As readers are probably aware, there was at the end of last year some controversy about the drafting of new guidelines for local authorities, explaining the legal position of home education and advising how to handle home education in their area. It is worth reminding ourselves that this new, supposed consultation was restricted in membership to a tiny group of individuals, only one of whom would admit to being involved at all. I thought it might be a good idea to see how open the process was for the existing guidelines, so that we may contrast the situation then and now. Here is an account of the public consultation which led to the framing of the 2007 guidelines;
http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Results%20of%20home%20ed%20pdf.pdf
It will be seen that over six hundred home educating parents were involved in this; by far the biggest group. Every home educating parent in the country had the opportunity to contribute their views on this matter directly to the relevant government department. Now observe this brief statement from the Department for Education website;
Note that the guidelines are to be reviewed. By whom? Will there be an open consultation, as before, to which all stakeholders may contribute? Or will the consultation be limited to a tiny number of self-chosen experts and Home Education Consultants? It is an interesting point. Who is doing this reviewing of which the DfE speaks and when is it to be done? One observes that this note about the review appeared on the website at the same time that consultation on the new twenty day rule closed. Is this a coincidence?
I have, as is widely known, no particular objection to new regulations or even new legislation about home education. However, I am disturbed at the hole-and-corner way that these changes are now being effected. It is looking suspiciously as though things are being done on the quiet, without involving ordinary home educators themselves. There was a good deal of criticism of the last administration because of the way that they tried to change the law on home education. At least though, they did the thing publicly, with open consultations to which we could all respond. From the 2007 Guidelines to the Badman report and the select committee; anybody could submit evidence and take part, attempting to influence the outcome of any proposed changes. This is not happening this time and I find this a little alarming. It is time that those home educators who have taken part in the framing of new guidelines spoke out publicly and told us what they have been up to.
Webb says-This is not happening this time and I find this a little alarming. It is time that those home educators who have taken part in the framing of new guidelines spoke out publicly and told us what they have been up to.
ReplyDeleteagain im afraid i have to agree with Webb(we dont like agreeing with him) he is 100% right it is high time we heard from those who have taken part in any framing of new guidlines!
he also says-Note that the guidelines are to be reviewed. By whom
yes by who what time frame? and can home educators give a view?
something very fishy going on?
i do not like agreeing with Webb but his post is spot on here! we need answers and fast in our view
Who created the guidelines that were used in the 2007 consultation? Aren't the people that drew them up the equivalent of the 'secret group'? At a guess I would say they were drawn up by officials. The guidelines that were supposed to be drawn up by Christmas would have been thrown open for consultation to everyone, just as the 2007 guidelines were and at least they would have been drawn up by home educators rather than government officials.
ReplyDelete'The guidelines that were supposed to be drawn up by Christmas would have been thrown open for consultation to everyone, just as the 2007 guidelines were '
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed good news. Where can I obtain a copy of these guidelines in order to offer my criticism?
Will the new guidelines which anonymous talks of, be distributed with a questionnaire like the following:
ReplyDeleteConsultation on Home Education Guidelines
Consultation Response Form
The closing date for this consultation is: 31 July 2007
Your comments must reach us by that date.
Name
Organisation (if applicable)
Address:
If your enquiry is related to the policy content of the consultation you can contact Elaine Haste on:
Telephone: 0870 000 2288
e-mail: elaine.haste@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Which of the following best describes you:
Home educator Organisation representing home educators Local authority
Young person who is/was home educated Other (please specify)
Please Specify:
1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
2 Do you agree that the description of the law (paragraphs 2.1-2.3) relating to elective home education is accurate and clear?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
3 Do you agree that the description of local authorities’ responsibilities (paragraphs 2.5-2.11) is accurate and helpful?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
4 Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority (paragraphs 3.4-3.7) is accurate and helpful?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
5 Do you agree that the section on providing a full-time education (paragraphs 3.11-3.14) – and in particular, the characteristics of provision (paragraph 3.13) – is accurate and helpful?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
6 Do you agree that the section on developing relationships (section 4) is useful?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
7 a) Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
7 b) Should any other contacts be included?
Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
8 Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidelines
Comments:
"This is indeed good news. Where can I obtain a copy of these guidelines in order to offer my criticism?"
ReplyDeleteI've no idea - it hasn't happened yet, I have the same information (or lack of information) as you. This is what we were told when the group first formed and they began working on the draft guidelines.
We have no idea yet if the group has ended with or without a product. You seem to be assuming that they have a product and that the consultation will not include all home educators. What evidence are you basing this on?
We have been told (months ago) that everyone will be consulted. We have not been told that only a limited group will be consulted. Why assume the worst and assume that the group and Graham Stuart were lying when they said they would consult widely until it actually happens? You are the first to say that people shouldn't leap to conclusions, yet here you are starting your very own conspiracy theory!
