Supreme Court sides with government on term-time holidays

[Mulledwine1]

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?

But they can potentially fine for 1/2 day. Just because some councils have chosen to historically fine only absence over 5 days or whatever that doesn't mean they have to going forwards. Easy money maker for cash strapped Local authorities. And most parents will pay if fined not risk criminal record.

So potentially a day off unauthorised because school say it's not exceptional to attend wedding /funeral/award ceremony and parents could potentially be fined 60 each per child per half day.

Until a few years ago my daughter's (then) primary school used to allow children 10 days holiday a year at the discretion of the head....local county stopped this. When it stopped some families, including us could either no longer afford a Summer holiday or some families couldn't go on holiday because they worked during school holidays (tourist trade) which put an enormous stress on families. Childhood is more than education...

To read some of these posts you'd think there was some kind of diktat that children should be attached to a desk almost continuously, unable to share any quality time with their families and regarded merely as drones in the state's cruel grip

Whereas the school year actually takes up just 190 days ...

Agree with PP. I have a friend who works in retail. She is not allowed holiday in December.

Surely this applies to people who are seasonal workers who live at the seaside - they actually cannot have time off in June, July , August . Those kids go to school too don't they?!

Totally agree with the ruling. I don't think it should be a right to have your child out of school term time for holidays and needed clamping down on. However, if I was to decide to take my children out of school term time - assuming that as a parent I could gauge their individual situations such as ability, age etc, then I would expect a fine and pay it. Last year I took my 2 school age children (then year 9 and reception) out of school to go to Disney World for 3 weeks, including the May half term. We had to go before my post grad DD1 started a post grad course in September and the summer is too hot and busy. We also had to go before DD2 was year 10, as I wouldn't have taken her out then. Of course we could have gone for 2 weeks but chose not to. It was not authorised but both schools were fine with it and there was no fine. We made it clear it was a one off. If we'd have received a fine I would have paid it.

The 'Disneyworld' is a massive red herring here. Being overpriced, commercialised nonsense, of course its not a God-given right to go there. And somebody going for 2-week holiday they are certainly not on a breadline and pretty much privileged -- of course the public is supposed to feel resentful. Therefore so many goady posts about 'luxury'. But thats beside the point. Families do have plenty of reasons to miss some days of school besides enjoying luxury.

If we were always waiting for children to 'catch up' so they were at the same level we would never get anything done.

I am a teacher too. I only teach A level and we do not differentiate in the way that primary classes do. What hapens to us is exactly as I describe.

I only teach A level and we do not differentiate in the way that primary classes do.

Right-o. Like I said, I do not think taking children out of school during GCSE or A level years is a good idea. I can see how that would have an impact on the child and the teacher.

16+ education isn't compulsory in the same way as pre-16 is it?

If you take holiday during gcses or a levels you are an idiot.

Using my wife's account I wanted to say, that no headteacher is ever going to admit that a child missing the last week of a term is okay because they would be fired by the PC brigade in their board of governors for being off message - it would trigger a punitive Ofsted visit for certain. However, many should (if they are intelligent enough to deserve their position) admit that in most cases, occasional days off school have no detrimental affect. While there are children who are habitually absent and therefore way behind where they should be in terms of attainment (who should be protected by fines etc from the bad decisions of their parents), there are equally children who do attend regularly, who are working above expectations for their age range, who would get much more out of a holiday with their family than spending a week with bored classmates and exhausted teachers watching videos and cleaning out their drawers, colouring etc as last weeks of term always involve. I would expect the issuer of a fine to HAVE to prove detriment to such children's education and explain the hypocrisy of teaching them foreign languages whilst banning them from opportunities travel should they be in a JAM family. The state is heavy handed here, the decision makers (most enjoying fat salaries and for whom living in a recession ravaged economy is either a false or long distant memory) assuming the children are making progress all the time in school. As above, it simply isn't the case.
How is it right to encourage parents to lie about their child's state of health in order to avoid unauthorised absences? How is it right to teach the children that lying is the way around the system when in fact the system is ignoring the fact that MOST children benefit from occasional term time absence through broadened horizons and time with their family, happiness etc. This judgement is yet more evidence that the police state is growing. I will be voting for a councillor that backs parental choice in all but cases where a detriment is proven. I would urge all voters to find out the position of their local candidate before hand and select only those that support parents in making the best choices for their children without the fear of retribution from deluded dictators in local government. The alternative is that children, through their parents, learn to hate and lie to authority and disrespect its decisions - hardly a recipe for a bright future....

Nodowntime - I completely agree. I think what I find so frustrating about this whole debate is how agressively polarised it has become.

There are absolutely some really feckless parents whose miss the first 3 weeks of the academic year because they are in Florida (yes really). That is an absolute disgrace and needs to be tackled, but there are millions of shades of grey in between that and never missing a day off school for anything.

I think it is right that the state says that holiday absences are 'unauthorised' and that fines (which should go to the school imo) can be issued.

What really angers me is that there are 100s of ways which poor parenting affects childrens outcomes but these are not criminalised. The evidence around occasional holidays affecting results is VERY sketchy - the evidence was centred much more around frequent days off throughout the year.

I imagine the children who have not been regularly read to since birth have much poorer outcomes than children who have parents who have done all the 'right things' yet if that parent who has been dedicated in every other way decides to take them out of school for a handful of days they are criminalised where as the feckless idiot who doesn't value education is just left to it.

Agree Mrscog. I would totally support this if it were about helping those children who are not supported with their education at home.

