Educating Outside the Box

Memorandum submitted by LGA (CS 23)

Thus it is our understanding that councils have a statutory duty to promote high standards, ensure fair access to educational opportunity and promote the fulfilment by every child of his or her educational potential. This applies whether or not children attend school.

And? So what? I’m fairly confident that government guidelines don’t generally use slang so ‘promote’ is unlikely to mean “to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuity” on this occasion. No, I suspect it means “to help or encourage to exist or flourish”, which is NOT the same as ‘ensuring’ or ‘enforcing’. You can promote something without controlling it, without monitoring it, in fact in the case of home education doing either of those things will achieve pretty much the opposite of encouraging it exist or flourish. As an excuse for more power this is a really, really lame argument and simply demonstrates how some people in local government need things explained very slowly and carefully, using only short, simple words.

I was going to fisk Diana Johnson’s contributions to the debate but to be honest every time she opened her mouth such utter garbage spewed forth that I’d be working on it for a week and nobody would want to read it. So here are just two choice quotes to demonstrate what a bizarre, delusional, alternate reality world she seems to be living in.

“the issue is about moving home education to a new way of working in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation with local authorities.”

Yes, she actually said that! She stood there and said that on the record. How can you possibly even try to talk to someone who is THIS out of touch with the real world? Seriously?

“Our proposals are not about state control of home education. They are about acting when a child’s rights are not being met by their parents. The proposals are moderate and proportionate, and they will keep England among the most liberal countries in the world for home education.”

What do you think, does she know she’s talking crap or is she totally and utterly awaaaaaaaaaay with the fairies?

The speeches against the bill varied from good to magnificent and I couldn’t really quote from them without spoiling the effect, go read them (starting half way down this page) or watch and listen here.

I’m solidly and embarrassingly mono-lingual, so this is about as far as you can get from an issue that would ever effect me. However I found myself very uncomfortable listening to the following exchanges yesterday, and reading the transcript today has intensified that feeling.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about certain aspects of my constituency, but I have been living there for a long time and the children are very dear to my heart. What if an inspector went into a home and discovered that the parent who had decided to home educate spoke no English? What is the hon. Gentleman’s remedy if we are not to have inspectors?

Mr. Gibb: Those issues apply in other parts of the education system. The hon. Lady has been complaining that there are children who are not getting English lessons in the schools that they attend, so I do not think that that is an issue solely related to home education.

Mrs. Cryer: I have never said that children do not get English lessons. They could not possibly join or perform in the school if there were not dedicated groups of reception class teachers teaching them English on arrival. My complaint is that there is no English spoken in the home so they are thrown in at the deep end once they arrive at age four.

Mr. Gibb: I have friends who speak only French in their homes. It is not for me to object to the way those parents bring up their children. We have to be careful what powers we take for ourselves as the state, and this issue treads over the line between the duties that the state has and those that families have for bringing up their own children.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Gibb: I will give way to the hon. Member for Battersea and then the Minister, and then I will crack on, if I may.

Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and his party would be happy if children in this country were educated without any knowledge of English?

Mr. Gibb: No, I am not. The issues are very difficult and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said during the debate on Second Reading, things are not satisfactory at the moment, and we will have to look at this issue. But this is not the right approach to tackle such difficult matters. In the words of an old clichÃ(c), it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is offending tens of thousands of people. That is the problem. We have to consider this again, more sensitively, to tackle the problems that both hon. Members have highlighted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ms Diana R. Johnson): Will the hon. Gentleman comment on one of the recommendations of the Select Committee? On home education, it believes that the prospect of a child gaining basic literacy and numeracy skills and a breadth of education is right. How does that fit with the hon. Gentleman’s comments on having perhaps only one language in the home, which is not English?

Mr. Gibb: There are many schools in this country where 8 per cent. of young people are not learning to read. The way the Government are trying to tackle such matters is not right. For one thing, it is costing between £130 million and £567 million a year, which will be completely wasted if their approach is designed to change the way children are home educated.

Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): I wonder, following the Minister’s intervention, whether—from what she said about the system of local authority inspectors looking to see that a suitable education is being provided— any family who cannot demonstrate suitable English skills will automatically be deprived of the right to home educate? That seems to be the logical conclusion of what the Minister suggested. If that is the message she wants to send out to people in such a situation in this country, perhaps she can say it more clearly.

