Home education being used as a cover for abuse and forced marriage … * no it was really about educational standards … except that no it wasn’t it was really all about safeguarding … except that actually the “the point of the compulsory registration scheme” was to know more precisely where children were.

It would have helped their case if they had picked one lie and stuck with it don’t you think?

* You’ll notice that I skipped a whole year of flip flops, life is too short to hunt them all down!

For those who wanted to read it, here’s my response to SCC’s request for comment on their Draft EHE Policy and “national developments”.

Last night (7/4/2010) the EHE elements of the Children, Schools and Families Bill was voted down in the House of Lords. The national situation is that there has been no change in the law and short of a Labour government being returned to power it is unlikely that anything similar will be put forward again. In practical terms this means there is no legal foundation for the monitoring of home education and no central government funding.

Unfortunately the DCSF has been sending out guidance and holding briefings which presupposed that Schedule 1 was going to go through despite a clear public promise by Michael Gove MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families) that it would not be permitted to pass into law. I can only conclude that it was part of a politically motivated policy of ‘muddying the waters’ and further damaging the relationships between home educators and LAs.

The Badman report has been soundly discredited and almost unanimously rejected by the home educating community, even the Labour dominated HoC CS&F Select Committee found it to be “too aggressive” and based on “less than robust” evidence. It is certainly not a good basis for policy!

The SCC draft EHE policy is deeply flawed, even the first sentence is factually incorrect. The parental duty to ensure “children receive education suited to their age ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs” applies to all children, not just those not registered at school. I will refrain from a point by point criticism of the policy as I am sure that the committee will have neither the time or inclination to discuss it in that kind of detail, but the policy does not “Follow the DSCF [sic] Guidance To Local Authorities On Elective Home Education”. It is drafted almost entirely on the basis that children who are home educated will have been withdrawn from school and it misrepresents education law.

The petition presented to SCC last year specifically asked that a new EHE policy comply with CURRENT law and guidelines, not the wish list of anti-home education elements in government, and that it be developed in consultation with home educators, the main stakeholders.

The EHE team sent out a short satisfaction survey last February but by no stretch of the imagination could it be taken to constitute a consultation on a new EHE policy. The cover letter for that survey dated 11th February 2009 included the following statement “the Local Authority is hoping to form a working group from members of the home educating community and the EHE team to look at ways to support home education”. This never materialised. “The results will be published early in the Summer Term” also never happened.

A Surrey EHE policy not only needs to comply with the law and be acceptable to home educators it also needs to represent value for money to the tax payers of Surrey and not to divert scarce resources from where they are really needed. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of the projected budget cuts outlined in the SCC Corporate Business Plan, nor of the unfortunate outcome of the children’s services inspections carried out by Ofsted.

Surrey should seek to be an example of good practice and positive relationships which benefit everyone and the first step towards that is a good official policy.

As I write the Lords are still slogging through the Financial Services Bill, but the DCSF have issued a statement admitting that the Home Ed licensing part of the CSF Bill is dead. Of some interest is how they phrase it.

Registration and monitoring of home education – following Graham Badman’s independent report into home education, these provisions put in place a valuable tool for local authorities in their work to safeguard all children.

Again with claiming that Badman was independent, but worse they are back to saying that it was all about safeguarding. Mark my words, we haven’t seen the last of these bastards!

But just for today PARRRRRTAY!!!!

For those of you who don’t know the history, Surrey County Council does not currently have an OFFICIAL EHE policy, staff have been working to a document inherited 12 odd years ago by the (now retired) team leader and modified by her over time and never once presented for council approval. That’s NOT an official policy. The draft that’s being discussed was drawn up by her last year with specific instructions NOT to allow local home educators sight of it until it HAD been approved. After getting hold of it thanks to a group member doing a FoI request, well, not happy would be a bit of an understatement I think. One petition later the council’s Schools and Learning Select Committee is looking at the policy. If you are Surrey resident or just want to read the policy and associated documents you can pop on over to our SCC page, but here’s the main body of the letter sent out to local HE groups at the end of February:

Dear Colleague,
Schools and Learning Select Committee: Review of Home Education Policy Following a petition presented to the Committee in December 2009, the Schools and Learning Select Committee has asked to scrutinise the Council’s review of its Home Education Policy. The Policy is being reviewed in light of national developments outlined in the Badman report, which may prompt changes in process. The Committee will explore the extent to which the policy is fit for purpose and the implications of any changes. They will also consider whether it meets national requirements.

