Fined £240 for taking kids out of school for 2 days

[StayAtHomeDad1]

We have recently received a letter from my children's primary school informing us we are being fined £240 for taking them out of school for 2 days after the recent half term. My children are 6 and 9.
We did so because we were visiting friends who live in Romania and flights from our nearest airport are only on Wednesdays. My children also had 4 days learning skiing which they loved.

I advised the school of my intention and expected it to be unauthorised but wasn't expecting to be fined for just 2 days. It seems you get fined this amount for 2 children whether it be for 2 days or 2 months!

From looking at other people's experiences online there is no recourse and no appeals process so we are stuck with having to pay.

I am arranging a meeting with the headmaster to discuss this and am fully aware that the fine cannot be undone. I just would like to know what his criteria is for deciding who to refer for fining.

My concern is that my son had a number of days off a month ago because of a very nasty chest infection. I think it would be unfair if the school is judging attendance on figures that include days off due to illness.

It's not about the money as much as the principle. If I had lied and told the school they had a stomach bug, nothing would have come of it. I was honest and got penalised. I know of a few parents that take their children out of school every year for a week or more and others that lie and say their kids are ill and take them out for a week - they will continue to get away with it.

I just wondered if anyone else has been fined for only a couple of days unauthorised absence?

This is a ridiculous regulation, forced upon us, by people with children in private/ public schools, who are not subject to this...completely unfair and illegal.

OP have you spoken to the LA? Was the chest infection unauthorised by mistake? I know here you can have a week unauthorised before you get find and it sounds as if your own LA's rules are the same?

And private schools have longer holidays sitting

Our LEA has stopped fining parents altogether.

I would pay but recoup all the cash through refusing to pay any school volountary contributions. My school asks for voluntary contributions constantly

This worries me about potential new policy of 'holidays only if attendance good' because that means only the healthy, who have been lucky enough to escape any circulating infectious diseases, can have authorised hols

I am not aware of any such policy proposal. That is, however, essentially the line taken by the lower courts in the Platt case. If Platt wins in the Supreme Court the mood music from Whitehall suggests the law will be changed to return to the current policy. Note that, even if such a policy were enforced, "good attendance" does not mean 100%. A child with a typical amount of illness would be regarded as having good attendance.

This is a ridiculous regulation, forced upon us, by people with children in private/ public schools, who are not subject to this...completely unfair and illegal

Note that the current policy was introduced by Gove who sends his children to state schools. It is not illegal. It was introduced in response to concerns from head teachers, particularly in primary schools, who found that many parents wrongly believed they had the right to take their children out of school for up to 10 days holiday per year. They felt the previous regulations (which referred to 10 days holiday per year in "special circumstances") did not give them enough backing in refusing term time holidays. There is clear evidence that term-time holidays damage the pupil's education and cause disruption for the rest of the class.

My concern is that my son had a number of days off a month ago because of a very nasty chest infection. I think it would be unfair if the school is judging attendance on figures that include days off due to illness

As others have said, when looking at your child's education there is no such thing as a "good" absence. Any absence is likely to have an effect. However, when deciding whether or not to impose a fine the LA's code of conduct must be followed. This will only look at unauthorised absences. Any authorised absence (which includes illness) does not count towards the threshold for imposing a fine. As long as the school recorded this absence as sickness it should not have played any part in the decision to fine you.

I didn't mean it as a specific proposal.

It's just the logical outcome of any arrangements based on 'those whose attendance is otherwise good can have termtime holidays authorised'

I don't like the fines. It's gone way over the top IMHO.

I think parents should be able to use their common sense on this really. Child doing GCSE's? Stay at home.
Otherwise, of course it's alright to have 5 days off for a family holiday. No harm done really.
Not every parent within a workplace can get their leave to fall within school holidays.

Otherwise, of course it's alright to have 5 days off for a family holiday. No harm done really

Research says otherwise. The evidence is that absences damage a child's education regardless of which year the child is in. It may be there is some threshold below which there is no damage but researchers haven't found it yet.

Not every parent within a workplace can get their leave to fall within school holidays

In many (hopefully most) schools a situation where a parent genuinely cannot get time off work during school holidays would be regarded as an exceptional circumstance that would allow a holiday to be authorised.

I wish there should be more legal power for parents regarding this attendance policy.no democracy. It's like car park fine. It's started compulsory school age 5.now compulsory attendance.so where parents rights? Different policy among different LAs regarding charging fines

There is no compulsion in any part of UK to attend schools at all.

Children have to receive an education from age 5 (and it's been that way since about 1870) but it does not have to be in school at all. Or if in a school that school does not have to be a state school.

The legislation about fines was brought in by Labour, and permitted councils to fine but did not compel them to. That is why there is variation, and getting involved in local politics can make a difference.

But the only 'rights' here are those of the child to receive a suitable education. It is the parents' responsibility to provide it. If they choose a state school, then following the rules and procedures which govern them is all part of the deal on enrolment.

I understand the need for children to not miss out on education leading towards GCSE’s say after they have chosen the subjects they want to take but anything before that if parents want to take them on a family holiday then should be able to , schools could even give the children homework to do on the places they visiting it could cover the history of the area and anything about wildlife and even the geography of the area . Schools are in fact missing out on getting children interested in a wider range of different things on this planet we live on .

@Mrfumbles this thread is 18 months old....

No this is wrong its a fixed penalty of £60 per child per adult so the 240 was 60 for each child per adult do your calculations

Unauthorised attendance is a fixed £60 penalty per child per parent in household so if your married or live with someone no matter if childs biological parent they have to pay

ZOMBIE THREAD