...is due to happen today, Monday 11th January, some of which should be viewable here.
A letter lodging objections to the bill and signed by people such as Oliver James, Frank Furedi and Roger Scruton can be found in today's Guardian.
A number of MPs have also lodged their objections:
"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children, Schools and Families Bill because it adds hugely to the bureaucratic burdens on schools and colleges without improving real opportunities and educational standards for pupils and without genuinely empowering parents; its proposals for the regulation of home education introduce powers which are excessive and risk undermining key freedoms for home educators; it fails to put in place a coherent system for delivering school improvement; its provisions on family proceedings have not been properly consulted on and do not take account of existing reforms; and it does not include much needed policies to introduce a Pupil Premium to support the education of children from disadvantaged homes or to establish a new Educational Standards Authority to restore confidence in educational standards and to reduce the extent of destabilising political interference in English education. "
All of which is right and good and thoroughly sensible. We must hope that our MPs do their utmost to reinforce this message, though the government have the procedural powers here. They will be employing the whip on this one - (yes, that's right, when reason deserts you, use coercion), and are fond of using guillotine motions to curtail debate.
The Order of Business for 11th Jan reveals that the government intends that
"proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 4 February 2010."
The real fight will probably start when the bill reaches the Lords.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Letter in Guardian
Home education and the children, schools and families bill.
We believe that schedule 1 of the children, schools and families bill represents an unacceptable imposition of state control over families. Although it is aimed at children educated outside the school system, it has implications for all families.
We believe that schedule 1 of the children, schools and families bill represents an unacceptable imposition of state control over families. Although it is aimed at children educated outside the school system, it has implications for all families.
Most parents would not make home-based education their first choice; but any family might need it if school seriously failed their child. Currently, this choice is lawfully available to all parents. If enacted, the bill would – for the first time – transfer responsibility for a child's education from the parents to the state. We believe this is a matter which should be of great concern to everyone.
A change in the law is unnecessary. Parents are already required by law to provide an education suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of their children, and to any special educational needs they may have. Local authorities already have the power to take action if parents do not do this.
Evidence indicates that home education is highly effective. Many home educating families use child-led educational methods which lie outside the prevailing educational paradigm. Diversity in education is precious in a democracy, and we need the law to protect it, and to protect the best interests of each individual child.
The interests of children are strikingly absent from schedule 1, which is concerned mainly with setting up a bureaucratic system administered by local authorities. They would be given the power to deny parents permission to home-educate, at any time, unless parents adapt their educational approach to fit in with the requirements of the system. The resulting insecurity would be damaging to many children, especially those with special educational needs.
Schedule 1 contravenes two principles of the government's own children's plan: that families bring up children, not governments; and that services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries. Given the controversy surrounding this section of the bill, and the serious criticisms made of it by the children, schools and families select committee, we call on the government to withdraw schedule 1 of the bill, and the accompanying clauses.
Ralph Lucas House of Lords, Oliver James, Child clinical psychologist, Anne Fine, Dr Frank Furedi Professor of sociology, Professor Anna Craft University of Exeter, Michele Elliott Founder of Kidscape, Professor Roger Scruton, Graham Stuart MP Chair, all-party parliamentary group on home education, Michael A Peters Professor, educational policy studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Professor Brian Thorne Fellow, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, Professor Emeritus Janet Moyles Early years and play consultant, Tricia David Emeritus professor of education, Canterbury Christ Church University, Professor Andrew Samuels University of Essex, Professor Tony Kouzarides Cancer research scientist at Cambridge University, Professor Ian Cunningham Chair of educational charity, Dr Sacha Powell Acting director, Centre for Research into Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury Christ Church University, Dr Felicity de Zulueta Consultant psychiatrist in psychotherapy and honorary senior lecturer at King's College London, Fiona Carnie Vice-president, European Forum for Freedom in Education, Dr Alan Thomas Visiting fellow at University of London Institute of Education, Harriet Pattison Research Associate, School of Education, University of London, Dr Richard House Senior lecturer in therapeutic education, Roehampton University, Peter