Anon says-Why assume the worst and assume that the group and Graham Stuart were lying when they said they would consult widely until it actually happens?
ReplyDeletebecause the 20 day rule may be brought in for home educated children in September 2011 i see no signs of consulting so far? im afraid Webb may be right about this which i do not want to have to say!
"because the 20 day rule may be brought in for home educated children in September 2011 i see no signs of consulting so far?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe they count the consultation at the time of the Badman review as a consultation for this? That consultation did cover this.
anon says-Maybe they count the consultation at the time of the Badman review as a consultation for this? That consultation did cover this.
ReplyDeleteyou could be right anon! and maybe their going to use the other bits of the Badman review as the consultation?
somethin very fishy about all of this im afraid Webb is right about this why is it not out in the open and who doing what and why?
"somethin very fishy about all of this im afraid Webb is right about this why is it not out in the open and who doing what and why? "
ReplyDeleteThey're not comparable though. They did consult about the 20 days (if they are counting the consult that included it last year), but they haven't consulted (yet) about revised guidelines. For some reason Simon has developed a conspiracy theory linking the supposed non-consultation over the 20 days rule and a theoretical non-consultation about new guidelines, despite a complete lack of evidence to suggest that this will happen.
' For some reason Simon has developed a conspiracy theory linking the supposed non-consultation over the 20 days rule and a theoretical non-consultation about new guidelines, despite a complete lack of evidence to suggest that this will happen'
ReplyDeleteWell obviously, the best way to dispel any sort of conspiracy theory would be for a few facts to be provided. Who is involved in reviewing the 2007 guidelines, what is their remit, when will the first draft be available; things like that. Since those involved are determined to be secretive about the business, it does rather encourage speculation. Are the new guidelines which are apparently being written by a group of home educutors anything to do with the review mentioned on the DfE website, or are these different things? if anybody reading this has any facts abit all this, I for one would be delighted to hear about them. It is rare enough that I am accused of promoting a conspiracy theory and if I am doing so now then why doesn't somebody simply explain what is going on?
Webb says-Well obviously, the best way to dispel any sort of conspiracy theory would be for a few facts to be provided. Who is involved in reviewing the 2007 guidelines, what is their remit, when -will the first draft be available; things like that. Since those involved are determined to be secretive about the business, it does rather encourage speculation. Are the new guidelines which are apparently being written by a group of home educutors anything to do with the review mentioned on the DfE website, or are these different things? if anybody reading this has any facts abit all this,
ReplyDeleteIm afraid Webb is right lets know who is involved? what is the remit? and what have their been talking about? as we said we do not like to agree with Webb but for once he spot on!
"Well obviously, the best way to dispel any sort of conspiracy theory would be for a few facts to be provided. Who is involved in reviewing the 2007 guidelines, what is their remit, when will the first draft be available; things like that"
ReplyDeleteHave you asked Graham Stuart or the Department of Education? You're very quick to suggest that others should contact people directly and ask instead of speculating and creating rumours and conspiracy theories, yet here you doing just that yourself. Take your own advice.
He's obviously spending too much time on internet forums - picking up bad habits!
ReplyDeleteAnon says-Have you asked Graham Stuart or the Department of Education? You're very quick to suggest that others should contact people directly and ask instead of speculating and creating rumours and conspiracy theories,
ReplyDeleteWe have contacted Graham Stuart and our M.P who have both said their look into it. The letter is not a conspiracy theory it is very clear that at the start of September 2011 any child who leaves state school to staart home education the name of child will remain on register for 20 days!
'Have you asked Graham Stuart or the Department of Education? '
ReplyDeleteOf course. The DfE is currently deciding whether any changes are needed to the current system and Graham Stuart is strangely shy.
Yes, I know that, Peter. It's Simon's theory that the government is going to introduce new guidelines without a full consultation that is the conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteSimon said,
"There was a good deal of criticism of the last administration because of the way that they tried to change the law on home education. At least though, they did the thing publicly, with open consultations to which we could all respond."
You do know that the 2005 'consultation' about guidelines specifically excluded individuals and families? They claimed that they couldn't afford a full, public consultation so a few copies were circulated to organisations. This was after the initial draft was leaked from the department, so they probably originally hoped to add it to their web site with no consulting at all.
Luckily nothing came of this round of consultations and, as a result of complaints by home educators that the process was illegal, the next consultation was more open. So you have your 'vociferous few' to thank for your opportunity to support the Badman recommendations, Simon.
"It's Simon's theory that the government is going to introduce new guidelines without a full consultation that is the conspiracy theory."
ReplyDeleteBTW, I should say that I fully support vigilance in this area. I'm only really calling it a conspiracy theory because this is what Simon usually says about this kind of speculation when other home educators do it. To be honest, I don't trust politicians or civil servants as far as I can throw them.
