Wednesday 24 February 2010

The Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009

This new piece of legislation seems to be the subject of quite a few myths. On television and in newspaper articles, two claims are still being regularly made; local authorities will have a right to enter people's homes and that they will be able to speak to children alone. It is true that both these ideas were suggested by Graham Badman, but there was never the slightest chance of their becoming law. Let's have a look at the reality

Myth 1 Local authorities will be required to visit homes

Reality
Here is what the bill actually says;

"Arrangements made by an authority under this section shall include
arrangements made with a view to their—
visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or
at least one of the places) where education is provided to the
child."

Unless parents are actually intent upon confrontation, the easiest thing to do will be to arrange to meet in the local library, on the grounds that this is, "one of the places where education is offered to the child". Some parents do this already, so the bill will not make any changes. The very fact that they have included the words, "at least one of the places" suggests that this is going to be fine.

Myth 2 Our children will be interviewed alone

Reality
The bill says;

Arrangements made under subsection (3) may, unless the child or a
parent of the child objects, provide for a meeting with the child at
which no parent of the child or other person providing education to
the child is present


In other words, this will only happen if both you and your child are happy for it to happen.

Myth 3 The bill will not become law

Reality
When this bill was introduced in the Queen's speech in November, the government knew perfectly well that an election would have to be called by June this year. They took that into account when announcing their programme. The Children, Schools and Families Bill has raced through the Commons with no changes at all to the bits on home education. It will probably clear the Lords in the same way. If it does not do so, then there may be a bit of haggling during the so called "Wash up". Some of the bills introduced in the Queen's speech would then need to be dropped. It is unlikely that the government will want to ditch a bill about improving schools . More likely is that they will abandon some of the less important stuff such as the Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill or the Digital Economy Bill. The Conservatives are far more anxious to prevent the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill from getting onto the Statute Book, especially now that it includes a provision for the a referendum on AV. At a pinch, the government could force the thing through anyway in one day.


Something which I find a little odd is that home educators do not seem at all interested in any other aspect of this bill. They are very keen to sabotage it if possible and I get the impression that hardly anybody is bothered whether or not the proposals contained in it will actually be good for children. I am thinking of the reform of the primary curriculum following Jim Rose's review, the new pupil parent guarantees, the reform of schools, annual parent satisfaction surveys, wider reporting of proceedings in family courts and so on. One gets the impression that some home educators think that this bill is all about home education, but this is of course nonsense; that takes up a tiny part. Yet these other measure are at least as important for most parents, even home educating parents. I say that because very few children never attend school at all. It is quite possible that if the education system changed a little, fewer parents would feel the need to deregister their kids. From that point of view, the CSF bill is of interest to all parents.

23 comments:

  1. Simon says Unless parents are actually intent upon confrontation, the easiest thing to do will be to arrange to meet in the local library, on the grounds that this is, "one of the places where education is offered to the child". Some parents do this already, so the bill will not make any changes. The very fact that they have included the words, "at least one of the places" suggests that this is going to be fine.

    What if the child and parent is quite clear that he does not want to meet some one from his/her LA? then what happens i belive a school attendance order? taking NO account of the child's view? that cant be right? they could be many reason why a child /parent may not want a meeting it could be becuase it is the same LA that sided with the school.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Unless parents are actually intent upon confrontation, the easiest thing to do will be to arrange to meet in the local library, on the grounds that this is, "one of the places where education is offered to the child"."

    Maybe you should let the DCSF know that this is the case because they seem to be under the impression that it needs to be the place where education mainly takes place. I don't think any of us could argue that the main place education takes place is the library. Remember also that the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to issue Statutory Guidance which is legally binding. How difficult would it be to specify that the "place (or at least one of the places)" should be the main place of education? Maybe the DCSF know more about this than we do?

    http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/DCSFpositionstatement19Jan.pdf

    "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."

    Simon writes (about seeing the child alone),
    "In other words, this will only happen if both you and your child are happy for it to happen."

