Educating Outside the Box

Statement of Educational Provision

Guidance will make it clear that the education statement should not be a significant burden on parents

I suspect your definition of ’significant’ and mine are going to be rather different.

and it will not require detailed curriculum or teaching plans. In the current guidelines tolocal authorities on home education we advise them that they may reasonably expect the provision of home education to include the following characteristics: “consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers…; recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations; opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences; access to resources/materials..”. These guidelines are well regarded by home educators and we would expect an education plan to contain these sorts of characteristics.

OK, so you include a list of ill-defined but unobjectionable characteristics. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop …

Regulations will set out the information needed in the statement and the form it should take.

… and there it goes. Again we run into some serious trust issues here. I don’t trust you and your unpublished regulations.

We envisage that the statement will contain three types of information. First, it must set out the educational needs of the child, and contain any relevant background information which affects the way education is structured and delivered. This may include information about special educational needs, any particular aptitudes the child has, such as sporting or musical ability, the child’s wishes (particularly for older children who may be preparing for employment), any issues affecting wellbeing, such as bullying, and refer to prior attainment at school or otherwise, and any assessment of potential if available.

And this is not going to be ‘a significant burden’?

The second type of information will be the educational philosophy or approach to be adopted. This might cover the degree of formality of education, any specific curricula that will be followed, or qualifications pursued.

OK I’ll grant that’s easy enough, just two words in fact. Presumably you won’t need me to explain what Autonomous Education means?

The third piece of information will be outline plans for the forthcoming year. We recognise this will be particularly difficult for new home educators who might like to submit provisional plans and update them at a later stage once they have explored the best approach that suits the family. For some families these plans will be well structured but for others adopting an autonomous approach they may be able to do no more than set out the range of opportunities that are available to their children, although – depending on our review of suitability – there may be broad parameters such as those set out by the recent Select Committee report - numeracy, literacy and breadth (see section on monitoring below).

And here we see the planned death of Autonomous Education.

We do not expect families to submit detailed curricula, nor to make detailed commitments in their plans. We anticipate that all plans will be open to change as new opportunities present themselves, and children develop new interests so we would expect local authorities to consider the plans flexibly in monitoring, recognising that home educators will want to fine tune provision to the opportunities available in their locality and the changing needs of their children.

So they’ve listened to us just enough to use our own words against us. Again none of this is actually in the bill and we must take it ALL on trust.

We envisage plans should cover around 2 sides of typewritten A4 paper as a very rough guide to the extent of detail that should be provided.

Envisage again.

Where local authorities have committed to provide support, we would expect this to be detailed in the education plan and for the quality and extent of that support to be part of the monitoring discussion at the end of the year

What support? There is NO FUNDING for support.

Section 19D provides that the registration period is annual beginning with the date on which the application for entry of the child’s details on the register is received by the local authority. There are no regulation making powers in this section. Guidance will make it clear that local authorities should make every effort to make it straightforward for parents to reregister if home education is continuing once the annual period of registration is close to an end. Parents should not be expected to submit a full reapplication if home education is continuing and most details are unchanged. The guidance will recommend that local authorities explore whether reregistration can be effected alongside monitoring if that accords with the wishes of the parents, as for many families that may be the simplest course of action. If this is not feasible, we would expect local authorities to contact home educating families 3-4 weeks before registration expires to confirm whether or not registration is to continue, and whether any details have changed. In particular local authorities should work with parents to see whether the existing education statement can be notated with minimal effort on the part of parents, and local authorities should explore whether this could be incorporated into the monitoring visit if that is the easiest approach for parents.

Whatever, by now most of us will have been refused our licenses anyway. I’ll leave my opinions on the monitoring visit for that section.

Section 19F sets out the specific circumstances in which registration can be revoked. Subsections (5) and (6) enable regulations to make provision about steps to be taken by a local authority in connection with revocation or proposed revocation and to make provision about matters that should or should not be taken into account in determining whether any of the revocation conditions are met or whether to revoke. Our main concern here is through the regulations to make sure that local authorities do not make arbitrary decisions, act reasonably and do not revoke registration if, for example, a parent makes a small administrative mistake, or if there is a misunderstanding about practical arrangements for monitoring.

