#_lmsid:a077000000IqvIwAAJ

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Talking Point: Should Donald Trump be allowed a UK state visit?

Should the US president be welcomed? (Getty)

The potential UK state visit of Donald Trump is a topic which simply won’t go away.

Not a day goes by without the U.S. President courting more controversy, whether it’s by mocking Asian leaders’ gestures during a speech or simply going back on his own words.

Most recently, the US president faced widespread backlash for retweeting anti-muslim videos posted by Jayda Fransen, Deputy Leader of the alt-right Britain First party.

Now, calls to cancel Trump’s visit have been backed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

He said Trump has promoted ‘a vile, extremist group’ and an official visit by him to Britain ‘would not be welcomed.’

Trump had barely made himself at home in the White House before Theresa May issued the official invite for a state visit during her own visit to the U.S. in January.

But in June, President Trump’s UK state visit was left out of the Queen’s Speech when opening Parliament, fueling speculation it had been scrapped.

However, in July it emerged that Trump may travel to the UK after all – albeit on a ‘sneak visit’ to his golf courses in Scotland.

So should President Trump be allowed to visit the UK?

Hannah says: ‘President Trump reportedly told Theresa May he wouldn’t visit if there were likely to be protests. This could delay the trip for at least Trump’s presidency – but it should make us even keener to have him as a guest.

‘The list of subjects Trump is scared of being called out on- sexual assault claims, racist immigration restrictions, suspicions that he obstructed an FBI investigation – may seem depressingly pedestrian to Americans, but still provoke outrage here.

‘The inevitable widespread protests would send a powerful message to the rest of the world that Britain will stand up to him (even if Theresa May won’t).

‘Trump would be taken to task for his misguided policies, such as the repeal of Obamacare and removal of the U.S. from the Paris Climate agreement.

‘Those who argue he’s been unfairly vilified in the press could hear from Trump themselves. Giving those with ill-advised plans the platform to explain them is a sure-fire way to reveal their flaws.

‘Giving space to those who spout incorrect, offensive or just plain idiotic beliefs is a necessary part of refuting such ideas.’

‘Donald Trump is a bully who stands in direct opposition to British values, and should therefore not be given the honour of a state visit.

‘He has used his wealth and platform to elevate himself to a position of power in order to bully, among other, Mexicans (‘rapists’) disabled people (‘retarded’), women (‘manipulative’), the media (‘fake’), African-Americans (‘thugs’), and he even insulted the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

‘Barack Obama waited two-and-a-half-years for a state invitation. George W Bush waited three. Why did Theresa May invite Trump for a state visit only seven days after his inauguration? It wasn’t in honour of our ‘special relationship,’ but an act of sycophantic subservience in the hope of getting a trade deal.

MORE from Yahoo’s Talking Point series:

MORE: Should children still have to wear school uniforms? MORE: Should the UK speed limit be changed from 70mph to 80mph? MORE: Should all UK police officers carry guns? MORE: Should homework be banned?

‘If Trump’s state visit went ahead, it would send a message to the world that Theresa May, and by extension Britain, is weak. It would show Trump that we are desperate for his approval and trade, and put him in a position to mess us around.

‘It would tell Europe that they too could take advantage of Britain and its weak and anxious Prime Minister. It would also indicate to the British public (two million of whom signed a petition against the visit) that their views are not important.

‘Cancelling Trump’s state visit would send a message to Europe, to Trump, and to voters that Theresa May can stand up for herself. This is crucial in the wake of her failure to secure a parliamentary majority, falling poll ratings, and imminent entrance into the Brexit negotiating room.

‘It is time for Theresa May to have her Love Actually moment and rescind Donald Trump’s state visit invitation.’

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Should homework be banned? Two education experts have their say on the issue which divides parents

It’s something we all remember from childhood, but after hours learning can be controversial. That’s why our latest Talking Point asks – should homework be banned?

In 2012, the government allowed headteachers to decide whether to set homework or not. Many carried on the traditional route, but some schools have banned homework completely, while others changed to a less traditional style.

In September, Philip Morant School and College in Colchester, Essex, was thought to be Britain’s first secondary school to ban homework. Headteacher Catherine Hutley decided her teachers’ time would be better spent delivering great lessons than setting and marking homework.

