Filling in the Call for Evidence isn't a comfortable experience at the best of times. Answering 44 questions takes a lot of sitting down for starters, but that really isn't the worst of it. Although home educators have thrashed out cogent answers to the consultation and have formulated template responses to it, every now and again a new outrage which had previously remained buried in the small print of the draft guidance leaps out at a home educator and grabs them in a lethal mix of terror and outrage that leaves them (at least in their heads), running round their neighbourhoods with sandwich boards and for real, gulping down cups of coffee in fits of nervous exhaustion as they try to explain the barbarity of these oh-so-reasonable seeming proposals in their consultation responses. It's seriously hard and totally unpaid work.
Here's my sandwich board moment from this morning. Filling out question 34 on section 6 of the Draft Guidance for LAs, I reread the following:
"6.19 The department is aware that some local authorities have been reluctant to prosecute for non-compliance with a school attendance order, for reasons connected with costs, and the behaviour of some parents who deliberately withhold information about home education provision but are then able to easily satisfy the court that the home education is suitable. This is an understandable concern, but local authorities must bear in mind their public responsibilities as prosecutors; in such cases they may wish to seek legal advice about the prospect of obtaining a costs order against a successful defendant on the basis that the prosecution would have been unnecessary if not for the defendants’ unreasonable conduct."
On previous readings, I had had an uncomfortable feeling about the idea that home educators should bear the costs of an action brought by the LA irrespective of the outcome, but only on about the twentieth perusal of the paragraph, did it finally dawn on me that this is an outrageously controlling and iniquitous suggestion that has qualities of the popular version of witch dunking about it, ie: that either you are proved innocent (win), in which case you drown (bear the costs of the court case), or you turn out to be a witch (lose) and are burned at the stake (forced to return a child to school AND pay the costs). Either way, better not appear witch-like (difficult) in any way, shape or form.
You may be thinking that it probably isn't this bad - that LAs would only insist on parents paying court costs when families had been very intransigent, but that is to ignore the fact that LAs already routinely practice that clever twisting of reports about HE families in order to say, or at least imply, pretty much whatever they like. That little nudge here or there could so easily suggest that a family are being wilfully obstructive and should bear the costs, irrespective of the outcome.
By way of but one recent example: a successfully HEing family didn't particularly take to the the Victorian anthroplogist of an ex headmaster who came to assess their provision, who regarded the children as if they were some sort of different species that was barely human, inter alia reporting their extremely well balanced, clearly very happy children as "Children A, B and C are happy enough". So the HEing mum rang the LA to say that she didn't mind having visits, but could someone else possibly visit them instead. This was reported as "The mother has refused visits". That alone could cost them dearly.
And that's all quite aside from the very real possibility that home educators may have utterly genuine reasons to prefer their educational provision be judged in the courts. They may know, for example, that the LA does not support different pedagogies and may therefore think that their best hope is to describe their provision to the court, but given the fact that they will almost certainly have to bear the cost, this check and balance on LA power will be denied them.
All in all, with the almost certain prospect of having to bear court costs, home educators will be far more subject to the whims of LAs as to what they consider an appropriate education. All the LA would have to do would be to just tweak the evidence a little bit to make the parent look obstructive, and bingo, they'd be issuing SAOs like there's no tomorrow. LAs also know that once HEors caught on that this is happening, that they wouldn't risk the almost certain expense of a court case, and will therefore just roll over and do the LAs bidding, meekly conforming to whatever expectations the LA has with regards to the nature of a suitable education, with all the terrible consequences for freedom and democracy that this entails.
This really does seem like a hugely retrograde step, a return to centralised authoritarianism of pre Magna Carta proportions, though perhaps we should start getting used to this sort of thing as this initiative also seems akin to the proposal in May, introduced by Tom Watson MP, which would have resulted in newspapers being forced to fund the action of anyone who takes a case against them, irrespective of whether the newspaper actually wins or not!
Is this REALLY the way we want to go? Talk about degradation of democracy: curtail freedom of speech, make investigative journalism prohibitively risky and take out freedom in education whilst you're at it. After all, the plebs need controlling.
We have to stop this. Fill in that consultation response, and sign the petition here.
Showing posts with label Draft EHE Guidance for LA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Draft EHE Guidance for LA. Show all posts
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
The Guardian on Flexischooling from 2009
The Guardian from 2009, but this is the current debate in home educating circles right now.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
Problems for Pam (A Home Educating Parent).
