Section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave the police the power to remove truants from a public place and return them to school or take them to another safe place. The usual method of accomplishing this end is by working with the Education Welfare Service of the local authority to mount what has become known as a Truancy Patrol. The mode of operation is for Education Welfare Officers to stake out, say, a shopping centre in the company of uniformed police officers. Not surprisingly, home educated children sometimes get caught up in the net.
There are a number of things to bear in mind about Truancy Patrols, because they have at times been a bit of a nuisance for some home educators. The first point to remember is that home educated children are specifically excluded from their remit. They are concerned only with pupils registered at a school. As soon as it is established that a child is not at school, then the interest of the Truancy Patrol should end. Needless to say, this is not always the case. Children on their own may well be taken home in order that their parents may confirm that they are in fact home educated. Even if they are with their parents, the EWOs will try to take names and addresses in order to see if the local authority is aware of the family. Neither the EWO nor the police officer have any right to be given the address of those stopped under this act. Nor do the police have the right to detain anybody. They may however remove children from a public place if they believe them to be registered pupils at a school.
When they first began, some of the truancy patrols had an alarming habit of routinely exceeding their powers. It was not at all unknown for EWOs and even police officers to give the impression that they had a perfect right to take names and addresses of home educated children, in order to check if they were known to the LEA. This is actually how my daughter and I came to the notice of Essex LEA. We had not been hiding, but nor had we bothered to notify the LEA of our existence when we moved to Essex. Although we made it plain to the truancy patrol that they were not entitled to demand our address, we gave it anyway because I could think of no particular reason not to do so.
It is important to remember that, at least for now, there is no need at all to give any personal information to either the EWO or the police officer in a truancy patrol. There is less anxiety about this than there was when the schemes first began to operate, but occasionally parents still express fear that because they are not registered with their local authority, they will get into trouble if they encounter a truancy patrol. It is not true. All that is necessary is to inform them politely that your child is not a registered pupil at a school and that you and your child are therefore beyond the scope of that particular law. There may well be some huffing and puffing and pursed lips, but the bottom line is that there is absolutely no power that can prevent you from simply walking off and declining to answer any further questions.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Monday, 28 September 2009
Do the recommendations of the Badman Report amount to a plan of mass screening for child abuse?
The above thesis has been advanced several times by Sharon, a regular poster to this Blog. She is concerned that if local authority officers visit every home educating family, carrying out so-called "Safe and Well" checks, then there will be many false positives. That is to say that evidence of abuse or neglect will be spotted where none exists. It is a bit like screening for cancer of the cervix. Some women will be told that they have pre-cancerous changes when they don't. The more checks one conducts, the more of these false positives there will be. In essence, Sharon appears to be worried that if lots of checks are carried out on home educators, then lots of parents will be falsely accused of abuse or neglect.
Let us look first at how Health Visitors and schools carry out their duties in this respect. After the birth of baby, Health Visitors come round to see if they can offer help and advice. While they are in the home, they cast an eye round for any warning signs. These can be vague, perhaps there are dirty and unkempt children around, the home might be so filthy that it is a health hazard, the mother might present as an alcoholic or drug user or bruises and contusions might be noticed on a child. In such a case, she will report her concerns to a superior and the result might be extra attention to that family. Precisely the same thing happens at schools. Last year there was a good example of this when a teacher spotted a bite mark on a child's arm and reported it to social services. The mother was subsequently arrested. This sort of informal surveillance is, if you like, a first layer of protection for children.
The above protection is sometimes lacking for children educated at home. In other words, it might be possible for a child to be filthy and unkempt and this fact will not be observed by a professional. A home educating mother could bite her child's arm and then make sure that nobody saw her son's bare arm until the injury had faded. This is not possible when a child is at school. The worry is that a small number of children could be at risk in this way. This is not really a screening programme as such, more an attempt to extend the protection enjoyed by schooled children to those who are taught at home.
One thing we are able to state confidently about this scheme is that some children who are at risk will not be spotted and that other children who are not at risk will be labelled incorrectly to be in danger of harm or neglect. This is inevitable. No system will save every child, just as none will avoid false accusations against some innocent parents. This has happened in the past, is happening now and will happen in the future. Thus, we try to balance these two points. On the one hand we hope that no child at risk of harm will escape notice and on the other, we hope that innocent parents shall not be wrongly accused. So far, I do not think I have said anything at all controversial; I think that we all agree on the nature of the problem.
The government's evident intention is that officers from the local authority shall visit home educators every year or so and cast a benevolent eye over their children. The object of this exercise will of course be to offer help and support to those who appear to need it. Sometimes this might be done by a CAF; perhaps social services will become involved. The sole and direct purpose of this activity is to protect children and help their parents. It is really not part of a plot to force home educated children back into school!
What harm might result from a false positive? Most probably, none at all. The worst case scenario might entail somebody from social services visiting the home as a result of some observation reported by an EWO. This is no disaster. In the first place, most such visits fizzle out and end up with a report stating that there is nothing to worry about. Sometimes, parents are glad of the chance to talk and the social worker is able to make referrals and arrange other services for the family. Unless there is genuinely something wrong, then matters are usually resolved amicably. I am of course aware that for many middle class parents, the prospect of a social worker turning up at their house is the ultimate nightmare and inevitable precursor to the children being taken into care. Many parents though, actually welcome social services involvement as a way to gain access to other services. Sometimes, the very fact that social services are hovering around can in itself be protection for a vulnerable child. It makes the parents think hard about their lifestyle and how they are behaving.
When we set the possibility that a child might end up being neglected, abused or murdered against the possibility that a certain number of people will be inconvenienced and very possibly subjected to annoying and intrusive questions, then we have a very difficult balancing act to perform. In a sense, we will never get it completely right because as I said earlier, some children will always fall through the net, while others will be incorrectly diagnosed as being at risk. It is not a perfect world.
I do not personally view the recommendations contained in the Badman Report as being a blueprint for an exercise in mass screening. Perhaps this is mere semantics. If it is mass screening, then it looks to me as though it will be a very mild and fairly low key operation, unlikely to cause much harm, but with the potential to do a lot of good. We should be welcoming this move, not sounding the alarm bells.
Let us look first at how Health Visitors and schools carry out their duties in this respect. After the birth of baby, Health Visitors come round to see if they can offer help and advice. While they are in the home, they cast an eye round for any warning signs. These can be vague, perhaps there are dirty and unkempt children around, the home might be so filthy that it is a health hazard, the mother might present as an alcoholic or drug user or bruises and contusions might be noticed on a child. In such a case, she will report her concerns to a superior and the result might be extra attention to that family. Precisely the same thing happens at schools. Last year there was a good example of this when a teacher spotted a bite mark on a child's arm and reported it to social services. The mother was subsequently arrested. This sort of informal surveillance is, if you like, a first layer of protection for children.
The above protection is sometimes lacking for children educated at home. In other words, it might be possible for a child to be filthy and unkempt and this fact will not be observed by a professional. A home educating mother could bite her child's arm and then make sure that nobody saw her son's bare arm until the injury had faded. This is not possible when a child is at school. The worry is that a small number of children could be at risk in this way. This is not really a screening programme as such, more an attempt to extend the protection enjoyed by schooled children to those who are taught at home.
One thing we are able to state confidently about this scheme is that some children who are at risk will not be spotted and that other children who are not at risk will be labelled incorrectly to be in danger of harm or neglect. This is inevitable. No system will save every child, just as none will avoid false accusations against some innocent parents. This has happened in the past, is happening now and will happen in the future. Thus, we try to balance these two points. On the one hand we hope that no child at risk of harm will escape notice and on the other, we hope that innocent parents shall not be wrongly accused. So far, I do not think I have said anything at all controversial; I think that we all agree on the nature of the problem.
The government's evident intention is that officers from the local authority shall visit home educators every year or so and cast a benevolent eye over their children. The object of this exercise will of course be to offer help and support to those who appear to need it. Sometimes this might be done by a CAF; perhaps social services will become involved. The sole and direct purpose of this activity is to protect children and help their parents. It is really not part of a plot to force home educated children back into school!
What harm might result from a false positive? Most probably, none at all. The worst case scenario might entail somebody from social services visiting the home as a result of some observation reported by an EWO. This is no disaster. In the first place, most such visits fizzle out and end up with a report stating that there is nothing to worry about. Sometimes, parents are glad of the chance to talk and the social worker is able to make referrals and arrange other services for the family. Unless there is genuinely something wrong, then matters are usually resolved amicably. I am of course aware that for many middle class parents, the prospect of a social worker turning up at their house is the ultimate nightmare and inevitable precursor to the children being taken into care. Many parents though, actually welcome social services involvement as a way to gain access to other services. Sometimes, the very fact that social services are hovering around can in itself be protection for a vulnerable child. It makes the parents think hard about their lifestyle and how they are behaving.
When we set the possibility that a child might end up being neglected, abused or murdered against the possibility that a certain number of people will be inconvenienced and very possibly subjected to annoying and intrusive questions, then we have a very difficult balancing act to perform. In a sense, we will never get it completely right because as I said earlier, some children will always fall through the net, while others will be incorrectly diagnosed as being at risk. It is not a perfect world.
I do not personally view the recommendations contained in the Badman Report as being a blueprint for an exercise in mass screening. Perhaps this is mere semantics. If it is mass screening, then it looks to me as though it will be a very mild and fairly low key operation, unlikely to cause much harm, but with the potential to do a lot of good. We should be welcoming this move, not sounding the alarm bells.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
The reactionaries
There has always been a strong tradition in this country of opposing new laws, or indeed any change at all in the status quo, as being dangerous and unnecessary. Whether it was the Great Reform Act of 1832, the abolition of the Corn Laws, free public education for the working classes or the enfranchisement of women, there have always been those who have viewed the new law as a risky experiment, liable to strike at traditional English values. I have been prompted to reflect upon this by threads currently running on the HE-UK and EO lists. Under the heading of Government Intrusion into Family Life, a succession of posters are expressing concern about the regulation of childminding. Almost unbelievably, the consensus on those lists seems to be in favour of an increase in unregulated childminding! Like me, many of those writing about this see parallels with the law on home education, although our conclusions are probably different.
Unregulated childminding has for many years been a popular way for women to make a little extra money. Thirty or forty years ago, when childminding was all but completely unregulated, it was possible to turn one's home into a battery farm full of babies and toddlers. It was in those days not uncommon to see a house containing six or seven small children. Times change and that sort of thing does not really go on any more. Thanks to a series of laws, unregulated childminding is now a far more hole and corner affair. Instead of providing a steady and reliable income, it is often used these days as part of a series of little earners, alongside clothing catalogue scams, cash in hand cleaning jobs and bar work. Usually, it is limited to one or at the most two children, rather than six or seven. This is a good thing and it is a direct result of the tightening up of the law. Women do not wish to draw attention to childminding unless they are registered and so are a bit more discrete about it.
None of these various laws were ever meant to affect how families look after their children, they were instead brought in to protect some of the most vulnerable members of the community, i.e. babies and toddlers, from exploitation. I find it astonishing that anybody could possibly think such laws a bad thing. Similarly, registered childminders are now obliged to follow the Early Years Foundation Scheme, the so-called "Nappy Curriculum", not because the government is determined to regulate childhood out of existence, but because a lot of childminders have historically been in the habit of plonking their charges down in front of the television and leaving them alone to watch cartoons all day. This is a bad thing for babies and toddlers.
Some of the people posting on HE-UK and EO are equating the regulations around childminding with the intention to introduce new laws to keep an eye on home education. In both cases, the government is concerned about children and trying to look after their interests. There will always be opposition to anything new, particularly new laws. When compulsory education was introduced in the late 19th Century, many parents were outraged. It was said to be striking at the heart of family life and an unwarranted interference in the private affairs of citizens. Plus ca change...... Perhaps it is time for those who are in favour of unregulated childminding and against the monitoring of home education, to ask themselves what they truly imagine the government's motives to be. Do they really imagine that this is all part of a sinister, wide ranging plot to undermine family life? Or is possible that a government composed of fallible men and women are struggling to pass imperfect laws, some of which will be misused, with the honest aim of improving the lot of the nation's children?
