Saturday, 29 September 2012
Why everything in the home education garden is lovely…
I am not a great fan of the schools in this country. I think that there is a lot wrong with them and there is plenty of scope for improvement. Come to think of it, the same is true of hospitals, policing, the administration of local authorities, the government in Westminster and the European Union. The regulations and laws governing all the things which I mention above could do with overhauling; either by tightening up, relaxing, scrapping or bringing in a raft of new legislation. This is the case with practically any human enterprise of which one might think; there is always room for improvement. Well, with one notable exception of course; that exception being the law relating to home education. According to many home educators, this is absolutely perfect and any sort of change would inevitably cause harm to vulnerable children. Although the legal situation surrounding home education in England and Wales has arisen in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion, by happy chance it is the best arrangement that could possibly have been devised by human ingenuity.
When one looks at the awful jumble of the 1996 Education Act, as amended by sections 436A and 437, the 2004 Children Act, the Education (Pupil registration)(England) Regulations 2006 and all the case law from Bevan and Shears 1911 onward; one realises what a mess the law relating to home education in this country is. No wonder there is confusion about the various responsibilities of local authorities and their role, the rights of children and a host of other things. The situation is a nightmare. Never the less, whenever any attempt is made to tidy up this tangle, even by something as minor as a slight change in the pupil registrations regulations, there is an outcry from the more militant home educators. The battle cry is always the same, that the law is fine as it is and any change would be for the worse. Nobody, either parents, local authorities or central government really believes this. Indeed, it would be remarkable if this were to be the case, that all these various statutes and the case law interpreting them should miraculously have given rise to the best possible arrangement for the benefit of children being educated at home by their parents.
In the next week or so, I shall be exploring the motives of both home educators and local authorities and seeing if it is possible to work out what people really want; as opposed to what they are claiming in public. This is a fascinating topic and one which is, I am sure, dear to the hearts of many readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh joy! Another make believe post to look forward to. You aught to try try writing a novel, you're certainly getting lots of practice on your blog.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSecond try, because my formatting came out funny.
ReplyDeleteYou say 'nobody believes that the law is fine as it is and any change would be for the worse.' I'll agree with you about the first part, but the second is very much open to debate. I'm reminded here of Winston Churchill on democracy when he said in Hansard in 1947.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
To return to a point where I know we disagree, if we could trust LA's to comply with the law, then we mightn't be so resistant to discussions about changing the law. As it is, too many of us live in areas where their LA's routinely go beyond the law to want to give them any more ground than they already have. It's not that we can't fight them, it's that it's a hassle we don't need on an annual basis.
" Nobody, either parents, local authorities or central government really believes this."
ReplyDeleteSo you can speak for everyone? Amazing mind reading skills!
Can I just say, as a Welsh HEr, how much I'm appreciating this blog right now. There are various facebook, yahoo groups etc but what they all have in common is a lack of real discussion. We don't all believe the LEAs to be evil, and we are not all conspiracy theorists, but anyone who does not join in with the general collective hysteria online is flamed. Its incredibly frustrating for those of us who actually feel that this is a good opportunity to try to build a good relationship with our LEAs. No I don't want to be monitored, tbh for me it feels like a bit of a waste of a few hours of my life...but that's not really enough reason for us to avoid them. I confess I don't believe it will have the required outcome, simply because I don't think they have the staff or can afford them...but that's their problem.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thank you to Simon for providing a space full of thought provoking writing where dissent can be discussed and aired!
Well if you call branding anyone that disagrees with you as militant or tricksy and a holder of ulterior motives with no attempt to engaging with the the issues raised a discussion, I hate to think what you've been subjected to elsewhere! Simon seems to think that if he repeats something often enough and ignores all requests for evidence he has made a point. Of course, this is a known propaganda technique - repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. I would have said that at least Simon does not moderate the posts here - until he did...
DeleteI thought you lived in the north of England, but maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else?
