Saturday 28 August 2010

De-registering children to avoid trouble

Most parents who de-register their children from school do so in order to provide an education for them at home. It might be a strange or insufficient education, but the intention is definitely to give the children some sort of education. However, for at least the last ten years or so, it has been noticed that some are not choosing this option for the positive reason of home education, but rather to avoid ending up in the courts. When Ofsted surveyed fifteen local authorities last year, they spoke to a hundred and twenty home educating parents and received written submissions from many more. Local authority officers were also spoken to. In every single one of those fifteen local authorities, it was accepted by all parties that some parents had de-registered their children from school in order to avoid prosecution for their children's truancy. The Children, Schools and Families select committee found the same thing when they spoke to local authority officers last year. Not only were some parents hitting upon this scheme themselves to evade trouble, but schools sometimes collude with them in doing so. Ofsted found a couple of parents who had been advised by the Headmasters at their children's schools to de-register their children in order to avoid the stigma of permanent exclusion.

Cases like this typically occur when a child is missing a lot of school and the EWOs are not making any headway, or when there is so much trouble with the kid at school that it looks as though permanent exclusion is going to be the likely outcome. Now exclusions and prosecutions for truancy are pretty lousy for a school's reputation. Too many of either and people start poking around and asking awkward questions of the Head. They are also bad news for parents and pupils. The courts are quite ready these days to send a parent to prison if their child's persistent truancy looks as though it is being condoned. Permanent exclusions mean that the kid will have a very bad record in the future. It is therefore in the interests of school, parent and child if another solution can be found. The most popular solution was pioneered by Firfield School in Newcastle in the late 1990s. They simply typed out letters supposedly from the parents of regular truants, letters which announced that the parents were going to home educate their children, and then called the parents into the office. After putting the frighteners on them with threats of prosecution, they then produced the letters and got the parents to sign them. Problem solved! Unfortunately, the large number of disaffected youths hanging round the streets during weekdays was noticed and the whole scam was exposed.

Of course this sort of thing still happens in every local authority area, although some are worse than others. When a child is de-registered from a school to be educated at home, the school is supposed to notify their local authority. Some schools fail to do this. This is sometimes because they have been encouraging parents to de-register their children to 'home educate' and they are nervous that if the LA sees too many children being off-rolled in this way, that questions might be asked. So they simply don't tell the local authority. Some local authorities too are not over anxious to hear about any more home educated children. When we received a monitoring visit from Essex some years ago, I mentioned that I had been having dealings with another home educating family in the area. Quick as a flash, the adviser told me that she did not want to know of any family who was not already registered with Essex. It would just have meant more work for them and the HE department was already overstretched.

One of the worst local authorities for not wanting to find out about home educated children in their area is the London Borough of Enfield. I know of half a dozen children who have been de-registered in the borough, all of whom sent letters to their child's school. Not one was subsequently contacted by the LA. Since we are talking of four different schools, this means that it is probably a semi-official policy of the council not to take on new home educated children to inspect if this can be avoided. The inspections which they do undertake tend to be, shall we say, a little cursory. From time to time, Enfield get their fingers burned in this way. An unfortunate case from 2007 illustrates what can happen if you get too sloppy.

In January 2005 a mother de-registered her fourteen year-old daughter and younger brother from school in order to teach them at home. An EWO visited in April that year and then again in May. There was a certain amount of uneasiness about the family, but it was decided to sign them off for a year. In June 2006, there was another visit. Everything was fine according to the local authority officer. She did not notice that the mother was horribly depressed. Some people had concerns though, because the children's mother was a little strange. The following March, Enfield became aware that the daughter had actually died in early November the previous year! During that time, the corpse of the girl had been laying on the floor of the living room; the mother being reluctant either to arrange for its disposal or even to notify anybody that the child had died. The cause of death was never established and Enfield got off quite lightly at the subsequent Serious Case review.

The best way of preventing schools using home education as a way of shedding unwanted pupils would be to adopt Recommendation 14 of the Badman report and require local authorities to make annual returns to the Children's Trust Board about the number of home educated children in their area. If the Department for Education became involved in this, the local authorities would probably buck their ideas up a bit and also crack down on the schools which are operating this racket.

