The day after Graham Badman's report was published last year, a time when many home educating parents were very worked up and angry about the recommendations which it contained, somebody wrote the following opinion on the Badman report for Walsall local authority in the West Midlands;
'Having read the Home Education Review written by Graham Badman and published by the DCSF yesterday it appears that the proposed legislative changes adopted by the DCSF and now in consultation until late October will involve changes in primary legislation. There are two basic changes 1. Compulsory registration and 2. Compulsory home visits, including the right of the authority to speak to the child alone.
The first is expected and except for roughly doubling your workload, it will not change the way the system operates. I expect this change will take 12-24 months to enact'
Thank goodness that at least one person was able to keep her head about this while all those around her were losing theirs! Who was this calm and sensible person who looked forward to the implementation of compulsory registration so phlegmatically? Was it a civil servant? A member of the the legal department at Walsall Council? No, it was none of these people. It was in fact a home educator called Alison Sauer. As soon as the Badman report came out, she saw a business opportunity and began touting her services to local authorities with renewed vigour. Increased regulation meant increased training, which in turn meant more business for the company which she and her husband run.
We are currently all waiting to see the new guidelines for local authorities which Alison Sauer and her chums are producing. It is interesting to note that the White Paper due to published soon might well be encouraging local authorities to adopt a more gung-ho approach towards children outside mainstream education. I was not at all opposed to the provisions of Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill, as readers will no doubt recollect! This is however something else entirely. By giving vague encouragement to local authorities to be 'strong champions' and use their 'wider children's services' with regard to those children outside mainstream education, Michael Gove could actually effect a change in the way that local authorities operate without all the bother of changing primary legislation or allowing a select committee to scrutinise what is proposed. If this were to be combined with new guidelines for local authorities which were vaguer and less clear than the 2007 ones currently in use, there could be a great change in no time at all for home educating families who wish to have no contact with their local authority.
Supporting a public enquiry which was scrutinised by a select committee is one thing. I certainly was part of that process and when it was defeated, I was happy to accept that the democratic system had worked, even if I did not agree with the outcome. I am very dubious about what now seems to be happening, which could prove to be a change in the way things operate being made by the back door.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't believe that Gove's letter is referring to HE at all. An obvious reading of the words leads one to the conclusion that it is pupils who are registered with the LA but unable to attend for some reason (excluded, ill, truanting etc) which are being referred to as 'outside mainstream education.' Private schools are also in this category but LA's don't have responsibility for their pupils either.
ReplyDeleteGove isn't telling LA's to be strong champions for the rights of children who are not within the responsibility of LA's. I am sure that clarification will be made by his department shortly.
I don't understand why you think the revised guidelines will be vaguer than the current ones? The only problem with the current ones is that LA's still seem to misinterpret them (as you did Gove's letter.) Tightening them up would be a good outcome and one I hope Sauer, if she is involved, is aiming for.
'I don't understand why you think the revised guidelines will be vaguer than the current ones?'
ReplyDeleteBecuse the current guidelines could not be clearer. The only document which Alison Sauer has so far presented in connection with local authorities is, on the other hand, dreadful. Perhaps we should wait and see. I do not think that the problem with the guidleines at the moment is that local authorities do not understand the 2007 guidelines, rather it is that they disregard them. I dare say that the same would happen with any new set.
I agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with the current ones is that LA's still seem to misinterpret them (as you did Gove's letter.) '
ReplyDeleteYou might be missing my point here. If it is possible to misinterpret something, then it will be misinterpreted. When local authorities read that they must be 'strong, strategic champions' for;
' vulnerable children – acting on behalf of groups of children
who need extra support, including children with special educational
needs, looked after children and those outside mainstream education.
Local authorities will use wider children’s services responsibilities to
ensure that children are able to get the most from their schooling.'
then it is quite possible that the category 'outside mainstream education' will be taken to mean just that. Home educated children are indeed outside mainstream education, if by mainstream education you simply mean those attending school. I can see scope for problems here, but if you cannot, then we must agree to differ.
"It is interesting to note that the White Paper due to published soon might well be encouraging local authorities to adopt a more gung-ho approach towards children outside mainstream education."
ReplyDeleteBut it published a month ago, you're a bit behind the times, http://www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/.
In the White Paper itself it's clear that the children 'outside mainstream education' they refer to are not HE children. They are defined as 'vulnerable pupils' in the paper, not 'vulnerable children' (and HE children are not pupils according to the Education Act) and the paper also refers to these pupils currently attracting significant additional funding - so clearly not our children!
"I was happy to accept that the democratic system had worked, even if I did not agree with the outcome."