Deletewell, my goodness. Thank you for this post, you have demonstrated my point very admirably. Yes, this is exactly what the Welsh HE lists are like, full of ad hominum attacks on anyone who questions the party line. Honestly, we are, for the most part, adults, can't we accept diversity of opinion?
DeleteI'd really like to add something though. I'm realising that if you were to judge the Welsh response only by what's going on online you'd get a very distorted view of what's actually happening. In fact, up and down the country, in living rooms and parks and at HE groups, ordinary HErs are talking to each other about this in far more moderate terms about what these proposals mean, what we need to engage with, what is an opportunity and what actually is not so great about the proposals. The discussions are, mainly, calm and reasonable and accepting of difference. Although, certainly, things can get extremely heated-there are strong feelings out there! - these personal, destructive attacks are fairly rare. These are complex issues and people need time and space and information, not a barracking!
oh and no I don't live in the north of England, like I said I am in Wales. Welsh born and bred. Cymru am byth!
DeleteAnonymous Welsh home educator said,
Delete"Yes, this is exactly what the Welsh HE lists are like, full of ad hominum attacks on anyone who questions the party line."
I'm confused. How can you interpret the reply above as a personal attack against you? You brought up the issue of safety on this blog. The commenter put the opposing view and explained why they held it. Isn't this the definition of a discussion? I think you are are confusing a disagreement over something you have said, an idea, with a personal attack. They are not the same thing at all. The commenter did not call anyone names, though they described Simon calling other people names, they discussed the point you were making, so is it Simon's actions that make this an unsafe place for discussions for you?
Anonymous Welsh home educator said,
"Honestly, we are, for the most part, adults, can't we accept diversity of opinion?"
Of course. And that's what we have just seen.
Another of Simon's usual tricks; set-up an Aunt Sally which doesn't reflect reality, attach it to home educators, then try to knock it down.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if many people believe that the current law on home education is a bed of roses, but there's very little reason to suppose that change would be for the better.
Decades of interference by politicians and civil servants have done immense damage to the state school system, and this continues to the present day; witness the recent tragi-comic spat between Michael Gove and Leighton Andrews over GCSE grades, where (being charitable), one might presume that both men were well-meaning, but have left a horrible mess.
The problem is that none of the people calling for change - and I include Simon Webb in this - have the slightest useful experience beyond their airy-fairy post-Beatnik world of low-level teaching, voodoo social work, paid charity work and second-rate scribbling; ask them to do something that would generate economic wealth, teach others to do that, cure the sick or some other task of real value, and they would be flummoxed. Yet strangely enough, they have total confidence in their ability to tell everyone else what to do.
Something stinks here.
'Something stinks here'
ReplyDeleteGosh, this is certainly the place to come for some incisive and hard-hitting political debate!
'Can I just say, as a Welsh HEr, how much I'm appreciating this blog right now.'
ReplyDeleteThank you, I am glad to know that not everybody regards me as a rogue and a fool!
'Oh joy! Another make believe post to look forward to. You aught to try try writing a novel, you're certainly getting lots of practice on your blog.'
ReplyDeleteWhy Anonymous, you do know that I write novels as well as non-fiction? Unfortunately, they are westerns and I have not yet found a way to work home education into a plot.
That explains a lot.
Delete'To return to a point where I know we disagree, if we could trust LA's to comply with the law, then we mightn't be so resistant to discussions about changing the law. As it is, too many of us live in areas where their LA's routinely go beyond the law to want to give them any more ground than they already have. It's not that we can't fight them, it's that it's a hassle we don't need on an annual basis.'
ReplyDeleteNow I have a suspicion that if the law were made clearer, then there would be less of this sort of behaviour by local authorities. Part of the reason why some exceed their duties is that those duties are not clearly laid down in law and there is a good deal of ambiguity. Perhaps if the law was to be plain, then both LAs and parents would know precisely where they stood and what was and was not acceptable.
It seems straightforward to me.
