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/education/2017/jan/31/term-time-holiday-ban-would-criminalise-parents-supreme-court-told

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Term-time holiday ban would criminalise parents, supreme court told Term-time holiday ban would criminalise parents, supreme court told
(35 minutes later)
Parents will be criminalised on an unprecedented scale if judges reverse an earlier ruling that overturned a ban on term-time holidays, the supreme court has been told.Parents will be criminalised on an unprecedented scale if judges reverse an earlier ruling that overturned a ban on term-time holidays, the supreme court has been told.
Lawyers representing Jon Platt, who was fined after taking his daughter out of school for a week, argued that, with more than 4m days of unauthorised absence in England’s state schools each year, reversing the earlier ruling would criminalise parents.Lawyers representing Jon Platt, who was fined after taking his daughter out of school for a week, argued that, with more than 4m days of unauthorised absence in England’s state schools each year, reversing the earlier ruling would criminalise parents.
Government lawyers representing the Department for Education and the education secretary, Justine Greening, disagreed and told the court it would be “absurd” to allow parents to remove their children from state schools “when the sun is out”. Government lawyers representing the Department for Education and the education secretary, Justine Greening, disagreed and told the court it would be absurd to allow parents to remove their children from state schools “when the sun is out”.
The case involving the Isle of Wight council and Platt, who successfully challenged the council’s fine last year, has far-reaching implications for the government’s efforts to crack down on unauthorised absences. The case involving the Isle of Wight council and Platt, who successfully challenged the council’s fine last year, has far-reaching implications for the government’s efforts to crack down on unauthorised absences.
Lord Neuberger, the court’s president, said judgment would be reserved until a later date.Lord Neuberger, the court’s president, said judgment would be reserved until a later date.
Regulations introduced in 2013 curtailed the ability of headteachers at state schools in England to grant up to two weeks term-time holiday for pupils with good attendance. That led to a surge in fines for unauthorised absences imposed on parents by local authorities, and complaints from families seeking to avoid the higher cost of school holiday travel.Regulations introduced in 2013 curtailed the ability of headteachers at state schools in England to grant up to two weeks term-time holiday for pupils with good attendance. That led to a surge in fines for unauthorised absences imposed on parents by local authorities, and complaints from families seeking to avoid the higher cost of school holiday travel.
Platt’s argument that existing law only required him to provide his daughter with “regular attendance” at school was accepted by magistrates in the Isle of Wight, and upheld in May last year by the high court before the DfE won the right to appeal to the supreme court.Platt’s argument that existing law only required him to provide his daughter with “regular attendance” at school was accepted by magistrates in the Isle of Wight, and upheld in May last year by the high court before the DfE won the right to appeal to the supreme court.
Much of the legal argument revolved around definitions of full-time education, as outlined in various education acts dating back to the 19th century, and what defined regular attendance – with one barrister drawing an analogy with Chelsea football fans who could be said to regularly attend games without going to every one.Much of the legal argument revolved around definitions of full-time education, as outlined in various education acts dating back to the 19th century, and what defined regular attendance – with one barrister drawing an analogy with Chelsea football fans who could be said to regularly attend games without going to every one.
Martin Chamberlain QC, representing the Isle of Wight, said: “Absence for seven consecutive days cannot on any view be regular attendance.”Martin Chamberlain QC, representing the Isle of Wight, said: “Absence for seven consecutive days cannot on any view be regular attendance.”
James Eadie QC, appearing for the education secretary, said legislators did not intend that “a parent has a right to take their child out of school during term time for any reason they judge appropriate, in this case for the purpose of going on holiday to Florida – and to do so irrespective of the judgment of the school as to whether or not authorisation should be given”.James Eadie QC, appearing for the education secretary, said legislators did not intend that “a parent has a right to take their child out of school during term time for any reason they judge appropriate, in this case for the purpose of going on holiday to Florida – and to do so irrespective of the judgment of the school as to whether or not authorisation should be given”.
Eadie argued that any unscheduled absence was disruptive for teachers and the education of other pupils, as well as adversely affecting a child’s future results, including GCSE exam grades.Eadie argued that any unscheduled absence was disruptive for teachers and the education of other pupils, as well as adversely affecting a child’s future results, including GCSE exam grades.
“Undermining the authority of the school and headteacher and those responsible for running the school is likely to be a thoroughly bad thing,” Eadie told the five supreme court justices. “Undermining the authority of the school and headteacher and those responsible for running the school is likely to be a thoroughly bad thing,” he told the five supreme court justices.
But Platt’s barrister, Clive Sheldon, argued that the ban on holidays risked affecting families and could “criminalise parents on an unprecedented scale”, given the more than 4m days of unauthorised absences recorded in 2015.But Platt’s barrister, Clive Sheldon, argued that the ban on holidays risked affecting families and could “criminalise parents on an unprecedented scale”, given the more than 4m days of unauthorised absences recorded in 2015.
The case arose after Isle of Wight council fined Platt £120 for taking his daughter out of school in April 2015, which Platt argued was necessary because her school’s holidays did not coincide with those of his other children and family members. The case arose after Isle of Wight council fined Platt £120 for taking his daughter out of school in April 2015, which he argued was necessary because her school’s holidays did not coincide with those of his other children and family members.
The supreme court’s ruling will 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.The supreme court’s ruling will 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.