This will be the last time I mention Alison Sauer and her guidelines, but I feel that it is important that we recall just what was so terribly wrong about the things and how they would have been a disaster for home education in this country. Many home educated children in this country have special educational needs of one sort or another. The guidelines produced under a Alison Sauer's direction stated bluntly and unambiguously;
‘A Local Authority is responsible for any child of compulsory school age that has been brought to their attention as having, or probably having, special educational needs'
In other words, had these become the statutory guidelines, they would have created a situation where if somebody told the local authority that she thought your home educated child was 'probably' dyslexic, then responsibility for his education would have passed to the local authority. This was either bungling on an industrial scale or a deliberate attempt to transfer parental responsibility for education to local authorities. And with that, I leave this unhappy subject...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I vote for bungling.
ReplyDelete'I vote for bungling'
ReplyDeleteSo do I, but it could have changed dramatically the landscape of home education in this country. I am not entirely happy with somebody capable of such a catastrophic error waltzing round the country claiming to be an expert on home education!
Good point.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points. The current guidelines are not statutory, all the Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities can do is describe the law - they have no force in law, so we have no reason to believe that any replacements guidelines would become statutory. This would require a change in the law. Also, it's possible that the statement is legally accurate - though I agree it seems a shame to state it so bluntly.
ReplyDeleteThe Education Act 1996 states:
Identification and assessment of children with special educational needs.
321 General duty of local education authority towards children for whom they are responsible.
(1) A local education authority shall exercise their powers with a view to securing that, of the children for whom they are responsible, they identify those to whom subsection (2) below applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a child if—
(a) he has special educational needs, and
(b) it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for.
(3) For the purposes of this Part a local education authority are responsible for a child if he is in their area and—
(a) he is a registered pupil at a maintained school,
(b) education is provided for him at a school which is not a maintained school but is so provided at the expense of the authority,
(c) he does not come within paragraph (a) or (b) above but is a registered pupil at a school and has been brought to the authority’s attention as having (or probably having) special educational needs, or
(d) he is not a registered pupil at a school but is not under the age of two or over compulsory school age and has been brought to their attention as having (or probably having) special educational needs.
I've just checked the draft guidelines and exactly this section of the Education Act 1996 is referenced immediately after this statement in the guidelines. You probably had to delete the number 33 when you copied and pasted the quote! Did you not follow up the reference when you read a statement you found so unbelievable?
DeleteThe guidelines are not statutory.
ReplyDeleteYou are quoting from a draft, not the finished article.
"had these become the statutory guidelines, they would have created a situation where if somebody told the local authority that she thought your home educated child was 'probably' dyslexic, then responsibility for his education would have passed to the local authority"
ReplyDeleteSo no different to the law as it currently stands then.
Simon wrote,
Delete"if somebody told the local authority that she thought your home educated child was 'probably' dyslexic, then responsibility for his education would have passed to the local authority"
C wrote,
So no different to the law as it currently stands then."
Not quite, section 7 still applies - parents are still responsible for causing children to receive an education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude, and to any special educational needs he may have.
However, section 321 (2) states that LAs shall exercise their powers to assess children for SEN and provision required for children they are responsible for if:
"he has special educational needs, and it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for."
So if a home educating parent is already providing for their child's special educational needs, it will not be necessary for the LA to carry out an assessment. But if they have doubts about provision they can enforce an assessment. Schedule 26 of the Education Act 1996 states:
"4 (1) Where a local education authority are considering whether to make an assessment, they may serve a notice on the parent of the child concerned requiring the child’s attendance for examination in accordance with the provisions of the notice...
5 (1) Any parent who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirements of a notice served on him under paragraph 4 commits an offence if the notice relates to a child who is not over compulsory school age at the time stated in it as the time for holding the examination."
It could have been written more clearly but the draft guidelines do go on to state:
"Where such a child comes to the attention of the Local Authority, the Local Authority has a duty to establish whether the child has SENs that are not currently being met. Where a child has SEN, does not have a statement of SEN, and there is no reason to believe his or her SEN are not being met then the Local Authority has no additional duties with respect to that child and the procedures in the previous section should be followed. There is no case under such circumstances for additional enquiries, more frequent contact, monitoring or intervention."
Simon. It would interest you to read this.
ReplyDeleteWell firstly I would like to say that as a home educated teenager,I found your book very helpful in teaching me how to correct a person's grammar.
Secondly, I think that your comment is exaggerating:
"I am not entirely happy with somebody capable of such a catastrophic error waltzing round the country claiming to be an expert on home education!"
Guidelines aren't law. They have no power. It may be that they're shredded and never read. Who knows. Also this is a first draft. I can assure you (cross my heart and hope to die) that Alison refined these guidelines for months and months giving every second of her time up. All Whilst suffering much harassment by people who didn't have a clue what they where on about, because they hadn't actually seen the guidelines.
Alison doesn't deserve for you to constantly criticizing her. She's a good person. You should quit before you're further behind.