When I wrote recently on this topic, I was surprised to find that there was broad agreement about many points. Here are a few more points with which few home educators will disagree. First, there will always be cases of cruel or abusive people mistreating or even murdering their children. Most of these children are at school and a few are home educated. Such abusers can be very cunning and a brief visit once a year will almost certainly miss some of these wicked parents.
A second point is that annual visits for every home educating family is an expensive and not particularly effective way of keeping an eye on the situation. To give an example, one need only look at my own case. Essex County Council chose to involve themselves and start visiting our home when my daughter was eight. We live in Loughton and their office is in Colchester. Each visit entailed a seventy mile round trip for the woman. By the time my daughter was thirteen and taking IGCSEs, it was clear to both us and the local authority that such visits were a waste of their time and ours. There are many similar cases. This sort of thing is not a good use of resources.
On the other hand, I do not believe that we should just assume that every parent is capable of undertaking this civic duty. Just as somebody who volunteers to undertake the duty of policing, as special constables do, is required first to demonstrate his or her fitness to undertake the task; so to with those who would educate a child. The easiest way to assess the suitability for exercising this duty is for somebody from the local authority to make an initial visit to the home and speak to both the parent and child. In this way, I would guess that a chat and a look around the home would make it clear that a large proportion of those parents were quite capable of taking on this duty. The remaining people, I am thinking a ballpark figure of perhaps 10% to 20% could be offered the choice of continuing to home educate with some involvement and monitoring by the local authority or, if they declined, a School Attendance Order would be issued.
Of course, such a rough and ready method would result in some unfit parents being overlooked and other perfectly capable parents being offered closer supervision. On the whole though, I think that this would work better than the current system, where some parents are never seen at all. The beauty of a system like this is that it would require no new legislation. All that would be necessary would be for local authorities to tell parents that they could not be convinced that a suitable education was taking place without visiting their home. Of course, parents have no duty in law to comply with this and those that refused would automatically be issued with a School Attendance Order.
I have an idea that a system of this sort would sift out quite a few parents who are not really educating their children, while leaving the 80% or so who are to get on with the job without any interference. For those who doubt that it would be possible to judge in the course of a two hour or so visit, which parents and homes were suitable for the education of a child; there are various strong indicators. The presence of many books is one. A home with no books on display is almost certainly a home where parents are not valuing learning and education. This would be easily spotted within the first few minutes of a visit.
About to disappear for a few days on a tour of unis to help dd with choice - so my only comment for now.
ReplyDeleteAs I may have said previously, I now work 3 days a week with home educated children from a distinct ethnic minority group. (Before P Williams gets too excited - this is not in the HCC area- and I am paid by the parents, not their local authority). The fact is that anyone who met these families would be horrified at first contact - they live in overcrowded poor quality high rise accommodation, their main room definitely doesn't contain book cases ( most of their daily living seems to take place in the bedrooms - something to do with the fact that in their home land, men and women would have separate living rooms and wouldn't sit together.) The mothers' English is non existent, most of the fathers are just about understandable, but no more. They would fail all of your above indicators - and indeed their first contact with "authority" was the arrival of the police when they withdrew the first girls from school, following a report from the school that this was a forced marriage plot.
Yet these families feel passionate about education - which is why they employ tutors to teach the children; the first 6 have just taken IGCSES and all are aiming at uni - the eldest for Oxford.
There are no simple solutions to deciding who "can" and who "can't " home educate - being middle class or English speaking, or being able to sound convincing when dealing with authority is never going to be fair.
That's interesting, Julie, and a very clear example of why this wouldn't work. Books are great. I love books. But a child who has a beautiful bedroom lined with books doesn't equal a child who has someone to share those books with them - someone who is making their child's day-to-day learning needs their top priority. It might just mean that this is a middle-class home exhibiting middle-class tastes. Equally, a home might have half a dozen books in a bag waiting to go back to the library but those books are changed weekly and shared with an adult who spends their days chatting and playing and helping their child to learn.