A small number of cases......
If the ability of parents in this country to educate their own children were to be under threat, then nobody would be more concerned than the present writer. Fortunately, no such threat is apparent, at least at the moment. What has happened over the last few years, as home education has become increasingly popular, is that it has grown clear that a small number of parents are using the pretext of home education as a cover for other things. Just what those "other things" are is a matter of lively debate. I believe them to be, for example, neglecting the education of a child, sometimes in order to avoid prosecution for truancy; some think that these "other things" include physical and sexual abuse. What nobody disputes, nor have ever disputed, is that such cases are a small number. Small, but perhaps significant enough to make it necessary to take some sort of action. The aim of any new action is not and never has been home educating parents per se. There is a good deal of evidence to support this thesis.
Here is Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College leaders, speaking about home education shortly after the Graham Badman review was launched, "However, there have been concerns about a small number of cases where this option has been exercised to the detriment of the child.". He went on to defend the right of parents to educate their children. His views were echoed by others during and after the review. On the day that Graham Badman's report was published on June 11th this year, Ed Balls said, "The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations."
All along, everybody concerned in the review of elective home education conducted by Graham Badman has been at pains to emphasise that they are not against home eduction, but simply want the powers to cope with a small number of cases where the right to home educate is being abused. Here is Baroness Morgan, answering a written question about any new powers which local authorities may acquire, on June 29th, "We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education, and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch." Once again, a small number of cases. And finally, here is Graham Badman himself writing on September 16th., "a small but significant
proportion of home educated children are receiving no, or an inadequate,
education."
There can be little doubt that any new law will be directed not at home educators in general, but at those who are using home education as a cover or excuse. Nobody has any idea what percentage of supposedly home educating parents this is likely to affect, not least because nobody knows to within a few score of thousands how many parents in this country are educating their children. Of course, any new regulation will cause irritation and inconvenience to a certain number of genuine home educators, although for most there will be no discernible difference. This inconvenience might however be a price worth paying if it rescues even a small number of children from neglect and possible danger.
Here is Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College leaders, speaking about home education shortly after the Graham Badman review was launched, "However, there have been concerns about a small number of cases where this option has been exercised to the detriment of the child.". He went on to defend the right of parents to educate their children. His views were echoed by others during and after the review. On the day that Graham Badman's report was published on June 11th this year, Ed Balls said, "The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations."
All along, everybody concerned in the review of elective home education conducted by Graham Badman has been at pains to emphasise that they are not against home eduction, but simply want the powers to cope with a small number of cases where the right to home educate is being abused. Here is Baroness Morgan, answering a written question about any new powers which local authorities may acquire, on June 29th, "We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education, and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch." Once again, a small number of cases. And finally, here is Graham Badman himself writing on September 16th., "a small but significant
proportion of home educated children are receiving no, or an inadequate,
education."
There can be little doubt that any new law will be directed not at home educators in general, but at those who are using home education as a cover or excuse. Nobody has any idea what percentage of supposedly home educating parents this is likely to affect, not least because nobody knows to within a few score of thousands how many parents in this country are educating their children. Of course, any new regulation will cause irritation and inconvenience to a certain number of genuine home educators, although for most there will be no discernible difference. This inconvenience might however be a price worth paying if it rescues even a small number of children from neglect and possible danger.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
It's still easy to home educate in this country
Despite recent changes in the law, the setting up of ContactPoint, proposed legislation based upon the recommendations made by Graham Badman and so on; it is still very easy to home educate in this country. All you need to do is not send your child to school. I have been prompted to reflect upon this by a comment on one of my posts by somebody who believes that he will be at risk of arrest if he goes out with his child during school hours. This is a grotesque and unrealistic fear. I cannot imagine what law would be invoked for such an arrest.
It is quite true that if one does not send one's child to school, then there is more chance of the local authority hearing about it than was once the case. But then so what? All they can do is ask you a few questions and sometimes press for a visit which you are quite at liberty to decline. Most local authorities now are familiar with the idea of home education, which was certainly not the case twenty or thirty years ago. From that point of view, home educating is a lot easier than it once was.
While I am aware that some people have had problems with Truancy Patrols, the fact is that once they know that you are home educating they will, in general, leave you alone. My daughter and I were stopped by one when she was eight and that is how we became known to the local authority. However, I had no need to give them my name and address if I chose not to. I did so because we were not hiding from the LA, just had not seen any advantage in notifying them of our existence. They certainly have no right to arrest anybody! Children alone are slightly different and sometimes the police will wish to speak to a parent or guardian in order to ensure that they are genuinely being home educated.
Of course, all this may be about to change. In other words it may become more difficult to home educate in the future, although that is in some doubt. But for anybody to suggest that it is necessary to "jump hurdles" in order to do so, as somebody did in a comment yesterday, is frankly absurd. My advice to anybody wishing to educate their own child is, "Don't send your child to school". That's all there is to it. Incidentally, I cannot help noticing that some home educators are using the term "ultra vires" in order to describe the behaviour of local authorities who ask too many questions or pretend that they are entitled to visit homes. Ultra vires is a legal expression which can be applied to a public authority exceeding their lawful powers. In the case of a local authority asking questions or saying that they wish to visit a home, this is probably "reasonably incidental to its authorised activities" and so beyond any definition of ultra vires. We do not need to turn to obscure Latin phrases to describe this sort of thing. There are perfectly good English expressions which meet the case, such as "Trying it on" or "Coming the old soldier"!
It is quite true that if one does not send one's child to school, then there is more chance of the local authority hearing about it than was once the case. But then so what? All they can do is ask you a few questions and sometimes press for a visit which you are quite at liberty to decline. Most local authorities now are familiar with the idea of home education, which was certainly not the case twenty or thirty years ago. From that point of view, home educating is a lot easier than it once was.
While I am aware that some people have had problems with Truancy Patrols, the fact is that once they know that you are home educating they will, in general, leave you alone. My daughter and I were stopped by one when she was eight and that is how we became known to the local authority. However, I had no need to give them my name and address if I chose not to. I did so because we were not hiding from the LA, just had not seen any advantage in notifying them of our existence. They certainly have no right to arrest anybody! Children alone are slightly different and sometimes the police will wish to speak to a parent or guardian in order to ensure that they are genuinely being home educated.