    So you don't think that a refusal would count as non-cooperation and grounds for refusal or revocation of registration? The bill states that registration can be revoked "by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E". Section 19E includes the part about seeing the child alone. Hardly a free, pressured choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *pressured*

    should read, un-pressured

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simon, you make a valid point about the rest of the bill. Most of it is quite horrible in my opinion, but nobody seems to care very much. None of the school-related sections affect me or my children, so the focus of my interest is on Schedule 1, which will be scrapped in the very likely event of the bill ending up in the wash-up.

    As for the rest of it, much is likely to remain in place, but those who are affected (i.e. the vast majority of parents) seem to be completely unaware of it anyway. It could be that they simply don't care I suppose, but that seems like an unfair assumption.

    It could be that they trust the government to educate their children as they see fit. That must be true to some extent, since they send their children off to school every day, but since even our virtually homogeneous 'choice' of political parties have very different approaches, they surely cannot agree with them all.

    Perhaps, unlike the naive home educators, they realise that regardless of what people think (and regardless of proper process, scrutiny or debate) this government will force through whatever it likes and therefore they don't waste their time and energy on it.

    Teachers are directly affected as well, not least by the ever growing list of ways that every minute detail of what and how they teach are regulated by bureaucrats. Although they complain about it a lot, I guess their options are either to leave the profession (or at least the state sector) or do what they're told.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that the bill is still likely to pass through (but hope otherwise); as you say, it's one that the government regards as important (not to mention being driven by Ed Balls - I've no doubt he wants "improvement of schools and educational standards" on his CV).

    I can't speak for other home educators but I'm well aware of other elements of the bill; I suspect that these - added to the impact of decades of schools legislation - will ultimately contribute to the root cause of many decisions to opt-out of the school system.

    But the thing that I find more odd than any home educators' lack of interest in the rest of the bill is the lack of interest from parents more widely - but perhaps that shouldn't be surprising given that the great dumbing-down that happened around the time of GCSEs has already fed through to produce a significant fraction of today's parents and teachers.

    That's not to say that things were particularly good before, but GCSE marks a step change and acceleration in the decline of school education.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "but GCSE marks a step change and acceleration in the decline of school education."

    Amen to that, Anonymous, Amen to that! Accept only the genuine IGCSEs for your children and beware inferior imitations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One of the points I was making Ciaran is that the other parts of the bill will also affect home educators. You are right, hardly anybody seems to be even aware of this bill, apart of course from home educators and Catholics! I thought it worth mentioning because most children who are home educated seem to spend at least some time at school. If things really did improve in schools, then perhaps fewer children would be dergistered due to problems. Perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The question is, do the 'improvements' in this bill (or any of the many education bills introduced by this government) even attempt to address the kind of problems that lead to de-registration? I don't think so. Some policies (SEN inclusion for example) have directly led to more of it, I'm sure.

    The only way my children will spend any time in school ever is if at some point THEY decide they want to attend, which seems unlikely but you never know, or if one decides to become a teacher when they grow up. That seems even more unlikely. I've heard of plenty of teachers that decide to home educate their children, but who ever heard of a home educated teacher?

    Regarding GCSEs (yes, IGCSEs look much better), I have a mixture of real O-Levels and GCSEs, although all taken at the same time. That probably gives away my age.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I've heard of plenty of teachers that decide to home educate their children, but who ever heard of a home educated teacher?"

    - funnily enough I do know a couple.....and a suprising number of child care students (I think you would expect that a child centred homoe education would put you off working in a formal child care setting, but obviously not!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Graham Badman Just been on BBC News 24 using poor Khyra Ishaq to further his anti-family, anti-home education agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another Anonymous wrote:
    "Graham Badman Just been on BBC News 24 using poor Khyra Ishaq to further his anti-family, anti-home education agenda."

    The timing is remarkable; nice soundbites to quell the Lords. I wonder how long the trial would have lasted if the manslaughter plea had not been accepted. It would be interesting to unpick that particular decision and the players that influenced it.

