Exploding a myth

It will perhaps surprise nobody to hear that I have once again managed to piss people off on a home education forum. I have to say that on this occasion, I was genuinely trying to help vulnerable parents and reassure them that they should stop worrying. This came about because the thesis was advanced that some local authorities in England and Wales bully and badger home educating parents into either abandoning home education or altering the form or content of it so that it more closely resembles a school type model. One person referred to parents being made ’to jump through hoops’ and forced to teach reading in a structured way. This sort of thing is usually done under the threat that a School Attendance Order will be issued, the parent prosecuted and the child returned to school if the parent does not do as the local authority officer requires. So far, so good; I don’t think that anybody here could disagree that this sort of thing happens. I then went on to suggest that it was astronomically rare for home educating parents to be issued with SAOs and then prosecuted for not obeying them, convicted in court and forced to send their children to school. Indeed, I expressed doubts as to this ever happening at all; upon which, a number of people became very angry.

The best way of seeing just how rare this process is, is to look at the figures. Let us begin with two local authorities who are famous for taking what some describe as ’ultra vires’ actions; Staffordshire and Birmingham, for instance.
Here is a Freedom of Information request made to Birmingham about the number of SAOs that they issued in one particular year;

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ehe_department_suitable_educatio_4
　
It will be observed that no SAOs at all were issued. Freedom of Information requests on this subject have been made to every local authority in England and Wales and the picture is same across the entire country; most never issue SAOs. Some issued one or two, but these were hardly ever to home educators. Staffordshire, for example has issued one School Attendance Order in the last five years, although not to a home educating family. See here:
　
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ehe_related_statutory_attendance
　
Most of the tiny number of SAOs which have been issued over the last few years have not been to home educators. Of those which were, only a few reached the stage of prosecution. I can find not a single case where a local authority has issued a School Attendance Order to a home educating family, prosecuted them in court and then managed to secure a conviction and force them as a result to return their child to school.

I found this to be very reassuring for home educating parents. Knowing that this favourite threat of local authorities is an empty one which can generally be disregarded should allow home educating parents to form a more equal partnership with local authorities; one which is not founded upon fear and threats. Of course, not everybody seeks such a healthy relationship with their LA and some parents might be happy to be bossed about by petty bureaucrats. This is fine; I was not trying to bully anybody into changing how they deal with local authorities; merely pointing out that there is more than one way.

Actually, I thought that digging around might perhaps uncover one or two cases of home educating children forced back into school by their parents having been prosecuted for disobeying a School Attendance Order. In fact, I have not been able to come up with one case of this happening. May I ask, does anybody know of a case where a home educating parent has been served with a School Attendance Order, prosecuted for breaching it and as a result been convicted in court and forced to return their child to school? If so, could we just be told the name of the local authority? Since this is the only way that a home educating child can really be forced back to school by a local authority, it would be interesting to know if it ever happens. Is this some sort of urban myth? Can anybody give a real example?

There is one final point. One can readily see why local authority officers would maintain the fiction that they might issue an SAO to home educating parents, take them to court and force them to return their children to school. This suggestion would be very distressing to many parents and they might well back down under the very threat and do as they are told in order to avoid it. What puzzles me is why some home educating parents themselves seem so keen to buy into this myth and help local authorities to keep the pretence going. This seems to me to be a psychological question, rather than a legal one!

Local authorities planning together on elective home education

From across England come eerily similar stories of local authority officers behaving in what some home educating parents see as unjustifiable ways. This centres in the main around requests to see the child physically and discuss with parents and child the nature of the educational provision being provided. The rationale behind this is fairly plain. It is easy enough for a parent to write that a child visits the library, plays the violin and belongs to various clubs; this does not make it true. Some local authority officers have found that when they talk to the children themselves, some of them have no idea at all what they are supposed to be doing. Clearly, the parents have been putting down whatever they think will sound like a good education!

