School holidays and parent power

The Supreme Court upheld the law which states parents must send their children to school during term time unless they are ill or are being home educated to an agreed standard and programme.

Some think this is an unreasonable interference with parents who may have other ways to bring up their children. They believe children can learn outside school as well as in, and think that sometimes a child could benefit from travel during term time.

Others, including the Supreme Court, think children are best advised to follow the full courses offered by their schools. Missing a week or two in a busy term would mean the child has to catch up somehow on the lessons and exercises missed. Teachers do not welcome having to make special provision  for children who missed the first explanation and the work on the new topics introduced when they were away. Of course they need to help children who have been off sick for a time period to catch up, but they usually do not want to increase the numbers and incidence of this remedial task. They point out that schools offer quite long holidays allowing families time off with their children.

The father who brought the case now says he has the money to send his child to a fee paying school, where he thinks he could get a better agreement with the Head teacher. He says he is bringing the case for all those who cannot afford this option. It is true that limiting families to travel in school holidays allows travel companies to charge more for these peak periods. In the  case of the summer holiday in the UK the school time off also coincides with the  better weather which would attract premium prices anyway.

Parliament intended the law to require parents to send their children to school in term time. The Court has upheld the will of Parliament.  Do any of you think that wrong?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

128 Comments

  1. Newmania
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    I`m sure every parent who plays by the rules, often to our cost and inconvenience thought this was a ridiculous case.
    Just one complaint on those rules , for the many dual income families that are now the norm the fact that teachers are unable to do their training in their endless holidays is equally annoying
    The dreaded inset days mean the rest of us have to take days of work to mind out children out of our measly two weeks and it has always seemed hugely unfair to me.

    Just saying

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Marvellous @newmania

      This post has shown that you really are about what works for you.

      Welcome to the world and stop trying to dress your views up as enlightened or progressive.

      You are in it for yourself. And that is OK.

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

        Re catchall

        I am trialling Modern phone and the capture experience is awful no enlargement possible.

    • Anonymous
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

      +1

      As much a drag on the economy as a strike day.

  2. Jerry
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Wasn’t there already a law already in place to the effect that a child between certain ages had to be “schooled” well before the one upheld by the Supreme Court, what changed was surely the definition of what Schooled means. Basically the old law did not sit happily with the needs of the Education Reform Act 1988 (and amendments), never mind schools, with their league table standings to think about) to judge children’s success via the very narrow SATS and GCSE examinations.

    The real problem seems to be that schools and local EA’s are being to inflexible, and to ready to prosecute. I heard an interview, probably a year or so back, were one parent was complaining that his family basically can not have a family holiday any more because he (as the owner of a building company contracted to a LEA) has to work during school holidays – repairing schools.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    Parliament is profoundly wrong and Lady Hale & the Supreme Court have hugely extended the words “regular attendance” to mean “whatever the head teacher/government says goes mate, you do as you are told or you are a criminal and will be fined or even put in prison”. It is a complete outrage, they are not the government’s children to nationalise. The fact that this May/Hammond government actually welcomes this appalling judgement show exactly what dire socialists we have in this cabinet.

    What do they know of the particular needs and circumstances of these children and their families?

    One minute the politicians are very concerned about childhood obesity yet now Labour, the Libdims, the Greens want to give everyone free school meals, funded by vat on private schools. Even the socialist Gove suggested the VAT on school fees. On Question Time last night five of the six guests wanted this economic lunacy. Only Suella Fernandes against and even she did not put the case very well.

    • rose
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      Brenda Hale is a muddler, her mind not properly trained, hence the incomprehensible judgement, but this sort of thing should not come to law. It is a question of manners. People should not take their children out of school because it is inconsiderate and it teaches the children to be inconsiderate. Of course the NUT are not paragons when it comes to being polite and considerate.

      We were never taken out of school as children. I can remember on one occasion being left with another family while my parents went away with my baby sister, so that I could attend school. We never took our son away in term time, no matter how crowded and expensive it was in August. That was just how it was. I think the idea holidays could be made cheaper in August by HMG interfering is economically illiterate.

  4. Lifelogic
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    The point on VAT on school fees is that it would not raise any money for the state at all in fact if would cost them. It would damage the private school businesses (that are a good export business), destroy jobs and it would push more into the “free” state schools. People going private would have to pay four times (for others, income tax/NI on the money earned to pay the fees, the fees themselves and the VAT on top).

    Most would have to use the state and perhaps get the odd extra tutor on the side. The way forward is the compete opposite – tax relief for education, education vouchers you can top up, freedom, choice and far more private schools. Not another virtual state monopoly of dross and indoctrination. The same argument applies to the dire & death causing NHS. That is the way for the state to save money, choice and freedom for everyone and far less government.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      It read that hospitals are diverting twice as many ambulances as they used to last year due to the hospitals being unable to cope. Must do wonders for the seriously sick to be bounced about in an ambulance for an extra 50 miles or so and have their test further delayed by hours – also it will costs the NHS more in the end as the ambulance drivers cannot do their next job (as they are diverted or sitting about waiting to drop patients off). Also the NHS probably gets sued for incompetence and the lawyers get their hands in the tax payers pockets.

      This “free at the point of non delivery” & pushing from pillar to post by hospitals is daft economically and is killing lots of people. Only the BBC, loopy socialists and daft politicians think it is “Envy of the World”. No one is copying it, they would have to be insane to do so.