34 comments:

  1. Did I understand right, the interview took place with an eight month old corpse in the house ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Webb says-the corpse of the girl had been laying on the floor of the living room; the mother being reluctant either to arrange for its disposal or even to notify anybody that the child had died.

    maybe the body twitched to allow tick boxer from LA to tick the correct box!LOL or did LA officer forger his eye glasses that day? i always thin kit is a good idea to take the person pulse just in case LOL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Webb says-I know of half a dozen children who have been de-registered in the borough, all of whom sent letters to their child's school. Not one was subsequently contacted by the LA. Since we are talking of four different schools, this means that it is probably a semi-official policy of the council not to take on new home educated children to inspect if this can be avoided.

    Councils do not in law have to contact a family who are home educating? Where in Law does it say this MUST be done? mind you if its true about the dead body then it wont make much difference if some one fro mLA does comes round LOL

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did I understand right, the interview took place with an eight month old corpse in the house ?"

    The girl died, according to her mother, on November 3rd 2006. Some time in March the following year, people noticed that the kid hadn't been seen for a while. It was when somebody came to visit that the corpse was found in the living room.

    "

    ReplyDelete
  5. Webb says-It was when somebody came to visit that the corpse was found in the living room.

    Who found it? are you sure that people did not think the girl was just siting in the chair watching tv? I wonder how many more bodys are in peoples houses? of course if you know some one poping round just hide body in cellar LOL
    thats not a long time for a body to be around we had cases in UK of body being around for over 5 years!
    anonymous is right about Councils not having to contact a family who home educate what LAW says that a council MUST contact a family who home educate? what section is it in the education act?

    ReplyDelete
  6. OMG the next door neighbour has not waved at me he appears to be just siting in his chair his he dead? he always waves at me nosy sod he is! he has not moved for at least 3 hours!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It was when somebody came to visit that the corpse was found in the living room. "

    Ok that makes more sense, I must have read it wrong. I was wondering how they could possibly not notice the smell of the decomp.

    What a horrible story, a girl dead, a mother and another child in what must have been dire mental straits and the poor people that made a gruesome discovery.

    I thought schools had been warned off strong arming parents into dereg-ing, are they still merrily flouting the instructions to cease and desist ?

    Mind you I can see how it could have been a case of lip service from the top down. The more that "I actively chose to HE" home educators get diluted by "loopholers", the better chance there is for unhappy newsworthy stories to make HEing parents look like a bunch of inadequates at best and outright dangerous at worst, so the gen pub can be manipulated into screaming for it to be legislated out of existance. At the same time the "looperholers" take their offspring out of the league tables and stop making the Min of Ed look bad.

    That is just like so...heads Min of Ed wins, tails HE loses.

    Or am I being unduly cynical about the politicos again ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. yay ! I refreshed and my post was still there ( =

    ReplyDelete
  9. he still siting in chair and appears to be not moving!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sarah from Italy says-HEing parents look like a bunch of inadequates at best and outright dangerous at worst, so the gen pub can be manipulated into screaming for it to be legislated out of existance.

    They are no new laws being brought in for home education by the con/lib government!

    ReplyDelete
  11. you could move back to England Sarah as they are no news laws being brought in for home education! becuase we have beaton Ed Balls and the old labour party Home educators are much stronger now and balls knows this we won the fight Home educators 1 Balls/Badman/labour/Webb and his daughter 0

    ReplyDelete
  12. "you could move back to England Sarah as they are no news laws being brought in for home education!"

    I'm not living here because I'm under the impression that new regulation is on the cards.

    I'm living here because I want to (most days) and because my husband and son are both Italian and look (insultingly) horrified when I suggest we all go to the UK for an extended period.

    When SofT is 14, unless I have found a fairly risk free way to get around the "use the Italian national curriulum or else" regs, yes I might have to move us all over there for a year (at least, maybe three, depending on which way things go about raising the school leaving age to 18).

