UPDATED: Jon Platt, whose battle against the Isle of Wight Council over term time holidays ended up in the highest court in the land, has lost his landmark case today (Thursday), resulting in far-reaching consequences for parents across the country.
The businessman from Nettlestone, who runs JMP Partnership in Sandown, took his daughter to Florida in April 2015 but refused to pay a £60 fine issued by the Isle of Wight Council, which then soon doubled to £120. He refused to pay as he believed his daughter attended school ‘regularly’, as required by Section 444 of the Education Act 1996.
The father was taken to court but Isle of Wight Magistrates deemed he had ‘no case to answer’. Unhappy with the outcome, the Isle of Wight Council appealed to the High Court who then also ruled in Mr Platt’s favour.
Back in January the case ended up in the Supreme Court after the Department for Education backed the Isle of Wight Council in appealing the situation. The country’s most senior judges including Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes presided over the hearing and now, over 9 weeks later, the outcome of that hearing has been given.
Today’s ruling that ‘regular’ attendance in school must mean ‘to attend on all days and all times that the schools requires it’ will now result in thousands of parents under threat of fine, prosecution and even imprisonment for a single day of unauthorised absence.
Platt feared he would lose the battle at the last hurdle and is preparing to take his daughter out of state school. He told The Sunday Times this week:
“I am preparing to pull my daughter out of her state primary school because I cannot risk going through all this again if I take her out of class because I, as her father, judge it is in her best interests. If she were in a private school, I would not be fined.”
Following the victories to date, Councils from across the country have stopped fining parents for term-time holidays but that is all set to change now the ruling of what ‘regular attendance’ actually means has been given.
Vix Lowthion, Green Party National education spokesperson, teacher and also like Jon Platt a parent of 3 children on the Isle of Wight said:
“We all want our children to have excellence attendance in our schools – but fines and prosecution is not the best way to go. This Conservative Government are obsessed with formal, high stakes testing and believe that education can only take place in the classroom. Now they are set to criminalise parents for not only family holidays but one off absences such as weddings and funerals – there is no flexibility allowed whatsoever. We call upon our government to bring this policy to Parliament for debate, as is fair and right within a democracy, because for too long they have refused to have these fines up for debate.
“Instead of attacking parents’ choices, this government should be enacting legislation against holiday companies who ramp up prices in school holidays well beyond the reach of ordinary families. They should be seriously looking at regional, flexible term times to spread holidays across a wider variety of weeks. And they should be welcoming opportunities for our young people to get out of the confines of the classroom and learn from exciting experiences they get when away from home.”
UPDATE @ 11:48 – Former Leader of Isle of Wight Council and Independent Group spokesperson on Education, Jonathan Bacon has said:
“As I was closely involved with this case during my time as part of the Council Administration I have been asked by a few people what my views are on the ruling issued today by the Supreme Court on school attendance.
“The case was fundamentally about seeking certainty in an area of law that was uncertain and I am glad that this has now been resolved with a clear ruling on what ‘regular attendance’ means having now been given. In handing down this ruling the Supreme Court has recognised that attendance at school is fundamental to education and also recognised the importance of attendance to a school’s ability to teach all the pupils in the classroom as well as to the education of the individual child. It would be ridiculous if the contention being advance in some quarters that parents should have the unchecked ability to remove their child from school for up to 10% of the school year had been accepted by the Court.
“In my view there are two underlying problems that remain with the current system that need to be dealt with and which were never going to be dealt with by this case, but which the Government needs to address. I have never supported fines as the best means to coerce attendance. Their existence seems to be at the core of parents concern about the current system. They may be appropriate in extreme cases but it would surely be better to have good attendance supported and encouraged by a reward based system.
“Secondly, and perhaps more easy to deal with, is the fact that a few years ago head teachers had pretty much any discretion to authorise an absence from school taken away from them. This needs to be reversed. It is plain, and I have always said, that there are situations in which it will be beneficial for a child to be able to take part in events or activities outside school but during term time. Given the ability to exercise appropriate discretion head teachers can recognise this and ensure that absences do not disrupt the education process.
The Isle of Wight Council has this morning said it will ensure it continues to apply its code of conduct in relation to school absence and in accordance with this judgment.
