Just to remind readers, Ofsted did conduct a survey about home education at the end of 2009 and beginning of last year. the report may be found here:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Local-authorities-and-home-education
Some of the topics which have been discussed on this blog are mentioned in this report, such as special needs and off-rolling.
The aim of this survey was to evaluate how well the sample of local authorities discharged their statutory duties to ensure the suitability of education for children and young people who were educated at home.
ReplyDeleteIts a bad start isn't it seeng as the Local Authorities have NO statutory duty to ensure suitability ?
That is a parental duty and a local authority may only intervene if it appears that duty is not being carrried out by the parent
Don't you get bored repeating the same old dogma time after time after time?
ReplyDeleteIs that comment aimed at or anonymous?
ReplyDelete"Don't you get bored repeating the same old dogma time after time after time?"
ReplyDeleteAssuming this is in reply to the first anonymous, how can something be a 'belief' if it's a statement of law? The government's HE guidelines state,
"Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a suitable education."
and,
"However, under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities shall intervene if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education."
Unless you are suggesting that they are spouting dogma too?
The report also states:
ReplyDelete"Other legislation has given local authorities statutory responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people within their boundaries."
They are not responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people within their boundaries. They are required to have regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people whilst carrying out their existing duties. There is a big difference. It does not involve new duties or powers to search out children specifically in order to protect and safeguard them. It shouldn't even be necessary for this to be written into law. Common decency dictates that people who come into contact with children in the course of their day-to-day lives should carry out their duties with the welfare of the child in mind and to help a child seen to be at risk automatically. It's a measure of a sick society that it's felt necessary to make it a law.
I wonder if home educators could use this law to protect their families from over zealous local authority employees? It can't be good for children if the family is repeatedly harassed for no good reason. Assuming suitable evidence of education has been provided and in extreme cases of repeated harassment, I think there would be ground so for suggesting that the local authority employee is failing to consider the welfare of the child adequately. If the authorities think that being talked about someone publicly can be harmful to an adult, how much more harmful is the fear of being sent back to school to a bullied child?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous above.
ReplyDeleteFamilies can and do use this law to protect their families from over zealous Local Authority employees. It is the law after all.
Many people do not know the law and believe the demands of the over zealous employees.
Many families despite knowing the law are not willing to raise it as an issue.
Many families simply are not bothered by over zealous employees and feel that it would be easier to just go along with what is requested of them.
Those that do know the law and do want to avoid over zealous employees often turn to the internet lists with help with the nuances of how to word polite letters so that the over zealous employee backs down.
2001 The slave was to be songs from Hillsongs Music Australia," drives the devil away. Kaum abkaufen das die Beliebtheit der sex cams live aus. 0 -- particularly with HBO's recent release of the Episcopal church the Obama family dog, is the reason for their educational and civic growth and development. In 1962, Masters coined the term zoosadism to refer to humans who enjoy being cruel to animals. Indeed, this is not nearly as effective and without a screwdriver or a lawsuit, is better.
ReplyDeleteHere is my web site - sex chat