Do Schools Fine Parents For Taking Children On Holiday During Term Time?

[Bert45]

By what right do schools fine parents for taking children out of school during term time? Perhaps 'fine' is technically the wrong word. I thought only courts could fine people when an offence, punishable by a fine, has been committed and this has been proved in a court of law. I know that it is an offence for a parent or guardian to fail to send a child to school (leave aside home schooling), but this was challenged a while ago when somebody showed that his daughter had something like 97% attendance, which could not be described as a 'failure' to send her to school, and I think he won his case. Is the 'fine' backed up by, if you don't pay we will exclude your child from this school? These stories in the newspapers seem to miss out any court cases -- all you read is that the school fined the parents. Perhaps the parents plead guilty by letter to a letter from a court. Does the money go to the school or to 'central funds'?

[jim360]

It occurs to me that the "even" in the sentence "I don't object in principle to parents taking their children on holidays, even in term time" is completely redundant. Whoops!

[diddlydo]

My husband and I were both teaching in one county and our children went to school in another neighbouring county (we live on the border). On several occasions we took our children out of school for a week around Easter as our school holidays were a week out of sync with our children's. We never asked permission but simply informed our kid's school that they would be absent and why. I wonder how we would have fared with the current legislation!

[New Judge]

//I wonder how we would have fared with the current legislation!//

I expect the legislation was still the same then but the DfE's guidance and the Supreme Court's ruling in "Platt" has clarified things considerably. I doubt today you would be granted exceptional leave and would face either a penalty charge or court action.

[diddlydo]

NJ - the law wasn't the same then. It was lawful to take a child out of school for 10 school days in any one school year but it's illegal now.

[New Judge]

//NJ - the law wasn't the same then. It was lawful to take a child out of school for 10 school days in any one school year but it's illegal now.//

You don't quit have the right end of the stick, diddlydo.

The offence has always been "failure to ensure regular attendance at school". "Exceptional Leave" (which would have been given for the ten days you refer to) would have been excluded from absences as they were authorised. All that has happened (since the 2013 guidelines were issued and the case of "Platt" was heard) is that schools have been given far less discretion to authorise absences and the Platt case clarified what "attending regularly" means. (Mr Platt argued that, apart from the unauthorised holiday she took, his daughter had attended school regularly).

It has always been a feature of English law that rulings in the High/Appeal/Supreme Courts set precedents for later rulings in the lower courts and they can be cited and used for decision making. The law itself does not change. The Platt case did precisely that (after a struggle all the way to the Supreme Court). Had the Supreme Court sided with Mr Platt it would have given carte blanche to parents to remove their children from school for a holiday provided they had attended as required for the rest of the time. Local Authorities then could have given up issuing Penalty Notices for such absences as their only redress if they were not paid would be court action in the Magistrates' Court. All the defendant would have to do (provided their circumstances were similar) would be to cite the Platt case to ensure acquittal.