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?

choice

Why are children allowed to be taken out for classes for music lessons, hoards of sporting fixtures and daily intervention groups if every child having it's bum on it's seat in class every minute of every day is so crucial?

And then we get the secondary residential trips not all can afford to go on.

So if the education of my children is being ruined by all the above surely it should all stop now.

No residential trips if all kids can't afford to go on them,no music lessons during the school day,no sporting fixtures during the school day,no interventions during lesson time and parents who pay fines prosecuted and taken to court regardless.

School is not compulsory.
What about travellers? Sometimes in education, sometimes not. People who move house and are not immediately allocated a school place?

It is entirely possible to have a part time school place, but heads don't like that!

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.

Let's have a look at that statement. Fining would only have an affect on unauthorised absence wouldn't it?

Head teacher's discretion to authorise holidays were taken away in 2013 so the last year of no fines (for the general population rather than cases of persistent absenteeism) was the school year 2012/2013.

2010/2011: Overall absence = 5.8% Unauthorised absence - the one we're actually arguing about here was a massive 1.1% and it says here this rate has changed little over the last five years.

2011/2012: Overall absence = 5.1% Unauthorised absence - 1%.

2012/2013: Overall absence = 4.6%. Unauthorised absence - 1%.

2013/2014: Overall absence = 4.5%. Unauthorised absence = 1.1%

2014/2015: Overall absence = 4.6%. Unauthorised absence = can't see overall figure not mentioned on main report. I'd take a guess at ooh, about 1%?

2015/2016: Overall absence = 4.6%. Unauthorised absence = can't see overall figure not mentioned on main report.

We also need to bear in mind that Arrived in school after registration closed. is counted as an unauthorised absence.

And Absence information is collected and disseminated at enrolment level rather than pupil level. This means that where a pupil has moved school throughout the year, they will be counted more than once as they have recorded attendance at more than one school. .....The number of pupil enrolments is approximately 4 per cent higher than the number of pupils.

So, looking at the data fines have made fuck all difference to unauthorised absences which is the only one they influence.

Data taken from GOV.UK here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-pupil-absence

"And then we get the secondary residential trips not all can afford to go on."

That the school plans, so the issues of "catch up don't apply.

And that the school plans, so it fully meets the requires,ends for the "educated elsewhere" authorisation. Now, parents can ask for that code to be used to aurotise an educational ansense. It is used eg for music exams. The school needs proof that the child is doing the activity, including by register for absences longer than a day. It needs evidence of the educational component. And it needs to check (as a minimum) the safeguarding policies.

The person you are replying to Jellyfrizz is apparently an "expert" as they have commented along these lines on many other threads about school holidays in the past.

They spout the government line, that the fines have transformed attendance and education. when as you so rightly point out the reality is that they have made f... all difference.

Whether people like it or not it is clear that a session has been defined as half a day and the fine is £60 per session. seriously aren't councils going to see this as the money spinner it is?

Supreme court judgements make case law - anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know our legal system very well.

So, looking at the data fines have made fuck all difference to unauthorised absences which is the only one they influence.

That sentence shows the fundamental flaw in your argument. The changes introduced in 2013 were not intended to reduce unauthorised absence and could not do so. You are looking at the wrong thing.

Fixed penalties for unauthorised absence were introduced in 2004. If you want to see whether or not they are effective you need to look at the figures for that period. If you did you would see that there has been a significant drop in unauthorised absence since the fines were introduced.

What happened in 2013 was that the regulations were altered to reduce the level of authorised absence. Absences that would previously have been authorised are now unauthorised. So, if the changes were ineffective, the overall level of absence would remain unaltered but unauthorised absence would be up - parents would have been told their holiday was unauthorised but would have taken it anyway. In fact overall absence is down and unauthorised absence is unaltered. The changes have therefore worked.

The changes were also designed to reduce persistent absence. On the full year figures which you have looked at that has fallen from 13.5% before the changes to 10.5% now, so on that measure also the changes have worked.

Meditrina - perhaps you have a different school experience from me, but when half or more of the kids are on an activity week away in school time like the ski ing holiday or the summer week to an activity camp all in school time, those kids that don't go definitely do not get an education of any sort. The school might plan it but the upshot is that they spend a lot of time doing nothing because their regular teachers are away.

we have 2 X 1 week every year could enrichment week. those that don't go on the trips either abroad or at home are in the minority and have a really boring week.

Lets just see if in 2 or 3 years time the first senior school cohort to have been in the system since the holiday ban shows any sort of significant improvement in grade.

I can confidently predict they wont and when they don't there will be some other reason spouted out for this.

banning holidays makes nil difference. putting proper funding into schools does and giving teachers back the decision making powers does as well.

I don't feel bad taking DD out - at her school there are a number of children who don't go in because they/their parents can't be arsed.
I see NDN grandchild (actually both of them) going shopping with them in middle of the day - not sick, they just will have not gotten up in time and just not bothered

Sort them out before fining people who have 100% attendance rest of time.
Children who are are late are more disruptive than those absent

DH has always found it very difficult to take any significant holiday off (more than a handful of days at a time) - our rare big holiday forces him to spend 2 weeks with DD - it makes such a difference to their relationship

.....and I don't want to go in August - too bloody hot!

