Let's be reasonable: not every single week of school demands attendance

Easily understood as the policy is, it takes no account of differing circumstances and needs

Tom Bennett has been the appointed as the government's behaviour tsar in a bid to stamp out ill-discipline in schools

Every year when we come to choosing our summer holiday we can’t help but look at how much we’d save if we went during school term-time.

We don’t succumb, but we’re fortunate in that we can afford to take our children away for a two-week holiday and pay the extra. But what if we weren’t? Would we risk the wrath of the school and the possibility of a fine? The answer is yes, we might.

Not because we don’t believe in the value of the children being at school, but because we also care about the worth of a family holiday, of all being together, of dad not being at work. Better still if we’re somewhere hot.

Taking children out of school on holiday has always been a thorny issue – more so since the rules were tightened in England two years ago. It’s one that is also mired in rank hypocrisy. Ultimately, it’s a battle over who is more qualified to decide on the welfare of a child: the parent, or the state?

It’s not a matter that directly impacts upon the well-off, unless they’re the sort that resents having their freedom to go on holiday curtailed (and there are some of those). But it does affect a lot of families. Some grin and bear it, and pay the full price. Or they cut back on their holiday, going away for one week instead of two. Or they simply don’t go at all. Others take the plunge – and take the fine too.

Newly released statistics show, in total, 50,414 parents in England were penalised for unsanctioned school leave last year, an increase of 25 per cent on 2014, and 173 per cent on 2013. They were each hit with £60 charges, rising to £120 if they failed to pay within 21 days. Some refused to pay and were subjected to court proceedings.

Craig Langman, a father from Nuneaton, was threatened with a fine if he took his son out to visit his ill grandfather. His response was to found Parents Want A Say, and the organisation now has 230,000 signatures on a petition calling for the penalty system to be scrapped.

The regulations are based on the simple premise that taking children on holiday during term is wrong. But, easily understood as the policy is, it takes no account of differing circumstances and needs. So a mother who wanted to remove her son for a holiday was told she couldn’t – despite it being the only opportunity she had during six months of gruelling cancer treatment. Worse, it’s a law that is left to the head teacher to interpret. In the case of the cancer-stricken mother, her son’s head refused permission; another individual in the same role may have taken a different view.

The suspicion has to be that the more middle-class you are, the more you can justify the absence and cloak it in educational terms, and thus the more likely are you to be allowed to go. As Jon Platt on the Isle of Wight discovered, a trip to Disney World may not impress; he was subjected to a £120 fine. If he’d said he was going to Florida to study the fauna and wildlife of the Everglades, examining the historical influence of Spanish culture along the way, would he have received the school’s blessing? The fact that the supposed information-gathering nature and history tour also included Disney World need not have been mentioned.

An educated, confident person is more capable of couching their parenting endeavours in such terms in a letter and talking on the head’s wavelength than someone who is not. The former get their break; the latter must say goodbye to the beach or risk a fine – which, indeed, they are less likely to afford to pay. Yet again it’s one law for the better-off, another for the rest – and it is, therefore, wrong.

No figures are available profiling those who were fined. It would be interesting to know just how many fell into the higher- and lower-income brackets. It would be fascinating, too, to examine the jobs they held: how many worked shifts, for example, and had less flexibility in organising their own extended leave.

The argument in favour of reform – or at the very least a wholesale scrutiny – of the rules as they’re applied has been heightened by legal case over Mr Platt and Disney World. When Mr Platt was issued with a £120 fine he did not pay up, and was taken to court. But last week magistrates found in his favour after it was argued the law requires parents only to ensure their children attend school “regularly”. That has thrown the future of the fines into doubt.

So far the Government’s response to the confusion and clear unfairness is to shut its ears. The Department for Education said: “Our evidence shows missing the equivalent of just one week a year from school can mean a child is significantly less likely to achieve good GCSE grades.”

Really? What evidence exists for such a claim? So a child that is off because of sickness for one week cannot catch up on the missed work? It is surely absurd to suggest that every single week of school is vital, that to miss just one could damage exam prospects.

This big-stick approach takes no account of the age of the child and where holidays fall in the calendar of exams. It’s hard to see how one missed week for a secondary pupil in Years 7, 8 and 9 can affect future exam results. Possibly that week may be more significant in the exam-teaching Years 10 and 11, but it makes no mention of the child’s ability to borrow someone else’s notes and get themselves back up to speed.

Instead of patting themselves on the back and assuring themselves the law must be working because so many parents are being fined, ministers should be asking why so many parents are prepared to be fined? Then they might realise the system urgently needs repairing.