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?

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.

I accept that it took up time, I do not disagree with that point. But did headteachers make bad decisions as prh seems to be suggesting?

She doesn't suggest that heads made bad decisions, just states that formerly approved absences would now not be so, because the legislation changed.

*The National Union of Teachers suggested there were important cultural and social benefits to going on holiday and that this should not become the preserve of the middle classes.

The Local Government Association agreed, saying the law was not really practical*

In Scotland there are no fines for parents who take their children on holiday in term-time....Likewise in Northern Ireland term-time holidays are considered unauthorised absences but there are no fines.....In Wales families are allowed up to 10 days of term-time holiday at the head's discretion. In January Huw Lewis, the education minister for Wales, wrote to councils saying it was wrong to tell head teachers to ban all term-time leave.

So, its only English schools that do this. do the GCSE results differ so significantly between England, Scotland and Ireland?

And its not all teachers and heads that think this is a good idea - to fine parents.

Oh but let me guess - if I don't like the changes not only can I just take my kids out of the school system but I could move to Scotland, Wales or Ireland where clearly they don't give a shiny shit about their kids because they don't fine for holidays.

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

No. Time off that head teachers previously deemed unacceptable but felt they had no choice but to allow is no longer allowed.

As has been said upthread, the idea had taken hold that parents were allowed to take their children out of school for up to 10 days each year for holidays. This was not true but the belief had grown so strong that many head teachers felt unable to refuse requests and those that did often had to put up with abuse from parents. Head teachers therefore lobbied the government to change the rules so that they could do what they believed was right in terms of authorising holidays.

She doesn't suggest that heads made bad decisions, just states that formerly approved absences would now not be so, because the legislation changed.

It was said that taking decision away from heads was in order to reduce authorised absences. Someone must have thought the heads were making bad decisions otherwise why would they be looking to reduce authorised absences? The heads obviously previously thought that the reasons for absence was good enough to authorise. If they were good educational decisions why would you want to reduce these?

do the GCSE results differ so significantly between England, Scotland and Ireland

The four home nations don't all use the same exams so direct comparison is not easy. However, if we look at PISA tests, England outperforms the other home nations in science and reading, and is tied in first place with Northern Ireland on maths. Scotland is in third place on all three tests with Wales some distance behind in fourth.

Time off that head teachers previously deemed unacceptable but felt they had no choice but to allow is no longer allowed.

Why would they authorise it if it were not acceptable? Any decent head I have worked with would have explained the reasons, stood firm in their decision about whether or not it would impact the child and used the conversation as a way to better relations.

It was said that taking decision away from heads was in order to reduce authorised absences

Decisions have not been taken away from heads, although some would like you to think they have as it makes it easier for them to deal with disgruntled parents. Heads still have discretion. However, they now have the backing they requested to allow them to make the decisions they wanted.

The heads obviously previously thought that the reasons for absence was good enough to authorise

No. Heads thought that the reasons for absence were not good enough to authorise but felt the regulations did not give them sufficient backing, leaving them in a position of authorising absences that they did not think should be authorised.

I'm on the fence. All the arguments for the fines are understandable, but for some families it isn't about "save up for longer". We went for a term-time holiday every year as children. My dad has severe mental health issues. Most of the time he stayed in the caravan, even in term time holidays, because he couldn't face the crowds. In school holidays it would be so busy we wouldn't have been able to go on holiday at all. As young carers, having holidays where we could go to the kids' clubs and go swimming etc was a fantastic break for us and desperately needed.

I'd take DD on term-time holidays and pay the fine.

And fines did not seem to work after 2004 either.

Overall absence (Can't immediately find unauthorised absence but as we have seen before, if it can't be authorised it often becomes 'illness'.)

2003/04: 6.72%
2004/05: 6.59%
Fines brought in for unauthorised absence
2005/06: 6.96%
2006/07: 6.49

Oops source: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183445/DFE-RR171.pdf

That report is actually very interesting. It also says that

Chart E5 below clearly illustrates that the majority of schools have relatively low absence rates, with fewer than one in ten having extremely high rates. So, only a minority of schools actually have very high levels of absences.

