Saturday, July 28, 2007

Links for Consultation Responses

For starters, read Ann's blog post which gives the history and context for the current consultation on elective home education guidelines. There is the vivid personal testimony too: the story of how the autonomous approach succeeded triumphantly where the schooling approach had failed. (Am not weeping again, Ann. Oh blast, Ok, I am.)

Zara explains via Sometimes it's Peaceful just why monitoring by the state would be so damaging for her education.

Then have a peek at Pete's annotated, rejigged guidelines. He has updated and made them more legal.

The report from the Norwich Home Educators Campaign Meeting, which includes a basic crib sheet for responses to the consultation.

Here is a Home Educator's response to the consultation which puts the case against state intrusion.

A response from home educators in Brighton and Hove, which came in as the 501st to the DCSF.

EO's version of the guidelines - a great improvement on the original!

31.07.07: 759 responses in.

Dani's response.

Gill's response.

My response.

The consultation ends TODAY. Tuesday 31st July). Get those responses in NOW.

"And You Thought ContactPoint was Bad"

is the truly truly terrifying title to a post at ARCH Blog.

Whilst we had no illusions as to the accessibility of very private information (aka the Common Assessment Frameworks) via ContactPoint , it is alarming to hear that the CAFs themselves are also to be databased.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Here's the final letter from Gloucestershire home educators to Beverley Hughes MP (Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families), on the implications of the Spry case.

An argument well put, I'd say.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Pro Home Visits?

An important issue was raised in comments below, though exhaustion prevented me from pursuing the point at the time. The issue: should those Home Educators who stand up for the right not to have their homes invaded by Local Authorities expect support from those HEors who do have home visits? Can these two sets of people work together against an increasingly intrusive government?

Perhaps I don't know the right crowd. Perhaps they cross the street to avoid me, but all the HEors I know who do actually have visits, accept them only grudgingly. They would far rather not have them, and they therefore support all activism to prevent LAs from being able to insist on them in situations where there is no reason to think that a suitable education is not being provided. This makes it very possible to work together, I think.

Tell me what I'm missing!

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Right of Access for LAs is NOT a Good Idea (for Them)

For more development on the them of why LAs should be very careful about demanding right of access to home educators, see Gill's post here. Thanks Gill for this.

ContactPoint Update

The ContactPoint regulations slipped through the House of Lords on Wednesday 18th, despite resistance from a number of sources, including ARCH. Hansard has the full story.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

On LAs Calling for Mandatory Access

The minutes of the meeting between Gloucestershire home educators and the Local Authority are yet to be networked, but we have it from a reliable source that Glos LA are indeed telling the DfES that visits to home educators must be mandatory or at least that the LA should have automatic rights of access. It seems the LA are taking the recommendations in the Eunice Spry Serious Case Review seriously, ie:

"The Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board should make appropriate representation to Government to highlight the concern that there is currently no legal process, which ensures that children, who are educated at home, are regularly seen, and their progress monitored, by Educating Otherwise professionals".

(The commas are all theirs.)

Right Glos HEors, you have plenty of experience in offering good and pertinent advice to people who may not be as well-informed as your good selves. Now it seems you may just have to apply these skills in another direction and with strong collective action.

For starters, I would suggest a letter from Glos HEors to the DfES, cc'd to Glos LA and the GSCB along the lines of:

Dear Elaine Haste,

Following the recent meeting between members of Gloucestershire Local Authority and representatives of the Gloucestershire home educators' group, we understand that the Glos Safeguarding Children Board (GSCB) are making a case to the DfES to ask for more powers to visit and assess home educated children. We think it a matter of some importance that the DCSF and Glos LA are made aware of a number of issues that arise from such a request.

We do not believe that such measures would be congruent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law as the UK Human Rights Act 1998) which states that

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

Home education is an entire way of life for most home educating families. It is intergral to their existence and extends into the deepest, most intimate parts of it. Currently many HEors who have contact with the LA already find the visits very stressful, often for the very reason that their privacy has been invaded and this in the situation where the intrusion is invited by the family. One could only envisage that it would become even more traumatic if LA officials had automatic rights to intrude.