Delete1. A home educator is brought to the attention of the Local Authority - they decide if they want to make informal enquiries. Donaldson suggests that they would be sticking their head in the sand if the do not so, yes, the LA should probably make an informal enquiry.
2. Decide from the response if it appears that a suitable education is, or is not being provided.
3. If they suspect that a suitable education is not being provided, ask for further information and ultimately consider issuing a school attendance order, the first part of which is a letter that requires the home educator to satisfy the LA that they are providing a suitable education within a time limit (at least 15 days). More formal and a positive requirement to satisfy the LA, unlike the initial enquiry which the parent can choose to ignore.
4. Continue with the SAO process or not, depending on the response. This is basically paperwork for the LA - no legal costs are involved as far as I know.
5. Prosecute the parents if they do not send the child to school or prove provision of a suitable education.
Many SAOs are issued (at least 77 were current in 2009), many children are returned to school or education provision is improved as a result. We know this from the FOI requests in 2009. We don't know how many reach the magistrates court since central records are not kept and cases are not recorded by law libraries unlike higher court records. But the FOI requests mentioned a few that reached court and in at least one case the parents registered their child at school just before the court date.
Evidence to a court can be given in any reasonable form which is why it is suggested that Local Authorities take the same approach to increase their chance of winning in court if it gets that far. In one case the LA insisted on a home visit because of the family's circumstances and this was upheld in court. So if the LA have a good reason, they can insist that evidence is given in a particular form.
' No I don't want to be monitored, tbh for me it feels like a bit of a waste of a few hours of my life...but that's not really enough reason for us to avoid them.'
ReplyDeleteInteresting, because this is exactly how I viewed visits. We did not notify the local authority that my daughter was not at school and it was not until we bumped into a truancy patrol that she became known. I could usually find better things to do than spend an hour with a local authority officer discussing my plans, but it was no real hardship and so I let thme come round. I knew that it was pointless, but they did not and I thought it sensible of them when once they heard of my daughter's existence to pop round and check that she was actually being educated.
' their airy-fairy post-Beatnik world of low-level teaching, voodoo social work, paid charity work and second-rate scribbling'
ReplyDeleteAm I alone in supposing this to be directed at me personally, rather than the generality of those who support a change in the law? Perhaps I am being over-sensitive!
'Another of Simon's usual tricks; set-up an Aunt Sally which doesn't reflect reality, attach it to home educators, then try to knock it down.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if many people believe that the current law on home education is a bed of roses, but there's very little reason to suppose that change would be for the better.'
In other words, you think that the current legal position should remain as it is and no attempt should be made to change it. That was the whole point of this post and you seem to be confirming that this is also your opinion.
'That explains a lot.'
ReplyDeleteI must be a little slow on the uptake this evening! What exactly is explained by the fact that I write westerns?
I'm sure you know it was a reference to your writing of fiction rather than westerns in particularly.
Delete'I'm sure you know it was a reference to your writing of fiction rather than westerns in particularly.'
ReplyDeleteForgive me, I must be even more obtuse than usual. What is explained by the fact that I write novels?
The fiction you write in your blog, of course. I can only assume you are kidding me on and pretending not to understand, given the context of the original comment. Even you are not that stupid.
Delete'It seems straightforward to me'
ReplyDeleteAnd yet we both know full well that it is not. To give one example, some local authorities believe that they have a duty under the 2004 Children Act and the amendments to the 1996 Education Act to seek out home educated children and check that they are being educated. Some home educating parents deny that this is so. When two sides honestly believe that the law is saying very different things in this way, one cannot really describe the situation as straitforward. Conflict is bound to arise from this ambiguity.
Are you sure you mean the Children Act 2004? This relates to safeguarding and welfare responsibilities whilst carrying out their normal duties. There is no mention of seeking out children and it doesn't extend existing duties. Are you thinking of the requirement to find children missing from education under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006?
Delete'The fiction you write in your blog, of course. I can only assume you are kidding me on and pretending not to understand, given the context of the original comment. Even you are not that stupid.'
