Part 1 of goodness knows how many. Just a quick skim through shows so much to take issue with! Well, I’ll give it my best shot.

Published without notice by DCSF 19 January 2010.
Not circulated in advance to the panel giving evidence at the Public Bill Committee on 19 January.

I think this pretty much tells you all you need to know. They purposely and unashamedly kept this work of fiction under wraps so that the HE witnesses to the Public Bill Committee would not be able to comment on it.

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES BILL
CLAUSE 26 AND SCHEDULE 1: HOME EDUCATION
POLICY STATEMENT
Regulations and Statutory Guidance
Schedule 1 to the Children, Schools and Families Bill provides regulation making powers relating to the registration and monitoring of home education, including the appeals mechanism. New sections 19A to 19H set out these powers which cover:
Section 19A – maintenance by local authority of home education register;
Section 19B – manner in which application is to be made and entry of a child’s details on the register;
Section 19C – supplementary provisions relating to an application including information to be included in the application; statement about the prospective education; provision for an undertaking to be provided by a parent; and the entry by the local authority of the child’s details on the register including steps to be taken by a local authority; power for local authority to provide for a period within which a repeat application may not be made; and what details should be entered on the register;
Section 19D – registration period - no regulation making power;
Section 19E – monitoring the provision of home education - no regulation making power;
Section 19F – revocation of registration including steps to be taken by an authority in relation to revocation or proposed revocation, what should and should not be taken into account;
Section 19G – appeals against refusal to register or revocation;
Section 19H – supply of information to a local education authority in England exercising its home education functions.
Section 19I provides a power to make statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring arrangements.

What follows is a policy statement which draws out our initial proposals for regulations and guidance once the Bill becomes law. It is intended to support debate and consultation as the Bill passes through the Parliamentary process.

What follow is a collection of spin and outright lies. It is intended to mislead MPs and give the impression that the bill is reasonable and proportionate.

Any regulations and guidance will be subject to full public consultation.

“Public consultation” = a paper exercise that can and will be ignored. Been there, done that. The important thing to note is that there will be no parliamentary oversight at all.

General
Current Position
Local authorities are currently not under a duty to monitor home education on a regular basis but they are under a duty under section 436A EA 1996 to have arrangements in place to identifychildren not receiving a suitable education. Subsection (b) of section 436A makes clear that this provision does not relate to home educated children that are receiving suitable education.

So far so good.

However, in order for a local authority to establish whether the education is suitable, the duty supposes some kind of investigation by a local authority. Arguably it imposes an obligation to act.

Arguably - adj. 1. Open to argument: an arguable question, still unresolved. So in fact there is not an obligation to act, the DCSF are just arguing that it could be read that way. Well I’m going to argue that it does not mean that at all and the duty does not suppose any kind of investigation EXCEPT where there are grounds to suspect that parents are failing in their legal duty to provide a suitable education.

Currently this can only be done with the co-operation of those home educating parents that the local authority know about. Our proposals for registration and monitoring will ensure that all home educated children are known to their local authority and none are missing out on their education.

Not true. Their proposals will ensure no such thing. Not all parents will comply, a few because they are not providing a suitable education and therefore have nothing to loose, and many more who will refuse on principal and because they know what effect the proposals for monitoring will really have on their children.

If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise then that authority is under a duty under section 437 of the Education Act 1996 to take steps under the school attendance order framework.

See, they DO know what the law says, “if it appears”. There needs to be an appearance of failure, a reason to investigate before there is a duty to act.

The school attendance order framework is about ensuring that all children receive a suitable education – whether by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

No, it is not. First, there is no duty to ENSURE that all children educated otherwise than at school receive a suitable education, only to intervene if this appears not to be happening. Second the school attendance framework makes NO effort at all to ensure that the education provided for children attending school is suitable.

It is for local authorities to determine in this context what is “suitable education” where a child is being home educated.

No it is not. It is for the parents, who have the legal duty, to determine this and IF the local authority has had cause to investigate and does not agree with the parents it is for a court to decide who is right.

In practice, the current lack of effective monitoring arrangements means that local authorities have had difficulty in carrying out their responsibilities where these involve a home educated child where parents have been unwilling to cooperate with monitoring requests.