Primary schools including Inverlochy Primary School in Fort William also hit the headlines after scrapping homework, encouraging children to use the time reading books, magazines and comics. Is there still a place for after school learning in modern education, or should homework be banned? Our two experts argue each side:

‘As a teacher, I hated giving out homework. From an administrative point of view it was a nightmare – collecting it, chasing up stragglers and marking took an age; worse, I often felt that setting homework was of little benefit to children, aside from those taking exams.

‘British children are some of the most anxious and stressed in the world. Many children also lack fitness or pile on the pounds. By adding additional work to their already straining schedule, we are robbing our kids of precious hours that could be spent outdoors playing, relaxing or interacting with family.

‘Homework is too often driven by school policy rather than genuine need. Homework schedules – devised by schools to ensure that kids only have work from certain subjects on certain nights – mean that sometimes homework is set for its own sake, rather than because a child has reached a certain point in a module.

‘Parents are often drivers of this, complaining when work isn’t set, meaning teachers feel duty bound to set something, whether or not they believe it’s relevant.

‘Pressure to mark within a certain time-frame also means that teachers are burning the midnight oil marking homework rather than spending time planning for more meaningful learning in your child’s lessons.

TALKING POINT: Should school summer holidays be shorter? TALKING POINT: Should children still wear school uniforms?

‘If all but the absolutely essential homework was removed from the curriculum, there would be little discernible change to learning outcomes. In addition, we might find children’s physical and emotional health improves – building a firmer foundation for their schooling and ensuring that as well as getting good grades, our children get to have a decent childhood.

‘Should homework be banned? Let’s face it, life’s not all about work; and home should be a place where we can rest and relax.’

‘If homework is set correctly, it should not be a stressful process for the children, but an opportunity to apply the concepts taught within school in an independent environment.

‘There is often too much reliance on schools and teachers as the facilitators of learning, whereas the real aim of teaching should be to encourage children to want to learn for the joy of learning. It’s a balancing act, but home learning should be used to foster an understanding that learning isn’t constrained to schools.

‘For teachers it allows them to get a better grasp on each student’s ability and understanding of the subject. It also allows them to extend a learner’s understanding by pointing them towards additional reading or activities.

TALKING POINT: Should women be allowed to take paid ‘menstrual leave’ from work? TALKING POINT: Should you invite children to a wedding?

‘For parents, it can create an opportunity to sit down with their child and discuss how school is going and find out how they can help. It’s also a chance for them to see when children are finding learning more difficult and step in where necessary.

‘Finally, for students it can give them the opportunity to test themselves on their subject knowledge and to more fully engage with a subject, without the restrictions of the classroom. It allows them to identify certain topics/areas within subjects that they might be struggling with, which in turn allows them to find extra help to combat this.

Some education experts argue homework ‘robs children of precious hours’. (Rex)

‘I understand there are concerns regarding homework causing stress for children and that it favours children with households with a better educational environment,’ he says. ‘However, we should be solving those specific issues, not throwing homework out with the bathwater.

‘If homework can foster independence, an improvement of skills and a better commitment to learning, which, if done well, it can, then it can be incredibly beneficial to learners of all ages.

‘Should homework be banned? To rule homework out entirely would be far too reactionary and short-sighted. Homework should be another tool, which is wielded wisely to improve learning and engagement.’

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Should all UK police officers carry guns?

The Westminster terror attack sparked a range of debates, including whether more frontline UK police officers should be armed.

Earlier this year a survey of all Met Police officers by the Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) revealed nearly half wanted more firearms specialists and 75% believe they should all be issued Tasers.

In plenty of other countries, armed police officers are an ordinary site, with many arming their frontline officers as a matter of course.

Is it time for the UK to join the ranks of those who arm policemen and women routinely? We ask two former officers for their views.

Norman Brennan, a former police officer of 31 years and a leading campaigner on police protection, thinks it’s time the ‘romantic image of the unarmed UK bobby’ is consigned to history.

‘We are the only unarmed police service in Europe bar Southern Ireland. The dangers that UK police officers face now compared to 40 or 50 years ago are far more violent. The 24,000 assaults in the past year more than proves this.

‘Police face daily those armed with knives and sadly, too often, guns. Police now also face both international and homegrown terrorists who have no qualms of murdering a police officer.’

The falling number of frontline police – 21,500 lost since 2010 – puts a heavier burden on those remaining, he says.

