I have no particular desire to encourage any parents to frustrate the provisions of the proposed Children, Schools and Families Bill. I cannot however refrain from pointing out that the situation for those who wish to home educate without notifying their local authority remains completely unchanged. The guidance to the new regulations says;
"The new section requires a local authority in England to make arrangements to identify two categories of children of compulsory school age in their area. The first category is that consisting of children who are not home-educated, are not registered pupils at a school, and are not receiving suitable education provided under section 19 of the EA 1996 (alternative provision). Children within this category will be those who are not receiving any education at all, or who are receiving education under section 19 that for some reason is not suitable. The second category is that consisting of home-educated children who are not on the authority’s home education register. "
In other words, all the responsibility for tracking down and registering home educated children rests solely and completely with the local authorities. I cannot think that it will prove beyond the wit of some to evade notice, although with ContactPoint this will prove increasingly difficult. The question of why any parent would be so desperately anxious to avoid meeting with an officer from the local authority is another question entirely........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Becoming known the LA has been inevitable with ContactPoint on the way. It's asking for permission to home educate that most HE parents object to.
ReplyDeleteThe situation has not changed. When a home educator becomes known to a local authority at the moment they register them automatically. This happens even if the parents choose not to complete any of the forms they are sent. Depending upon the LA, they may well want to come and visit after that. We don't have to ask for permission now and won't even if the Bill is passed as it stands.
ReplyDeleteWell, Simon, perhaps some people have no interest in meeting "an officer from the local authority" because they regard such people as having no authority.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, the Minister for "Education" in the Australian Capital Territory, where I live, is a childless homosexual. I can imagine the fun and games that would ensue should one of *his* minions with a death wish attempt to challenge *my* authority to parent a child I brought into the world.
Still, it hasn't happened in seven years and I don't suppose it ever will. Those self-styled "authorities" would have better things to do with their limited time and energy, I'm sure.
That's a perfectly reasonable point. I am just saying that the situation will not change substantially as a result of the new Children, Schools and Families Act. I know that many people don't want any interference in their lives; I don't think it is about to increase though.
ReplyDeleteAh but look, Simon.
ReplyDeleteFrom the explanatory notes here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/008/en/10008x-b.htm#index_link_36
<<134. The result of the amendments to section 437 is that, if a child in the area of a local authority in England appears to the authority to be being home-educated, but is not on their home education register (and has not applied to go on the register), a school attendance order will be served - provided that the authority considers that it is expedient for the child to attend school (new subsection (3A) of section 437 of the EA 1996, as inserted by paragraph 5(6) of Schedule 1.) In considering for this purpose whether it is expedient that an unregistered home-educated child should attend school, an authority is to disregard the unregistered home education being provided to the child (new subsection (3B) of section 437). But they may consider other matters, for example whether alternative provision should be made for the child under section 19 of the EA 1996.>>
But no, of course I'm being entirely irrational, that's all just fine and dandy then.
And maybe people don't want to meet with their LA because they believe that their children are their responsibility, not the states, and don't wish to live with state interference in their lives. My parents brought me up to believe that I was responsible for what went on in my life, and now I have brought children into the world, I am responsible for them too. We need people in this country to look after themselves better. Frankly we don't have the money to nanny each and every one of us (who nannies the nannies?). A responsible govt, like a responsible parent, would be encouraging citizens to take more responsibility for themselves, not less. If it did that, it could concentrate what little resources it has left on those who really are in need of support.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've read the notes which you quote Louise. As I said, the issuing of a School Attendance Order will bring the matter to a magistrates court. If they are satisfied there that the child is receiving a suitable education, then they can throw the case out. This happens now and will I am sure happen also after the passage of the new law. The bits above are all duties of the local authority; anything they try will have to be tested in the courts. I can see a few test cases coming here and probably appeals all the way up to Europe. Frankly, I think most LAs will have more to worry about than this and it will be a matter of compromise, as it usually is now. I don't know you well enough to say whether you are prone to irrational fears, as you seem to believe. What does your husband think?
ReplyDeleteI find this section particularly alarming.
ReplyDelete" Subsection (5) of new section 19F gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations about the specific actions that a local authority should take in connection with revocation, or proposed revocation. The regulations may (subsection (6)) include provision about matters that local authorities should and should not take into account when considering revocation."
So basically they will have a free hand to decide who can and can't register without further debate in parliament.
And he wonders why so many people remain anonymous in his blog comments!
ReplyDelete"Yes, I've read the notes which you quote Louise. As I said, the issuing of a School Attendance Order will bring the matter to a magistrates court."
ReplyDeleteBut if the law introduces Statutory Guidance the magistrates will have to abide by it too. This guidance can be used to decide what can be taken into account when considering revocation. What is there to stop them from stating in the SG that the NC must be followed?
BTW, I thought you were a Conservative Simon? You seem to have more in common with Labour ATM. The Conservatives have said that they are against compulsory registration.