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps you have got a little muddled up. Fiction refers to made-up stories; novels, short stories, plays and things like that. Things written about the real world, factual stuff, reference books and so on are called non-fiction. Mind, I don't blame you for getting this mixed up. I notice that even in our local library now they tend to avoid the use of the very word 'fiction' and call such books 'stories'. Never the less, it is worth learning the difference between the two terms, if only to avoid misunderstandings of this sort.
That was a very boring 'joke'. Yawn.
DeleteSounds like you are the muddled one, mixing up your Acts.
Delete'Are you sure you mean the Children Act 2004? This relates to safeguarding and welfare responsibilities whilst carrying out their normal duties. There is no mention of seeking out children and it doesn't extend existing duties. Are you thinking of the requirement to find children missing from education under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006?'
ReplyDeleteI honestly wonder if some of the people commenting here are not really sock-puppets of mine, so readily do they pop up and make my points for me! This was of course the very point that I was making.
The 'amendments to the 1996 Education Act' to which I referred, are thought by some LAs to mean that they must seek out home educated children and then check their education. Some local authorities also think that they must at the same time ensure that home educated children in their area have access to the five outcomes of the ECM agenda. They believe that the 2004 Children Act means that they must check that home educated children are achieving and enjoying. Naturally, some home educating parents think that this is none of the council's business. These differing interpretations of the law cause conflict.
The Children Act 2004 does not mention education provision, it covers safeguarding and welfare whilst carrying out existing functions. At no point does it say that they need to seek out children in order to safeguard and promote their welfare, otherwise the could be sued by every child they failed to safeguard. The actual wording is:
Delete"Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—
(a)their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children."
The Welsh Government seem to understand this point. This quote is taken from their 'Safeguarding Children: Working Together Under the Children Act 2004' document, available from this page,
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/childrenyoungpeople/publications/safeguardingunder2004act/?lang=en
"2.3 The section 28 duty means that these key people and bodies must make arrangements to ensure two things. Firstly, that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and secondly, that the services they contract out to others are provided having regard to that need.
2.4 The duty does not give agencies any new functions, nor does it over-ride their existing functions. It simply requires them to carry out their existing functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children."
I've seen similarly worded guidelines for England too. I'm puzzled that you think Local Authorities would find this confusing. It seems very straightforward.
'Sounds like you are the muddled one, mixing up your Acts.'
ReplyDeleteWell, not really. I know several local authorities that think that the 'achieving' part of ECM has some reference to the child's education. This is why I mentioned the 2004 Children Act; it is quoted by some LAs as grounds for monitoring. This is what I meant when in the post I call the current situation a nightmare. Perhaps you have not heard of local authorities who believe that they have a duty of this sort under the Children Act to check that home educated children are achieving and enjoying, but I assure you that they do exist.
If monitoring were already required in law, they would have a point. But the Children Act 2004 does not give them new functions (such as monitoring).
DeleteSimon said,
Delete"Well, not really. I know several local authorities that think that the 'achieving' part of ECM has some reference to the child's education."
The only time the word 'achieve' appears in the Children Act 2004 is in section 52. Duty of local authorities to promote educational achievement - this applies only to children looked after by them - i.e. those in local authority care. ECM is a (past) Government's initiative. It is not a law, so how can it require anything of LAs?
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"The 'amendments to the 1996 Education Act' to which I referred, are thought by some LAs to mean that they must seek out home educated children and then check their education."
You presumably mean the part added by the Education and Inspections Act 2006. This is covered by statutory guidance. This describes, step-by-step, exactly what Local Authority staff should do, so again, I fail to see why they would be confused. The statutory guidance states:
"87. Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make arrangements to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children who are not pupils at schools and who are not otherwise receiving suitable education. In order to comply with this duty local authorities need to make arrangements which will as far as possible enable them to determine whether any children who are not pupils at schools, such as those being educated at home, are receiving suitable education. In order to do this local authorities should make inquiries with parents educating children at home about the educational provision being made for them. The procedures to be followed with respect to such investigations are set out in the EHE Guidelines, 2.7-2.11 and 3.4-3.6."