Of course, all this may be about to change. In other words it may become more difficult to home educate in the future, although that is in some doubt. But for anybody to suggest that it is necessary to "jump hurdles" in order to do so, as somebody did in a comment yesterday, is frankly absurd. My advice to anybody wishing to educate their own child is, "Don't send your child to school". That's all there is to it. Incidentally, I cannot help noticing that some home educators are using the term "ultra vires" in order to describe the behaviour of local authorities who ask too many questions or pretend that they are entitled to visit homes. Ultra vires is a legal expression which can be applied to a public authority exceeding their lawful powers. In the case of a local authority asking questions or saying that they wish to visit a home, this is probably "reasonably incidental to its authorised activities" and so beyond any definition of ultra vires. We do not need to turn to obscure Latin phrases to describe this sort of thing. There are perfectly good English expressions which meet the case, such as "Trying it on" or "Coming the old soldier"!
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Is the law on home education going to change?
There seems to be real and genuine anxiety among some parents about proposed changes in the law which might allow children to be interviewed by local authority officers without the parents' presence. How likely is such a law to find its way onto the statute books? Well, not at all likely really. Let us look closely at the process.
Transforming a recommendation from a review conducted for some government department into a new law is quite a big step. The Badman report made a number of recommendations and there is no way of telling which parts of them will be chosen as the basis for new legislation. Often, the laws that emerge from such reviews are all but unrecognisable when compared with the original ideas that were suggested. The chance of one sentence taken from the twenty eight recommendations of the Badman Report eventually ending up as the law of England is slim. More probable by far is some bland and anodyne statement that local authorities should make every effort to establish that children are receiving a suitable education. However, let us assume a worst case scenario and take it for granted that this is the intention of the lawmakers, that they really want the right of LA officers to see children alone.
The next hurdle is that the government is rapidly running out of time. The next election will be held next June at the latest, so I would say offhand that there is only a fifty fifty chance of this being dealt with during the life of this parliament. If it does make it into law then we can say one thing with complete assurance; that it will be a hasty and poorly worded law. This is good, for reasons which I shall explain later. For now, let us again assume a worst case and that the law has been passed. What now?
It is important to realise that many laws are passed and then virtually ignored by everybody. Easter, for example, was fixed by an Act of Parliament in 1928 as being the Sunday after the second Saturday in April. It is legally not a moveable feast at all and has not been for over eighty years! You were probably not aware of this, because nobody took the least bit of notice of the law. More recent and relevant to us is the Caravan Sites Act 1968. This laid a statutory duty on all local authorities to provide campsites for Gypsies. Many councils simply ignored it and there has been no consequence at all for them. Central government often pass laws like this which require local authorities to do this or that. Many of these laws are disregarded. So even if the law is passed, there will be a good deal of discretion for local authorities as to how strictly it is enforced.
Let us pretend though that all this has happened. The law has been passed, it includes the right of local authority officers to interview children alone, everything is settled now, surely? No, this is where the fun begins! The first thing that will happen is that the law will be tested in the courts and the test here when a public authority is carrying out what it sees as its functions is not just whether the body is acting in accordance with its powers, but if it is being reasonable and proportionate. This means that even if the local authority is acting within the law, the courts can tell them to lay off on the grounds that their behaviour is unreasonable. I can't see it being five minutes before this ends up in a Judicial Review. In short, the courts will have to decide whether expecting to enter a home against the wishes of the parents and speak to a child alone is a reasonable requirement. They will make their decision in the light of precedent and also the test of what is reasonable and proportionate. I can't see such a clause surviving, even if it was in the new legislation. This would be made even more likely because this law, if it is passed, will be a typical rushed job, cobbled together and pushed through in haste. Such laws tend to be very easy for the courts to reject.
To summarise, there is a long way to go before anybody needs to get het up about all this. My personal view is that some new legislation would not come at all amiss. I realise that not everyone agrees with me on that point, to say the least of it. But it does not really matter, because the chances of local authorities actually ending up with specific powers about interviewing children alone are negligible.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Will local authorities have the right to enter our homes?
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation of the Badman Report is No. 7, which is that designated local authority officers should have a right of access to the homes of home educating parents. Time and again on the HE-UK and EO message boards, it is this part of the report that people seem to find most threatening and unacceptable.
It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that local authorities already have the power to enter our homes for hundreds of different reasons. For instance, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 the local authority can come into your garden to measure the height of hedges. They can come onto our property to check for the presence of rabbits (Pests Act 1954) and also enter any home if they have reason to suspect that illegal or unregulated hypnotism is taking place (Hypnotism Act 1952). And just in case you were planning to start home educating a bear in your house and think it is no business of the local authority what you do in the privacy of your own home, then you'd better think again! The Performing Animals Regulations Act 1925 confers the power on local authorities to enter any home in order to search for performing or trained animals.
Needless to say, local authorities do not actually make a habit of raiding people's homes to search for unregulated hypnotists or dancing bears. Nor, I strongly suspect, are they likely to start kicking anybody's door down in the future, while searching for poorly educated children. For one thing, all these powers of entry need to be backed up by an application to a Justice of the Peace and a similar restriction would almost certainly apply to any new legislation about home education. Governments and local authorities love to arm themselves with Draconian measures like this, even if are seldom used. I'm sure that a psychologist could explain this craving for various powers.
Every so often, governments rush to introduce laws designed to tackle some perceived menace which must be swiftly dealt with. Almost invariably such laws are hastily drafted and impossible to enforce. I'm sure we all remember the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991? It followed some highly publicised dog attacks and is now all but ignored. Where I work it is quite common to see people walking Pitbulls. Nobody, least of all the police, have any desire to take action. The Pests Act mentioned above was a similar rushed job, brought in to deal with the threat of Myxomatosis. All the signs are that the new law currently being contemplated on home education will be of the same type.
