Was the school correct in refusing this boy's absence?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....aribbean-wedding.html

Although I have never condoned truancy or parents taking their children out of school for a variety of unnecessary reasons, I think in this case the school was vastly unsympathetic in not granting this woman's 13 year old son absence from school, so that he could attend his mother's wedding.

[Mosaic]

Depends - I mean, does it happen often?

[rockyracoon]

Does it say how good his attendance is usually? If it isn't up to scratch they may have refused on those grounds, can't really comment properly unless we know why they did say no. I think she was foolish not to pay the £50, it's going to turn out to be a very expensive principle for her.

[Bluestone]

It does seem a little unfair, but I also think she should have just paid the £50 fine and that would have been the last of it. Now she has to go to court and will no doubt get fined £1000. Sometimes, doing things out of principle just isn't worth it.

[Bluestone]

As above, I was also going to say that we don't know why the school refused it.
Perhaps his attendance record is already poor, perhaps he's not doing well at school, or perhaps they had exams on.
Whatever the reason, she knew the outcome and should have just paid up.

[Canary42]

The whole idea of "principle" is regardless of consequences. If you compromise, then it's NOT a principle.

[factor-fiction]

If she chose to have the wedding in term time and always planned to invite her son then she should have foreseen this.

[FredPuli43]

Absurd, if the absence is minimal rather than, say, taking a fortnight off. This is not what the law was intended for. If the prosecution goes ahead, it may be that she has no defence because this might be seen as an offence of strict liability where intent or motive is irrelevant, but, if so, she should be seeking an absolute discharge.

[jno]

it was quite a long wedding, wasn't it? Taking the afternoon off is one thing; a week and a half is another.

[sandyRoe]

Déjá vu. Have I seen this question before?
There was a time when the only way children went to their parents nuptials was if they were in utero.

[Bluestone]

Also, at that age, the pace of learning is pretty fast, and he'll now go back to school having missed a load of modules. An odd day would have been fine, I'm sure, but 11 days is quite excessive and I don't think the mother has any grounds for "sticking by her principles".

[factor-fiction]

FredPuli43- I'm not sure I follow your point. It was 11 days (which I assume was 11 school days) so it was a fortnight

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// it was quite a long wedding, wasn't it? Taking the afternoon off is one thing; a week and a half is another. ///

An afternoon off eh?

Wouldn't that have been rushing things a little considering the wedding took place in St Lucia?

[Bluestone]

An afternoon off eh?
Wouldn't that have been rushing things a little considering the wedding took place in St Lucia?

Ha ha. That was actually quite funny.

There was no reason they couldn't have got married in the school holidays. She says it's the only time they could get it off work, but that's rubbish - seeing as how they planned it a year in advance!
It was obviously down to money, which I completely understand, but you should then prepare yourself to have to pay the £50 fine.

[sandyRoe]

Nearly the same question.

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1177937.html

[FredPuli43]

The law appears to be s7 of the Education Act (requirement to cause the child to receive suitable full time education) and s437 (parent to show cause if the child appears not to be receiving suitable education such as by continuous failure to attend).The guidance is that the non-attendance should have some degree of repetition before anyone is prosecuted. What's happened here is that the council issued a penalty notice for one absence and she refused to pay, hence the case is in court. It's doubtful whether this instance is one of persistence (there may be a history to this, which we don't know). Presumably the council thinks that 11 days amounts to continuous fallure to ensure attendance. Must say, if this is a one off, in these circumstances the council is being unreasonable and should have treated the case as exceptional.

[sp1814]

If there was an overriding urgent reason for the timing of the wedding (say if either of the newlyweds were dying), then my sympathy would swing in their direction.

However, what they seem to be doing, is teaching their son that rules are there to be broken for expediency.

Not the best lesson.

I would've coughed up the £50.

[ludwig]

factor30
//If she chose to have the wedding in term time and always planned to invite her son then she should have foreseen this. //

I agree.

jno
//it was quite a long wedding, wasn't it? Taking the afternoon off is one thing; a week and a half is another. //

I agree.

I don't see what she's got to moan about. She chose when and where to have the wedding, she chose to ignore the school, she chose not to pay the fine.

[Lore]

I think 11 days during term time is ridiculous for a planned event.
Think of it this way, what if his teacher planned a wedding during term time?

[jno]

aog, it isn't mandatory to have a wedding in St Lucia (I didn't) or to have it during school time. She could have avoided all this. Or she could have stood by her principles and paid the fine. Since she insists on her day in court, she'd better be prepared for the possibility that the court will think her son's education is more important than her own wedding.

This all seems self-inflicted.