...or in other words, the issues that arise from the government's re-interpretation of 436A and other areas of mission creep that may be found in the draft EHE Guidance, upon which the DfE is consulting at the moment.
In a previous post, we discussed how mission creep in the interpretation of 436A makes it seem as if home educating families are to be inspected for the suitability of their educational provision under 436A, ie: whether or not there is any reason to think that there is a problem with their provision.
But, why the fuss, you may ask? Given that home educators are often already inspected for their provision under section 437, why are they kicking off about something that happens anyway?
Well for starters, the re-interpretation of 436A will give rise to situations such as the following:
Pam's story:
Even though Pam and her family are known to their LA, (having de-registered the children from school and having represented other HEors at LA meetings), since Pam appears capable of providing a suitable education, she has never once been checked by the LA for the suitability of her educational provision.
Now under the draft guidance's strong interpretation at para 6.4 (page 14) of 436A, where it states:
"An authority’s s.436A duty (and that under s.437, see below) forms sufficient basis for informal enquiries. Furthermore, s.436A creates a duty to adopt a system for making such enquiries."
the LA will now take it that they have a duty to check Pam's educational provision for suitability and that Ofsted may be on their backs if they don't do this.
But that's not the end of it. Where Pam, up till now, only had to convince a Local Authority to a standard that would convince a reasonable person (ie: as if in the courts) that she is providing a suitable education and it would have been perfectly possible to do this in writing or on the most cursory of contact with the LA, now Pam must dance to the any old tune that the LA decides upon. Depending on which side of the bed the LA officer gets out of in the morning, and whether or not Ofsted is on his/her back, he/she might decide that "informal inquiries" must mean that they must inspect Pam's children every few weeks, and that they must be studying quantum physics 12 hours a day, given that Pam's children look as if they have the aptitude and ability for it and that this would therefore be a suitable education for them.
You might think this all a bit unlikely, given that LAs have never previously insisted that anyone do quantum physics before breakfast simply on the basis that the young person has the ability to do it, but there are a number of reasons to be worried that LAs will suddenly start imposing more demands regarding suitability upon HEors, and this is quite apart from the mission creep at 436A and the example from other parts of the world of how things can so easily go downhill in this regard, eg: in France, where a re-writing of HE law allows for all manner of capricious assessments of suitability . Quite apart from all this, the draft guidance also prompts for LAs to impose a minimum standard for suitability of education which is completely new, eg:
"a local authority may specify minimum requirements as to effectiveness in such matters as literacy and numeracy, in deciding whether education is suitable;"
Who knows what those minimum standards may be. Many unschooled young people don't learn to read until much later than the average schooled child and yet go on to do exceptionally well in public exams, quite a few of them scoring 100% in their English coursework, for example. But all this could go out the window if the LA decide that the minimum requirement is that everyone is reading "War and Peace" aged 10 just because they have the ability to do it.
There is also the fact that under 436A, there are no checks and balances upon an LA in terms of deciding upon the nature of a suitable education, where under s437, there is such a check and balance, since if LAs wish to pursue a parent to show that they are failing in their s7 duties under s437, an LA must follow the procedure of issuing a School Attendance Order which then, if challenged by the family, would involve the check and balance of a court procedure. Under 436A however, an LA can set their own terms pretty freely, and for example, repeatedly check up upon, chivy, harass and generally brow-beat Pam into doing whatever the LA says, without even bothering to resort to using 437. Pam therefore ends up either teaching her children quantum physics before breakfast or sending them back to school in order to get the LA off her back.
There is also the fact that parental determinations of educational suitability are breezily dismissed in the draft guidance under Article 2 Protocol 1 of ECHR. Article 2, Protocol 1 states that:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
but the draft guidance says (page 25):
"d. the first sentence of ECHR Article 2 of Protocol 1 quoted above confers the fundamental right to an effective education, and relevant case law (16) confers very broad discretion on the state in regulating that law. For example, a local authority may specify minimum requirements as to effectiveness in such matters as literacy and numeracy, in deciding whether education is suitable.
The (16) in the above paragraph refers to a family in Germany who were not allowed to HE according to their religious convictions. From this, we must infer that the DfE is encouraging LAs believe they have similar latitude with regard to how they define suitability of educational provision, even though the legal framework that supported the German ruling is completely different to the one in the UK. This, in itself, should be sufficient reason to respond to the consultation.
The draft guidance also explicitly gives LAs a lot of latitude with deciding how to define suitability which when you consider the powers LAs now have as a result of the Localism Act 2011 could mean that LAs could specify almost anything they like by way of minimum requirements of an education.