I should also add that the Children Act 2004 gives Local Authorities powers allowing co-operation between Local Authority departments, 'each of the authority’s relevant partners', and 'other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to children in the authority’s area'. Then they are told to use these powers to locate children missing education. So they already have wide powers to identify children who are not pupils at schools in order to establish that they are receiving a suitable education using statute and statutory guidance and procedures to establish education provision as described in the EHE Guidelines. Their powers and duties are all laid out for them clearly in documents produced by central Government, so why would they be confused?
DeleteSimon Webb wrote:
ReplyDelete'Am I alone in supposing this to be directed at me personally, rather than the generality of those who support a change in the law? Perhaps I am being over-sensitive!'
Actually, Leighton Andrews was my primary target, along with a fusion of other politicos and LA types; however, I'm always happy to hit multiple targets with a single shot, and you should not regard yourself as mere collateral damage.
Simon> 'In other words, you think that the current legal position should remain as it is and no attempt should be made to change it. That was the whole point of this post and you seem to be confirming that this is also your opinion.'
If change makes a bad thing worse, then that change is to be avoided. Let's be realistic and remember the kind of people I described; they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making anything better - even if they want to - except, perhaps, for themselves. You are offering us the triumph of delusional hope over decades of experience; do you honestly believe what you are saying?
I'm intrigued by the news of your western novels; I've always thought your profile picture looks like a western movie actor whose name I can't remember.
'ECM is a (past) Government's initiative. It is not a law, so how can it require anything of LAs?'
ReplyDeleteYes, I am afraid that Ian Dowty does not agree with you. He said yesterday pretty much what I had said earlier:
'the "aspirational"
application of the Every Child Matters agenda. that is what LAs use in seeking to
assert a "duty" to be responsible for every child in their area. '
This is what i meant my the confusion which leads to conflict
Cherry picking again I see. He also says:
Delete"Indeed again, change is not actually required as, when LAs are taken to the legislation itself it does not say that they have a duty to be responsible for each child in their area and, once more, when pushed to it, they have to back down."
They may be confused, but all that needs to happen is for them to read the law instead of making up their own versions. If they can't be bothered to read existing law, why on earth would you think new laws will help?
Simon> ''Yes, I am afraid that Ian Dowty does not agree with you. He said yesterday pretty much what I had said earlier'
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that Ian Dowty says that LAs ARE legally bound by ECM?
'Simon> ''Yes, I am afraid that Ian Dowty does not agree with you. He said yesterday pretty much what I had said earlier'
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that Ian Dowty says that LAs ARE legally bound by ECM? '
No, he says that LAs think that they are bound by it. Since many parents think that this is not the case, it causes conflict.
How can they be bound by the the policy of a past government? That's nonsensical. If they are this easily confused, they should be sacked and I don't want them anywhere near my family.
DeleteSimon> 'No, he says that LAs think that they are bound by it. Since many parents think that this is not the case, it causes conflict.'
ReplyDeleteExactly; so why should these LAs be given extra powers to mitigate their "confusion"?
'How can they be bound by the the policy of a past government? That's nonsensical.'
ReplyDeleteEvery Child Matters was a Green Paper and the 2004 Children Act was based in part upon it. To this extent, it became the law. It is misleading to describe it merely as the policy of a previous government. It is this line that local authorities take, although some disagree with their reasoning. This creates, as I said, conflict.
If they are confusing a discussion paper with the law that resulted from it, then they should be corrected. Governement guidance documents and the law itself lays it out clearly in plain, easy to understand language. There is no excuse for confusion and the solution is not more laws for them to ignore and become confused about. They should get current laws straight in their minds and see if they work before deciding that they need to be replaced.
DeleteSimon> 'It is this line that local authorities take, although some disagree with their reasoning. This creates, as I said, conflict.'
