Sunday, May 29, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
...from yesterday's House of Parliament debate on the new Education Bill, with sterling work by Graham Stuart and later here, where Nick Gibb says:
"Finally, let me turn to new clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I fully understand his concerns about the proposed change to the pupil registration regulations that apply when parents choose to remove their children from school to home educate them. My hon. Friend now knows that we shall not proceed with the change in its present form, and I hope that I can further reassure him by explaining the thinking that led us to propose the regulation change in the first place, and what we intend to do now. As he said, the change would have required schools to retain pupils on the roll for 20 school days following a parent’s decision to remove their child from school for home education. If the parents change their minds, the child could be re-admitted to the school. I was attracted by that proposition, as was my hon. Friend.
The Government’s policy remains that parents are responsible for their children’s education. They have the right to choose to fulfil that responsibility by educating their children themselves, rather than by sending them to school, and we have no desire to interfere with that right. The proposed change in the regulations was intended to protect any children whose parents had reluctantly decided to home educate against their own better judgment—for example, those who would rather their child went to school, but who have concerns about the school that they feel it has not addressed. That group is not typical of the majority of home educators, who in my experience are determined, committed and passionate people. Having considered the issue further and taken into account the views of home educators and those of my hon. Friend, I am not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address the concern. Therefore, we are considering other policy options. However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for tabling new clause 22, which has enabled me to put that on the record."
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Good news on the proposed 20 day delay, from the Behaviour and Attendance in Schools Division of the DofE.
"Thank you for your email to the Secretary of State dated 29 March about the proposed change to the Pupil Registration Regulations regarding parents choosing to remove their children from school to home educate. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.
I would like to reassure you that it is not the Department's intention to change the rights of parents to home educate their children if they wish to do so. Similarly, it is not our intention that any change to regulations should be used to put pressure on parents to return their child to school against their wishes.
The proposed change to the regulations was intended to protect those children whose parents have been unfairly encouraged into home education against their better judgement, particularly those pupils with behavioural or learning difficulties who might present a challenge to the school.
Having considered the issue further, however, Ministers are not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address this concern and have asked officials to explore other policy options.
You also expressed concern over the lack of consultation in considering the Regulation change. I should explain that we were originally aiming to bring the change into effect for the start of the new school year in September 2011 as we believed that, along with the other changes, it would benefit both parents and schools. It is for this reason that the consultation was targeted at key representative bodies, and unfortunately it was not possible to include individual schools, local councils or home educators in the time available.
I hope this reply addresses your concerns."