Local authorities do not work in a vacuum. They talk to each other regularly, not only neighbouring authorities, but ones at the other end of the country. When Mike Allpress was the lead person in this county, Essex, on elective home education, he used to organise conferences in Harlow for other authorities in the south east. Representatives came from as far away as Southampton and a common framework would be agreed. This happens all over England. Just as some home educators band together and exchange information on lists such as the Badman Review Action Group, so too do local authorities pass on concerns to each other. Most of them also belong to the main Internet groups like BRAG, HE-UK and so on. They are very well informed about developments in the world of home education.

The behaviour of local authority officers responsible for home education in various parts of the country is now showing a common theme. In the Unitary Authority of Poole, in Suffolk, Oxfordshire, Birmingham and Gateshead, the same tactic is being used. Children who have not been seen for some time because their parents refuse visits, are the target for attention. The thrust of this is that local authorities want to see the kid and talk face to face with the parents. I can see their point. We often see parents on lists and forums who ask for help in putting together educational philosophies, but who would be rather at a loss if asked outright just what they had been doing for their kids education this week!

Home education in this country has been established by precedent, rather than statute. Apart from a few oblique references in some laws which were drawn up without even considering home education as such, most of the legal basis comes from old court cases; Bevan v Shears, Phillips v Brown, Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson and so on. Having failed, at least for now, to gain any new legislation, the aim is to build up a few court cases which will tend to show that local authorities have more power than the old cases of precedent indicate. They are being quite cautious about this and as soon as a parent complains to one of the home eduction groups, they will back-pedal. However, as I have pointed out before, the great majority of home educating parents do not belong to Internet groups. The first that we will hear of such a court case is when it has been reported in the papers.

At a guess, I would say that several local authorities will find parents who are supposedly home educating but are actually not providing even the sketchiest attempt at any sort of education. These parents will have School Attendance Orders issued against them and at least a few will refuse to comply with them. The resulting prosecutions will allow the local authorities to state their views in court and as long as they choose the right parents, the magistrates will then allow the allow the prosecution to succeed. A few successes of this sort, particularly if any appeals by the parents to higher courts fail, will change the landscape of home education in this country. As I say, the present way that home education is tolerated in England is a result of court decisions. The situation can be altered in the same way. In the absence of any new legislation, this is how local authorities will be able to effect a change in the legal situation around home education. What has been noticed in places like Birmingham and Suffolk are the opening shots in this campaign.

Resentment at being forced to do something

One of the things which I have noticed during the recent debates about the behaviour of the local authorities in both Birmingham and Suffolk is that the people commenting on the Internet lists are very angry. Actually, they are not just angry about the doorstepping by local authority officers; some of them seem to be in a permanent state of fury! This is curious, because I thoroughly enjoyed being a home educator and I was happy for most of the time. Educating my child was a source of great joy to me and this joy permeated my entire life. It was great; like a constant high!

Now I am quite prepared to believe that some of these angry parents have had problems with their local authority. A lot of us have problems with our local authority, although not always about home education. Rowing with the council is one of those things that have become a leitmotif of the age; rubbish collections, streetlights, education, petty rules, parking regulations, the list is endless. Home educators are certainly not alone in getting pissed off with their local authority. Most of us manage to keep these disagreements in perspective. However irritable I get on the telephone with the council, I can usually chuckle about it in the evening with my wife. One feels that this is probably not the case with the angry people one encounters on HE-UK and BRAG!

I could not help but notice that when I posted about Suffolk, one of those commenting had a laid back and rational view of the matter. By an odd coincidence, this person was somebody, like me, who has chosen to be a home educator. The great majority of those who are becoming angry on a regular basis have not chosen to home educate; they say that they have been forced to do it. This cannot help but give them a rather different perspective from somebody who embraced the idea enthusiastically from the day of the child's birth and always intended to do it. We all of us get a little tetchy when we are made to do something. It stops being fun if we have been compelled to undertake an activity or task. iIwonder if this could be at the root of the terrible anger which I come across, not only on the lists, but here on my own blog.