It should also be noted in this regard, that many home educated children have suffered terribly at the hands of the state via the schooling system, or are not neuro-typical in a way which makes it very difficult for them to deal with strangers, so automatic visits by LA officers would for this reason be more damaging than helpful.

We have no objection whatsoever, for the LA to pursue families where there are genuine reasons to suspect that there are problems, but Glos LA should be clear that such enquiries should only result from genuine concern and this for reasons of the right to privacy and the need to avoid stress for innocent families.

Further, it seems clear to us that there are already adequate measures in place to ensure that genuine concerns can be pursued and with the implementation of the Children Act 2004, to include the setting up of ContactPoint, we believe that there should now be procedures in place to ensure that Local Authorities pick up on families who are not educating their children to their age, ability and aptitude. This because the database will identify all HE children in the area, and if it is to live up to the billing, will make it easier for professionals to spot repeated patterns of problems. We believe that had this been in place at the time of the abuse perpetuated by Eunice Spry, her abhorrent behaviour would have been detected at an earlier date, and all this without involving and damaging the whole of the rest of the home educating community.

Further, in asking for automatic rights to force themselves upon families, Glos LA are also, in effect, asking for the automatic power to make judgements about the educational provision, judgements which could radically effect those families in ways they did not seek. This contains within it, the possibility or even likelihood of another significant consequence, (other than the overriding of the right to privacy): in establishing the principle of the state being the final arbiter of all educational provision, we should in effect expect a re-writing of Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act to reflect the fact that whilst parents may remain responsible for provision of education, it is the state who is responsible for determining the form and content of it.

There is, of course, also the issue of cost. Most authorities struggle to meet the needs of children with genuine problems and we doubt that Gloucestershire is unusual in this regard. Does it really behove the authority to waste funds inspecting perfectly functioning families who would otherwise save the state a reasonable sum of money when so many other children cannot get the respite care or the wheelchair from which they could genuinely benefit?

It is currently the case that LAs sometimes think that an HE family has a problem of one sort or another than would warrant state intrusion, when they simply don't. Increasing the degree to which all families are subjected to state scrutiny will doubtless increase the numbers of false positives, will generate an huge amount of expense and unnecessary work, and will in all likelihood prevent the accused families from getting on with educating their children as best they can. When the LA are responsible for causing, rather than finding a problem, it will doubtless cause increased dissatisfaction with LA services amongst HEing communities.

We are particularly concerned that children with special needs or disabilities will be singled out for extra scrutiny, which could well make it much more difficult for the parents of these children to meet their needs as they are likely to find themselves focusing on dealing with LA demands, rather than providing a suitably tailored education. Such children may not progress in the same way as children without such special needs, but this does not mean that further intervention or extra attention should be given to these families, since they are most often, nonetheless providing a uniquely tailored, personalised form of education

As a final point, many HEors will on principle, resist state intrusion as best they can. Does the LA really want to create such hostility from a normally law-abiding section of the population?

Yours sincerely,

- - - - - - - -

And for main course, perhaps Glos HEors could consider organising a big delegation to meet with the LA, perhaps mainly to prove the last point?

Friday, July 20, 2007

Tony Mooney, Can You Explain This Please?

And this shows that the countries which have the lowest number of hours in the classroom - Finland, Norway, Sweden, South Korea and Denmark - are also among the countries with the highest level of achievement.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

More on Responding

Thanks for the argument about the wisdom or otherwise of responding to the consultation in the comments section below. It was perhaps long overdue and am sorry not to have included arguments either way previously. Despite not airing it here, I didn't just slip into responding without weighing the pros and cons and without discussing it with those who were better informed than I on the thinking in the DfES. TBH, I do remain unsure as to what to do, but on balance have decided in favour of getting HEors to respond and encouraging them to demonstrate to the DCSF that they understand the significance of messing with parental responsibility for education of children.

I would bill this as a killer argument, and one that if properly understood should mean that the DCSF will drop any attempt to monitor for reasonable progress or for whatever other standards they can dream up.

There are other possible arguments too. Dani decries her response as a boring post. Perhaps it's just me, but I was gripped! She discusses a number of issues I didn't stress fully in my response, and which can also be fleshed out as killer arguments of wide significance. eg:

"I welcome the emphasis in paragraph 2.7 on the fact that local authorities only have a duty to act if they have good reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education. While many local authorities currently believe they should make enquiries of all home educating families they are aware of, this practice goes well beyond what they are required to do by law.

