A difference of opinion among Christians has emerged after the Supreme Court ruled in April against a father for taking his child out of school on a holiday during term time.
Jon Platt, who had previously won legal battles against a fine in a case brought by his local council, said the decision meant the state is ‘taking the rights away from parents’.
Disney World?
He took his daughter out of primary school without the head teacher’s permission for a week’s holiday to Disney World two years ago. Mr Platt had argued that his daughter regularly attended school during the year, with an attendance rate of over 92%.
Some have taken the line that if parents choose to send their children to a school, they should obey those in authority and stick to the rules of the school. Others see things rather differently.
Parental authority
Norman Wells, Director of Family Education Trust, said in response to the Supreme Court ruling: ‘… we mustn’t lose sight of the vital role of parents in their children’s education. No one is advocating a complete free-for-all, but there does need to be room for flexibility and the exercise of discretion. It is deeply insulting to parents to suggest that the school cares more about a child’s education than the parents do.’
Mr Wells added that the value of family holidays should not be underestimated at a time when there are ‘high levels of family fragmentation and breakdown’. He said that they can have ‘knock-on benefit in all kinds of ways – including educationally’.
Nanny state?
Mr Platt said that parents would find it ‘utterly shocking’ that they needed the ‘permission of the state’ to decide on school attendance.
Addressing the judges, he said: ‘You are not the final arbiter of what’s right for your child’.
He said the government’s case was a vast overreach by the ‘nanny state.’
In her ruling, Lady Hale said it would cause unacceptable disruption to pupils and teachers if parents could remove children from school as they pleased.
