Term Time Holidays – The Arguments Can Continue.

I’ve always been against them, both as a parent and as someone married to a teacher but at least there’s a clear legal position now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39504338

Mr Platt’s argument that despite missing a week of school for a holiday, his daughter had regularly attended school over the course of the year, with an attendance rate of over 92%.

So he thinks that apparently missing one day of school in approx every two weeks is OK then?
Theoretically turning up for just the first day of each term is also ‘regular’.

Wonder what’s that’s cost him in solicitors then?

He should just set up one of those free school thingies and stick holidays abroad on the curriculum. Probably get paid for it as well.

He’s fighting against the wrong people – he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off on non term bookings.

But the argument is/will be that the non term holidays aren’t more expensive – its the term bookings that are cheaper to encouorage busines in period of anticipated low volume.

once again, badly written law is the source of a lot of unnecessary cost and argument.

At issue was the meaning of the words “fails to attend regularly” in section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996. The court ruled that “regularly” did not mean “evenly spaced” or “sufficiently often” but instead “in accordance with the attendance rules”.

That’s quite a jump in translation by Lady Hale to contrive to get the law to work as it was probably intended.

Never use adverbs in legal documents would appear to be the lesson in all this.

“Never use adverbs” is generally good advice.

generally good advice 😉

He’s fighting against the wrong people – he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off on non term bookings.

But the argument is/will be that the non term holidays aren’t more expensive – its the term bookings that are cheaper to encouorage busines in period of anticipated low volume.

This. As the partner of a teacher I have seen the disruption caused when children are removed during term time for holidays. On return there is always catch up to do with the absent pupils and no additional resource to do this.

Having read some of the Lady Hale’s judgement (always a good idea before one comments BTW, ahem) to be fair the word “regularly” first appears in the 1944 Education Act.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-judgment.pdf

Third, the duty of LEAs to make byelaws was replaced by a statutory offence: if a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school “fails to attend regularly thereat”, the parent was guilty of an offence
(section 39(1)).

She does then go through 17 paragraphs clarifying how she got to “in accordance with the rules” being the right definition to use.

Oh yeah… The kids have to catch up on some great skill they missed out on while away, one that would have really helped them get a job on graduating :/

I was taken on loads of term time hols, didn’t effect me in any way. Found out what I missed, worked on it before I got back over the weekend (really hard to read a book / watch a YouTube vid right?), got bk and found that the library book often taught me better than the teacher…

Well done you. Have a peanut.

It didn’t affect you, hoorah. However it can affect teachers who need to help children not as awesome as you catch up. This can have a knock on effect as the teacher is then focused on one individual rather than the group. Multiply this by the number of children absent during term time.

really hard to read a book / watch a YouTube vid right?

I think you’ll find that a large proportion of kids wouldn’t agree with you and are as diligent as you were.

People fight like dogs to get their kids into the school of their choice, then think they can take them out whenever they feel like it for a cheap holiday. Fine, just assume they have given up their place and give it to someone who will turn up.

I was taken on loads of term time hols, didn’t effect me in any way.

Obviously.

He’s fighting against the wrong people – he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off on non term bookings.

You’re not being ripped off. No holiday company could have enough capacity to cope with all the demand in school holidays and not go bust because their planes / hotels are 90% empty the rest of the year. So, they all (sensibly) ration supply by raising prices at times when demand exceeds supply.

It’s basic economics.

He’s fighting against the wrong people – he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off on non term bookings.

Free market, innit

If it was compulsory to have children, or go to Disneyland, this argument might be valid

Kryton57 – Member 
He’s fighting against the wrong people – he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off on non term bookings.

Ah well, they argue that the price during holidays is the normal price and term time are discounted due to less demand.

Sure, “supply & demand”, but they can run the flights/hotels/etc at the so called discounted rate just fine and many still manage to fill up (term time flights I’ve been on to popular destinations are still full). It’s S&D in that it’s an opportunity for maximising profit (to be fair, they’re a business and usually that’s a key point of being in business).

They could though just increase the supply during peak periods to meet the demand and thus prices should remain the same 😉

See here’s the thing (from the article):

In her judgement, Lady Hale said if parents were able to withdraw children whenever they wanted it would cause unacceptable disruption.

But a £60 fine isn’t going to dissuade someone from pulling their kids out of school if it saves them several thousand pounds on the price of the holiday.

So this only really impacts people to whom £60 is a lot of money and is greater than the money they would save on their holiday.

So he thinks that apparently missing one day of school in approx every two weeks is OK then?

I had the same thought – 92% attendance isn’t very good when you think about it.

While I don’t think the very occasional missed day does any irreparable damage, the schools are in a difficult position when being asked to judge which absences are acceptable, and it’s not fair on the teachers who are being asked to make up the missed work.

he should argue that the holiday companys are ripping us off

Supply vs. demand. And if your holiday is that much cheaper you can pay the £60?

Instead of dragging around the courts in a righteous manner.