"Unless my behaviour gives cause for concern, I am not routinely questioned as to whether I am breaking the law. For example, I do not have to persuade local authority staff, on a routine basis, that I do not violently assault my partner. It is presumed by society that I am innocent of this crime, unless proved guilty.

"As the law stands, I am due the same courtesy, as a person who is presumed to be abiding by the law which states that I must provide an efficient, full-time education, suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of each of my children."

Whilst I am not sure that this argument could be fleshed out as pertinent to the principle of the presumption of innocence, (since according to this principle there is no reason why a person may not be investigated for committing a crime, but merely that in law one's status is innocent until proved guilty), it certainly does seem to have a bearing upon the idea that we should not be subjected to unwarranted levels of personal intrusion, since at what point would one stop? If you investigate HEors for not educating their children when there is no reason to suspect that they are failing in this duty, why not set up security cameras all over everyone's home? That, I think, should be the logical consequence, since people have all manner of rights under EU law which it would be possible to infringe in the home, and for which we don't routingely investigate.

Saturday, July 14, 2007


That is nearly 100 responses in 5 days. Fantastic....can we keep the momentum going?

Friday, July 13, 2007

How HE Children Could Respond the consultation: there is actually a box specifically for home educated young people in the response form. The DCSF are seeking their views, and indeed it may demonstrate a point rather nicely if plenty of HEks responded.

It grates immeasurably to hear that the HE community can stand accused of not listening to our children and not giving them a chance to be heard when it is the case that we so often are doing precisely the reverse, seeking the views of our children about their educational requirements and responding to these needs in a personalised fashion. Encouraging HE children to respond to the consultation may be a perfect way to demonstrate that they actually do have more of a voice than most other children.

If the whole of the consultation is too much for them, they could use the final comments box to have their say.

Will have a total of seven HEks here today. Will see what they have to say about it all!

How Did You Hear About the Consultation?

Are you known to your LA? If so, have you received notification of the consultation on EHE guidelines? Apparently, you should have done, but most LAs appear not to have followed the advice issuing from the DCSF instructing them to let HEors know about the consultation.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Home Education on Radio Sheffield

Annette is on Radio Sheffield. Great stuff. You can catch the recording here with transcript below.

(AT: you're a bit of a speed talker at times...I couldn't keep up! Toby's Yorkshire drawl was much easier, when not nearly incomprehensible.)

AT = Annette Taberner
TF = Toby Foster

TF: Now you seen the papers. According to the right-wing think tank, Policia, many school teachers are not up to the job. That's what it said. It's their words not ours. Underqualified, not enough A levels between them, and just not very good. There's talk in the office about teaching standards, and if you don't want to send your children to school, what are the alternatives? Annette Taberner, is a parent who has taken her son out of school and began to educate him at home. She's with me now. Morning Annette.

AT: Morning.

TF: You decided to take your son out of school. What was...?

AT: No, my son's never been to school.

TF: He's never been to school?

AT: He's never been to school. No

TF: Every day we get it wrong, sorry about that. How did you decide not to send him?

AT: Well, he was one of those children who was coming up to school age, a bit timid, not very resilient, hated being left on his own, and I went to see the local school to talk to them about him starting and they were adamant that he had to do five mornings. And I think if we had had the option of a graduated approach, so he could have done two and then moved up to five, we might have gone to school, but as a parent I just thought that I couldn't put him through that, five mornings a week, it would have been unpleasant. So I went away to think again thinking I would go and look at another school, thinking they would be a bit more flexible and in the meantime I found out about an organisation called Education Otherwise and that's our national charity. I had no idea you could actually teach children at home but I thought initially, oh well maybe we'll do this for one or two years and he's 14 and very resilient now. We've never looked back, really.

TB: He's never been to school. Now you are a teacher.

AT: I am a teacher, and have taught in schools, yeah.

TB: So, do you think that is obviously a benefit for you?

