One of the great bones of contention between local authorities and the home educating parents who live in their areas, is the extent to which parents can be expected to supply information to those charged with monitoring elective home education. I want to look at extracts from two actual documents submitted to a local authority which requested information about the education being provided to home educated children. Here is the first one, which was sent in by the parents of a fourteen year old girl;
" English
In English literature the focus this year has been very much on the twentieth century. Sophie has read a variety of novels, poetry and short stories by twentieth century writers in English; Evelyn Waugh, Vladimir Nabokov, Christopher Isherwood, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost, E.M. Forster and James Joyce, to mention but a few. A favourite author is Terry Pratchett and Sophie attended a lecture by him. Visits to the theatre have also been largely limited to this period. The new RSC production of The Crucible was much enjoyed as was another production of this same play at the E15 Theatre School. Sophie saw the Beckett Centenary revival of Waiting for Godot at the Barbican. She has also seen Priestley’s An Inspector Calls and also When we are Married, by the same author, Accidental Death of an Anarchist by Dario Fo and Suddenly last Summer by Tennessee Williams. In February this year she saw Peer Gynt, by Ibsen and the new production of The Dumb Waiter by Pinter. Studies in literature have of course not been limited to the English scene. Waiting for Godot led to an exploration of the Theatre of the Absurd, which in turn led naturally to Existentialism and the reading of Sartre and Camus. Where possible, studies in literature have been related to other areas of the curriculum. For instance The Crucible led to an examination of the phenomenon of McCarthyism and the Cold War in history. Reading Isherwood similarly led to Sophie’s seeing the new production of Cabaret in the West End. Over the course of the year Sophie has attended two week long drama courses at the E15 Theatre School. She has also acted at the Stratford Festival. Creative writing has not been neglected. Sophie has produced many poems, short stories and other material over the last year. She has joined a creative writing course associated with a local college and she attends this weekly. One of her sonnets and a couple of other pieces appeared in an anthology produced by this group. One of these poems also appeared in a magazine. She belongs to a reading group at the local library. "
This of course, is just the sort of thing that local authority officers love. It tells them what the child is doing and they can, in the course of conversation, draw the child out about her interests. They can be reasonably sure that this fourteen year old is working to at least the level which she would be were she to be at school and they can rest assured that here is a child who is receiving a full time education, suitable to her age and aptitude. Of course, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies, which is why they will want to visit the home and speak to the child. It shouldn't take long to see whether she really has done all the things listed in the report. It has to be said that such detailed reports are fairly rare. Far more common is something like this, sent by the parents of an eleven year old boy;
"Our approach to Zach's education is in the main opportunity based, child led and very flexible. It is impossible to provide a timetable or to specify in advance which activities we will shall be undertaking.
We work to keep a good balance between child led, informal learning and a more directed approach. In general, it is our aim to facilitate learning through Zach's interests rather than artificially to contrive situations to reach pre-determined outcomes. We are always vigilant for any gaps which should arise in our provision and ready, willing and able to make the necessary adjustments to fill them."
It goes on for four pages in this vein; I shall not weary the reader with the full text! Now, what's wrong with this picture, boys and girls? Well for one thing, it is quite impossible to say whether or not the child concerned is in fact receiving an education. He may be. On the other hand he may not be. Can he read? We are not told. Does he study history? Couldn't say. Will he sit GCSEs? No idea. This is quite a cunning move, because the local authority cannot really say that the child appears not to be receiving a full-time education suitable to his age and ability. This makes it hard for them to consider issuing a School Attendance Order. If the family continue to refuse a visit or give further information, then matters have reached an impasse.
This sort of waffle, frequently based upon an educational philosophy found on the Internet, is very common. It is infuriating for those monitoring the education because it does not really say anything at all. The child might, for all that anybody knows to the contrary, be a child prodigy. He may equally well be little better than a congenital idiot. One of the reasons that local authorities are irritated by documents like this is that it seems to be verging on bloody-mindedness to refuse to tell others what your child is capable of, what he is studying, how he is achieving. Why would anybody wish to conceal these things, either from a local authority officer or anybody else?