Members are keen to take into account the views of home educators in Surrey. As such, I would like to invite you, as a group or as individual educators, to contribute to the discussions. I would appreciate if you could provide, in a short written summary, your thoughts on the current policy and the national developments. I will then provide these to members for consideration with the officer report. Please note that your submission would become a public document.

It sounds like they’ve been drinking the DCSF Kool-Aid, “national developments outlined in the Badman report”? WTF?!

Despite my frequent rants on this blog I really do want a quiet life. I want SCC to have a decent, fair, respectful policy which doesn’t require me to make anatomically impossible suggestions to its employees. I want council taxes to be used for helpful things, like filling pot-holes and protecting genuinely vulnerable children. SCC failed on child protection last time OFSTED inspected them and I’m sure the last thing in the world they want is to end up doing a Birmingham City Council. They need more social workers to reduce individual caseloads to an acceptable level, not EHE staff running their own little book shop selling crushingly dull workbooks ‘at cost’ [sic].

So, we will explain how Badman’s report has been debunked and the EHE components of the CSF Bill are NOT going to happen. We will point out that this means no new funding and remind them of their own substantial projected budget cuts. We will doubtless have to point out the limits of their legal duties and powers. After all that, the best we can hope for is that on April 14th councillors accept that the draft EHE policy is NOT ‘fit for purpose’ and tell their staff to start again from the beginning and actually CONSULT this time.

Anyone who thinks home educators have nothing to fear from a spot of “light touch registration” needs to check out Baroness Deech in the House of Lords tonight (Hansard starts at the bottom of the page)

This woman has really got it in for us! Apparently she knew nothing about home education but having discovered that there are thousands of children in this country growing up without direct state control of their education, well, she is enraged! Something must be done! Badman clearly didn’t go far enough, home visits should be every 3 months, none of this 2 week warning, that’s for sissies, no it should be 1 week, or no warning at all!! That’s the ticket! And if you refuse then it’s straight off to school with your children, that very day! The word ‘rabid’ seems fitting around now.

How dare we be upset at the attacks against us, how dare we be angry! How dare we think that the state is a bit rubbish … has she been living in a cave do you think? You know expenses scandal, illegal wars, failed economy, I don’t think I’d be stretching it to suggest that the majority of the people in this country are not exactly pro-government right now. But no, to a statist anyone who isn’t in love with the beauty of an all powerful state is clearly suspect and probably shouldn’t be allowed to have children in the first place, let alone home educate them.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi

And oh how Ed Balls, Graham Badman and all the minions of the DCSF are fighting us now. With their media friends at the BBC and TES they are fighting dirty and do you know what? It stinks of desperation. This is a last ditch effort to force the EHE elements of the CSF Bill through, and failing that to damage home educators in the eyes of the public ready for their next attack.

The lies and the smears do make me angry, don’t mistake that for a minute, and I won’t forgive or forget but tonight I’m a lot less bothered than I have been because we ARE going to win. I don’t just mean this battle either, I honestly think we are going to win PERIOD. We will win because we have something far more important than short term political gain and statist ideology to fight for. We are fighting for our children and grandchildren, for their right to intellectual freedom, to choose their own goals, to be protected from physical and mental abuse, to be happy. What do Badman and Balls have to fight for, really?

I’ve just read through the Judgement on the Khyra Ishaq case by Mrs Justice King. It was hard going but not only does it make it clear that the measures in the CSF Bill would NOT have saved her, it demonstrates how they would make such cases more likely!

Birmingham City already acted as if they had to authorise home education and the children where not removed from the school roll until the “Educating Otherwise advisor” had approved the educational provision. Despite SEN statements, he did so based on a 1 hour home visit in a room described as “a “rudimentary” classroom having been set up with a display board with writing on it on the wall although, he said, there were no chairs or other items that were what he referred to as “resources” for teaching. Mr I described there being some basic readers and one or two books around.” and no further information.