  5. Anthony
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    The law is well intentioned but intrusive. The philosophy underpinning this law is that the state knows better what is good for my child than I do. I find that troubling and, dare I say it, not very Conservative.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      Not at all Conservative, but then this is a socialist government. The judgement is a massive infringement of civil liberties. They think the children belong to the state. It should not be a criminal matter other than in exceptional cases where the parent is being absurdly irresponsible. “Regular attendance” does not mean “you have to do what the school says or you are fined or jailed” as this court has so foolishly ruled.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      Some of the very worse laws and actions were well intentioned. Look at the huge damage done by the UK benefit system, daft employment laws, the climate change & renewable absurdities. I assume the judges and telegraph writers just though it would not affect them anyway. Either that or they are too old and in their dotage to remember what it can be like with several young children.

      Even the Daily Telegraph editorial approved of this appalling judgement. I shall stop buying it and just read the odd sensible writer in it on line – Simon Heffer, Alister Heath, Charles Moore, Norman Tebbitt, Matt Ridley (or is that the Times) perhaps. Or perhaps just get the odd free one at Waitrose.

  6. eeyore
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    This father thinks it wise to teach his children that it is their right to flout authority and that the rules don’t apply to them. He seems to have discovered an excellent way to bring them up defiant, self-centred and contemptuous of others.

    That said, this case hung on the precise wording of the Act. The court had to look behind the law to the Parliamentary record in an attempt to discover what it hoped legislators really meant to say, and in doing so it overturned not only lower courts but the plain and accepted meaning of language. This places a serious degree of lawmaking in the hands of Hansard reporters where it does not belong. Parliament should express itself clearly in the first place.

    • eeyore
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      As I understand it the matter is still sub judice. The Supreme Court has ruled on what the law means and returned the case to the magistrates’ court for another hearing. It is of course quite possible the father will win again. The legal aspect of the question is of course distinct from its morality or utility.

  7. hefner
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    “He has the money to send his child to a fee paying school”. Please let him do it, even encourage him to do it, as well as him to go to private care. Within some years, the country will be even more balkanized.
    I guess he (as some others well known on this blog) could be one of these moaning Leavers always complaining that the country is going to the dogs, that all politicians are under-developed half-wits, and HS2, and Hinkley C, and lagoon, and and and and …
    Welcome to post-EU referendum Britain, the country of milk and honey.

  8. Lifelogic
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    It is not missing “a week or two” as you put it JR. You and your wife can become criminals or be fined for taking taking them out just for an afternoon. I took my children out rather a lot from their primary state school. It helped rather than hindered them to travel to France, Italy, Hungary with skiing, tennis, languages, real food, sailing, museums, sunshine, fencing fishing and the likes.

    They still got their A*s all over the place so far. Admittedly with the irritating & rather dumbed down A levels and GCSEs they have now, particularly Maths and Sciences.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:01 am | Permalink

      Also school holiday often do not even coincide if you have children at different schools.

  9. formula57
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Parents can still remove children for term time holidays, just on penalty of paying some very m0dest fine (c. £60) that set against the cheaper off-peak travel offers ought typically to seem good value.

    I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the human rights of children to be educated without compromise to the leisure whims of their carers.

    • APL
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Formula57: “just on penalty of paying some very m0dest fine (c. £60) ”

      So a sneak tax. Which by the way isn’t worth the administrative cost of collecting.

      If it’s about the revenue, it ain’t about the education.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      Travel with a family is an education even to Disney Land. Much of state schooling is propaganda and they usually emerge still unable to think for themselves, usually having swallowed the climate alarmism agenda and big government lunacy hook line and sinker.

  10. alan jutson
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    No not wrong at all, but if we we are talking about equal education needed during school term time at school, why then set huge amounts of homework which has to be completed out of school hours, which disadvantages children whose parent/parents perhaps do not have the full facilities of computers, spare rooms or correct environment at home for them to work/learn properly.

    Why not extend the school day to operate from 8.30am to 5.30pm where all work can be supervised, where children can ask questions of qualified staff, have access to books or computers and not cheat with a parents knowledge or worse still with them completing the work for them.

    Then perhaps you may start to have an even playing field for all.

  11. Bob
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Politicians should not be allowed to make these decisions as they are naturally inclined toward communism and State tyranny or they most probably wouldnt be politicians in the first place. In a referendum the Father would have won.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Indeed or had it been decided by a sensible jury, rather than foolish collection rather elderly judges.

    • Bob
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      This comment wasn’t from me BTW.

  12. Mark B
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    The law is the law. People know what the law says and, if one does not like it we can always vote for better law makers.

    There are many laws, rules and regulations, not mention taxes that I hate. But in a civilized democracy that is the way it is.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      The law says “regular attendence” not do whatever the head says or you are a criminal!

      The unelected court has absurdly decided to write a totally new law. The government should intervene.

    • hefner
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      Seconded.

      • hefner
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 5:49 am | Permalink

        I meant to second Mark B, not the BTP LL.

  13. Roy Grainger
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    As I understand it the parent in this case is arguing for his fundamental human right to pay less for a two-week holiday to Disneyland than all the other parents that obey the rules. Why he thinks anyone should rally to his support I’m not sure. It is an absurd proposition – what if the entire class decided to take two weeks off ? What if I wanted to take my child out for four weeks for a holiday ? Or six ? The current system where the headteacher has to give permission for it to happen (which I think is the real issue here) seems entirely correct and allows reasonable absences but not unreasonable ones like this case.

    Having to seek permission also mirrors the world of work. I have a friend who works in a tourism-based job and has been told by his employer he is not allowed to take any holiday at all in June, July or August.

  14. margaret
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Looked at from another angle :Why are holiday companies allowed to put up the prices during school holidays making it less affordable for parents to enjoy their summer break with the children ?

    Why should parents who have to take their annual leave out of the schools holiday breaks suffer to the inflexibility of firms?

    Why can’t teachers provide catch up work for the children during the official summer break? Some children’s capacity for learning can actually be improved without the distractions of their peer group.

    • Mr Ajay Gajree
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      Firms set prices according to demand, of course holidays are more expensive in school holidays, that is simply the market.

      Reply Holidays may also be more expensive at certain times of year regardless of school holidays. Is a Brighton hotel going to charge more in August than February because of the weather and use of the beach anyway? Isn’t there always going to be a premium price for hotel stays at Christmas and the New Year regardless of school holidays?

      • margaret
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

        There are markets and exploitation.
        There are also business ethics.

  15. margaret
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    correction :due to the inflexibility of firms

  16. agricola
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    It is better that children attend school during term time. However this is where government could do something useful. How about requiring airlines to charge only the average of airfares exacted during none holiday times. It would be a pile them up and sell them cheap approach which could well increase the number of people flying and put an end to the predatory way in which some airlines operate at the moment.

    • Bob
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      @agricola

      “How about requiring airlines to charge only the average of airfares exacted during none holiday times”

      I suppose you would apply this to British & foreign airlines, train companies and cruise ships?

      Also to hotels, campsites, theme parks, restaurants and shops (here and abroad)?

      and florists that hike prices on mothers day and valentines?

      Genius idea!

      • Mr Ajay Gajree
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 7:38 am | Permalink

        Exactly!

        Conservative should be against all this interventionism, if the price is too high then holiday in the UK!

    • Anonymous
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      The market should always charge what it the market can bear. This is not charity.

      • getahead
        Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

        “This is not charity.”
        No Anymouse, it’s robbery!

        • Anonymous
          Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

          Not if the customer agrees to pay.

      • hefner
        Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

        “The market” … what a laugh!

        • Anonymous
          Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          “The market” is precisely what it is. Otherwise you propose chaos in schools.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 1:30 am | Permalink

      Have you heard of supply and demand. They only have so many planes and hotels available for the holiday periods. You either ration the places by charging more for them or some other way – a lottery perhaps!

      When have government controls on prices ever worked? A completely bonkers suggestion, May will probably take it up then I suppose! Or perhaps she will build state run holiday camps and demand that all attend, or be fined or imprisoned. Such is the essence of her politics.

      • Bob
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        “perhaps she will build state run holiday camps and demand that all attend, or be fined or imprisoned.”

        Brilliant idea LL, a great way to introduce equality into the holiday experience.

        A fortnight in a British holiday camp for all, no exceptions. Great for Britain, we’ll all be in it together.

        I just hope that ex Chancellors who currently hold 3 or more jobs will be able to get the time off.

  17. Anonymous
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    Attending school becomes a casual arrangement if we allow term-time holidays.

    My parents used to do it with me and my brother. We came out of school with pitifully low examination results. It wasn’t the term-time breaks themselves that caused the problem but the careless attitude towards our education that went with them.

    I have been scarred from this ever since. I married a woman who was fastidious about our children’s education and the result has been spectacularly different – my father often railed against our approach but now admits he was wrong.

    So no. I’m not a fan of term-time holidays. (We mostly had staycations because we could not afford proper holidays during school breaks.)

    I agree with Parliament and the courts. And nor should the holiday companies be interfered with. Their prices adjust to what the market will bear.

  18. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Headteachers know the individual circumstances better than Parliament. Headteachers are also strong enough to say no to parents where the case for time off can not be made. The decision should lie with the school.

    On a related topic, if VAT gets put on school fees will the quid pro quo be that the £4,500 given by government to states schools for each pupil also is given to private schools? Parents who send their children to private school are saving the taxpayer £4,500 per year (£2.25 billion for all half a million private pupils, enough to cover the bill for educating children from the EU ).

    Maybe we should be offering tax relief on the fees. As we should for people taking out private medical insurance rather than taxing it when supplied by employers.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 1:32 am | Permalink

      State schools education cost rather more than that PA in total, almost double I understand.

  19. Ian Wragg
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Problem is John it only affects England.
    Wales has a sensible 10 days discretionary facility and Scotland doesn’t have a penalty system.
    How do they cope.
    10 out of 10 for Donald after 8years of Barry prevarication.

    • rose
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Perhaps they cope because traditionally the Scots and Welsh – and Northern Irish – have valued education more than the English.

      If the English all had to pay for their education they might value it too. The Law doesn’t intervene in this way in private schools.

  20. Caterpillar
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    The situation is an embarrassment to the English education system and to lawmakers. School serves to basic functions (i) storing children whilst adults work and (ii) educating and socialising future adults. When parents take children out of school for holiday the first is still fulfilled. In achieving the second, if the electorate wants to be able to take children out of school for 10 days per year the question could be reframed is how the education system can remain (become) effective and deliver this desire to the populace. It is, again I use the word, embarrassing that in the days of technology, mastery learning, self-paced learning, flipped classes, the possibilities of learning analytics and the traditional streaming and differentiation, that England cannot design an effective education system that allows pupils/students some days out per year. The legal decision and focus on the current system is a distraction.

  21. APL
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    The media, including the BBC put forward that the issue turned on the term ‘Regularly”, that the child should attend school regularly. I haven’t read the court transcripts, but it seems to me that in this case the child attended regularly, every term except one week, when her father took her out of school to take a holiday. In my opinion the child was a regular attendee.

