One of the most fascinating aspects of home education as encountered on the Internet is the extent to which fanciful and misleading stories about it have a tendency to multiply like fruit flies. One need only make an untruthful claim such as, 'The Children, Schools and Families Bill would have made it a criminal offence not to register as a home educator' and although there is not a shred of truth in the statement it soon assumes a life of its own and will be endlessly quoted and repeated with various exaggerations. So we read on one site a few months ago that, 'under a new law, children will be removed from their parents and interrogated alone'! I'm sure we all have favourite examples of this sort of thing. A lot of this happens when home educators in Europe contact American groups and ask them to publicise some case or other. These lies and half truths then often find their way into respectable newspapers. I was thinking about this recently in connection with what I have been writing about Sweden. There are some pretty uncanny similarities between the Johansson case and that of the Williams family whom I mentioned the other day. Both are good instances of how the game of Chinese Whispers may be played on the Internet.
Readers are probably quite familiar now with the Johansson business. I have given up trying to get to the bottom of this affair, because as time goes on the stories change and become more elaborate. Those interested in the case also make things up as the mood takes them. It is apparent though that the basic thesis, that Swedish social workers snatched a child from his parents to prevent them from home educating him, is not the full story. Five years ago, a similarly heart-rending story was doing the rounds on American home education sites. This concerned a child in this country of the same age as Dominic Johansson. He was called Peter Williams and the story was that his parents were being persecuted by their local authority in Hampshire because they wished to teach their son at home. Here is one account from an American site;
I received an email from the mother of this chess prodigy asking for a little publicity regarding her fight with her LEA. It seems that being the best under-7 chess player in the country doesn’t count as receiving an education. The LEA is threatening to arrest the parents and to force the kid into a g-school.
I hope that Education Otherwise will set the edu-crats straight.
UPDATE: If you’re particularly inspired to contact the case officer directly, he can be reached at
Mr. XXXXXXX
Ass. Principal Education Welfare Officer
New Forest Local Education Office
Southampton
England
United Kingdom
Phone number is XXXXXXXXXXX
I especially like that “Ass.” part. The other potential contact person is
Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX
Hampshire County Council
Winchester
Hampshire
S023 8UG
England
United Kingdom
Phone number XXXXXXXXXXX
I have removed the personal details. This is spookily similar to the sort of appeal currently being made for the Johanssons. Even the details being given for officials to contact is the same tactic. Note also the untruthful statements included. 'The LEA is threatening to arrest the parents'. Of course this is not true. Nor is it true that the child was the best under 7 player in the country. Three months later, on another American site, this had become, 'An 8-year-old homeschooled British boy who reportedly is the best under-10 chess player in the UK ' How's that for progress? The source of these assertions was the father's claim that his son was the best player of his age in Britain; a claim unsupported by any exteranl evidence and then endlessly exaggerated by others.
Now of course with the perspective afforded by the passage of a few years, we see that this case was not really as advertised. The local authority, Hampshire, was not opposed to either home education or chess, but were in fact worried because the child's father appeared to be both completely mad and also wholly incapable of educating his son. Both fears have been shown to be fully justified over the years. Fortunately, Hampshire have kept on the case, with the result that the child now has private tutors for at least some of the time. I have a feeling that five years down the line, we might well have learned something pretty similar about the Johanssons.
At one time, circulating information about some perceived injustice was a slow and laborious business. Newspapers often used to check what they were told before publishing and gaining access to a world audience was very hard. All that has changed now and a story can be published to the world almost instantly, just as I am doing now! The problem is that many of these stories will be mad or untruthful. This is just as true of stories about home education as any other subject which one comes across while browsing the net.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So tell us Simon, what would have happened to anyone who continued to educate their child at home without registering?
ReplyDeleteNothing at all. The onus was upon the local authorities to find home educating parents. Failing to register would not have been an offence.
ReplyDeleteHere is the relevant part;
ReplyDelete"115. New section 19A requires a local authority to keep a register of all children of compulsory school age in their area who are being educated entirely at home - i.e., none of whose education is provided at a school, or under section 19 of the EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere)."
The local authority would have been required to keep a register and find all the children in their area. parents would have had no duties at all.
Anonymous wrote,
ReplyDelete"So tell us Simon, what would have happened to anyone who continued to educate their child at home without registering?"
and Simon replied,
"Nothing at all. The onus was upon the local authorities to find home educating parents. Failing to register would not have been an offence."