JOIN THE DEBATE – VOTE BELOW:

‘Whilst on occasions we can deal with threats of assault by use of our batons and CS spray and occasionally tasers, if someone has an intent to murder a police officer as they did at Westminster with a knife, only a firearm could effectively deal with such a threat.

‘If those who carry firearms know that every police officer is armed,  they know that the officer has a far greater chance of defending themselves and dealing with the imminent threat of being shot.

MORE: Talking Point: Should women be allowed paid ‘menstrual leave’ from work? MORE: Talking Point: Should the UK motorway speed limit be changed from 70mph to 80mph? MORE: Talking Point: Should you invite children to a wedding?

‘My colleagues tell me that some officers have to wait up to 40 minutes for armed back-up. If an officer has to wait even for one minute when they are confronting someone armed with a knife or a gun, to them it seems like a lifetime.’

Whilst some officers may not want to be armed, he said, it is now more the need and requirement.

‘We are living in some of the most dangerous times since World War Two and if society is to be fully protected surely it’s only right that their protectors have all the tools in the toolbox to ensure that both the public and themselves are protected.’

But former Met Inspector Bob Morgan, who also now blogs on law and order, says arming all frontline officers is a slippery slope with downsides as well as upsides.

‘A lot of people will assume that there’s no downside to more policemen being armed and my argument is there is a big downside and it would outweigh the upside.

‘The upside would be having all police officers armed and they would stop a terrorist getting away with committing an act of terrorism. That is questionable.

Police on patrol in the wake of the Westminster attacks in March. (Rex)

‘The downside of arming everybody is that there would be thousands of extra guns on the streets. The dangers are that everything an officer deals with is then potentially a firearms incident.

‘Very often officers will deal with violent or semi-violent situations where they end up grappling with somebody. If an officer has a gun that changes the dynamic.’

From an offender getting hold of the gun to an innocent party being injured in the process, there are lots of scenarios that would result from police officers regularly carrying a gun, he says.

MORE: Talking Point: Should school summer holidays be shorter? MORE: Talking Point: Should children still wear school uniforms?

‘There are lots of scenarios which over time would happen with thousands of officers with thousands of guns, thousands of interactions with the public. And all because we hope that some officer somewhere will stop an act of terrorism.

‘And there’s no going back. Once you arm police, there’s no going back.’

But while he does not advocate arming all police officers on a regular basis, Mr Morgan said having trained firearms officers is still important in the right context.

‘The Westminster attacker was stopped, yes, by an armed officer, somebody in a place that is under the greatest threat and that’s right,’ he said.

‘They should put firearms in the right places as often as they can and that’s the right way ahead but not everyone in my view.’

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Should you invite children to a wedding?

Every wedding guest has seen the words on the invite.

‘While we love all of your children, we’d like our wedding to be an adults-only occasion.’

Child-free weddings are on the rise. Celebrity couple Rochelle and Marvin Humes excluded little ones from their big day, as did now-divorced Billie Piper and Laurence Fox in 2007.

They’re not the only ones. For some, the wedding day is a chance to let your hair down with your nearest and dearest, minus little ones causing disruption or keeping your parent friends occupied.

Others are uncomfortable with leaving junior guests at home and believe weddings are a big day for all friends and family, regardless of age.

Where do you stand? Our two experts – one a wedding planner and one an etiquette expert – give the two sides of the argument.

‘Weddings are supposed to be an occasion when two families join together as one, so if you have a wedding where there are no children it defeats the whole purpose as some families do not just consist of adults.

‘Many couples want their wedding day to run smoothly and some of them feel that if they invite children they may run around being noisy and their parents may not control them which could ruin their video or photos.

‘If children are given activity packs or their own entertainment this can be avoided. I’ve done several weddings in the past where children have had their own dining area and disco and it really works because professionals are hired to entertain them so the children are less bored and are prone to enjoy themselves which means the adults get to enjoy themselves.’

‘As a child I loved going to weddings, only because I would always be in a pretty dress and if it was a family wedding I would see all my cousins.

‘When I think back I laugh as my mum would always have the wedding talk with me beforehand; “This is not an occasion to be running around, you’re in a pretty frock so you have to behave like a lady so no running around like you’ve lost your mind or you won’t go to another wedding, just don’t embarrass me.”

‘To be fair I was always well behaved at weddings because I loved them –  that’s probably why I was always someone’s bridesmaid.’

Natasha Corbin-Stewart is an international wedding planner – you can find out more about her work here

Etiquette consultant and events manager Will Sweeting doesn’t share Natasha’s view of children at weddings as a happy image.

The wedding aficionado, who has appeared on hit TV series Ladette to Lady, not only helps plan high-profile nuptials but has personally attended more than 100 weddings.

‘It’s a very adult environment. If it’s a church or a religious wedding it’s a very formal, solemn occasion and it’s not really right for children to be there. The noise factor is a huge part of it, I personally like to hear the wedding vows being stated.

‘It isn’t written down that children shouldn’t be at weddings, so it’s not a hard and fast rule, but it has become etiquette that they should not be in attendance.

MORE: Talking Point: Should children still wear school uniforms?

MORE: Talking Point: Should the UK speed limit be changed from 70mph to 80mph?

If mothers are breastfeeding, it’s understandable that they may not be able to leave their children at home, but Will says they should bring a nanny who would look after the tot for the rest of the time. And in all other cases, children should quite simply be left at home, he says.

‘If they don’t have a nanny they can go to grandparents or whatever but should not be present.

‘It also means the parents will enjoy it. If you’re constantly having to make sure that little Johnny or little Charlotte aren’t screaming the place down or running riot, parents just can’t relax and enjoy it.

‘I have known of people being slightly funny that their children aren’t invited but I think that’s something to do with this generation especially, where parents feel this sense of entitlement towards their children, that they are entitled to be invited to anything – but actually they’re not.’

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Should children still wear school uniforms?

School uniforms have existed for centuries. It’s thought Christ Hospital School in London was the first school to use a school uniform in 1552, but the idea of a standard academic dress goes all the way back to 1222 when the then Archbishop of Canterbury ordered the wearing of the cappa clausa.

It may not be quite so regimented these days as it once was, but uniform is still the norm in the majority of UK schools. The Department for Education allows schools to set their own uniform policy, but its guidance says it ‘strongly encourages schools to have a uniform as it can play a valuable role in contributing to the ethos of a school and setting an appropriate tone’.

Those who support school uniforms say they’re a social leveler and encourage a sense of belonging.

But critics argue that uniforms are out-of-date, restrictive and repressive.

Yahoo spoke to parenting bloggers on both sides of the fence for our latest ‘Talking Point’ debate:

Francesca says: ‘School uniform is easier, cheaper, stops endless debate about ‘what to wear’; and prevents school turning into a catwalk. It prepares kids for later life where they may have to adhere to a particular dress code or, shock horror, actually have to wear a uniform for their job.’

‘Anything that helps parents out has got to be a good thing. I for one do not have time in the morning for a one-hour debate about why a tutu and crop top isn’t a good/practical choice for a day at school.’

‘A few staple items washed every week and repeat. No having to wear a different outfit every day as you can’t be seen in the same clothes twice within a month. It takes the pressure off parents.’

‘A lot of kids like to show off especially when it comes to clothes and fashion. There will always be the children with the latest designer trainers who are sporting straight from Milan trends. This will no doubt make some other children feel bad. Yeah, that’s life.

WATCH OUR TWO EXPERTS DEBATE SCHOOL UNIFORMS LIVE IN FACEBOOK:

‘However, with a uniform it limits this to outside of school and they can focus on actually learning instead of worrying about whether their clothes look last season or whether they’ve worn the same top a few times.’

Uniform doesn’t just make children easily recognisable as from a particular school – helpful in terms of safety as well as behaviour – but promotes a sense of belonging and can be worn as a badge of pride, says Francesca.

MORE: Talking Point: Should the UK motorway speed limit change from to 80mph? MORE: Talking Point: Should school summer holidays be shorter?

‘If your children are a member of any of a number of youth groups such as Brownies, Cadets or Cubs there’ll almost always be a uniform involved. If they are a nurse, a pilot, a chef, a surgeon, in the army etc in later life they’ll have to wear one, so what’s the big deal about wearing one for school?

’It stifles creativity and ability to make their own choices? Rubbish.

’They have as much time as they like to express themselves through their clothing out of school. Clothes are only one part of someone’s identity. School children can certainly express themselves in other ways as well. Wearing a uniform doesn’t suddenly turn them into a clone.’

