Dear XXXXX,
Thank you for your letter of 30 March addressed to the Secretary of
State, on behalf of a number of your constituents, about the proposed
changes to the Pupil Registration Regulations regarding parents choosing
to remove their children from school to home educate. I am replying as
the Minister of State for Schools.
I would like to reassure you that it is absolutely not our intention
that this change should affect the rights of parents to home educate
their children with immediate effect if they wish to do so. Similarly,
it is not our intention that this change should be used to put pressure
on parents to return their child to school. We will make this clear in
supporting guidance to schools and local authorities.
Our aim is to give parents and schools a short period of time to resolve
any issues that may have led to the parent withdrawing their child from
school, in particular where a parent may have been unfairly coerced into
home educating against their will. Currently, a parent who has withdrawn
their child from school has to re-apply for a school place, and there is
no guarantee that one would be available at the school which the child
had previously attended. The proposed change will secure the child's
place for twenty days before it is made available for another child.
I understand your constituents' concern that the proposed change may be
open to abuse from parents who may try to use it as a way of taking
their children on holiday during term time. I am confident however that
schools and local authorities will be able to recognise whether a
parent's wish to withdraw their child from school is genuine or not and
deal with the situation accordingly.
We believe that this and the other proposed changes to the Pupil
Registration Regulations will benefit parents and schools, which is why
we want the changes to come into effect for the start of the new school
year in September 2011. It is for this reason that the consultation on
the changes was targeted at key representative bodies, and unfortunately
it was not possible to include individual schools, local authorities or
home educators in the time available.
I hope this reply goes some way to addressing the concerns of your
constituents.
With best wishes
Nick Gibb MP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I understand your constituents' concern that the proposed change may be open to abuse from parents who may try to use it as a way of taking their children on holiday during term time. I am confident however that schools and local authorities will be able to recognise whether a parent's wish to withdraw their child from school is genuine or not and deal with the situation accordingly."
ReplyDeleteAnd how are they going to do that? Hand in the deregistration paperwork when collecting the child on Friday afternoon, fly out Saturday morning. Nothing in any of the rules gives them the power to do anything about it, and the danger is that they'll suddenly decide they need those powers. That's what has many of us concerned by the change.
I can see that those who are genuine about home education might want to start off with a holiday away from it all, so the only distinguishing feature from the rest is that they don't put their child back in school when they return.
"in particular where a parent may have been unfairly coerced into home educating against their will"
ReplyDeleteHow common is this? And if it is the school that is attempting t coerce the parent into home education, what forms would the 'resolution of any issues' take? Would it include the intervention of parent governors or the LA, assuming that it was the teachers and head teacher putting the pressure on the parent to withdraw their child from school? I am not sure that twenty days would be sufficient to resolve a situation that had denigrated to this point. Presumably any situation so dire that the school is effectively forcing the child out would have been ongoing for a long time, and the parent would probably need someone to put their case forward on their behalf. How is less than a month supposed to put things right in such a scenario?
Perhaps more parents might be more willing to try HE if they feel they won't immediately have the rug pulled out from under them once they make the decision. However, I can also see schools doing everything to unofficially 'encourage' parents to change their minds once a dereg letter is submitted if it means it will look less bad for them, especially if bullying is quoted as a reason for the decision.
When I handed my dereg letter in, the head teacher told me the next day that the only reason she didn't phone me at 9 O'clock that night was because she thought I might be sleeping.
Nick Gibb M.P says-schools and local authorities will be able to recognise whether a
ReplyDeleteparent's wish to withdraw their child from school is genuine or not and
deal with the situation accordingly.
How will their decide this then? and it will take more than 20 days to sort out problems parents may have with a school/head/LA your be very luckie to get a letter within 20 days from LA and if you do it is often just a holding letter!
where is the evidence we need this change to be brought in so quick?
thank goodness it does not affect us! i wonder what it will be like to home educate in England in 5 years time?
'"in particular where a parent may have been unfairly coerced into home educating against their will"
ReplyDeleteHow common is this?'
Common enough that Graham Badman and the Ofsted survey last year both found evidence of it. It is called 'offrolling' and schools use it to get rid of pupils who truant a lot or are disruptive. They give the parents a choice; your kid will be excluded/you will be prosecuted for his truancy or you can deregister him and the problem is solved. At Firfield school in Newcastle, a few years ago, the school actually typed out the letters for the parents and then told the parents to sign them.
"ommon enough that Graham Badman and the Ofsted survey last year both found evidence of it."
