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?

4 years ago these rules weren't in place.

We're not supporting "injustice and erosion of freedom" that's hyperbole.

What was wrong with the previous system is that it got abused, people weren't entitled just to take 10 days, but they felt like they were and so when Joe Bloggs is allowed to go because his attendance is 96%, and Tracy Beaker is allowed to go because even though her attendance is low, its because she's been seriously ill and could benefit, but Regina George isn't cause she just misses a fair bit of school and is regularly late, it causes massive issues for the head.

You'd also get days for "personal reasons" because these are exceptional circumstances.

Personal reasons is not the same as a holiday.

I find it morbidly fascinating that I live my adulthood supposedly in a democracy, but which seems to want to police their citizens far more than no-freedom of choice Communist state.

^^ This. I am younger perhaps, no children yet, so more post-communist, but still i find this seriously frightening.

Parents often behave as if schools are trying to be mean and spoil things, but if several children from each class were away on holiday a teacher would have an easier time with fewer pupils, and need only hand over worksheets on the child's return. Having worked in a school, the over riding concern is that children will never make up that two weeks of lost learning, and although some can cope others won't. Also, head teachers can only authorise what they are allowed to under the current government regulations - they can't make it up as they go along for each individual case - they do not have that authority.
Nobody can stop a parent taking a child away on holiday, but unauthorised absence is recorded on the child's attendance and stays there.

I have never ever known an organisation where adults don't lie to get a day off

Neither have I, and I've provided employment hundreds of people so doubt there's any excuse I haven't heard. That doesn't make it right, though, and I can safely say that literally nobody who lied to me ever got any work from me again. They whinged and they whined, they insisted that they really, truly did have an exceptional reason for lying, and none of it made any difference ... lie to me and you're out

I'm very sorry to hear about your son, though

Personal reasons is not the same as a holiday.

Personal reasons means its up to you, not up to government to determine how personal.

Why do university students have this right? Why not parents?

Parents do have the right, just when you are providing such a large number of people with a service there needs to be guidelines otherwise people take the mick.

there is a very large number of people going to universities too. And students are not the most responsible people. Yet they are allowed a number of lectures missed, over that -- there is an academic penalty. ACADEMIC, not FINANCIAL and certainly not CRIMINAL

Oh, and regarding the "communist state" thing - does anyone seriously imagine that local authorities somehow welcome the work which school absence brings? That they wouldn't prefer a return to a time when no meant no, so that they could use the resources for something else?

And while, quite rightly, there's still the facility to agree absence for genuinely exceptional cases, do all those who simply refuse to accept the word "no", insisting instead that their reason is somehow more special than the rest, honestly not accept the part they've played in bringing the stricter rules about?

University is voluntary, and fees are paid for it, very poor attendence can lead to removal from a course though, but its incorrect to conflate the two

And agreed puzzled, everyone thinks they are more special than the rest, even in the case that brought this about, the school had allowed absences for holidays already that year, they just wouldn't do it again.

There is a fundamental difference between university students and parents.

If a university student skips a lecture they will have to catch up themselves. The lecturer will not disrupt the next lecture to go over the material with them. It is not up to the lecturer to make sure the student catches up. So the other students are not being disrupted. The only person affected by the student's actions is the student. They are not damaging anybody else. And, unlike school, university is not compulsory.

If a parent takes a child out of school for a holiday they are immediately damaging someone else. Their child's education will suffer. Further, when their child returns to school the teacher(s) will be expected to help their child catch up on whatever they missed while they were away, thereby disrupting the rest of the class.

So the two are nowhere near equivalent.

If someone wants to be irresponsible about their own education and doesn't harm anyone else in the process that is entirely up to them. If parents want to be irresponsible about their child's education and disrupt the education of other children in the process I think the government has every right to step in.

Those of us who are older, we always had to take holidays in the official school holidays and when we had kids same applied. I do think understand the argument that it's more expensive as that's how it's always been. If you want a holiday then you go when school is closed and save accordingly or don't go simple really. Teachers get no other choice but to pay a premium for their holidays they can't skip a week to a cheaper deal. Parents fight and worry to get their offspring into their preferred schools, sign to agree the rules then complain when something doesn't fit in with what they want and blame the school! (Don's flameproof clothing and hides)

Do not understand the argument... predictive text damn it!

There is a fundamental difference between university students and parents.