The problem here is the responsibility that the government places on the schools to achieve results. Put the onus for results completely onto the parents and then absolve the schools. The child’s results are then down to the parents’ will. It’ll never happen but this is at the root imo. Or privatise all schools and see whether parents don’t care about a few days off when they’re paying for it.

“ripping us off on non term bookings”
There speaks the voice of the unthinking.
Not a rip off because you do have a choice. Just don’t go. Also how about thinking that these are the normal prices and those outside holiday time are discounted . A bit like last years bikes discounted.
92% attendance is awful unless illness is part of it. Sadly those parents who do take their kids somewhere educational are overwhelmed by those who clear off to Disneyland or what ever.
It isn’t so important if the kid is a thick (technical term) looser and its a few days at the age of 7 in February. I can think of several who wouldn’t lose out if they quit school at 12! There has to be a universal rule. You can’t have grey areas in law.

But this was unauthorised absence, wasn’t it? The issue IMO is about the ability of the Head to authorise absence in the first place.

that ability was withdrawn from the head.
There’s almost no “authorised” absence.

The
amendments made clear that head teachers may not grant any leave of absence
during term time unless ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist.

http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/key-topics/parents-and-pupils/naht-issues-new-guidance-on-authorised-absence/

Yes and that’s the issue imo.

They could though just increase the supply during peak periods to meet the demand and thus prices should remain the same

Yeah, cos Thompsons have a couple of spare Airbus or Boeings tucked up in lockup garage they can dust down and use. Alicante airport can also quickly knock up another runway and build a few more hotels. 🙄

…kid is a thick (technical term) looser…

Oh the irony. 😆

As a parent but not married to a teacher I’ve spoken to both my kids’ teahcers about this. They are quite clear that it doesn’t cause any disruption as there will be little missed that can’t be cuaght up outside of school. I have my hoidays allocated as does my wife so to get a full family togther we need to take them out of school. It’s been almost 5 years since we last had a proper holday together partially thanks to this silly law.

And Stoner and Molgtips are right, a sensible school allows it.

Incidently both ours do for my kids if I wanted to.

92% attendance is awful unless illness is part of it.

+1.
I’m pretty sure attendance below 95% gets you a call from the attendance officer to find out why.

I have an interest in this as I also have kids and am married to a teacher.
I do think the price hike on holidays/flights during school holidays is a bit wrong, but agree we have a choice not to go.

I’d have no qualms about taking my kids out of school if I felt the life experience gained outweighed what they were missing at school.
My kids education has been regularly disrupted by the teachers missing lessons for training/working at other schools/etc.
My wife does a dual role at school (Science teacher + SENCo) she regularly drops science lessons (whicgh are then covered by a ‘cover supervisor’)if a meeting/SENCo stuff has to take priority – how is this any less disruptive than taking kids out of school??

Sadly those parents who do take their kids somewhere educational…

There’s nothing a school likes better than a self righteous parent saying their child should be let off for a week because they are going somewhere worthy.

“My holiday has more value than yours…”

92% attendance is awful unless illness is part of it.

in this case, the mother had previously taken the daughter out of school without authorisation and had paid the fine.

If that was a week for holiday, then that would have put a dent in attendance.

190 days a year, 8% is 15 days away. That’s a lot.

All ridiculously arbitrary really.

And Stoner and Molgtips are right, a sensible school allows it.

We did it this year (again) for our family ski trip.

Mrs produced a letter from work explaining that “NHS winter pressures” meant she couldn’t take time off at the normal February half term.

School were fine with it and gave us a letter back approving the absence.

Unfortunately I think that discretion is being removed.

I love these debates!

You choose to have children, therefore you know they will go to school and thus limit school holidays come along and you’ll have to pay more. What happened to the days of only going on holiday where you can afford to go? And sadly if it’s out of your budget you have to go elsewhere?

The same with work, everyone in society seems to think they are owed things now days. You have kids either become a teacher or live with it, it’s the way the world had revolved for a long time in relation to schooling.

For me it isn’t about the cost. Sometimes I’m just not off the same time as my wife. My parents had the same problem so took us out of school. What ever happened to allowing parents to do that?

You have kids either become a teacher…

Will that make holidays cheaper?

What happened to the days of only going on holiday where you can afford to go?

Maybe I can afford to spend several thousands pounds extra on a holiday that is identical to the one a third of that price the week before/after – except much busier.

But that doesn’t mean I’m going to!

it’s the way the world had revolved for a long time in relation to schooling.

It’s not though – the fines are a relatively new thing. IME it was fairly common to take kids out of school when I was a lad.

Or how about those of us who work in jobs where they might not get away over the summer? Or any holidays? I suppose they should just never do anything because it was their choice? Sorry, are they not owed quality time with their families?

FWIW I’m not keen on pulling children out of school to go on a jolly at the drop of a hat but it seems people forget that there are folk out there living at the shitty end of the stick.

I’m out with the dog. Just passed 2 kids helping their Dad with lambing. Great sight and they will probably learn more than a week at school.