It is this which has been one of the driving forces behind the move to define a "suitable education". Local authorities wish for a rough guide which they can use to check if children are achieving well, falling badly behind, have special educational needs or just in need of a little extra help. Some people, and I am certainly one of them, cannot see why parents wish to be so secretive about their children's accomplishments.
Just to clarify, who is charged with monitoring home education?
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Now, what's wrong with this picture, boys and girls? Well for one thing, it is quite impossible to say whether or not the child concerned is in fact receiving an education. He may be. On the other hand he may not be."
If the LA cannot decide if appears to them that the child is not receiving a suitable education (as a result of the information received so far), they are entitled to ask for more information. This LA 'right' to ask for further information was established in case law by Donaldson. If they are still do not know they should issue a the formal notice requiring the parents to satisfy them within a specified time. Nothing you say above gives any reason that this process could not be followed in your second example. It's all there in section 437 of the 1996 Education Act.
"437. - (1) 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, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.
(2) That period shall not be less than 15 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
(3) If—
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education, and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school,
the authority shall serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a “school attendance order”), in such form as may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in the order."
Ian Dowty explains how he believes this process should work in practice according to current laws here, http://www.home-education.org.uk/consultations-s437.htm.
It is perfectly true that the local authority can serve a School Attendance Order and that they rarely do this. I shall be looking at the reasons for this in the next few days.
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>>Some people, and I am certainly one of them, cannot see why parents wish to be so secretive about their children's accomplishments. <<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteBecause it's none of their business.
We put up with pointless, meddling visits and wrote reports like the first one you quoted for a few years. Then, we moved county and were blissfully free from contact with the next irrelavent LA. Isn't that a lot like your own experience?
It's also none of the LA's business what I feed my children or what I buy them to wear or allow them to watch on tv.
Personally, I'd prefer it if all British babies were breastfed for at least a year because the evidence shows increased likelihood of serious disease for those who are fed artificial food. But I'm not about to support a law which forces mothers to do so.
Parents must be trusted to take care of their children's needs - physical, nutritional, educational, whatever, unless it becomes obvious that they can't be trusted to do so.
My neighbour's boy has sausage and chips for tea E.V.E.R.Y single night. Should we pass a law insisting this child have regular blood tests to ensure he's being offered the right vitamin rich food? Part of me (the controlling part) would secretly really like this because I believe this boy is being seriously disadvantaged, but I would stop short at supporting a law which would impose the same kind of registration and monitoring of his nutritional intake as you support regarding education. It would be a serious erosion of parental responsibility.
Lots of us do a less than perfect job of parenting. Some of us do a less than perfect job of home educating too. Life in a modern western democracy still allows us to be less than perfect. Thank God.
Mrs Anon
I'll stand by for a post from you on breastfeeding tomorrow ;-)
"Some people, and I am certainly one of them, cannot see why parents wish to be so secretive about their children's accomplishments."
ReplyDeleteAgree completely with your comments Mrs Anon. Plenty of people are house proud but wouldn't be happy to have their home visited and their housekeeping skills examined and measured on a regular basis. Why would we or our children want to have a much larger proportion of our day-to-day lifestyle and family interactions, that are far more personal than our housekeeping or food preparation skills, examined in this way? Why would anyone want to display themselves in this way to strangers? Probably a bit of a strange question to someone who took his young daughter onto a discussion show to be verbally attacked by strangers in front of a TV audience though.
As per Mrs Anon, my plain and simple answer is that it's none of their business. You may well say it's their business due to some "Every Child Matters" subsection Q paragraph 4, etc, etc, but in real life it's still none of their business as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a very rare thing indeed for a parent to be, as you put it, secretive about their child's accomplishments - in fact, I've yet to meet a parent who will pass up an opportunity to go on about such things endlessly to anyone who will listen. Unless, of course, that anyone is a government official with a clipboard.
Anonymous, you are an idiot. I did not take my daughter onto a television programme to be attacked by strangers, but because Education Otherwise published an appeal from the production team for a home educated teenager to appear on a programme about home education.
ReplyDeleteYou are right CiaranG that most parents go on endlessly about their children and their achievements. I am just a little puzzled as to why they should clam up when a local authority officer is around. Parents of schooled children rave on about their children to anybody who will listen. I am just curious to know why home educating parents don't do the same.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Anon, I shall not be making a post about breatfeeding. It is, I fear, beyond my competence to do so. However, I cannot resist a thoroughly tacky anecdote on the subject..... When my youngest daughter was a baby, my wife expressed a lot of milk so that I could also give feeds at night. On night, we had friends round and discovered that we had run out of milk. We used some of my wife's expressed milk in their coffee and have never told them from that day to this. We wondered later if it made them into some kind of cannibals?
ReplyDelete"Anonymous, you are an idiot. I did not take my daughter onto a television programme to be attacked by strangers, but because Education Otherwise published an appeal from the production team for a home educated teenager to appear on a programme about home education."
ReplyDeleteAre you really that Naïve?
So naive as to wish to portray home education as a viable alternative to schooling in twenty First Century Britain and counter some of the foolish misconceptions current about it? Yes.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>Mrs. Anon, I shall not be making a post about breatfeeding. It is, I fear, beyond my competence to do so.<<<<<<<<<<
ROTFLOL.
>>>>We wondered later if it made them into some kind of cannibals?<<<<
I think it makes them mammals.
Mrs Anon
You have posted two " actual " documents submitted to a local authority. ( or so you say )
ReplyDeleteWith reference to a sense of common decency, should " actual " documents submitted to a local authority be posted on the internet. I think not.
Well of course the copyright remains with the person who wrote the thing, whether or not it is subsequently sent to the local authority or anybody else. As a matter of courtesy, all that is needed is to check with the author that he or she does not object to being quoted.
ReplyDelete"So naive as to wish to portray home education as a viable alternative to schooling in twenty First Century Britain and counter some of the foolish misconceptions current about it? Yes."
ReplyDeleteOn the Wright Stuff? You must be very Naïve. Do you think you succeeded? The seemed to introduce an criticism against HE that I've not heard elsewhere. Glad not too many people have viewed the video, it might give Badman etc new ideas for lines of attack.
I am guessing that you do not know that I appeared on this programme with Ann Newsome's partner, Roarke? Education Otherwise were keen to do this and also wanted a teenager who had been home educated. Did you actually watch the programme, or have you relied upon the Youtube clip?
ReplyDeleteI did know this yes. But how would this improve my view on your actions? Did Roarke bring his child? If so, I would feel the same about his actions as I do yours. Was he responsible for your daughter and her safety? If EO asks people to do something, does that make it an acceptable thing to do? What are you suggesting by this comment?
ReplyDeleteI am suggeting that your comment made above;
ReplyDelete"someone who took his young daughter onto a discussion show to be verbally attacked by strangers in front of a TV audience though"
questioned my motive in appearing on this programme. I was pointing out that I had done so because Education Otherwise were keen for a home educated teenager to appear on it. I cannot imagine what my daughter's safety has to do with the case. There is a good deal of public misunderstanding about home education. A daytime television show like this, which is watched by many ordinary people, seemed a good opportunity to show people that home educated teenagers are just like anybody else. I really cannot see what you are driving at here. Did you actually watch the programme? Is so, do you think that the "Home Education Inspector" should have been given free rein to voice the standard view about the subject?
I didn't question your motives. I suggested that someone who doesn't mind appearing with their child on national TV to be questioned about their lifestyle on a programme like The Wright Stuff might well have trouble understanding why others do not want to display their home and family to a stranger from the LA and for them to question their children. You answered that you didn't take your child on the programme in order to be verbally attacked by strangers which was when I suggested you were naïve. Admittedly I don't make a habit of watching these programmes but they all seem to thrive on controversial, upsetting questions and if someone becomes angry or upset as a result, so much the better. You may not have taken part so that it would happen, but it seems likely to happen and you still went ahead (unless you were naïve enough not to have watched previous shows and recognised the pattern) Not many people would appear on a show like this with their children, which may shed some light on why your happiness to accept home visits puts you in the minority too.
ReplyDelete