Humphreys Chair, trustee, director, The Centre for Personalised Education and Personalised Education Now, Veronika Robinson Editor, The Mother magazine, Sue Palmer Literacy specialist and author of Toxic Childhood, Dani Ahrens Open letter co-ordinator, Badman Review Action Group, Roland Meighan The Centre for Personalised Education Trust, Dr Teresa Belton Educational researcher, Dr Ben Anderson Department of sociology, University of Essex, Melanie Gill Forensic psychologist, Claire Fox Director, Institute of Ideas, Vincent Nolan Trustee, Synectics Education Initiative, Dr Marilyn Fryer, Director, The Creativity Centre, John Harris Professional storyteller/children's author, Norman Wells Director, Family Education Trust, Derry Hannam Researcher/adviser/trainer in education for democratic citizenship to Council of Europe, UK government and NGOs, Liz Steinthal Educare Small School, Dr L Safran Educationist, Chloe Watson Chair, Home Educated Youth Council, Cathy Koetsier Media officer, Home Education Advisory Service, Kathleen Thompson Committee member of Education Everywhere helpline, Annette Taberner Trustee of Education Otherwise, Kelly L Green Founding member of Freedom and Choice in Education, British Columbia, Wendy Priesnitz Founder of Canadian Alliance of Home Schoolers, editor of Life Learning magazine, Beverley Paine Editor Home Education Association Australia publications, Deborah Markus Editor, Secular Homeschooling Magazine and more than 1,000 other signatories (for a full list see http://is.gd/5ViV7)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Impact Assessment Revision
Diana Johnson admits that the Children, Schools and Families Bill's Impact Assessment on home education will need to be revised, which is only right when you consider that this is what the Select Committee had to say about it:
"98. Given the evidence that we have received and the nature of the registration and monitoring proposals presented in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, we do not believe that the Department has put forward a realistic appraisal of the likely costs of those proposals."
Let's hope the DCSF does a better job this time. However, it doesn't augur well since on another matter, Johnson continues to stick rather stoically to an utterly fictitious representation of the Children, Schools and Families bill, playing the impact of it as "light touch", both in her evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and in her letters to MPs and sadly she isn't the only one. Ed Balls is also utterly misleading in his representations of the Bill. He said:
"The Children, Schools and Families Bill is somewhat disingenuous — allowing a parent or a child to refuse such an interview, but making refusal a potential grounds for the local authority to revoke registration to home educate should it not be able to ascertain the necessary information by other means."
Please write to your MP now to expose the fictions for what they are, and ask your MP to attend the 2nd reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill on 11th Jan to alert the House to these problems. See here if you need more info on how to do this easily.
"98. Given the evidence that we have received and the nature of the registration and monitoring proposals presented in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, we do not believe that the Department has put forward a realistic appraisal of the likely costs of those proposals."
Let's hope the DCSF does a better job this time. However, it doesn't augur well since on another matter, Johnson continues to stick rather stoically to an utterly fictitious representation of the Children, Schools and Families bill, playing the impact of it as "light touch", both in her evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and in her letters to MPs and sadly she isn't the only one. Ed Balls is also utterly misleading in his representations of the Bill. He said:
"...the Bill makes it clear that there is a right to see the child on their own only with the permission and agreement of the parent and the child. There is no right for the local authority to enter the home or see the child without their agreement. That is clear in the Bill. It is important that the hon. Gentleman is educated about that before we take the debate any further, because home educators watching this debate on television might think that what he has said is correct. It is important to clarify that it is not correct."
What he doesn't say is that the Bill makes it clear that if a family refuse to let the LA in, they will have their registration automatically revoked, so it isn't the lovely, free choice that Ed pretends it is. Sorry Ed but the gentleman you address (Graham Stuart MP) is educated about this, and you either aren't or are deliberately being misleading. A forced choice is an oxymoron.
"The Children, Schools and Families Bill is somewhat disingenuous — allowing a parent or a child to refuse such an interview, but making refusal a potential grounds for the local authority to revoke registration to home educate should it not be able to ascertain the necessary information by other means."
Please write to your MP now to expose the fictions for what they are, and ask your MP to attend the 2nd reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill on 11th Jan to alert the House to these problems. See here if you need more info on how to do this easily.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Message from Education Otherwise
The Second Reading of the Children Schools and Families Bill takes place next Monday, January 11th. Please write today and ask your MP to attend the debate and to raise your concerns in parliament.