From the guidance on the Localism Act: (page 7):
"Local authorities’ powers and responsibilities are defined by legislation. In simple terms, they can only do what the law says they can. Sometimes councils are wary of doing something new - even if they think it might be a good idea - because they are not sure whether they are allowed to in law, and are concerned about the possibility of being challenged in the courts. The Government has turned this assumption upside down. Instead of being able to act only where the law says they can, local authorities will be freed to do anything - provided they do not break other laws."
Read that together with the following:
"9.5 The department (the DfE) does not, however, believe that it is in the interests of home educated children, parents or local authorities for there to be detailed centralised guidance on what constitutes suitability. This issue should be viewed on a spectrum, and although there will be clear conclusions to be drawn at either end of that spectrum, in between each case must rest on a balance of relevant factors depending on the circumstances of each child."
and whilst it would be possible to read this as actually a deep respect for the spirit of s7, ie: that an education must be suited to the age, ability and aptitude of a child, there could nonetheless be a real and deep differences of opinion between LA and an HEing family here, given that no-one can ever be sure whether an education is genuinely suited to a person's ability and aptitude, (forget the issue of age, as the qualities of ability and aptitude subsume that consideration when it comes to determining suitability). There is even a problem in the tension between "ability" and "aptitude" since these are not the same things and depending on which one you chose to use as an assessment tool, may result in a differences in the type of education that is deemed suitable. So for example, whilst Pam's children clearly have the ability to understand quantum physics, they may have next to no interest (a component of aptitude) for doing it. The LA may insist Pam educate her children according to their clear ability, whereas Pam may prefer to offer an education suited to their aptitude!
Under the new draft guidance, Pam may well not be able to insist upon her version of suitability until far further down the line, at 437, when she may have already been routinely harassed and bullied by her LA.
All in all, after reading the small print, and giving it due thought, it becomes increasingly obvious why home educators should reply to the Call for Evidence with strong arguments as to how this is constitutionally disastrous. The proposals are deeply undemocratic, dangerous and have the potential to lead to the de facto piecemeal end of home education in this country.
This is, of course, putting aside all arguments about practicality. None of the proposals will actually work to help children who really ARE in need. It will cost LAs a huge amount of money to pursue a lot of difficult but otherwise successfully home educating HEors who don't want to be pursued, money which would be far better spent on Social Work departments who cannot cope with their current workload, all the while loading these departments with a load of false positives which which will result from a reinterpretation of 436A.
Current interpretation of law could suffice and were applied in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Let's help the DfE understand this point in our Call for Evidence responses.
For a helpful summary of the implications of a the draft guidance's interpretation of 436A v. the use of s437 , coupled with the Localism Act and an ambiguous discussion of the nature of a suitable education (page 24 in the draft guidance) and parental rights, please see this table:
In a previous post, we discussed how mission creep in the interpretation of 436A makes it seem as if home educating families are to be inspected for the suitability of their educational provision under 436A, ie: whether or not there is any reason to think that there is a problem with their provision.
But, why the fuss, you may ask? Given that home educators are often already inspected for their provision under section 437, why are they kicking off about something that happens anyway?
Well for starters, the re-interpretation of 436A will give rise to situations such as the following:
Pam's story:
Now under the draft guidance's strong interpretation at para 6.4 (page 14) of 436A, where it states:
"An authority’s s.436A duty (and that under s.437, see below) forms sufficient basis for informal enquiries. Furthermore, s.436A creates a duty to adopt a system for making such enquiries."
the LA will now take it that they have a duty to check Pam's educational provision for suitability and that Ofsted may be on their backs if they don't do this.
But that's not the end of it. Where Pam, up till now, only had to convince a Local Authority to a standard that would convince a reasonable person (ie: as if in the courts) that she is providing a suitable education and it would have been perfectly possible to do this in writing or on the most cursory of contact with the LA, now Pam must dance to the any old tune that the LA decides upon. Depending on which side of the bed the LA officer gets out of in the morning, and whether or not Ofsted is on his/her back, he/she might decide that "informal inquiries" must mean that they must inspect Pam's children every few weeks, and that they must be studying quantum physics 12 hours a day, given that Pam's children look as if they have the aptitude and ability for it and that this would therefore be a suitable education for them.
