Supreme Court: Parents CAN'T take kids on term-time holiday without risking a fine

leespot

Browntoa wrote: »

Sorry but for most people the excuse that it's an educational trip doesn't work if it's benidorm/lanzarote/Cyprus/Turkey/Florida/Disney world

Don't dress it up , own up it's a holiday and take the consequence

There shouldn't be any need to dress it up at all. If you want a holiday, do it - but be fully aware that you'll be fined if it is in term time. Much the same as you have to expect to pay the fine if you are caught speeding, littering, parking without a ticket etc etc.

The ruling will,in reality, change very little other than to reinforce the fact that any parents currently fighting the fine will more thank likely roll over and pay it. £60 vs prosecution - let me think...

jamesd

VT82 wrote: »

WRONG. The ruling says it is illegal to take then out and not pay the fine. If anything, this gives the impression that taking them out is perfectly OK as long as you pay a fine.

That is not true. The ruling was clear that it is an offence to take the child out of school without one of the legally specified reasons applying. Regardless of whether there was a decision to prosecute, conviction or penalty charge.

"On the agreed facts, the penalty notice was properly issued and, having failed to pay it, he should have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged unless he can establish one of the statutory exceptions. The case will be returned to the magistrates with a direction to proceed as if his submission of no case to answer had been rejected . I am particularly mindful of the fact that the mother did exactly the same thing, was issued with a penalty notice and paid it. She might well feel a sense of injustice if, it now having been held that the penalty notice to the father was properly issued, the case did not proceed"

In case you don't realise that a penalty notice is a result of having committed an offence:

"5. On 1 July, he was sent a letter before action, advising him that the EWO was preparing to prosecute him. He responded by email and telephone call to explain the reason for the absence. The EWO replied that the penalty notice had been correctly issued and the matter would now proceed to prosecution. Proceedings were duly brought in the Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court, alleging that Mary had failed to attend school regularly between 13 and 21 April and that as her parent he was guilty of an offence under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996. He pleaded not guilty."

"19. The school attendance requirement is now contained in section 444, which (as amended) now provides: “(1) If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence. (1A) If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence. "

"21. The penalty notice regime, as an alternative to immediate prosecution, is contained in sections 444A and 444B, introduced by section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The details need not concern us, but the broad shape is that an “authorised officer” may issue such a notice where he has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under section 444. The notice offers that person the opportunity of escaping liability to conviction for the offence by paying the prescribed penalty. If he does so within the prescribed time he cannot be prosecuted for the offence."

Notice that the offence was still committed, all the paying does is prohibit prosecution, it doesn't mean there was no offence. On whether it's reasonable or not:

"43. First, there are many examples where a very minor or trivial breach of the law can lead to criminal liability. It is an offence to steal a milk bottle, to drive at 31 miles per hour where the limit is 30, or to fail to declare imported goods which are just over the permitted limit. The answer in such cases is a sensible prosecution policy. In some cases, of which this is one, this can involve the use of fixed penalty notices, which recognise that a person should not have behaved in this way but spare him a criminal conviction. If such cases are prosecuted, the court can deal with them by an absolute or conditional discharge if appropriate."

A parent who commits this offence should pay the penalty to avoid the adverse consequences to things like international travel of having a criminal conviction instead.

hesjane

In state maintained schools there are 195 school days - of which 5 are usually set as inset (training) days. Therefore children are required to attend for 190 days. However, academies and free schools (which are still funded by the government) do not have to adhere to this and can set the own term dates.

I know of at least one academy school which has chosen to close for one additional week - therefore they only offer 185 days education for children. The school hasn't even extended the school day to accommodate the lost 5 days of education. To make it worse, they acknowledge this extra week may cause difficulties for some parents and if this is the case they offer a holiday club during this extra week - but parents will have to pay to send their children to attend school during this period. This particular school closes for an additional week during what is usually the summer half term week (end of May). Hence they are closed end of May and first week of June. They advise this will help parents to benefit from cheaper holidays. It doesn't work when parents have one child in that school and an older child in a second, state maintained school which cannot give an extra week off and will fine parents if they take their children out of school. It's even worse when one parent works in yet a third educational establishment and cannot take leave to care for their child during the extra week's closure.

So how can it be okay for academies and free schools which are funded by the goverment to pick and choose to reduce the number of days children must attend? I guess they will say it doesn't disrupt education if all children are absent - but it definitely disrupts families trying to juggle work commitments and multiple schools for their children.

The concensus of parents at this school is that the extra week's closure is so that staff can benefit from cheaper holidays outside of term time. One rule for them.....

Pop_Up_Pirate

Kids have 'play days' at school where they can take in their own toys and games. Wasted day
I have lost count of the days I am told they were watching films. And teacher confirms this. Not educational films, but cartoons such as Lion King.

