This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/13/high-court-father-fine-term-time-holiday-jon-platt
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
High court backs father who refused to pay fine for term-time holiday | High court backs father who refused to pay fine for term-time holiday |
(about 3 hours later) | |
A father who refused to pay a fine for taking his daughter out of school for an unauthorised holiday to Disney World has been backed by a high court ruling that will open the floodgates to similar challenges. | A father who refused to pay a fine for taking his daughter out of school for an unauthorised holiday to Disney World has been backed by a high court ruling that will open the floodgates to similar challenges. |
The decision throws into uncertainty the government’s efforts to take a strict line against term-time holidays in state schools in England. The Department for Education (DfE) tightened its regulations on unauthorised absences in 2013, prompting the widespread introduction of financial penalties for unauthorised term-time absences. | The decision throws into uncertainty the government’s efforts to take a strict line against term-time holidays in state schools in England. The Department for Education (DfE) tightened its regulations on unauthorised absences in 2013, prompting the widespread introduction of financial penalties for unauthorised term-time absences. |
But the ruling will be greeted with enthusiasm by campaigners who have been lobbying against the stricter rules, which removed the leeway previously allowing headteachers to authorise up to two weeks’ term-time holiday a year for pupils with good attendance records. | But the ruling will be greeted with enthusiasm by campaigners who have been lobbying against the stricter rules, which removed the leeway previously allowing headteachers to authorise up to two weeks’ term-time holiday a year for pupils with good attendance records. |
The Isle of Wight local authority had sought to impose a fine on Jon Platt for taking his daughter out of school for seven days, on the grounds that the Florida holiday did not meet the DfE’s rules allowing authorised absences only in “exceptional circumstances”. | The Isle of Wight local authority had sought to impose a fine on Jon Platt for taking his daughter out of school for seven days, on the grounds that the Florida holiday did not meet the DfE’s rules allowing authorised absences only in “exceptional circumstances”. |
Platt challenged the council’s attempt to impose a £120 penalty, arguing that his daughter’s attendance record met the requirement of section 444 of the Education Act – that parents ensure their children attend school “regularly”. He also argued that the law did not place restrictions on parents taking their children on holiday in term time. | |
Platt was backed by a local magistrates court, but the council appealed to the high court. On Friday, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mrs Justice Thirlwall dismissed the council’s challenge, ruling that the magistrates had not “erred in law” when reaching their decision. | |
Mark Jackson, appearing for the local authority, had argued that parents “cannot simply take their children out of school to take them on holiday, or for any other unauthorised reason”. He argued section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 stated that if a child failed to attend school regularly the parent was guilty of an offence, subject to certain statutory exceptions which did not include holidays. | |
The policy of Platt’s daughter’s school made it clear that holidays in term time “would not be authorised”, Jackson said, adding that magistrates should not simply have asked themselves had the child attended school regularly but whether she had attended regularly during the period she had been on holiday with her family, when her attendance rate was “0%”. | |
Rejecting the submission, Jones said: “I do not consider it is open to an authority to criminalise every unauthorised holiday by the simple device of alleging that there has been no regular attendance in a period limited to the absence on holiday.” | |
The school’s attendance register showed that the child had an attendance rate of 92.35%. “I consider the magistrates correctly had regard to the wider picture,” the judge said. “In all the circumstances of this case I am unable to say their conclusion was not one reasonably open to them.” | |
Councillor Jonathan Bacon, leader of Isle of Wight Council, said greater clarity was needed on the meaning of the term “regularly” in the legislation. | |
He said government guidance had been that “regularly” meant attending every school day. “This case was always about seeking clarification on this matter and unfortunately today’s ruling has created massive uncertainty and cast a shadow of doubt over the policies of schools and local authorities across the country,” he said. | |
“The DfE had outlined what it considered to be ‘regular’ attendance, which was that children should attend school every day, and it is under that assumption that we acted. It is also clear that attendance and educational attainment are intertwined. However, today’s ruling may be taken to imply that parents can take children out of school on holiday for up to three weeks every year. | |
“This will clearly have a detrimental effect on the education of those children, the rest of their class and their teachers... we will be pressing the Department for Education to urgently consider creating clear legislation on this matter for the benefit of parents, schools and local authorities alike.” | |
Julie Robertson, a solicitor who has represented parents who have faced legal action over term-time holidays, said: “Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school regularly. But this concept is not clearly defined in case law or laid out in any statutory provision. | Julie Robertson, a solicitor who has represented parents who have faced legal action over term-time holidays, said: “Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school regularly. But this concept is not clearly defined in case law or laid out in any statutory provision. |
“As it stands, the local authority must prove beyond doubt that a parent has failed to secure regular attendance – taking into account the child’s academic attendance record as a whole. In the past, I have found local authorities a little quick to issue fines without having considered the child’s academic record first.” | “As it stands, the local authority must prove beyond doubt that a parent has failed to secure regular attendance – taking into account the child’s academic attendance record as a whole. In the past, I have found local authorities a little quick to issue fines without having considered the child’s academic record first.” |
After the ruling, Platt said: “I am obviously hugely relieved. I know that there was an awful lot riding on this - not just for me but for hundreds of other parents.” | |
The DfE maintains that, when added to absences for illness and other authorised reasons, continued unauthorised absences can seriously affect a child’s education. | |
“It is a myth that missing school even for a short time is harmless to a child’s education,” a DfE spokesperson said after the initial decision involving Platt. | “It is a myth that missing school even for a short time is harmless to a child’s education,” a DfE spokesperson said after the initial decision involving Platt. |
“Our evidence shows missing the equivalent of just one week a year from school can mean a child is significantly less likely to achieve good GCSE grades, having a lasting effect on their life chances.” | “Our evidence shows missing the equivalent of just one week a year from school can mean a child is significantly less likely to achieve good GCSE grades, having a lasting effect on their life chances.” |