All parents get upset and angry if something is harming their child; whether it is a bully at school, failure to provide sufficient support for a special educational need or simply something which causes the child unhappiness. Many home educators have felt compelled to undertake the education of their children, not because they are keen on home education, but because they feel that this is the only way to rescue the child from misery. This decision to de-register the child from school is often the culmination of increasingly fraught and bitter arguments with the school and the local authority. This does not, from the beginning, tend to create a foundation for cordial relations with the local authority, whom many such parents blame for their child's unhappiness. Parents like this are already angry with their local authority before they start to home educate. This does not bode well for the future. On top of this is the fact that although they may not begrudge the child the home education, they are at the same time keenly aware that this is not something which they have really chosen freely. They sent the child to school at four or five like everybody else and now they have had to adopt a new and strange lifestyle. Their family and neighbours might disapprove, they have less money and freedom than they had when the kid was in school; it would be surprising if some of them did not get a little angry about this new situation.

I have noticed that those who chose to educate their own child seem to be more relaxed and good natured about it than many of those who felt that they have been forced into it. This is not to be wondered at. I have also noticed that those growing angriest about the local authorities are often those who have had fights with their own local authorities before having to take their children out of school. It is not hard to see that they are projecting a lot of their anger onto the local authority in Suffolk or Birmingham. I would be curious to hear of parents whose children have never attended school who are able to generate the same levels of anger as those who already have a history of fighting with their own council.

Anti-democratic activity in Birmingham

A couple of days ago I wrote about my concerns for democracy when it comes to home educators and their dealings with government, both central and local. My problems centre around the home educators and their allies rather than the local authorities and Parliament. A meeting was scheduled on October 12th for home educating parents in Birmingham to meet with the local authority officers who deal with elective home education in the city. This meeting was to be completely open, with any home educators at all welcome. The council were even laying on creche facilities for children, so that all parents could take part. Education Otherwise became involved in the business and began inviting various people from outside Birmingham. Mike Fortune-Wood from Wales, for instance, Fiona Nicholson from Sheffield and Ian Dowty from London. This changed the whole emphasis of the thing. From a meeting to discuss local issues, it began to turn into something like a national conference!

I have, as is my habit, been ringing people up and asking a lot of questions about this and the impression which I gained is that the local authority officers in Birmingham were not very happy about this attempt to bring outsiders into the meeting in this way. They originally thought that it would be just a discussion between local parents and council employees. Here is the email sent by Birmingham about the meeting before anybody mentioned bringing a barrister from London:

Please see below the final venue and agenda for the meeting on the 12th of
October.

The meeting is being held at the Council Offices, Margaret Street between
10am and 11.30 am.

Agenda;
1. Introduction
2. Issues raised by Home Educating parents
3. Response by LA officers
4. Actions to take forward

The following people will be attending;

Jason Lowther (Policy Director)
John Smail (Assistant Director, Integrated Services for Young People and
Family Support)
Michael Innocenti (Acting Head of Pupil Connect)

Gary Carruthers (Elective Home Education Advisor)
Carl Kirland (Elective Home Education Advisor)
Marie Murphy (Elective Home Education Advisor)
Alex Mroczkowski (Special Educational Needs Assessment Service)


As you know Leisure Services will be hosting a session for any delegates'
children who wish to take part and it is important that they have final
numbers
by next Tuesday (5th).

As can be plainly seen, this is an open meeting; they just want an indication of the numbers. The EHE advisors had told all the families with whom they worked about this meeting and a large turnout was expected. Gary Carruthers, one of the EHE advisors in Birmingham, said;

'I had invited over a dozen non-affilliated families myself as well as Education Everywhere. I also asked those I'd invited to ask others they thought may be interested in taking part. Jason had invited other home educators.'

