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

[Barbirollians]

The problem is that almost certainly before Gove interfered Mr Platts would have received his leave . The risk now is a free for all .

I disagree about 90% - that suggests about four weeks off a school year - way too much .

[waldo]

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?

I believe the rightful authorities - the courts - have decided in Mr Platt's favour.

I really don't think this is a case of just calling a personally inconvenient law "bad". It is bad because it meets the "classic" criteria for a bad law. It is, for one thing, unnecessary. The attendance problem is confined to a tiny minority, and there are many non legislative ways of dealing with this. It criminalises behaviour without justification: i.e. there is no evidence that the behaviour thus condemned is damaging in any way. It helps reduce the sense of parental responsibility - which may have many negative consequences. It also helps divide parents and teachers in a way that is surely unhelpful.

As to "pleasing ourselves", the implication is that we all throw a great party and let our children get drunk on hooch in the local supermarket carpark. Pleasing ourselves means, for the vast majority, acting responsibly towards our children and ensuring they have a good education. The reason why the law is bad - in addition to those outlined above - is that the law is attempting to replace or buttress a very powerful and almost universal instinct to want good lives for our children. That is why it isn't needed. When such an instinct is in place, there is no need for the state to reach its grubby paws into the last reaches of our private lives.

And as I said, where there is a problem - persistent attendance problems etc - these are very easy to identify and to deal with on an entirely separate basis.

[waldo]

The risk now is a free for all.

It isn't a risk. Because the overwhelming evidence is that parents care deeply about education and regular attendance. Such care does not need to be supported with a financial threat.

[Dave2002]

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 .

I don't see what you take issue with. I am simply stating what I believe to be a fact which is that there are some schools (I'm not saying where - but they may be in different parts of the UK) where there is very poor management, and the staff have actually very little idea of what's going on.

You are making a claim about the 1996 Education Act, which I have no reason to believe is incorrect. Theory and practice are often miles apart however. Just because there are laws concerning school governance does not mean that they are observed or enforced - despite Gove and all the rest of the politicians.

Many/most schools are not that bad, but some are, and this is perhaps not too widely known. Politicians would have no reason to advertise that fact unless they could benefit themselves, and they perhaps don't even know about this, or want to know.

[Dave2002]

The attendance problem is confined to a tiny minority .....

Not in all schools ....

[jean]

...the overwhelming evidence is that parents care deeply about education and regular attendance...

Some parents, of course. But some do not.

...Many/most schools are not that bad, but some are...

Often those that struggle most often do so because of lack of any interest on the part of the parents.

You could argue that the absence of the children of such parents, whether brought about by family holidays or simply truancy, could only benefit the rest, but that would be a counsel of despair.

[mercia]

I guess if someone could somehow prove that all children can learn as much as they need (or are 'supposed') to learn in 37 weeks rather than 38 you might as well reduce wholesale the length of terms, though that wouldn't solve the problem of the price of holidays, if that's the issue. If 37 weeks had no effect on results, then reduce to 36. I'm not sure how you decide what a child 'needs' to know and how long that process of learning should reasonably take.

[Dave2002]

Often those that struggle most often do so because of lack of any interest on the part of the parents.

You could argue that the absence of the children of such parents, whether brought about by family holidays or simply truancy, could only benefit the rest, but that would be a counsel of despair.

I don't necessarily disagree with the first line above.

Actually, I am revising my view on that. Sometimes parents are interested, but put undue pressue on a child, and parents can be very dense sometimes - even well meaning ones. I heard of some parents who had (at least) three children, and the third had great problems, which they expected school somehow to fix.
The elder two had, apparently, been very bright and both gone to very prestigious universities. The parents could not, or would not, understand that their third child was not able to reach the same standards. In that case the child was below average, and the problems this caused were immense.

At one time we had a friend - perhaps older than us - who was not stupid, but whose father and grandfather had both been outstanding academically. Being merely "OK or good" was not enough (he did have a degree in a respectable subject), and we thought he'd suffered in life in trying to live up to expectations. Whether in his case it was his parents who felt he wasn't meeting expectations, or he himself had worried about this I was never quite sure. Possibly his parents didn't mind, but he did, as he was aware enough of the abilities of his forebears - possibly being reminded by his teachers who expected brilliance.

Re the second, under the conditions under which schools operate, or are "required" to operate, there should be an effect on the remainder of students, as one or more teachers would be needed to chase up the miscreants, thus diverting them from what one might suppose would be core teaching duties. Of course, if such follow up actions aren't taken, then would teachers be considered more or less negligent, perhaps for putting the needs of students who do attend ahead of those who choose not to? I think questions could be asked if they hadn't considered the issues, though.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I disagree about 90% - that suggests about four weeks off a school year - way too much .

That equates to two weeks holiday and two weeks of illness. As I've already said, these can occur consecutively.

[waldo]

Some parents, of course. But some do not.

Yes, but there are plenty of mechanisms for dealing with such parents. If necessary, there can be legal remedies. Truancy is easy to spot, after all. What you don't need to do is draw everyone else into the criminal net. That's why it is a bad law. It causes unnecessary friction and generates a good deal of ill feeling.

[waldo]

I guess if someone could somehow prove that all children can learn as much as they need (or are 'supposed') to learn in 37 weeks rather than 38 you might as well reduce wholesale the length of terms, though that wouldn't solve the problem of the price of holidays, if that's the issue. If 37 weeks had no effect on results, then reduce to 36. I'm not sure how you decide what a child 'needs' to know and how long that process should reasonably take.

Ha ha! That looks like a version of the Sorites paradox.

[mercia]

the Sorites paradox.

I'll have to look that up - I bunked off the day they learnt that one

[Dave2002]

Truancy is easy to spot, after all.

As so often, something which looks as though it is true is stated as fact. It is not always easy to spot, and I know of one case where neither the parents, nor the school were aware for some considerable time. In that case neither were obviously negligent, because of their lack of awareness, and the behaviour of the child.

[Dave2002]

I'll have to look that up - I bunked off the day they learnt that one

Here you are - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

[vinteuil]

.

... for additional homework, you may find this useful :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

.

and

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/