Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Supreme Court sides with government on term-time holidays

913 replies

Mulledwine1 · 06/04/2017 10:28

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-judgment.pdf

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-press-summary.pdf

AIBU to get the popcorn out for the discussion of why this is/is not a great judgment?

OP posts:
tiggytape · 06/04/2017 15:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dannythechampion · 06/04/2017 15:24

"So why not sue, or why is there no penalisation?"

Because it isn't the school that make the rules? Because it isn't the school that enforce them?

That's why its stupid.

Sillysausage123 · 06/04/2017 15:25

The ruling won't affect anything as people will just carry on paying the fines and booking cheaper holidays.
People are talking as if this ruling will stop people booking holidays in term time from now onwards when nothing will change

RufusTheRenegadeReindeer · 06/04/2017 15:27

I think the fine is fair enough

I do want to take two of the three children out of school for the last day and a half of term in December so i hope they dont criminalise it before then

windypolar · 06/04/2017 15:27

It's not really a fair point. I can't afford lots of things.
It is a fair point, in context. It's also about choice. In my previous posts I've agreed with the ruling.

That doesn't mean I get to redefine the terms under which I access the services I can afford.

I didn't say or imply anything of the kind. Again, read the whole thread first, then context will be added.

BeyondThePage · 06/04/2017 15:28

which is why they should just let school authorise up to 10 days - like they used to - schools know the pupils and the individual circumstances - so are best placed to make a sane decision rather than an arbitrary fine

trouble is it was not working - it used to be maybe half a dozen families a year taking time off, now EVERYONE seems to think it is a right to just drop days here and there. That is why they changed things, people started to take advantage - they/we always do.

tiggytape · 06/04/2017 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Unihorn · 06/04/2017 15:31

ShotsFired
If it's £1200 13 weeks of the year and £400 39 weeks of the year then this logic is not correct. It should be £600 every week so i disagree sorry.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 06/04/2017 15:31

it wont be just a case of paying up your £60 per parent per child and going anyway. you risk it being criminalised as with speeding

I don't think so; AFAIK the "£60 fine" is regarded as a civil matter which only triggers a criminal charge if payment is refused

It's true that persistent absences can also result in action - maybe fine after fine for term time holidays would count here - but that's a bit different to someone doing it just once for exceptional reasons (and then there's a good chance it would have been authorised anyway, if it really was exceptional rather than just parents wanting to save money)

Buck3t · 06/04/2017 15:32

Danny I never said they had control over the rules for the parents, however, they should be following the rules for the school, and our children watching DVDs during school hours is not that.

So actually not convinced. They do have control over that.

Sirzy · 06/04/2017 15:32

Ye because people would pay the same for a eeeks holiday in November as they do in August wouldn't they Hmm

Unihorn · 06/04/2017 15:35

Sirzy I'm not saying that, of course they wouldn't, I was responding to a previous post and giving an example of pricing I have seen.

Dannythechampion · 06/04/2017 15:35

The school can do video watching within its rules though, they aren't breaking rules by doing activities like that at all.

merrygoround51 · 06/04/2017 15:35

With regards to the holiday companies - they cant just drop the prices. They negotiate with airlines and hotels to secure space at certain prices and this changes during the year.

So not only would holiday companies have to agree to flat pricing but so would a hotel in Marbella and where is their incentive to do this.

Therefore that is simply not going to happen

Dannythechampion · 06/04/2017 15:39

The stuff about the holiday companies just shows a complete lack of understanding about how businesses work.

GreenShadow · 06/04/2017 15:41

So it's Ok for everyone to take their DC out of school in term time as "it's never disadvantaged them in anyway"
But what about the rest of the class who are affected as the teacher has to spend time making sure those that have missed previous lessons, are up to speed....

Trifleorbust · 06/04/2017 15:41

windypolar:

I've read it. I don't see how the context changes what was being said. But I wasn't criticising you - you can think it's a fair point if you want. I simply disagree on the grounds I stated. If I have misunderstood you it might help to explain why, rather than condescendingly assert that I just didn't understand you!

FrayedHem · 06/04/2017 15:44

We're taking a term-time holiday this year. It's the same week DS1's class go on their Yr6 residential. He has ASD and he just wouldn't cope with going. It's been an awful year for him and he missed 3 days of school as he was self-harming due to school. I had to go to the LA and the Head to get things sorted. It's likely the changes for that week will disrupt him even if they do some fun things for those not going. Holidays in the school holidays are difficult as DS1 doesn’t deal well with crowds so we saw it as an idea opportunity for a family holiday and the in-laws and my mum are coming too.

