tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post6697712142853827330..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: School Attendance OrdersSimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-66966939833343432312010-05-30T04:20:58.299-07:002010-05-30T04:20:58.299-07:00Simon says-This actually happened to one of the pa...Simon says-This actually happened to one of the parents who regularly comments here. His local authority went so far in the Summer of 2004 as to serve him a notice requiring him to satisfy them as to the education his son was receiving. He did not comply and six years later the authority has taken no action.<br /><br />Is that us Simon your talking about? A school attendance order was issued dispite the fact that leading county councilor Dr Tony ludow had said they Was no evidence Peter was not geting a suitble education and Tony was willing to say this in court he also noted Peter was doing advanced Maths! <br /><br />one other fact about a school attendance order you missed is the school that is named in SAO must agree to this which in Peter case the head and the school governors did not agree and wrote a letter to complain about this matter to the Hampshire Council! the head was very unhappy Peter and i had a number of meeting with him and he was amazed how his LEA had lied to him! A number of parents at the school also complained to the LEA! The chair of governors wrote to the DCSF to complain as well! <br /><br />after all these complaints HCC revoked the SAO claiming Peter was to old to go to primary school! since then not a word but Peter did right to all school in the area to inform them he was home educated and did not want to go to they school some heads wrote back to say they understood and they would not help the LEA in any new SAO <br /><br />all of this come about because of 2 LEA offciers who could not accept that Peter had left school to study chess! and told lies about the family and Peter to others but the more they lied the worse it got for them both have now gone i belive where the asked to go?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-54623635343229333442010-05-30T02:34:54.149-07:002010-05-30T02:34:54.149-07:00Simon wrote,
"So what is the problem with Sch...Simon wrote,<br />"So what is the problem with School Attendance Orders? The problem is of course that before they even begin this process, it must appear to the local authority that, 'a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'. If the local authority hear of a child who is not at school, it can hardly appear to them that he is not receiving a suitable education"<br /><br />Except, of course, that case law allows them to make this assumption if the parents do not respond to informal enquiries or their response is inadequate. In the Phillips v Brown case, Lord Justice Donaldson stated that LAs may make informal enquiries of parents and said:<br /><br />""Of course such a request is not the same as a notice under s 37 (1) of the Education Act 1944 (now s 437 (1) of the 1996 Education Act) and the parents will be under no duty to comply. However it would be sensible for them to do so. If parents give no information or adopt the course .......... of merely stating that they are discharging their duty without giving any details of how they are doing so, the LEA will have to consider and decide whether it ‘appears’ to it that the parents are in breach of s 36. (now s7 of the 1996 Education Act.)""<br /><br />Simon wrote,<br />"His local authority went so far in the Summer of 2004 as to serve him a notice requiring him to satisfy them as to the education his son was receiving. He did not comply and six years later the authority has taken no action."<br /><br />They obviously do not understand the law then. This was exactly the situation covered by the case mentioned above.<br /><br />"Take them to court and they may well provide all the evidence needed to convince the magistrate."<br /><br />How many parents do you think are bloody minded enough and have the money to want to risk going to court over this issue? If they have the evidence the vast majority will provide it to the LA. Changing the law to adversely affect these people (by maybe not giving them the option of attending court if they correctly believe they have provided enough evidence but the LA disagree) in order to 'catch' a tiny minority is bad law.<br /><br />Simon wrote,<br />" The crux of the matter is that the education being given to the child must look OK from the point of view of a reasonable person, not from the perspective of a local authority officer."<br /><br />Why do you think this is wrong? Or should we legally re-define LA officers as infallible and always reasonable? Or should LA officers be ultimately responsible for the education of children and not parents? Think of the law suits that would entail!<br /><br />Simon wrote,<br />"A local authority can be uneasy about a family, but short of issuing a School Attendance Order and then prosecuting the parents, there is little that they can actually do."<br /><br />They can make informal enquiries (and take further action as above if the parents do not respond) and if they have specific concerns they can involve social services.<br /><br />Simon wrote,<br />"the local authority cannot simply claim in court that they have a suspicion that things are not right. This is after all a court which deals in hard evidence, not vague suspicions."<br /><br />How can this be wrong?<br /><br />Simon wrote,<br />"the local authority cannot simply claim in court that they have a suspicion that things are not right. This is after all a court which deals in hard evidence, not vague suspicions."<br /><br />And exactly the same is true of thousands of children in school. What do you suggest, that social services should have automatic right of access to all homes and to all children in the UK without evidence?AnonySuenoreply@blogger.com