But vigilance and twisting the draft guidelines production into some kind of conspiracy theory is a bit much coming from Simon who usually insults others when they make similar claims. The 2005 guidelines were almost sneaked in without any public attention, they only asked a HE organisation to comment on them after a leak. The following draft guidelines were produced by civil servants. At least this time they asked home educators to produce them, though I too disliked the secrecy and also wonder what has happened since.
Yes, I know that, Peter. It's Simon's theory that the government is going to introduce new guidelines without a full consultation that is the conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteThat is why we need to know what is going on? that letter about the 20 day does not just happen? must have been planing meeting with civil servant and LA's
For once Webb may be right we need to know what is going on and if any home educators are involved in all of this? i dont like agreeing with Webb as he is wrong about most things but on this he may be on to something why dont those who may be involved tell us?
Webb says-Of course. The DfE is currently deciding whether any changes are needed to the current system and Graham Stuart is strangely shy.
ReplyDeleteyes all Graham Stuart has said on his face book page and in a message to me is "i am looking into this" that sounds like a holding response?
i do not like at all agreeing with Webb but he is right every one appears very shy! why? what is going on?
I believe that one member of the group to be a HE consultant and the recent chair of a HE charity with a dubious reputation.
ReplyDeleteAnother member the barrister employed by that charity.
A third member, owns a popular HE website and has plans to rejoin the HE charity that he once hated with a passion.
This is a charity that can't find their accounts ledgers or the money that's supposed to be in them.
I know they've been roaming the country trying to con LAs into believing they're the voice and authority of HE. There are others involved too, but on a more local level. They're the ones that rarely run meetings or activities, or are ever seen to be involved in the education of their offspring, but are massively involved in the political arena...often being so militant that they'll eat anyone who dares to step into that arena to voice their humble and modest opinion.
'I believe that one member of the group to be a HE consultant and the recent chair of a HE charity with a dubious reputation.
ReplyDeleteAnother member the barrister employed by that charity.
A third member, owns a popular HE website and has plans to rejoin the HE charity that he once hated with a passion.
This is a charity that can't find their accounts ledgers or the money that's supposed to be in them.'
This is very interesting, Anonymous. The HE charity can only be Education Otherwise. Are we to understand that Ian Dowty and Mike Fortune-Wood are mixed up in this? And, if I mistake not your meaning, Fiona Nicholson as well? This is indeed food for thought!
Hi Si, that's the 'official' group...but there's also the 'cultists' that have unwittingly unleashed chaos by dabbling with the dark powers of education politics and the imps in the LA.
ReplyDeleteThey're the nutters that have barely begun to HE their own progeny but have got their knickers in a twist by joining too many HE forums..
On a positive note, you can always laugh at their antics.
The rest of us...we're getting on with it.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to Tania and Imran anyway?
ReplyDelete"This is indeed food for thought!"
ReplyDeleteLOL! Simon, don't be ridiculous. How can you even suggest that you are giving serious thought to the ramblings of a random anonymous poster? "I believe"...?! 'I guess (because I don't like these people)', would probably be more accurate.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/39/39ii.pdf
ReplyDeleteForgive me for saying, but some of you are a little deluded. I don't normally read this erm ... blog, but when I heard about this particular post, I thought I would come along and set some of you straight. I am one of the home educating people working on the guidelines.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that many of the participants in this particular piece have the faintest notion of the 'politics' going on, and I don't mean of the kind usually ascribed to politicians. I would say it is more reminiscent of a pimp and his patch, than any of the skulduggery that real politicians get up to.
In short, some individuals consider themselves to be the doyen of home education policy negotiations with government, and rather suffer from a similar affliction as Simon Webb ... what was it called? Delusions of grandeur? I refer of course to Anon 6 April 2011 00:19.
They want to be the Big Cheese if any new guidelines are drawn up, and they don't like other home educators muscling-in on their territory. Hence the agitation, name calling and scaremongering about those who are doing just that. I guess you could call it a 'turf-war'.
I must admit that I was adverse to anonymity in the beginning, but having seen the lengths that people will go to to muddy the waters, and the personal attacks on perfectly innocent individuals, I see why it was necessary. Not to mention the threat of personal injury that the likes of Peter and Carol like to threaten all manner of people with.
I personally would like to give you two bloody noses - you are two of the most ignorant ... I was going to say ... imbeciles that home education ever had the misfortune of having among its number... but you probably wouldn't know what that meant. If your letters to MPs are what this government has to go on, then we are all up a well known water course full of excreta, without the proverbial maritime instrument. Please tell me that either or both of you happened to pass through the gates of a State school and followed a broad and balanced curriculum?
Peter and Carol, I apologise for any offense, but Dear God!
Can I say as a parting comment that the 20 day thing came as a surprise even to the members of the [cue booming creepy voice] "secret group" - well those that I know of anyway.