You have to give the Department for Education credit for sheer cheek! The latest revised guidance on flexi-schooling provides us with an absolute master class in how to appear to be giving way without in fact budging an inch. Here it is in full;
Clarification on Flexi-Schooling DfE March 22nd
On 22 February 2013, the Government published revised advice on school attendance. The advice clarified the Government's expectations on how various school attendance codes should be used to record pupil school attendance.
Schools should not mark a pupil as attending school, using the attendance code B for off-site education activity, unless the school is responsible for supervising the off-site education, and can ensure the safety and the welfare of the pupil off-site. Schools are ultimately responsible for the attainment of every child registered on their roll. Whilst being home educated, parents and carers are responsible for pupils, not schools.
Where parents have entered in to flexi-schooling arrangements, schools may continue to offer those arrangements. Pupils should be marked absent from school during periods when they are receiving home education.
The reference in the Government's revised advice on school attendance, that was categorical that a school could not agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement, has been removed.
The first thing to note is that any flexi-schooling arrangement means that the school itself must be responsible for the welfare and safety of the child while he is in his own home. Yes, that's right. If little Jimmy falls over and hurts himself in his bedroom on the day that he is being educated at home, then the school has to take responsibility for the injury! This single statement is enough to kill any flexi-schooling dead on the spot. No Head is going to agree to this. It would mean that if a child were killed in an accident at home, the Head could face criminal charges for negligence.
Still, not to worry. You will see that existing flexi-schooling arrangements may continue. The pupils will now just be marked absent on those days. Since schools are judged by their absence rates, why would they possibly want to agree to this? What advantage will there be to any school encouraging flexi-schooling?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Please could you clarify this for me, Simon? The part about little Jimmy is confusing me, because I read
ReplyDelete"Whilst being home educated, parents and carers are responsible for pupils, not schools."
and thought well, if little Jimmy falls over in his bedroom then that is the parents and carer's responsibility...
And we shall have to wait and see re the rest. What matters to me is that the children who are currently being flexi-schooled aren't having their lives turned upside down.
Atb
Anne
Ah, I see, Simon. Sneaky... So it will now be up to the school to decide whether they'd prefer the absences or the presence of the pupil. So it will continue as a way for schools to get rid of the kids they don't want...
DeleteThanks for putting me right.
Atb
Anne
" You will see that existing flexi-schooling arrangements may continue. The pupils will now just be marked absent on those days. Since schools are judged by their absence rates, why would they possibly want to agree to this? What advantage will there be to any school encouraging flexi-schooling?"
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I thought when I read it. Not to mention, if the child is marked as absent, will this not alert a school attendance officer to this and then lead to lots of unnecessary interference. Its going to lead to schools, and parents, thinking its not worth it. Clever really.
'Please could you clarify this for me, Simon? The part about little Jimmy is confusing me, because I read
ReplyDelete"Whilst being home educated, parents and carers are responsible for pupils, not schools."
and thought well, if little Jimmy falls over in his bedroom then that is the parents and carer's responsibility...'
I don't blame you for being confused Anne; as I said, this is very cunningly done. If the school agrees to a flexi-schooling arrangement, whereby the child is being educated for part of the time at another location, then the school remains responsible for the child's safety at the other site where he is being educated. If this is his home, then the school are still answerable if anything happens to him. The school would mark Code B for this; he is being educated off-site. This is contrasted with the situation for home educated children, where their parents are responsible for them and not a school. No school would agree to anything of this sort and so they are given the option of simply marking the child absent on those days. This means that the kid will show up as a persistent truant and the EWO will probably become involved. Some parents might still think it worth doing this, I did myself, but ultimately it could lead to their being prosecuted.
The effect of all this is that while not actually forbidding flexi-schooling, the DfE are making damned sure that the game will not be worth the candle for either parents or schools.