ReplyDeleteAnd how does this really help with the problem of prosecution avoiding parents of truants, the problem to which LAs appear to think Badman is the answer? The LA official I spoke to yesterday said they simply did not bother apply for SAO for those children. Why ever not? It seems that they just do not use the powers they currently have. I don't see how the Badman recommendations will help with that, because those children will be already well known to the LA. We are walking into a situation where you can have a SAO slapped on your children for simply wanting to be an independent, responsible human being. So no, I don't think I'm being irrational in fighting the proposed legislation.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it Simon. You decided to home educate your child because you didn't think anyone else would 'do it properly' and yet you seem to suspect anyone's motives in wanting to remain immune from judgement from the people who commission the sort of education you felt wasn't good enough for your daughter!
The truth is Louise, that I never take much notice of other people's opinions. When Essex County Council sent somebody round once a year, the person would always make a few fat-headed suggestions which I ignored. The real aim of their visit was not education. They knew and so did I that my daughter was getting a far better education than she would have done in the local comprehensive. The purpose of the first visit was to check that I was not a complete loony, making my daughter keep house for me or abusing her. It is not always possible to tell this in the course of an hour, but often you can observe enough. The subsequent visits were just so that they could keep their records updated. I had no objection to any of this, why should I? I have no idea what their judgement was of me; not very favourable I should imagine. I simply cannot see why anybody should not do the same.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the reason that they do not apply for SAOs against a lot of truants is that these kids, by removing themselves voluntarily from the school, save the LA the trouble of excluding them, which in any case looks lousy on the records. They make a nuisance of themselves in class, so everybody is pleased if they stay on the streets.
Well ultimately, although it sounds like it could be a potential trouble for us, the lack of school places, and what to do with 50k or so children who don't want to be in school doesn't really bear thinking about from a headmasters point of view.
ReplyDeleteEsp if the new 'guarantees' in the bill get through, and we can all start suing the schools for not giving our children the 1 to 1 tuition the bill is talking about for schools.
It's a complete mess for everybody in my opinion.
I'm glad I'm not a head teacher, because I think the changes are far worse for schools, than they are for home edders, and even for us, they're not good.
@Louise: "We need people in this country to look after themselves better."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely; in effect, more autonomous adults.
@Simon: "The truth is Louise, that I never take much notice of other people's opinions."
That's fine Simon, but yet you wish to impose your opinion on others, for instance in opposing autonomous education.
I most certainly do not wish to impose my opinion on others! I think that registration of home educators is a good idea, whatever methods they are using. I have seen nothing in the new bill which would target autonomous educators any more than anybody else. I can disagree with what others think without wishing to impose my views upon them.
ReplyDelete@Simon:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I've misunderstood; are you saying that you have no wish to see any further regulation of home educators? Are you happy for home educators (including autonomous educators) to go about their business without interference?
No, I'm not saying that. I actually believe it's a good and prudent move for a local authority officer to meets parents when they begin to home educate. I also think it is a good idea to hear what the parents plan to do as regards their child's education. As far as the actual form of the education is concerned, whether it is completely autonomous of highly structured, I don't think that is the LA's concern. As long as there is an intention to provide an education and that is genuinely the case, I think that is enough.
ReplyDelete"I think that registration of home educators is a good idea, whatever methods they are using."
ReplyDeleteThey don't need new legislation to achieve this though. ContactPoint will achieve this if registration is all that's needed.
@Simon: You said that you do not wish to impose your opinion on others. You tell us you believe that it's a "good and prudent move..." etc., but do you believe that this should be imposed in law?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, an attempt is being made to move the topic under discussion from the proposed provisions of the new Children, Schools and Families Bill to my personal views on home education. I'm not sure how helpful this is.
ReplyDelete@Simon: I'm not asking about your personal views on home education (many of those are reasonably clear from your other writings), merely whether you think the proposed provisions of the new CSF bill should actually be imposed in law - or not.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your opinion on this and I think it's pertinent because, if I'm not mistaken in my reading of some of your early posts, you are employed in a capacity that is not a million miles from assessment of children.
Well, I am not employed in any capacity to assess children. I can't think where you gained that impression. I make home visits to the families of children with special educational needs. Not in order to assess them, but to find out what thye want and then act as advocate on their behalf to see that they get it. Some parents want to deregister their child from a special school in order to educate at home. I will help with this. others want their child to be given a place at a mainstream school rather than a special school. I will do this is that is what they want. Assessment does not come into it at all. I am unpopular with the LAs with which I deal because I aid parents to home educate. I still cannot see what my personal views have to do with this, I am trying to have an objective discussion.
ReplyDelete@Simon: Forgive my mistake - I thought I'd read something about a test that you administer in one of your early posts.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your experience as you describe it makes your opinion all the more interesting.
Your attempt at objectivity is laudable but objectivity in this entire affair is at best illusory; these remarks are not directed specifically at you, I'm simply saying that the proposed legislation is not driven by any objective reasoning and more widely, in politics and social pseudo-sciences, any hope of objectivity is like expecting a chimpanzee to practice affine geometry. It simply does not happen.