Please share this link with your MP - www.education-otherwise.org/
Every one of us can make a difference if we get in touch with our MP. The Government has tried to say that the new law is "about support" but this is categorically not the case and we need to put our MPs straight.
The links at the foot of this email set out exactly what is really happening in this legislation.
After the Second Reading debate, the Bill passes to Committee stage and amendments are proposed and discussed before the revised Bill is brought back to the House of Commons. The Bill Committee needs to get the clear message from the Second Reading debate that the home education clause is difficult and controversial and we can achieve this if our MPs speak on our behalf in parliament.
There will be a General Election no later than June 3rd. All legislation which has not completed the necessary parliamentary stages by Easter will be bartered between the main political parties in a process which is known as "the wash-up". Some legislation will go through, some will be substantially changed and some will be dropped.
You may have already spoken or written to your MP, but there is everything to be gained by writing again. If you have never contacted your MP before, this is what you do:
Check out your MP using this site www.theyworkforyou.com/
Look at this site for information on writing to MPs www.writetothem.com/
This page on the Education Otherwise campaign website gives you tips about writing to your MP - www.freedomforchildrentogrow.
Summary
- Keep your email direct and personal;
- Keep your email short;
- Focus on a few key issues;
- Include a few key facts and signpost to where your MP can find more information;
- Maintain contact with your MP.
Please send your MP a link to this web page which was uploaded to the Education Otherwise website on Wednesday January 6th - www.education-otherwise.org/
Extract
"Education Otherwise believes that Clause 26 Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill is profoundly flawed and must not pass into legislation. In addition to the devastating effect on home educating families, the proposed measures would be incompatible with existing laws and would have unforeseen consequences far beyond the present target group."
The home education clause:
- was introduced to Parliament with the claim that it took account of the recent public consultation, yet the Government's consultation response remains unaccountably delayed, which the Select Committee found "unacceptable";
- requires the family to be licensed for education services in the first instance but with the prospect of extending the licensing principle to other aspects of family life;
- gives power to education professionals to impose legal sanctions on families who will not allow private interviews with children;
- gives power to education professionals to impose legal sanctions on families who will not allow access to the family home;
- provides for wide-reaching secondary legislation beyond the scrutiny of Parliament and does not supply satisfactory information about an appeals procedure;
- requires the Education Welfare Service to serve an automatic order compelling the child to attend a named local school if the family is practising unlicensed education and removes any legal right for the family to challenge this automatic order in court
"Passing Clause 26 into legislation would have an extremely negative impact on the relationship between the home education community and local and national government and be detrimental to the education and welfare of many children and young people who are currently being home educated." Annette Taberner, Education Otherwise Government Policy Group.
"Local authorities have not received any funding from Government for their work with home educating families and have been largely unable to provide support or services which would encourage families to establish or maintain contact with the authority. According to the latest research carried out by Education Otherwise, there is no budget from central Government for support and the typical amount spent on staffing costs for home education in local authorities is below £200 per child. The much vaunted support for home educators is nowhere to be found in the current Bill before parliament yet we are asked to believe that the Government will fund education delivered outside the state system which would seem to create a precedent for children educated in the independent sector." Fiona Nicholson, Chair Education Otherwise Government Policy Group.
Links
Page on the Children Schools and Families Bill updated December 2009
www.freedomforchildrentogrow.
Why you should write to your MP updated December 2009
www.freedomforchildrentogrow.
Tips on writing to MP + sample letter
www.freedomforchildrentogrow.
Position statement from Education Otherwise January 6th 2006
www.education-otherwise.org/
EO Twitter - twitter.com/EdOtherwise
EO Campaign Website - www.freedomforchildrentogrow.
EO Website - www.educationotherwise.org
EO Videos - www.youtube.com/user/
Commentary on the APPG
...from Kelly Green and Gold. Spot on, as ever.
Plus great news from the Liberal Democrats.
Finally, this story of a 14 year old home educated child who has been given a conditional offer from Cambridge is cheering insofar as it appears that he hasn't been coerced into it and simply loves maths.
Plus great news from the Liberal Democrats.