What kind of logical scrutiny does Diana Johnson’s concern about “a child gaining basic literacy and numeracy skills and a breadth of education” in a language other than English stand? What does she imagine happens in other countries?! Yes, it’s true that children starting at a school where classes are all given in English will probably have problems if they don’t speak good English, but if they’re being home educated in the family language then that problem just doesn’t exist. You can learn numeracy perfectly well in French or Punjabi. I have no direct evidence but suspect that literacy is a much more transferable skill than Ms Johnson thinks and a “breadth of education” whatever that is, is just as likely in Polish as English.

Which leaves me with this uncomfortable feeling that ignorance and racism are at work. Of course the people involved will no doubt throw up their hands in horror and deny such a charge, how DARE anyone accuse them of racism! But still, there they are trying to justify sweeping new powers on the basis of … what? A belief that anyone with a native language other than English is somehow automatically ill-educated and incapable of providing their children with a suitable education?

I’ll do a detailed analysis once the Hansard transcript is published but the long and the short of it is that despite the Labour Whip meaning Schedule 1 survived the Committee stage, the government totally and utterly LOST the argument.

Diana Johnson trotted out the same lies that we’ve all become so familiar with but they sounded very weak today and she came across more than a little bit whiny. Graham Stuart was all passion in a just cause. David Laws, Nick Gibb and Annette Brooke all argued well. We had the pleasure of seeing one Labour member (Caroline Flint) standing up to say she thought Schedule 1 was a bad idea, not that her commitment carried over into a vote of course. Another Labour MP (Ann Cryer) turns out to be a wee bit of a racist, she’s very worried about people talking something other than English in their own homes apparently. If we had a decent system of government Schedule 1 would have died today … what am I saying, if we had a decent system of government it would never have been drafted.

Observations from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families , received 26 January :

DCSF commissioned the Badman review of home education in January 2009 and the report was published on 11 June 2009. As part of the review, Graham Badman took written and oral evidence from a range of individuals and organisations who responded to his public call for evidence, including home educators and local authorities. Alongside this he also considered published literature, the current legal position and guidance and the approaches taken in other countries. He was also assisted by an expert reference group. I am confident that his report draws from a wide and heterogeneous evidence base.

I am confident that Badman dismissed any published literature that didn’t fit your predetermined outcomes, misrepresented the current legal position and ignored the opinions of home educators and those experts[sic] who did not agree with him. Unlike you Mr Balls, my confidence is genuine and based on observable facts.

The recent Children, Schools and Families Select Committee report also considered the Badman report and was supportive of most of the recommendations. It agreed that a short statement of educational approach would be helpful in establishing dialogue between home educating families and local authorities; that an annual meeting between local authorities and home educators was needed; and that better support for home educators and better training for local authorities would together lead to an improvement on the current arrangements.

That a Labour dominated committee didn’t give Badman’s report the total trashing that it deserved is no great surprise but even they can hardly be said to have given it a glowing recommendation. Not that any of this has much to do with the measures suggested in the CSF Bill.

Home Education registration and monitoring proposals are included in the Children, Schools and Families Bill which has now had second reading in the House of Commons. They will put in place light touch regulation and monitoring arrangements and our guidance will make it clear that this will be proportionate and focused on support and encouragement for home educating families. We have also committed around £21 million in the first year to additional support for home educating families, which has a focus on children with SEN and home educated children who would like to attend FE College courses.

I don’t care how many times you and your minions say that the proposed licensing scheme in the CSF Bill are ‘light touch’ it is and will remain A LIE. It is NOT proportionate. It provides NO support. Your financial commitments in the bill are NOT for support they are for licensing and monitoring ONLY, as Lord Lucas put it, £1,000 per child to audit them.

Home education is an established part of the British education system and the vast majority of home educators who do a good job will find monitoring supportive and-for the first time-backed by real resources. Our reforms will not require home educators to adopt a particular approach, to teach a specific curriculum, or for their children to take SATs tests or specific public examinations. After these reforms are implemented, England will remain one of the most liberal countries in the developed world for home educators to live in.