AT: I don't think it was a benefit. People seem to think that it would be a good idea, but actually the skills that you need to teach 35 children in the classroom and to teach the National Curriculum are completely different from the skills that you use to teach one or two children at home. And I think most parents, you know, they are the children's first teachers, aren't they, and it is much more like the setting in the early years of children.

TF: Yeah I wonder, I wondered, your main thoughts about not sending them to school were not academic. They were social..

AT: No, they were social.

TF: If that is the case, were you not removing him socially from school?

AT: No, this is the other misconception. I think that a lot of people who have never really thought about home education or haven't met home educators seem to think that we keep our kids at home and we hot-house them, and we have to be round the kitchen table sweating away, and actually people who come into contact with our community know that that's not really what it's like. We've got a thriving group, we meet regularly. We go on visits, we go on outings, we do things together, and of course, we are all part of the wider community, so my kids go to groups as other children do, you know, to scouts, brownies, all those sorts of things, so they are interacting with our community all the time.

TB: My kids are very young. My eldest is 3 and a half. When it comes to thinking about schools, we're lucky, we live near a fantastic school, if we stay where we are, their whole school life will be fantastic. But I find it difficult to get motivated academically, I am not really interested, my wife is so we have the best of both worlds, I think. I wanted to be happy, I wanted to be friendly, I wanted to be social and I didn't want to be bullied, and if you get through to 16 with that, really I have to say, and my wife will hate me to say this, I don't give a monkey's about exams, I really don't care, I want them to be happy more than anything and I would think that the best place to do that is to be surrounded by other kids.

AT: yeah or surrounded by other family people, community who are interested in you. The biggest determinant I think in whether children thrive and do well, is actually whether they have that love and support and help you know and an interested adult...

TF: yeah

AT: and the kids who fall through the system are sadly the ones who haven't got that.

TF: How do you get on with the LA

AT: Well the LA have, it is a bit of a post code lottery actually nationally. In some areas they are very good and we are working very closely with Sheffield council at the moment to look at this area. In other areas, we have real problems because there isn't actually any money for LAs to do this work, so the people who work with our community often haven't really got much knowledge of the law, haven't got a lot of background into what it is we are trying to do, and there are some horrendous stories, and because people don't know it's legal, we end up with things like doctors, health visitors reporting our children to the LA and saying they are are not going to school. Well, they aren't going to school, but they are receiving an education. There is a lot of confusion in the minds of the people who haven't looked at the law and who don't understand what it is, and to the LA that rings alarm bells, because they interpret that they should be in school, we are not sending them and they are truanting which is completely different so,

TF: We are going to bring callers in here, I have a caller here I really need to you have to teach the National Curriculum?

AT: No.

TF: You can teach whatever you like.

AT: You have got to provide an education which is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child so all this stuff about personalised learning in schools, is really what we do, you know, we tailor the education to the needs, the ability and the aptitude of our children.

TF and do you get text books?AT: Oh yeah, yeah..

TF The other thing is, the thing that I would find most difficult is where do you stop being mum and start being teacher, and then switch back on to being mum.

AT: I don't think we compartmentalise education in that way. It's part of life. And you know, my kids are learning from the minute they wake up in the morning to the minute they go to bed at night, and if they want me to help them with something, then I help them with it. We don't get any funding at all, for doing this, it is all on your own shoulders but the responsibility for the child's education in law, whether your child goes to school or whether they don't actually lies with the parent, not with the state.

TF: Will your kids sit exams?

AT: Eventually yeah. Actually both my children are dyslexic, so they will probably do it later than they would have done in school, and there is that flexibility for me to do that.

TF: Brilliant I wish we had more time...

AT: So do I but it is a lovely day, so I'll get outside.

A Home Educator's Version of the Guidelines

Pete has made life easy for home educators who have yet to respond to the consultation on guidelines for EHE from the newly named Department for Cerebro-Spinal Fluid (sorry, it's the only way I can remember the order. Something unconcious appears to be preventing me from registering that there is a state department that separates Children from their Families with Schools!)

Anyhow, Pete's version of the Guidelines which is very sensible, and which could usefully be linked to in your responses, can be found here.