    But that day isn't here yet, so I am not even going to think about the hassle involved in an international move, with two reluctant, whinging males and a zoo that will need passports and rabies injections and special transportation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do not feel it is fair to call Enfield one of the 'worst offenders' nor 'sloppy' . No Local Authority currently has a monitoring role. Plus this is a mix up of Education and Welfare issues yet again.
    In the case of the child whose mother could not cope with admitting her death, she apparently died from natural causes- so there were no welfare concerns to discover previously and even if every Badman reco had been instituted it could be just as many months before discovery.

    A very separate issue is the child who is truanting or excluded . This child is not a welfare concerns unless there is ALSO a welfare concern.

    Informal enquiries are considered to be within the spirit of the 2007 guidelines.
    Most LAs make informal enquiries of all de-registered families asking for basic details and then request a visit (which is not required by law and hence they get no funding for it).
    A parent may choose to accept a visit or instead respond to these informal enquiries by writing the ED Phil.

    But what about the kids where there is already an educational concern due to exclusion or truancy? The families where it is known that the de-registration is done to avoid prosecution- Whilst a child is still on a register and is truanting or excluded the LA still have the legal responsibility and can claim the child is not receiving a suitable education and prosecute the parents.

    The Principle EWOs claim that with the current guidelines , once de-registered, if the parents refuse to reply to 'informal enquiries' they cannot do anything , let alone prove a child's education is unsuitable- as there is no real definition of suitable in order to get that SAO.

    This is the reason the Badman reco's mentioned keeping a child on the register for a period of time and also why a SAO could be issued if LA has taken 'reasonable steps' and were not satisfied that a suitable education was taking place.

    Of course most people I know , myself included strongly disagreed with what Badman decided to call 'reasonable steps'

    However, I do not for the life of me understand why the education department cannot currently take a parent to court for an SAO in the cases where they can document previous truancy or exclusion issues, and a parent who refuses to provide ANY information.
    its one thing to argue against a certain LAs questionable definitions of 'suitable' and their ill informed demands for a visit....but I do feel there needs to be some discussion surrounding what solutions may be out there regarding the growing numbers of de -registrations that are really not for the purposes of home education....

    ReplyDelete
  14. "....but I do feel there needs to be some discussion surrounding what solutions may be out there regarding the growing numbers of de -registrations that are really not for the purposes of home education...."

    So it is still going on then ?

    Anybody know in what kind of numbers or how rapid the growth rate is ?


    "I do not for the life of me understand why the education department cannot currently take a parent to court for an SAO in the cases where they can document previous truancy or exclusion issues, and a parent who refuses to provide ANY information."

    Cost ? I can see how large expenses can come to the table and weaken the motivation to take action at a time when spending cuts are all the rage. I'm not saying it is right to make money the priority, but I can see how it could happen.

    I suppose they could insist that a school who strongarmed a kid off its roll must pay the costs of any legal action. If they can prove it. Which again would cost money cos that would be another legal process.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @sarah.
    Yes it is still on going as this is the very reason LAs say they wanted the changes. The Badman statistics made it out to be 20% nationally but this number was not accurate as it included anyone who quite lawfully moved house or simply did not want a visit- but these families do exist as true cases.
    All LAs were asked by home-educators via FOI last year to try and get a better accuracy of these numbers where there were educational concerns and it seems to be hovering at about 6% and even then this 6% still includes some LAs who would not or could not differentiate amongst parents quite rightly sticking to the law regarding visits and parents where they 'know' the issue is

    It can't be just the cost -after all some LAs spend money on visiting families as a matter of course. Its probably more to do with how departments are organised - SAOs can be issued and parents prosecuted if the child is still registered. I know of no school that has been forced to pay the costs and it is impossible to prove strong arming.
    I was under the impression that the 2007 guidelines showed (albeit in a very unclear way) that there were steps to be taken and if there are steps to be taken why would the department dealing with it have to argue for funding?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The problem certainly goes on; our local school has constantly "off-rolled" trouble makers, or those who have no chance of passing anything. One of my daughter's closest friends was off rolled in her last year at school - I am sure she was irritating to teach and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when she left. She couldn't get onto the college course she wanted last September and was sent on the E to E training scheme for unemployed teenagers. This however stopped mid year, so she couldn't then go onto any college course then either; so now she has spent a lot of the last 2 years doing nothing, and doesn't seem at all motivated to do anything this September either. The trouble is with a year 11 pupil, there is little oppportunity to do much about the situation - by the time the "home educated young person" comes to the attention of the LA, what are they going to do? It is all too late.