Finally, this story of a 14 year old home educated child who has been given a conditional offer from Cambridge is cheering insofar as it appears that he hasn't been coerced into it and simply loves maths.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
Sunday, January 03, 2010
The Problem with Monitoring
Jennifer explains.
My own terror of it comes from my previous experiences of the monitoring of my children by state officials. I haven't used statutory services much, but on practically every occasion, it has created a terrible fear in me that some misunderstanding would occur and that my children would be snatched away from us on some fictitious basis.
The first memorable incident: sheep-like, I took my year-old son to his first year check with the health visitor. He had been walking for about three months and in answer to her questions about his mobility, I informed the HV of this fact. Would my son move during the inspection? He lay flat on his back as if he had never even twitched an abdominal muscle in his life, looking for all the world like a wet towel. I could see the HV thought I was delusional and at the time I was thinking that perhaps I should actually have lied and told her that he couldn't walk! I am still not quite sure how we got away with that one.
On another occasion, I took my then 4 year old son to a local minor injuries unit as a bright red weal had mysteriously appeared across his face. On the way there, having checked that he wasn't aware of having banged into anything or of having been hit, I told him that the doctor might ask him if he had been smacked. Actually, the doctor didn't ask him this and just diagnosed a cow parsley reaction, and all was seemingly well, but as she turned to draw the curtains around us, my clearly rather confused son asked "So you won't need to hit me then, mum?"
Good grief, I was simply terrified. The moment will be forever etched in my memory. I honestly don't know how that doctor knew that my son was merely confused on this point. I am not sure that I would have done had I been in her position, but mercifully she just laughed and then smiled at me knowingly, for which - thank goodness, since for a terrible second, I honestly thought that was it - that we were heading down that terrible road which would mean endless trouble and heartache for the whole family.
And only recently, we had to take our son to A&E after we had failed to extract a shard of plastic from under his fingernail. We were repeatedly quizzed on how the shard had got there and on whether anyone outside of the family had seen it happen. I just couldn't believe it. My son was a strapping 11 year old at the time, perfectly capable of preventing anyone from deliberately shoving bits of plastic under his fingernail unless the most extreme form of torture was going on, and yet we were under suspicion for having done this. It felt so insulting, as well as terrifying.
Also recently, I took my usually extremely confident, highly verbal, usually-quite-happy-to-talk-to adults daughter to see the GP about something - (I actually can't remember what, just now). The GP started talking to her in a tone with which my daughter is not particularly familiar, ie: she was talking down to her, and then proceeded to try to test her on whether she could read the scales or not. I could see that my daughter was aware that there was a strange dynamic going on and that she was frightened by this. Would she open her mouth? Not a bit of it. I blustered frantically, which must have made the whole situation seem much worse.
Thankfully, we again appear to have got away with it, but really, should all our encounters with the authorities be as fraught as this? Is it right that every time we have to use services, we do so with the appreciation that this really might be the last time we actually see our children - for this is honestly how it can feel?
And the fact is that none of these professionals were aware that we home educate. Had they known, I am quite sure that the bar of suspicion would have been lowered, and we would have been subjected to much more rigorous investigation.
Indeed we know of many home educating families in the UK who have been intensively investigated for no reason whatsoever. There is one HE group we go to where we are the only family who has not at some time or other been investigated by social services.
Sadly, this is not the worst of it. We also know of HE families who have even had their children taken away from them, only to eventually have had them returned after protracted machinations involving the court system, MPs and sundry others.
Social workers nowadays want to cover their backs. They are worried that home educated children may not be regularly seen by services. In this current climate post Baby P, if you HE, you would be right to worry.
And of course, with the proposed enforced LA monitoring of something as subjective as a successful education, all this looks set to get far, far worse. Even if you are lucky enough to have heard that your LA bod favors autonomous home education and that they are as nice as pie, it should still be lurking at the back of your mind - "What if, what if I say something wrong, or they don't understand the child's sense of humor, or I accidentally antagonise them in some way"- (as I did with another HV when I said I was very happy breast feeding a toddler)?
Realistically, if previous experience is anything to go by, I should fully expect to be subjected to social work intervention in my family life, and this for NO good reason that I can think of.