Francesca de Franco is the founder of The Parent Social, a site for sharing all things parenting.

Han-Son says: ‘Flat caps, big shoulder pads, briefcases, waistcoats – just some of the items that have been consigned to the annuls of history when it comes to workwear in the 21st century, yet why do we still insist on dressing our kids in the outfits that were made for a different time. We need to ask ourselves – What purpose does it serve now?

‘One of the major arguments those pro-uniformers make is the benefit it provides for our children by helping encourage discipline. But the same case was made for work uniforms not so long ago. Now we know better.

‘If we’re more comfortable at work, we’re more productive. The modern workplace has begun to recognise this absolute truth, and look at the most exciting and high growth businesses of today (and future employers of our children) – are any of these companies enforcing a uniform? No.

‘They know, wisely, that an employee who can be themselves, and express themselves will, ultimately, be a much more productive team player. It’s time we adapt modern day thinking in our schools too.’

HAVE YOUR SAY IN OUR POLL:

In Han-Son’s view, the UK’s education system is becoming more and more ‘practical skills based’ to fit with the employment needs of tomorrow, yet by continuing to enforce uniforms he thinks ‘we’re actively saying that we want to encourage and grow the type of person who has to ‘look’ the same everyday to ‘fit in.’ There’s something rather hypocritical there surely!’

‘If we look at the very best performing schools in the world there’s a clear picture there as well. Finland’s schools top the international league tables, yet do not have school uniforms. The UK Government have outlined their desire to create the sort of performance that matches our Scandinavian neighbours, and focussing our teachers on creating great learning rather than great consistent looking pupils may be a much better focus.

‘Life with children is expensive,’ says Han-Son. ‘The Wall Street Journal predicts it costs, on average, $300,000 to raise a child up to the age of 18 (not including college!).

‘At a time where more and more families are living pay cheque to pay cheque, can we really expect them to keep forking out upwards of £100+ per child to wear something of such little value? Retailers in recent years have developed cheaper own label ranges, but for some schools who demand a precise type of uniform these are sadly out of the reach.

‘I recognise while having no rules can open a can of worms into other areas of self expression (tattoos, piercings etc), I think to enforce specific uniforms just doesn’t fit in with our children’s needs today.

‘However I believe there is a case for agreeing the right dress-code and thus the right principles which help set your children up for future success.’

Han-Son is the Editor of ‘Daddilife‘, where he aims to ‘help regular guys become superhero dads’

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Talking Point: Should UK speed limit be changed from 70mph to 80mph?

With speeding fines set to increase to up to £2,500, breaking the speed limit is no trifling matter. But are the limits at the right level in the first place?

The 70mph motorway speed limit was first introduced for a trial period in 1965 in a bid to cut accidents, then made permanent in 1967.

But 50 years on, is 70mph still the right speed for motorways? As some parties argue that safety features and modern technology has made driving safer, is it the right time to raise the limit? Equally, there is talk of reducing speed limits in certain sections to deal with air pollution.

Edmund King said: ‘Our view is that 80mph in a modern car, in good weather, driven at a safe distance from the car in front is a safe speed. Whereas 50mph in bad weather, tailgating the car in front is a very dangerous speed.

‘Given the progress that has been made in vehicle capability and safety in the 50 years since the 70mph speed limit was introduced, it would be reasonable to reassess the speed limits in areas where the highways are suitable; such as long, wide, straight stretches of motorway with a permanent hard shoulder.

MORE: Talking Point: Should school summer holidays be shorter?

‘Through less suitable stretches, it would be sensible to adopt a similar approach to that taken on many European roads, where the speed limits vary depending on hazards (such as entry slip roads or sharp bends).

‘In poor weather such as ice and heavy rain, variable speed limits managed via overhead gantries could be used to effectively slow traffic, reducing the limit to one more appropriate for the driving conditions.’

An AA-Populus driver poll showed that the majority (61%) feel motorway speed limits should be increased to 80mph. However, a quarter of respondents felt that if the speed limit were to be raised it should be strictly enforced, while just over a third (36%) said it should be enforced according to current ACPO guidelines (with a discrepancy of 10% +2mph).

Lucy Amos said: ‘Cars on British motorways currently have a speed limit of 70mph, while some larger vehicles, including articulated trucks and vehicles towing caravans, have a speed limit of 60mph.