Home Education is NOT part of your system and that is one of its greatest attractions. *I* do a damned good job of educating my child and would NOT find your licensing and monitoring scheme in the least bit supportive. Again you LIE when you claim that there will be ‘real resources’ made available, there will not. The CSF Bill does NOT provide ANY funding for resources. What your reforms[sic] will require of home educators is at this time totally unknown as the CSF Bill contains no details, simply granting you the power to demand anything you choose, without any Parliamentary oversight at all. *IF* these measures are implemented England will move from being a liberal place for home educators to live into one of the most draconian.

Your ‘observations’ are lies and spin.

The CSF Bill Committee has got as far as Clause 6 which leaves the following with amendments to be debated on Tuesday and Thursday next week:

Children with special educational needs etc
7 School inspections: pupils with disabilities or special educational needs
88 + 170 + 171 + 169 + 172 + 89 + 147

8 Right of appeal against determination by local authority not to amend statement
75 + 157 + 233+165

Exceptional provision for ill or excluded children etc
9 Exceptional provision of education in short stay schools or elsewhere
166 + 168
192+167 + 187 + 191+158

The curriculum
10 Areas of learning
54 + 52 + 238 + 50 + 182 + 53 + 183
148 + 159 + 48 + 150 + 160 +193+ 51 + 161
186

11 PSHE in maintained schools
55 + 58 + 106 + 56 + 59 + 77+NC6
76
78 + 57 + 79 + 60

13 Sex and relationships education: manner of provision
197+62+173

14 Exemption from sex and relationships education
63 + 162 + 163 + 164 + 65+ 64 + 112+195

Powers of governing bodies
15 Power to provide community facilities etc
234

18 Power to propose new schools
67 + 66

School improvement etc
19 School improvement partners
68 + 198+194+87+199

20 Provision of information about schools, etc
200+69+201+202+235

22 Schools causing concern: powers of Secretary of State, etc
203

School teachers’ qualifications
23 Licence to practise
204

24 Requirement to be licensed
196

Home education
26 Home education: England
210+152+211+213+151+212+215+216+ 214+217+70+107+108+153+218+114
71+110+219+220+109+221+222+111+223 +224
229+230
225+NC5
226 +73 + 115 + 116 + 227+72+231+228
113 + 117

Local Safeguarding Children Boards
28 Supply of information requested by LSCBs in England
239+240+241+242+81+205+243 to 248
206

30 Review by Chief Inspector of performance of LSCBs in England
82+83+207+84

New clauses
NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4

I must admit to being rather surprised that there aren’t any under Family Proceedings, clauses 32 to 41, but even without that, it’s a LOT to get through isn’t it?

as Diana Johnson and others keep insisting, why do they continually use the phrase “safe and learning”? Why keep pushing the almost subliminal message that it’s also about protecting children from abuse when we know there’s no case to answer, no evidence of greater risk?

I think the answer is fairly simple. Public opinion. Joe Public is perfectly aware that not half of state school pupils manage the magical 5 ‘good’ GCSEs so he’s not going to be keen on millions of his tax money being spent making sure a handful of home educated kids get them. The DCSF simply isn’t going to be able to SELL their plan on the basis of improved educational outcomes when their own schools are failing so spectacularly to meet the same target.

Child abuse on the other hand is a PR winner. Say the magic phrase “if it saves just one child” and all debate, all critical thought, is meant to come to an end. People aren’t expected to ask if it’s true, if there’s any proof that whatever-it-is really is a genuine welfare issue and the suggested response proportionate.

If “saving just one child” really was worth any price wouldn’t cars be banned? They won’t be of course because people accept, even if they won’t talk about it, the trade off between lives lost against the convenience and economic benefits of widespread car ownership. However when it isn’t YOU being asked to give something up it’s much easier to get up on your moral high horse and tell other people that what is being taken from THEM is a small price to pay, and it will save a child’s life because the government wouldn’t lie about a thing like that … would they?

After reading Clare Sambrook’s Ed Balls and his iron hat on Open Democracy, I felt moved to create this.

Onto the home stretch at last! So many lies, so much spin! Such a bunch of evil manipulative bastards!