You go on to quote what you claim to be the relevant part of the Bill (but I cannot find this wording in the Bill itself so I'm not sure where the quote came from). Yes, the LA would have been required to maintain a register but this does not mean that they could enter children on the register without the parent's consent. The LA could only register a child if the parent applied to the authority in the prescribed manner according to section 19B.
19B Entry of child’s details on home education register
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a parent of a child in the area of a local authority in England has applied to the authority, in the prescribed manner, for the child’s details to be entered on their home education register,
(b) the child is of compulsory school age, and
(c) it appears to the authority that the child is, or is intended to be while still of compulsory school age, a home-educated child.
I cannot see any provision in Schedule 1 for LAs to register a child without the parent making an application. Have I missed it? Can you point it out?
If a child was not a registered home educator and not at school the authority would have been required to serve a SAO. However, unlike now, the provision of a suitable education at home would not have been a defence against the SAO. The only acceptable defence would have been registration at a school (or section 19) or on a home education register either in this LA or another.
A parent on whom a school attendance order is served in respect of a child by a local authority in England, and who fails to comply with the requirements of the order, is guilty of an offence
So, if the parent educated their child at home without registering, a SAO would be issued. If the parent continued to educate their child at home without registering or sending their child to school they would be guilty of an offence. How can you say nothing would have happened if the parent did not register their child? Why do you think this is the case?
As things currently stand, when a local authority becomes aware that a child is not attending school, they do not reach for a School Attendance Order. Instead, they write to the parents and ask them about their educational provision. They then add the family to the list of those home eductors about whom they already know. They offer a visit, which may be declined. they ask parents to fill in forms, which some parents again refuse to do. One idea being floated in the early days of the Badman review was that home educating parents would be criminalised by not registering to home educate. that is to say that it would be a criminal offence to keep a child from school without registering the intention of home education. Nothing came of this idea. Instead, the final plan was that local authorities would be obliged to keep a register of home educated children. Because the bill did not become law, we do not know hoe this would have worked in practice. The LAs would probaly have carried on as they do now, by contacting families who became known to them and offering them a visit so that they could become registered. Those refusing would have been assumed to be providing no ediucation and ultimately served with an SAO. As I said, the onus would have been on the local authority and not the parents.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"As things currently stand.."
I understand the current situation, but this is irrelevant because we were discussing the failed Bill.
"Nothing came of this idea. Instead, the final plan was that local authorities would be obliged to keep a register of home educated children. Because the bill did not become law, we do not know hoe this would have worked in practice."
The wording of Schedule 1 as quoted above seems perfectly clear to me. The registration of a child would require an application from a parent. Without the parent's application, registration could not happen and if a child is not a registered home educator and not registered at a school the LA would have been required to issue a SAO. The use of the word 'shall' is the givaway. This is a clear requirement for the LA to begin the SAO process in this situation. If an alternative such as the the word 'may' had been used, it would have indicated some discretion on the LA's part. If the Bill had gone through and an LA had failed to initiate the SAO process in this situation, they would be considered at fault and answerable for any consequences. How likely is it that the LA would have ignored this requirement with their propensity to watch their backs?
“(A1) Subsection (B1) applies if—
(a) it appears to a local authority in England that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, and
(b) the child does not appear to the authority to be a home-educated child.
(B1) The authority shall serve a notice in writing on the child’s parent requiring the parent to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is either—
(a) receiving suitable education provided wholly or partly by regular attendance at school, or otherwise than at school under section 19,
(b) registered on their home education register, or
(c) in the area of another authority and registered on that authority’s home education register.”
Simon wrote,
"Those refusing would have been assumed to be providing no ediucation and ultimately served with an SAO."
What about a parent who agrees to a visit to prove that a suitable education is being provided but who then refuses to complete the registration process? The LA would know that an education is being provided so would be unable to assume that no education is being provided, but they would still have been required to issue a SAO because any home education provision would have had to be disregarded according to the wording of the Bill.
(3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) whether it is expedient that a child should attend school, an authority shall disregard any education being provided to the child as a home-educated child.”
Simon wrote,
"As I said, the onus would have been on the local authority and not the parents."
If Labour had continued in power, ContactPoint would have ensured that LAs had a full list of children living in their area and enabled them to contact all of those without a place of education listed. At this point the onus would have shifted to the parents to complete the application form because without this, registration would not have been possible.
I'm not entirely sure why we are debating in detail a bill which was ditched months ago and will never become law! It is impossible to gauge from simply reading the text of the bill how it would have worked in practice. Several of the most important clauses relating to home education were in any case qualified with phrases such as 'arrangements being made with a view to' and 'in as far as is practicably possible'. It was really in the nature of an enabling act; the details would have been filled in later by a series of Statutory Instruments.