    The judge that the BBC put forward to pronounce on the case, seemed to be discussing completely different criteria, seeming to make the case that the child’s education education would suffer unless she attended 100% of the time.

    To me, and from that superficial perspective, I think the ‘supreme’ court was wrong to rule as it did.

    • Anonymous
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

      So the parents got fined a paltry £60 and yet the Dad decided to make an issue of it.

      The man is clearly a trouble maker and attention seeker.

    • rose
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      The longest standing meaning of regularly is “at proper times”; “in accordance with the rules”.

      • APL
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Rose: “The longest standing meaning of regularly is “at proper times” ..”

        Not the first definition I’ve come across: e.g.

        regularly
        ˈrɛɡjələli/
        adverb
        adverb: regularly

        1. With a constant or definite pattern, especially with the
        same space between individual items.
        “regularly spaced buildings”

        2. At uniform intervals of time.
        “the reunion has taken place regularly every two years”

        • rose
          Posted April 8, 2017 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

          Thanks APL. By longest standing I meant since the 16th century.

          (One is from the 1520s, the other from the 1560s.)

          • APL
            Posted April 10, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

            rose: “(One is from the 1520s, the other from the 1560s.)”

            Interesting. I would be interested in a citation?

            But, there have been a number of Education acts passed in the twentieth century, so one might reasonably look at the definition of ‘regularly’ prevalent at the time.

  22. Prigger
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Yes it is wrong. Children belong to their parents, equally, and not owned by the State.
    Many times teachers take children on trips from school with little educational input. They are not prosecuted for it , not the headmaster. Nor is the Education Authority Chairman jailed. There should be severe punishments for those in the educational service who so abuse our children.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      You obviously know nothing about it. Every single trip a child makes out of school has to be approved in writing by the parent and if they don’t approve the child doesn’t go.

      • Prigger
        Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

        Roy Grainger
        The parent signs a letter for the child who has been told how wonderful the experience will be.
        The description made to the child and the parent provides all the theoretical qualities of an educational trip. It’s like a political manifesto, good in theory.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      They go on strike often too preventing the parents going to work, and many do not even understand the subjects they are trying to teaching. A total outrage.

      • Prigger
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

        Lifelogic:
        Schools also recruit teachers who are balmy enough to get ( a home in the countryside ) up some moorland farm track that with a couple of snowflakes stops their four by four from getting down or up the hill. So they take time off work with a “funny tummy”. Tsk! teachers! I’ve sold them into slavery but couldn’t get more than an old limping camel for them!

  23. Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Yes, I think this is wrong. Where does responsibility for raising children lie? With government, the courts and the police, or the parents?
    Who will take responsibility to raise children with ethical, moral and respectful values?
    If the government are taking responsibility for raising our children, then government must accept responsibility for all failures and ills of the education system. Or are you suggesting it is some kind of shared responsibility between government and citizen to raise children?

    I recall a recent news article where a boy was taken from a uk hospital to a european country, for better treatment, but the doctors informed the police and a european arrest warrant was issued for the parents, and the boy ended up alone, in a hospital, needing medical treatment. I see parallels here. Government interference with the lives and decisions of citizens. If government keeps removing the decision making responsibility from citizens, we will become a socialist nanny state where no one is willing to make decisions about business, family or politics, unless you are a government minister. Having worked widely in the middle east, and seen this in effect, I can tell you straight out it is not the type of country I want to live in.

  24. sm
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    While there is no perfect solution to this problem, I really do believe that there needs to be an overhaul of the completely outdated term timetable, including the September ‘year start’, which might assist with this issue.

    Weren’t the lengthy summer holidays meant to accommodate those children who had to help work on the land during its most productive period? And far from being time of the best weather, August is notoriously wet in the UK.

    Let’s have a more regular system of vacation breaks and term lengths, and a bit of common sense from BOTH sides regarding application for and permission granted for term-time absences.

  25. JimS
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    It might be that the price charged for holidays out of term time is the ‘proper’ price and the price during term time is discounted to get at least some return on capital.

    Making provision for peak demand has costs of its own which would be a lot greater if no-one holidayed off-peak.

    We could always use school holidays the way we used to, put the children to work on the land, then it wouldn’t matter what the parents did!

  26. Ed Mahony
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    I think the Court made the right decision. We live in an imperfect world and children need structure and discipline. The decision was made in the best interests of children and society overall.

  27. stred
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    British education in state and some private schools has long been largely a waste of time. When I was sent to a minor public school, my parents were wasting their money. The heads used selection and rejection as a means to keep their examination records high. The text books were 50 years out of date and falling apart. I used to buy ‘Teach Yourself’ books about science in order to find out about anything interesting. Recently, talking to my state- educated son, I found out that he did not know that UV radiation was short wavelength higher energy light that could have an anti-bacterial effect. he did not know what a photon was, despite having passed three science GSSEs and studied science at A level and obtaining a business degree at a top university.

    I learned far more out of shool and university than in. My social contacts with teachers and lecturers have revealed that they are more interested in social reform and leveling of opportunity than any sort of disciplined knowledge. When at colleges of education they seemed to spend more time having sex with each other and lecturers than they did learning anything. I have met teachers of French that could not speak the language fluently but could have been tutored by Madame Pompadour.

    Our lawyers are equally dreadful. It will not be long until these puffed up idiots are fining us for wiping our backsides the wrong way.

    • stred
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      As usual, a second reading reveals that I did not buy a ‘Teach Yourself’ book on typing and google grammar is not quick enough.