We have to remember also that local authorities already have the power to enforce thousands of laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Everything from the minimum height of shop awnings to the fact that out front garden gates must open inwardly. Nobody has the time, energy or inclination to pursue most of these laws and regulations.
I believe that even if a new law is passed which requires home educators to open their homes to officers from the local authority, nothing much will change. As is currently the case, if the LA is worried about the welfare of a child they will take action. I really cannot see them applying to the courts for an order to enter the home of somebody just because they are educating their child autonomously! I can just see how well this would play with the local police, who would be required to waste their time by attending any such attempt to force entry to a home. I can also not see it looking very good in the local paper. So even if they acquire new powers, my guess is that LAs will be extremely sparing in their use of them.
Local authorities have extensive powers to enter our homes for a huge number of reasons. They never use these powers and the addition of one more to the hundreds which they already possess and do not use would probably make little difference to anybody.
It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that local authorities already have the power to enter our homes for hundreds of different reasons. For instance, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 the local authority can come into your garden to measure the height of hedges. They can come onto our property to check for the presence of rabbits (Pests Act 1954) and also enter any home if they have reason to suspect that illegal or unregulated hypnotism is taking place (Hypnotism Act 1952). And just in case you were planning to start home educating a bear in your house and think it is no business of the local authority what you do in the privacy of your own home, then you'd better think again! The Performing Animals Regulations Act 1925 confers the power on local authorities to enter any home in order to search for performing or trained animals.
Needless to say, local authorities do not actually make a habit of raiding people's homes to search for unregulated hypnotists or dancing bears. Nor, I strongly suspect, are they likely to start kicking anybody's door down in the future, while searching for poorly educated children. For one thing, all these powers of entry need to be backed up by an application to a Justice of the Peace and a similar restriction would almost certainly apply to any new legislation about home education. Governments and local authorities love to arm themselves with Draconian measures like this, even if are seldom used. I'm sure that a psychologist could explain this craving for various powers.
Every so often, governments rush to introduce laws designed to tackle some perceived menace which must be swiftly dealt with. Almost invariably such laws are hastily drafted and impossible to enforce. I'm sure we all remember the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991? It followed some highly publicised dog attacks and is now all but ignored. Where I work it is quite common to see people walking Pitbulls. Nobody, least of all the police, have any desire to take action. The Pests Act mentioned above was a similar rushed job, brought in to deal with the threat of Myxomatosis. All the signs are that the new law currently being contemplated on home education will be of the same type.
We have to remember also that local authorities already have the power to enforce thousands of laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Everything from the minimum height of shop awnings to the fact that out front garden gates must open inwardly. Nobody has the time, energy or inclination to pursue most of these laws and regulations.
I believe that even if a new law is passed which requires home educators to open their homes to officers from the local authority, nothing much will change. As is currently the case, if the LA is worried about the welfare of a child they will take action. I really cannot see them applying to the courts for an order to enter the home of somebody just because they are educating their child autonomously! I can just see how well this would play with the local police, who would be required to waste their time by attending any such attempt to force entry to a home. I can also not see it looking very good in the local paper. So even if they acquire new powers, my guess is that LAs will be extremely sparing in their use of them.
Local authorities have extensive powers to enter our homes for a huge number of reasons. They never use these powers and the addition of one more to the hundreds which they already possess and do not use would probably make little difference to anybody.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
The local authorities already have all the powers they need!
Whenever the discussion comes round to either new legislation on home education or home educated children who are not receiving an education some home educator is sure to claim, "But the LAs already have the powers, they simply don't use them." How true is this?
Why don't local authorities take action if their officers truly believe that they are aware of apparently home educated children who are not receiving a suitable education? There are a number of reasons. One might be because either the school or LA are wittingly complicit in the withdrawal of the child from the educational system and are therefore happy to leave him to his own devices. This is not uncommon, see my recent post and the associated comments. Howsoever, let us assume that an officer from the local authority does have reason to think that a child is not being educated, is not happy and wants to do something about it. What happens next?
The first thing to be done is for the LA to make informal enquiries. This generally entails writing to the family although it is not unknown for an EWO to turn up on the doorstep. Most families at this point do provide some evidence. Often, this is an educational philosophy downloaded from the internet. Of course, this is really evidence of nothing more than the ability to use a computer, but often it will be accepted by the LA. What is wrong with that? Well the problem here is that it does not really tell anybody anything at all about the nature or quality of the education being provided for a child. This is particularly the case if the family refuse visits. What can be done now if the LA are still not satisfied?
The answer is of course that proving a negative is, as any logician will tell you, a damned tricky business! How do you prove that a family is not educating a child? The decision is not left to the EWO on the ground. Those in direct contact with a family often know perfectly well that a child is not being educated and they report this to their line manager. It is at this, higher, level that the decision is taken whether or not to proceed further. There are various considerations. One is how long the legal process is likely to take and if it is worth dragging the child back into school where he will only make a nuisance of himself. If he is fifteen or sixteen, then it is unlikely to be worthwhile. A lot depends on the magistrates in the area as well. Some are famously reluctant to allow prosecutions under SAOs to succeed. This situation is exacerbated greatly by the lack of any standard definition of what constitutes a suitable education.
Eventually, the local authority might decide to issue a School Attendance Order. They have to give the parents plenty of notice before doing so, but in the end something like this might land on the doormat;
Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 2090 The Education (School Attendance Order) Regulations 1995
SCHEDULE
Regulation 3
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ORDER
Education Act 1993
[name of authority] Local Education Authority ("the Authority").
As you [name of parent] of [address of parent], being the parent[3] of a child of compulsory school age in the area of the Authority, have failed to satisfy the Authority in accordance with the requirements of the notice served on you under section 192(1) of the Education Act 1993 by the Authority on [date of notice] that [name of child] is receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise: And as, in the opinion of the Authority, [name of child] should attend school:
You are required to cause [name of child] to become a registered pupil at the following school:
[Insert full name and address of the school and omit the whole or part of the following words as the case requires]
..........
being the school [specified by the Authority] [selected by you] [determined by a direction of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment] [as the school to be named in this Order] [specified in the statement for the child under section 168 of the Education Act 1993]
Failure to comply with the requirements of this Order is an offence unless you can prove that [name of child] is receiving suitable education otherwise than at school.