Sunday, July 08, 2007


There are now reportedly 144 responses in for the Guidelines consultation, which means the total is up by by 60 since the recent drive to get HEors on the job, ie: it is possible to do!
There are some examples of responses linked to in the white boxes in the sidebar on the right.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Home Education on Radio Five Today (Sunday 8th)

Dear Five Live Listener,

Thanks for emailing us after the discussion we had between Tony Mooney and Fiona Nicholson on home education on the Julian Worricker programme in May. We've had lots of emails with a wide variety of views. So the Five Live Report is doing a follow-up report for this Sunday's Worricker between 11 and 11.30am and again between 12 and 12.30pm (July 8th).

The author and broadcaster, Janey Lee Grace, home educates her four children and has been investigating why so many parents are choosing to home school their children and why some people are calling for tighter regulation and monitoring of home education.

We'll be taking texts and emails as normal and would also like to try and take some phone calls from listeners. If you'd like to contribute, you can text during the show on 85058 or email

We're especially to hear from home educators who have opinions on the government's current consultation on guidelines for home education and also anyone who was home educated and either loved or hated it; and teachers/inspectors who think home education needs closer monitoring.

We can't make promises about who we'll be able to get on the programme but we're keen to squeeze on as many views as possible.

Kind regards,

Lissa Cook


The Listen Again facility is now available here. The section on HE begins at 1 hour 16 mins into the show.

If that link doesn't work try here and here.

The first part of the transcript can be found here, courtesy of Gill.

Well done, Iris and Janey.

Another Home Educator's Response the Consultation on Elective Home Education Guidelines (Thanks, DD for all of this.)

Have high-lighted some pointed bits in blue.

1. Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to LAs?


It would depend on the nature of the final guidelines. If the guidelines accurately interpret the law and demonstrate a proper understanding of HE, they are likely to be helpful. However, these guidelines are apparently not enforceable, and so I envisage that LAs will continue to overstep their duties and do damage to otherwise well-functioning families.

- - - - - - - - - -

2. Do you agree that the description of the law (paragraphs 2.1- 2.3) relating to elective home education is accurate and clear?


The primacy of parental responsibility for education could so easily be compromised if LAs do try to insist on more duties and more powers. LAs need to realise that if they create duties for themselves, they may in effect take over responsibility for educating our children. Further, they will also be held responsible should they fail to those duties. It may be helpful to try to stress this point here.

Also, the section on section 7, it should be stressed in guidance that an education has to be SUITABLE for the child, not suitable for the standards of someone else. Many children have been failed by the school system, eg:

"David Frost, the director general of the BCC, said: "It is unacceptable that only 45% of school leavers are getting five A* to C grades when English and maths are included. Instead of leaving school ready for the world of work, too many teenagers simply do not have the necessary skills to enter the workforce.",,1987269,00.html

It is therefore necessary that LAs accept that forcing home educators to impose standard schooling upon children, many of whom will have been failing within that system, is very likely to be counter-productive in terms of suitability of the education provided. It may be worth stressing this point either here or at some later stage.

- - - - - - - - - - -

3. Do you agree that the description of local authorities' responsibilities (paragraphs 2.5 - 2.11) is accurate and helpful?


The phrase "reasonable progress" is not required in law. Rather education should be suited to age, ability and aptitude". In some instances, this could mean that there is no discernable progress. It is not clear that the phrase "reasonable" rescues this idea from ultra vires and at times impractical implications.

Paragraph 2.6 could stress that when a child has been identified as being home educated, LAs do not have a duty to take any further action with regard to Children Missing from Education.

Despite these guidelines, we envisage that LAs are likely to continue to overstep the duties and indeed with the Children Act, this situation may well worsen. LAs need to realise that intervention in a family can be highly stressful and damaging for that family. LAs only have a duty to act when there is good reason to believe that there are problems. They do not otherwise have any call to intrude. It may be necessary to confirm explicitly that the Children Act does not extend their duties in this regard, otherwise the principle of respect for the privacy of family life, (when there is no reason to violate it), will have to be abandoned. Families do not want to feel as if their every move, their every intimate moment is in effect subject to oversight. Further, the state risks acting in loco parentis, if it is understood that they are making the final judgement on all aspects of parenting.

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority (paragraphs 3.4-3.7) is accurate and helpful?


