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?

...and UKIP. and the NUT and lots of other organisations actually.

but they wont back down on this not now. I am just going to have to sit it out until the last one leaves school and keep on with the separate holidays. DH is away with some of the children now but one of us has to be working in the business due to its nature.

I work in a school with a very particular catchment. When I started there 10 years ago our attendance was in the low 8O%s. Children were regularly taken out for holidays for 6-8 weeks at least once if not 2-3 times across their time in primary. It was normal. Bloody hell there was a time it was positively encouraged so children could connect with their heritage. Looking after a sick relative or a wedding were usually the main reasons for going. Bear in mind this was spending 6 weeks in an isolated village not a tour or religious and cultural sites.
Attainment and progress was inevitably low.
It then changed to only 10 days which they were encouraged to tag on to Easter or Christmas which improved things but the number one improvement was no holidays in term time.
The fine is a big thing here.£60 per child per week could add on £1000 to the cost of a family trip.
Over the years the number of absences have reduced dramatically and attendance is now 97% and we have also seen a rise in attainment but also attitude to education.

As Danny seems to be off on her jollies I've attempted to work out the figures.

That 0.0016% is the % decrease of overall absences you think can be attributed to fines.

So you'd need to find out the number of days of overall absence in that year and work out 0.0016% of it.

So let's take 2015, overall absence = 54.8 million days. (www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602320/SFR14_2017_Text.pdf)

0.0016% is 0.000016 in decimal.

0.000016 x 54800000= 876.8 days

So according to the stats you posted earlier the difference that fines have made to holiday absence is about 900 days between about 8 million children rather than the 65,000 days you suggest.

Happy to be corrected if you have a source for your figures.

Pigriver, glad to see that attainment is better at your school.

Do you really think it was just the fines? Or also improved communication and partnership with parents, having an EWO and more community support and presence? Or did you do none of that and just refer people to be fined?

When DD was young we did not have holidays away from home, because I was having to work during the university breaks. You make quite big assumptions. As to "de-stressing" and "spending family time" we managed this without having to be abroad. I am not saying there is no value in foreign holidays, obviously there is (although the value does depend on what the holiday involves) but they are not an absolute necessity.

When I was young we did not have holidays away until we were teenagers, except for going to visit my grandparents. We managed and I don't feel especially deprived. It was just the way things were and we had lots of good times. That is my experience

Oh FGS jacks11 I said nothing , squat!, about FOREIGN holidays! That's you , and your BS preconceptions about what people mean when they say they need to take term time holidays

This is about quality time as a family, whether it's a local camping trip or travelling down the country to stay with relatives!

Not everyone can take annual leave during school holidays!

Not everyone's family is near enough to see at weekends if you can't get an early start on travelling on friday because you can't even take a half day on the friday! So basically for long trips you can travel up on Saturday and sleep at nanna house then leave after breakfast on Sunday huh? that's fine right?

For that matter, not everyone has weekends off jacks11 , so a day out with all the family all there together somewhere local would mean a term time absense for some people's circumstances.

If the Government actually wanted to do something about increasing educational attainment they would put more funding in rather than decreasing it.

Which is going to affect a child's education the most?

A)A week off for a term time holiday once every year or two with their family.

Or

B) A succession of supply teachers who are not subject specialists teaching maths and science GCSE because there aren't enough specialist teachers.

I don't care about cheaper holidays during term time. I do care about families who can not get annual leave during school holidays to spend ANY time together as a family.

I agree jelly

And with you brasty

I think the situation will get worse in the short term but hopefully better in long term. Hopefully they will all realise it may be an attractive thing to put in election manifestos.

Hopefully they will all realise it may be an attractive thing to put in election manifestos.

Nooooo! Hopefully educational decisions will be made completely independently from politics.

@jellyfrizz that would be nice but I'm trying to see a positive!

just wait until the increase in fines hits the fan.

if you haven't rtft then you wont have seen that a session has been defined as half a day - £60 per parent per session is £240 a day per child with 2 parents.

anyone who thinks this isn't going to come in now in their LEA is a bit deluded. the pound signs have been jingling in ours since the judgement came out.

the fines don't even go to the schools.

I really do object to the 6 weeks holiday type thing and the religious exemption in particular. why should your imaginary friend dictate whether you are allowed holidays in term time or not?

I cant go away in school hols or weekends either. have a niche job. that's why my DH is away with some of the children on holidays. family holidays for us now mean 1 parent and some of the kids.

Our school issued an attendance letter stating attendance to date this academic year on Thursday (same day as ruling), clearly rubbing their hands with glee. Perhaps I should send them my childcare bill/loss of earnings for when they close the school on Election Day?

So 4% of 4% - a massive 0.0016% decrease in absences

If you really are a teacher this seriously worries me. 4% of 4% is NOT 0.0016%. It is 0.16%. You are out by a factor of 100. All your calculations based on this figure are therefore also wrong.

anyone who thinks this isn't going to come in now in their LEA is a bit deluded

No they are not. They are being perfectly reasonable.