  28. Chris
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    All I can say is that it actually isn’t quite as simple as it seems after having listened to a fascinating LBC programme with Farage taking listeners’ comments.

    I do believe the father should have paid the initial fine (which I don’t think he did). I also think it should never have reached the Supreme Court stage. I guess, though, we have clarity, at the moment, on this issue and that is better than the situation before.

    I realise that it is “the market” that drives up prices for holidays in peak times, i.e. school holidays, but I do think the hike-up in prices is far too great. One is left with the firm impression that the holiday companies are plain greedy.

  29. a-tracy
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    I believe this has got to be the Heads decision just as a Company would have the holiday procedure laid out for these children when they eventually go to work. Some weeks in the school calendar are must attend weeks when lots of work is achieved and some weeks are virtually ‘play weeks’ anyway where extra-curricular activities take place instead of desk work.

    The Head would have reports on the child’s progress, they could provide the parents with the timetabled worksheets to catch up on, however, having said this I never took my children out of school for even one days holiday, we didn’t go on holiday every year to me their education and being part of the team was more important.

  30. MUG
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Schools are churning out those who can be controlled/deceived by the political class through fake narratives. This must be intensional and it is very dangerous.

  31. Bob
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    As had been previously proven, the child in question had attended school in line with the law. I thought the Supreme Court’s job was to adjudicate on matters of law rather make the law.

  32. MUG
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Children should be taught how to disseminate propaganda and the methods used by the modern political class and media. Otherwise we are creating a future in which the masses can be controlled by fake news, fake narratives and become emotionally invested in them. I would say that future is now.
    One may ask, why would the State wish children to be taught to disseminate propaganda when propaganda has quietly been legalised under the umbrella of the phony war on terror? Certainly true with the 2012 Defence Authorisation Act.

    Worrying times.

  33. Simon_c
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    Two or three questions in all this.
    1) was the supreme court right in its jydgement? who knows, it’s a complex legal argument.

    2) is the government right to force parents to not have term time holidays for the 14 years that theie children are at school? No, I don’t think so. On any level missing a week for a family holiday when a child is 5-6 is very different than when they are 14-15. It is a missus of stats to say that missing a single day reduces attainment.

    the rhetoric from the government clearly shows they are viewing this as a challenge to their authority. That is definitely wrong.

    3) not having a family holiday for 14 years may well have a more detrimental affect on a child than missing 1-2 weeks of school. 8m thinking of people living and willing in the tourist industry in the UK.

  34. Simon_c
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Two or three questions in all this.
    1) was the supreme court right in its jydgement? who knows, it’s a complex legal argument.

    2) is the government right to force parents to not have term time holidays for the 14 years that theie children are at school? No, I don’t think so. On any level missing a week for a family holiday when a child is 5-6 is very different than when they are 14-15. It is a miss use of statistics to say that missing a single day reduces attainment by X amount. All that can be said is that attendance and attainment are correlated, but as any More or Less listener will tall you, correlation does not mean causation.

    The rhetoric from the government clearly shows they are viewing this as a challenge to their authority. That is definitely wrong. The interview on Radio4 yesterday morning’s Today show disgusted me with the interviewee calling parents who want to take their child out of school “feckless”

    3) And who is to say not having a family holiday for 14 years may well have a more detrimental affect on a child than missing 1-2 weeks of school. I’m thinking of people living and willing in the tourist industry in the UK.

  35. Antisthenes
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    All this demonstrates is the inflexibility of teachers, the disregard for civil liberties, one rule fits all and refusal of schools to innovate and adapt in the state education system. It is a matter of parents and teachers not agreeing rules between themselves on how best to avoid the battle between the chaos of parents and pupils doing what they like and draconian order through rigid adherence to rules that teachers and the state insist upon. The answer of course is to increase choice so that parents can pick schools that best suit theirs and their children’s needs. A perfect solution is never readily available and compromises are always necessary but it takes both parties to participate and as it stands teachers and the state refuse to do so.

  36. Iain Moore
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    No, its not wrong, and it is depressing to see the line of parents on TV bemoan the decision and boasting that they too had taken their children out of school, then you compare that , I suppose you would call it decadence, with the parents in the Far East who fight to take their children to school and pay for additional tutorials, and children in Africa who are desperate to go to school.

  37. Utopian Headmaster
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    “Of course they ( teachers )need to help children who have been off sick for a time period to catch up. ”
    I have never experienced a teacher helping an individual child to “catch up” be it through sickness or out of term holiday, except to say, you need to read page number so-and-so onwards. I have witnessed a child being demoted to a lower form, from Class A to Class B. In one or two cases, placed in a year below with younger children away from their friends.

    I believe the government as a whole, from their pronouncements..such as those from Mrs May and her Education Ministers generally went to good schools with good teachers. They should publish the names of the schools so the whole nation can send their children there. In addition, the name of the country outside the UK where these schools had existence.

  38. Bert Young
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Sending a child to a school – no matter whether it is state or independent , implies accepting its terms and conditions . There have to be controls over attendance otherwise the ability to employ staff and maintain an orderly process of development would be impossible .

    I do sympathise with the family who decided to take their child on holiday during term time thereby saving large sums on the cost of their vacation . As a parent of a 9 year old I regret very much the hike in hotel and travel costs the moment school holidays begin ; it is scandalous that travel companies and hotels etc take advantage of this . But , as an ex Headmaster I know the practicalities of running a school and in maintaining the standards of attainment and discipline . If parents were allowed the freedom to do what they like , running any kind of institution would be impossible .

