School declined holidays and branded the kids truants

Murphy_The_Cat

mogadon wrote: »

For a number of years I was rarely able to holiday with my OH because our permitted holiday times didn't really overlap.

I didn't expect either of our employers to bend the rules to suit us, and I certainly didn't just take time off regardless and ignore the rules. What employer would stand for that?

In the end I found a new job. Until then we did without 'proper' holidays together and took breaks when we could. We both knew the situation with our respective employment. Just as parents do.

moggie, may I call you moggie as we seem to be spending so much time together at the moment ?
Rather you than me !

As an aside, are you a parent, or do have have an input from another angle ?

Zazen999

mogadon wrote: »

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960056_en_1

For application in relation to this discussion look up the High Court Case involving the London Borough of Bromley

I know about the Education Act; which bit in particular states that parents will be breaking the law if they take their children on a term time break?

I'm genuinely interested in whether this is a law or not....

mogadon

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

So, the Heads can, if they want to/choose to/use their discretion can, with the tacit approval of the LEA, government and law makers of this country, within certain crieria, authorise 10 days abscence per year.
It's only when they choose not do to do so, that authorised, becomes unauthorised -- is that about the top and bottom of it ?

I don't think so. I think that the top and bottom of it is parents assuming that someone else's discretionary option equals their absolute right. And so thinking it's perfectly reasonable to ignore the answer if it's not the one they want.

mogadon

Zazen999 wrote: »

I know about the Education Act; which bit in particular states that parents will be breaking the law if they take their children on a term time break?

I'm genuinely interested in whether this is a law or not....

I'm sorry Zazen, I don't know how else to phrase it. The Education Act details the law. The High Court ruling clarifies the application of it.

mogadon

poet123 wrote: »

Actually, if you look at the posts by the OP you will see this thread is about a parent being mislead bya headteacher regarding the enactment of a new law, and hiding behind that fiction to avoid authorising holidays.

Yes and no. The sudden production of a new 'law' is indeed wrong. But other than that the situation is the same. The OP needed to ask permission from the school, she expected to receive that permission and then didn't.

That doesn't detract from the fact that she was asking permission, and should never have assumed it would automatically be granted. The Head doesn't have to hide behind anything, (which makes it all the more ridculous that they chose to go down that path) they can just refuse, guidelines or not.

mogadon

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

moggie, may I call you moggie as we seem to be spending so much time together at the moment ?
Rather you than me !

As an aside, are you a parent, or do have have an input from another angle ?

I answer to most things

My situation is ... complicated. I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I can't really go into details on here. Let's just say my input is from various angles, all of them based primarily on my opinions and experience. I'm not speaking in any professional capacity.

poet123

mogadon wrote: »

I don't think so. I think that the top and bottom of it is parents assuming that someone else's discretionary option equals their absolute right. And so thinking it's perfectly reasonable to ignore the answer if it's not the one they want.

And is it perfectly reasonable for the head in this scenario to "invent" a law which means they are absolved from the responsibility of exercising their discretion?;) and apply the truancy label incorrectly?

The Education Act outlines the issues surrounding truancy, not holidays, or even unauthorised absence. In fact in the Act attention is drawn to the sublety requiredin use of language on these occasions, and notes that in cases deemed unauthorised absence partner agencies do not use the word truant. Which begs the question why the head in the OP chose to do so.....

Murphy_The_Cat

mogadon wrote: »

I answer to most things

My situation is ... complicated. I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I can't really go into details on here. Let's just say my input is from various angles, all of them based primarily on my opinions and experience. I'm not speaking in any professional capacity.

fair answer. Opinions and expereiences is good enough for me.

mogadon

poet123 wrote: »

And is it perfectly reasonable for the head in this scenario to "invent" a law which means they are absolved from the responsibility of exercising their discretion?;) and apply the truancy label incorrectly?

Again, you are conflating 2 issues. No the Head shouldn't have 'invented' a law. But there was no need for them to do so, as they have no obligation to exercise their discretion, they have an absolute right to say no.

I'm not sure where you are going with legal definitions of truancy.

In any case... break over for me, back to the grindstone.

poet123

mogadon wrote: »

Again, you are conflating 2 issues. No the Head shouldn't have 'invented' a law. But there was no need for them to do so, as they have no obligation to exercise their discretion, they have an absolute right to say no.

I'm not sure where you are going with legal definitions of truancy.

In any case... break over for me, back to the grindstone.

No, not really conflating two issues, the OP did ask for permission believing that the policy which was in force when her child started school was still in place, and that the head had discretion.

For the head to deny they had discretion due to a change in the law when that is wholly untrue is dishonest. The OP was following laid down procedure, the head was not.

Further, according to the OP the head then compoundedthat by stating that the children would be considered truants, when the Education Act makes a clear distinction as to when that term should be used.