Supreme court upholds ban on term-time holidays

[rendelharris]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The kid was 6....just 6! Bloke in question along

> with 17 family members went on holiday and she

> missed 7 days of schooling. Really! This is all

> ludicrous in my opinion and it's taken away the

> discretion of the Head.

Headteachers still have the discretion to allow absences in term time, if they do it's marked as authorised absence and the local authority isn't involved. All this ruling does is confirm what was already the case, that parents are not allowed to withdraw their children from school without the headteacher's permission.

[TillieTrotter]

By my understanding Headteachers can now only grant authorised absences for exceptional circumstances which include close family bereavement and religious holidays. Is that right?

AND

Otta I was talking about you taking your child out of school for 4 days (authorised I'm aware). Had the school denied your request what would you have done?

[JoeLeg]

I think you've misread Otta's post - understandably as he mistyped the word for, writing fo4 instead.

His kid was only out for one day. I guess your question is still valid though.

[ianr]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By my understanding Headteachers can now only

> grant authorised absences for exceptional circumstances

Yes, since September 2013. (Previously was as in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1751/regulation/7/made ).

> which include close family bereavement

There is nothing specified, other than in an LA's code of conduct. I doubt anyone would dream of refusing such leave, and to do so could well be deemed so unreasonable as to be unlawful.

> and religious holidays.

Many could well be exempt, as in s.444(3) of the Education Act 1996:

The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school?

(a) with leave,

(b) at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause, or

© on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/VI/chapter/II/crossheading/school-attendance-offences-and-education-supervision-orders

[rendelharris]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By my understanding Headteachers can now only

> grant authorised absences for exceptional

> circumstances which include close family

> bereavement and religious holidays. Is that

> right?

Yes - family crises also. The chief point of the current guidance is that permission should not be given for holidays if the only reason is because the holiday was cheaper than it would be in the school holidays. Holidays could still be allowed if the the head decides there are special circumstances - for example if a parent was terminally ill and the family were having one last trip before their death.

[ianr]

> Holidays could still be allowed if the the head decides there are special circumstances

Sorry, it has to be "exceptional circumstances", as your example would be. "Special circumstances" belongs to the superseded 2006 regs.

[TillieTrotter]

Gotcha thanks.

[Otta]

TT, had they said I couldn't take the kids out for a day for their great gran's 100th, I'd have taken the kids anyway, and paid any fine.

Or actually I might have contested the fine, because a 100th birthday is a genuine one off event, not a holiday that could be taken any time.

But if they'd upheld the fine I'd have paid it and moved on. I wouldn't have gone to court and claimed the state had taken away my rights as a parent, because the state will have had nothing to do with it.

[TillieTrotter]

OK and for what it's worth it would most definitely be a contestable case (yours) had they refused.

I'm still very uncomfortable with this Pratt case though and I know you say it's just that he refused to pay the fine but I kinda like that he stood his ground, it can't have been easy being pursued through all the courts in the land over the past 2 years. And it wasn't just a holiday that could have been taken at any time, there were 17 other family members going, all trying to co-ordinate their life schedules, some of them may have only been able to afford to go on the dates that they went. It would be awful to think that the guy and his kids would have had to miss out on such an enriching family experience because a head teacher decided that 7 days off school for a 6 year old was against the rules. Some rules are just meant to be broken!

[SLad]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isn't that exacrtly what this ruling says?

>

> I am really pleased the guy lost. If you can

> afford flights to Florida and Disney, you can

> afford to just pay the ?60 fine and shut the f**k

> up about it.

>

> That's not to say I don't think you should ever

> take kids out of school, but if there isn't a good

> reason (and Disney isn't a good reason) then you

> shouldn't start screaming about knowing what's

> best for your kids. It's just entitlement for me.

THIS!!

[SLad]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK and for what it's worth it would most

> definitely be a contestable case (yours) had they

> refused.

>

> I'm still very uncomfortable with this Pratt case

> though and I know you say it's just that he

> refused to pay the fine but I kinda like that he

> stood his ground, it can't have been easy being

> pursued through all the courts in the land over

> the past 2 years. And it wasn't just a holiday

> that could have been taken at any time, there were

> 17 other family members going, all trying to

> co-ordinate their life schedules, some of them may

> have only been able to afford to go on the dates

> that they went. It would be awful to think that

> the guy and his kids would have had to miss out on

> such an enriching family experience because a head

> teacher decided that 7 days off school for a 6

> year old was against the rules. Some rules are

> just meant to be broken!