It means taking DS2 out too and he's Yr5. I think that means we'll likely get a total fine of £240. It's somewhat jarring given the failings we've endured but I'll pay up.

windypolar · 06/04/2017 15:51

Trifleorbust - If you had read, and remembered my other posts (and my views on the OP and the ruling etc etc), context would have been added. You attributed views and opinions to me which I did not make or hold, quite the opposite, as can be seen earlier in the thread.
This was another reply of mine to messiah, mainly about HE, and not intended to be taken in isolation. Hope that helps.

Honestly Grin

Trifleorbust · 06/04/2017 15:53

windypolar:

Er, nope. But let's leave it at that.

TelephonicsSuper · 06/04/2017 15:55

Poor decision. focusing on the issue like it's just about people who want a week at Disney land when it's not. Our head has NO discretion - literally has to be a death of a parent - because that's the LA guidelines. Which means for people like me & DP with both families in other countries ( not at all uncommon where we are) there's no wiggle room for the odd day tacked on to a weekend to make a visit viable for personal reasons. We went home on the anniversary of a death for example to support the DP left behind, meant skipping school the Monday for 2 infant school DC's with otherwise PERFECT attendance and time keeping, and lying to the school about a 'bug' because we can't afford £240 ( £60 per kid per parent) for just one day.
The fine is just annoying as is the, frankly insultingly patronising letter that comes with it - and if your family is in Oz or abroad so you take extra days to go there then the fine isn't going to change a thing, those parents are just going to suck it up.
The fines also don't change the behaviour of true truanting families, most of them can;t afford to pay it anyway or don't give a damn and have a lot of issues going on that schools and SS are aware of and trying to deal with.
And don' t get me started on the fact that independent schools - that the kids of all these b'stard policy makers go to - are exempt anyway and the heads to have more discretion. Same with church schools.
Our kids are lucky to go to a great school, with involved parents and few issues where almost without exception every kid has had a day or two in the school year off 'ill' , usually to do with a family event, and the parents lie to avoid fine. It's a ridiculous situation, the teachers hands are tied...

windypolar · 06/04/2017 15:56

Er, nope? Hmm

Genevieva · 06/04/2017 15:56

There are two different issues here - what parents 'should' do and what the law requires them to do. The first is subjective and qualitative in nature and the second is about interpreting the law as it stands.

With regards to the former I am of the view that parents should not take children out of school during term time unless there is an exceptional reason. With regards to the latter, I don't think that the law should interfere beyond requiring regular attendance in school.

It would be impossible to create a list that would identify all reasonable exceptions and disallow all unreasonable ones, as there will always be circumstances that have not been thought of. It is not fair just and reasonable to have draconian measures that might criminalise ordinary parents, so it is better not to do so.

Legally, I think the situation prior to Gove's intervention was fine and that Mr Jon Platt's interpretation of 'regular attendance' is both relevant and correct. I agree with the magistrate and the High Court judge and I disagree with the Supreme Court judgement.

It is quite clear that the public policy reasons given are politically motivated and of very poor legal quality. They sound more like the sort of thing parents say in the pub than an incisive, logical and well grounded legal decision.

The evidence on the contribution of missed school days and exam results was taken out of context and is therefore groundless. Private schools have longer holidays and more extracurricular activities during school term time yet consistently out-perform state schools.

The argument that it is unfair on parents who don't break the rules also fails to take account of parents who cannot get leave during the school holidays and want a family holiday once a year (not for religious observance or death and therefore not exceptional, but nonethelessan important part of family life).

It should also be remembered that the original reason for Gove's changes to the rules on granting permission for absence was to tackle persistent truancy. A week's holiday during term time is not a comparable issue - either in the damage it purportedly does to a child's education or in the disruption it might cause to the rest of the class.

Politically motivated judgements on test cases of this sort are an afoot to justice. This outcome is a gross incursion into the private lives of ordinary citizens, whether they wish to take their children on holiday in term time or not.

Dannythechampion · 06/04/2017 15:59

"Private schools have longer holidays and more extracurricular activities during school term time yet consistently out-perform state schools. "

The time in school to attainment ratio isn't the only determinant, but one of many.

Shall we list all the other advantages private school children have over the majority of state school children?

Notthemessiah · 06/04/2017 16:01

DannyTheChampion

Other than calling them hypocritical, I'm not having a go at the schools though but at the government who, as you say, set the rules. You seem to be arguing with me over something I haven't said. Don't let that stop you though.

Your argument then, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that you agree I have no choice but instead of complaining I should just lump it and be grateful that my child is getting an education at all? Why can't I just keep my mouth shut and do what I'm told.

PS - nice personal insults (classy) but I''ll take it as a compliment that you reckon I didn't attend school much - must explain why am I seemingly more capable of thinking for myself.

Swipe left for the next trending thread