My own terror of it comes from my previous experiences of the monitoring of my children by state officials. I haven't used statutory services much, but on practically every occasion, it has created a terrible fear in me that some misunderstanding would occur and that my children would be snatched away from us on some fictitious basis.
The first memorable incident: sheep-like, I took my year-old son to his first year check with the health visitor. He had been walking for about three months and in answer to her questions about his mobility, I informed the HV of this fact. Would my son move during the inspection? He lay flat on his back as if he had never even twitched an abdominal muscle in his life, looking for all the world like a wet towel. I could see the HV thought I was delusional and at the time I was thinking that perhaps I should actually have lied and told her that he couldn't walk! I am still not quite sure how we got away with that one.
On another occasion, I took my then 4 year old son to a local minor injuries unit as a bright red weal had mysteriously appeared across his face. On the way there, having checked that he wasn't aware of having banged into anything or of having been hit, I told him that the doctor might ask him if he had been smacked. Actually, the doctor didn't ask him this and just diagnosed a cow parsley reaction, and all was seemingly well, but as she turned to draw the curtains around us, my clearly rather confused son asked "So you won't need to hit me then, mum?"
Good grief, I was simply terrified. The moment will be forever etched in my memory. I honestly don't know how that doctor knew that my son was merely confused on this point. I am not sure that I would have done had I been in her position, but mercifully she just laughed and then smiled at me knowingly, for which - thank goodness, since for a terrible second, I honestly thought that was it - that we were heading down that terrible road which would mean endless trouble and heartache for the whole family.
And only recently, we had to take our son to A&E after we had failed to extract a shard of plastic from under his fingernail. We were repeatedly quizzed on how the shard had got there and on whether anyone outside of the family had seen it happen. I just couldn't believe it. My son was a strapping 11 year old at the time, perfectly capable of preventing anyone from deliberately shoving bits of plastic under his fingernail unless the most extreme form of torture was going on, and yet we were under suspicion for having done this. It felt so insulting, as well as terrifying.
Also recently, I took my usually extremely confident, highly verbal, usually-quite-happy-to-talk-to adults daughter to see the GP about something - (I actually can't remember what, just now). The GP started talking to her in a tone with which my daughter is not particularly familiar, ie: she was talking down to her, and then proceeded to try to test her on whether she could read the scales or not. I could see that my daughter was aware that there was a strange dynamic going on and that she was frightened by this. Would she open her mouth? Not a bit of it. I blustered frantically, which must have made the whole situation seem much worse.
Thankfully, we again appear to have got away with it, but really, should all our encounters with the authorities be as fraught as this? Is it right that every time we have to use services, we do so with the appreciation that this really might be the last time we actually see our children - for this is honestly how it can feel?
And the fact is that none of these professionals were aware that we home educate. Had they known, I am quite sure that the bar of suspicion would have been lowered, and we would have been subjected to much more rigorous investigation.
Indeed we know of many home educating families in the UK who have been intensively investigated for no reason whatsoever. There is one HE group we go to where we are the only family who has not at some time or other been investigated by social services.
Sadly, this is not the worst of it. We also know of HE families who have even had their children taken away from them, only to eventually have had them returned after protracted machinations involving the court system, MPs and sundry others.
Social workers nowadays want to cover their backs. They are worried that home educated children may not be regularly seen by services. In this current climate post Baby P, if you HE, you would be right to worry.
And of course, with the proposed enforced LA monitoring of something as subjective as a successful education, all this looks set to get far, far worse. Even if you are lucky enough to have heard that your LA bod favors autonomous home education and that they are as nice as pie, it should still be lurking at the back of your mind - "What if, what if I say something wrong, or they don't understand the child's sense of humor, or I accidentally antagonise them in some way"- (as I did with another HV when I said I was very happy breast feeding a toddler)?
Realistically, if previous experience is anything to go by, I should fully expect to be subjected to social work intervention in my family life, and this for NO good reason that I can think of.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
CSF Bill – Summary of Home Education Provisions and Their Impact
Huge thanks are due to two home educating parents, a lawyer and a social worker, who analyse the impact of the home education provisions in the Children, Schools and Families Bill as below. They show that the provisions directly contradict government legislation and stated policy, transfer responsibilities for raising children to the state, and in the process utterly fail to consider the actual needs of the child. They also demonstrate that government claims that the provisions are "light touch" or about support are complete tosh.