ReplyDeleteReal evidence, or people telling them that this happens? If they found evidence, was the headteacher prosecuted? Surely a few high profile prosecutions would put a quick stop to this kind of abuse of the system far quicker than a 20 day delay?
'"ommon enough that Graham Badman and the Ofsted survey last year both found evidence of it."
ReplyDeleteReal evidence, or people telling them that this happens? If they found evidence, was the headteacher prosecuted? '
Why on earth would the head be prosecuted? It's not an offence for him to fail to pass on this information to the local authority.
"Why on earth would the head be prosecuted? It's not an offence for him to fail to pass on this information to the local authority."
ReplyDeletePass on what information?
'Why on earth would the head be prosecuted? It's not an offence for him to fail to pass on this information to the local authority."
ReplyDeletePass on what information?'
The information that a pupil has been deregistered in order to be educated at home. The way the scam works is that Heads encourage this and then don't tell the local authority. Somebody asked whether any Head had been prosecuted for this.
"The information that a pupil has been deregistered in order to be educated at home. The way the scam works is that Heads encourage this and then don't tell the local authority. Somebody asked whether any Head had been prosecuted for this."
ReplyDeleteIf Badman and Ofsted have evidence of this, were the head teachers prosecuted? Failure to comply with the regulations means the head is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine, according to the Education Act 1996.
I wrote earlier,
ReplyDelete"Failure to comply with the regulations means the head is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine, according to the Education Act 1996."
The pupil registration regulations state:
"(3) As to the contents of the admission register comprising particulars relating to a pupil whose name is to be deleted in accordance with regulation 8(1)(d) [home education], (e),(g),(i) or (m), the proprietor shall make a return to the local authority for every such pupil giving the full name of the pupil, the address of any parent with whom the pupil normally resides and the ground upon which their name is to be deleted from the admission register as soon as the ground for deletion is met in relation to that pupil, and in any event no later than deleting the pupil’s name from the register."
Therefore, any school proprietor who fails to inform their Local Authority that a child has been removed from the register in order to home educate immediately is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. If they know this happens and have proof of this, why have there not been newspaper articles naming and shaming these heads in much the same was as parents of truanting children have? If this is considered a suitable method to counter truancy, why isn't it suitable in this instance? I doubt it would take many to cases to stop the practice. Instead they decide to make life potentially more difficult for parents instead of tackling the problem with existing powers. Sounds familiar.
If they know this happens and have proof of this, why have there not been newspaper articles naming and shaming these heads in much the same was as parents of truanting children have?'
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nickdavies.net/2000/07/01/the-big-cheat-the-problem-with-rising-standards-in-schools/
'the proprietor shall make a return to the local authority for every such pupil giving the full name of the pupil, the address of any parent with whom the pupil normally resides and the ground upon which their name is to be deleted from the admission register as soon as the ground for deletion is met in relation to that pupil'
ReplyDeletePrepare yourself for a big shock. The Heads who play this game do not put true reasons down on the returns! They pretend that the family have just moved on. Terrible, I know.
"Prepare yourself for a big shock. The Heads who play this game do not put true reasons down on the returns! They pretend that the family have just moved on. Terrible, I know."
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the cases you claimed Badman and Ofsted have evidence of. Either they have evidence and have done nothing about prosecuting the head teachers, or they have just be told that it happens but have no actual proof. Which is it? Neither option seems to justify the 20 day delay. If they have evidence they have powers to take care of it already. If they don't have evidence, how can they justify an change in the regulations on these grounds?
"http://www.nickdavies.net/2000/07/01/the-big-cheat-the-problem-with-rising-standards-in-schools/ "
ReplyDeleteI've already read that. It doesn't sound as though they prosecuted this head for not following the regulations. Why? This seems a perfect opportunity for driving the message home to other heads and nipping this abuse of the system in the bud.
There seems to ne some confusion here. I am saying that offrolling exists. I am not saying at all that this is the reason for the latest change in the pupil registration arrangements. Somebody earlier seemed to doubt that this happened and I was assuring her that it did. It is no secret, but whether this is what has prompted the latest business is more than I know.
ReplyDelete"There seems to ne some confusion here. I am saying that offrolling exists. I am not saying at all that this is the reason for the latest change in the pupil registration arrangements."
ReplyDeleteBut this is one of their justifications for bringing in the delay. All of their reasons could be solved in alternative ways using existing powers or without potentially making life potentially more difficult for parents. Can you think of any justification for the delay that couldn't be solved more easily via another route or existing power?