In February 2007, for reasons which need not concern us, the 1996 Education Act was amended. Section 436A was added, which laid upon local authorities a duty to seek out and identify children in their area who were not receiving an education. Part of the new legislation says that local authorities should:
make inquiries with parents educating children at home about the educational provision being made for them.
Rather confusingly, Section 437 goes on to say local authorities should only make these enquiries:
if it appears that a child is not receiving education.
There is of course a contradiction here. On the one hand, local authorities should seek out parents who are not providing an education for their children and then make enquiries of them. Home educating parents are specifically included in this. A few paragraphs later, we are told that these enquiries should only be made of home educating parents, 'if it appears' that a child is not receiving an education. So are the local authority to make enquiries of all home educating parents about the educational provision, as Section 436A would seem to suggest? Or should they limit these enquiries only to those cases where is appears to them that an education is not being provided, as is laid down in Section 437?
It is this conundrum which is currently exercising the minds of a number of home educators and former home educators. Although the law is not clear, common sense would suggests that the duty in Section 436A should probably be the thing the to follow. Different people have many and various duties in law, some of which it is for local authorities to enforce. For example, an hotel owner must provide things like wash basins and take care to keep meat products separate from other foods in his kitchen. This is his duty and it is entirely his responsibility to see that such things are done. Nevertheless, the local authority has a duty to check that he is doing this. They will do so, regardless of whether they have reason to suppose that he is failing in this duty. Similarly, parents have a duty to provide their children with an education, either at school or at home. The local authority, just as in the case of the hotel owner, will check that this duty is being complied with. they do so whether or not they have cause to doubt that a suitable education is being provided. The law may be confusing, but our common sense tells us that when hotel owners, shopkeepers, managers of factories, teachers or parents have a duty; some at least will seek to evade this duty. This is human nature. The role of local authorities is to keep an eye out for such evasions and check that they do not happen. It seems as though, once again, home educators wish for special consideration which is not given to others.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete'The law may be confusing, but our common sense tells us that when hotel owners, shopkeepers, managers of factories, teachers or parents have a duty; some at least will seek to evade this duty. This is human nature. The role of local authorities is to keep an eye out for such evasions and check that they do not happen. It seems as though, once again, home educators wish for special consideration which is not given to others. '
Again. LAs have a duty to inspect hotel owners, shopkeepers, managers of factories and teachers because they are being paid to provide services to the public and members of the public are not in a position to ensure that they are not being put at risk by using the services. Local authorities have powers to ensure that those services are being provided in accordance with regulations.
Parents educating their children at home are private individuals who are not providing a service to the public, nor are they receiving remuneration for what they do. They are in a totally different category. Local authorities do not have powers to ensure that private individuals are acting within the law unless there is evidence to suggest that they are not.
The law is confusing only because you, and whoever drafted the statutory guidelines regarding CME, didn't understand, or possibly didn't want to understand, how it works.
'Parents educating their children at home are private individuals who are not providing a service to the public, nor are they receiving remuneration for what they do. @
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth has remuneration or being paid for service, to do with the case? If I started a free soup kitchen run by volunteers and paid for the whole thing out of my own pocket, I would still have to comply with the law regarding catering and the local authority would still check that the provision was acceptable. This is a massive red herring!
'If I started a free soup kitchen run by volunteers and paid for the whole thing out of my own pocket, I would still have to comply with the law regarding catering and the local authority would still check that the provision was acceptable.'
ReplyDeleteYes. But if you made and served soup to your own child, you would obviously not.
Precisely, anonymous.
ReplyDelete'if you made and served soup to your own child, you would obviously not'
ReplyDeletePerhaps not the serving of soup, but an awful lot of what happens in a private home is legally the concern of local authorities. Fitting a gas cooker, rewiring a house, building a loft extension, having the wrong sorts of weeds in the garden; these are all the proper concern of local authorities. Some would argue that the education of children is more important than these things.