I think these paragraphs are broadly accurate, though am not sure that many HE parents actively welcome regular contact with the LA. It might be more accurate to say that they tolerate it. These visits are rarely unstressful for HE families or undisruptive for the education of the child, being almost entirely a matter of satisfying the LA, rather than developing the educational provision. The option to communicate with LAs other than by visits must be maintained and respected.

It is little wonder that these visits are mostly deemed very stressful. Home education is integral to the life of a home educating family and HEors are acutely aware that in the course of an LA assessment, their whole lives become subject to the vagaries of the judgement of one individual, and often a complete or relative stranger at that. Further, there is often almost nothing in it for families: even those families who appear to have satisfactory relationships with the LA report that the advise offered by LA visitors is often not appropriate to the needs of their children.

If LAs are given a duty to inspect, and in effect to inspect the whole way of life of a family, thereby assuming for themselves the responsibility for making the final judgement about that way of life, and potentially significantly changing the course of those lives, the state will in effect be taking upon itself the final responsibility for parenting. This could set a dangerous precedent for the state. Does the state really want to take on this role?

- - - - - - - - - -

5. Do you agree that the section on providing a full-time education (paragraphs 3.11-3.14) - and in particular, the characteristics of provision (paragraphs 3.13) is accurate and helpful?


6. Do you agree that the section on developing relationships (section 4) is helpful?


re: paragraph 4.1. The central aim of these guidelines should not be about developing relationships. Rather, it should be about helping LAs adhere to the law. From my reading of the introduction, it is far from clear that this is indeed the main purpose of the guidelines. Paragraph 1.3 appears to deal with this issue, and makes no mention of the primacy of this purpose.

re: paragaraph 4.3 In my experience, it is not the case that there is any link between parents who are also schooling some of their children, providing structured education for their HE children. The phrase "especially those who have other children attending school" could usefully be removed, since it could create a number of false assumptions about the nature of much educational provision at home.

re: paragraph 4.9 It should be made explicit here that the duty to promote the welfare of children is the principal responsibility of parents/guardians and that any responsibilities in this regard only fall upon a community or the state in the situation that a parent fails to act appropriately. The first sentence in this paragraph therefore needs to be re-written.

7a. Are the suggested recourses in section 5 and appendix 2 useful?


7b. Should any other contacts be included?


Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidance.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Freedom of Information Request


- - - - -

"I am formally requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I would like this information to be provided via email.

My request covers all correspondence sent from the DfES related to Elective Home Education from January 1st 2007 to February 28th inclusive.

My request covers all correspondence sent out by the DfES and also all internal correspondence within the DfES related to Elective Home Education.

Yours faithfully, "

- - - - - - - - -

Response received 4.7.07

"Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible (where a response is required). For information, the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2007/0044465
Department for Children Schools and Families
Sent: 04 July 2007 07:59To: PEU, InformationSubject: Freedom of Information Request. Elective Home Education Correspondence, Jan-Feb"

Wednesday, July 04, 2007


Please note that I originally failed to include the more frightening of the two Freedom of Information files in this post. The omitted file covers the internal correspondence from Oct to Dec 2006, and gives more of an insight into the thinking behind the drive to implement "light touch" changes. If that link didn't work, try this one for size...(no idea what is going on!...could it be something to do with different versions of Adobe Reader?)

The other thing: Have created a permanent link to draft responses to the Consultation on guidelines for Elective Home Education....see boxes in the sidebar on the right. I will include another more personal response from another HEor in the near future.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

He Said It!

"Learning shouldn't just take place in the classroom - it takes place all the time, in the world around us," said Mr Knight.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Sarah and Family in the News

Has-been and would-be HEor and all-round wonderful individual, Sarah Mayo, is in the news - (though not in any of the photos: that isn't her cutting up the meat, which would have been a document of historical interest in itself!)

Florence and Reuben also feature.

University Admissions

You can find out how admissions tutors view home educated students in a number of universities and colleges here. Could be useful to extend this list if at all possible. Any takers?

Unknown and Therefore Muted

Gill at Sometimes it's Peaceful wonders if there is a reason why some of the most assertive HErs remain unknown and therefore unable to tell their LAs what they really think.

I wonder???