ReplyDeleteI know you'd like this to be a simple matter of 'common-sense' judgements, Simon, but I don't see that it can ever be that. I think that it would be a mess of assumptions and prejudices.
Julie and Allie both make very good points. The answer I would make is this. Mistakes will always be made when assessing a situation. Offering parents visits each month or so because they look as though they might need them would not be a punitive measure and if after a time it became clear that these visits were unnecessary, then they could be stopped.
ReplyDeleteI am not proposing that anybody should be prevented from home educating, only that some people might need having an eye kept on them.
Allie's point about a row of books in a child's bedroom is also a good one. I too have seen this in middle class homes where it is simply how parents feel a child's room should look and does not indicate any particular love of learning. I was more thinking of a books all over the house, left laying everywhere. There is a direct and clear correlation between a child's academic success and the number of books which their home contains. I know without visiting, that if I walked into either Julie's or Allie's home unannounced, I would find books, newspapers and magazines all over the place. This is the sort of indicator which is suggstive. Its lack is not conclusive of course.
'Julie and Allie both make very good points. The answer I would make is this. Mistakes will always be made when assessing a situation. Offering parents visits each month or so because they look as though they might need them would not be a punitive measure and if after a time it became clear that these visits were unnecessary, then they could be stopped.'
DeleteI have a friend whose house is spotless, minimalistic to the point of being bare. You would not think a child lived there. Not a book to be seen. That is because her husband has severe asthama triggered by dust and every object which can hide dust is kept in cupboards and closets.
I wonder how long my friend would have to endure monthly visits for, in your scenario, before she twigged that the reason for all the unwanted interest in her family was the lack of books on display...
'Mistakes will always be made when assessing a situation.'
Exactly. What is common sense to some is absurdity to others.
glad to hear its the parents are paying you Julie! and its not for HCC! i think you should have offered us a free lesson or at least Peter! he quite good at maths!
ReplyDelete'There are no simple solutions to deciding who "can" and who "can't " home educate - being middle class or English speaking, or being able to sound convincing when dealing with authority is never going to be fair.'
ReplyDeleteThis is true. Would it however be fair to say that left to themselves, without any external help or assistance, the parents with whom you are dealing would be unable to provide their children with a suitable education?
Surely the point is that they aren't 'left to themselves'. They are fully aware of their need for support and have set about engaging those who can provide it.
DeleteOff out the door - but still not sure- if you are convinced about the value of education, and the children share that same ideal, then even without my sort of help you are going to find a way. In fact the first father to do this traveled to several Muslim countries to see if the schooling there could help his daughters achieve what they wanted - but decided they were no better than UK schools - hence home education. Another moved his family to Egypt every term to send them to school - but found that the standards were lower than the UK. It is putting your childrens' needs first which is the unifying factor.
ReplyDeleteNow off to look at Exeter, Bristol and Bath - not that dd really wants to go to any of these but you need to put down something down on the form!
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"The beauty of a system like this is that it would require no new legislation. All that would be necessary would be for local authorities to tell parents that they could not be convinced that a suitable education was taking place without visiting their home."
Except that case law has already established that local authorities cannot automatically decide that a home visit is the only way to establish provision of a suitable education. So either legislation, or a court case appealed to a higher court, is necessary to enact your plan.
'Except that case law has already established that local authorities cannot automatically decide that a home visit is the only way to establish provision of a suitable education.'
ReplyDeleteTwo points to bear in mind here. First, case law can be overturned by a ruling by a higher court. So if a local authority were to force the issue, a court could over-rule that earlier decision.
Secondly, there is no limit set by either statute or precedent which limits, or restricts in any way, a local authority deciding that it appears to them that a suitable education is not being received by a child. This judgement can be made in the absence of a visit or it can equally well be made after a visit has been taken place. Once the local authority decides that it appears to them that a suitable education is not being made, then it is their duty to issue a School Attendance Order, after of course the necessary warnings to the parents.
Nothing in current law prevents a local authority from following the scheme which I have outlined above and that none have yet done so is probably due to their nervousness about confronting the whole business. Also, the expense of taking legal action would be considerable and most council tax payers would not consider it worth the trouble.