    Another recent family moved in to a neighbouring county with an 11 year old who hadn't been at school; he did eventually come to the notice of the LA as a truant, but after a year there was no way the child was going to go back to school (this was a very complicated family situation with lots of additional needs).The mother asked the EWO how to avoid prosecution; the EWO's reply was "home educate"... and she waited whilst the mother wrote the dereg letter, which the EWO helpfully delivered. There was no way that this mother would or could home educate; she hadn't even heard of it until the EWO told her she could. Fortunately in this case common sense prevailed; the first inspector visit assessed that this was not what the family wanted to do and given the childs needs, alternative educational provision has been arranged by the LA, so at least the child is getting some education.

    What is the answer though? Taking action against the schools involved, and retraining EWO's about what they say to families would be a good start!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I do not feel it is fair to call Enfield one of the 'worst offenders' nor 'sloppy'"

    The SCR suggested that Enfield might try and look at home educated children more often than once a year.

    "she apparently died from natural causes- so there were no welfare concerns to discover previously "

    The body was too decomposed for any cause of death to be established. Natural death is very unusual in teenagers; they don't generally just drop dead from old age.

    " However, I do not for the life of me understand why the education department cannot currently take a parent to court for an SAO in the cases where they can document previous truancy or exclusion issues, and a parent who refuses to provide ANY information."

    For one thing, it ties up a solicitor in court for the day during the hearing. It is also, as I said above, not uncommon for schools to collude in this scam. For another, magistrates are lay people who are more likley to be persuaded that a suitable education is being provided than are many LA officers. This is why out of the fifteen local authorities surveyed by Ofsted, two theirds had not issued any SAOs in the previous year against home educators.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "What is the answer though? Taking action against the schools involved, and retraining EWO's about what they say to families would be a good start!"

    Retraining such EWOs is a very mild option; they need shooting. The problem is that everybody knows about this and everybody collaborates in the racket. This is why I feel that central government should be able to call the authority to account. As Ofsted found in their recent report on children missing from education, there is an increasing number of children who are not at school. A lot of them are not being educated and nobody seems to be anxious to do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So 6% is the number of HEed kids where there are educational concerns(real or imagined) and the bulk of the kids whose parents were strong armed into HE will probably be in that 6%.

    If they know how to count them then they must know who these kids are.

    So they must know which schools are the ones leaning on parents cos they are the ones with a spike in dereg which, when compared against individual records, reveal a larger than normal number of kids with a history of attendance and/or serious behavioral issues. All they need to do is get a bit Grissom with the de-reged details and see how many kids fit the pattern.

    Is there nothing in the law as it currently exists that could be used against a school who was effectively excluding students by the backdoor ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The trouble is with a year 11 pupil, there is little oppportunity to do much about the situation - by the time the "home educated young person" comes to the attention of the LA, what are they going to do? It is all too late."

    Having read how they effectively denied her right to an education via state provision I'm feeling at the minute that they can do something even though she is beyond compulsory education. Compensate her.

    And maybe that is one way to get schools from being so dodgy about this, if they know that their actions will dragged under a spotlight and it is going to cost money to some government body to right a wrong, then maybe some of them will stop when it is not just a kid’s education that they are playing fast and loose with..but their own career too.

    Were there any consequences for the person who set the family up with HE in the second case ?