No doubt that this is open to all local parents. Dozens of families have been invited; the local authority are expecting this to be a big and open event. At some stage of the proceedings, local home educating parents who wished to attend were told by the local Education Otherwise representative that it had suddenly become a small, invitation only affair and that they would not be allowed to attend. It is unclear why this should have been. Local authority officers told me that they were uneasy about the possibility of having a lot of people from outside Birmingham coming to the meeting. There has been so much bad publicity about Birmingham recently that it was feared that a newspaper reporter might attend. They also could not see why they should be providing facilities for the children of parents who did not even live in Birmingham! A fair point really. The end result of all this was truly surreal. At the meeting were people from Wales and Sheffield who were supposedly looking after home educators interests, even though they were neither home educating parents nor residents of Birmingham. Home educating parents from Birmingham who wished to attend were told that they could not do so. It would be three weeks before they were even told what had been said at the meeting.

I cannot tell readers just what a lousy example of democracy this episode is. Local home educators wishing to attend a meeting about home education in their city are barred, but members of national organisations who are not themselves home educating parents are allowed in. I have never heard anything like it in my life! This could have been a brilliant example of grassroots democracy, with ordinary parents dealing directly with the officials from Birmingham City Council. Instead, it was hijacked by people from large organisations and the ordinary parents were squeezed out.

This is a perfect illustration of why local home educating groups are the democratic way forward. The reason for the presence of people like Mike Fortune-Wood, Fiona Nicholson and Ian Dowty was very simple and had little to do with the difficulties of the parents in Birmingham; many of whom had specific concerns which they wished to raise with local authority officers and which they were prevented from doing because the meeting had become an exclusive one for 'important' people from big organisations. Education Otherwise and Home education UK feel that other local authorities are looking to Birmingham for a lead when it comes to monitoring elective home education. They are therefore anxious to change what Birmingham are doing before their methods are widely adopted. One can see this point of view, but the way they went about it meant that local home educators were sidelined and ignored in their own area. This was disgraceful and the very antithesis of democracy. It must always be borne in mind that nobody has ever voted for people like Mike Fortune-Wood or Ian Dowty, whereas the parents in Birmingham are actually voters and therefore have a direct stake in what is happening in the city. These people were the only ones who had any business at all at the meeting on October 12th.

Undermining democracy

I am a great fan of democracy. It has its faults, but as Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'. I am always irritated to see democracy being threatened or sidestepped in this country and unfortunately this is just what is happening at the moment with home education.

I live in a town called Loughton on the edge of London. We have a District Council and Town Council, both run by democratically elected councillors. If they screw up, we can vote them out at the next election. Parking enforcement is a big issue locally and there are usually campaigns being run about where yellow lines should be or which streets should require parking permits. This is all sorted out locally by vigorous debate among residents, councillors and local authority officers. Imagine how annoying it would be if a group of people from Sheffield and Wales invited themselves here and tried to bulldoze and bluster the council into changing their parking policies and arguing that their own ideas on the subject would be much better! I for one would object strongly. I would object even if these outsiders were pushing an agenda which I agreed with. Because they do not live here, are not voters and have not been democratically elected by anybody, they would have no business coming here and poking their nose in!

Perhaps some readers are now seeing where this argument is tending. Mike Fortune-Wood from Wales, Fiona Nicholson from Sheffield and Ian Dowty from London all went to Birmingham recently to try and persuade the local authority there to alter their policy on elective home education. Several points about this strike one immediately. Firstly, none of these people have the least particle of democratic legitimacy. They are, like the present writer, self-appointed pundits, chosen by nobody. This is in stark contrast to Birmingham City Council, who have been elected. As a thought experiment, let us try and imagine what the reaction would be if it came to light that I had invited myself to Birmingham and was trying to get the council to take a more gung ho approach towards monitoring. People would say, and quite rightly, that it was none of my business. Another point to consider is this. When I gave evidence to the Children, Schools and Families select committee last year, a great deal was made of the fact that since my daughter was sixteen, I could not be regarded as a home educator. There were angry comments to this effect on the Internet HE lists and people even contacted the select committee to complain how unfair it was. More recently, the same point has been made by people on the BRAG list; that I am no longer a home educator and therefore that my views on the subject should carry less weight than those who are currently educating their children at home. Precisely the same observation can be made about those meddling in Birmingham, such as Mike Fortune-Wood and Fiona Nicholson. They too, just like me, are not even home educators!

