Sunday, 26 February 2012

Gove And School Absence - More Merging Of Party Ideologies

Now, I quite like Michael Gove, he seems to be a Tory not afraid of getting his hands dirty. This monstering of Harriet Harman on Newsnight was particularly delightful, for example.

However, his stance on 'authorised absence' from schools during term time is - to be brutally honest - utter crap.

It's taken me a while to get all frothy over this, except on Twitter, but it's so wrong-headed that it's an impossibility to ignore.

Playing to the Mail gallery, he cites truancy rates and - absurdly - prison and young offender stats. Err, is there anything less likely to increase truancy/absence than state banning of something parents feel is perfectly manageable? The kids will just mysteriously become 'ill'.

As for the the likelihood of kids being taken on holiday contributing to the prison population, we're into the strange realm of government statistical analysis being twisted to suit policy. Yes, I'm sure there is a correlation between high rates of truancy and future offending. How much of that is down to the annual family holiday as opposed to persistent non-attendance though is, I expect, negligible. Gove is pulling the old political trick of comparing apples with oranges.

He seems to be wandering firmly into Guardian territory, as referred to here last March.

Once again, we see two supposedly diverse political viewpoints coming together to view state education as some utopian ideal which can't ever be replaced. Even for a couple of weeks.

Schools have a total of 38 weeks with our children, much of which is taken up by execrably useless subjects such as PSHE and nagging about lifestyle choices, sex education, and bloody environmentalism. This is without mentioning mufti days at the behest of professional charity fund-raisers, childhood damaging health and safety hysteria, politically-correct nonsense, and other fripperies that have no place whatsoever being taught by the government.

I'd fully expect a socialist - wedded to the idea that the state is all-knowing with regards teaching kids, and that the parent shouldn't be allowed to interfere - to advance such a policy. But this is a Tory.

It's yet another example of a creep to the left from Cameron's drones. Whether he realises it or not, Gove is advocating the state to be the sole arbiter of children's education; that they are the only ones who are able to supply it; that parents are universally incompetent; and that kids are incapable of 'catching up' like adults are expected to after taking the EU mandated 5.6 weeks paid holiday time (which I'd personally much prefer his government devote its time investigating).

It's nonsense, of course. Firstly, state education simply isn't that good. There is ample leeway for catching up, simply for the fact that so much time is wasted on pet government idiocy which has no place in schools at all, as I've said before.
As I see it, they would learn almost as much with me on the flight to and from a week's holiday than they get from 5 days at school. Make the state school system better - or even fit for purpose if they're feeling saucy - and parents might consider it unmissable. Or, alternatively, give us the £3,780 per annum this 'service' costs; allow us to spend it with the school which competes and therefore educates most effectively; and watch how more valued the 190 school days become to parents.
You'd have thought a Tory would try to sort that out first, before pretending that the quality of 5% of a yearly education - which is taken up by at least 10% irrelevance - is indispensable.

That's the theoretical problems covered, so let's talk about the practicalities and unavoidable unintended consequences.

What is Gove planning to do when 'sickness' absences rise dramatically, which is the only fully predictable outcome, especially since mobile phones now mean a parent can call a child in sick from bloody Goa if they choose?

Monitoring of movement? Mandatory child check ups to prove the sickness has occurred? Home visits by state inspectors to ensure the family hasn't done a moonlight flit? Investigations into where calls are made from? You know, the sort of thing Conservatives used to accused Labour of.


Or, how about if this has nothing but a negative impact which he can't tackle even by illiberal means such as those above? What then? Well, the only other option is regulation to stop holiday companies from charging extra for school holiday times or, more likely for a Tory-led government, forcing them to charge more for trips taken during term time.

For a Tory to point to problems caused by the simple economic principle of supply and demand is pretty self-defeating, and for him to suggest installing illiberal legislation as a result just compounds it.

The end result of Gove's posturing as to the indispensability of state education - and the subtle assertion that parents are incapable of even a modicum of offering the same themselves - can be seen in Sweden, where the condemnation of parents who don't view state provision as perfect is so far advanced that families who home school are fleeing the country.
As the government intensifies its persecution of homeschoolers in Sweden, the president of the Swedish Association for Home Education (ROHUS) has finally been forced into exile with his family in neighboring Finland. The battle for human rights and homeschooling in the Scandinavian kingdom, however, is far from over.

The Swedish Parliament passed a draconian law in 2010 purporting to ban homeschooling, all school curriculums except the Swedish government’s, and all alternative education nationwide. Despite a global outcry, the prohibition went into effect last year. Dozens of families were left wondering what fate might await them. But so far, the official persecution campaign has backfired in a stunning way.
When you boil it all down, this is the end destination for Gove's policy. The state's inalienable right to educating kids over and above any ability of parents to decide marginal benefits/drawbacks of missing out on a week or two - or even more if they see fit - for themselves.

If he wants to tackle truancy, tackle truancy - not authorised absence which has little to do with it. If he wants parents to have more respect for state education (just like the left), then stop schools from filling the curriculum with state-mandated garbage which parents don't respect. It's arguable that government interference into how schools operate - and the pet projects they are obliged to teach - is far, far more damaging to the education of our kids than being taken on holiday for two weeks a year.

Sort that out first, Gove, and you might be onto something.


22 comments:

mrs.raft said...

 "Schools have a total of 38 weeks with our children, much of which is taken up by execrably useless subjects such as PSHE and nagging about lifestyle choices, sex education, and bloody environmentalism.
This is without mentioning mufti days at the behest of professional
charity fund-raisers, childhood damaging health and safety hysteria, politically-correct nonsense, and other fripperies that have no place whatsoever being taught by the government."

Mind if I borrow that scorching paragraph?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Borrow away, I stand on no ceremony here. :)

Curmudgeon said...

And, of course, what are the chances of a blind eye being turned to absences of some groups of children, but not others?

cfrankdavis said...

But this is a Tory. 
I really wish they were. But I've come to the conclusion they're not. They're all socialists, and they come in three different flavours. There's labour-flavoured socialists. Liberal-flavoured socialists. And Tory-flavoured socialists. But it's the same ice cream underneath.

Zaph Camden said...

Re: calling a child in sick from Goa…

I understand if you're abroad, and someone rings your mobile number, they won't hear a British ringing tone. Or at least, when my Groupie got a call on her mobile when we were on a train in Spain, the people calling her said they were momentarily confused by the strange ringing tone they heard when they dialled her (UK) mobile number.

If I call in sick at my work, my boss invariably calls me back later that day. Which does at least mean if I was to pull a sickie (hypothetically, of course, guv) I couldn't bugger off to Amsterdam for the weekend :)

nisakiman said...

Had I not taken my kids out of school during term time for holidays, they  simply wouldn't have had a holiday. Nor would I.

Prices double during the "government approved" dates, and for many, make it unaffordable. My kids never suffered, educationally, from being taken away for a fortnight. In fact, I think they gained far more than they lost, with visits to ancient monuments and off-the-cuff geology lessons. Not to mention learning about other cultures and languages.

Tory? The last Tory in parliament was Mrs T. All those who have followed have been pale imitations at best. As for the current crop; socialists to a man / woman.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Good point well made, and my bad. It does, however, depend on school staff doing that. The boy little P was ill earlier this month and I knew it would be for at least a couple of days (though I was damn sure he was going back as soon as it lifted), so told the school and they replied that I just needed to give him a note when he returned (which was JUST two days, sadly for him).

So, if they were to chase up these things, it would be a good thing sure if targeted at parents who take the piss, but feeds into the 'inspectors everywhere' idea above if not. Overkill for something trivial like a week or two on holiday IMO. :)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

This does seem to be the problem, doesn't it? 

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Funnily enough, to tackle the 'problem' of truancy, just such selective common sense is required. By setting arbitrary rules, Gove is just making sure that everyone is punished for the poor behaviour of the very few parents who abuse the system.

It's incredible that a system (state education) which commands almost universal compliance from even the most anti-social families can be condemned by Gove. That should be lauded as an achievement, too much tweaking is just going to ruin that.Remember common sense? It's been a sadder world since it was abolished. 

Dick_Puddlecote said...

My kids never suffered, educationally, from being taken away for a fortnight. In fact, I think they gained far more than they lost, with visits to ancient monuments and off-the-cuff geology lessons. Not to mention learning about other cultures and languages.
I was going to make the same point, but the piece was stretching into TL;DR territory already. ;)

Woodsy42 said...

What are the home schooling regs nowadays? Isn't it possible to declare that they are being home schooled for a period, or failing that tell them you are moving house and they will be attending at wherever?

Moi said...

"Or, alternatively, give us the £3,780 per annum this 'service' costs; allow us to spend it with the school which competes and therefore educates most effectively; and watch how more valued the 190 school days become to parents."

I have to take issue with this commenter.  He clearly doesn't have any experience of the private education sector at all.  But I work closely with it, and, believe me, the problem of children being whipped out of school in the middle of term for a cheapie holiday is every bit as rampant in the private sector as it is in the state sector - the only difference being that when the children return it is the teachers in private schools who are expected to put in extra hours (but not charge for them, of course - because "we've already paid") to help the little absentee darlings catch up, rather than the parents.  Parents paying for their children's education certainly doesn't guarantee that they value it any more - it just gives them the feeling that they have the right to demand freebie "extras" whenever they want them.

Lyn Ladds said...

For along time I have believed that if schools were more flexible and worked with the pupils strengths, rather than the governments beloved 'one size fits all' ideology, then the kids would be far happier to go to school in the first place (most, anyway).

I fully accept that basic reading, writing and maths are essential, but in my view, once in secondary education, those with academic skills should follow an academic course through school whilst those that struggle with academic subjects should follow more practical, hands on, courses, where they will prosper, enjoy and achieve something in what they are doing and in the process continue learning necessary reading, writing and maths without necessarily being aware of it!

Job done, satisfaction all round, no roudy and disruptive kids in classes and young people leaving schools with skills that are suited to them and which they can take forward into their adult life.