Review of Suitable and Efficient Education

62. Parents are already required to ensure that the education they provide for their child at home is suitable to their age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they may have.

Yes we are, and we know that and are comfortable with the responsibility.

63. The Bill does not change that

LIE. Big, fat, honking LIE.

but in the Government’s response to Badman Report we have said that we will review the definition of what constitutes a ‘suitable’ and ‘efficient’ education in the light of recent developments such as the Rose Review, the Every Child Matters outcomes and the current arrangements for assessing and delivering the curriculum throughout the statutory school years.

None of which are even remotely relevant.

In commissioning the review we will give home educators an assurance that they will not be required to follow the National Curriculum, or the Early Years Foundation Stage, nor for their children to take any statutory tests or national qualifications. We already accommodate a wide range of educational approaches and philosophies in independent schools, which respond to the wishes of parents, and we anticipate that we will see even greater variation in the approaches taken by home educators.

Like these assurances mean anything. Of course our children won’t have to follow the same National Curriculum as used in state schools, it wouldn’t be practical, but that’s not the same as saying there won’t be a new HE National Curriculum. The Early Years Foundation stage doesn’t even apply to children of Statutory School Age, why mention it? Were they thinking about enforcing it on under-5s who stay at home? You can see in this paragraph how they intend to pull us into their ’system’ and control us.

64. The review will build on existing case law which refers to preparing children for life primarily within their own community, while not preventing them pursuing a different form of life if that is what they choose as adults. This means that home educated children and their families continue to have a wide discretion to determine the education of their child. The review will be conducted in the context of examining how local authorities can determine that home educators are receiving a suitable education bearing in mind the diversity of approaches that they take. It will involve a wide spectrum of people reflecting the diversity of home educators so as to take account of the full range of approaches to learning at home. It will also be particularly important that those with expertise in the education of children with special educational needs are involved.

All this is of course based on the VERY large assumption that the next government will commission this review. There’s an old saying about unhatched poultry they might like to consider.

65. Guidance made under section 19I will set out any revised interpretation on the issue of suitability of education following on from the review.

So the DCSF is giving itself the power to define a suitable education in whatever way it sees fit after another sham consultation and with no parliamentary oversight.

Appeals

66. Section 19G gives parents the right to appeal against a decision by a local authority to refuse or revoke registration. Regulations will determine the powers of the appeal panel.

Of course they will. Can’t risk having the details work out in advance and in the bill, people might not like them, MPs or Lords might want to debate them, present Amendments to change them. Better to just keep the whole thing under-wrpas until you’ve got the power eh?

Subsections (1) and (2) provide regulation making powers.

There we are.

The framework for the appeal will be set out in regulations and accompanied by guidance to ensure that appeals are informal and impartial along similar lines to school admission appeal panels. The panel will be independent from the authority and will comprise three people, all of whom have been trained in appeal arrangements. Panels should include at least one person who has a professional educational background, at least one person who has experience of home educating and a lay member. Local authorities will be responsible for establishing the panel and for providing administrative support.

Yeah, right. One person who has a feckin clue vs a hostile professional and someone who is most likely to listen to the hostile professional. Can’t imagine how that’ll work out!

67. The panel will consider written and oral evidence provided by the parents and the LA and will be able to seek clarification and information. The child will also be asked to give their views. The powers of the panel will be set out in regulation. It will be completely independent from the original decision maker; it will be able to reconsider the facts and merits in every case; it will be able to establish facts by reference to written and/or oral evidence form all relevant persons. The panel will be able to decide that a decision to revoke or refuse registration should be upheld or not upheld. We envisage that a panel may also be able to, for example, recommend registration but attach conditions – such as the provision by a home educating parent of an address or the arrangement of a meeting between the parent and child and the local authority. Where the decision of the local authority is not upheld, the LA must enter or reinstate the child’s name on the register for the remainder of the registration period. Where the decision is upheld the parents cannot continue to home educate their child or reapply for registration for the period specified by the local authority in accordance with the regulations concerning repeat applications. The appeal panel regulations will set out the timescale within which an appeal should be heard and set out the administrative process for lodging an appeal.

Oh what’s the point, it’s all going to be ’set out in regulation’, it is all a stitch up, another one.

68. We anticipate that local authorities exercising good practice will want to have a review process in place which parents can use initially before having to appeal and we will set out this expectation in guidance. Parents will also have the right to seek judicial review of any panel decision and, if they considered that there was maladministration, could complain to the local government ombudsman.

Is the judicial review in the bill? No it is NOT.

Supply of Information

69. Section 19H enables regulations to be made requiring local authorities, maintained schools and the proprietors of independent schools to supply a local education authority exercising its home education functions with information. It is intended that this will provide for the situation where a local authority receives an application from the parent of a child who has previously been registered elsewhere or who has been withdrawn from school to home educate. The information requested will include any reason for refusing or revoking registration; whether there is a school attendance order in place relating to the child; information about the current educational attainment of the child; and any particular needs he or she might have that should be taken into account as parents and the local authority make plans for supporting home education.

If you look through it the bill is little more than a list of things that the DCSF will be issuing regulations about. There’s virtually no real detail, it’s just power that parliament is being asked to hand over and TRUST that it will be used in a responsible, fair and proportionate manner. This Policy Document is a work of fantasy with all it’s talk of support, for which there is no funding, and ‘envisioned’ outcomes based on regulations that remain secret, it they have been written at all.

I hope they’ve printed it on soft paper!

Assessing the Education of the Child
52. The role of the local authority in monitoring is primarily to assess whether the child is receiving a suitable education.

Only in the nightmare world of this bill. In a better world they’d be fixing the potholes that the recent cold weather caused and making sure they buy enough grit and salt in for next time! Maybe even making sure that there are enough social workers for the county caseload.

Where the child is receiving a suitable education, the local authority should monitor on a light touch basis.

No, they should spend our tax money doing something USEFUL, or even, shock horror, not take so much of it in the first place!

Where the child is not receiving a suitable education the local authority will need to consider whether further support will enable the parents to provide a suitable home education. The regulations will set out what the local authority can or cannot take into account when making that decision and guidance will make it clear that in exercising these powers local authorities’ aim should be to help the parents to continue to home educate if that is what they want. The educational interests and welfare of the child must be paramount in local authorities’ decision making.

What it will not do of course is provide any FUNDING. So for any cash-strapped local authority, meaning all of them, the logical option will always be to force the child into school. Don’t try to pretend otherwise.

53. The guidance will emphasis that any local authority officer engaged in the monitoring of home education must be appropriately trained so that they understand the diversity of approaches that are taken by home educators and are able to make a professional judgement about the education being provided. They will also be appropriately trained in family engagement techniques including speaking to child and ascertaining the wishes and feelings of the children. Local authorities may wish to commission support from the private and voluntary sector in monitoring home education where children have specific needs, or where parents are adopting philosophies where the private/ voluntary sector has particular expertise.

I don’t care how much training they get, some people just don’t have the personality for ‘family engagement techniques’ to be anything other than creepy manipulation, and as for teaching them how to ascertain the ‘wishes and feelings’ of children? Good grief, as if the job wasn’t a juicy target for pedos anyway you’re proposing to give them TRAINING in how to manipulate children?!

Seeing the Child

54. For the vast majority of families an informal meeting with the parents and the child once a year to discuss the progress the child has made and any additional support that might be needed is all that will be required. The statutory guidance will make it clear that the focus of the meeting will be on support and encouragement.

Will it indeed? The ’statutory guidance’ which we won’t get to see until AFTER the bill is law. Yeah, right!

55. Section 19E(4) includes a separate power for local authorities to see the child alone without the parent present. This means that local authorities may ask to see the child on their own, but the child and/or the parents can refuse to agree to such a meeting. In most cases there will be no need to see the child alone and in some cases it will not be appropriate – for example children with particular types of special educational needs, and young children who may not be accustomed to speaking to people they rarely meet. The local authority should consider whether it is most appropriate for two people to be present when the child is seen alone, and there may be cases where it might be appropriate to have another adult present that the child knows and trusts, if the interview is being conducted without the parents present.

There just isn’t ANY justification for this. If there are welfare concerns you pass the case over to trained social workers.