We envisage that the regulations covering revocation will include the steps that local authorities must take when they are considering revoking registration, for example communicating by letter and telephone with parents at the last known address and giving parents a reasonable length of time to respond (possibly 2-3 weeks for example). Local authorities will need to bear in mind the arrangements of families who are mobile and make appropriate arrangements for these families so that they can maintain contact if the family is likely to return to the area in order to avoid repeated revocations and reregistrations. Guidance will make it clear that local authorities should at the point of registration ascertain whether any particular communication difficulties are likely to arise and how these might be overcome in order to accommodate families without a settled lifestyle, or who may spend extended periods at an address other than that at which they are registered. Parents will also have the right to appeal against a local authority’s decision to revoke registration.

39. We would expect the local authority to make comprehensive enquiries before revoking registration and to give home educating parents ample time to make representations if they believe the grounds for revocation are unreasonable. They should in particular take advice from appropriate experts before concluding education is unsuitable if it is conducted in accordance with a specific philosophy, from those with relevant SEN if that is a factor in any decision and with social services before revoking registration on welfare grounds. The local authority should also consider whether providing support would assist in the particular circumstances.

All this care and consideration, you’d almost want to believe it until you realise that the people they are talking about are the same ultra vires acting bullies who have been over-stepping their duties and making home educators’ lives miserable for years.

THE REGISTRATION SCHEME
The Register: Content and Application Process
Section 19A requires a local authority to keep a register of home educated children. Subsections (2) and (3) enable regulations to be made about the way in which local authorities will maintain and amend the register.

We envisage

Envisage [vb] (tr) 1. to form a mental image of; visualize; contemplate 2. to conceive of as a possibility in the future; foresee. It strikes me that the repeated use of this word by people who aren’t afraid to say ‘ensure’ when that isn’t even possible, is intentional. Envisage is vague, it makes no promises, no commitments, it’s just a picture they’ve dreamed up in their heads of how they would like, or maybe how they imagine we would like, the future to turn out. Personally I can envisage Ed Balls sulking on the opposition benches having failed to get himself elected leader of the Labour party and it’s a mental image that gives me some pleasure.

that regulations relating to the maintenance of the register will cover matters such as the local authority’s duty to keep the register up to date, making it clear that local authorities can keep the register in any format that is effective eg paper or electronic. The regulations will clarify that the register will not be publicly available and that access to the register must be restricted to people who need to inspect the register in order to gain information about a home educated child for the purposes of carrying out other functions of the local authority (for example in relation to children missing education or safeguarding) or else the monitoring or support of home education.

Oh yes because you and the local authorities have SUCH a good track record when it comes to keep children’s personal data secure. [cough ContactPoint]

We envisage

glorious summer days paddling in streams and climbing tress with a picnic on the grass and … oh sorry, got lost ‘envisioning’ there. Where were we? oh yes

that regulations covering maintenance and amendment of the register will require local authorities to accept information from parents in a manner that is least burdensome, for example in writing, by electronic means or by a telephone call.

Any limits on what we can write it on, or what languages it can be in?

They should also make provisions for allowing local authorities to make changes to the register where information other than from the parent suggests that the register needs amending – when the family moves house, for example without notifying the local authority. These provisions will ensure that where details are incorrect owing to an oversight by the parents, amendments to the register can be made by the local authority rather than the local authority having to consider revocation under 19F (1) (b) and a fresh application to register.

See how they pick an example which sounds reasonable and then allow the local authority the OPTION of not punishing the family by revoking their licence. Of course there will be lots of other information on the ‘register’ which might change.

Sections 19B and 19C provide that regulations will cover the manner in which the application will be made, what needs to be included in an application and the entry of a child’s details onto the register.
Manner in which the application will be made: Local authorities will decide how they want to populate and maintain the register, for example on line, in writing or in person; at the local authority’s offices, at a school or at a library or other public building. Guidance will say that in doing so they should take into account the views of home educators locally about how the process might work and operate on the principle that registration should be convenient for home educators. It would be best practice to agree arrangements through the consultative forum that Graham Badman’s report on home education suggested each authority should create.