It's not though. It's about fudging the numbers; being seen to be doing something but making no actual impact on those that need it.

What worries me the most is that everyone thinks that we are now back to where we were before the judgement i.e. that their LEA can continue to say no fine for up to 5 days or 3 sessions or 2 weeks or whatever. They cannot do this now, their discretion to have a post code lottery on this has gone.

whatever your LEA's previous policy last week is now no longer valid and if you are relying on this and booking a term time holiday or have a term time holiday then you are in for a huge shock.

I need to re-read the info again as it is confusing but the Govt are determined to increase the fines massively. So it looks like £60 per parent per child per session so £240 A DAY

that's not a small insignificant fine and your 1 week away would be £1200 per child.

I have read post after post on this thread - "oh its ok because my school give you 2 days/1 week/ whatever without a fine"

NOT ANYMORE

That was before there was case law setting out what was expected. now that there is schools will have to comply either by marking you absent with authorisation and justifying this to ofsted or just absent.

that's not a small insignificant fine and your 1 week away would be £1200 per child.

In reality all this will do is increase the amount of time that children are 'sick' .

It won't solve any of the persistent absence problems that actually affect children's learning.

Its polarised because its normal for people to resent others having something they can't, but obviously want

How is it right to encourage parents to lie about their child's state of health in order to avoid unauthorised absences? How is it right to teach the children that lying is the way around the system

Really? I thought lying was a personal choice and something each parent might be expected to take responsibility for?

Talk about "he made me do it, miss!!"

jellyfrizz the govt are going to get wise to this and start asking for sick notes. So expect more d and v kids to be pushed into school because their parents cant afford to do this - the doctors will charge for such a note.

I cant believe we are in this situation if I am honest.

It just so lets the govt off the hook with dealing with the persistent truants and the difficult families that every school has and everyone knows one.

In one of my DC's year one child went through the whole 7 years of primary school never having completed a full week. and now in secondary school its the same.

it takes time, effort and money to work with families like this to really turn things around and improve the childs life chances.

but what do we get instead of a coherent, joined up approach to supporting these families? term time holiday fines.

People are so goggled by the "kids must be in school" mantra and turning their fire on term time holidays that they aren't stamping their feet and shouting and making a fuss about the real issue.

Frank Field did some excellent work in this area - about chaotic families - yet because it requires some actual thought instead of a one size fits all approach it wasn't carried out.

I just keep wondering how soon we will see the first MN post "shock horror my LEA has just fined me £2,400 for a week away with my 2 kids and I was certain it was £60. "

In reality all this will do is increase the amount of time that children are 'sick
It's not as easy to pull that off anymore. Aside from anything, kids can't keep secrets (I had numerous children tell me yesterday that X Y Z friend was actually on holiday not 'got sickness and diarrhoea'!)

i have not read the whole thread so someone might already have made this point...my children are now finished in education so I am not directly and personally affected however as a tax player , I do not want children being taken on holiday during termtime, effectively wasting the good resources ( teachers/schools) i as a tax payer are paying for on their behalf .
It is not a god given right to a have a holiday , family or otherwise....
certainly there are many families and children who never have holidays away from home in term time or holidays.
This idea that a family holiday is somehow an integral part of childhood that vital to a child and families well being ( whether in a caravan in devon or luxury hotel in maldives) is nonscence, and if we believe that , are we going to start funding holidays for all...as many many people cannot afford one ?

I need to re-read the info again as it is confusing but the Govt are determined to increase the fines massively. So it looks like £60 per parent per child per session so £240 A DAY
where have you read this? I'm quite interested to read.

No Railgunner1, its polarised because some people have the inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes or to envisage that their lives may undergo some sort of "shock" that puts them in others position.

Read the judgement. Then tell me you are comfortable about this.

It takes away the heads discretion. It talks about prosecution for half a day being excessive which leads you to think that a prosecution for a whole day isn't!

you never know when you might find yourself in my shoes. or in the shoes of someone who needs to go abroad suddenly for a sick relative or go to a funeral and cant get childcare or a million other things.

its convenient to talk about "2 weeks in Disney" but that is an infinitesimally small number of the absences. Its that which polarises but when you drill down into and ask - do you think 2 days off to attend the funeral of an aunt who brought your mum up and whom you think of as grandma" then you would get different answers.

sadly now there are going to be more and more refusals for things like the above because the discretion has been taken away.

Aside from anything, kids can't keep secrets (I had numerous children tell me yesterday that X Y Z friend was actually on holiday not 'got sickness and diarrhoea'!)

Well yes, as a primary teacher I had lots of children tell me they were off on their hols the next day & lol and behold were 'sick' the next day. Or children coming back from time off 'sick' talking about being on the airplane. But what can the school actually do? Other than ask for a doctor's note? It's an adult's word against a child and a sure fire way to alienate parents.
And as someone said earlier all teachers know that time off for an otherwise well supported child in a non exam year is really not going to make a jot of difference to anyone.

LornaD40 if you have a look at the full judgement referenced above they define a session as half a day.

the judges also talk about prosecution for a half day absence as being excessive so the natural interpretation of this is that fining (which could lead to prosecution) for a one day absence isn't.

I have been reading various legal summaries and interpretations and also looking at the statements issued since the judgement by a number of LEA's.

Case law takes away the discretion that there was before this case.

I do not want children being taken on holiday during termtime, effectively wasting the good resources ( teachers/schools) i as a tax payer are paying for on their behalf .

I haven't used the NHS in years, is this also wasting the resources you are paying for? I rarely use the local library either - more waste?