You might think this all a bit unlikely, given that LAs have never previously insisted that anyone do quantum physics before breakfast simply on the basis that the young person has the ability to do it, but there are a number of reasons to be worried that LAs will suddenly start imposing more demands regarding suitability upon HEors, and this is quite apart from the mission creep at 436A and the example from other parts of the world of how things can so easily go downhill in this regard, eg: in France, where a re-writing of HE law allows for all manner of capricious assessments of suitability . Quite apart from all this, the draft guidance also prompts for LAs to impose a minimum standard for suitability of education which is completely new, eg:
"a local authority may specify minimum requirements as to effectiveness in such matters as literacy and numeracy, in deciding whether education is suitable;"
Who knows what those minimum standards may be. Many unschooled young people don't learn to read until much later than the average schooled child and yet go on to do exceptionally well in public exams, quite a few of them scoring 100% in their English coursework, for example. But all this could go out the window if the LA decide that the minimum requirement is that everyone is reading "War and Peace" aged 10 just because they have the ability to do it.
There is also the fact that under 436A, there are no checks and balances upon an LA in terms of deciding upon the nature of a suitable education, where under s437, there is such a check and balance, since if LAs wish to pursue a parent to show that they are failing in their s7 duties under s437, an LA must follow the procedure of issuing a School Attendance Order which then, if challenged by the family, would involve the check and balance of a court procedure. Under 436A however, an LA can set their own terms pretty freely, and for example, repeatedly check up upon, chivy, harass and generally brow-beat Pam into doing whatever the LA says, without even bothering to resort to using 437. Pam therefore ends up either teaching her children quantum physics before breakfast or sending them back to school in order to get the LA off her back.
There is also the fact that parental determinations of educational suitability are breezily dismissed in the draft guidance under Article 2 Protocol 1 of ECHR. Article 2, Protocol 1 states that:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
but the draft guidance says (page 25):
"d. the first sentence of ECHR Article 2 of Protocol 1 quoted above confers the fundamental right to an effective education, and relevant case law (16) confers very broad discretion on the state in regulating that law. For example, a local authority may specify minimum requirements as to effectiveness in such matters as literacy and numeracy, in deciding whether education is suitable.
The (16) in the above paragraph refers to a family in Germany who were not allowed to HE according to their religious convictions. From this, we must infer that the DfE is encouraging LAs believe they have similar latitude with regard to how they define suitability of educational provision, even though the legal framework that supported the German ruling is completely different to the one in the UK. This, in itself, should be sufficient reason to respond to the consultation.
The draft guidance also explicitly gives LAs a lot of latitude with deciding how to define suitability which when you consider the powers LAs now have as a result of the Localism Act 2011 could mean that LAs could specify almost anything they like by way of minimum requirements of an education.
From the guidance on the Localism Act: (page 7):
"Local authorities’ powers and responsibilities are defined by legislation. In simple terms, they can only do what the law says they can. Sometimes councils are wary of doing something new - even if they think it might be a good idea - because they are not sure whether they are allowed to in law, and are concerned about the possibility of being challenged in the courts. The Government has turned this assumption upside down. Instead of being able to act only where the law says they can, local authorities will be freed to do anything - provided they do not break other laws."
Read that together with the following:
"9.5 The department (the DfE) does not, however, believe that it is in the interests of home educated children, parents or local authorities for there to be detailed centralised guidance on what constitutes suitability. This issue should be viewed on a spectrum, and although there will be clear conclusions to be drawn at either end of that spectrum, in between each case must rest on a balance of relevant factors depending on the circumstances of each child."
Under the new draft guidance, Pam may well not be able to insist upon her version of suitability until far further down the line, at 437, when she may have already been routinely harassed and bullied by her LA.
All in all, after reading the small print, and giving it due thought, it becomes increasingly obvious why home educators should reply to the Call for Evidence with strong arguments as to how this is constitutionally disastrous. The proposals are deeply undemocratic, dangerous and have the potential to lead to the de facto piecemeal end of home education in this country.
This is, of course, putting aside all arguments about practicality. None of the proposals will actually work to help children who really ARE in need. It will cost LAs a huge amount of money to pursue a lot of difficult but otherwise successfully home educating HEors who don't want to be pursued, money which would be far better spent on Social Work departments who cannot cope with their current workload, all the while loading these departments with a load of false positives which which will result from a reinterpretation of 436A.
Current interpretation of law could suffice and were applied in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Let's help the DfE understand this point in our Call for Evidence responses.
For a helpful summary of the implications of a the draft guidance's interpretation of 436A v. the use of s437 , coupled with the Localism Act and an ambiguous discussion of the nature of a suitable education (page 24 in the draft guidance) and parental rights, please see this table:
Thursday, April 19, 2018
What's wrong with the Draft Home Education Guidance for Local Authorities? Part 1
Hmm. Where to start!