But as always they can totally ignore our views and make the process as onerous and inconvenient as they like. Some will do so out of pure spite.

What is to be included in an application : Regulations will provide that applications for a child’s details to go on the home education register should include the child’s name, address and date of birth; gender; race; religion; special educational needs including whether or not the child is statemented; whether the child has any disability; the names and addresses of those with parental responsibility; other addresses the child has lived at over the past 5 years if of compulsory school age; contact telephone number(s) and email address; place of education, or where most education is carried out if different from the residential address; name of person providing the education if not the parents; details of any previous refusal of or revocation of a registration to home educate and details about the reasons for refusal and the local authority in whose area this refusal or revocation took place; details of any school attendance order served; name of any school that the child has been withdrawn from prior to being home educated. Parents may refuse to supply information such as race, religion and special educational needs but must supply the other information specified.

Why do they need previous addresses for the last 5 years? Email address, why will we HAVE to provide an email address? Not everyone HAS an email address, and yet you make providing one compulsory.

An application should be made within 20 days of the start of home education although there will be transitional provisions covering those parents who are already home educating who we propose should be given 3 months to come forward for registration once the relevant provisions in the Bill are commenced.

And to get our yellow stars sewn on.

Applications will also have to include a statement giving information about the child’s prospective education. Regulations supported by guidance will set out what should be included in this statement and the form it should take and more information on this document is provided at para 29 below. We envisage that it should be provided in written or electronic form as best suits the parents.

OK that’ll be AppleWorks 6 format then.

Regulations will also provide for flexibility around the provision of this statement, so that if a parent is unable to provide the statement with the initial application information (because for example they need more time or support from the local authority to prepare it) regulations will specify that a parent may give an undertaking to provide the statement within a period determinedby or in accordance with regulations which we envisage should not be more than three months after the date of application. Information such as names, addresses, contact details, previous history of home education registration and the statement of prospective education (or an undertaking to provide one) will be core information and if it is not provided the application will not be “in the prescribed manner” and the local authority will be unable to register that child. Guidance will make it clear that local authorities should work cooperatively with parents and should assist them in registering through ensuring that administrative errors in applications (eg dates that are inconsistent) are investigated and rectified promptly and in a manner that is not onerous to applicants.

Oh joy, more envisioning. Remember this is pie in the sky no commitment to anything language.

Local authorities will be able to specify a period, prescribed by or determined in accordance with regulations, within which an application to enter on their home education register the details of a child whose previous application has been refused or revoked, may not be made unless the authority is satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances that justifies an application being made within that period. We envisage that the local authority will have discretion to determine a period on a case by case basis not exceeding one year, within which no repeat application may be made. The period specified by the local authority should reflect the authority’s assessment of how long it will take for circumstances to change such that parents might reasonably expect that a renewed application would stand a reasonable chance of success.

One year? But no, there’s an ‘envisioning’ in that sentence, that’s not a commitment. Even a nice local authority with staffing and budget constraints will be inclined to make the reapplication period a long one and the upper limit isn’t fixed, it could be for life.

The regulations will also specify the information to be held on the register which is likely to include the child’s name, address and date of birth; names and addresses of those with parental responsibility; other addresses the child has lived at over the past 5 years if of compulsory school age; contact telephone number(s) and email address; place of education, or where most education is carried out if different from the residential address; any previous refusal of or revocation of a registration to home educate and details about the reasons for refusal and the local authority in whose area this refusal or revocation took place; name of person providing the education if not the parents; gender; race; religion; special educational needs including whether or not the child is statemented; and any disability.

Did they copy paste this document together, because they do seem to be repeating themselves a lot, virtually the same thing just 3 paragraphs back.

Information of a statistical nature such as gender, race, religion or special education needs will not be a requirement for registration although applicants will be encouraged to provide it in order that local authorities can provide appropriate training for staff, ensure that appropriate staff are selected to conduct monitoring, and in order to inform national policy

Pardon me for being picky, and I am opposed to the whole thing, but on what planet exactly are special education needs ‘information of a statistical nature’?

Where a family has more than one child that is being home educated, a separate application will be needed in respect of each child although local authorities should identify ways to simplify the registration process for families with several children, particularly where the details supplied in respect of each child are similar.

No shit Sherlock.

Registration of a child: Once an application has been made in the prescribed format the child must be registered unless one of the specific grounds for refusing the application set out under 19B is satisfied. There is therefore a presumption of registration unless one of the specified grounds is satisfied. The grounds are (broadly), previous refusal or revocation of a home education application; inaccurate or inadequate information; and welfare issues.

‘Broadly’ but the devil as they say, is in the details. As a reminder, this document exists to pull the wool over MP’s eyes and convince them that the bill is reasonable and proportionate.

The local authority will have a discretion to register (or refuse to register) where a previousapplication has been rejected, registration has previously been revoked, or a school attendance order has been served and is still in force.

Even where the previous rejection was for purely procedural reasons.

Regulations may make provision about matters that are or are not to be taken into account by an authority in making any decision not to register and what steps should be taken by a local authority in the process of making its decision.

So in other words the DCSF and whoever is then Secretary of State will have the power, without any parliamentary oversight at all to include absolutely anything they want as grounds for refusing registration. ANYTHING.

In relation to a decision to refuse to register on these grounds the regulations will make it clear that the grounds for refusal or revocation must be substantial to protect parents from arbitrary decisions or those with a purely administrative basis.

And I’m the Queen of Sheba.

In respect of the local authority discretion to refuse registration where registration has been previously refused or revoked we envisage that each case must be considered on its own merits.

Envisioned again which means local authorities will be left to their own devices.

The sorts of factors which might affect this are where there have previously been educational or welfare concerns but circumstances have now changed.

The local authority also has a discretion to register (or refuse to register) if it considers that material information provided by the parents is inaccurate or that material information relating to the application has not been disclosed.

Another massive opportunity for abuse and prejudice then.

Regulations will provide that the authority should consider whether to contact other local authorities, children’s services colleagues and/or schools if they think it is likely that they will have information that has a bearing on the application to home educate. Regulations will also specify that local authorities will not be required to accept another authority’s decision to refuse or revoke registration but can take it into account when receiving applications from home educators moving into their area. There are provisions in the legislation which will allow local authorities to share information amongst themselves relevant to home education registration decisions to ensure that families moving from place to place can register as quickly and efficiently as possible (19 H).

So if your local EHE inspector doesn’t like you there will be no escape, you will be marked for life.

Section 19B requires LAs to refuse registration where they consider that home education would be harmful to the child’s welfare.

Which some people think home education ALWAYS is.

Regulations and guidance will set out the sorts of circumstances in which this will or will not be appropriate and what steps local authorities will have to take in reaching any decision on a child’s welfare.

Never mind, I’m sure you’ll make it wide ranging and vague enough to allow absolutely anyone to be refused ‘registration’.

The sorts of circumstances where we envisage that local authorities may have to consider carefully whether in their view home education may be harmful to the child are, for example, where a child has a child protection plan which specifies that the child must attend school, or where the local authority considers that the child is a child in need (s17 Children Act) because they are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. This may include cases where there is a history of domestic violence, serious neglect, domestic chaos related to mental illness or addition, or other forms of child abuse. Local authorities may also decide that children who are the subject of a s47 Children Act enquiry may not be registered because of the circumstances that triggered the enquiry. We expect these cases to be very few in number with local authorities considering each case on its merits [and without making any general rule about particular types of case]. Parents refused registration will be informed of the grounds for this decision and will have the right to appeal against the decision to an independent panel.
Regulations will require local authorities to acknowledge applications for registration and to make a decision on registration within a reasonable period, possibly 20 working days. Local authorities may not make any charge for registration or monitoring.

So there will be an appeals process with an ‘independent’ panel. This wouldn’t be the same kind of ‘independent’ that Graham Badman was? Pardon me if I’m not exactly reassured by this ‘independent’ panel, I’d personally have preferred a court. Oh and not charging us to be licensed and monitored? As if all this wasn’t bad enough it actually crossed your minds that you might make us pay for our own oppression?

A New Approach

Not really, plenty of local authorities have been trying to pull this authoritarian control freak approach for years. If home educators weren’t so good at educating themselves it might have worked to.

Home education is a well-established and important part of our education system.

Good grief, can’t they manage to go one sentence without getting it wrong? Home education is NOT part of your education system, that’s the WHOLE POINT. Home educators have opted out or never even opted in to your education system.

England is and will remain under our proposals one of the most liberal countries in the developed world for parents who choose to home educate.

No, it IS one of the most liberal countries in the developed world (btw that is a GOOD thing) but your proposals will put an end to that and make it one of the most draconian, and please don’t mention Germany because the reasons for home education being illegal there are not something you want to admit to, even it they are dangerously near to the truth.

Our reforms will have minimal impact on home educators who are doing a good job -

Some people might give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this statement is the result of ignorance. I don’t think you can be THAT stupid so this is a LIE. You know damned well that your horrible bill will make a massive difference to home educators who are doing a good job, even an amazing job.

unlike many other countries, parents will be able to follow the wide range of different educational philosophies they currently adhere to, including autonomous learning.

LIE.

Home educated children will not have to follow the National Curriculum, take SATs tests or other public examinations. They will not have to observe school hours, days or holidays.

Like a mugger trying to convince you that they’re doing you a favour because they’re letting you keep your clothes and shoes.

For most home educators who already work harmoniously with their local authorities, the provisions in the Bill will bring little change on the ground.

This sentence isn’t at all clear. Are they saying that most home educators DO already “work harmoniously with their local authorities” and for them there will be little change? No, that can’t be right because if the figures they’re bandying around, 20,000 known, 70,000 total, are even remotely correct most home educators aren’t even known to their local authority. So it MUST be about the small minority of home educators who are both known to their local authority AND ‘work harmoniously’ with them. So in fact what they’re saying is that if you already do what your local authority wants, jumping through their hoops, accepting home visits etc. THEN there will be little change. Sorry, but SO WHAT?

However, when combined with our wider proposals, home educators will have much better access to support if their children have special needs, or want to attend college, or take public examinations.

Also SO WHAT? None of those proposals are in this bill. They will require significant funding which this bill will NOT provide. Significant funding at a time when public services are going to be cut. There will be no access to better support. In fact ‘better’ implies that some exists now!

There will also be funding to help local authorities provide support to home educators such as access to school libraries, music lessons, after school clubs and sports facilities.

LIE. There is NO FUNDING.

For the arrangements to be successful there needs to be co-operation between home educators and local authorities.

What arrangements? Arrangements for the non-existent support and services for which there is and will be NO FUNDING. Just how stupid do you think we are?!

They must recognise and respect each others’ responsibilities. Local authorities must respect the right of parents to decide the educational approach of their child,

Well that would be nice, but you’re really not helping.

and the current Bill reinforces the well established principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children, not the state.

No it doesn’t. It undermines it totally. Black is white again!

Home educating parents and their children should respect local authorities’ duty to ensure that every child in their area is being educated and assist them in discharging this duty in a way that is cost effective for the taxpayer.

Local authorities do NOT have such a duty. A nice touch here don’t you think that our children are now being told that they have to respect the local authority’s fictional duty, be good little girls and boys and cooperate.

As well as monitoring, our proposals envisage local authorities adopting a more supportive role to home educators in their area and homeeducators becoming more involved in shaping their local authority’s policies and practices that relate to home education.

So with no money to pay for this ’support’ and home educators justifiably upset you ‘envisage’ a world full of hearts and flowers and fluffy bunnies. Local authorities and home educators skipping hand in hand into a rose tinted sunset? What are you on?

Guidance will recognise that home educators and their children are a diverse group who are home educating for many different reasons. Many will be home educating because their child has not had a positive experience of school; others will have a philosophical preference for an educational approach which is very different from that offered in school. The local authority should approach monitoring from the perspective of collaboration and support, and make every effort to make arrangements for monitoring which are tailored to fit family routines.

Based on the contents of the bill and everything else we’ve seen, not to mention the past behaviour of many local authorities, excuse me if I find this wholly unbelievable.

For these reasons local authorities need to approach registration and monitoring with the widest possible perspective on what constitutes a ‘suitable and efficient’ education recognising that home educated children do not have to follow a prescribed curriculum, take tests or examinations, follow school hours or use any particular resources. There must be a focus on whether the home educated child is learning and making progress appropriate to their individual needs and aptitudes.

‘Progress’? Sorry, where did you pull that from? We are as parents obliged to provide a suitable education, our children are NOT obliged to make ‘appropriate progress’ whatever that is. Who I wonder will get to decide what progress is appropriate? I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that it won’t be the child or the parent.

Monitoring must also be carried out in a supportive way,

This feels like I should be able to call it an oxymoron.

with the LA listening to the family, and doing everything possible to respond to the reasonable requests of home educating families for support, bearing in mind the cost and efficiency of delivery.

And once again there is no funding. So however ‘reasonable’ (who decides) the request it will be refused because (repeat it with me boys and girls) THERE IS NO FUNDING.

Local authorities should establish mechanisms for engaging with representatives from all parts of the home educating community in establishing arrangements for monitoring.

So they will ask us just how we’d like to be oppressed? Lovely!

We would expect the home educating community to be involved with commissioning monitoring arrangements, support services and in providing training to local authority officials carrying out monitoring.

Dream on! Not going to happen. An EO rep has already told you that they won’t be helping you.

The regulations and guidance on registration and monitoring arrangements will recognise that the interests of the child are of paramount importance.

But it’s not in the bill is it? So that’s just another empty promise thrown into this document to fool anyone who doesn’t know your track record.

The focus of the arrangements in the Bill is on the education of the child.

Just not in a positive or helpful way.

Where in the course of monitoring safeguarding concerns come to light these will be addressed through existing child protection legislation which is entirely separate from the educational arrangements set out in the current Bill. The following statement outlines our proposals in more detail for the regulations and guidance.

I think I’ll take another break here.

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

Don’t worry, they are autonomously used workbooks and these phases don’t typically last long, but after doing 5 pages of Messy Maths this afternoon Audrey is now laying in bed looking through all her unused workbooks deciding what order she’ll do them in. Not bad timing with the generally miserable weather (today excepted) and lots of things stopping for the holidays. Having blogged this she’ll no doubt wake up in the morning and change her mind.

The same lies and spin we’ve come to expect.

Government response to petition ‘EHEreview’

The Government has always been clear that parents should retain the right to educate their children at home.

You’ve always been careful to be seen to be SAYING this but I’m afraid actions do speak louder than words.

Most home educators do an excellent job but we can’t afford to let any child slip through the net – in terms of their education, or safety.

Really? So you’ll be rushing off to do something about the THOUSANDS of state school attending children slipping through your metaphorical net then? Well, off you go then, don’t let us hold you up. Maybe you when you’ve got your own house in order we’ll feel like explaining to you why a society built on “if it saves just one child” isn’t one we want to be part of.

The recommendations set out by Badman are proportionate and reasonable.

Wrong and wrong. We’ve been through this how many times? Just repeating the lie isn’t going to work you know.

Most developed countries require registration to home educate, with the majority also having a process of systematic monitoring.

And this would be based on Badman’s VERY selective look at home education across the world? Where he ignored the ENTIRE United States of America, Australia, Scotland, New Zealand, in fact anywhere that might have an effective system or shock horror a more ‘liberal’ one. BTW, when did ‘liberal’ become a dirty word?

It is only right we afford our own children and young people the same checks and balances.

The same ‘checks and balances’ as what, or where? What a load of dingo kidneys!

The report found significant flaws in the current arrangements for ensuring that home educated children are receiving their educational entitlement and recommended strengthening the system.

The ONLY flaw in the ’system’ is the Local Authorities who ignore the existing guidelines and just do whatever they like. Anyway, what is this ‘educational entitlement’?

It also presented a persuasive case for providing home educators with greater support, particular those whose children have special educational needs.

Look everybody, the carrot. Put up with all this totalitarian BS and we’ll give SEN children the support that we SHOULD have provided when they were in school and the lack of which made their parents decide to home educate them in the first place.