Simon said,
Delete"Two points to bear in mind here. First, case law can be overturned by a ruling by a higher court. So if a local authority were to force the issue, a court could over-rule that earlier decision."
Yes, I mentioned that possibility myself in the same message.
"Secondly, there is no limit set by either statute or precedent which limits, or restricts in any way, a local authority deciding that it appears to them that a suitable education is not being received by a child."
Donaldson specifically said that local authorities cannot insist on inspection in the home as the only method of satisfying themselves that children are receiving full time education. Therefore, if the HE parents provided the LA with evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities that a suitable education were being provided when they made initial enquiries, and the only reason an SAO is issued is because the LA didn't get to do a home visit, a court would rule against the LA. They would have to because of the Donaldson ruling.
If it were clear to the court that the evidence provided was sufficient and that the LA should have been convinced by it, they may also criticise the LA for issuing an SAO and award costs against the LA. Local authorities know they would be wasting time and money if they followed this route so it's very unlikely to happen. As we've said, the LA could appeal and take it higher and they may win. But they would know at the outset that this would be the result and would have to approach this from the outset as a test case.
a Local authority can issue a SAO and then not do anything!
ReplyDeleteit can lie say education is not taking place issue an SAO and then leave it!
ReplyDelete'Therefore, if the HE parents provided the LA with evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities '
ReplyDeleteHere again, we fall into error! Lord Donaldson said nothing at all about a 'reasonable person'; he talked rather of a 'reasonable local education authority'. These are two different things. One may be harder to convince than the other. Of course a local authority could not set out a policy whereby they insisted on home visits. They could though reject as evidence all the duplicated educational philosophies which many of them receive and be more rigorous about what they want to see. This in itself would be a good thing, in my opinion. A great number of those parents who refuse to allow the local authority to visit their home do not provide anything much beyond an educational philosophy downloaded from the HE-UK site and photographs of their kids in the park, supposedly studying biology. Insisting upon more evidence and refusing to be satisfied by that sort of thing would certainly allow many more SAOs to be issued.
As to courts criticising local authorities for not accepting this sort of guff as evidence of a suitable education, it seems unlikely. The main thing stopping councils from embarking upon this course of action is simply that it would be expensive and tie up a lot of people.
issuing an SAO and then following it up in court is not so straightforward Webb as the parents can defend there self in court showing the judge what work there sent in! plus the cost of any court action would stop most LEA and the time taken up with it!
ReplyDeletehad an SAO but Hampshire council did ont have to guts to take us to court! was looking forward to it as well! there cowards and liars the people who work hampshire LA!
With regard to the current ambiguity relating to the current legislation surrounding HE and the LEA. I can envisage a litigation case taken against the state by an individual for failing, because of the ambiguity in the law to protect them.
ReplyDeleteThis I feel Will ultimately lead to legislation sooner rather than later making it to statue, to require all home educators have an annual visit by the LEA to determine educational provision
There is no ambiguity. Parent's are responsible for providing a suitable education to their children. This is why people have failed when attempting to take LAs to court for not providing a suitable education in schools. If LAs cannot be held responsible for failures in education when parents delegate their responsibility to LA schools, why would the LA be held responsible when parents retain that responsibility?
DeleteWell, they have been successful. See Phelps v Hillingdon LA.
DeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"Here again, we fall into error! Lord Donaldson said nothing at all about a 'reasonable person'"
I've never claimed he did. This is the level of proof required by a court for this particular crime. It would be pointless for the LA to demand a higher level of proof than the court in which the SAO would be prosecuted.
Simon said,
"They could though reject as evidence all the duplicated educational philosophies which many of them receive and be more rigorous about what they want to see."
And I agree, they would be right to do so. These philosophies are provide on the basis that they give people an idea of what level and type of information to provide and a philosophy with a few photos is unlikely to be good enough even if the philosophy is individual. The intention has never been that these online versions should just be copied and used, as is. If LAs are accepting these currently, then they are failing in their duties, but this doesn't justify enforced home visits as far as I can see.
