A High Court ruling backing a parent who refused to pay a fine for taking his child on holiday in term time will cause “huge confusion”, an MP has said.
Education select committee chairman Neil Carmichael said parents would be “wondering what to do” after Friday’s ruling, and would need clarity.
The High Court concluded Jon Platt had no case to answer because his daughter had attended school regularly overall.
The government has said it will now consider making alterations to the law.
Term-time holidays: Your stories
What are the rules on holidays?
What might change now?
The Isle of Wight Council had asked the High Court to clarify whether a seven-day absence amounted to a child failing to attend regularly after Mr Platt, 44, took his daughter on holiday, despite her school refusing permission for the trip.
The court backed magistrates who had ruled Mr Platt, had no case to answer.
Speaking to BBC Radio Four’s Today programme, Mr Carmichael said: “I certainly think we need a period of reflection on this matter because this ruling causes a huge amount of confusion.
“Instead of confusion we need clarity – clarity for parents and clarity for the schools, because people will be wondering what to do next given the scale of the change.”
Since 2013, tougher government regulations have meant head teachers can grant leave of absence to pupils during term time only in “exceptional circumstances”.
Shadow schools minister Nic Dakin told Today the previous rules, which allowed head teachers to grant leave for up to 10 days under “special circumstances”, had been “working effectively”.
But Mr Carmichael said the problem with that policy was in defining what counted as “special circumstances”.
“You’d have to be very careful about defining what you think is a special circumstance,” he said.
“The government will have to think very carefully …read more
Source:: BBC UK