    Personally, I think the murder charge should have been pressed and tested in front of a jury - possibly leaving manslaughter for the people in Birmingham social services that had every opportunity to save that poor child. No chance of that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that both you, Simon and the various anons are barking up the wrong tree here... I am sure that M F-W oppostion to the Bill are motivated solely by his commitment to home ed and educational freedom, just are yours, Simon - you both happen to see things from opposite points of view, but I can't see monetary motivations for either view point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually above comment should have been on the bottom of the previous post - still half asleep!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are right, Julie. I wasn't seriously suggesting that this was the case, only pointing out that there was at least as much chance that it was so in Mike Fortune-Wood's case as it is in my own.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't think anyone said that you were motivated by monetary considerations, they just asked if you would make any money from increased monitoring. For instance, with your experience in going out and helping families of disabled children (I think?), your new book and your pro-legislation and inspection views, would you be a candidate for the position of home education inspector/supervisor or advisor on home education to LAs, for instance?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is all completely mad, Anonymous. I am busy enough as it is, without scouting around for extra work! Most of the local authorities with whom I come into contact can't stand me anyway. However, I shall make a longer post about the implications of financial gain, both for me and other people in the world of home education. Otherwise, the sort of rumour you are trying to start will probably get off the ground. I have not forgotten the time that people on the Internet were telling each other that I was a colleague of Graham Badman! I can see that I shall have to act to put a stop to this sort of speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am not trying to start a rumour. Someone else asked you if you would make any money as a result of the changes. I just argued that it is a legitimate question to ask anyone campaigning for legislation that touches on areas in which they work. You earn money from writing about home education and the need for tighter regulation so it seems a reasonable question. You have answered the question so why do you feel the need to twist the question and portray yourself as a victim of persecution?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Do I really sound like a victim of persecution? This is a strange idea which had not occurred to me before! I thought I sounded like a man who knew how certain home educators spend a large part of their time online traducing those who disagree with them and found this a little irritating.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, you sounded like a man who didn't like the direction the conversation was going in and turned it around to make himself the victim. Do you think it's illegitimate to question the motives of someone who campaigns on an issue connected with one of the ways in which they earn money?

    ReplyDelete
  20. As I said, Mike Fortune-Wood campaigns on an issue which earns him money. Would it be legitimate to question his motives? You are asking hypothetical questions about what might happen if I were to earn money by working with councils around home education. I have never done this and do not intend to do so. Mike Fortune-Wood does this regularly and is well paid for his services. If the law changed, he might have to stop. He therefore has a financial interest in the law remaining unchanged; an issue for which he is campaigning.

    The real question is, "Is that any of my business?" The answer is of course, "No, it's got nothing to do with me." Similarly, my campaigning and financial affairs are only of concern to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If Mike were campaigning for legislation that would limit the freedom of others to provide an education they consider suitable for their child then yes, I would ask him if he would benefit financially if it went through. As it is he isn't and as far as I can see the last time he ran a LA course was in 2007 anyway. Of course you are free to refuse to answer questions but I still maintain that they are legitimate questions for anyone likely to be adversely affected by the new legislation to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry, this exchange has been going on for so long that I've rather lost track of it! What questions have I refused to answer? I do not work for a local authority and have no plans to do so in the future even if the law on home education changes, but I don't see that it is anybody's business but my own. What exactly is it that you are asking me?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Sorry, this exchange has been going on for so long that I've rather lost track of it! What questions have I refused to answer?"

    I didn't say that you had refused to answer. You said, "Similarly, my campaigning and financial affairs are only of concern to me." and I agreed that you are obviously free to answer or not answer questions. I had noticed that you had answered the question.

    I suggested that it is legitimate to ask questions of someone campaigning for legislation if that legislation is linked to sources of income for that person. I asked if you thought it legitimate to question someone about their motivations in this situation. This was in response to your indignation that anyone should presume to question you about any monetary consideration you might have with regard to the current legislation.

    You also asked me if I thought it would be legitimate to question Mike FW in a similar situation and I replied that I thought it would. Clear?

    ReplyDelete