It's the LEA that can fine parents £60 for taking their child on holiday without permission. The fine's per child, per absence (and in theory each parent can be fined, though it varies).
The fine is an alternative to going to court, so you can't pay it and then decide you want to argue your case in front of a magistrate. The cash goes to LEAs to cover admin costs, but it's not actually ring-fenced and so could be spent on anything.
What if I don't pay the fine? The £60 fine jumps to £120 if you fail to pay within 21 days of the fine being issued. If you don't pay within 28 days you can be taken to magistrates' court under the Education Act 1996. If found guilty you could end up with a criminal record and face a fine of up to £2,500, court costs or even a jail sentence of up to three months.
Department for Education figures show councils dished out 222,904 fines for unauthorised holidays in the 2017/18 school year, up by about 107,000 on 2016/17 figures.
The hike in holiday costs must be more than £60 – can't I just take the hit? That's for you to weigh up. Certainly the jump in prices can be steep – for example, when we checked, a five-day break for a family of four at Center Parcs went from £619 at the beginning of July to a whopping £959 at the end of July.
Be aware though that these aren't just rules, this is law. The fine is a penalty notice issued as an alternative to prosecution – in theory, the LEA could skip the fine and prosecute you straightaway, which could mean much higher financial penalties and a criminal record.
So what exactly IS the letter of the law? In England, Section 444 of the Education Act states it's an offence to fail to make sure your child goes to school "regularly". But it all hinges on exactly what's meant by the word "regularly" – which the Supreme Court has now ruled means in "accordance with school rules".
The Department for Education believes "regular" means a kid going to school every single day, except for authorised absences such as illness.
Why did the Supreme Court rule on the issue? Isle of Wight resident Jon Platt battled for two years against the fine he'd received for taking his daughter out of school for a term-time holiday – he argued that his daughter had still attended "regularly" as she'd had very high attendance.
But on 6 April 2017 the Supreme Court ruled against him – here's a quick rundown of how the case developed:
- April 2015 – Jon Platt took his youngest daughter out of school for seven days to Disney World Florida, without permission, on a family holiday during term time – and was fined as a result.
- October 2015 – Having refused to pay the fine, Mr Platt won his case at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court. Magistrates said he had 'no case to answer' because of high attendance.
- May 2016 – Mr Platt won his case at the High Court, which backed the magistrates' decision.
- June 2016 – The High Court said the meaning of the word "regularly" is of public importance and must be decided at the Supreme Court.
- January 2017 – The case was heard at the Supreme Court.
- 6 April 2017 – Mr Platt's case was rejected and the Supreme Court said he must face prosecution for not paying the fine.
Mr Platt's case was sent back to Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court, where he again tried to fight the fine, but was instead given a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs. He has ruled out an appeal against this ruling.
What about private schools? All the above only applies to state schools – private schools don't have to follow the same rules and parents can't face fines or court action. Private schools may have a code of conduct or contract they expect you to follow, though, and they do have to report some unauthorised absences to the LEA.
Are there any educational consequences to taking my child out during term time? The Department for Education's adamant there are. It says: "High-quality education and pastoral care will make a real difference to children's life chances, and that's particularly important for those who are most vulnerable, but clearly key initiatives will only work if children are present."
Yet others argue if a pupil's attendance is very good and they're thriving at school it's unfair to stop them and their family taking a holiday they might not otherwise be able to go on.
It's also worth taking the dire warning about the effect on children's education with a pinch of salt – after all, what message does that send to those youngsters who've missed school due to illness? Even the Local Government Association, whose members enforce these rules, has previously called for head teachers to be allowed to take a common-sense approach to term-time holidays on a case-by-case basis, without parents being hit with an automatic fine.
In our April 2017 poll 59% of parents with school-age children said they should be able to take term-time holidays if booked in advance, for a strict number of days and not at a crucial time. So this is a law that's clearly unpopular – though one that seems likely to be here to stay, for the time being at least.