The education in this country is diabolical. But, when any tom !!!! or harry can get an academic degree these days, it's hardly surprising.
Some teachers are uneducated themselves. What hope do the kids have?

bylromarha

Apologies - not read the thread - but this issue annoys me. Power should be given to heads to decide individual circumstances IMO. This dad, with a 90% attendence should have got a fine, but a child who had 100% attendence should have been allowed to go.

I'm a parent. I'm a teacher too. I would love to take my kids on a term time holiday, but I can't. My kids have had 100% attendence most years. DD is on cue to get a school pencil case for it this year...

Should I be able to choose to take them on a term time holiday, I would get fined for being honest,

However, many kids I've taught are kept off for a sniffle, or they're "a bit tired today" (had this one twice the week before the holidays) and have attendence below 95%. But that's okay with the government.

Authority should be given back to heads to give the up to 10 days discretionary days off authorised. Most parents don't take the mick - most go the tail end of July when not much is happening in schools anyway, or tack it onto a school holiday.

Madmel

I agree with bylromarha above being the first person to mention the teachers' ability to take a holiday. My kids are now into A levels, so obviously we would not take time off. But as a teacher, I get only the school holidays.

People complaining about INSET days should remember that those dates should be communicated at the start of the school year. They are far less disruptive to teachers than odd children being missing for a week or two because the whole group is off, the absence has been communicated previously and we can plan around it.

Regarding the school in S Wales that put all their INSET days together: whilst I can see the advantages to this, it would not work in my school. We use one day in September just before term starts for new staff induction, departmental meetings (exam results review and planning) and year teams plus a whole staff meeting. That takes most of the day. We used to use a day in late March for coursework moderation where people worked in their departments - our school coursework deadline was pretty early. We used another day after the main exam season in early July for UCAS reference writing. These activities would not work at other times: moderation had to be completed before early May and UCAS refs could not be done until the results of summer exams were known.

Some parents believe that they are entitled to take time off with their kids, whereas the vast majority do not. This year DD's attendance is not great BUT she has not taken any time off sick. She has attended 3 separate days of uni interviews, took her driving test and ballet exam on the same day which was authorised by the school and taken part in the European Youth Partliament with 8 others from her year. She also had 2 weeks' study leave for her mock exams. Uni interviews on consecutive Wednesdays are nearly as disruptive to learning as they hit the same lessons but we have no choice.

leespot

INSET days are communicated - but then in our instance two of them were changed after plans had already been made. The response was then to change (at our expense) those plans.

The issue I believe for most people is the fairness (or lack of) when applying the discretion. Better guidelines are needed and should be applied across the board. I've no real issue with the ruling at all, but there is a massive difference as to how the ruling will be applied across the country.

alwaysskint96

Madmel wrote: »

Some parents believe that they are entitled to take time off with their kids, whereas the vast majority do not. This year DD's attendance is not great BUT she has not taken any time off sick. She has attended 3 separate days of uni interviews, took her driving test and ballet exam on the same day which was authorised by the school and taken part in the European Youth Partliament with 8 others from her year. She also had 2 weeks' study leave for her mock exams. Uni interviews on consecutive Wednesdays are nearly as disruptive to learning as they hit the same lessons but we have no choice.

So by the sounds of it your DD is in 6th form. So schools threaten to fine 6th formers these days? If she did her A levels at college there would be no fine so something doesnt add up

leespot

bylromarha wrote: »

Apologies - not read the thread - but this issue annoys me. Power should be given to heads to decide individual circumstances IMO. This dad, with a 90% attendence should have got a fine, but a child who had 100% attendence should have been allowed to go.

I'm a parent. I'm a teacher too. I would love to take my kids on a term time holiday, but I can't. My kids have had 100% attendence most years. DD is on cue to get a school pencil case for it this year...

Should I be able to choose to take them on a term time holiday, I would get fined for being honest,

However, many kids I've taught are kept off for a sniffle, or they're "a bit tired today" (had this one twice the week before the holidays) and have attendence below 95%. But that's okay with the government.

Authority should be given back to heads to give the up to 10 days discretionary days off authorised. Most parents don't take the mick - most go the tail end of July when not much is happening in schools anyway, or tack it onto a school holiday.

That is the common sense, least disruptive approach and couldn't agree more.

Our little one is in school for one day (the Monday) and then they break up for the summer holidays - hardly any major disruption if she were to be kept off that day. The difference in prices of travel even by just a day or so added to the holidays is massive, but some people miss this point entirely and still want a week or fortnight in the middle of a term.

phillw

jamesd wrote: »

the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.[/I] "

That sentence is vague. Evidence of that is the previous court cases in his favour.

Where are the pictures of the judges on the front of the newspaper with the headline "enemy of the people".

The summer holiday dates were originally set for the convenience of the parents, circumstances have changed but we're clinging onto it no matter how ridiculous it will end up.