Sorry mummy but your school experience is poor then. During residentials, those who don't go have lessons reflecting the topic. For example a residential recently occurred connected with the Vikings. Those who didn't go carried out similar activities to those on the residential, craft etc on Vikings. This also happens during the summer residential. It is well planned.

this has / is a really interesting debate and i think i read upthread that the fines do not go back into schools but go to councils...it would be so good if fines did go directly to the school..might be a bit of help for the schools suffering from the potential funding changes ( and that is a whole other debate) or fines go into ring fenced projects to support pupils from chaotic families with chronic absenteeism problems as opposed to those nicking off for nice family holiday
Though i have not necessarily agreed with everyone on this thread, it has been very interesting and thank you to all the teachers and people who knew more about the stats etc who have certainly opened my eyes a bit.

Bird not in our experience life just carries on for those left behind from term time skiing trips,the the 4 day history trip on a subject they're not even studying not all can go on, the week long language trip there aren't even places for all even if all could afford to go. Life just carries on in the 8 other subject areas. Why should those left behind just have holding lessons anyway?

And re music lessons and sports fixtures these are happening with hoards of children on a weekly basis. Kids coming in and out for things many can't afford. Going by the argument on here it damages not just their education but those not out of the class too.

Surely it all must stop.

All our music lessons are free to PP pupils. Sports fixtures are after school and have no cost.

And what about those above pp who can't afford them?

What about the hours missed from lessons,the disruption to not just their education but everybody else's?

Our music lessons which cover a huge range of instruments are throughout the school day.

Play rehearsals have taken kids out of my dc's lessons too and plenty of fixtures.

Surely there should be a ban on any of these enrichment activities happening during the school day. It disrupts the education of not just those taking part but everybody else's too.

Is music and sport not part of education.

Music lessons, trips etc don't count as unauthorised absence, they count as EE on a register.

As a previous poster pointed out, the fines system wouldn't have made a difference to the unauthorised absence system, it will have made a difference to the amount of authorised absences given for holidays.

Bird not for those not taking the lessons and enduring the disruption of various children absent on a weekly basis.

For the children themselves unless they are going to be professional musicians whatever they pick up in chello,bassoon lessons will in no way compensate for what they miss in core subjects on a weekly basis anyway.

And is travel not educational then?

So, taking a child out once a week for an hour every week for a music lesson isn't disruptive. taking a child out for a whole week to go on a ski ing trip isn't disruptive. Giving a child off as much time as they need to compete in an elite level sport isn't disruptive.

Either every single time a child is not in the class its disruptive to their learning and to the learning of their peers. Or it isn't. why isn't it that simple?

why is giving a child a day off for a music exam - it has to be a day where we live because we are in a very rural area and people need to travel there and back - not disruptive, but giving them a day off to go to great aunties funeral disruptive. Or the last day of term off to go on holiday early.

because despite what others say we ARE talking about the odd day here and there. and really where does it become disruptive if we aren't. two days in a row, three, five, seven. Whats the magic number when suddenly an absence stops being ok and becomes disruptive.

How many children get an hour a week music lessons? Peripatetic half an hour maximum, secondly many of these type of lessons are rotated, as the teacher delivers more than one lesson in school, and this allows kids not to miss the same lesson every week.

Elite sport would count as exceptional circumstances, as would auntie's funeral, music exams.

They're not holidays.

Danny - in some LEA's aunties funeral very much does not count as exceptional circumstances. I have some rl examples of this plus on this forum over the past couple of years.

you cant have it both ways. either an absence, any absence is disruptive in which case lets stop the lot. or it isn't and a more mature approach to making the decision is needed.

we live in a small rural area with a small school. the music teacher came the same days every week and took the kids out at the same time. perhaps if we lived in a city with more kids/more choice it would be different.

you cant get away from the fact that all absences are equal but some are more equal than others.

so what if elite sport counts as an exceptional absence? its still an absence and I keep being told on this thread that any absence even a day disrupts the whole class, the teachers teaching plan, the child taking the absence etc.

just because you label it exceptional or school trip or enrichment week or whatever else does not alter its state - its still a child not in a class.

What happened in 2013 was that the regulations were altered to reduce the level of authorised absence. Absences that would previously have been authorised are now unauthorised.

So basically all that has been done is that time off that headteachers previously deemed acceptable is no longer allowed.

Given that headteachers would not damage a child's learning by authorising time off when unsuitable, how has this made any positive difference to children's learning? Or are you saying that headteachers used to make many bad decisions in authorising absence?

"Or are you saying that headteachers used to make many bad decisions in authorising absence?"

As I've said repeatedly, many heads found that the whole process was very difficult and took up too much time. Mainly because every parent views their reasons for taking a child out during term time as valid, and their circumstances to be exceptional.

Many heads actually prefer the new system where no holiday leave is granted except in exceptional circumstances with strict guidelines on what makes an exceptional circumstance.

I'm finding it difficult to see where in the guidelines that Auntie's funeral wouldn't adhere to the guidelines.

"you cant get away from the fact that all absences are equal but some are more equal than others. "

This is true though isn't it. Taking part in elite sport is a genuine exceptional circumstance going away on holiday because its cheaper isn't.

What happened in 2013 was that the regulations were altered to reduce the level of authorised absence. Absences that would previously have been authorised are now unauthorised. So, if the changes were ineffective, the overall level of absence would remain unaltered but unauthorised absence would be up - parents would have been told their holiday was unauthorised but would have taken it anyway. In fact overall absence is down and unauthorised absence is unaltered. The changes have therefore worked.

I wouldn't say they worked as 'sickness' just went up instead of unauthorised absence.

Glad to see persistent absenteeism being brought down as this is the area that needs focusing on but I believe this has much more to do with engagement officers etc. than fines.