty as I do many other laws. What, do you want me out on the streets protesting? I probably would if the law was not so easy to get around, but as it stands it is just a laughing point for every parent I know.
The parents in the OP were just stupid, naive, or media whores.

All laws must ultimately be enforced by the threat of violence, to dismiss that fact is to misunderstand the nature of government.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master…"

-George Washington

originally posted by: MysterX

If the child is so terribly deprived of his or her education of the parent decides to take them on holiday (educational trip or not), why are they not similarly and seriously deprived when the schools decide to close the gates and essentially force all the kids out of school?

Both my kids have tutors year round, my wife spends about 1 to 2 hours per day reviewing/checking home work, we have them do workbooks in the summer for the next year... Can I get some credit for all this so when I take them out of school for a week all is good? hehe

a reply to: Xtrozero

Having decent teachers, classrooms with smaller teacher/student ratios, up-to-date textbooks and technology DOES make a difference.

originally posted by: Annee
Here we go again.

Schools work on a very tight budget. They are paid only if student is in attendance.

You take your kid out of school - - you are stealing from the government.

You don't want your kid in a government school - - then pay for a private one.

I'm missing your logic here. Help me out. How am I "stealing from the government" by taking my kid out of school? My kid does not belong to the government - I can see no logic at all that would allow for his removal from school to be "stealing". Doesn't someone have to own something first before it can be "stolen" from them?

Is it your contention that schools and governments now OWN our kids?

Doesn't that violate a 14th Amendment or something?

if this is from the telegraph, there is more to the story.....we here on ATS should realize that by now....as with FOX NEWS, you always have to cross-check, or do more in-depth research to get the true story.

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

I rarely post, but I'll say this: the fact you somehow deem this type of system as not only acceptable, but also as necessary is beyond any logical faculties of human experience.

Again, where did I say it was acceptable and/or necessary?

I said: "It is what it is".

If you've got a solution, let's hear it.

It's easy to complain. People love to complain. People love to blame others or the system.

Where are the solutions?

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder

originally posted by: Annee
Here we go again.

Schools work on a very tight budget. They are paid only if student is in attendance.

You take your kid out of school - - you are stealing from the government.
B
You don't want your kid in a government school - - then pay for a private one.

oh come now. you see nothing wrong with any of this? just hunky dory?

this is all bullcrap. if i ever have kids i do not need no damn permission to take them home.

they can take their permission and shove it.

Your solution? Give me a realistic fix.

And make sure you include how to pay for it.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
If you don't enroll your child in a school you go to jail.

Nope, not in the UK as the story in the OP is from.

UK parents are free to home-school if we wish, choose a private school if we can afford it, or enter into a contract with the local education authority if we enrol our kids in a state school.

Most people think it is law that every child in America has to go to school. It may be, but it's not enforced everywhere.

There are religious exemptions, etc. The Amish have their own school which requires (I think) a 6th grade equivalence.

Home schooling varies. I have understood homeschooled kids have to follow a state program and pass "level" tests, but I've found (in general research) that is not always the case. Some kids are homeschooled without any government standard involvement.

Some parents have set up neighborhood schools in their garages.

No child in America has to go to public school.

a reply to: Annee

Texas is very lenient with their home school laws (not surprising!). There is no required testing or state program. They just tell you that you have to teach the basics and high schoolers must have a civics course. But I don't believe they officially check that. A lot of people have moved here because of the state's hands-off approach to home schooling.

originally posted by: greencmp
All laws must ultimately be enforced by the threat of violence, to dismiss that fact is to misunderstand the nature of government.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master…"

-George Washington

Yeah but you have to remember that the story in the OP is based in the UK, we generally do not face violence from our police as you routinely do in the US. We laugh at lots of laws because we can as we don't have roid-rage cops who shoot us dead for failing to comply as you do. The parents in this story were either stupid, naive, or media whores.
Everyone I know just lies and says little Johnny was sick, then laughs at the stupid law. The parents in the OP were too stupid to do that so I have no sympathy.

AGAIN, NOBODY IS FORCED TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO STATE SCHOOL IN THE UK, WE CAN ALL HOME-SCHOOL IF WE WISH.
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY BY ENROLLING YOUR CHILD AT A STATE SCHOOL THEN THE DEAL IS UNAUTHARISED ABSENCE = £120 PENALTY. PAY IT OR JUST LIE THAT JOHNNY WAS SICK AS EVERYONE PRETTY MUCH DOES, EXCEPT THE STUPID PARENTS IN THE OP.
This is not a case of oppression. Nobody is forced to enrol their child into a state school in the UK. The contract IS A CHOICE.