High Court Ruling on School Holidays

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cyanide

Cyanide

Cyanide

Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Posts
3,975
Location
Nottingham
A ruling's due today on a case where a parent took his daughter out of school and then refused to pay the fine as the school couldn't show that she didn't attend regularly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36277940

Personally I'm in full agreement with him. The Government can argue all they want about "just a single day missed can damage your education" but their argument goes completely out the window when schools shut for strikes, election days, poor maintenance etc.

The majority of the cases are also at Primary schools where the runup to school holidays involves such crucial work as "making displays" and "bring a toy to school day" (or at least it did when I was there :p)

The Government can't really step in and force holiday companies to charge less during school holidays so the only other alternatives are to allow occasional, prebooked time off during term time if the childs attendance is good or to continue as-is and force parents to pay more to go on holiday.
 
Cyanide said:
The Government can't really step in and force holiday companies to charge less during school holidays so the only other alternatives are to allow occasional, prebooked time off during term time if the childs attendance is good or to continue as-is and force parents to pay more to go on holiday.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the cost, some parents such as myself and my wife struggle to get any time of in the summer holidays due to it being the companies busiest time. My wife cannot have any time off at all, I'm lucky to get any too.

Last year I did over 6 weeks full day volunteer work at my sons school. This year I will probably do nearer 7-8 weeks and the amount of lost time when it suits is staggering. The last week and a bit they don't do ****ing anything of note school work wise.

I am in favour of a fine if the childs attendance is low or below whatever a proper ruling classifies as "regular". If that's 99% or 75% whatever. Just clarify the ruling properly and inforce it across the country. Also drop the £60 if it's one parent and £120 if it's two of you. Why should the number of parents matter to a fine.
 
Cyanide said:
Personally I'm in full agreement with him. The Government can argue all they want about "just a single day missed can damage your education" but their argument goes completely out the window when schools shut for strikes, election days, poor maintenance etc.
Click to expand...

Yea, you would think when this is brought up the validity of their argument would go out the window?
But knowing the Government, they are always right, even when they are wrong...
 
dannyjo22 said:
It's not just about the cost, some parents such as myself and my wife struggle to get any time of in the summer holidays due to it being the companies busiest time. My wife cannot have any time off at all, I'm lucky to get any too.
Click to expand...

That's also a very good point, most of the staff at both my wife's work and mine are parents so having everyone scramble for the same set of holidays is a horrible experience!

Cost isn't a huge factor for me at the moment as my daughter doesn't start school until next year but I've seen how bad it can get. Both last year and this year we've gone away the week after the kids go back to school in September. A week earlier and the price would have literally doubled :eek:
 
If you know there is a fine and you do it anyway, you should pay the fine regardless of whether you think its right or not.

Yes it would make sense to fine parents for drop in attendance below a certain amount, though i dont think its right to take a kid out of school for a holiday because its cheaper. If the difference is so make and break, they should go on cheaper holidays or not at all. If it is a case of the parents not being able to book work any other time, then you should be able to apply to take the kid out and the situation briefly assessed by each teacher they have during the days they might miss out on.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
If you know there is a fine and you do it anyway, you should pay the fine regardless of whether you think its right or not.

Yes it would make sense to fine parents for drop in attendance below a certain amount, though i dont think its right to take a kid out of school for a holiday because its cheaper. If the difference is so make and break, they should go on cheaper holidays or not at all. If it is a case of the parents not being able to book work any other time, then you should be able to apply to take the kid out and the situation briefly assessed by each teacher they have during the days they might miss out on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, poor kids don't deserve holidays, right?
 
Avenged7Fold said:
If you know there is a fine and you do it anyway, you should pay the fine regardless of whether you think its right or not.
.
Click to expand...

Indeed and I do pay it. What is needed is a consistent ruling across the country. He argued about the use of 'regular' and was correct. They need to determine a figure to 'regular' and apply that to everyone and then we can all get on with it. Again I have no problem paying the fine and factor it into my costs but our school is the only one fining from the dads on my shift.

Last year my son missed 3 days from the full year, last 3 days before the summer break £120. Yet at another school you can missed 20 days and get nothing. I like a bit of consistency in a ruling if you are fining people.
 
cheesyboy said:
Yeah, poor kids don't deserve holidays, right?
Click to expand...

All people deserve holidays but if you cant afford the one you want, you just have to settle for less. If you cant afford even a basic holiday, then there are better things for the money to be spent on.

Priorities.