The Government’s response to the Badman Report was published on 9 October and can be found on the Every Child Matters website (www.everychildmatters.gov.uk).

I’ve seen it. It’s RUBBISH!

It sets out our strong commitment to supporting home educators,

For ’supporting’ read ‘controlling’.

particularly those whose children have special educational needs and those who wish to have greater access to examination centres, courses at further education colleges, and a range of local services and activities.

Which they should have anyway without having their fundamental rights stolen.

Our proposals on a system of registration and monitoring of home education have been out for consultation and closed on 19 October.

For ‘registration’ read ‘licensing’.

We will take into account the responses to the consultation and any report arising from the Select Committee Inquiry into the review of home education when deciding how to proceed.

So, for example, you would NOT have the first reading of a bill including any of these recommendations BEFORE the Select Committee published its report? Oh hang on, YOU ALREADY DID! Lies we’ve come to expect, but making a promise AFTER you’ve broken it is moronic even by the pitifully low standards of this government.

Home education is a well-established and important part of our education system.

No, it’s NOT part of your system and for many home educators that is THE WHOLE POINT.

The Government is committed to support its continuation as a choice for parents.

Ha!

This, or something similar, is being sent out to the media in Surrey.

Surrey MPs petitioned on Home Education

All eleven Surrey MPs will receive a parliamentary petition (see below) this week from their constituents opposing the controversial Badman Report into elective home education. The petition also calls for the withdrawal of a new legislative measure based upon it. In early December over 300 MPs from around the country will submit the same petition to parliament. This will be by far the largest number of constituencies in history to present a single parliamentary petition.

The new legislation recommends a compulsory registration scheme that will cost an estimated £10.3m to £59.6m to implement. Home educating parents would, in effect, have to apply annually for a licence to teach their own children. One element causing great concern to parents is that the proposed legislation gives local education authorities the right to interview children alone without their parents being present. These and other regulations are being proposed despite all available evidence showing that home educated children are at less risk of abuse or inadequate education than the general population. As Lord Lucas of Crudwell & Dingwall pointed out in the House of Lords this week

“There is no evidence that this part of the Bill is needed; in fact, the reverse is very much the truth. We have just had the chief inspector saying that one-third of state schooling is unsatisfactory, while the true figures on home education say that maybe 1 per cent of home education is unsatisfactory. The phrase involving beams, motes and eyes comes to mind.”

The Badman report and its recommendations were the subject of an investigation by the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Select Committee which has yet to publish its report. However the written evidence submitted to it was overwhelmingly critical, highlighting incorrect and misleading statistics, selective and distorted use of quotes and unjustified discounting of legitimate research and expert opinion

“In my 30 odd years of professional life in education I have rarely encountered a process, the entirety of which was so slap dash, panic driven, and nakedly and naively populist.” Prof. James C Conroy

The results of a recent consultation on ‘registration’, monitoring and inspection which received over 5,000 responses are also unpublished, even though ministers assured home educators that it would be taken into account. Government ignoring of evidence which conflicts with its plans is not new, but rarely has it been so blatant.

This is not a matter of concern only for home educators as Schedule 1 takes away from ALL parents the fundamental right to decide how their children should be educated and places it in the hands of local government officials. Any parent wishing to home educate would be required annually to ask the LA for permission, allow council officers into their homes, let their children be interviewed alone and submit and adhere to detailed ‘education plans’ which the LA would have to approve. Clause 26 of the Bill conveniently gives this or any future government the power to issue guidance to local authorities about what they may demand of parents as part of this new regime. Home educators are naturally concerned that this constitutes a move to introduce the National Curriculum and full state control by the back door.

In addition to the obvious human rights issues involved, the proposed new legislation will mean that many children will live in constant fear of the subjective judgment of a complete stranger who will have the power to send them back to school against their own and their parents’ wishes. Some of these children have previously experienced profound problems in school, such as bullying, and may now face the constant fear of having to return.

Anyone wishing to support home educators in their opposition to this bill can still sign an online petition on the #10 site.

The wording of the petition:

To the House of Commons.

The Petition of persons resident in the parliamentary constituency.

Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people’s homes for local authority officials; further declares that the petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.