Also

The majority of absences are caused by a minority of pupils.

It's an old report 2011 I think but surely anyone with half a brain would think "Let's look into those schools and pupils who have high levels of absences and find out the reasons why and support them" rather than "Let's stop otherwise successful children from having any time out of school at all to fudge the figures."

prh - so why the decision by the NUT then? are you saying that teachers and heads disagree on this point? are the heads right and the teachers wrong?

We need to stop keep talking about authorised and unauthorised absence. an absence is an absence - and you and others have said that is wrong. is the child in school? No. then they are absent.

if certain absences are allowed then its the definition of exceptional that's the issue isn't it. I think 5 days off a year for child with 100% attendance is exceptional since they have been there the rest of the time.

you really are making heads look a bit stupid here prh and I think that is insulting. heads too frightened to tell parents they couldn't take their kids out. do you think this happens in other businesses where the employer is too frightened to tell the employee they cant have leave? why do they need "back up" from the government? cant they stand on their own two feet then? and if they cant what the hell are paying them for!! Who are these heads who don't want to make decisions because I don't know them. shouldn't they just be told to straighten up and do their jobs - part of which is dealing with difficult parents. and if they don't shouldn't we be saying to them what people on here have been saying to me about holidays in term time? if you don't like it get another job where you can do what you want or get out of the system.

as for your stats on the other home nations as you so rightly point out you cant compare because of the exam system. so the other 4 home nations are wrong and only England is right.

there are some massive double standards on this thread from those in favour of the fining who keep hiding behind this term authorised. if all leave is wrong then cancel it - all. don't come up with a definition that gives flexibility to some and not others. all or nothing. because we, parents, are just too stupid to make our own decisions and the heads are too scared to so lets let the government do it for us.

Chart E5 is on p7 btw. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183445/DFE-RR171.pdf

jellyfrizz - it is far easier to blanket ban than to actually look at the facts and put time and money into those families who are responsible for the majority of absences.

if you listen to prh you will be imagining that the heads in those schools obviously spend their time cowering in their offices too frightened to confront these families without "back up"

"heads too frightened to tell parents they couldn't take their kids out"

Heads did this, parents complain vociferously, come up to school shouting and bawling, go to the local press with their sad faces on.

Why do they need back up from the Government? Because they enforcing government set legislation.

Heads wanted really strict guidelines regarding what was allowed and what wasn't. The Government gave the guidelines.

The old rules were taken advantage of, it seems that people couldn't be trusted properly, everyone's case in exceptional to them.

Part of a heads job is dealing with difficult parents, all heads do this, and most do it well, but having to deal with difficult parents regarding holiday permissions may for many have been massively time consuming.

The old rules were taken advantage of

But they weren't! Have you looked at the actual stats? They are here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-pupil-absence

If children are persistent absentees then heads need to work with parents to deal with the reasons for this. Whether it is hard, or time consuming. Sad face in local papers or not.

But EWOs deal with all that stuff now rather than headteachers who are stuck in their offices fiddling data.

But that's ok Jelly because now the heads don't have to deal with ranting parents or daily mail sad faces. they can go back in their offices and punch in numbers and try and have as little contact with parents as possible! really this just isn't a realistic view of the work of heads is it.

too many people saying what most heads want when most teachers as per their decision at the NUT don't agree with this approach. not anecdotal based on a sample of whatevers. a fact.

My dc have supposed rotated music lessons during class time and they are a pain. Sometimes they run over. They have to leave at least 5 minutes earlier to get there as a big site. So there and back along with running over you are talking the best part of an hour. That is 6 hours each half ten which is the equivalent of a day off every half term. They have missed whole lessons on new concepts and had to chase other for homework they missed.

That is for only children. Hoards have these lessons,sometimes for several instruments, the disruption for other children,going by the arguments on here, must be huge.

Then you get the kids in the school plays,sporting fixtures.....

Double standards. Missing lessons seems to be fine and dandy for some kids but not others. Ludicrous and unfair.