    I can work out what EWO means, but who do they work for, the school, or the LA, or some other body ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sarah,

    Well, once upon a time...EWOs worked for the LA out of their offices; now though we are all supposed to be "joined up" childrens services and they have been shifted along to the locality offices often with social services themselves. In fact there are all sorts of differences in different parts of the country as to who does what and so on. In this county, there are 3 diffreent regions, each with their own LA boss; but the bulk of their time and money is not concerned with home education, but with other non school provision. In my part of the county there are 4 (I think) pupil referral units, where the excluded/pregnant/ school phobics may be sent (one is in fact part of a secure unit for juvenile offenders). There are lots of others who receive home tuition or hospital tuition; some times the aim is to reintegrate children eventually into school. The issues of funding are complicated - so to be able to fund a child like the one I mentioned, the LA man has to persuade a school to put him on their roll so that the allocated funding can then be used to fund either the unit attendence or home tuition. Home educators are therefore not always a high priority - because of course we have chosen to opt out and take responsibility for our own children. EWOs may have multiple roles - truancy (reporting to the LA) and welfare issues (so linked to social services). Some sechools or groups of schools have their own EWOs (so irradicating truancy may be a priority) but if you are linked with social services then sorting out more major issues may be your priority. It is all rather a muddle... and in other parts of the country they may even be called different things...

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Natural death is very unusual in teenagers; they don't generally just drop dead from old age."

    I’ve only known one case just like that. He was 21 rather than a minor, back from honeymoon with his new wife, my colleague, moved a vase on the balcony for his mum…and dropped down dead. Some kind of rare and easily missed heart defect. I thought it affected mainly males though.

    So yeah it’s rare, but on the other hand even a simple burn from ironing, if it gets infected and doesn't get treated by antibiotics, can cause death. That's how my husband's great aunt died back in the olden days, when she was only 17.

    Mind you, that is still a welfare issue though isn't it. Failing to seek medical attention for a minor. The mum was obviously in deep water mentally, but unfortunately this wasn't noted until far too late.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Julie

    I swear, hell just froze over, I read how "messy" all of that seems and sniffed, thinking to myself "they could do with some nice, tidy, Italian proper bureaucracy".
    I think I may need to lie down to recover.

    It seems even iffier than at first glance if EWOs are dealing with hard to place and vulnerable kids, how tempting it must be to "oh so innocently" drop HE into the options list rather than struggle with a heaving caseload. It would go a long way to help clear the desk of the hard to budge workload.

    What particularly gave me the collywibbles was when you mentioned school phobia. The lady who helped my sister about 20 years ago was brilliant. If instead she had “mentioned” HE rather than go to extraordinary lengths to help into a unit and then later back to school, my mum would have leapt on the idea with alacrity.
    A concept which quite frankly makes me want to puke all over my keyboard.

    There isn’t any set of regs in the universe that would protect kids like my sister from mums like ours, but one way to keep those numbers down is not to make it sound like a nice, easy, immediate solution when everybody is struggling with what feels like an impossible to overcome issue.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "For one thing, it ties up a solicitor in court for the day during the hearing."

    They don't need a solicitor to issue an SAO, and many people give up and send their child back to school just with the threat of an SAO, let alone receiving one. Not many people are going to put themselves and their families through the stress and expense of a court case. I've spoken to several people who have had direct contact with people threatened with SAOs who have sent their children back to school. Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence... but it happens.

    If a third of LAs *have* issued an SAO, how many have had to defend it in court? What were the outcomes of those SAOs?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "They don't need a solicitor to issue an SAO, and many people give up and send their child back to school just with the threat of an SAO, let alone receiving one."

    I understand the logic of what you are saying, and it may be that it is the only effective way of getting the "excluded by the backdoor" kids back in the system, but it doesn't half feel like the wrong people being hammered for the "sins" of others who are free to just keep on playing a numbers game and carry on shoving people off their rolls to protect their precious league tables.

    As a short term solution I can see how it would work, but on its own it wouldn't help with the bigger picture. There'd have to be a multi pronged effort to stop it happening in the first place as well as get the kids back in.

    Also, where would that leave genuine HEing parents, if SAO become a common place first step in dealing with de-reg, cos some of them are bound to get caught up in the net.

    Sure they could fight them, but the stress and the expense from their perspective isn't a non issue.