    In short , rules have to followed and obeyed . Just think what it would be like if drivers could drive around roundabouts in any direction they chose to do so .

  39. Colin Gutteridge
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I think there is room for a sensible British compromise here without resorting to legislation. I think parents should be given two ‘vouchers’ for in-term holidays which can not be used in school years that end with national exams i.e. GCSE.
    My kids went to private school (Leighton Park) and I unashamedly took them on holiday during term time in a number of years. The idea that this affects their education is ridiculous. In fact my children benefitted because, as we know, nothing broadens the mind like travel.

  40. JoolsB
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Of course the UK Parliament can only impose it’s will on parents in England. Parents in Scotland, Wales & NI will carry on taking their children on holiday whenever they like. No fines for them for taking them away in term time. Yet another example of one rule for already hard pressed England and no-where else.

    One nation we most certainly are not.

  41. Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    I’m confused. I thought the offence was to prevent your child’s ‘regular attendance’ in which case taking them out for a week whilst getting them to attend for the rest of the school year would satisfy the test of ‘regular’ wouldn’t it?

    What I find interesting about this case is that his other two children are in fee paying school, so what sort of parent discriminates between the treatment of their family’s education?

    And it has to be said that he could have just paid the fine because he was still saving money on the cost of is holiday – but then he wouldn’t have had his five minutes of fame perhaps?

  42. David Ashton
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    I believe exams should be brought forward to before the Easter break, it would have the additional advantage of helping asthma sufferers. The summer holidays could then be staggered by region across the country from mid-May to end of September, giving the Holiday Sector a longer peak which should to some degree smooth out prices.

    I would then make it illegal to take children out of school during term time except under exceptional circumstances agreed with the headmaster.

    A further point, when the Supreme Court Judge was reading out their verdict and how they had to decide on the meaning of regular, she inferred that their decision was influenced by the chaos which would ensue in the classroom if children were freely allowed to be taken out of school. Surely their job was to decide what the law actually stated regardless of consequences, which should be addressed by our elected representatives amending the law. I feel the Supreme Court is becoming more political.

  43. Pat
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    I question why all schools have to have their holidays at the same time. Outside of GCSE and A level years half the schools could break up in June and the other half as now in July, making for cheaper holidays for both.
    If we moved to individual education accounts parents could choose the schools that met their priorities, and thereby solve an awful lot of other problems as well as this one.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      Well what then if you kids are at different schools with different holidays?

  44. Mockbeggar
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    At the age of 7 or 8, I missed two months of school by being in quarantine while two of my siblings had mumps (one after the other) – and I wasn’t ill at all. It didn’t stop me from getting 10 O levels and 3 A levels and going on to university. Children catch up quickly though if several children from one class are away at once I can see it would disrupt the teaching programme somewhat. I blame the greed of the holiday companies myself.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

      Indeed in general the children are either clever or they are not. The teachers do not really make that much difference. Though some can inspire them to particular directions.

  45. John Probert
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    No

  46. Slim Jim
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    There has to be a balance struck between the rights of parents to decide how to bring up their children and the state’s duty to educate them. If parents decide to remove their children from school for a holiday, then permission should be sought from the school Head Teacher. It is sometimes granted, but I understand the need to be clear on this rule, because if Mr. Platt had won, then that could open the floodgates for more classroom disruption. I am loath to side with the state in cases like this, but I think the right decision was made. However, the rules are different in all parts of the UK, so I don’t think this will be the last we hear of this…and what about days lost to teachers going on strike, or the disruption caused by inset days?

  47. NHSGP
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    It works both ways.


    In her judgment, Lady Hale said that if parents were able to withdraw children whenever they wanted there would be an unacceptably “disruptive effect” on lessons.

    Now watch. Next time teachers strike, that’s clearly has an disruptive effect on lessons.

    I can see people taking individual teachers to court – not the unions – for the disruptive effect on their children’s education.

    Double edged sword – works two ways.

  48. fedupsoutherner
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    If you have children then you have to accept all the responsibilities that go with it. Everyone knows when the holidays are and they also know holidays are more expensive. What is more important – your holiday or your child’s free education?? Imagine if a class of say 30 pupils all decided that they were going to have time off during the term as and when their parents saw fit? It would be chaos and I do not believe it is fair on the other children in that class when the teacher has to spend time helping those that have been away catch up.

    My parents always took me and my siblings out of school every year at the beginning of September. I hated it when I got back to school and was behind everyone else and when starting a new school found that everyone had decided who was going to sit where and new friendships had already been made. The court was right and the parents of ‘little Johnny’ wrong.

  49. MUG
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Russia has withdrew security cooperation with UK and US warplanes after Trump’s ego driven actions RT are reporting.
    Make sure we have no aircraft flying as we are not prepared for a shooting war with Russia and I rejected the the entire concept of falling under US military protection when law abiding white Christian British nationals are being threatened with rendition and torture for opposing US/CIA policy.

    Let us as a nation have our own Foreign Policy and have a foreign policy that reflects our military might, so we could have not have to put up with this bribery and can win back some national self respect.

  50. libertarian
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    If he thinks a private school will tolerate that he is seriously deluded.

    • Jerry
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      @libertarian; Not sure that follows, there are private schools that are welcoming of children were the family-life timetable might not fit the usual rigid academic timetable.

