[Year 12 IPM] Non-IPM: Attendance issues

[Graham]

An interesting decision in the UK ....

Britain




The Times
March 08, 2006

Taking children out of school for holidays is illegal
By Tony Halpin, Education Editor


Parents are breaking the law if they take their children out of  
school for holidays during term without the permission of the head  
teacher, the High Court ruled yesterday.
Schools, not parents, must decide whether children can be withdrawn  
from lessons for holidays or other family activities, Lord Justice  
Auld and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled.


They declared that parents can face a criminal conviction if they  
remove children in defiance of a school’s wishes. The court  
overturned a decision by magistrates in the London borough of Bromley  
to acquit a woman who took her daughters on two holidays without  
permission.

Mr Justice Sullivan said the woman, who cannot be named for legal  
reasons, was charged with failing to secure the attendance of her  
children at their primary school, in breach of the Education Act 1996.

She had removed the three girls for a week’s holiday in November  
2003, which included participation in the finals of a dance contest,  
even though the school had refused permission for them to be absent.

The mother believed that the contest would be “important for their  
development”. The judge said that she had also won a holiday  
competition in January 2004, which led to further unauthorised absences.

Other absences were attributed to medical causes, the mother’s car  
breaking down, or traffic jams that delayed their arrival at school  
until after registration had been taken.

All three girls were performing above average at school, but Bromley  
education authority took the mother to court because of their poor  
attendance record. However, magistrates acquitted her at a hearing  
last September, saying that the woman had not failed to secure her  
daughters’ regular attendance. They said that she should have  
exercised greater care concerning holidays during term, but concluded  
that the absences were justified.

Allowing the local authority’s appeal yesterday, Mr Justice Sullivan  
said that the magistrates had misdirected themselves on the law. They  
had to decide only the strict liability issue of whether “the  
children had failed to attend school regularly”. It was plain in law  
that leave of absence “means leave granted by the school — not  
leave which magistrates consider might have been justified”. The  
magistrates “were simply not applying the correct statutory test”.

Lord Justice Auld said that the case should be sent back to the  
magistrates with a direction to convict the mother, but with an  
indication that she should receive an absolute discharge in view of  
the time that had elapsed.

John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and  
College Leaders, welcomed the ruling. He said: “This will be very  
helpful to schools and heads who want to put a stop to term-time  
holidays which interfere with children’s education.”

The Department for Education and Skills has already made clear its  
disapproval of term-time holidays and has urged head teachers not to  
grant them unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Tony and Cherie Blair got into trouble with the headmaster of the  
London Oratory School in 1999, when it became clear that a family  
holiday in the Seychelles would cause their two sons to miss the  
first day of term. This emerged less than a week after David  
Blunkett, then the Education Secretary, had said that children should  
not be allowed to skip school for term-time travel.






Graham Gales
Bright P-12 College
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IPM, Science and Maths Teacher
Timetabler/ Daily Organiser
Gifted & Talented Co-ordinator
Heir apparent to the Chief Cook and BottleWasher
Understudy to the general Dogsbody





Important - 
This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education & Training.
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related