There's a lot that could be said about the Draft HE Guidance for LAs upon which the government are currently consulting (finishing on July 2nd 2018). Home educators are hurrying to get it together to say it all, and it is a big task because the consultation is not only about the Draft Guidance for LAs, but is also about another Guidance, this one for parents, and not only that, but there is also a call for evidence on other questions which would involve the introduction of a whole new swathe of legislation.
And this consultation isn't the end of it! We have at least four, yes get that FOUR other consultations which also relate to many of the issues raised in the Home Education Consultation and which would be usefully completed by home educators as well as disgruntled schooling families.
Home educators could feel justifiably aggrieved about the monumental amount of work they have to do in order to preserve their way of life and that's before they have even sat down to speak to their children of a morning! If one were of a cynical persuasion, one might conclude that this confluence of consultations was deliberately engineered to render considered objection nigh impossible, but home educators are a resilient and ingenious bunch and can turn this sort of experience into a sparklingly stellar home education project. Plenty of HE young people ended up with a rigorous education in political theory, lobbying, history, law and argument the last time around with the Badman experience and this is almost certainly happening all over again.
As a priority, HEors are starting off by scrutinizing the LA Guidance as this seems most likely to be implemented and could be in place in as little as five months. Sadly, the new proposed guidance bares little resemblance to the current EHE guidance and there is a lot to worry about. It will be necessary to break this subject down into a number of different posts, which will be linked to here when written.
Let's start with one of the first concerns here:
There are a number of assertions in the guidance that appear to be just pulled out of the air for the purposes of muddying the waters and making home educators look suspect. For example:
2.2: ‘When the impetus (to home educate) is a negative one, that may well have implications for the quality of home education which can be provided – although it should not be assumed that this is inevitably the case’.
Where, oh where, did that come from, one wonders? Most HE parents, let's face it, could frame the reason why they want to HE in the negative. A family might say "We home educate because we believe that a child should be able to pursue their own interests to the full." The same family could also say entirely truthfully: "I home educate because the National Curriculum is way too restrictive and doesn't offer a suitable education to my children." It's doubtful that there's a single home educating family who couldn't frame their reasons for home educating in a negative way, one way or another, and actually some of the best home educators I have ever met, home educated because schools had failed their children in the most terrible way, so it is hard to know where this statement in the guidance came from.
The fact is that there is no reason for the LA to occupy themselves with the reasons for deregistration except in situations where families have, one way or another, been coerced into deregistering, either by the school's direct persuasion, or by the school failing to resolve a problem for the pupil.
An early idea that is being explored in HE groups in order to help solve the problem of off-rolling or otherwise coerced deregistration: it is being proposed that soon after de-registration, the LA could ask in a respectful letter to the family if the deregistration was coerced in any way, shape or form. If the family were indeed coerced into deregistering and wanted the LA's help, the LA should respond with the help the family request, whether that be mediating with the school, locating another school, providing EOTAs or supporting the family with HE, if they so desire it.
There are plenty of potential problems that must be avoided in this scenario. Over-zealous LAs would no doubt use every opportunity to step in and start bossing the family around, making them do things they don't want to do. In order to avoid this, the letter would have to be extremely tightly worded and the compulsory template of it would need to be included in the guidance for use by all LAs. LAs would also need to be instructed in guidance that they are there to assist the family, and not to force them to do things they do not want to do.
The letter must infallibly enshrine the principle that the state is the servant of the family here. This is not about the LA determining whether a suitable education is being provided. It is about LA ascertaining if the family want their help. If the family refuse that help, then the LA would have no cause to act and would make no assumptions about educational provision on that basis. If the family does want help, the LA should provide only the help they seek.
But back to the Guidance: sadly there are other unsupported assertions in the guidance which also cast a pall over the concept of home education, even before the guidance really gets going.
Take section 3.4: ‘However, few people would argue today that parents should be able to exercise their right to home educate children with absolutely no independent oversight, despite their having the legal responsibility set out above’.
Really? Hang on, is there any actual supporting evidence for this assertion? Even if there is actual documented evidence that there there are only a few who argue that independent oversight is wrong, it doesn't mean that the few are mistaken simply because there are only a few of them. What we have here is a painful demonstration of the "consensus fallacy" or the "argumentum ad populum". The writers of this document need to understand that they will need better arguments than this in order to work out right from wrong.
Sadly, however, this sort of thing - unsubstantiated assertions based on what appears to be prejudice, set the tone for the document, more on which to follow!
