father wins high court case against £60 fine for taking his DD out of school

[var123]

I couldn't see this anywhere else, so apologies if there is another thread.

The news this afternoon is that a father who took his DD out of school to go to Disney World in Florida has won a case against his LEA and school who tried to fine him for it.

I think this will change things, especially as flights are so expensive this summer in particular.

[jellyfrizz]

jelly fining was not introduced in 2013. That was an amendment to the act.

It was initially introduced in Sections 444A and 444B of the Education Act 1996 and empowered authorised officers of the local authority, headteachers and the police to issue penalty notices to parents for non attendance.

Ok, thanks. I accept the point that it was Labour that introduced it then.

[quicklydecides]

I do not have children in school in England.
Reading this, and every debate about it, is really amusing.
It always sounds like "I'm telling mummy you took a biscuit" "It was just one biscuit and I was hungry" "Well you shouldn't break the rule so ner ner ner"
Don't you get it?
In every other country parents send their children to school and a small number take them on occasional holidays.
Parents are treated like adults.
It's so strange that any of you accept this state of affairs.

[prh47bridge]

The fines were introduced in 2013. Labour were last in power in 2010.

Fines for unauthorised absence were introduced in 2006. The regime was tightened up in 2013.

The rules to which I referred are the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 which set out the conditions under which absence can be authorised.

Regarding the statistics you are looking at a comparison of 2014/15 with 2013/14. The current regime for fines was in operation throughout both years so that does not tell us the effect of tightening up the attendance rules. You need to compare with 2012/13. As the document to which you link shows, overall and persistent absence is indeed down since the rules were tightened.

[BurnTheBlackSuit]

I have zero sympathy with the parent who brought this case. There was no reasons why he wasn't taking the children on holiday in the school holidays. He said he wanted to get his whole family together for these holidays (Disneyland, Lapland) but he gave no reasons why that couldn't have been in the school holidays (and not all the extende family could come when they went anyway). He just didn't like abiding by the rules. If he doesn't like the state school rules, then he should send both/all his children to private schools.

If it was a case brought by someone whose only chance of a holiday was a Sun holiday where they had no choice of dates I would have a little more sympathy. But it still doesn't make it right- holidays are a luxury not a need. Family time and education outside of school does not equal going away on a holiday.

Furthermore, the argument about not being able to afford to holiday in school holidays doesn't stand up. You have to have a certain amount of wealth to be able to afford the school holiday childcare to cover the period of your annual leave that you used up going away during term time.

[LineyReborn]

Labour's Secretaries of State for Education - e.g. Ruth Kelly - were pretty controlling and nanny-stateish, and I think they set up the conditions in which Gove was able to do his thing with the Liberal Democrats failing to stop it.

So they're all culpable.

Kelly even tried to stop new community schools being built.

[LineyReborn]

The case didn't hinge on why the parent took the child out of school, though.

It hinged on what constitutes 'regular attendance'.

[SocialDisaster]

Why are you going back in history before these children were even born? Weird trying to blame a government from the past who didn't make these laws rather than the one who made these daft laws. Are you trying to do a Jedi (NLP) thing or are you parroting?

[LineyReborn]

I'm just musing as to how it came to this.

[TimeforaNNChange]

True liney but it does provide an insight into why parents aren't trusted to "take the occasional holiday".
There will always be Parents like Jon Platt who will take repeated holidays in school term even though they have the financial means and availability to go in school holidays.

[jellyfrizz]

True liney but it does provide an insight into why parents aren't trusted to "take the occasional holiday".
There will always be Parents like Jon Platt who will take repeated holidays in school term even though they have the financial means and availability to go in school holidays.

But he was acting within the law. And his child is doing very well at school. Where's the problem?

[LineyReborn]

And also what puzzles me is that presumably if John Platt had paid the fine then the education authorities would have effectively turned a blind eye?

It just seems a tad hypocritical for the DfE to bang on about how critical attendance is but then devise a system whereby parents can buy their way out of it. Iyswim.

Like I said, just musing.

[apple1992]

I'm confused about comments that suggest absence has increased, that isn't what is stated here:
www.gov.uk/government/news/just-one-day-off-can-hamper-childrens-life-chances

[prh47bridge]

Weird trying to blame a government from the past who didn't make these laws rather than the one who made these daft laws.