When local residents here in Loughton have meetings with the council to try and thrash something out, it is always done openly. Often, there is a bit in the local paper to the effect that residents are meeting next week with local authority officers or councillors to sort out some dispute. This is very right and proper and I would not like to see any such meetings being done on the quiet. It would make me suspicious. A lot of the stuff currently happening with home education though, is being done in this way. People only learn about meetings after the things have happened and even then the participants refuse to identify themselves openly, let alone say publicly what they have been saying to Birmingham Council or the Chair of the CSF select committee, as the case may be. This is very odd. If I heard that our local residents association had been having secret meetings with the town council and that none of them would talk about what had been going on or even admit to having been present, I would regard this as outrageous. So would most residents in this district.

A final point to consider is this. MPs and councillors have been voted in by the population generally, not just this special interest group or that. If policies, guidelines or laws are liable to be changed then other people have the right to know, not just those likely to be affected. Home education, truancy, children missing education, schools; all these things are matters of general public interest. Others may have points of view which they wish to express. The way that things are currently being done both with Graham Stuart's helpers and the people who went to Birmingham, means that nobody except a tiny handful of self-chosen individuals are involved in these processes. When the former Secretary of State for Education wished to change the law on home education he launched a public review and invited everybody, home educators and everybody else, to contribute their views and opinions. Later, the CSF select committee looked at the matter, again openly and publicly. This is how things are done in a democracy. The scrapping of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill was a fine example of the democratic process at work. I have no idea what is likely to emerge from the meeting in Birmingham or the enterprise which Graham Stuart has launched. What I am absolutely sure of though is that anything which comes out of all this will have no legitimacy whatsoever. How could it? Most of those concerned on the home education side have not been elected by anybody and have got where they are simply by virtue of having sharper elbows and louder voices than others. This is not democracy.

A good idea from Birmingham City Council

I am not in general a huge fan of Birmingham City Council. Their record on child welfare is abysmal and they seem to have a knack of screwing up generally where social services are concerned. Nevertheless, they have recently come up with a pretty good idea about home education. Here is their latest policy on elective home education;

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/home-education?packedargs=website


Predictably enough, many in the home educating community took one look at these guidelines and then exploded with uncontrollable fury. Hidden away though is an idea which if generally adopted might end a lot of the conflict between local authorities and autonomous home educators.

One of the recommendations contained in the Badman report to which many home educating parents objected was the eighth clause of Recommendation 1. It says;

At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.

This suggestion found its way into Schedule 1 if the Children, Schools and Families Bill and caused a good deal of anger. Personally, I couldn't see what all the fuss was about, but I don't propose to go into that now. For whatever reason, the fact is that a lot of parents didn't like this scheme and felt that it would restrict them and harm the type of education which they were providing for their children. Birmingham have come up with a way round this objection. They say in their guidance;


During follow up visits you will also be asked to provide the adviser with information on the education you have been providing for your child and the progress being made.

Nothing could be simpler. If parents who wished to educate their children at home were given a year to get on with it without any interference from the local authority, the only proviso being that they would be expected after twelve months to give an account of what their child had achieved or done in the course of that time, then everybody would be happy. Parents could simply continue to allow their children to direct the course of their own education as before. All that would be needed would be for the parents to keep a record of what was being covered over the year and what the child had learned. Nothing could be simpler. It would not affect the child; the parents could write up their notes after he had gone to bed. They would not even need to say that they were doing this, lest they upset the delicate balance of this type of education. The local authority would also be satisfied. They would have a comprehensive account of the child's development over the previous year and be able to see how effective autonomous education could be. The more that they saw what such children were achieving, the less sceptical they would become about education like this.


