Hurray! The High Court backs Mr Platt....

[MrGongGong]

I have never known a pupil whose progress was thrown off course by a week in France.

I think this is at the heart of some of the comments to this case.
There is an assumption that I have encountered before that somehow those who pay for their children to go to private school will take them out of school to spend two weeks visiting Roman sites, art galleries and learning how to order fine wines in French. Folk who send their sprogs to the local comp will obviously go to Skegness, binge on junk food and spend each night drinking cheap lager.... the reality is that both lots are likely to take the offspring to Disneyland (as in this case)

[waldo]

One problem can be that if children take time off in term time, that there might always be someone in each class who has missed a week or two, and the "Please Sir/Miss, can you go over that again for me ..." is just not feasible, and really throws the teachers off. In schools where there are more resources, or a different ethos this may not present a problem, but in some schools it may be really a major issue. There may be organisational ways of getting round this, but not all schools are imaginative enough to find ways, or they may really just not have enough resources.

Well, perhaps. In my experience, these things are just an everyday part of teaching. Students are always away for one reason or another. Music lessons, theatre trips, rugby matches, illness, family problems..........Coping with these is just an elementary requirement. I don't believe it is a question of resources. It is just about sensible teaching techniques. Besides, you are always, always repeating yourself. You never "do" a subject, then move on. It takes a long time for children to learn something new. A student may have been present in the lesson, but wasn't concentrating that day. Or was upset by something. Or was hungry or tired etc. Or they just didn't understand it. Or they did understand it, but have now forgotten.........The school day is terribly gruelling in many ways, so most teaching operates are a relatively slow pace. There are no "key" lessons in my experience; no magic moments. Students learn day after day after day, constantly going over the same ground in slightly different ways. When they miss a week, it isn't the same as an undergraduate missing a week of tutorials. It is easy, as an adult, to mis-remember the nature of schooling. I occasionally spend time "following" students from lesson to lesson, right throughout the day. It makes for a real eye opener, as far as "learning" goes.

[waldo]

I think this is at the heart of some of the comments to this case.
There is an assumption that I have encountered before that somehow those who pay for their children to go to private school will take them out of school to spend two weeks visiting Roman sites, art galleries and learning how to order fine wines in French. Folk who send their sprogs to the local comp will obviously go to Skegness, binge on junk food and spend each night drinking cheap lager.... the reality is that both lots are likely to take the offspring to Disneyland (as in this case)

Perhaps I chose the wrong destination! I don't think it matters where they go or what they do. A week or two is not going to matter, however they spend the time. What matters - and this is where the evidence lies - is the general attitude of their parents, the quality of the teaching etc. Not occasional holidays.

[Flosshilde]

I have never known a pupil whose progress was thrown off course by a week in France.

I wonder how you would know? If they've had the week in France, it really isn't possible to know what their progress would have been if they hadn't

[Flosshilde]

What matters - and this is where the evidence lies - is the general attitude of their parents, the quality of the teaching etc. Not occasional holidays.

But doesn't removing a child from school for a couple of weeks holiday give some indication of the general attitude of the parents to the importance of school? That is, that it is of lesser importance than two weeks in Dineyland, or even the Dordogne (where they're unlikely to be conversing in French, being surrounded by loads of other English families).

[waldo]

I wonder how you would know? If they've had the week in France, it really isn't possible to know what their progress would have been if they hadn't

Oh, come on! That's a bit silly, isn't it? As a teacher, you have a pretty good idea as to the overall level of each student. Their "progress" is mapped from test to test, grade to grade and so on. When the usual trajectory is maintained, one is quite entitled to suggest that a week off has made no difference. It is quite absurd to suggest that an additional week of lessons, added to the other 38 in the year, might have added a measurable fraction to their performance. "I see you have got three As at A level, young man, but just fancy what you might have done if your parents hadn't taken you to Cornwall last April!"

The fact is you have to weigh that week against all the other factors which we know make a difference. It wouldn't even get in the top 200 factors.

[waldo]

But doesn't removing a child from school for a couple of weeks holiday give some indication of the general attitude of the parents to the importance of school? That is, that it is of lesser importance than two weeks in Dineyland, or even the Dordogne (where they're unlikely to be conversing in French, being surrounded by loads of other English families).

Well, I don't know. If you have some evidence on this..........But that is not quite relevant to the logic of my post. The general attitude, in any case, is something that would be made manifest in countless discussions throughout the life of the child. It would make itself known on a daily basis. I would not wish to suggest a one off decision to take a holiday was indicative of a poor attitude in any way. What matters is the atmosphere in the home, the daily life, the nature and tone of conversations etc - not these odd occasions.

[MrGongGong]

Perhaps I chose the wrong destination! I don't think it matters where they go or what they do. A week or two is not going to matter, however they spend the time. What matters - and this is where the evidence lies - is the general attitude of their parents, the quality of the teaching etc. Not occasional holidays.

I agree.
Though I don't think those in charge of these things give a toss about "evidence"

[waldo]

I agree.
Though I don't think those in charge of these things give a toss about "evidence"

What really gets my goat about this is the usurpation of parental responsibility. It is up to me, as a parent, to decide what is in my children's best interests. Not the state or someone at a school, who hardly knows them and cares about them about 0.00001% as much as I do. If there are "bad" parents - tough. Let the state find some way of dealing with that without taking responsibility away from me. It is bad law-making, plain and simple. Legislation ought to be last resort - something to turn to when all else has failed and when the problem is truly significant. Here, there is no actual problem. And there are many other solutions for those situations that do require a remedy.