The great difference of course between the serving of soup to a child and the nature and extent of the education which he receives is that one will affect only one person and the other will have an effect upon society as a whole. If I give my child a bowl of poorly prepared soup, it will affect only him. If I raise him to be illiterate or worse still, vicious and dishonest; society will have to suffer from it and pick up the pieces.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. These issues are not 'the proper concern of local authorities'. The proper concern of local authorities is that local people are provided with services, and that any breaches of the law are dealt with appropriately. Local authorities do not inspect the installation of gas cookers nor the rewiring of houses nor what sort of weeds private individuals grow in their gardens.
ReplyDeleteThey do have powers to act if a private individual installing gas cookers or re-wiring houses does so in exchange for remuneration without the necessary qualifications, or without paying attention to the relevant safety regulations, or if weeds growing in someone's garden endanger their neighbours, but in those case, the person in question is in breach of the law.
You might consider home education to be the proper concern of local authorities, but that is your personal opinion, and, as you might have noticed, many people hold other opinions on this matter.
'They do have powers to act if a private individual installing gas cookers or re-wiring houses does so in exchange for remuneration without the necessary qualifications, or without paying attention to the relevant safety regulations,'
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the wholly irrelevant question of renumeration is introduced! If I buy a gas cooker and install it myself, I am committing an offence. This is the proper concern not only of the local authority, but also of my neighbours. The reason for this is that if I don't undertake the job properly, I could blow up not only my house, but also theirs. If I am undertaking certain activities, I must notify the local authority, because these activities might affect others adversely. Educating a child is that sort of activity; if not strictly in law, then in the eyes of most ordinary people. A badly fitted gas cooker and a poorly educated child are both likely to have negative effects upon other members of society. It is in society's interests to try and prevent either from becoming to common.
"Nevertheless, the local authority has a duty to check that he is doing this. They will do so, regardless of whether they have reason to suppose that he is failing in this duty."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure? There are various legal requirements for our business of a similar nature to those you describe, yet in 15 years the local authority has not visited us once.
"Perhaps not the serving of soup, but an awful lot of what happens in a private home is legally the concern of local authorities. Fitting a gas cooker, rewiring a house, building a loft extension, having the wrong sorts of weeds in the garden; these are all the proper concern of local authorities."
But this type of thing will only come to the notice of the LA if someone is reported for carrying out work they should not be doing. The LA does not routinely visit all homes to check that any electrical work carried out since their last visit was carried out by a qualified electrician, do they?
"Some would argue that the education of children is more important than these things. "
So the risk of killing a current or future occupier of a property by electrocution because a light is incorrectly fitted in a bathroom is less important than a child's education?
"If I give my child a bowl of poorly prepared soup, it will affect only him."
So if you cause food poisoning that requires a hospital admission, you will bear the cost? You would have to go private and not use the NHS because you caused the problem?
"If I buy a gas cooker and install it myself, I am committing an offence."
So does the LA routinely check that you are following this law through regular home inspections? Or do they wait for some sign that there may be a problem? Are you assumed to be innocent until proven guilty or guilty until you prove you are innocent?
Simon, I think there might be a point here.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the fall out should home education be used to indoctrinate children into terrorism?
"Simon, I think there might be a point here.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the fall out should home education be used to indoctrinate children into terrorism?"
And you don't think this could be a problem in the homes of children in schools? The majority of children who suffer abuse do not disclose the abuse whilst they are a child. If abusers can 'persuade' children not to disclose something like that, it would be even easier to prevent disclosure of indoctrination since the people the child could disclose to would be 'the enemy'. Or do you think they terrorists would have how-to-be-a-terrorist posters up in their home for the children to learn from?