====================
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of the Children's Plan: "Launching Brighter Futures", which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries.
GENERAL FEATURES OF SCHEDULE 1
Under Schedule 1 to the Children, Schools and Families Bill (Schedule 1) local authorities will have a duty to maintain a register of all home educated children within their area. This duty to keep a register will give local authorities the power to refuse parents permission to home educate, and to curtail the practice of home education, without regard to the education being
provided and without regard for the best interests of the child.
Home educating parents will not have an affirmative duty to register their children, but a local authority's first step can be to serve a School Attendance Order on any unregistered home educated child. Local authorities will have many powers to refuse or revoke registration, and then issue a School Attendance Order because of the unregistered status that they have thus created. Parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order will be guilty of a criminal offence. Parents served with such an order will no longer be able to use the defence that they are providing a suitable education.
Under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, it is the parents' duty, not the local authority's, to ensure that children receive a suitable education. Parents may choose to provide that education "otherwise" rather than by delegating that duty to a school. Schedule 1 imposes constraints on how parents exercise this duty, should they choose to educate their children at home.
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the Children's Plan and the Children Acts, favours administrative protocol over parents' freedom to choose the form of education for their children, and represents a shift in power from families to civil servants.
LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS EXTENDED
Schedule 1 will give local authorities extensive powers to refuse or revoke registration. They may refuse or revoke registration:
• If a parent does not immediately apply for registration, even though there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
• If a parent does not submit a plan for the next year's education on time, or in sufficient detail, or in the authority's designated format.
• If a parent deviates from the educational plan that they have provided to the local authority, even if by doing so they have improved the education being provided.
• If a family's circumstances change during the year. The local authority might, e.g., decide it is a material change if a child is found to have special needs, or if a family changed their educational approach to one that was more workable or effective.
• If an authority, or any other authority in England has ever in the past denied an application to register a child.
• If parents object to the local authority entering their home on a routine visit.
• If parents object to the local authority questioning their child with no parent or carer present. Schedule 1 gives parents the right to object to their child being questioned alone, but then permits registration to be refused or revoked if they do so.
• If the local authority determines that the parents are demonstrating a "failure to cooperate" with any aspect of the local authority's monitoring process.
• If registration lapses, which happens automatically after one year.
• If a parent applies to register in order to stop the school attendance order process, the process stops. However, the LA can then refuse to enter the child onto the home education register, and serve another School Attendance Order.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be empowered to impose further regulations and technical requirements, without parliamentary debate, and thus will be able to set even more conditions upon parents' freedom to home educate.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN'S PLAN
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of Children's Plan: Launching Brighter Futures, which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do
more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and
families, not designed around professional boundaries.
However, under the terms of Schedule 1:
• Regulations will be issued providing for a right of appeal. Therefore the appeal process that is created will not be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny to see if it is fair, impartial and just.
• The local authority will be able to revoke registration if it considers that the education being provided is not suitable. It will also be able to refuse or revoke registration if the parents violate a number of administrative protocols, regardless of whether the education being provided is suitable or not. The net effect will be to make administrative procedures central to a local authority's consideration, not the needs of the child.
• There is no statutory requirement for the local authority to consider whether or not it is acting in the best interests of the child.
• There is no general requirement for the local authority to consider the suitability of the education being provided, although suitability underpins parents' right to choose to educate their children otherwise than at school. Indeed, local authorities are expressly prohibited from considering the actual education in deciding whether to issue a School Attendance Order.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families to improve the education being provided if there are concerns, as opposed to ordering the children to attend school.
• There is no assertion or recognition that the parents are responsible for the education of their child.
• There is no requirement for local authorities to provide any services or resources for home educating families.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE EDUCATION ACT 1996
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of the Education Act 1996 thus:
• There is no explicit assertion that it is the duty of parents to educate their children either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Instead there is a diminution of the freedom and powers that parents have to exercise their duty by choosing to home educate.
• Local authorities are not required to consider the suitability of the education being provided whenever they consider refusing or revoking registration, and are instructed not to consider it when they issue a School Attendance Order. They are granted broad powers to refuse permission to home educate based only on whether administrative procedures have been followed.
