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

Options
24567…15

Comments

  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    worldtraveller wrote: »
    Clearly it was the correct ruling.



    You seem to assume that everyone agrees with you?
  • worldtraveller
    worldtraveller Posts: 14,012 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker Photogenic
    edited 6 April 2017 at 11:36AM
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    You seem to assume that everyone agrees with you?

    Not at all. I just don't understand why a parent would, now clearly illegally, take a child out of school purely to suit their holiday plans, causing disruption to the childs education, the education of others in the school and the teacher. IMHO, it's just yet another symptom of the "me, me, me" society that we live in today.

    I just hope that Mr Platt is not hoping to go to the USA on holiday again with his child in future, or on his own, as he may well end up with a criminal record and therefore banned from entry to that country.
    There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more...
  • Gavin83
    Gavin83 Posts: 8,749 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    I think this was the correct ruling and parents should be fined for this. At the end of the day the state is funding your children's education, if you wish to remove them from school for that period you should be expected to pay it back. I've no problem with the actual action but you should be prepared to pay. I'd put it in the same category as those who skip doctors appointments, I think they should be made to pay too.

    Having children is an expensive luxury and you should be prepared to pay for them. If you want cheaper holidays then don't have children.
  • One-Eye
    One-Eye Posts: 66,445 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Yet another government failure to make a law that is clear and achieves the desired purpose. If they wanted to stop term-time holidays, then that's what the law should have said. Instead it is about "regular attendance" without ever defining what regular attendance means.

    The Supreme Court now says:
    "regularly" means in "accordance with the rules prescribed by the school."
    ... so they have handed total responsibility to individual headteachers - who are not universally known for being reasonable.

    If you have kids at school you should immediately write to the headteacher demanding a written definition of the school's regular attendance rules.

    Jon Platt's case now goes back to the Magistrates Court. He might still win if the school can not prove that they had "prescribed rules" on attendance prior to April 2015 and that he breached them.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    worldtraveller wrote: »
    Not at all. I just don't understand why a parent would, now clearly illegally - let's be fair here, there's no need to criminalise parents over trivial matters- , take a child out of school purely to suit their holiday plans - perhaps they are on a low income and want their child to experience other cultures, or have an enjoyable time, or simply think it's in their interest to spend family time together or any number of reasons. , causing disruption to the childs education - the education system is a joke and missing out on a week is hardly going to affect the child, no matter what the DOE claim. and the education of others in the school - the government does that nicely all by itself. . IMHO, it's just yet another symptom of the "me, me, me" society that we live in today. - You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not. teachers spend about 70% of their time on 20-30% of their students. Those who are bright receive almost no support and are unable to 'overachieve'. Due to chronic underfunding teachers are forced to work at the lowest common denominator.

    I just hope that Mr Platt is not hoping to go to the USA on holiday again with his child in future, or on his own, as he may well end up with a criminal record and therefore banned from entry to that country. - don't be silly. he simply needs to attend the embassy and explain the situation (though why wou'd want to visit is beyond me)



    So why use 'clearly', why not in my opinion.


    It's like saying 'clearly anyone who voted for trump was sexist' - it's not true, but you make out that anyone who disagrees with you is perhaps dim.


    (im not saying you said that, just using an example)
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    Gavin83 wrote: »
    I think this was the correct ruling and parents should be fined for this. At the end of the day the state is funding your children's education, if you wish to remove them from school for that period you should be expected to pay it back. I've no problem with the actual action but you should be prepared to pay. I'd put it in the same category as those who skip doctors appointments, I think they should be made to pay too.

    Having children is an expensive luxury and you should be prepared to pay for them. If you want cheaper holidays then don't have children.



    Don't the children deserve a holiday?
  • One-Eye
    One-Eye Posts: 66,445 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    edited 6 April 2017 at 11:50AM
    Options
    Lady Hale, said: “Unauthorised absences have a disruptive effect ...on the work of other pupils."

    I really don't get this. I can think of many kids whose presence in school has a disruptive effect, but none whose absence would. And why does she think it is only unauthorised absences that have such effects.


  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    One-Eye wrote: »
    I really don't get this. I can think of many kids whose presence in school has a disruptive effect, but none whose absence would.



    The reality is teachers have crowded class room and a lack of assistants - often relying on volunteers (many of whom are fully qualified) because of lack of funding.


    Therefore teachers spend more time with the pupils most in need, whilst those with the potential to excel are ignored.
  • tensandunits_2
    tensandunits_2 Posts: 919 Forumite
    Options
    Browntoa wrote: »
    The guy didn't go himself any favours in interviews , claim over as slightly arrogant in my eyes

    At least the laws clear now on both sides

    As someone who likes quieter flights and hotels I deliberately holiday during term time rather than late June to early September.

    Likewise, we try to avoid school-age children (and tourist season) when we book days out. Weekdays during term time seem to be the safest bet.
    It is not because things are difficult that we dare not venture
    It is because we dare not venture that they are difficult

    SENECA
  • tensandunits_2
    tensandunits_2 Posts: 919 Forumite
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    The reality is teachers have crowded class room and a lack of assistants - often relying on volunteers (many of whom are fully qualified) because of lack of funding.


    Therefore teachers spend more time with the pupils most in need, whilst those with the potential to excel are ignored.

    Teachers are leaving in droves, Guest101. (I know several). The pressure and hassle is not worth it.
    It is not because things are difficult that we dare not venture
    It is because we dare not venture that they are difficult

    SENECA
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards