The Department for Children, Schools and Families has written to local authorities updating them on the situation regarding home educated children with special educational needs. This is being done in light of the Badman Review and the proposed new legislation. Most of us would see this as a fairly good idea; keeping the LAs posted and reminding them of the new duties which will possibly devolve upon them with the passage of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. Most of us, but not a number of home educators. The response of one mother posting on a list sums up their reaction, "OMG, how dare they!" Another cries, "Completely outrageous!"
So what do the DCSF actually say which provokes such anger? Well, to begin with they want to make sure that children withdrawn from school do not lose the specialist services which they are getting, just because they are going to be taught at home;
"In some cases it may be that parents on their own would not be able to make suitable
provision for their children but could do so with some support from the local authority. Under
section 319 of the Education Act 1996 local authorities have the power, after consulting the child’s
parent, to make special education provision otherwise than at school, including in the child’s home.
The Government expects local authorities to consider whether such provision could help home
educating parents to make suitable provision when decisions are being taken concerning the
suitability of home provision for children with SEN. Where local authorities make such provision for
a home educated child with an SEN statement then the provision can be recorded on the statement
(SEN Code of Practice, paragraph 8.96)."
This is, I think, a timely reminder. Many parents have found that services have a habit of stopping once they deregister their child and it is good that the DCSF is aware of this. There is also talk of funding children to take GCSEs if they wish and also having access to some school facilities;
"We are also planning to allow local authorities to access DSG funding where they do not
provide significant financial support but permit young people to access some school services and
fund them to take their GCSEs if they opt to enter as private candidates. We would count each such
pupil as 0.1 for DSG funding purposes, and review towards the end of the next spending review
period whether this is an appropriate level. We plan to make this change for the 2011-12 DSG
period."
Apart from that, the DCSF remind the local authorities that if the child has a statement then there must be an annual review. If it is impossible to establish that the child's needs are properly provided for in the course of the review, then a School Attendance Order should be issued.
We must of course bear in mind that some children with special educational needs are among the most vulnerable of individuals. Some suffer from global developmental delay, for example and are pretty well helpless; unable to speak, understand much, take care of themselves in even the most rudimentary fashion or express any needs or wishes at all. I really cannot see that when such a child has a statement, that it would be unreasonable when reviewing it for the child herself to be seen and her situation assessed. Some parents, despite the fact that they love and cherish their child, are actually not capable of looking after them and providing for their education single-handed.
So bland and anodyne is this document, that it is hard to see why anybody should take exception to it. As far as I can see, the main objection seems to be that the DCSF are preparing in advance for the implementation of a new law, rather than leaving it until the last moment. This would be a bad thing, because?
One is inescapably driven to the conclusion that the people who are kicking up a fuss about this letter are doing so purely and simply because it is something which looks new. In fact all the duties to which the DCSF draw the attention of local authorities are existing duties. They are alerting them to things which may change in the next few months. It is very depressing to think that some people are so opposed to change that they would start shouting about something like this as a matter of principle. It seems that anything which comes from the DCSF or mentions new legislation automatically causes fury and opposition from a certain section of the home educating community! Even more intriguing is the fact that none of the vociferous people on the lists who are complaining about this letter, actually seem to have children with special educational needs! There is a frantic effort to find anybody who actually knows about the law on special needs, just so that complaints may be made that the DCSF is overstepping the mark.
I have said before and I will say again, that this attitude, that of opposing everything suggested as a matter of principle, is likely to backfire badly. If home educators continue to refuse to deal with them, the DCSF will simply find other partners. I cannot see how this would be of any benefit at all to home educating parents. Even the new piece of research being suggested is likely to be boycotted by some parents. The effect of all this will be that the DCSF may decide that there is little point in even attempting to ascertain the views and opinions of home educators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, the attitudes you describe are the result of a serious breakdown in trust between HE'ers and LA's which was never good, but exacerbated by the way the Badman Review was conducted.
ReplyDeleteIt will take years before most HE'ers would trust the DCSF or their LA's again. A massive blunder on the part of govt? Perhaps. Or perhaps it needed to make enemies of ordinary HE'ers for some reason.
I'm not sure. I don't get politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, to begin with they want to make sure that children withdrawn from school do not lose the specialist services which they are getting, just because they are going to be taught at home.<<<<<<<<<<
I would think (though I don't read 'the lists') that the outrage is coming from the knowledge that most HE'ers who de-register their SEN kids from schools do so because the schoool has FAILED to provide such services.
And if the experiences of those on the HESpecial list are anything to go by, the main reason those children with serious SEN's are withdrawn from special schools is because of abuse.
I get the outrage.
Mrs Anon
Yes, you are of course right Mrs. Anon. Many parents do deregister their children because the schools have not provided for their special educational needs. The DCSF is now trying to put this right by leaning on the local authorities and reminding them of their duties. I see this as a good thing. As I say, the people complaning loudly about this do not apparently have children with special needs. They are determined to use this letter as a weapon and are actually asking, "Does anybody know how we can use this?". In other words, they are using the provision of services for children with special needs as a tactical weapon against the DCSF and local authorities. I found this a bit much.
ReplyDeleteI have read the letter yesterday with some interest; it seems positive in that it suggest that there are some children with SEN for which financially more can be done ( although in fact a FOI request done by one of our families dicovered that quite a few families in this area are already having ABA and similar proagrammes funded for home educated children with SEN, which was a bit of a revelation!!). The negative bit was the blunt "you need to see statemented children and where they are educated" or issue an SAO; now down here (although of course Mr Anon of Alton doesn't believe me) most families send reports to the LA when required rather than have home visits, without difficulty and I would be sad to see that go backwards.
ReplyDeleteSimon, the bit at the end about fudning GCSES... I took that as applying to all children, not just SEN...what is your opinion?
Simon said "This is, I think, a timely reminder. Many parents have found that services have a habit of stopping once they deregister their child and it is good that the DCSF is aware of this."
ReplyDeleteMany parents have also found that services have a habit of stopping before they reach their child in school. This is something Badman and the DCSF appear not to be aware of.
Yes, there are some positive points in that letter, but as Mrs Anon points out, the idea that the very people who have failed to provide for the SEN children should be competent to then assess whether they are being provided for is ridiculous. It's very common for such 'provision' in schools to be poor, non-existent, or even damaging. Reports of this frequently do not come from 'extremists' committed to the idea of home education, but rather from parents who would happily send their children to school if appropriate support was provided.
ReplyDeleteYou may say that "the people complaining loudly about this letter do not apparently have children with special needs" but that simply indicates to me that you're listening to the wrong people.
By the way, your constant repetition of this "co-operate or be crushed" mantra just sounds to me like the talk of terrorists or kidnappers. Everybody knows you don't negotiate with them.
As for your suggestion that the "effect of all this will be that the DCSF may decide that there is little point in even attempting to ascertain the views and opinions of home educators" - this was a joke, I assume? You know as well as I do that they're not interested. Even when they ask for views, they ignore them and even lie in parliament about the responses.
Julie, yes I think that this bit about funding does refer to all home educated children. I find it very heartening indeed!
ReplyDeleteissue an SAO; now down here (although of course Mr Anon of Alton doesn't believe me) most families send reports to the LA when required rather than have home visits, without difficulty and I would be sad to see that go backwards.
ReplyDeleteyes reports can be sent in but HCC have a policy of home visits you ask them? Kirk wants home visits ask him? for your information our son has sent in some of his educatinal work but would you belive it Jack lost some of it amazing! he lost a fine picture that was done dreadfull our son Peter a great deal of effort into that art picture and he lost it!
Anonymous said...
Yes, the attitudes you describe are the result of a serious breakdown in trust between HE'ers and LA's which was never good, but exacerbated by the way the Badman Review was conducted.
It will take years before most HE'ers would trust the DCSF or their LA's again. A massive blunder on the part of govt? Perhaps. Or perhaps it needed to make enemies of ordinary HE'ers for some reason.
That is so correct who ever wrote that it be years if at all that trust will return but you could be right they needed to make enemies of home educators!
Julie, yes I think that this bit about funding does refer to all home educated children. I find it very heartening indeed!
And pigs will fly only those home educators doing it the right way may get funding and they have to go though a lot of hoops before they gey they shillings! can you imgaine the boxes your have to tick?
"sounds to me like the talk of terrorists or kidnappers. Everybody knows you don't negotiate with them."
ReplyDeleteExcept the government does and the terrorists do, despite the battle cries of no dialogue and nothing less than outright victory from both sides.
The downgrading of NI conflict is a homegrown example.
More recently I think I read about is something about cash incentives to get Afghans to defect from the Taliban.
In the UK HEing parents come across as confident that, in conjunction with a "weak" opponent, they have the weight of numbers needed to form a "resistance" to the introduction of the regs at best and enforced compliance at worst, without running the risk of exacerbating the lack of trust and comprehension between "them and us" (with ramifications in the form of revised and more draconian regs) cos they feel relatively assured of an outright kill rather than a protracted, bloody battle going on for generations.
I, on the other hand, not having such advantages, have no illusions that we can afford co-operation and negotiation to be withheld on principle. The regs are so heavily influenced by subjective elements, in how stringently or sympathetically they are applied, the who and how of the assessment of your provision of education, to the extent that how positively or negatively the parental level of co-operation is perceived can make the difference between being left mostly alone to get on with it or getting slapped with the worst of it to the point where, as individuals, our option to HE could come to an enforced end.
So I can't agree with the "everybody knows" part of your statement.
It all depends on the context, the players, the balance of power, what you stand to lose v the potential gain, the likelihood of those losses or gains taking place and the level of public support for "the cause".
Having said that I'd love the backing of the community here to start negotiating the bulk of the rampant subjectivity out of the regs, which leaves families far too vulnerable to the history of relationship with the PTB and personal prejudices. There is a middle ground that could be taken over here, lying somewhere between outright refusal to co-operate and wholesale capitulation, even with our less than stellar hand in this poker game, but I'm going to be left holding my breath over that one I think. Which is a pity cos it is the subjectivity in application, rather than the regs themselves, that cause the bulk of our domestic HE issues. IMO.
The down grading of NI confict was becase IRA/Adams proved to hard to beat so it forced London westmister to the talking table to talk real peace if IRA/adams had just rolled over they would not now be in government! the tories tried everything to beat the IRA but it failed.look at the hungry stike Bobbly Sands it only made things worse they grew stronger gain M,P/s out of it bigger vote though struggle come victory!
ReplyDeleteSame thing with Taliban they have to talk to them if they cant beat the Taliban and so far no force has the russias tried and in the end pulled out!
the taliban are only strong because they dont roll over! if they where weak no one would take any notice of them.
Thats the same for home educators if you weak no one will listen to you?
"the taliban are only strong because they dont roll over! if they where weak no one would take any notice of them.
ReplyDeleteThats the same for home educators if you weak no one will listen to you?"
________________
Well that was certainly one way to get them listening.
MPs tend to take notice of things that will generate bad local publicity, so some local campaigning is worth a try; use local press to highlight the parlous state of the school system, personal reasons for HE and the dangers presented by the CSF bill. Mention that the MP will be held to account.
ReplyDeleteIf the bill goes through - and I think it's likely - consider pounding the streets in the weeks before the election with some leaflets highlighting the problems with the school system, illustrating how parents and pupils are being conned and that they should vote for anyone but the sitting Labour MP.
But just let your MP know what you're planning in advance of the final vote on the bill. There is nothing to lose at this stage. Fawning over them will gain nothing given that they are whipped and will vote for the bill unless they are more fearful of the electoral consequences (remember that DCSF minister Diana Johnson is a whip).
Sarah- are you saying that if the Taliban where weak the USA and UK government would talk to them and give them a role to play?
ReplyDeleteI would suguest its because they are so strong that the USA/UK are thinking of talking to them in an attempt to give them a role to play.so far they have refused this offer and belive they can drive out all troops from they soil and one would tend to agree with this view as the russian army was forced to pull out i belive it was the first time the russian army had with draw since the 2nd world war!
While I agree with the sentiments of the previous Anonymous, this issue is neither here nor there as far as elections go. The majority of voters simply don't care, and I suspect if you asked the average voter in the street about home education the most common response would be "is that legal?" The MPs know this too, and have nothing to fear from local campaigning of this kind.
ReplyDeleteIt's simply not, in my opinion, a political issue. It's about power, control and money for the bureaucrats involved at various levels, and the commercial organisations that stand to gain from it - the likes of Serco, Capita and Tribal Group. I daresay the politicians behind all this are more interested in their future non-exec roles on the boards of these companies than they are in a few votes. After all, they're already finished as a government.
Previous-but-one Anonymous then - seems I typed that too slowly.
ReplyDelete"Sarah- are you saying that if the Taliban where weak the USA and UK government would talk to them and give them a role to play?"
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing me with somebody who has a solid understanding of the the politics of the middle east and how that relates to the diplomatic efforts in terms of the current conflict.
I'd hazard a guess it is probably a bit too complicated to reduce to a simple equation of "strong" v "weak".
Could the anonymouses distinguish themselves from one another, possibly? I feel as if I am listening to one hand clapping.
ReplyDeleteSuzyg, is that a deliberate reference to the Zen Buddhist koan?
ReplyDeleteCiaranG, (I'm the anon to which you referred),
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean, I don't hold-out much hope myself and I agree HE isn't a political issue. I was thinking of the school system itself as the main issue. The government continues with the line that standards and achievements are better than ever; there's plenty of information (and more to come) that shows the contrary - and that the situation is much worse than Simon's belief that some schools are simply very "inefficient".
Using this against an MP in the post-assent/pre-election phase is like the final round in Mutual Assured Destruction, when much of what one is trying to defend has been eliminated. Nevertheless, revenge can sometimes be cleansing, and perhaps politics can be made a teensy bit healthier if our masters feel the consequences of their actions in a more personally damaging way.