Simon said,
"Insisting upon more evidence and refusing to be satisfied by that sort of thing would certainly allow many more SAOs to be issued."
Or more reasonably (on both sides), the LA would say why they are unsatisfied and ask for further information that the parent then provides.
Simon said,
"As to courts criticising local authorities for not accepting this sort of guff as evidence of a suitable education, it seems unlikely."
I specified, "evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities that a suitable education were being provided". An educational philosophy downloaded from a web site and sent in unchanged is clearly not sufficient, so your comment here addresses a suggestion I never made.
Anonymous said,
ReplyDelete"Well, they have been successful. See Phelps v Hillingdon LA."
But this involved a failure in the duty of care by a professional carrying out LA duties required by statue. The law requires the LA to assess children for SEN if necessary and the professional employed did not perform their duties to the level expected - they were negligent. The judgement states that an 'error of judgement' alone would not be enough to confer liability. The judgement specifically makes the point that the case does not open the door to claims based on poor quality teaching, children who did not receive an adequate education at a school, or the failure of a teacher to teach properly.
With regards to HE, if the LA follows the law and decides incorrectly that a suitable education is being provided in a particular case, they would only be held liable if it should have been obvious to the average LA employee, carrying out their duties reasonably well, that a suitable education were not being provided - a simple error of judgement would not be enough. Since the law does not require home visits, and case law has specifically established that visits cannot automatically be required by LAs to assess provision, the failure to visit could not be used against the LA to establish negligence (unless the LA could reasonably be expected to have knowledge to suggest a visit is necessary, for e.g. the disability of the primary educator as in the case already decided in court).
If the law were changed to make visits compulsory, the LA would be far more at risk of future litigation since they would be expected to have gained more information about the HE provision making it easier for a student to prove negligence on the part of the LA. I believe this is why the LAs statutory duties are phrased negatively - they are to take action if they have grounds to suspect that *no* suitable education is taking place. They are not required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a suitable education *is* taking place.
The more powers they are given, the more at risk of litigation they become, something I suspect government would want to avoid. Specifically, the failure of a child to learn and gain an education is also not sufficient proof that a suitable education was not provided (if this is the case for teachers, it must also be the case for parents) so this alone could not be used to prove liability on the part of the LA.
(This page has a link to the judgement http://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/cases/phelps.htm)
Simon, lets assume that your idea was bought to fruition and all home educators had an initial visit. How exactly would that really help sift the good from the 'bad'. Visits would involve making assumptions based mainly on visible evidence such as the state of a home, amount of books etc. But Home educators do not need to have books, they may use the library regularly. They may be naturally messy but this has no reflection on their ability to home educate.
ReplyDeleteThere would need to be some sort of checklist for them to follow and it would have to be as wide and varied as there are home educators.
So supposing someone passed the initial inspection, how does the government ensure that nothing changes within the family situation that alters their ability to home educate.
And if they did take on this huge responsibility and a child failed to receive a suitable education, could someone sue them for this failure?
It seems clear that any way of monitoring families is unlikely to succeed unless you have a yardstick to measure all home educators by, and as we are all so different one just doesn't exist.
I can see why the LA's feel they should be concerned and why they want more control (although I don't agree with it) but I see no way to appease them and home educators, or any way which monitoring can work.
' Visits would involve making assumptions based mainly on visible evidence such as the state of a home, amount of books etc. But Home educators do not need to have books, they may use the library regularly. They may be naturally messy but this has no reflection on their ability to home educate.'
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this is simple. Such a method would miss many parents who were not really educating their children and also wrongly identify quite a few as being slack, when they were not at all. this is the nature of any human system. As far as missing some abusive and neglectful parents is concerned, there is nothing we can do about that. It happens already and will continue to happen, no matter what safeguards we have in place. The only penalty which would come into play for a parent identified as needing extra help and supervision, would be more visits. This means that a false positive would harm nobody.
