It has been suggested here recently that local authorities who are uneasy about a family who claim to be home educating, might issue a School Attendance Order or SAO for short. The first stage in this process is sending the parents a letter fifteen days before the issuing of an SAO. This is what the law says;
'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.'
In theory, having sent such a letter and not having had a satisfactory reply, the way is open for the local authority to issue the SAO. This will name a school to which the parents must send their child and if they fail to do so then the local authority can prosecute the parents for their child's non-attendance. In practice, this procedure is hardly ever used. Some home educators argue that because local authorities already possess this power and don't use it, then they do not yet need any new legal powers.
So what is the problem with School Attendance Orders? The problem is of course that before they even begin this process, it must appear to the local authority that, 'a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'. If the local authority hear of a child who is not at school, it can hardly appear to them that he is not receiving a suitable education. It would be foolish and wrong of them to assume that an education at home is less suitable for a child than one at school. They need a little more evidence than that to start legal action and quite rightly.
How are the local authority to gather evidence so that they can believe that a home educated child is not in receipt of a suitable education? Or for that matter, if they suspect that there is a welfare or safeguarding problem? They can write to the family asking for information of course. This actually happened to one of the parents who regularly comments here. His local authority went so far in the Summer of 2004 as to serve him a notice requiring him to satisfy them as to the education his son was receiving. He did not comply and six years later the authority has taken no action. The problem is that while it is quite easy to issue an SAO, enforcing it in court is another matter entirely. Some parents are bloody minded and refuse to provide any information at all to their local authority. This does not mean that their children are not being educated. Take them to court and they may well provide all the evidence needed to convince the magistrate. The crux of the matter is that the education being given to the child must look OK from the point of view of a reasonable person, not from the perspective of a local authority officer.
There is no power to enter a home and gather evidence, no right to speak to the child to ascertain her wishes. A local authority can be uneasy about a family, but short of issuing a School Attendance Order and then prosecuting the parents, there is little that they can actually do. Magistrates are often more easy to persuade than local authorities. The family will smarten themselves up, perhaps get a solicitor and the local authority cannot simply claim in court that they have a suspicion that things are not right. This is after all a court which deals in hard evidence, not vague suspicions.
The result is that there are plenty of families who are keeping their children at home, about whom local authorities are uneasy. They cannot get any firm evidence to back up their suspicions, there is little point even in getting a social worker to call round, because without hard evidence she will not be allowed to enter the house against the wishes of the family. This is of course how vulnerable children slip through the net and it was one of the reasons why there was an attempt to change the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"So what is the problem with School Attendance Orders? The problem is of course that before they even begin this process, it must appear to the local authority that, 'a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'. If the local authority hear of a child who is not at school, it can hardly appear to them that he is not receiving a suitable education"
Except, of course, that case law allows them to make this assumption if the parents do not respond to informal enquiries or their response is inadequate. In the Phillips v Brown case, Lord Justice Donaldson stated that LAs may make informal enquiries of parents and said:
""Of course such a request is not the same as a notice under s 37 (1) of the Education Act 1944 (now s 437 (1) of the 1996 Education Act) and the parents will be under no duty to comply. However it would be sensible for them to do so. If parents give no information or adopt the course .......... of merely stating that they are discharging their duty without giving any details of how they are doing so, the LEA will have to consider and decide whether it ‘appears’ to it that the parents are in breach of s 36. (now s7 of the 1996 Education Act.)""
Simon wrote,
"His local authority went so far in the Summer of 2004 as to serve him a notice requiring him to satisfy them as to the education his son was receiving. He did not comply and six years later the authority has taken no action."
They obviously do not understand the law then. This was exactly the situation covered by the case mentioned above.
"Take them to court and they may well provide all the evidence needed to convince the magistrate."
How many parents do you think are bloody minded enough and have the money to want to risk going to court over this issue? If they have the evidence the vast majority will provide it to the LA. Changing the law to adversely affect these people (by maybe not giving them the option of attending court if they correctly believe they have provided enough evidence but the LA disagree) in order to 'catch' a tiny minority is bad law.
Simon wrote,
" The crux of the matter is that the education being given to the child must look OK from the point of view of a reasonable person, not from the perspective of a local authority officer."
Why do you think this is wrong? Or should we legally re-define LA officers as infallible and always reasonable? Or should LA officers be ultimately responsible for the education of children and not parents? Think of the law suits that would entail!
Simon wrote,
"A local authority can be uneasy about a family, but short of issuing a School Attendance Order and then prosecuting the parents, there is little that they can actually do."
They can make informal enquiries (and take further action as above if the parents do not respond) and if they have specific concerns they can involve social services.
Simon wrote,
"the local authority cannot simply claim in court that they have a suspicion that things are not right. This is after all a court which deals in hard evidence, not vague suspicions."
How can this be wrong?
Simon wrote,
"the local authority cannot simply claim in court that they have a suspicion that things are not right. This is after all a court which deals in hard evidence, not vague suspicions."
And exactly the same is true of thousands of children in school. What do you suggest, that social services should have automatic right of access to all homes and to all children in the UK without evidence?
Simon says-This actually happened to one of the parents who regularly comments here. His local authority went so far in the Summer of 2004 as to serve him a notice requiring him to satisfy them as to the education his son was receiving. He did not comply and six years later the authority has taken no action.
ReplyDeleteIs that us Simon your talking about? A school attendance order was issued dispite the fact that leading county councilor Dr Tony ludow had said they Was no evidence Peter was not geting a suitble education and Tony was willing to say this in court he also noted Peter was doing advanced Maths!
one other fact about a school attendance order you missed is the school that is named in SAO must agree to this which in Peter case the head and the school governors did not agree and wrote a letter to complain about this matter to the Hampshire Council! the head was very unhappy Peter and i had a number of meeting with him and he was amazed how his LEA had lied to him! A number of parents at the school also complained to the LEA! The chair of governors wrote to the DCSF to complain as well!
after all these complaints HCC revoked the SAO claiming Peter was to old to go to primary school! since then not a word but Peter did right to all school in the area to inform them he was home educated and did not want to go to they school some heads wrote back to say they understood and they would not help the LEA in any new SAO
all of this come about because of 2 LEA offciers who could not accept that Peter had left school to study chess! and told lies about the family and Peter to others but the more they lied the worse it got for them both have now gone i belive where the asked to go?