      Even if you are correct, if someone has the money to spend sending their children to a private school then they most likely have the space and money to employ a home tutor to home-school them.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Several certainly do, they respond sensibly to customer demand and they know the parents are interested in their education anyway. Unlike the take it or leave it, do as you are told or else, we have you money already so what do we care attitude of many state schools.

  51. Peter Cartwright
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    There is a big gap between education and schooling, although the two are often confused. Everyone learns far more out of school than in it. Much of the knowledge drummed in at school is of little or no use outside. If parents, with recollections of the many wasted hours in school, wish to spare their children a week or two of the time-wasting, then let them. The use of The Law to punish parents for so doing is yet another indication of how over-governed we are.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

      Exactly.

  52. alastair harris
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    The consequence of the decision is to criminalise (potentially) parents for taking decisions as parents. An unwelcome intrusion into family life. It is a shame that increasingly the “state” works to insert itself into parenting decisions. And it is misguided. Particularly when it is targetting children who otherwise have exemplary attendance. There is a problem with absence, but this is not it.

  53. alastair harris
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Perhaps I should add, the price of holidays is a red herring.Family circumstances are always more complex than that. It would be a poor driver of public policy. The issue here is the balance if parental responsibility and state interference.

  54. rose
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Interesting that he is talking of fees. I had thought the answer was for people like him to pay for their children’s education themselves, and then they wouldn’t dream of taking them away in term time.

  55. forthurst
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    There are various threats to the ability of English children to receive a beneficial (to them) education. These are allowing foreign children into a classroom who do not speak English, allowing unruly children in a classroom and teaching children of different abilities in the same group. With regard to the teaching, the problems are related to teaching propaganda rather than truth with the purpose of making children feel particularly ‘good’ or ‘bad’ about certain issues by disseminating outright lies or distortions of fact and teaching subjects in which boys have superior abilities on average in ways which are feminised and scientifically inexact so that boys’ inate advantage is repressed. On the whole, allowing children to take time off during the school term is by far a lesser threat to their education.

  56. Trumpe-tear!
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Did any of the fifty-nine (59 )United States of America missiles fired on the main airbase of Syria strike even one poisonous gas container ? Peeyowwwwnnnn missed! Is Trump going to say about the existence of these WMD the same as Tony Blair said “History will prove me right? ” We are still waiting for History with a capital aitch to prove him right.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      There’s a world of difference between all-out war on one country (Iraq) and objective bombing of a particular site (in Syria) where there’s good evidence chemical weapons were used.

      I think Trump was justified. But it’s such a serous issue, it’s something we all have to pray about if we are of that disposition.
      Regards

      • rose
        Posted April 8, 2017 at 10:35 am | Permalink

        But Ed, what is the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons? What was the military objective? He was winning. He had everything to lose by this happening. On the other hand I can think of who gained a very clear advantage from pinning such an horrific act on him.

        • rose
          Posted April 8, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          It all reminds me of the KLA tail wagging the NATO dog.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted April 9, 2017 at 8:32 am | Permalink

          ‘But Ed, what is the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons?’

          – American intelligence. This is not comparable to Iraq because in Iraq, a whole war was being based around whether WMD existed or not. In the case of Syria, war hasn’t been threatened. America has just said chemical weapons are unacceptable and must be dealt with accordingly in a one-off strike (or as many strikes as are needed to prevent again).
          Again, i might be wrong. It’s a serious issue for sure. Which is why if you’re of a praying disposition, please pray for all involved.

          Saying that, i don’t agree with Trump that we cut off links with Assad, even thought Assad has done terrible things. We say no to chemical weapons but at same time we support the leader who is best able to lead Syria once the war ends, whenever that happens.
          I think, i might be wrong.

  57. The Prangwizard
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Yes it is wrong. The state is assuming too much power over individuals; it assumes a we know best authority.

    If a parent takes a child on holiday during term time they must be credited with understanding the consequences should there be any.

    They should not be punished. We don’t have a Tory party any more – it is fully signed up to a socialist view of society.

  58. Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    As a retired teacher, I sympathise with parents who can’t afford to pay premium prices in the holiday and therefore go ‘off season’, but it could be a nightmare at the beginning of term when you are laying the groundwork for the term’s work if several children from several classes were missing this input and had to be given extra help afterwards – often difficult if they had a school bus to catch so there was no time after school to run through missed work. Children away at the beginning of term often missed out on the important settling-in period when classroom routines and expectations were established and friendship groups formed. It was far less disruptive if parents chose to go away towards the end of term when exams were over and the term’s workplan was drawing to a close.

  59. HB
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    I have 2 kids and i can see both sides of the argument. Why should the state intervene in a responsible family. However, i believe we don’t value our ‘free’ education enough in this country. People would be in uproar if teachers took holidays in term time. If you don’t agree with the schools policy, then choose a different education setting. That is the parents choice.

  60. Scottspeig
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I think the law is wrong. Its a shame we couldnt have a jury which takes the line that while it technically went against the law, he was innocent. That is of course why we have juries. 🙂

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      No it was not technically against the law of “regular attendance” not in real English anyway. Only in the judicial extension of the law from the Girton Academic Baroness Hale.

  61. Andrew S
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    My instinct is that it is wrong to have a law dictating to parents when they can take family holidays. It would be better to have an education program to persuade parents why they might not interrupt school term, however it can be argued that holidays provide children with other experiences, may help them creatively and socially. There will always be a few rule breakers who abuse any system but that would be true even with current law.

    • Anonymous
      Posted April 8, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

      There isn’t a law which does this.

      You can take your kids on holiday but you have to pay £60 to do it – still a bargain. If you are a parent allocated leave in term time then you can negotiate with the Head.