The current arrangement, whereby nobody ever visits some homes, is a recipe for disaster. At least with a system where all homes are visited, it would make it less likely for families providing no education to remain undetected. It is impossible to be sure, obviously; all we can do is try to make things better, not perfect.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete“The only penalty which would come into play for a parent identified as needing extra help and supervision, would be more visits. This means that a false positive would harm nobody.”
What evidence do you have to support this claim? From personal experience I know that visits alone, even without additional visits and supervision, can be harmful to education provision. Yes, I know that they have no effect on you, but I’m not you – we are not all the same.
Simon wrote,
“The current arrangement, whereby nobody ever visits some homes, is a recipe for disaster.”
Yet New Zealand education authorities decided the opposite after following the plan you suggest for several years. They have since cancelled routine visits to all home educators in favour of a few random visits each year because the visits did not find any more problem home educators than the alternative method. Maybe you underestimate the efficiency of the current system that relies on contacts with the LA from concerned professionals, family members and the public who see the family (or don't see the family if that is the concern)?
'Yet New Zealand education authorities decided the opposite after following the plan you suggest for several years. They have since cancelled routine visits to all home educators in favour of a few random visits each year because the visits did not find any more problem home educators than the alternative method.'
ReplyDelete' I know that visits alone, even without additional visits and supervision, can be harmful to education provision.'
I have known homes containing a child on the autistic spectrum where even a visit from the man to read the gas meter causes terrible stress and unhappiness. You cannot really gear any system to such rare cases. Most families have no difficulty having various strangers visiting their homes.
I do not think regular monitoring of all home educating parents is a good idea; I think it wasteful and unnecessary. What I am suggesting is an intitial visit to identify those who might need more support and simply leaving the other 90% or so to get on with it.
So you think a single visit by British LA employees will somehow be more effective than annual visits by New Zealand education authority employees and also likely to find twice as many problems (since their problem rate with or without annual visits for everyone stood at 5%). Why is this?
ReplyDelete'So you think a single visit by British LA employees will somehow be more effective than annual visits by New Zealand education authority employees and also likely to find twice as many problems (since their problem rate with or without annual visits for everyone stood at 5%). Why is this?'
ReplyDeleteIt depends entirely upon who is doing the visiting and what they are looking for. If you use school teachers for the job, they will be looking for evidence of a school type edcuation and if they fail to find it, then they will view the family with disfavour. If one used social workers, they would be examining different aspects of home life. The same would go for doctors, nurses, Educational Welfare Officers, Health Visitors and any other profession which might find itself visiting a family home. Some people would be impressed to see shelf of books in a child's bedroom but not a table covered with library books, for instance.
The number of visits alone and the percentage of problems uncovered is meaningless, unless we know who is doing the visiting and what they are looking for.
Much like here - ex-teachers looking at education whilst bearing in mind any possible welfare issues.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete“I have known homes containing a child on the autistic spectrum where even a visit from the man to read the gas meter causes terrible stress and unhappiness. You cannot really gear any system to such rare cases. Most families have no difficulty having various strangers visiting their homes.”
I was thinking more of the effect on the parents (and resultant effect on their education provision) than the direct effect of a visit on a child. I know you are big and tough and not bothered at all by such visits, but not everyone feels the same.
From my various contacts with home educators before visits over the years I would suggest that you are in the minority. Many people do change their educational approach, against their better judgement, on the run up to visits. So the visitor does not seeing ‘normal’ HE anyway, much as Ofsted inspectors don’t see ‘normal’ school education taking place when they visit schools.
Your lack of knowledge in this area speaks more of your lack of experience with normal home educators than the facts on the ground. But having said that, you support people in their dealings with local authorities and help some of them switch to HE in your work for a charity (or used to). If these interactions are so unproblematic, why do these families need your support?
From the point of view of the child, if they have been brought up with the belief that education and learning is for their benefit, the visit by an inspector does rather suggest the opposite, that the education is for the benefit of the state (the old extrinsic/intrinsic motivation argument). However, I think you favour this alternative belief (‘if they are not educated who do you think will pay their benefits’, is I think the gist of your argument), so of course you are unlikely to see this as a disadvantage. Not a particularly visible harm as in the case of the autistic child, but certainly some parents would view this as harmful nevertheless. A harm that is so easily avoided by providing evidence in another form.