ReplyDeleteIn what way did the democratic system work? The majority of respondents were against the suggested changes yet the suggested changes would have been made if the government had not run out of time.
"If this were to be combined with new guidelines for local authorities which were vaguer and less clear than the 2007 ones currently in use, there could be a great change in no time at all for home educating families who wish to have no contact with their local authority."
You will get your chance to correct any vagueness when the draft guidelines are put out for consultation and discussion. How is this any less democratic than the previous guidelines that were drawn up by unknown civil servants? Hopefully we have more chance of being heard this time compared to the episode you consider as a good example of democracy.
'In what way did the democratic system work? The majority of respondents were against the suggested changes yet the suggested changes would have been made if the government had not run out of time.'
ReplyDeleteLamentable misunderstanding of democracy! If the government are planning to pass a law affecting special interests groups such as pistol shooters, owners of pitbull terriers or home educators, they do not only consider the opinions of those who own pistols or dangerous dogs or who educate their own children. The reference group is society as a whole. If a law is proposed which would restrict the sale and ownership of guns, it would not really be democratic only to consult gun owners. Do you see the point I am making here?
Of course I see, but what is the point in spending public money, our money, on consultations that they intend to take no notice of? If consultations are aimed at society as a whole why do they make special efforts to inform stakeholders and even have guidelines about ensuring all relevant stakeholders are made aware of consultations? If stakeholders views are irrelevant they should stop wasting our money as well as our time and energy that could have been better spent.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the last government disagreed with your assessment of consultations and democracy. The quote below is from one of their own documents, 'Effective Consultation'. It looks like they failed to act democratically by their own measures.
"Public engagement, including consultation on policy development and service design, is an important part of a modern representative democracy. Consultation is a key stage of engagement with both public and stakeholder organisations as it ensures decisions are informed by listening to those who may be affected by new proposals."
"Hopefully we have more chance of being heard this time"
ReplyDeleteand there I was thinking the Tories would leave us alone for a few years, yet "this time" is upon us already!
'How is this any less democratic than the previous guidelines that were drawn up by unknown civil servants?'
ReplyDeleteWhat was wrong with the Guidelines?
' Consultation is a key stage of engagement with both public and stakeholder organisations as it ensures decisions are informed by listening to those who may be affected by new proposals."'
ReplyDeleteI don't think that this was meant to include all cases. I doubt that the person who wrote this was thinking that if a new law on theft was proposed then it would be correct to consult thieves on what they thought of its provisions!
'What was wrong with the Guidelines?'
ReplyDeleteI have been asking myself the same question. It is only four years or so since those same guidelines were being hailed by home educators as a glorious victory. Now, apparently, they are no longer fit for purpose.
“The only document which Alison Sauer has so far presented in connection with local authorities is, on the other hand, dreadful.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s the opinion of Webb who admitted in these pages that he could not understand parts of it. Mr Webb, those that it was written for, understood it clearly and as a direct result, two errant organisations have retrenched and seen the warning light.
You always deride anything that is beyond the wit and comprehension of your simple naive mind.
“Becuse the current guidelines could not be clearer.”-
ReplyDeleteWebb you have to be blinded by dogma to fail to recognise how contentious the lack of clarity is and the damage that it has done. Thick, insensitive Webb as usual.
'Webb you have to be blinded by dogma to fail to recognise how contentious the lack of clarity is and the damage that it has done. Thick, insensitive Webb as usual. '
ReplyDeleteThis was posted by my friend in Scotland. He is in Midlothian this week on business. I don't think I am giving too much away when I say that he jointly operates a company with Alison Sauer and that the reason he is so tetchy about any criticism of the document which Alison Sauer was touting round recently is that he helped to write it.
I should have also mentioned that this is the same individual who was posing last week as a Swedish/Finnish university lecturer, which does little to enhance his credibility. He claims to speak a dozen languages fluently, but as we can see from his posts here, despite being married to an English woman and having lived in this country for years, his use of idiomatic English is still a little shaky. May I suggest evening classes, Ralph?
ReplyDeleteWhat ever is put in the so called new guidelines for home educaton will not be the law on home education! Guidelines are just that to act as a guide not as the law of the land Webb your talking as if the guidelines are the new law of the land on home education!
ReplyDeletesame with Gove he talking about pupils Home educated children are not pupils? or do you think home educated children are pupils?
This was posted by my friend in Scotland. He is in Midlothian this week on business. I don't think I am giving too much away when I say that he jointly operates a company with Alison Sauer and that the reason he is so tetchy about any criticism of the document which Alison Sauer was touting round recently is that he helped to write it.
ReplyDeleteSo you expose yourself as a Liar again Webb. I have never met A. S. Neither am I in Midlothian.
More non-stop bullshit webb