The weird thing is attempting to alter history as you are doing. Labour made these laws in 2006. No amount of twisting can alter that fact. The fact that was before many current pupils were born is irrelevant. The Education Act 1996 (on which the regulations are based) is still in force even though that was before any current pupils were born.

Under the regulations introduced in 2006 holidays of up to 10 days per school year could be granted in special circumstances with additional leave of absence available in exceptional circumstances. The intention of the government in introducing these regulations was to make term time holidays largely a thing of the past with leave of absence only being given in situations where parents could not go away during school holidays or similar. In practice the "special circumstances" provision led many parents to believe, wrongly, that there was an entitlement to take their child out of school for 10 days per year, with "special circumstances" meaning nothing more than "the parents want to" - not what was intended at all.

The 2013 change was designed to enforce the original intention of the regulations. However, any lawyer who works in the field will tell you that they made no real difference to the meaning of the regulations.

Under the regulations as originally introduced head teachers had the final say on whether or not to authorise a holiday. They did not have to authorise any term time holiday but they could if they thought it was appropriate. If parents took an unauthorised holiday they could be fined.

Under the regulations as they have stood since 2013 head teachers have the final say on whether or not to authorise a holiday. They do not have to authorise any term time holiday but they can if they think it is appropriate. If parents take an unauthorised holiday they can be fined.

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

Living on the boundary between three counties, I know plenty of families where primary children are at school in one county and secondary children are at school in another

So you don't split the holidays by county. Where you can you organise holidays so that as many children as possible have the same holidays as their siblings. Obviously this won't work for 100% of families but it could really help reduce term time holiday prices.

[apple1992]

It just seems a tad hypocritical for the DfE to bang on about how critical attendance is but then devise a system whereby parents can buy their way out of it. Iyswim
I think they do act as a deterrent for some parents, but only the ones who cannot afford the £60 fine. Should the fine be increased? Or judged on personal circumstance? I know sometimes parents can be prosecuted and receive the higher charge in exceptional cases where they are royally taking the mick.
My personal observation is penalty notices are hugely affective with persistent absence - we PN and a child will attend every day without fail for months. But I agree with holidays, people just pay up. Does seem a bit.. Weak

[LineyReborn]

'Just one day off can hamper children's life chances'.

See, I just don't believe that.

[SocialDisaster]

A Tory government brought in the 1996 education act. Labour adapted it and the Tory government adapted it again and you are blaming labour. Your NLP (Jedi knight) crap doesn't work with me.

[prh47bridge]

I'm confused about comments that suggest absence has increased

People are getting confused. Absence for 2014/15 was up a little on 2013/14. However, both years are down on 2012/13. The regulations were changed before the start of the 2013/14 school year so the fact that absences were up a little in 2014/15 does not tell us anything about the effectiveness of the fines.

It just seems a tad hypocritical for the DfE to bang on about how critical attendance is but then devise a system whereby parents can buy their way out of it. Iyswim.

It is not a system whereby parents can buy their way out of it. It is a fine. If you get fined too often they will stop fining you and take you to court. Like any fine it is intended as a deterrent.

[SocialDisaster]

I as ss of with the Tory bots all over mumsnet due to the EU referendum.

[SocialDisaster]

Pissed off with the Tory bots

[apple1992]

Ah thanks for the clarification prh47bridge

[SocialDisaster]

You are confused = I am trying to confuse you.

Accusing me of altering history = psychological transference

[LineyReborn]

It's a fine being used as a fee.

[duckyneedsaclean]

quicklydecides Completely agree!

[prh47bridge]

A Tory government brought in the 1996 education act. Labour adapted it and the Tory government adapted it again and you are blaming labour

What a strange person you are, apparently unable to deal with the truth and accusing me of NLP for simply stating historical fact.

A Tory government brought in the 1996 Education Act. This did not include any provisions for fines for unauthorised absence. However, like its predecessor, the 1944

A Labour government brought in the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 which authorised the introduction of fines for unauthorised absence. They then brought in the Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2004 which set out the mechanism for these fines and the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 which formalised the situations in which fines could be imposed.

I am not blaming Labour. I personally think the fines are a good thing as should be apparent by my posts. I therefore am very happy that Labour introduced fines for unauthorised absence. You obviously think the fines are a bad thing and can't cope with the idea that Labour did something you don't like.