I really cannot see why you think someone could not fool an inspector as easily in person as in writing if that is your belief. It's happened so many times in the cases that have reached courts. In fact, of the cases that have reached court, the majority had home visits.
'I really cannot see why you think someone could not fool an inspector as easily in person as in writing if that is your belief.'
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you can really see the difference. If you keep everything in writing, then when the local authority contacts you, you can ask advice on the HE-UK list, for instance, and many people will tell you precisely how to word your response to the local authority. Some of these people give the impression of being barely literate. If one is asked questions face to face, then it is a different matter. In other words, the writing that these people are sending to the local authority is not their work at all and therefore tells nobody anything about them or their ability to provide an education to their child.
'I was thinking more of the effect on the parents (and resultant effect on their education provision) than the direct effect of a visit on a child. '
If you are saying that visits might alter the nature of the educational provision, then that is quite possible. Whether that is always a bad thing is another question entirely.
Yet when New Zealand instituted your recommendations and more, they failed to find these supposed liars. I wonder why?
ReplyDelete'supposed liars'
ReplyDeleteThe word 'liar' is the wrong one this case. We both know that inarticulate people post on the HE-UK list, worried because they have received letters from their local authority and do not know what to do next. We both also know that various well-meaning but misguided people then help them to portray themselves as being more literate and educated than is actually the case, by suggesting how to word letters in response. None of those 'helping' in this way have the least idea about the state of affairs in the home; they are simply concerned with getting one over on some local authority.
Nobody is actually telling lies, rather the result of it all is to mislead. judging by your apparent innocence, I can only think that you are perhaps not a member of HE-UK and do not realise how this game is played.
Btw, I know many people who appear far more educated in person than they ever do in writing. Many have chosen home visits for this very reason. They still manage to educate their children to a high enough standard for university entrance.
ReplyDeleteSubstitute problem/illiterate/any-description-you-think-suitable home educator instead of liar then. The same question applies.
ReplyDelete'Substitute problem/illiterate/any-description-you-think-suitable home educator instead of liar then. The same question applies.'
ReplyDeleteI have seen a precis of the New Zealand figures, but not enough detail to allow me to make a proper comparison with this country. Where are you getting your information from? Perhaps if you could share it, then we would be able to make a point by point comparison.
Simon.
How can we compare figures when we only have your made up figures for the UK? The point is, they established a similar system to the one you suggest, ran it for a few years, discovered that the same number of problem home educators were found under both systems so went back to occasional checks as necessary. I'm not sure why absolute numbers would be useful?
ReplyDeleteThe point is, they established a similar system to the one you suggest, ran it for a few years, discovered that the same number of problem home educators were found under both systems so went back to occasional checks as necessary.'
ReplyDeleteThe system in New Zealand until a few years ago was that there were regular reviews of all home educated families. This was wasteful and inefficent. They then began targeting only those families about whom there were concerns. In other words, the system they now have is the one which I am advocating. Their old method, checking all families regualarly, was abandoned.
Simon.
simon said,
ReplyDelete"They then began targeting only those families about whom there were concerns. In other words, the system they now have is the one which I am advocating."
You are recommending that everyone should have an initial visit. This was not the old New Zealand system and it's not the new system either. Their old system was similar to your recommendation but involved far more visits than you suggest, yet despite this they did not find more problem families. Why do you think your reduced system would be an improvement?
Their current system involves far fewer visits than you recommend (and fewer than are currently carried out in the UK). They make 8 random visits a year, plus visits when concerns have been raised. Yet this system is as effective as the previous system. If you want to avoid waste and inefficiency, why not recommend the current New Zealand method?
'Their old system was similar to your recommendation but involved far more visits than you suggest, yet despite this they did not find more problem families. Why do you think your reduced system would be an improvement?'
