Supreme court upholds ban on term-time holidays

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well that's a nonsense https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/06/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-term-time-holidays-jon-platt-unauthorised-break . Surely this should be back in the hands of the School Head, using proper judgement / discretion?

[Otta]

Isn't that exacrtly what this ruling says?

I am really pleased the guy lost. If you can afford flights to Florida and Disney, you can afford to just pay the ?60 fine and shut the f**k up about it.

That's not to say I don't think you should ever take kids out of school, but if there isn't a good reason (and Disney isn't a good reason) then you shouldn't start screaming about knowing what's best for your kids. It's just entitlement for me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It used to be the School Heads could grant up to 2 weeks term-time holidays at their discretion, in cases where there was generally good attendance. My reading of it (maybe I'm wrong) is that the law was changed to remove that discretion. It seems to me that the Head should run the day to day operations of the school, not the state.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am really pleased the guy lost. If you can

> afford flights to Florida and Disney, you can

> afford to just pay the ?60 fine and shut the f**k

> up about it.

It's not really about the individual though - it's the principle that this isn't in the hands of the school. I agree the guy sound like a dick. To be honest though so does the council. Who the hell fights a case of a ?60 fine in the Supreme court.

[Otta]

You are right, and the 2 week thing was stopped. But it's still down to the head at the end of the day. All this case is about is that the head said no, and this bloke didn't like being told no.

But most schools and LAs will look for around 96% attendance (missing no more than 7.5 days). 92% means this child missed 3 full weeks of school across the year. I don't know why that was, but in my book 3 weeks is quite a bit of school to miss.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who the hell fights a case of a ?60 fine in the Supreme court.

I don't think they had a choice. When he won an earlier hearing it was all over social media, and the meesage was "we have the power, take your kids out when you like". The government wilol have very much been behind this I reckon.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Term-time leave can only be granted in exceptional circumstances - so the head actually has very little discretion at all. Personally, I think that the state should get tae fook when it comes to dictating the day to day operations of the school. You're right though, this case is probably wasn't the strongest exemplar, when it comes to defending (a worthy) principle (or a worthy Principal for that matter).

[Otta]

We're taking kids out of school (only fo4 a day) to attend a family event. I emailed the head and she said she was more than happy tp okay it and wished then a good time. It really is down to the head teacher.

The problen is that there is little clarity on what "exceptional circumstances " means.

[singalto]

I wonder how parents who take their children out of school for holidays would feel if the teachers did the same.

[Otta]

Ha, yes, I bet he's the first to complain if there's a teacher's strike and his free child care gets affected.

[rendelharris]

singalto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder how parents who take their children out

> of school for holidays would feel if the teachers

> did the same.

This - imagine the howls of anguish if every teacher was allowed to take two weeks off at a time of their choosing, and then told parents it was their job to catch the children up on what they'd missed.

By the way, elsewhere much is being made of "well what if a child's ill?" as if unavoidable illness and going on holiday were the same thing. Children will of course occasionally be ill, but then holidays are added on top of that. I find it highly amusing that the guy who fought this case did so on the basis that his daughter had an excellent attendance record of 92% - so in other words she was already missing fifteen days of school a year and he wanted to take her out for another ten, meaning she would miss nearly 15% of the school year.

I agree there should be some discretion for schools and in my time in teaching it was generally intelligently and sensitively applied, but that's not what this case was about: this was about handing all power to parents to withdraw their children whenever they fancy without sanction.

[womanofdulwich]

I used to go to school on the Isle of Wight in the 70's . No one ever went away in the summer holidays- lots of parents worked in the tourist industry, and so did the children ( and in farming). But they often went to Spain off season, usually in term time,. I see the academic levels on the Isle of Wight are pretty low, and I can't help wondering if there is some link?

[ianr]

The previous regulations required that

"(b) the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in

accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be

granted due to the special circumstances relating to that application.

(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, a pupil shall not in pursuance of

paragraph (3) be granted more than ten school days leave of absence

in any school year."