    Stressed and freaked out parents is rarely good for children, and some new HEed kids feel like they have finally been rescued from an unbearable situation by being de-regged, having a SAO arrive threatening to send them straight back again ...I don't even want to think what that could do to those children.

    I know I'm not being very helpful, picking holes rather than suggesting solutions, but isn't there another way to stop the issue at source without creating “collateral damage” ?

    Why can't the LAs run de-reg lists past individual files, spot a cluster of “off” looking cases and send in OFSTED or similar in to investigate whose bright idea HE was, looking very menacing and scaring all the other schools off the idea.

    If a school risked losing more stars, or points or whatever they get, off their OFSTED status wouldn't that make it too much to lose for too little gain to keep on playing this game.

    The other bodies that employ EWOs must have something they don't fancy losing either. Some kind of rating system or access to additional funding. Is there no org that oversees them that could be employed to put the frighteners on them ?

    If there is a way to hit the real offenders in the goolies I'd rather that were the focus, not least cos I don't see how else you could stop it from being a perpetual problem.

    I’m not saying you are wrong, but I really hope there is a better way that would give a more permanent solution.

    ReplyDelete
  26. << For another, magistrates are lay people who are more likley to be persuaded that a suitable education is being provided than are many LA officers. This is why out of the fifteen local authorities surveyed by Ofsted, two thirds had not issued any SAOs in the previous year against home educators. >>

    This is not my interpretation of how an application for an SAO is heard SAO nor why they are rarely applied for.
    Proceedings are in Family Court- not the type of courts where a traffic offence is prosecuted which is called a Magistrates Court.
    Magistrates can be lay people but in Family Courts they are always DJ's (District Judges).
    Very rarely in ANY family court proceedings will there be a higher up judge called a CJ or a Circuit Judge.The CJs must have 7 years experience and have been a barrister .
    Therefore the application made by any local authority for a SAO is judged by the usual Family Court methods. The few cases that have made it to High Court and CJ level have set precedents on what constitutes 'suitable' and these CJ are hardly what one could call 'lay' people. If anything the DJs interpretation is stricter which is why parents have gone to the Higher Court to appeal and how the 2 famous cases most mentioned in HE lore came into being.
    It is hard for the LA to prove something is unsuitable but not , in my opinion to show previous records and a refusal of parents to engage at all.For the families we are talking about here- it would be hard for them to show any evidence at all.
    The issue is about cost (LAs may pay up to £6000 for a SAO) and also about how to enforce this order when almost all the 'children' are age 14 and above . It means going right back to court for an ESO.An LA can apply straight for an ESO but they never do because of cost.It can cost the LA department up to £18,000 (more usually about £12,000) for proceedings in family court of this nature
    The HE department (if you can call it that as usually it is an office with 2-6 people who also have other job titles) is not furnished with funds like the main EWO truancy departments where kids are technically still on the register.
    The CSF bill would have seen more funding to prosecute and hire more visitors (which would be needed for the millions of under the radar pesky home educators who would willingly show up to register!)
    Kids who get alternate provision in the pupil referral units cost the LA up to £12,000 per annum if they are doing their job right . Many do not even draw funding down for this and alternate provision can be a mere 4 hours a week.Depends on each LA ad how they fund the department.
    When it comes to spending money on de-registered kids for SAO and ESO's there is pot of money which pays one administrator, part salary of an EWO who may also deal with other things not just HE and a visitor or two. a tiny sum is allocated for materials or a website.The LAs who have managed to get funding for projects do so because they can pull a couple of grand from a different budget- for instance from 'Diversity and Inclusion, or 'Travellers and Minorities. (not sure though how Bedford funds their project)
    It behoved any department manager to inflate the real numbers for the Badman Review cos of course 20% looks like an issue that really needs tackling and gets the attention of those above -whereas 6% does not.
    Lastly it is correct that most cases the families are 'persuaded' to send the child back to school before any SAO is issued...that is LA unwritten policy and I reckon a lot of perfectly good potential HErs get caught up in.
    this and cave in where that particular LA applies this unwritten policy indiscriminately.. They all really do know which kids, as do we, which families are the ones where education is not taking place and parents are not engaging.It's too expensive to fully prosecute when you do not have a budget.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sarah wrote,
    "I know I'm not being very helpful, picking holes rather than suggesting solutions, but isn't there another way to stop the issue at source without creating “collateral damage” ?"