I remember kids at school who sometimes came in with no lunch money because their mum wouldn't give them any because she thought it expensive and didn't have time to make sandwiches but would quite happily take out a payment plan for a three week holiday to America.

dannyjo22 said:
Indeed and I do pay it. What is needed is a consistent ruling across the country. He argued about the use of 'regular' and was correct. They need to determine a figure to 'regular' and apply that to everyone and then we can all get on with it. Again I have no problem paying the fine and factor it into my costs but our school is the only one fining from the dads on my shift.

Last year my son missed 3 days from the full year, last 3 days before the summer break £120. Yet at another school you can missed 20 days and get nothing. I like a bit of consistency in a ruling if you are fining people.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree it needs to be consistent. It is fairly new idea after all and is all done locally, i don't think there is any strict guidelines to adhere to.
 
Last edited:
Avenged7Fold said:
I don't disagree it needs to be consistent. It is fairly new idea after all and is all done locally, i don't think there is any strict guidelines to adhere to.
Click to expand...

None, which is what this ruling is about. What constitutes "regular". The magisgtrates ruled 90% was regular. Infact today he said they are not expecting them to have the balls to classify what regular is either. I have no issue with paying the fine and playing by the rules but at least define the rules.

The question was whether the child had failed to attend regularly and the act does not define "regularly".

That's the issue.
 
I think it's a bunch of ****. Education is not limited to the classroom and you can learn way more outside of it, as well as inside. It's not like she was always off just chilling at home. We took the kids out 3 days before the end of last term to go to Thailand and I bet that they got more out of that than they would have those 3 days in school.
 
We took both our kids out of school last year during term time in May and we will be doing the same in a couple weeks.

Doing so saved us £1000 last year, and about the same this year, we knew the rules and were willing to pay the fine as it was less.

Both my kids are in primary school, And we personally dont feel they missed out, they are very rarely off ill and always get good marks for work, what was more annoying is another family asked for time off and was allowed, but we were not.
 
what difference does it make it you are off for 2 weeks with chicken pox or 1 week on holiday?

surely you can still catch up on work if required
 
dannyjo22 said:
None, which is what this ruling is about. What constitutes "regular". The magisgtrates ruled 90% was regular. Infact today he said they are not expecting them to have the balls to classify what regular is either. I have no issue with paying the fine and playing by the rules but at least define the rules.

The question was whether the child had failed to attend regularly and the act does not define "regularly".

That's the issue.
Click to expand...

Have a look at how many times the word "reasonable" is used in employment law. Reasonable is never defined.

Back to the topic at at, I'm of the opinion that:-

A: Parents knew vacations would be more expensive in school holidays BEFORE they had kids. It is not a surprise!
B: If the holiday you're looking at is too expensive at the time you want, choose a different holiday. Instead of going to Spain, go camping for a week.
c: If your work holidays don't align with your children's holidays, then tough ****. Get another job or do day trips at weekends rather than week long holidays. Explore what Britain has to offer instead of a foreign holiday. Visit museums. Go for a picnic. Go for a bike ride. Have a staycation!

IMHO, there is no reasonable justification to take a child out of school for a vacation*

Disclaimer:- I have three kids - I've never taken them out of school nor will I ever do so.
 
beh said:
Do poor families go to Disney World Florida? The circumstances of this are not particularly sympathetic.
Click to expand...
The situation needed someone to take up the reigns to get it to court. Don't look at the specifics of the case in question, but rather the principle of the rule for all those it affects.

Avenged7Fold said:
All people deserve holidays but if you cant afford the one you want, you just have to settle for less. If you cant afford even a basic holiday, then there are better things for the money to be spent on.
Click to expand...
Even a basic caravan park holiday costs about £1k for a week in Cornwall during the summer. It's not peanuts.

Kids get a lot out of holidays and, particularly in the case of primary children, the benefits will far outweigh the loss of 5 days schooling.
 
FTM said:
what difference does it make it you are off for 2 weeks with chicken pox or 1 week on holiday?

surely you can still catch up on work if required
Click to expand...

There is a concern about schools being able to accommodate this if it were to become regular though. It's difficult enough to track progress.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Snip
Click to expand...

Agree

I was never taken out of school early to save money on holiday. My parents weren't loaded and my mum complained all the time that holidays were more expensive, I even suggested i miss a few days when i was a kid, my mum was ardently against it and for good reason. It is not so much about what you miss out on but rather the attitude you take with school and how you prioritize.

Fact of the matter is that there are always cheaper holidays to choose from, unless you simply cant afford to go on holiday and so for the sake of your family, you are better off saving the money for something other than a few days by an Italian lake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom