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 1 Version 2
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
(35 minutes 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. The government is considering introducing legislation to close a loophole allowing parents in England to take their children on holidays during term-time, after a ruling by the high court left its school attendance policy in tatters.
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. Friday’s ruling opens the way for parents to take their children out of state schools without permission so long as they have a good record of attendance. But the Department for Education said the issue was “non-negotiable”.
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. “We will examine today’s judgment in detail but are clear that children’s attendance at school is non-negotiable so we will now look to change the legislation. We also plan to strengthen statutory guidance to schools and local authorities,” a DfE spokesperson said.
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”. Jon Platt, a father from the Isle of Wight, won a landmark decision after challenging the DfE’s rules barring term-time absences for state school pupils in all but “extraordinary” 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. “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,” Platt said after the decision was announced. “This idea that I have to justify to Isle of Wight council what I do with my kids is a nonsense. It’s not ideal, but sometimes it’s necessary and the law does not prevent me from doing so.”
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. The high court held that parents whose children who attended school “regularly” could be allowed family absences – a decision that highlighted the gap between the existing law and the DfE’s tougher regulations introduced in 2013 when Michael Gove was education secretary.
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. Platt had challenged the council’s attempt to impose a £120 penalty for unauthorised absence after he took his daughter to Disney World last year, and was backed by a local magistrates court. The council then appealed to the high court.
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%”. Platt argued that his daughter’s attendance record of more than 90% 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 school time.
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 Isle of Wight appealed against the magistrates’ decision, but Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mrs Justice Thirlwall dismissed the legal challenge. The court ruled that the magistrates were entitled to take into account the “wider picture” of the child’s attendance record.
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.” “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,” Lloyd Jones said.
Councillor Jonathan Bacon, leader of Isle of Wight Council, said greater clarity was needed on the meaning of the term “regularly” in the legislation. Daniel Jackson, a solicitor who has represented parents in similar cases, said: “I think it will lead to more parents contesting the fines. Mr Platt has gained a lot of support in what he is doing, his case has been highly publicised and a lot of people who do end up being prosecuted will have a stronger argument now.”
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 said it was “disappointed” by the judgment. “The evidence is clear that every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chance of gaining good GCSEs, which has a lasting effect on their life chances. We are confident our policy to reduce school absence is clear and correct,” it said in statement.
“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. 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.
“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.” Any changes to legislation would mostly involve a definition of “regular” school attendance, possibly in line with the 90% threshold that the DfE requires from schools overall. The department’s definition of truancy is a persistent absence of 10% of school days.
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. The Local Government Association said the DfE’s blanket ban was not working and was putting a strain on councils that had to enforce it. “There has to be a sensible solution whereby every family has the option to spend time together when they choose to, rather than tying families to set holiday periods,” the LGA said.
“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.” “While councils fully support the DfE’s stance on every child being in school every day, there are occasions when parental requests should be given individual consideration and a commonsense approach applied.”
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.” Julie Robertson, a solicitor who has represented parents who have faced legal action over term-time holidays, said: “Hopefully we can now draw a line in the sand and leave magistrates to make decisions on an individual, case-by case-basis.
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 simply impossible to provide a percentage figure for which level of attendance is considered regular. It is not something you can put a blanket figure on without taking into account the academic record of each individual child.”
“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. The DfE’s case was backed by the Association of School and College Leaders, which represents mainly secondary school headteachers.
“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.” “Pupils are expected to attend school as close to 100% of the time as possible and they should not miss school to go on holiday,” said the ASCL’s Malcolm Trobe. “This is because even short periods of attendance can have a detrimental impact on their education, so consistent attendance is absolutely vital. We are a nation which values education and school attendance is part of that commitment.”
In 2015 holidays in term time – both authorised and unauthorised – made up 7.5% of absences, a total of 4.1m school days lost. Illness accounted for 60% of annual absences.
The DfE’s policy and high court ruling apply only to pupils aged five and over attending state schools in England. The rules do not apply to independent schools, while devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own policies.