Signed [name of officer] of [name of authority] Education Authority.
Dated
Impressive as it looks, this document leaves much to be desired, which is why most LAs hardly ever bother with them. For one thing, having got the parents into court the people they now need to persuade are lay magistrates. They tend to be lot more gullible than LA officers and it often does not take much for them to be convinced that a suitable education is being provided, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is no point at all dragging the borough solicitor into court, only to see the case thrown out and so if the local authority feel that it is liable to be a waste of time issuing an SAO, they will just not bother. But suppose it isn't and the magistrate agrees with the LA, what happens then?
The relevant case here is Enfield Borough Council v F (1987) (2 FLR 126) and sobering reading this precedent makes for any LA hoping to prosecute parents for ignoring a School Attendance Order. For one thing, an SAO obliges a parent to register their child at a named school. What happens if having complied with the order in this way, they then deregister the child the following week? Good point and a grey area of law. What happens if despite all this, the parents have been successfully prosecuted by the LA and fined for disobeying an SAO? Well, the child is still not in school and so the LA must now launch a second prosecution, sometimes combined with an application for an Education Supervision Order. The longer this process continues, the more expensive it becomes. Also, at any stage they may encounter an awkward magistrate who will side with the parents and dismiss the case. Some parents are adept at playing the system. They may register their child at a school before an SAO is issued and then withdraw him again a few weeks later. Cat and mouse games like this happen regularly in some local authority areas.
At the root of the matter is the lack of a satisfactory definition of what constitutes a "suitable education". Until this is sorted out and some sort of yardsticks devised which can measure this, then the situation will remain confused and open to abuse. This is why I believe that new legislation is urgently needed. Unless home educators are prepared to engage in a dialogue about this, then the matter will be decided by the unilateral imposition of rules by the DCSF and local authorities, a situation which would be welcomed by few home educators.
Why don't local authorities take action if their officers truly believe that they are aware of apparently home educated children who are not receiving a suitable education? There are a number of reasons. One might be because either the school or LA are wittingly complicit in the withdrawal of the child from the educational system and are therefore happy to leave him to his own devices. This is not uncommon, see my recent post and the associated comments. Howsoever, let us assume that an officer from the local authority does have reason to think that a child is not being educated, is not happy and wants to do something about it. What happens next?
The first thing to be done is for the LA to make informal enquiries. This generally entails writing to the family although it is not unknown for an EWO to turn up on the doorstep. Most families at this point do provide some evidence. Often, this is an educational philosophy downloaded from the internet. Of course, this is really evidence of nothing more than the ability to use a computer, but often it will be accepted by the LA. What is wrong with that? Well the problem here is that it does not really tell anybody anything at all about the nature or quality of the education being provided for a child. This is particularly the case if the family refuse visits. What can be done now if the LA are still not satisfied?
The answer is of course that proving a negative is, as any logician will tell you, a damned tricky business! How do you prove that a family is not educating a child? The decision is not left to the EWO on the ground. Those in direct contact with a family often know perfectly well that a child is not being educated and they report this to their line manager. It is at this, higher, level that the decision is taken whether or not to proceed further. There are various considerations. One is how long the legal process is likely to take and if it is worth dragging the child back into school where he will only make a nuisance of himself. If he is fifteen or sixteen, then it is unlikely to be worthwhile. A lot depends on the magistrates in the area as well. Some are famously reluctant to allow prosecutions under SAOs to succeed. This situation is exacerbated greatly by the lack of any standard definition of what constitutes a suitable education.
Eventually, the local authority might decide to issue a School Attendance Order. They have to give the parents plenty of notice before doing so, but in the end something like this might land on the doormat;
Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 2090 The Education (School Attendance Order) Regulations 1995
SCHEDULE
Regulation 3
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ORDER
Education Act 1993
[name of authority] Local Education Authority ("the Authority").
As you [name of parent] of [address of parent], being the parent[3] of a child of compulsory school age in the area of the Authority, have failed to satisfy the Authority in accordance with the requirements of the notice served on you under section 192(1) of the Education Act 1993 by the Authority on [date of notice] that [name of child] is receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise: And as, in the opinion of the Authority, [name of child] should attend school:
You are required to cause [name of child] to become a registered pupil at the following school:
[Insert full name and address of the school and omit the whole or part of the following words as the case requires]
..........
being the school [specified by the Authority] [selected by you] [determined by a direction of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment] [as the school to be named in this Order] [specified in the statement for the child under section 168 of the Education Act 1993]
Failure to comply with the requirements of this Order is an offence unless you can prove that [name of child] is receiving suitable education otherwise than at school.
Signed [name of officer] of [name of authority] Education Authority.
Dated
Impressive as it looks, this document leaves much to be desired, which is why most LAs hardly ever bother with them. For one thing, having got the parents into court the people they now need to persuade are lay magistrates. They tend to be lot more gullible than LA officers and it often does not take much for them to be convinced that a suitable education is being provided, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is no point at all dragging the borough solicitor into court, only to see the case thrown out and so if the local authority feel that it is liable to be a waste of time issuing an SAO, they will just not bother. But suppose it isn't and the magistrate agrees with the LA, what happens then?
The relevant case here is Enfield Borough Council v F (1987) (2 FLR 126) and sobering reading this precedent makes for any LA hoping to prosecute parents for ignoring a School Attendance Order. For one thing, an SAO obliges a parent to register their child at a named school. What happens if having complied with the order in this way, they then deregister the child the following week? Good point and a grey area of law. What happens if despite all this, the parents have been successfully prosecuted by the LA and fined for disobeying an SAO? Well, the child is still not in school and so the LA must now launch a second prosecution, sometimes combined with an application for an Education Supervision Order. The longer this process continues, the more expensive it becomes. Also, at any stage they may encounter an awkward magistrate who will side with the parents and dismiss the case. Some parents are adept at playing the system. They may register their child at a school before an SAO is issued and then withdraw him again a few weeks later. Cat and mouse games like this happen regularly in some local authority areas.
