The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom [official website] on Thursday ruled [text, PDF] that parents who remove their children from school during the term may be subject to prosecution. Jon Platt was facing this prosecution after a 7 day trip in 2015 in which he removed his daughter to vacation in Florida. The court was examining if this was a violation of The Education Act of 1996 [materials] which looks to ensure that parents make their children regularly attend school. Platt had been subject to a £120 fine, which he subsequently refused to pay. The court held that having no penalty for truancy is “not an approach to rule-keeping which any educational system can be expected to find acceptable”. In a response to try and drive down delinquency rates, the Court sets the precedent that fines are acceptable for any parents whose children miss school.

Educating youth has been a been a significant government function for many years, yet it is continuously changing throughout the world. JURIST Guest Columnist Erika Wilson examines a new Kentucky law that introduces charter schools [JURIST op-ed] to the Commonwealth for the first time. In March the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that school districts must individualize [JURIST report] education for disabled students. This decision afforded protections to a class of students who states were in certain cases ignoring. In March the Supreme Court of Kansas ruled that the state had failed [JURIST report] ensure sufficient funding for public schools.