The Impact Assessment for the Children, Schools and Families bill may be found here. Relevant section on Home Education from page 82.
Gill says nearly everything that needs to be said, but just to confirm one point: No, the DCSF's proposals do not conform to Hampton principles (see table on page 92) because the proposals dictate (see page 87) that during the first year of registration, ALL home educated children will receive 2 four hour meetings with LA officer, (the four hours includes planning, travel time etc), and that 50% of children in the first year will receive an additional 2 four hour sessions. Further, all children receive 1 eight hour visit at the end of the year and 50% will receive an additional 1 eight hour visit. Further, that the newly identified children are the ones who are most likely to require additional monitoring.
Hampton principles require that inspections where risks are low should be reduced, and only increased where necessary. So NO, the proposals are ridiculously disproportionate. All the uninspected teens we know have excelled in colleges and universities. Visiting them would have not helped one iota and is a complete waste of time, and likely to be extremely damaging. Despite supposedly consulting with us, it is still the case that the DCSF has NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT, and MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO AROUND BASING AT BEST USELESS and at worst, DAMAGING AND EXPENSIVE POLICY ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETE IGNORANCE.
Stuart Bonar explains the strange sequence of events, whilst others are explaining the outrage and are gathering signatures from the wider public.
UPDATE: Kelly has more in the Impact Assessment here.