How Often Is Regularly?

Regularly is a word which, like its cousins often and frequently, is ambiguous in meaning. A regular churchgoer may attend every Sunday; a regular moviegoer probably goes to the cinema once a month, twice at a pinch; going to the dentist regularly means twice a year normally. What qualifies as regularly is nigh on impossible to pin down as a definite number, so when the Education Act says that the parent of a child who fails to attend school regularly is guilty of an offence, how many days must a child be absent before they are deemed not to be attending regularly? Failing to ensure that their child attends school regularly is the basis on which many parents find themselves being fined when they take their children on holiday during term time and the recent case involving Jon Platt, his six-year old daughter and a family holiday to Florida has brought the whole rigmarole back into the public eye.

Picture: Daily Mail

Mr Platt was fined £60 by Isle of Wight Council for taking his child on holiday without permission from the school. This fine was doubled when he refused to pay but last October, magistrates at Isle of Wight Magistrates Court found in his favour, deciding that he had no case to answer as no evidence had been produced to prove that his daughter had failed to attend school "regularly." The council appealed, but this was dismissed at the High Court in London when Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mrs Justice Thirlwall ruled that the magistrates had not "erred in law" when finding for Mr Platt. We can only assume that Mr Platt's daughter's attendance record of 92.3% was deemed by the High Court to amount to her attending school "regularly" and at first sight, an attendance record of over ninety percent seems regular.

Except that over a 38 week school year that amounts to fifteen days absence, or three whole weeks, or over two days ever month, whichever you prefer. Imagine an employer being faced with such absenteeism; would they accept that level of attendance at work was regular enough? Mr Platt runs a PPI claims company and as an employer I wonder how sympathetically he would view the claim of one of his workers who took unauthorised leave that he should find this acceptable because that employee had otherwise attended work regularly...say, 92.3% of the time?

Actually it is not the dispute over what constitutes regular attendance at school that concerns me here; after all any clause in a statute that is as ill defined as this - saying that children must attend school regularly, without defining what regularly is - deserves to have a coach and horses driven through it, no, what concerns me is the fact that Mr Platt felt it appropriate to remove his child from school to take a holiday without seeking permission. Presumably he felt that if he sought permission it would be refused, so he went ahead and did it anyway - which is not the sort of message one would want to give a child, that if you think you will be told No if you ask, don't ask and do it anyway.

Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said that he "did not consider it is open to an authority to criminalise every unauthorised holiday by the simple device of alleging that there has been no regular attendance in a period limited to the absence on holiday" thereby completely missing the point of the legislation, and the offense, that is to say that the child was taken out of school without permission and regardless of the reason, the child's attendance fell below what the local authority considered regular.

There is an argument put forward by the Local Government Association that families should have the option to spend time together  "when they choose to, rather than tying families to set holiday periods," which on the face of it may seem reasonable, particularly when one considers that holidays cost a lot less during term time than during formal holidays, and some parents may find it difficult to match their holiday entitlement with the school holidays. Except for the many counter arguments. If the education authorities and individual schools give in on this then there comes with it the possibility that any parent could take their child out of school to go on holiday at any time, which would affect not just that child, who has to catch up with the learning they missed while on holiday, but also their teachers and classmates who have to cater for that child's -or children's - remedial learning. And how much term time absence would be reasonable: one week a year? Or two? Or three? Where would it end?

It may well be that Mr Platt took his child out of school to take advantage of the holiday company charging a lower price during term time, after all it is a common complaint that holiday prices rocket during school holidays (although the tour operators no doubt would argue that in fact they actually heavily discount prices during term time, rather than hike them during the school holidays).  

Holiday prices undoubtedly differ between term time and school holidays. Graphic: Daily Mail.

If parents are able to book holidays at any time rather than during the fourteen weeks a year that school is out, prices may even out over the year, and if prices even out that means that at times they will be higher than they are now. Those people who take their holidays during term time precisely because the resorts are not full of families with young children and because the prices are more affordable will be jeering, rather than cheering this verdict. And parents; will they welcome this decision, which on one hand gives them carte blanche to take their children on holiday exactly when they choose, without fear of prosecution? Or will they find legislative changes put through to make term time holidays without permission punishable, regardless of the child's attendance record at other times?

The Department for Education are understandably disappointed with the ruling and say they are planning to close the loophole by changing the law. After the ruling Mr Platt's said the decision was "a victory" and that parents "should decide what's best for their children." But do parents really know what is best for their children? In terms of their education, I'd say not necessarily. But it isn't solely Mr Platt who is at fault here, it is also whoever framed the law in such a wishy-washy, ambiguous manner and thereby allowed this situation - which is by no means unusual - to occur.

Given that Mr Platt's court appearances racked up costs of over £14,000 - which he would have been liable for had he lost, but which must now be paid by Isle of Wight Council - all for the sake of a £60 fine over which he could have shrugged his shoulders and simply paid - we could be charitable and say that he took the stance he did as a matter of principle. Except that his victory may be a pyrrhic one if the law is changed to give schools no discretion in allowing term time absences and  making any unauthorised absence punishable, and his principles may ultimately inconvenience parents rather than liberating them.