The current regulations say instead:

"the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in

accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be

granted due to the exceptional circumstances relating to that application."

"Exceptional circumstances" is common enough in law. Like a "reasonable person", it gives scope for application of whatever are thought to be current relevant standards and considerations.

The previous discussion was at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1114907,1115366.

[teddyboy23]

What about teachers taking time off in term time to go watch 2016 world cup in Brazil?

[malumbu]

Dunno what the fuss is about. The fine sounded pretty lenient.

It was your/my choice to have kids. The cost of hols outside term time was part of the equation. There are always cheap options - the Sun offers them (and this is not a disparaging comment)

The bigger picture is phasing/spreading out hols to reduce demand but there again those without kids would miss out on cheaper hols.

Alternatively pay for your education and have your hols in early July before the state schools break up

[Otta]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I find it highly amusing that the guy who fought this case

> did so on the basis that his daughter had an

> excellent attendance record of 92% - so in other

> words she was already missing fifteen days of

> school a year and he wanted to take her out for

> another ten, meaning she would miss nearly 15% of

> the school year.

Are you sure about this? I assumed that the 92% included the holiday?

I still agree 100% with you, but really hope you're right, as that makes it even easier to call him a twat.

[Otta]

BBC Says

"The ruling rejects Mr Platt's argument that despite missing a week of school for a holiday, his daughter had regularly attended over the course of the year, with an attendance rate of over 92%."

[ianr]

The judgment http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/28.html quotes the magistrates as having said it was 95% before this break, and 90.2% afterwards. Some of the previous loss, btw, will have been a week's holiday her (separated) mother took her on in February. Ma paid her own penalty charge for that.

I hadn't realised the girl was only six at the time. I think back on primary school as huge amounts of wasted time, if you're thinking in terms of academic achievement. Anything interesting a kid does at that age will be educational, and I don't think anyone's career hopes are going to be damaged by a few weeks out of school at that age.

What's going to happen now? Probably some will continue to take the break and pay the penalty charge, with prosecutions a rarity. Local authorities have to provide a code of conduct for issuing penalty notices, containing "the criteria that will be used to trigger the use of a penalty notice". So if there were a groundswell of public opinion, some might perhaps be persuaded to have a more relaxed code, at least for younger children. That might be conceived as clashing with this judgment; but even if so, who would then have the wish and locus standi to seek judicial review -- the secretary of state?!

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I find it highly amusing that the guy who fought

> this case

> > did so on the basis that his daughter had an

> > excellent attendance record of 92% - so in

> other

> > words she was already missing fifteen days of

> > school a year and he wanted to take her out for

> > another ten, meaning she would miss nearly 15%

> of

> > the school year.

>

>

>

> Are you sure about this? I assumed that the 92%

> included the holiday?

>

> I still agree 100% with you, but really hope

> you're right, as that makes it even easier to call

> him a twat.

Hands up may have made a wrong assumption there. Still, 8% a pretty good slice off the top of a child's education, and a pretty good amount for the teachers to have to catch up.

[Jules-and-Boo]

It's actually hilarious that he had the temerity to stand up in front of a judge and say a trip to Disney is more important than his child's education.

[Seabag]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's actually hilarious that he had the temerity

> to stand up in front of a judge and say a trip to

> Disney is more important than his child's

> education.

Florida or Paris?

[TillieTrotter]

The kid was 6....just 6! Bloke in question along with 17 family members went on holiday and she missed 7 days of schooling. Really! This is all ludicrous in my opinion and it's taken away the discretion of the Head. Otta, out of interest, what would you have done if your school had said NO to your request? Would you have just accepted their decision?

[Otta]

If I had the money and the opportunity to take my children to Florida Disney, and it was then or never, I'd have gone and I'd have paid the bloody 60 quid and shut the fuck up about it.

[Otta]

And it has not taken away the discretion of the head.

[Otta]

But given the child had already been taken out of school for a holiday in that school year, you can see why the head might have thought they were taking the piss a bit.