# Mr H was vague in his evidence as to what, if anything occurred between February and April. He said in oral evidence that he had not got the plan from mother and had written back to her. That then that would seem to indicate that he was not in a position to tell social services, or indeed anyone else, that he was satisfied as to the educational provision to be provided for these statemented children.

# The documentary evidence covering this period of time is incomplete and mainly in the form of emails. Such email evidence as is available seems to suggest that Mr H did in fact give approval indicating that he was satisfied with the proposed educational provision despite the fact that mother had failed to provide any educational plan. The names of the children were accordingly moved from the school roll. This meant that the children were longer be categorised as unauthorised absentees and so another possible route of monitoring the children was lost. |It was for that very reason that the school had up until then resolutely refused to take the children off their roll.

# In the emails it shows that on 28th February Mr H spoke to a Laura Cartwright who was the reviewing officer at SENAS. Mr H confirmed that he had conducted the home visit and it is recorded that he had reported that the parents were able to supply adequate information about their plans for educating the children and that he was satisfied that they were sufficiently set up for home teaching.

Meanwhile “The Initial Assessment was abandoned on the basis that Education Otherwise in the form of Mr. H was now to be involved.”

Tell me how that won’t happen again. Overworked EHE inspector just ticks boxes because s/he is snowed under having to inspect every single HE family at least once a year. Overworked social worker decides that since EHE inspector is involved there’s no need to do an assessment even when serious welfare concerns have been reported. Result, abuse undetected and sooner or later another death.

It looks like DCSF staff have been busy working on a multi-faceted media attack on home educators. Not just the spin on the Khyra Ishaq case which while deeply offensive was also sadly very predictable. No, they have also roped in the TES (hardly an unbiased publication to begin with) to publish lies about the quality of education “First official figures reveal failings of home education”

I think what’s clear is that they’ve known for a while that they were facing a rough ride on Clauses 26 and 27 and so have orchestrated as much negative press as they could timed to coincide with the Khyra Ishaq case. They must have hoped that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches would be undecided and susceptible to ‘public opinion’ although what we’re seeing is of course NOT public opinion but a cynical attempt to influence it.

Blogdial makes a good point about PR although how he imagines we can afford a “professional full time PR firm” I don’t know! Unlike tax payer funded Birmingham City Council I doubt we’ll be able to find £800-a-day. No, I think we’ll have to do what we usually do and learn the business and do it ourselves.

If you thought that the web site article from earlier was bad, hold on to your hat because the lead item on the BBC News at 6 this evening was WORSE. If you were to believe them you would think that Khyra Ishaq died because she was home educated and the measures in the CSF Bill would have saved her. I’ll let that sink in for a moment.

Yes, it IS a big fat LIE.

Yes, the BBC must know that.

They have access to exactly the same information as we do, maybe even more. Despite that they have followed the DCSF spin so slavishly that you’d think that one of Ed Balls’ few literate minions wrote the whole thing for them.

I have complained as I did for the earlier web site slander, this time following Hecate’s advice as the TV item so clearly broke the Broadcasting Code with relation to “Matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”. The CSF Bill has just gone over to the Lords for goodness sake!

5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.

Am I angry? I’ll tell you how angry. I just joined the Conservatives. Oh yes indeedy, THAT angry.

What can you say about Ed Balls that hasn’t been said before and that doesn’t involve the kind of language that I wouldn’t want my daughter to read … not that she’s old enough to understand the words I want to use about him right now, but you gentle reader would … well maybe not ALL of them, but I wouldn’t want you looking up the more obscure ones either.

He is a LIAR.

A soulless, twisted man who has no compunction about using a dead child to further his anti-family, anti-home education agenda. I had thought it was impossible to loath him more than I already did, but you know what, I was wrong!

Do not read the following if you suffer from high blood pressure, a weak heart, are near to anything breakable or within hearing of anyone who doesn’t need to be learning to swear just yet.

Secretary of State’s response to verdicts in the Khyra Ishaq case

If you missed the debate about Serious Case Reviews in the Commons on Tuesday it might be worth a read because in it you will find how utterly WORTHLESS an “executive summary” of a SCR is. Balls uses the words “full and detailed” to describe a SUMMARY which will be NEITHER.

On a cheerier note I bet he’s a bit disappointed that only the BBC seems interested in playing his tune on this one today.