[teamsaint]

But doesn't removing a child from school for a couple of weeks holiday give some indication of the general attitude of the parents to the importance of school? That is, that it is of lesser importance than two weeks in Dineyland, or even the Dordogne (where they're unlikely to be conversing in French, being surrounded by loads of other English families).

You could just as well take this as an indication of value placed on family life.

That is how I would have seen it, as a parent who valued education very highly, and committed a great deal of time and as much money as I could to it my children's ( all round)education.

[teamsaint]

What really gets my goat about this is the usurpation of parental responsibility. It is up to me, as a parent, to decide what is in my children's best interests. Not the state or someone at a school, who hardly knows them and cares about them about 0.00001% as much as I do. If there are "bad" parents - tough. Let the state find some way of dealing with that without taking responsibility away from me. It is bad law-making, plain and simple. Legislation ought to be last resort - something to turn to when all else has failed and when the problem is truly significant. Here, there is no actual problem. And there are many other solutions for those situations that do require a remedy.

I agree.
Seems to me that this kind of law making institutes control for its own sake.Bad and insidious law making.

[Barbirollians]

The idea that HMG is going to "tighten" things up is laughable. There are schools in the UK where the staff have no idea how many kids are in or out of school on any one day, and it's possible that more than 10% of the roll are unaccounted for. More effort could be put into getting school management in order, rather than chasing up parents who are at least responsible enough to declare where they are taking their children for shortish periods.

I don't believe that the loss of a week or two of school will make much difference to many kids. It has been stated elsewhere that bright ones will make up for the loss quickly enough, and that is probably true. There is a converse logic - which I'll leave for the reader.

Of course timing is an issue. It would be wrong to take someone out of school just before exams, or at critical times, but a reasonable approach in consultation with the teachers would make more sense than head teachers threatening fines.

Are schools or local authorities now going to be forced to repay any fines which have been paid over the last few years? Probably not.

There are big issues regarding the relationships between parents and schools. Many parents are responsible, and will try to do the best for their children, and may be best placed to make a judgement. There are also a considerable number who are less concerned - but should schools be used to force such parents to take more control and interest in their children's education? It is, of course, not PC to indicate the possible differences between school areas, or to generalise without care. The current issue re the "named person" in Scotland does focus in on some of the problems, but does not necessarily come up with a good solution. Trying to coerce adults into being good responsible parents may be almost impossible. There are also some children who are very problematic - not their fault - but resources are inadequate to cope with them.

Ideally parents and schools should be working towards common goals. It may not be right to shift the balance of power towards schools - just as shifting the balance in the other direction can give rise to problems. Our state education system is a public institution, which is working on cost/efficiency measures, and using blunt instruments in an attempt to enforce "quality". League tables etc. may overall give improvements in an average sort of way, but may also disadvantage both less able and very able students. Forcing children to do subjects (often maths) which they can't cope with doesn't always lead to good results, while feeding a less demanding curriculum to able children simply dampens enthusiasm and may not give such children the full benefit of their natural advantages.

I take issue with the first paragraph of your post . S444 Education Act 1996 makes it an offence if a parent does not ensure a child attends school regularly . Children are expected to be in school unless they are absent for religious observance reasons , illness or have leave .

Until Gove with his obsessive micro management of schools issued new guidance that leave was not to be granted save in exceptional circumstances previously head teachers had some discretion .

The Government appear to be looking for a kneejerk response - I suspect they make go over the top and make it an offence unless one of those three criteria are satisfied . A small minority of secondary schools do have a significant truancy problem but in respect of older teenagers it is difficult to see how S444 has much effect where a child disobeys their parent .

I do not think there is anything wrong with the law the DFE Guidance yes .

[french frank]

Parents who are very responsible, care about their children's education and provide a continuously supportive home environment are surely more help to their children, even if their school attendance record is 'only' 90%, than parents who make sure their children go to school every day but take no further interest in their schoolwork?

Two extremes: all I'm suggesting is that a 100% attendance record isn't the key to a successful education and successful life.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hermione goes on holiday to CenterParcs (excuse spelling) for two weeks and then returns to school for three weeks. Then her friend Cho Chang goes to her parents' second home in southern France for two weeks, and invites Hermione to go with her.

Some of the "pro" forumites have said the brighter children can take term-time holidays in their stride. Cho Chang (above) was one of these. But her parents had retired early (being quite well off) and there was no reason why they needed to take Cho away from school, when there were 13 other weeks available to do so. Hermione, on the other hand, could not afford to miss school, and her education suffered. Hermione's parents, to their credit, did realise this afterwards, and did not take her out of school in subsequent years.

[P. G. Tipps]

I agree.
Seems to me that this kind of law making institutes control for its own sake.Bad and insidious law making.

We can call any law that is personally inconvenient 'bad and insidious' and then just please ourselves what we do.

Therefore who should determine the rules ... the rightful authorities or Mr Platt?

The answer to that question shouldn't be too difficult, not even for court judges.

Mr Platt said it was a sensible decision and not a particularly complicated issue. Well, to borrow a famous phrase from another case, he would say that, wouldn't he ... ?

However, I certainly agree with Mr Platt on the 'issue' point. He's dead right there!