This judgement has not changed the law. The definition of a session is not new. Most LAs have long known that they can fine £60 per parent per half day absence. They choose not to do so. Most (possibly all) LAs have a minimum level of absence below which you will not be fined. Most LAs fine per period of absence. I don't know of any that fine per session but I do know a few that fine per day. They all have a maximum (typically 2 days) after which the fine won't be increased any further.

As I pointed out upthread, the fixed penalty is intended to be an alternative to going to court. It is therefore pointless if the fixed penalty is higher than the fine parents would receive if prosecuted.

So I very much doubt there will be a general rush to increase fines.

those that are saying parents should be allowed what message does that send to your children that you should only follow rules that you believe in if you cant go on holiday in school holidays then dont go you should of thought about it before having children or at the very least if you really feel you have to have the decency to pay the fine without moaning about it because many people believe that rules should be followed

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"

I hope not because that is not what I said. They were not cowering. But they felt the regulations were wrong and resulted in them having to approve holidays they thought should not have been approved. That is entirely different from suggesting they were frightened of parents.

are you saying that teachers and heads disagree on this point

Since the NAHT appear to support the ban on term time holidays it would appear that teachers and heads do disagree. The Association of School and College Leaders also supports the ban. Personally I find it odd that the NUT chooses to ignore the clear evidence showing that there is a clear link between a child's level of absence and their educational attainment.

So let's take 2015, overall absence = 54.8 million days

Just to do the maths since you appear to struggle with it, 4% of 54.8 million days is 2,192,000. If we take 4% of that it is 87,680. So the 65,000 days suggested is a lot closer to the truth than the 876.8 days you have come up with.

So, in summary. Those of you who want to holiday whenever you want, shouldn't have had kids. Those of you who can't afford a holiday in school holidays, shouldn't have a holiday as it's not necessary and smacks of self entitlement.

Instead you should have the same cheap holiday, at 3 times the price when you've saved up for 3 years. What a treat.

I guess if your job won't allow time off during school holidays, maybe you should have thought about that before you chose that career and having children.

Or maybe just accept you can't have a holiday until the kids leave school

If they had issues with the 10 days, why not reduce it to 5. What sort of system is it, that a child's entire education is at risk from a little break?

I value the education system, but sometimes a little common sense wouldn't go amiss. A system where the head makes decisions about their own school made sense, as all schools are different.

What sort of system is it, that a child's entire education is at risk from a little break?

Yes - Completely agree

I value the education system, but sometimes a little common sense wouldn't go amiss.
Sadly people dont use common sense.
E.g. friday I broke up for easter a GCSE student told me they were on holiday so wouldnt be in the 2 weeks AFTER easter.

Common sense would say a week in a non exam year would be ok. But every year I have a few students who are pulled out of GCSE years. This year I also had an a level student who was off fir a week because 'jetlag' on top of his holiday
A system where the head makes decisions about their own school made sense, as all schools are different.
I would agree.
The issue is that there's a group of people who'd kick off with discretion being used if the head said no.
(Its tough enough when you have run ins with people who think their kid is an exception to school rules because 'they were just...')
I'd like the judgement to rest on attendance, current working level/grade, attitude to learning scores, behaviour points etv.
E.g. if youre working hard, have reasonsble attendance and generally doing everything you should then a week in a non exam year is ok. But if youre off regularlu/arent doing whatvyou should be then you cant have it.

I don't think a system where we reward people for not being ill or for being lucky enough to be born with academic ability and without disability , is appropriate.

Personally I find it odd that the NUT chooses to ignore the clear evidence showing that there is a clear link between a child's level of absence and their educational attainment.

The stats prove there is a correlation. Not any kind of proven causation.

Stats from the US show a strong correlation between ice cream sales and murders. Quick ban ice cream! Or perhaps it needs to be looked at further.

Perhaps the direction of causation is the other way e.g. Those who are not academically successful do not want to go to school? Makes as much sense as looking at it the other way around.

Are we talking about the tiny 6% that abused the system?

Soooo 94% of the school population are doing well academically then?

Why have 94% of the population got to be punished because of 6%?

6% is hardly a tiny percentage.

While I disagree with the legislation element of this education is important. Those who don't succeed are highly likely to earn less in the future than their academically successful peers. It will impact in our whole economy.

When I was teaching 10-15 years ago several families took DC at secondary out for 2 weeks every single year on holiday. Lots and lots of kids had attendance below 90% for lots of reasons, including caring for siblings while parents worked.

Increasingly 6% was the overall absence figure a few years ago, it's a % of school missed as a total of all sessions available.

This includes absence stats for all schools including special schools and PRUs.

It also includes illness (around about 60% of the 6% is illness), medical appointments and any other reason e.g. competing in sports.

And children who miss registration by being late.

And those registered at 2 schools because of admin delays.

And bereavements or any other reason.

So that 6% is not just people taking their children on holidays.

Stats back to 2009 are here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-pupil-absence