ReplyDeleteThe situation with School Attendance Orders is this;
"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 practice of course, this is hardly ever done. Of the local authorities who were interviewed for the Ofsted survey, two thirds had not issued an SAO in the previous year. This was not becuase they did not know of such cases. In theory they might have been obliged to take this step; in practice they hardly ever do. It is unlikely that this would have changed with the passage of the CSF Bill. Once the bill had become law, the local authorities would have had to compile a register. This would have taken time and tracking down every home educator would not have been easy. There is no reason at all to think that they would have been any quicker off the mark in serving SAOs than they are now. I know of what the plans were for four local authorities, namely LB Hackney, LB Tower Hamlets, LB Waltham Forest and Essex. All four intended to pursue the same policy as before when they became aware of home educated children; that is to say writing to them and proposing a visit. Nobody had any plans at all for tracking down home educators unkown to them.
At one time, the fear was that parents would be obliged to notify local authorities if they moved into a new district and that it would have been an offence to fail to do so. In the event, this did not happen. The local authorities were responsible for maintaining a register. It would be their responsibility to do this, not the parents responsibility to contact them.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I'm not entirely sure why we are debating in detail a bill which was ditched months ago and will never become law!"
Err, because you began this article by claiming: "One need only make an untruthful claim such as, 'The Children, Schools and Families Bill would have made it a criminal offence not to register as a home educator'"
Simon wrote,
"It is impossible to gauge from simply reading the text of the bill how it would have worked in practice."
Experience of LAs pushing beyond the current law suggests that many would have taken it literally and then some.
Simon wrote,
"In practice of course, this is hardly ever done. Of the local authorities who were interviewed for the Ofsted survey, two thirds had not issued an SAO in the previous year."
They are also known to tell home educators that they must visit the home in order to judge the education provision and many families comply. Often LAs only need to threaten to issue a SAO in order to force a home educator to comply with visits and other criteria that are not required in law. I know many home educators who go along with these requirements in order to avoid hassle.
Simon wrote,
"Nobody had any plans at all for tracking down home educators unkown to them."
They wouldn't have needed to, ContactPoint would have given them a list and, as they could not claim not to know about them, they would have had to follow up with contact.
Simon wrote,
"The local authorities were responsible for maintaining a register. "
Of course they would have been responsible for maintaining the register. The alternative would have been parents going into the LA offices to enter their own details!
Simon wrote,
"It would be their responsibility to do this, not the parents responsibility to contact them. "
The parent's would have been required to apply for registration - as the LA would have been required to follow up any children with unknown education provision and all children would have been known to them, is there a difference?
I think we've just about worked this one to death. I did indeed say that under the CSF Bill it would not have been a criminal offence for a parent to home educate a child without registering with the local authority. This is because the whole responsibility would rest with the LA. The Bill says;
ReplyDelete(1) A local authority in England shall maintain a register for the purpose
of monitoring the provision of education to children of compulsory
10
school age in their area who are not educated at a school or under
section 19.
(2) Regulations may make provision about maintenance of the register.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about
amendment of the register.
We do not know what the 'regulations would have been or how they would have operated in practice. As i said, this was really an enabling Bill and the details would be filled in later. The Bill goes on to say;
Unless the authority consider—
(a) that the child is within subsection (6) or (7), or
(b) that subsection (8) applies to the child’s application,
they shall enter the prescribed details relating to the child on their
home education register.
Again, the onus is on the LA.
The authority shall give the parent notice—
10
(a) if they enter the child’s details on their home education
register, of the registration;
Registration would have been by the local authority and not the parents. The LA would have told the parents about it afterwards. The parents needed to do nothing. If a child was unknown to the local authority, it would have been quite lawful for the parents to home educate without notifying anybody. It was for the local authority top maintain the register and find the children to put on it. Since the regualtions were never even formulated, let alone published, we have no way of knowing how this would have been done.
YOUR FULL OF CRAP WEBB
ReplyDeleteIS JIM MCGILVERY DEAD?
ReplyDeleteWE TOLD HCC TO F OFF AND THEY DID!
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Registration would have been by the local authority and not the parents. The LA would have told the parents about it afterwards. The parents needed to do nothing."
I disagree. The requirements for registration include an application from the parents. The provision for the LA to notify the parents when the child has been added to the register would follow the parents application. If the parents do not apply the child cannot be added to the register, otherwise children might be added when a parent has absolutely no intention of home educating. If a parent does not register the LA must issue a SAO - the parent is criminalised for not applying for registration.