At the root of the matter is the lack of a satisfactory definition of what constitutes a "suitable education". Until this is sorted out and some sort of yardsticks devised which can measure this, then the situation will remain confused and open to abuse. This is why I believe that new legislation is urgently needed. Unless home educators are prepared to engage in a dialogue about this, then the matter will be decided by the unilateral imposition of rules by the DCSF and local authorities, a situation which would be welcomed by few home educators.
Monday, 31 August 2009
Are the Tories the friends of home educators?
A spirit of cautious optimism is abroad among many of those opposed to the implementation of the Badman Report's recommendations. The feeling seems to be that if only home educators can fight a desperate rearguard action and delay any new legislation until the next election, then they will be home and dry. After all, this is a Labour government inspired piece of nonsense to which the Tories are opposed, isn't it? Well yes and no, but mainly, I am afraid, no.
New laws are seldom brought in these days because they are wise, prudent and principled. All politicians piss in the same pot and both the main political parties in this country are essentially populist in nature; they play to the gallery, rather than operating according to any abstract notions of justice and the good of mankind. Two things must be borne in mind about this proposed new legislation. Firstly, there are very few home educators, compared with the vast number of people who do send their children to school. Secondly, the average individual finds the whole thing somewhat fishy, grossly unfair and probably another middle class craze. After all, everybody else has to send their kids to school to be tested to destruction, why shouldn't these people do the same as the rest of us? What's special about them? Names like Victoria Climbie and Eunice Spry also resonate in the public consciousness in connection with home education, however irrationally. In other words, cracking down on home education would not be at all unpopular with most people and many would actively welcome such a move.
As a matter of realpolitic, Cameron would be mad less than a year before an election, to alienate perhaps a hundred thousand voters who have children being educated at home. His party have accordingly limited themselves to bland and anodyne statements to the effect that they support the right of parents to choose home education for their children. Since this is what Ed Balls and Graham Badman are also saying, this is not particularly reassuring. I imagine that the word has gone out from above that the official Conservative line on this is, "Keep it vague, make sympathetic tutting noises about this iniquitous government and for God's sake don't promise these lunatics anything definite".
My guess is that even if new legislation does not reach the statute books before the general election, then the next Conservative administration will introduce something very similar of their own. Opposition parties often pinch good ideas in this way as soon as they are in power. Remember that anything involving the protection of kiddies and old folks makes a government look caring and concerned. I should think that mid term, as they are slipping in the opinion polls would be a good time for such a move. Wait until some kid unknown to the local authority is neglected or even murdered by his mother and then pounce. Bear in mind that the majority of home educators are probably left leaning, so this would not damage the Tories' core voters.
In short, change is coming and it will not be particularly affected by the political complexion of the cabinet. Relying upon any Conservative assurance now, short of a manifesto pledge, is sure to end in disappointment for those hoping to avoid this change.
New laws are seldom brought in these days because they are wise, prudent and principled. All politicians piss in the same pot and both the main political parties in this country are essentially populist in nature; they play to the gallery, rather than operating according to any abstract notions of justice and the good of mankind. Two things must be borne in mind about this proposed new legislation. Firstly, there are very few home educators, compared with the vast number of people who do send their children to school. Secondly, the average individual finds the whole thing somewhat fishy, grossly unfair and probably another middle class craze. After all, everybody else has to send their kids to school to be tested to destruction, why shouldn't these people do the same as the rest of us? What's special about them? Names like Victoria Climbie and Eunice Spry also resonate in the public consciousness in connection with home education, however irrationally. In other words, cracking down on home education would not be at all unpopular with most people and many would actively welcome such a move.
As a matter of realpolitic, Cameron would be mad less than a year before an election, to alienate perhaps a hundred thousand voters who have children being educated at home. His party have accordingly limited themselves to bland and anodyne statements to the effect that they support the right of parents to choose home education for their children. Since this is what Ed Balls and Graham Badman are also saying, this is not particularly reassuring. I imagine that the word has gone out from above that the official Conservative line on this is, "Keep it vague, make sympathetic tutting noises about this iniquitous government and for God's sake don't promise these lunatics anything definite".
My guess is that even if new legislation does not reach the statute books before the general election, then the next Conservative administration will introduce something very similar of their own. Opposition parties often pinch good ideas in this way as soon as they are in power. Remember that anything involving the protection of kiddies and old folks makes a government look caring and concerned. I should think that mid term, as they are slipping in the opinion polls would be a good time for such a move. Wait until some kid unknown to the local authority is neglected or even murdered by his mother and then pounce. Bear in mind that the majority of home educators are probably left leaning, so this would not damage the Tories' core voters.
In short, change is coming and it will not be particularly affected by the political complexion of the cabinet. Relying upon any Conservative assurance now, short of a manifesto pledge, is sure to end in disappointment for those hoping to avoid this change.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
The "Market Inspector" model of home education inspection.
It occurs to me that a good analogy of the inspection of home education is provided by the market inspectors who keep an eye on street markets. There is just such a market near my office in East London and I have had ample opportunity to observe how it works.
Most stallholders view the inspectors as a bit of a nuisance, although they can see why they are needed. They are not popular, but neither are they particularly disliked. Most stallholders co-operate readily enough, although there are a number who are always complaining and refuse to do anything that the inspectors say without a huge amount of fuss and bother. These are the awkward squad, who in my younger days would have been described as "Barrack-room lawyers". Similarly among the inspectors, most just want to get on and do their job without too much trouble. Like most of us, they want an easy life. There are of course one or two really difficult types who set out to make life hard for the stallholders, but these are, mercifully, the exception.
It strikes me that this is very much a model for the world of home education and its inspection by local authorities. Most home educating parents, I think, see the need for inspections. As long as these are not too frequent or intrusive, they tolerate them. There are a number though who have a propensity to stand on their rights. They are shrill and voluable and some of them urge all parents to refuse visits and join them in a campaign of mass resistance to any attempt to check up on what they are doing with their children. Similarly, there are difficult and unpleasant inspectors and educational welfare officers who actively disapprove of home education and see it as their mission to give us a hard time. Like the awkward market inspectors, I think that this is a minority.