  62. mike fowle
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have children so I have no personal interest in this. Whilst I accept the general principle that children should attend school during term time, it does rather seem as if the Court was ruling on the basis of what suited the convenience of government rather than the legal issue and the circumstances of this particular case.

  63. Ed Mahony
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    By removing Steve Bannon from NSC, looks like Trump’s finally realised that he’s toast if he follows the hard-right, populism of people such as Bannon.
    Bombing Syria over chemical attack also demonstrates Trump’s taking a more pro-globalist approach (perhaps this is why he fired Bannon), because in the long-run, one’s country’s nationalist interests are tied up with what goes on abroad, not just at home.

  64. James neill
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    In a country like uk with a huge population it is necessary to have strict rules governing most parts of our lives if we want to coexist in a peaceful and harmonious manner with our fellow citizens. For instance no one would knowingly defy the ‘rules of the road’ for driving, nor would responsible people ignore the rule about not throwing litter in the streets. In the same way society has ordered that children should go to school to be educated for a time so that they can better hold their own in life. School is therrfore of utmost importance and exceptions for overseas holidays or other secondary matters should not be tolerated.

  65. Qubus
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I tend to agree with you. However, I would ask: what about when teachers decide to go on strike? What happens to our children’s education then? Also, when I was at school, the last week of term was usually a waste of time; we were generally allowed to read a book, or do some other light-weight topic, so I don’t think that children who have the last week of the summer term off miss much of importance.

  66. ale bro
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    The approach taken to school holidays in Germany is something the UK should learn from.

    Holiday times are staggered by region, so schools are not all on holiday at the same time. This reduces the peak pricing for flights and hotels that is hurting parents over here.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      Good comment – addressing the problems which parents face whilst not undermining the authority of head teachers to provide structure to children in school.

    • libertarian
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      ale bro

      They stagger holidays over Christmas and Easter? How ?

    • APL
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      ale bro: “Holiday times are staggered by region, so schools are not all on holiday at the same time.”

      So that’s how the Germans are always at the beach first!

    • a-tracy
      Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      We used to have this in England, The Potters Fortnight was the last week in June and the first week of July and the main summer break was shorter by one week. I think the Manchester holidays were at a different time and called Wakes Weeks, standardising holidays shortened the holiday season although the holidays in Scotland are different and they can get the benefit of cheaper breaks in early July.

  67. treacle
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    In better days a parent would have accepted the headmaster’s ruling without question. The parent thought he knew better, and I am glad the Supreme Court threw his case out. There are many obvious reasons why parents should not be allowed to take their children out of Maths classes and whisk them off to Disneyland. The parent did his child a disservice by even suggesting that this might be an option.

  68. fedupsoutherner
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    My son was educated at Millfield and taking them out of school during the term time was frowned upon. We are lucky enough to have the choice of fee paying schools or free state schools and we should take advantage of this. There are millions of children all over the world that would love any kind of education.

    I like to know that when I go on holiday the children are in school. These days I prefer my holidays to be child free thank you.

  69. Anonymous
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    It’s the parents who need to go back to school.

    If they can’t work out that a £60 fine is a paltry amount to pay to dumb-ify their own kids for a ‘cheap’ holiday then they are too thick to be parents.

  70. Gavin
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    We will continue to pinch the odd couple of days where it suits, for trips abroad to see distant family or for Glastonbury festival, for example. If we are fined we will pay. It’s just another tedious stealth tax.

    Our children have near perfect attendance so any fine would clearly be against the law as it is written, however judges who claim to merely interpret the law are in fact rewriting it.

    Meanwhile I know for certain that these rules do not apply (or at least are not being applied) to children in private schools, who also have much shorter terms. One rule for one etc.?

  71. Adam
    Posted April 7, 2017 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I suppose you are right. I still dont think homework is justified. They give it to primary school kids nowadays.

  72. MikeP
    Posted April 8, 2017 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    When challenged on radio, the parent emphasised the lack of evidence of there being any detriment to a child’s education if they take an odd week out of school. There are at least three problems with his argument:
    1 his child had a 92% attendance record which works out as one week every term (3 weeks a year), a pattern of stretching the rules if ever there was one
    2 the point isn’t about the impact on his child but the knock-on impacts on the teacher and other classmates of the child. It seems very self-centred for him not to accept this point
    3 the only way we can gather evidence of impacts on children’s education is to open the floodgates with the opposite of the Supreme court’s ruling, so every parent can freely take their children out during term time and make lesson scheduling and following the national curriculum well nigh impossible.

  73. Christopher Hudson
    Posted April 8, 2017 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    To make it a law that children must stay in school during term time is overkill. If they want to take time off fine, though they should be made aware that they have to catch up in their own time. Those that fall behind get left behind.

    “Take all the time off you want”, should be the attitude, “we’re not gonna wait for you”

  74. Iain Gill
    Posted April 10, 2017 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Yes I think it is wrong.

    Ultimately it is up to the parents.

    Otherwise you end up with nonsense like the case of the NHS getting the police chasing a father around Europe who is doing nothing other than taking his child to a country with better medical care.

    The state hardly ever knows better than a parent, as can be seen in the widespread abuse and poor outcomes of those who have been in the state care system.

    I was took out of school by my father, at the time with the head teachers approval, I see no reason why parliament thinks it can possibly know better than a head and parent closer to the issues of a specific case.

    We need more power in individual citizens hands in all aspects of life.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

    Promoted by Fraser McFarland on behalf of John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page