There's a lot that could be said about the Draft HE Guidance for LAs upon which the government are currently consulting (finishing on July 2nd 2018). Home educators are hurrying to get it together to say it all, and it is a big task because the consultation is not only about the Draft Guidance for LAs, but is also about another Guidance, this one for parents, and not only that, but there is also a call for evidence on other questions which would involve the introduction of a whole new swathe of legislation.
And this consultation isn't the end of it! We have at least four, yes get that FOUR other consultations which also relate to many of the issues raised in the Home Education Consultation and which would be usefully completed by home educators as well as disgruntled schooling families.
Home educators could feel justifiably aggrieved about the monumental amount of work they have to do in order to preserve their way of life and that's before they have even sat down to speak to their children of a morning! If one were of a cynical persuasion, one might conclude that this confluence of consultations was deliberately engineered to render considered objection nigh impossible, but home educators are a resilient and ingenious bunch and can turn this sort of experience into a sparklingly stellar home education project. Plenty of HE young people ended up with a rigorous education in political theory, lobbying, history, law and argument the last time around with the Badman experience and this is almost certainly happening all over again.
As a priority, HEors are starting off by scrutinizing the LA Guidance as this seems most likely to be implemented and could be in place in as little as five months. Sadly, the new proposed guidance bares little resemblance to the current EHE guidance and there is a lot to worry about. It will be necessary to break this subject down into a number of different posts, which will be linked to here when written.
Let's start with one of the first concerns here:
There are a number of assertions in the guidance that appear to be just pulled out of the air for the purposes of muddying the waters and making home educators look suspect. For example:
2.2: ‘When the impetus (to home educate) is a negative one, that may well have implications for the quality of home education which can be provided – although it should not be assumed that this is inevitably the case’.
Where, oh where, did that come from, one wonders? Most HE parents, let's face it, could frame the reason why they want to HE in the negative. A family might say "We home educate because we believe that a child should be able to pursue their own interests to the full." The same family could also say entirely truthfully: "I home educate because the National Curriculum is way too restrictive and doesn't offer a suitable education to my children." It's doubtful that there's a single home educating family who couldn't frame their reasons for home educating in a negative way, one way or another, and actually some of the best home educators I have ever met, home educated because schools had failed their children in the most terrible way, so it is hard to know where this statement in the guidance came from.
The fact is that there is no reason for the LA to occupy themselves with the reasons for deregistration except in situations where families have, one way or another, been coerced into deregistering, either by the school's direct persuasion, or by the school failing to resolve a problem for the pupil.
An early idea that is being explored in HE groups in order to help solve the problem of off-rolling or otherwise coerced deregistration: it is being proposed that soon after de-registration, the LA could ask in a respectful letter to the family if the deregistration was coerced in any way, shape or form. If the family were indeed coerced into deregistering and wanted the LA's help, the LA should respond with the help the family request, whether that be mediating with the school, locating another school, providing EOTAs or supporting the family with HE, if they so desire it.
There are plenty of potential problems that must be avoided in this scenario. Over-zealous LAs would no doubt use every opportunity to step in and start bossing the family around, making them do things they don't want to do. In order to avoid this, the letter would have to be extremely tightly worded and the compulsory template of it would need to be included in the guidance for use by all LAs. LAs would also need to be instructed in guidance that they are there to assist the family, and not to force them to do things they do not want to do.
The letter must infallibly enshrine the principle that the state is the servant of the family here. This is not about the LA determining whether a suitable education is being provided. It is about LA ascertaining if the family want their help. If the family refuse that help, then the LA would have no cause to act and would make no assumptions about educational provision on that basis. If the family does want help, the LA should provide only the help they seek.
But back to the Guidance: sadly there are other unsupported assertions in the guidance which also cast a pall over the concept of home education, even before the guidance really gets going.
Take section 3.4: ‘However, few people would argue today that parents should be able to exercise their right to home educate children with absolutely no independent oversight, despite their having the legal responsibility set out above’.
Really? Hang on, is there any actual supporting evidence for this assertion? Even if there is actual documented evidence that there there are only a few who argue that independent oversight is wrong, it doesn't mean that the few are mistaken simply because there are only a few of them. What we have here is a painful demonstration of the "consensus fallacy" or the "argumentum ad populum". The writers of this document need to understand that they will need better arguments than this in order to work out right from wrong.
Sadly, however, this sort of thing - unsubstantiated assertions based on what appears to be prejudice, set the tone for the document, more on which to follow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)