New fines for missing school - how can they prove child not sick?

LadyL2013

As far as I'm concerned it is a law that punishes lower income families. I think as long as the child is doing well and has great attendance for the rest of the time, then you should be allowed to take them on holiday. As long as it's not several times a year, I don't see a problem.

Schools can take kids on trips abroad that aren't educational. Seems highly hypocritical to me.

Moto2

LadyL2013 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned it is a law that punishes lower income families. I think as long as the child is doing well and has great attendance for the rest of the time, then you should be allowed to take them on holiday. As long as it's not several times a year, I don't see a problem.

Schools can take kids on trips abroad that aren't educational. Seems highly hypocritical to me.

You could argue that it's a law that will help kids from lower income families have a better chance of avoiding perpetuating it for the next generation.

just saying .....

C_Mababejive

I find it incredible that a school can levy big fines for taking a child on holiday. Surely if parents choose to do that then they must ensure that their child catches up? Maybe they should pay a supplement to the school for "catch up" teaching where neceesary? Of course its all part of the Capitalist machinery. The state funds people to breed via child benefit and other measures. The state needs its workers to breed more workers to replace worn out ones. The state controls your every move.The state punishes you if you remove child from school because they need well educated slaves.
The state will also monitor your travels in and out of the UK via the Border Agency so if you lie and take your child out of feudal Britain,they will know.

maman

Mojisola wrote: »

Headteachers used to have discretion - under the new law, they have very little leeway. Their decisions will be scrutinised when the school is inspected.

The law has changed from special circumstances to exceptional. I hardly think a holiday at Centre Parcs could be classed as exceptional.

claire16c wrote: »

If its going to be cheaper to risk a fine then do that instead of moving the holiday then.

I'm not sure schools would have the time to prove a child wasnt ill though.

It would only be cheaper if the LA didn't take it further. So for 3 children at £60 per parent per child is £360. If it went to court then costs on top plus the fines could push it closer to £1 000.

I know OP wanted to keep morals out of it but it doesn't even make it worth the financial risk.

Mojisola

emmamc252 wrote: »

My sister is a full time carer for her husband so they live on careers allowance, overtime isn't an option.

The £200 would be to pay the school fines, centre parts wanted an extra £390 to move their holiday 1 week! Not everyone has a couple of hundred and certainly not nearly £400 lying around.

Doesn't her husband get any benefits? It could be worth a benefits check to make sure they are getting everything they are entitled to.

As maman said - each parent is fined for each child - so the fines would be £360.

JimmyTheWig

I'm on the fence with this one. I think that for children it is often more beneficial to take them out of school for a holiday than keep them in school. Often the all-round educational benefits from a holiday (even from a Disneyworld type holiday) shouldn't be underestimated.
But I do see it from a school's point of view. If children miss school then the school has to do more work.

lea2012 wrote: »

If a child has an attendance of 95% or more, is achieving all their targets at school and there's no worries about them being able to catch up on any missed work then there isn't really a reason why a school should refuse it.
...
Perhaps even offer to take some work home for the children to do whilst away?

In this quote, for example, the children aren't missing out. But the teacher has to prepare some work to take home, potentially help the child with any of the work that they don't understand, mark the work when they bring it back, etc.
The point of the fine, I believe, is to fund this extra work that the school has to do.


OP, do the children in question receive free school meals? If so, I'd be tempted to argue that the school should fund any catching up via the Pupil Premium.

LadyL2013

Moto2 wrote: »

You could argue that it's a law that will help kids from lower income families have a better chance of avoiding perpetuating it for the next generation.

just saying .....

I hardly think having a week off of school if they are already perfomring well and are conscientious is suddenly going to turn them into a complete failure in life/perpetual lawbreaker.

I don't think it should be granted for everyone and it shouldn't be a regular thing. Don't have a problem with schools granting it on the basis that the child completes work on holiday.

Travel companies will never lower the price to go away in the holidays, they are a business after all. Having a break is majorly beneficial to parental and child mental health. I'd much rather a hard working child take a weeks holiday to refresh than never be able to have a holiday and be burnt out as a result.

It may be the law, but not all laws make sense, are beneficial or should never be challenged. I'm not condoning law breaking all the time, but you can bet your !!!! this law was thought up by people who are not in a situation where money is a decider in whether a family can holiday or not.

opinions4u

LadyL2013 wrote: »

you can bet your !!!! this law was thought up by people who are not in a situation where money is a decider in whether a family can holiday or not.

I may be wrong, but I believe the party of the working class came up with this one.

I also take the view that if you can't afford Center Parcs you take them to Haven. Or Butlins. Or Auntie Megs.

CountryGoose

The actual offence is "failing to secure regular attendance". To date there has been no case law set on this. Cases that have come to court have not argued the point on what exactly constitutes regular attendance. If a child has been to school every day then only misses one week for a vacation, there is an argument that the parent has secured regular attendance.

At the moment it's down to the bench on the day to decide what constitutes regular attendance. It would be for everyones benefit to see an appeal and some case law established.

maman

opinions4u wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I believe the party of the working class came up with this one.

That may be the case but I'm not 100% sure. It was obviously introduced as part of a range of measures to improve 'truancy' rates as identified by Ofsted which schools are held accountable for.

The 'exceptional circumstances' change is definitely one from the Meerkat though.