Surely the default position should be that children are in school during term, unless they are too unwell to attend or in exceptional circumstances? I don't think a week in disneyland is an exceptional circumstance. I think it is right head teachers can allow it is certain circumstances.

If you sign your child up to a school, then you are agreeing to abide by their rules (unless illegal, obviously). If you don't like the rules, send them to a school which rules you do like or home educate your children. You can't only abide by the rules you like and ignore those which you don't.

I can see the argument that poorer families cannot afford to go away during the school holidays due to higher cost at that time. I do have some sympathy, but also think that foreign holidays are not essential and education comes first. Not only that, but you can spend family time and "make memories" as many put it without going away. When I was little the only time away from home was going to visit my grandparents (at most once a year) as my parents couldn't afford other types of holidays until we were in our teens. Mostly we simply did days out or spent time as a family in the park/on walks with the dogs and so on. I have many happy memories of these times. You don't need to go away to have fun and have time as a family.

I was speaking to a good friend who is a teacher about this. Her view is that it does tend to depend on the circumstances. Attendance is one factor, others would be how the child is managing their current work and also the type of holiday/purpose of the absence. Sitting by a pool of a hotel complex or on the beach in the sun is lovely, but not always educational (I see many counterarguments that holidays can be "educational"- yes they can be, but how many actually are?

She feels that a big problem for some students can be that a new topic is started (and sometimes finished if they've been off for a few weeks) in the time the child was absent. The child then has to try and catch up what they've missed for the rest of it to make sense. For some children this is doable- especially if their parents help them catch up on what they've missed. But for some, it's much harder for the child and her. If a child is absent due to illness then it really can't be helped and you just need to get on with things. But it's not helpful for parents to take these children out of school unnecessarily. And it does create extra work for the teacher, which if a number of children in the class go off at different times can be a bit of a pain. I can absolutely see that if a number of parents take their children out at different times throughout the year it could be very disruptive.

Don't private schools have different holidays and therefore take advantage of cheaper flights?
Are they also excluded from the ruling?

DD tells me a kid in her class is going to Pakistan for 2 months - I know a local school where this is a constant problem and they have been told they won't hold the school place open for them - but do they get fined and how much? Or are they dropping in and out of education?

"Double standards. Missing lessons seems to be fine and dandy for some kids but not others. Ludicrous and unfair."

Ridiculous conflation between missing one lesson a week a half term, and whole days of lessons concentrated into a week/10 days .

Its also worth noting that as most if not all children do miss some lessons for certain reasons, whether it be sports, music, drama, trips etc.

How bout this then, you can take your child out of school for a holiday ONLY if they have over 95% attendance both in this and the last year. They are academically on target in all classes and that parents will ensure that they don't miss any lessons for sports, music, trips in school etc after that?

And it does create extra work for the teacher, which if a number of children in the class go off at different times can be a bit of a pain.

I'm a teacher. No it doesn't (Primary, I can't speak for secondary).

'Sitting by a pool of a hotel complex or on the beach in the sun is lovely, but not always educational ' No not always educational in the school context, but possibly in other ways - the life experience of navigating the different stages of an airport, longer extended periods for conversations with parents, just the experience of seeing a different environment - like mountains etc.

Basically if parents are interacting with their kids during the holiday about various things it will probably be a valuable educational experience. It would be possible to take kids to Florence but engage poorly and it be just as lacking in 'education' as any other holiday.

It all stems down to parenting - people who parent badly will most likely have children with poorer educational outcomes as those who parent well, regardless of whether they take a term time holiday here and there.

Don't private schools have different holidays and therefore take advantage of cheaper flights?
Are they also excluded from the ruling?

No idea re English schools. Scottish schools all break up earlier in summer , state or private and have a degree of flexibility within the local authority area as to when exactly they take the other breaks. I never took my son out during term time.

"Double standards. Missing lessons seems to be fine and dandy for some kids but not others. Ludicrous and unfair."

Absolutely ridiculous conflation. You really can't see the difference between music tuition , which may well be part of an examinable subject, a cheap holiday?