‘While vehicles vary in their braking ability, a car travelling at 70mph has a total stopping distance, in dry conditions, of about 96m, or 24 car lengths. This is greater in wet and icy conditions. If braking is carried out by the driver (rather than an automated emergency braking system) the car will travel about 21 metres in less than a second before the driver can even hit the brakes.

‘There have been previous occasions where the government has proposed raising the UK motorway speed limit to 80mph, but evidence has shown repeatedly that any increase in speed increases both stopping distances and crash likelihood.

HAVE YOUR SAY – VOTE IN OUR POLL:

‘At 80mph stopping distances are 27% greater than at 70mph (about 122 metres compared to 96 metres), a distance that would significantly lessen the reaction time available to the driver when faced with a dangerous situation.

‘It is unlikely that raising the motorway speed limits will improve journey times, especially on a congested network. Instead, research has predicted that raising the speed limit would result in 25 more deaths and 100 more serious injuries annually on our motorways.

‘Parliament’s Transport Select Committee estimated it would result in a 10% rise in casualties on motorways, meaning that to do so would not only be irresponsible but also endanger the lives of countless road users on the strategic highway network.’

Brake is dedicated to reducing death and serious injury on the road; campaigning for safe, more sustainable communities; and supporting those bereaved by road death.

[talking-point-1-138-yahoopa-blog]

Talking Point: Should school summer holidays be shorter?

Parents can find it difficult keeping children entertained during the summer holidays. (Rex)

School holidays have always been tinged with controversy.

Whether it’s parents pulling their kids out of school in term-time, or the length of holidays themselves, they’re often not far from the headlines.

In June 2016, Barnsley Council became the first in England to reduce the length of school summer holidays to less than five weeks. The plans, set to start in the 2017/18 academic year, will mean schools won’t break up until July 31, 2018 and will include the introduction of a two-week break in the October half-term to balance out the change.

So how long is too long when it comes to school holidays? Many teachers say the time is necessary for a break for both pupils aqnd themselves, but some parents struggle trying to arrange childcare and, indeed, entertain their little ones for the lengthy periods schools are closed.

So, should school holidays be shorter?

In the first of a new Yahoo series, we asked two experts to explain each side of the argument.

What do you think? Join the Yahoo Talking Point by posting in the comments below:

‘Firstly, children learn in block periods and retention of information deteriorates quickly.

‘Often, over summer holidays, their short-term memories have discarded information which is not strong enough to be stored in their long-term memories because of the length of time, and the fact that other new information takes its place.

‘How often, we hear teachers say that a class has forgotten a lot of what they learned over the summer!

‘Secondly, after such a long break, motivation for some children suffers. Some children struggle to regain the motivation to return to formal learning and the routines of school. And a child who is not motivated to learn, will not achieve.

‘So what is the solution? I would suggest reframing the school year into four terms of more equal time, so that each break is around 3 to 4 weeks maximum.

‘The statutory number of days in school would not be less, but it would be distributed over the year more evenly.

‘Breaks are essential for us all. Certainly children need these regularly, but the current pattern in the school calendar is imbalanced and out of date. Time to change please.’

Mum-of-two Jo Otto, a former teacher of 15 years and creator of educational app Maths Rockx, disagrees.

She said: ‘Ultimately children need their holidays to just be kids, unwind from routine and procedure and to learn other skills outside of what they learn at school.

‘The summer holidays are longer and necessary to be so in order for children to have other opportunities, such as getting out and about – camping, getting into nature, travelling with family and experiencing other cultures on holidays abroad.

‘Longer holiday periods may see children ‘forget’ skills or rules, with concern they’ll fall behind when they go back.  From my experience though, they pick it back up very quickly – and the benefit of time off for their developing brains and time with their family – far outweigh the cons.

‘As a school teacher and a mum, the only argument I’d make is that for a short period of 1-2 weeks, homework is just not necessary! Kids aren’t going to fall behind. Granted, children should absolutely find time or be ‘given’ time to read.  That is non-negotiable in whatever form it takes.

‘I am completely biased with educational apps such as Maths Rockx though. Maths Rockx is a learning tool that children will WANT to do in their holidays. What they can do for kids in two short weeks is really quite impressive.

‘Children love to play with their parents – because we are always so busy, it’s precious time spent with them and they truly look forward to it.’