56. The guidance will set out the sorts of circumstances where this power may be exercised. We envisage this would be where there is no evidence that the child has received the education described by the parents, little or no evidence that the education meets the needs of the child, or where there are doubts that the child is resident at the registration address – and where thesematters can only be resolved by talking to the child without their parents present. These circumstances will be rare, but it is important that the power is available when all other efforts to establish whether education is ‘suitable’ have failed.

Rubbish! In such extreme cases, with all the powers you’ll already have given local authorities, they could just refuse registration. Be honest, although I know it would be a break with tradition, this is only in here as a ‘bargaining chip’ the outrageous bit that you’ll be willing to drop so home educators will think they’ve won a concession.

57. The Bill allows parents to refuse to allow the child to be seen on their own and for the child to refuse. Refusal to co-operate with a request is one of the grounds on which a local authority can revoke registration but only if refusal means that the authority has not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in 19E (1). Refusal to comply will not automatically result in the revocation of registration if information can be obtained from other sources. The regulations and guidance will set out the things that local authorities can and cannot take into account when exercising their discretion to revoke on the grounds of non co-operation with a request to meet the child. In the case of revocation on these grounds, this will include ensuring that they have genuine concerns or doubts which cannot reasonably be resolved by other means, such as reports from other home educators or others who have seen the child, or other agencies that may have involvement with the child. Local authorities will have to show that proper consideration has been given to the circumstances of the family including the age, maturity and special needs of the child.

See above. It’s been an effective ploy too, I know many home educators who have been so enraged by this one proposal that they’ve spoken of little else.

58. The place that a child’s learning is conducted is an important factor in a child’s education and the Bill places local authorities under a duty to make arrangements to visit the place where education mainly takes place. In most cases a meeting in the home should be more convenient for the family and more comfortable for the child who will be in familiar surroundings and it will enable the local authority to gain assurance that the environment is conducive to education. The Bill requires local authorities to give 2 weeks notice of any proposed meeting and our guidance will ask local authorities to be flexible in making arrangements that suit the circumstances of parents.

Oh really, being FORCED to allow people you don’t know, or possibly actively don’t LIKE, into your home for a good nose around, that’s something you would be comfortable with is it? If so you are WEIRD!

59. In most instances the home will be the place where education takes place, but this is not always the case – the child may be educated in a part time establishment of some sort and in that case it would make sense for the meeting to take place there

And if that isn’t a public place will this bill of yours FORCE the owner to allow the inspectors in there too? So much for private property!

60. Meeting the family to discuss progress is a key part in satisfying the local authority that the child is receiving a suitable education, and will also enable the family and local authority to discuss any additional support that might be helpful. Where a family refuses to co-operate with a reasonable request to meet with the local authority, the local authority can consider whether this so inhibits their ability to determine those factors that the local authority are required to ascertain for the purposes of monitoring a child’s home education under 19E (1). This could be taken into account in considering revocation under 19F (1) (e).

Again with the support for which there is NO FUNDING. Do you think waving an imaginary carrot in our faces every couple of paragraphs is going to achieve anything? And all of this is getting so far away from the fact that it is not up to us to ’satisfy’ the local authority of anything! They are not responsible and they are not qualified and they are not setting foot in my home!

Wishes and Feelings of the Child

61. Section 19E (1)(c) requires the local authority, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure that through their monitoring of the home education being provided, the local authority takes into account the wishes and the feelings of the child. The guidance will set out what local authorities should factor in here but clearly such guidance cannot be exhaustive. Local authority officers will need to be properly trained. A child saying that they do not want to be home educated would not of itself be sufficient reason to revoke registration and the age and maturity of the child would need to be taken into account. If this happened, the local authority would want to discuss with theparents how the family might better meet the wishes of the child. If there were other concerns about the education provided not being suitable then the wishes and feelings of the child would be a consideration in deciding whether revocation was appropriate, again bearing in mind the age and maturity of the child.

So what about school refusers and truants? Will you be sending a ‘properly trained’ EWO round to find out their wishes with regard to being sent to school? You HYPOCRITES! You don’t care what the wishes and feelings of any child are, you just want another way to get as many as possible shipped back off to school. If that means taking them aside and asking leading questions “don’t you miss all you old friends from school?” or just lying about what they’ve said, then so be it.