    I didn't offer the quoted text as a solution, it was just a description of current practice in response to Simon's suggestion that the need for a solicitor go to court in order for the LA to issue a SAO would act to reduce the number of SAOs issued. I don't believe a solicitor needs to be involved in straight forward cases. I agree that many genuine home educators are harmed by this approach.

    Anonymous wrote,
    "This is not my interpretation of how an application for an SAO is heard SAO nor why they are rarely applied for."

    I don't think the LA needs to apply for an SAO, they just issue them. The main expense would be if they need legal advice from a solicitor, but if it's a clear cut case they wouldn't need to do this and can just issue the paperwork. It's only if the parents do not obey the SAO that the magistrates court becomes involved.

    Everything I've ever read on the subject suggests that the prosecution for not obeying an SAO would take place in a magistrates court. See, http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/learning/schoolsandearlyyears/39428/edwelfare-2/edwelfare-8.htm and http://www.education-otherwise.org/Legal/SAO.htm for examples. What evidence do you have that it would be tried in a family court?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry, I was wrong -its a little bit more complicated than straight to family court.....but basically the LA give a 15 day warning then issue an order and if that is not complied with in 15 more days it goes to a magistrates court where they issue a summons. i.e. the LA takes 2 'paperwork' steps that take one month and then get a summons served on parents which should list a magistrate court hearing which can take 1-4 months depending on locale....and then if it is still not complied with they can ask the magistrate for an ESO ..........and the point still stands...where they know it will be a long haul they also know it is going to cost and therefore they do not do it. Add this to the point made about these are usually young people already year 10/11 and it takes the LA over 6 months to decide the parents are not engaging and to think about legal steps.
    I still disagree with Simons analysis - if a magistrate, or judge do not read up on education law then they are more likely to rule in favour of the LA unless the parents show up with compelling evidence ...the families we are talking about here-those who are not providing an education will not be able to show up and prove that they are . The question still stands- is it just the resources that are scarce-time and money?

    ReplyDelete
  29. "and the point still stands...where they know it will be a long haul they also know it is going to cost and therefore they do not do it."

    My impression is that at least some LAs start the SAO process but have no intention of taking it to court. Often just the issue (or even the treat to issue) an SAO is enough to get the child back into school or for the parent to allow visits or provide lots more information. The LA is not compelled to prosecute for failure to comply and can revoke SAOs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. LA's dont have to apply to a court to issue an SAO?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'LA's dont have to apply to a court to issue an SAO? '

    No, but they have to give the parents fifteen days to either register their child at a school or prove that they are providing an education. They can then issue the SAO. If the parents then disregard it, the local authority can prosecute through the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  32. No, but they have to give the parents fifteen days to either register their child at a school or prove that they are providing an education. They can then issue the SAO. If the parents then disregard it, the local authority can prosecute through the courts.

    but the LA's often do not prosecute though the courts and you can have SAO which just run out? or are left with no further action taken? this would imply to me that LA's do not think they can win in court so out od spite just leave it hanging in the air?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "but the LA's often do not prosecute though the courts and you can have SAO which just run out?"

    An SAO remains in force as long as a child is of compulsory school age unless the LA revokes it or a court directs that it should end (either because the parents is acquitted in court or an education supervision order is issued and the court ends the SAO). There do not appear to be any time limits once the SAO is issued so it could hang over a family for a long time. The family can apply for the LA to revoke the SAO and, if they have proved provision of a suitable education, I don't think the LA could refuse to revoke it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. but i belive SAO are just left to hang over some family's as a form of spite! i have heard of cases where SAO is just allowed to run out where the LA have refused to take parent to court but also have refused to revoke the SAO. also some parents are unaware that you can ask for it to be revoked the parent carry on home educating with an SAO still in place!

    ReplyDelete