On the subject of absence, readers might be interested to see what the existing guidance says:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/advice/f00221879/advice-on-school-attendance
Download the document in pdf and then look at page 10 onwards. You will observe that there are different reasons for absence. I cannot see that any of these would really be suitable for flexi-schooling; except perhaps Code C. This would rely upon the cooperation of the Head, which as we all know if often not forthcoming.
I thought maybe code C too. Or codes D or X maybe?
DeleteX is Untimetabled sessions for non-compulsory school-age pupils so that wouldn't work and D is for dual registration. That wouldn't work either because home educators aren't "registered" and if they were to declare themselves a school wouldn't they be subject to OFSTED?
Deleteif a child is hurt at home it would be the person looking after the child at home who would be held to account in a court of law
ReplyDeleteif a child is hurt at home it would be the person looking after the child at home who would be held to account in a court of law'
ReplyDeleteActually, if the child is a registered pupil at a school and the school has authorised the pupil to be educated off-site; then the school is responsible in law for the safety and welfare of the child. You can see why. Obviously, if I send my child to school and they take him out somewhere and he suffers an injury, then they are responsible. They are acting in loco parentis. Grotesque as it might seem, this would also apply if the child were to be a registered pupil and the school were to allow him to be educated off-site at any location, including his own home!
So you are right in saying that if a child was hurt at home that it would be the person looking after him who was held to account for the accident. The point here is that if he was a registered pupil at a school, allowed to be educated at that site, then it would be the school which was technically looking after him and consequently responsible for his safety.
So you are right in saying that if a child was hurt at home that it would be the person looking after him who was held to account for the accident. The point here is that if he was a registered pupil at a school, allowed to be educated at that site, then it would be the school which was technically looking after him and consequently responsible for his safety.
ReplyDeleteIf the school had agreed to off site education at the child home and if child was harmed at the home it would be the person looking after the child at home who would be held to account in a court of law the school could only be held to account if the school had concerns about the child welfare and had not done anything to stop the off site education at the parents home or report its concerns to social service.
A head teacher can grant off site education for any pupil so long as the head is assured the child is safe
Being positive tho, Simon, the same revised guidance for attendance also says
ReplyDeleteHome Educated Children
On receipt of written notification to home educate, schools must inform the pupil’s local authority that the pupil is to be deleted from the admission register. Schools should not seek to persuade parents to educate their children at home as a way of avoiding excluding the pupil or because the pupil has a poor attendance record.
Schools and local authorities should not seek to prevent parents from educating their children outside the school system. There is no requirement for parents to obtain the school or local authority’s agreement to educate their child at home.
Parents have a duty to ensure their child of compulsory school age receives suitable full time education but this does not have to be at a school."
The legal reference for this is quoted as being - Section 7 of the Education Act 1996.
It would, I would have thought, been quite hard for a school or LA to argue with that...
Atb
Anne
Alison Sauer will save it, I know she will! She has informed her legions of a 42 page briefing document that will be ready some time this week that all of us can use to submit to the DfE on flexischooling. I expect in light of this new announcement she and her colleagues will have to revamp it which means it won't be ready for a a while longer.
ReplyDeleteUnless she gets a migraine and that pushes the paper forward. She did say back in February that it would be ready within the week...
Delete"a 42 page briefing document that will be ready some time this week"
ReplyDeleteIt's safe to say in advance: tl;dr. I hope its length is not the source of the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything; that would be very sad.
It appears she reads from that book too.
Delete'I expect in light of this new announcement she and her colleagues will have to revamp it '
ReplyDeleteThe colleagues being, for those who did not know, Wendy Charles-Warner and Peter Humphrey.
is it just me, or is alison sauer's site down/gone? bodes well :S
ReplyDeleteHer site may be down but her briefing paper is out in the public domain. She put a very rude comment with it.
ReplyDeleteI have had sight of the paper. It has made me cringe in many places. It shows a lot of arrogance and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI saw a hint in there for a database that CPE-PEN would establish and maintain and the need for new guidelines pertaining to flexischooling. It looks like we see the new business angle to flexischooling for Alison Sauer and co.
ReplyDelete