But universities somehow think that up to a week of missed lectures, be they overslept or whatever, isn't disruptive enough to even ask questions.

yet if a child misses a day or two, it somehow dooms the world.

Teachers get no other choice but to pay a premium for their holidays they can't skip a week to a cheaper deal.

I remember the discussion about why don't we close shops over Boxing Day and bank holidays so retail workers could enjoy some free time too.
People were throwing hissy fits that shopping is their human right and the world would come to an end if they can't stroll around a mall on a Boxing day.

So in sympathy with teachers, why don't we close everything down during school holidays (including the NHS), so all parents can have a correct holiday?

But universities somehow think that up to a week of missed lectures, be they overslept or whatever, isn't disruptive enough to even ask questions.

Because it doesn't disrupt anyone other than the student.

yet if a child misses a day or two, it somehow dooms the world

Rubbish. Although you can be fined for a single day's absence I am not aware of any LA that will actually do so. There usually needs to be at least 5 days unauthorised absence that term before a fine will be imposed.

The decision was correct. The father is an odious twerp.

If a parent takes a child out of school for a holiday they are immediately damaging someone else. Their child's education will suffer. Further, when their child returns to school the teacher(s) will be expected to help their child catch up on whatever they missed while they were away, thereby disrupting the rest of the class.

Nope. Not the case (in primary at least) as myself and other teachers on this thread have said a number of times.

"what was wrong with previous '10 days absence permitted'? that was reasonable"

In our local authority 10 days was simply the time limit before they would give your place to someone else.

I do baulk at the government criminalising parents for parental decisions. I wonder whether 'use it or lose it' wouldn't be fairer. We have a state education place and if we don't send out child in for two weeks the place gets given to someone on the waiting list who will use the place!

Children need time off when parents are in jobs where holiday is not possible in school hols. Family time, quality time, fun time is important. That time doesn't have to be in Majorca.

What was wrong with the previous system is that it got abused, people weren't entitled just to take 10 days, but they felt like they were

What are you basing this statement on? The absences weren't significantly higher before fines were introduced so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the 'previous system' was abused.

"The absences weren't significantly higher before fines were introduced so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the 'previous system' was abused." ... or that fining people makes any difference!

"The absences weren't significantly higher before fines were introduced so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the 'previous system' was abused." ... or that fining people makes any difference!

Completely wrong.

Before the current regime was introduced absenteeism was running at 6.1%. It is now down to 4.1%, a drop of nearly one third. The percentage of pupils classed as persistent absentees has fallen from 14.5% to 10.3%. So, contrary to the statement, absences were significantly higher before fines were introduced, there is ample evidence that the previous system was abused and there is clear evidence that fining people does make a difference.

If a parent takes a child out of school for a holiday they are immediately damaging someone else. Their child's education will suffer. Further, when their child returns to school the teacher(s) will be expected to help their child catch up on whatever they missed while they were away, thereby disrupting the rest of the class.

I totally agree with this.

University is voluntary, and fees are paid for it, very poor attendence can lead to removal from a course though, but its incorrect to conflate the two

Even with fees, they only cover the part of the cost. Talk about wasting resources
And... What happened to 'don't like the rules, don't send your child to that school'? So again -- giving up freedom isn't exactly a 'choice' that one is making at will.

As for going private, does it mean that missing some term time magically doesn't disrupt anyone just because one paid the fee?

So no parent can ever take their DC out during term time due to a previous absentee figure of 6%. Hardly a national crisis,how utterly ridiculous.

So 94% of parents were managing not to abuse the system prior to fines.

Now just those who can afford to stump up for fines can go on holiday at times that suit them,attend family weddings and other celebrations,take up free holiday offers etc.Going by the amount paid in fines many clearly are without being taken to court. How is that fair? Surely if it's zero holidays in term time it should be zero holidays in term time for everybody. Surely private school pupils have the same disruption and are also entitled to be covered by thus ban. Why are pupils in Scotland,Ireland and Wales not fined and why are some LEAs letting heads approve 50% of holiday requests.

It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and not fair. Where you live and income dictates whether you have freedom of Joyce.

*If a parent takes a child out of school for a holiday they are immediately damaging someone else. Their child's education will suffer. Further, when their child returns to school the teacher(s) will be expected to help their child catch up on whatever they missed while they were away, thereby disrupting the rest of the class.

I totally agree with this.*

Are you a teacher? If not what are you basing your opinion on?