It wouldn't have been easy if the guy was anything other than the rampant self-publicist that he so plainly is. I think he has very much enjoyed his moment in the spotlight and certainly been pretty liberal about his tv interviews and the suchlike.

And the Headteacher didn't decide that he couldn't take his child on this 'amazing' holiday, rather they decided that those circumstances weren't exceptional and levied a ?60 fine which matey could easily have paid and still been in pocket from the reduced cost of his holiday.

No one asked him to drag the LEA to a Mags Ct, that was his choice.

[Pugwash]

Where my daughter works in a college , she asked for a day to attend a funeral of her partner's father, but was refused on the grounds that she only worked part time and term time and was not entitled to a day off. If she went sick she would have been sacked.

My other daughter informed her son's primary school that he was 'sick' so that he could attend his great grandfather's funeral in Sussex as the head was very strict allowing time off even for a family funeral. The Head also had refused some parents to withdraw their child a couple of days before term ceased as their holiday travel plans had changed.

I think along as a child has achieved consistent attendance (95%) parents should be allowed to take a child out of school for 5 days or less for a holiday - especially if it coincides with the last week of term.

When I studied in Holland, the country was divided into 3 regions, each with different start and end days of school holidays. I was informed that if all the schools closed at the same time, it would cause chaos as too many people moving around the country.

A few years ago my friend's secondary school in Bromley did an experimental scheme of having 2 weeks at Whitsun (May half term) and 2 weeks in October (Autumn Half term) with a much shorter Easter and Summer break. Both teachers and parents loved it - parents as they were able to go on holiday at cheaper rates, also split up the need to get weeks of child care. Teacher's loved it as broke the school year up and also assisted with their own family holidays. For some reason, despite the success, Bromley decided that they would not continue with the scheme.

Proposals were made several years ago that the academic year should be split into 4 terms and that GCSEs and A levels be sat in April/May with the results coming out late July/Early August which would give more time for those going onto FE. This I believe would also help parents avoid the expensive holidays costs.

[uncleglen]

I think (I may be wrong) that Germany staggers school holidays so that not everyone is moving around at the same time

[Jules-and-Boo]

staggered school holidays are a great idea.

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> staggered school holidays are a great idea.

Wouldn't there then be massive complaints from parents with kids in different schools who found they'd have to find three weeks' childcare instead of two? Not to mention the problems for teachers whose children's holidays didn't coincide with theirs. I agree it's a nice idea but it could be problematic.

[DuncanW]

Spot on Otta

Bit of a delayed response on this as we are away with our kids over the Easter break , and yes we could have saved a lot more than ?60 by taking them in term time.

A couple of years ago we took them out for 3 days to attend a wedding in Krakow. We asked for and were given permission by the head. No problem.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A couple of years ago we took them out for 3 days

> to attend a wedding in Krakow. We asked for and

> were given permission by the head. No problem.

That's great, but what if they'd said no

[singalto]

I do wonder what parents would say if their children's teachers decided to take a week or two off during term time so that they could save money. Holidays are a luxury, not a right.

[DuncanW]

i didn't seriously consider that they wouldn't as we have a good relationship with the school, their attendance was near 100% and the legislation and guidelines are clear that sort of trip is generally permitted.

But to play along, we could have not gone, we could have gone without the kids, or we could have made it a very short trip to attend the Saturday service. All doable options.

> DuncanW Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A couple of years ago we took them out for 3

> days

> > to attend a wedding in Krakow. We asked for and

> > were given permission by the head. No problem.

>

> That's great, but what if they'd said no

[Jules-and-Boo]

Staggered holidays do have obvious problems as pointed out - but also benefits too.

Some challenges just need working through.

[Otta]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But to play along, we could have not gone, we

> could have gone without the kids, or we could

> have made it a very short trip to attend the

> Saturday service. All doable options.

Or you could have just gone, and paid the fine if they bothered taking it that far (which most probably wouldn't).

[Pugwash]

Re my previous post re staggered holidays.

It would be easy to sort out regions i.e. London and South East , South England, etc

[Otta]

Not so much now that LAs have less and less say in this stuff. Schools set their own term dates, whoch complicates things.