In practice there is no duty to monitor and the difficulties experienced by local authorities are all of their own making.

Our proposals will help overcome those obstacles and assist local authorities in focusing their efforts on children who are missing education as opposed to wasting time and public money pursuing home educators who are providing an adequate standard of education but who are unwilling to provide reliable evidence to their local authorities.

As Carlotta says “obstacles to a police state are NOT A BAD THING” and “there is good reason to believe that home educators will actually make the whole process FAR more uncomfortable for LAs should this system be implemented for HEors will see this as defending some of their most basic liberties, such as the right to a private life”. I totally agree with her. These plans will waste more time and public money not less, it’s a clear case of saying black is white to claim otherwise! Also notice how they’ve slipped in the word ‘reliable’. What is their definition of ‘reliable’ evidence? Given the content of the bill should we assume that ed phils and reports are NOT ‘reliable’?

This is a good logical spot for a break before we move on to “A New Approach”.

There’s a page up for the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009-10 with links to the bill, full transcripts of the Committee meetings and a list of Associated memoranda as follows:

• CS 01 - Memorandum submitted by National Children’s Bureau - a ‘fake’ charity which gets half of its funding from government departments. So, I think we can guess how much they are going to be disagreeing with their pay-masters’ plans.
• CS 02 - Memorandum submitted by Mr. Imran Shah - which human rights and children’s rights bills and conventions this bill would break
• CS 03 - Memorandum submitted by the Family Planning Association - no mention of HE
• CS 04 - Memorandum Submitted by Mr Imran Shah and Ms Betsy Anderson - more acts and stated government policies which this bill runs afoul of
• CS 05 - Memorandum submitted by Roxane Featherstone - how the bill will not work to unearth hidden abuse
• CS 06 - Memorandum submitted by the Family Education Trust - argues against the changes from the POV of what is good for families
• CS 07 - Memorandum submitted by Mr Imran Shah and Ms Cintha Archer - on how the bill will give home educating parents less protection than parents who abuse their children
• CS 08 - Memorandum submitted by Mr. James Chilton - no mention of HE
• CS 09 - Memorandum submitted by Edge Foundation - no mention of HE
• CS 10 - Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers - refreshingly no mention of HE, they’ve decided they have more important fish to fry
• CS 11 - Memorandum submitted by Education Otherwise - general critique of the bill
• CS 12 - Memorandum submitted by NASUWT - All the expected whining about the bits that actually effect them but then they can’t resist a bit of naked rent seeking, claiming that “there is a strong case for the Government to consider whether the right of parents to educate their children at home remains appropriate in the context of a modern education system”. Just think of how many extra teachers would need to be employed if home education were outlawed. Think of all the extra membership dues to the NASUWT.

The word on Twitter is that today is the anniversary of the launch of the DCSF’s ‘Badman’ campaign of harassment and vilification of home education. What a depressing thought! Also today the Public Bill Committee starts looking at the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Also depressing, but I hold out hope that good sense will prevail and the Lords will kill Schedule 1. Having to repeatedly defend my parenting choices to the ignorant and hostile does get wearing and I would love all this oppressive nonsense to just go away. I ought to point out to any government type reading this that the time this battle has taken up is time that should have gone on my business which as a result had a turnover last year of £0 and therefore paid NO TAX.

On the bright side the actual home education is going great guns. This morning Audrey finished Timez Attack for a second time, taking less than 3 days to do so, and she says she’s going to do it two more times, once in Machine World and once in Lava World. What this means is that half way through Year 1 she’s mastered her times tables from 1 to 12.

No tears. No stress. Because she wanted to.

I’m not sure when, or even IF this is a National Curriculum target, but KS1 only seems to talk about 2, 5 and 10 times tables. She also does workbooks (don’t shoot me! she only does them when she wants to) and is 2 pages from the end of Year 2 in the Maths ones. Autonomous/Child Led Education WORKS. Don’t tell me children have to be forced to learn anything. Don’t tell me I need to do a literacy hour and a numeracy hour, or whatever the government enforced fad of the month is in schools. We don’t want it and we don’t need it. We also don’t want or need some LA inspector’s opinion, it’s not rocket science! I know that for sure because rocket science is what we did on that visit to the Mullard Space Science Laboratory.

They took their time publishing but here it is, with photo