Most parents are, after all, only to happy to boast about what their kids have been doing lately! I was sometimes a little vague when meeting with my local authority what direction my daughter's education might be taking in the future, but I always gave them a full account of the preceding year. They had a list of the operas and plays we had seen, books that she had read, museums visited, lectures attended, music examinations taken, the whole works in fact. It seems to me that this might well prove to be an ideal compromise which would satisfy everybody concerned. The local authority would be satisfied that the children were receiving an adequate education and the parents could provide this evidence without altering or affecting their child's education in any way whatever.

Home education in Birmingham

I seriously doubt if anybody will be the least bit surprised to learn that staff at Birmingham council are once again in a muddle. When Khyra Ishaq died, a little over two years ago, it was soon obvious that the procedures used in Birmingham had failed. Whether it was the school to blame, or Social Services, or the department dealing with electively home educated children; someone had screwed up. I think all of us would probably agree on that point. Now between the death of the child and the full facts coming to light, there was a period of well over eighteen months. Plenty of time, one might have though, to get to grips with things and sort out what had gone wrong. Needless to say, being Birmingham, this is not what happened. Instead, the matter was more or less shoved out of sight and mind until the verdict was delivered in the trial.

I suppose that we have all done things like this; put off dealing with something that we know at the back of our mind we are going to have to tackle sooner of later. Of course for most of us, it might just be a letter from the bank that we are sticking at the back of a drawer and trying to forget about. It is unlikely to be a dead child. Even when everything came to light earlier this year, Birmingham still delayed taking any action. This had less to do with 'best practice' and more to do with the fact that some people there thought that it might be possible to blame the whole business on their supposed lack of legal powers to regulate and monitor home education. It was thought that if they could only hold off looking too closely at things until the Children, Schools and Families Bill was passed, then they could blame all that had happened to Khyra Ishaq on the lack of sufficient legal powers previously. Then a line could be drawn under the incident and a fresh start made. Of course, in the event , this did not happen.

As a result, since early May the local authority officers in Birmingham whose job it is to deal with elective home education have been racing around frantically trying to get a look at every child in their area who is supposedly being educated at home. I need hardly add that this is not in the least anything to do with the education that these children may or may not be receiving. They have been told that they must physically set eyes upon each and every one of those kids and make sure that they are still alive and well. True, they are guying these frantic efforts up as a chance to hear little Jimmy reading and look at some of his work, but what they are really wanting to know is if little Jimmy is starving to death in the attic.

The problem is, that a lot of people avoid giving their telephone numbers to the EHE department. Many of those who do, have no landline and change their mobiles every week or so. Letters remain unanswered. Many people move frequently as well. Without going into the ins and outs of it too deeply, most of those who deregister their children from school there, are not owner occupiers living stable lives in nice suburbs, as is often the case with home educators in some other parts of the country. Many of these people are on the move regularly and hard to find. The only way to see them in many cases is to go and look for them physically.

At this very moment therefore, two exceedingly harassed and tired men are driving round Birmingham, looking for every home educated child with whom their department has dealt in the last couple of years. Where they have moved, these guys are talking to neighbours and when they actually find somebody who is still living where they expected, they are trying to bounce them into letting them in there and then to have a look at the kid. You might think that since this is essentially a series of lightning 'safe and well' checks, Social Services might lend a hand. They have their own problems though and do not feel inclined to offer staff to help out with this mammoth undertaking. The men actually doing the checks are getting confused sometimes and not liasing properly, with the result that some parents have been offered visits by two different people turning up on their doorstep within days of each other.

I have a suspicion that we are going to be seeing quite a few complaints over the next few months from irate home educating parents in Birmingham who find themselves being 'offered' visits in some cases less than six months after they last had one. Never the less, every single child on their books as being home educated must now receive a visit. They are not taking any chances of another horrible surprise like the Ishaq case. While he is listening to Aziz read, the local authority officer will be casting glances at around, trying to look for anything wrong in the house. he will also be examining the child for signs of abuse or starvation. It will be interesting to see if they succeed in seeing all the kids or whether some parents, backed up by home education charities, will dig in their heels and refuse.