Something to bear in mind when one decides to go head to head with the state is that the state has far more resources than we do as individuals. It can afford to spend huge sums on lawyers, indeed it can actually change the law if it feels in the mood; as we are currently seeing with the proposed new legislation. It strikes me that a lot of home educators are spending so much time these days fighting the government, both local and national, that they must have very little time left to spend on their children. This seems sad and a little unnecessary. Which is likely to cause most disruption to their children's education; a brief annual visit or a sustained campaign lasting months on end fighting against such visits?
Most stallholders view the inspectors as a bit of a nuisance, although they can see why they are needed. They are not popular, but neither are they particularly disliked. Most stallholders co-operate readily enough, although there are a number who are always complaining and refuse to do anything that the inspectors say without a huge amount of fuss and bother. These are the awkward squad, who in my younger days would have been described as "Barrack-room lawyers". Similarly among the inspectors, most just want to get on and do their job without too much trouble. Like most of us, they want an easy life. There are of course one or two really difficult types who set out to make life hard for the stallholders, but these are, mercifully, the exception.
It strikes me that this is very much a model for the world of home education and its inspection by local authorities. Most home educating parents, I think, see the need for inspections. As long as these are not too frequent or intrusive, they tolerate them. There are a number though who have a propensity to stand on their rights. They are shrill and voluable and some of them urge all parents to refuse visits and join them in a campaign of mass resistance to any attempt to check up on what they are doing with their children. Similarly, there are difficult and unpleasant inspectors and educational welfare officers who actively disapprove of home education and see it as their mission to give us a hard time. Like the awkward market inspectors, I think that this is a minority.
Something to bear in mind when one decides to go head to head with the state is that the state has far more resources than we do as individuals. It can afford to spend huge sums on lawyers, indeed it can actually change the law if it feels in the mood; as we are currently seeing with the proposed new legislation. It strikes me that a lot of home educators are spending so much time these days fighting the government, both local and national, that they must have very little time left to spend on their children. This seems sad and a little unnecessary. Which is likely to cause most disruption to their children's education; a brief annual visit or a sustained campaign lasting months on end fighting against such visits?
Monday, 17 August 2009
Home Education - what's it got to do with anybody but the parents?
In English law parents are responsible for seeing to it that their children receive a suitable education. There are no plans to change this. (A surprising and paradoxical consequence is that if you send your child to a lousy school which fails to educate him, then it is you who are legally to blame rather than the school!) Many home educating parents feel that they should be left in peace to discharge this duty and that it is, essentially, nobody else's business how they go about it. Are they right?
The first thing to remember is of course that "my" child is not "mine" in the way that "my" car is. Nobody owns another person. If, to take a ridiculous example, I decided to join an Aztec cult and sacrifice my child to the Sun God, society would quite rightly intervene and stop me. Most would agree that this would be a good thing. I don't even need to go that far before society will step in. If I cut or even bruise my child, I can expect a visit from either the police or social services. If I leave a child alone in the house, fail to feed her, keep her warm, let her wander the streets, go out without adequate clothing, drink too much alcohol and many other things; society declares an interest. In a sense, "my" child belongs to everybody. What about education though? Surely that is a purely personal, family matter, of no concern to society in general?
Well, let us suppose that I raise my child to hate and despise black people. Or what if I taught her that members of other religions were evil and should be killed whenever they are encountered. I wonder what would happen if I were a habitual thief and allowed her to grow up thinking that it was alright to pick pockets and rob the neighbours? Perhaps I will let her grow up thinking that it is great to live on social security and never get a job. In this sense, the way that I raise my child can have a very serious impact upon the rest of society. I think it reasonable for society to take an interest in how I bring up my child if the result will be a dangerous or anti-social creature.
Finally, suppose that I avoid neglecting her or encouraging her to be a thief or a suicide bomber. What if I simply provide a cranky or inadequate education? Is that society's affair? Well, yes. If I don't teach my child proper values and train her to be a happy and useful member of society then other people might have to take care of her when she grows up. If she lives on benefits, cannot get a job because she is uneducated or perhaps has psychological problems which make her unable to function usefully in society, then all these things are a proper concern for the state. So I must conclude that the proper education of my child is not my business alone, but a matter which concerns the general good. If I do not educate her properly, then ten years down the road the tax payers of Britain might be obliged to support her. Society does have an interest in her education and it is not a purely personal decision how I go about fulfilling my duty in that direction.
The first thing to remember is of course that "my" child is not "mine" in the way that "my" car is. Nobody owns another person. If, to take a ridiculous example, I decided to join an Aztec cult and sacrifice my child to the Sun God, society would quite rightly intervene and stop me. Most would agree that this would be a good thing. I don't even need to go that far before society will step in. If I cut or even bruise my child, I can expect a visit from either the police or social services. If I leave a child alone in the house, fail to feed her, keep her warm, let her wander the streets, go out without adequate clothing, drink too much alcohol and many other things; society declares an interest. In a sense, "my" child belongs to everybody. What about education though? Surely that is a purely personal, family matter, of no concern to society in general?
Well, let us suppose that I raise my child to hate and despise black people. Or what if I taught her that members of other religions were evil and should be killed whenever they are encountered. I wonder what would happen if I were a habitual thief and allowed her to grow up thinking that it was alright to pick pockets and rob the neighbours? Perhaps I will let her grow up thinking that it is great to live on social security and never get a job. In this sense, the way that I raise my child can have a very serious impact upon the rest of society. I think it reasonable for society to take an interest in how I bring up my child if the result will be a dangerous or anti-social creature.
Finally, suppose that I avoid neglecting her or encouraging her to be a thief or a suicide bomber. What if I simply provide a cranky or inadequate education? Is that society's affair? Well, yes. If I don't teach my child proper values and train her to be a happy and useful member of society then other people might have to take care of her when she grows up. If she lives on benefits, cannot get a job because she is uneducated or perhaps has psychological problems which make her unable to function usefully in society, then all these things are a proper concern for the state. So I must conclude that the proper education of my child is not my business alone, but a matter which concerns the general good. If I do not educate her properly, then ten years down the road the tax payers of Britain might be obliged to support her. Society does have an interest in her education and it is not a purely personal decision how I go about fulfilling my duty in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