ReplyDeleteBecause the great majority of families need no involvment at all with any agency; they can be safely left to get on with educating their own children. Comparing two different countries in this way can only be done if we know precisely what was being done and what people were looking for in one country, so that we can look at how this comapres with the system being used in another. I asked if you had any detailed information and you evidently do not. This makes it impossible for either of us to make any intelligent comment upon the situation in New Zealand. A figure of just over 5% of cases 'educational concern' among home educators has been mentioned in connection with New Zealand. What constituted 'educational concern?' How was it being measured? What were the consequences?
Without detailed and accurate information, it is pointless to compare one country with another in this way.
Simon.
"A figure of just over 5% of cases 'educational concern' among home educators has been mentioned in connection with New Zealand. What constituted 'educational concern?' How was it being measured?"
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand homeschoolers must satisfy the Secretary of Education that their child is taught "as regularly and as well as in a registered school" and like us they do not have to follow the NC. They have to apply for exemption from school attendance for each child and then confirm that they are continuing to educate at home every six months to keep receiving funding. Inspections are carried out by another department. Here's a description of the system including the inspection part, http://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/an-outline-of-how-home-education-works-in-new-zealand/
What other information would you need?
'What other information would you need?'
ReplyDeleteWhether those carrying out inspections for the Education Review Office are, as is often the case with inspectors in this country, in the main former teachers; the percentage of families refused an exemption from school in the first place; that sort of thing. As I think I have mentioned, if teachers or former teachers are looking at home education, they are apt to have a different set of concerens from civil servants or social workers.
Also the typical profile of home educating families, whether they are more likely to be Christian than in this country, there are many factors which would make it difficult to compare directly with the UK. You really cannot just pick a country at random, whether it is New Zealand, Mongolia, the USA or Uganda and say, in effect, 'Home educators are behaving like ths in that country, therefore that is how they are likely to conduct themselves here.
Simon.
The inspectors are ex-teachers and the reasons for HE seem very similar to the UK. From my knowledge of the country (friends and relatives as well as online) I would say that New Zealand is very similar to the UK in many ways, far more similar to us than, say, the US. I've seen a list of reasons for HE and it's headed by a desire for a lifestyle that includes educating their children within the family unit, for instance, the desire to provide a religious-based education coming in at number 4 after SEN and bullying issues. They also have a mix of autonomous, structured and religious curriculum followers.
ReplyDeleteI realise that we cannot transfer research directly without awareness of differences, but it seems a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to ignore it completely, especially when there are such similarities between the two situations.
In the event of a zombie apocalypse, residents of Montevallo, AL should have an effective plan for dealing with
ReplyDeletethe crisis. Because if Mitt takes office, sooner or later, the
zombies will come for all of us. Recruiting survivors is complicated but
not difficult.
my webpage: new Movies romance
Add the tomatoes or tomato puree and ensure you cover each of
ReplyDeletethe onions with it. One great tip for serving up your punch for the holidays is to freeze
some punch ice cubes ahead of time. In a lot of cases, the best types of meat to make use of in
slow cooking are often the less costly cuts because the greater fat content means that the meat
becomes beautifully tender throughout the duration of cooking.
my web page ... radioimpacto90.com
This is also a great exercise for coordination.
ReplyDeleteThis is also an upward rowing type of shoulder
exercise except that your hands are wider than shoulder width.
When both arms are done, you have completed one rep.
my blog post how to lose weight fast and free
Electric units are great but they restrict you as to where you can use
ReplyDeletethem. Online distributors for air compressor
replacement parts will categorize the parts numbers according to brand name of the unit as well as the part's designation. The gear should not be turned on if the belt is not secured.
Also visit my web-site http://your-pagerank.com/seostats/digitfest.com
Proctor-Silex 26500 Morning Baker Belgian Waffle Baker.
ReplyDeleteThe waffle design is imprinted into the completed cake, when the batter is cooked.
In this episode of Suburgatory, Tessa sees the people in her town as wasteful.
My weblog :: Good Waffle Mix
Hi to all, because I am actually eager of reading this website's post to be updated on a regular basis. It contains pleasant material.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my website; waist to height ratio