ReplyDeleteThen the solution is for the LAs to analyse and interpret existing law, with higher guidance, if necessary, and in a consistent manner across the country. I hardly think that this is the first time that a law has caused some confusion and misinterpretation.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"No, he says that LAs think that they are bound by it. Since many parents think that this is not the case, it causes conflict."
Since you say here that parents *think* that this is not the case, does this mean that you think LAs are bound by the Green Paper? Or do you think they are mistaken to think they are bound by a Green Paper? If they are mistaken, why does this justify new laws? It's such a simple error to correct and I'm struggling to see why additional laws are necessary to correct such a simple misunderstanding?
'It's such a simple error to correct and I'm struggling to see why additional laws are necessary to correct such a simple misunderstanding?'
ReplyDeleteWell of course it would be a simple misunderstanding if you were right and the local authorities were wrong, but that may not be the case. Some parents think one thing and have lawyers who agree with their interpretation; a number of local authorities think differently and they too have lawyers who agree with their interpretation. This is what is producing the conflict; two sets of people, both of whom think that they are right.
But the specific misunderstanding I asked you about, was, is a local authority bound by Green Papers, yes or no? If you and they think they are bound by Green Papers, can you please point me in the direction of evidence to support this claim.
Delete'If they are confusing a discussion paper with the law that resulted from it, then they should be corrected. '
ReplyDeleteYes but they are not. The five outcomes found in the Every Child Matters Green Paper are now the law of england. There is no confusion about this!
The Every Child Matters Green Paper is not the law of England. It was a discussion paper that was refined through consultations and parliamentary procedures that eventually resulted in the introduction the a law, the Children Act 2004. To suggest that the Every Child Matters Green Paper is now the law of England is simply sloppy.
Delete'To suggest that the Every Child Matters Green Paper is now the law of England is simply sloppy. '
ReplyDeleteI said nothing of the sort. I said that the five outcomes from Every Child matters are now the law of England. This is so and for a more detailed explanation, see today's post, Clearing the Ground.
'But the specific misunderstanding I asked you about, was, is a local authority bound by Green Papers, yes or no? If you and they think they are bound by Green Papers, can you please point me in the direction of evidence to support this claim.'
ReplyDeleteThis is a foolish question because nobody, least of all me, ever suggested such a thing. I said that the 2004 Children Act was based upon a green paper and that some recommendations of the green paper became law.
You switched to this eventually, but initially you said,
Delete" Well, not really. I know several local authorities that think that the 'achieving' part of ECM has some reference to the child's education."
Glad you got it straight in the end.
'You switched to this eventually, but initially you said,
ReplyDelete" Well, not really. I know several local authorities that think that the 'achieving' part of ECM has some reference to the child's education."
Glad you got it straight in the end.'
I think that we have probably worked this to death now. I did say that and it is true. The outcome in Every Child matters which talks of 'achieving and enjoying' has become, in the 2004 Children Act, 'Education and training'. 'Achieving economic well-being' has become, 'achieving economic and social well-being'. The five outcomes of Every Child Matters were reworded and clarified slightly for the 2004 Children Act, but they remain essentially the same. This is why the Every Child Matters agenda and particularly the five outcomes still dominates child protection conferences; because all the key parts are now law.
It's still sloppy to refer to the ECM Green Paper when discussing the tasks local authorities are required to do in law. The ECM Green Paper is not law so why even mention it? Why not use the correct reference, the Children Act 2004?
Delete'The Children Act 2004 does not mention education provision'
ReplyDeleteExcept of course that it does. Local authorities have a duty under this act to ensure that children have access to:
'education, training and recreation'
I do apologise, Simon. Clearly I completely misunderstood what you had written, so sorry for that.
DeleteHowever, I do agree with Sarah's post on the Clearing the ground… thread. The Children Act 2004 does not give local authorities new powers or functions. It gives them duties to co-operate in order to improve well-being (the 5 outcomes) and to consider the safety and welfare of children whilst carrying out existing functions.