"So are the local authority to make enquiries of all home educating parents about the educational provision, as Section 436A would seem to suggest? Or should they limit these enquiries only to those cases where is appears to them that an education is not being provided, as is laid down in Section 437?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a contradiction. The Elective Home Education Guidelines (and case law) make it clear that LAs can make informal enquiries of home educators in order to ascertain that there is no failure to provide a suitable education (Donaldson). The guidelines for section 436A state that once it is known that a family are home educating (because they say they are), the Elective Home Education Guidelines should be followed and these guidelines include information about these informal enquiries.
"Once again, the wholly irrelevant question of renumeration is introduced! If I buy a gas cooker and install it myself, I am committing an offence. This is the proper concern not only of the local authority, but also of my neighbours."
ReplyDeleteI think the real point is that if you install it yourself then (a) you are in breach of the law, (b) if the local authority discover this then they may take action, (c) you are not obliged to tell them anything and (d) they are not obliged to make routine enquiries.
For all I know, registered gas fitters need to inform the LA of all appliances on which they work, but somehow I doubt it. People are generally trusted to obey the law and use a registered fitter who will install an appliance in the appropriate manner. The LA does not routinely check on people and ask to see proof of correct installation.
The same should be true of education, where we're all trusted to provide an education by whatever means we decide and it's only if evidence of non-compliance comes to light that the LA follows up. I am not obliged to have my boiler serviced every year, and the LA does not check whether it has been done. Why should they be checking on educational provision without evidence that it is lacking?
Simon said
ReplyDelete'If I am undertaking certain activities, I must notify the local authority, because these activities might affect others adversely.'
Yes indeed, and those activities are carefully codified in law. Some activities are so risky that no one is allowed to undertake them without being qualified to do so, such as installing gas appliances. But local authorities do not inspect gas installations, people qualified to inspect gas installations do this.
Private individuals are permitted to do some electrical work in their homes without needing to have formal qualifications or for it to be inspected; other work needs to be inspected by a qualified electrician.
LAs do not inspect gas or electrical installations. It is not what they do. A local authority would become involved in gas or electrical installations only if a *breach of the law* was involved, ie a qualified gas installer or electrician encountered a case of non-compliance in relation to safety regulations that wasn't being addressed, and reported it to the LA - in the LA's law-enforcement capacity.
You, or local authorities, might *believe* that a badly-educated child could have a negative effect on society, but local authorities cannot act in accordance with their *beliefs*; they have certain clearly-defined duties to perform and have to observe legal limits on how far they can intrude into the lives of individuals. Clearly, successive governments have not felt that the risk to the public of a poorly educated child is quite as serious as that posed by a badly-installed gas cooker. I agree with them. Perhaps you don't.
we know that some where in England some one is planing or thinking about planing a terrorist attack maybe with a nuclear or dity bomb in which many thousands or people could be killed should we not search every house building just in case? The answer is of course no and the police also do not want to do this! The police want to target where to search on evidence there may get. it would be a complete waste of time for the police to search all houses and would case bad feeling with many people and this is the same with children who may be missing education only take action when evidence or reports of this come to light.
ReplyDeletePerhaps another example would be that of the TV licence. Everyone that has a TV capable of receiving broasts is obliged to have one, and all retail outlets inform the TV licensing authority when ever a TV is sold.
ReplyDeleteThe comparison to electricity is slightly different. It isn't the LA that inspects, although their building control officers can. The government has delegated control to specially qualified electricians who have been on and passed particular training courses and have had to be supervised by a qualified person for the first inspection they do.
There are lots of things in life that we don't have the liberty to just go around doing. Such is the price to pay for living in groups of people that exceed Dunbar's number.
"Perhaps another example would be that of the TV licence. Everyone that has a TV capable of receiving broasts is obliged to have one, and all retail outlets inform the TV licensing authority when ever a TV is sold."
ReplyDeleteYes, we are obliged to have a TV licence if we receive broadcasts, just as we are obliged to provide a suitable education to our children. If we are suspected of not doing either,they can make informal enquires but there is no automatic right of inspection, so the current system for TV licensing and HE is similar. If they have evidence of failure to comply with the law they can take legal action.