That, in my view is what education should be about, playing to the individuals' strengths.

With regarding holiday absences, if they do take a week or 2 off during term time, and they are enjoying school and what they are learning, there will be no problem with them catching up because they will want to!

Same idea really as a happy workforce being a productive workforce!

Just takes common sense - which, as has already been said, is sadly lacking in the world today - which proves to me just how lacking in leadership skills consecutive governments in many countries have been!

nisakiman said...

"... once in secondary education, those with academic skills should follow an
academic course through school whilst those that struggle with academic
subjects should follow more practical, hands on, courses..."


That's what we used to have - they were called Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, and they worked very well. Unfortunately they didn't fit the "all must have prizes" socialist ideology, so now we have a broken system which caters to the lowest common denominator.

Mudplugger said...

In defence of Gove, his starting point is to eliminate the definition of 'approved' absence.  This is an essential first step to get a grip on the real level of absence. You can then compare apples with apples, as there will be no differences in 'approval rates' between schools affecting the analysis (in some areas, 'approval' is given for multi-week trips back to third-world Hell, so isn't counted as 'truancy').

The point about the Little Ps getting more benefit from a few days away with parents may indeed be true but, sadly, not all parents seek to provide any educational value from dumping them at the kiddies' club in Lanzarote for a week.

The foreign holiday premium-cost issue could be easily solved by amending the school year, as it is no longer necessary to parallel agricultural labour need profiles.  No reason why different areas shouldn't have different holiday periods.  But would the NUT and other self-serving bandits accept that ?  And does the Coalition have the balls to take them on ?  What do you think ?

Your cost estimate is wildly out - the actual average cost of a child's state education is now well over £5,000 - rising to nearer £8,000 at secondary level.

And now we start to agree.  If that value was made available to parents to hand over to their chosen school, state or private, the effect on education quality would be astounding, with all schools actively competing for the very life-blood of cash to deliver their 'service'.

Until that happens, the state education sector will continue to be a self-deluding black-hole, sucking in all the cash available yet failing to deliver on its objective.  The issue of sneaking a few days of holiday is trivial.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

That, I'm afraid to say, would be a failing of the school in not pointing to their T&Cs, I would suggest. If a service is provided, and the customer is aware of the time it is provided when agreeing payment, the provider has no obligation to give in to demands outside of that. If the school agrees to do so, it would be due to their reluctance to lose a child to a competitor in a free market. 

I'd venture that the parents do value the days more though, simply for the fact that they are actively asking for something to compensate, due to the fact that they have paid for the education and don't wish to just view it as a loss.

It's an excellent observation nonetheless, so thanks for that. Interesting to know the type of attitudes towards private suppliers as opposed to state ones. :)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Agreed about the cost. The figure quoted comes from a PQ from a couple of years ago which I didn't have time or inclination to update. I think it's been highlighted before that this has since risen. 

I like your idea about staggering school holiday times in different areas, if that's what you meant, but like you say there's be a battle with certain interests. For example, the school year is only 189 days this year because of the Queen's Jubilee. The day falls in half term IIRC but despite teachers already being off that day, they wanted a day in lieu anyway. I don't know if it was a union thing to get that or it was offered without argument, but it seems daft to me. When tip-toeing around a single day is required, wholesale shifts of holiday dates will invite all sorts of whining, I imagine. 

JonathanBagley said...

Great if you don't have children though.

mrs.raft said...

See Education Otherwise. 

 http://www.education-otherwise.net/

There are other groups giving advice but this is one of the longest established.

You could just say you are a traveller and will brook no interference with your cultural practices.  I know of no gypsy parents who have been prosecuted, but there might be some.

Junican said...

Damn it! I have just popped in late to this discussion.

Surely, the whole point is that 'ONE SIZE FITS ALL' is absolutely the worst possible scenario? Is it not true that those people who are most lacking in wealth are the ones who NEED to take holidays at the least expensive time? And are they not the people who need the most consideration? What is wrong with those people saying, "Excuse me, teacher, we have in mind to take a week's holiday off-season because that is all we can afford, and tell us what you want us to impart to little Johnie in that week. We shall do it" What is the problem?

I have come to the conclusion that all politicians are fundamentally EVIL. If they were not originally EVIL, they have been corrupted.

The word EVIL needs to be re-defined in the post-religious era. The new EVIL is the imposition of ONE SIZE FITS ALL conformity. It is WICKED to impose your will upon others just because you have the power to do so.  
 

Lyn Ladds said...

I fully agree Junican.  One Size Fits All would be fine, if we were all the same, but if that were the case, the human race would have become extinct very soon after it came into existence!

The only way this idea will work is if future generations are all clones of one 'perfect' specimen! 

I am no scientist or biologist, but it is pretty evident to me that our make up, our disposition, our size and our preferences are all down to our genes and these are what we are born with!  Yes, to a degree, our formative years and how we are brought up makes some difference, but I still believe that our genes are the overriding factor.

David said...

Don't register the birth of your childen. Once registered they are owned by the state.