• The issue of suitability of the education parents provide to their children is removed from judicial consideration. Courts instead are directed to enforce a School Attendance Order against any unregistered home educated child.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of the Children Act thus:
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs, welfare and interests of the child as paramount.
• There is no recognition of the importance of family life to the welfare of a child.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs of the child with regards to race, culture, religion, gender, disability, or special needs, or any other factors that may be relevant to the well-being of the child.
• There is no affirmation of the "No Order" principle, that an order should only be sought as a last resort.
• The consideration for the welfare of the child is poorly defined or absent. This is inconsistent with the welfare checklist contained with the 1989 Children Act and with the other acts that shape children's services.
The authority-centred focus of Schedule 1 marks a paradigm shift from the child-centred, family-focused acts and policies that sprang from and were shaped by the Children Act 1989 (Every Child Matters; the Adoption Act; the Children Act 2004; the Leaving Care Act; the Children's Plan).
SUMMARY
The powers enshrined in Schedule 1:
• Curtail the freedom of parents to educate their children otherwise than at school.
• Are inconsistent with the Children Acts.
• Are inconsistent with the Children's Plan.
• Create a conflict between the local authority and parents in who is ultimately responsible for the provision of education, and who is answerable to whom.
• Represent a shift in power from families to civil servants.
Betsy Anderson; Imran Shah. 31 Dec 2009
For additional detail or reference to specific provisions of Schedule 1 to the CSF Bill, see the in-depth analysis of Schedule 1 available here.
====================
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of the Children's Plan: "Launching Brighter Futures", which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries.
GENERAL FEATURES OF SCHEDULE 1
Under Schedule 1 to the Children, Schools and Families Bill (Schedule 1) local authorities will have a duty to maintain a register of all home educated children within their area. This duty to keep a register will give local authorities the power to refuse parents permission to home educate, and to curtail the practice of home education, without regard to the education being
provided and without regard for the best interests of the child.
Home educating parents will not have an affirmative duty to register their children, but a local authority's first step can be to serve a School Attendance Order on any unregistered home educated child. Local authorities will have many powers to refuse or revoke registration, and then issue a School Attendance Order because of the unregistered status that they have thus created. Parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order will be guilty of a criminal offence. Parents served with such an order will no longer be able to use the defence that they are providing a suitable education.
Under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, it is the parents' duty, not the local authority's, to ensure that children receive a suitable education. Parents may choose to provide that education "otherwise" rather than by delegating that duty to a school. Schedule 1 imposes constraints on how parents exercise this duty, should they choose to educate their children at home.
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the Children's Plan and the Children Acts, favours administrative protocol over parents' freedom to choose the form of education for their children, and represents a shift in power from families to civil servants.
LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS EXTENDED
Schedule 1 will give local authorities extensive powers to refuse or revoke registration. They may refuse or revoke registration:
• If a parent does not immediately apply for registration, even though there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
• If a parent does not submit a plan for the next year's education on time, or in sufficient detail, or in the authority's designated format.
• If a parent deviates from the educational plan that they have provided to the local authority, even if by doing so they have improved the education being provided.
• If a family's circumstances change during the year. The local authority might, e.g., decide it is a material change if a child is found to have special needs, or if a family changed their educational approach to one that was more workable or effective.
• If an authority, or any other authority in England has ever in the past denied an application to register a child.
• If parents object to the local authority entering their home on a routine visit.
• If parents object to the local authority questioning their child with no parent or carer present. Schedule 1 gives parents the right to object to their child being questioned alone, but then permits registration to be refused or revoked if they do so.
• If the local authority determines that the parents are demonstrating a "failure to cooperate" with any aspect of the local authority's monitoring process.
• If registration lapses, which happens automatically after one year.
• If a parent applies to register in order to stop the school attendance order process, the process stops. However, the LA can then refuse to enter the child onto the home education register, and serve another School Attendance Order.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be empowered to impose further regulations and technical requirements, without parliamentary debate, and thus will be able to set even more conditions upon parents' freedom to home educate.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN'S PLAN
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of Children's Plan: Launching Brighter Futures, which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do
more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and
families, not designed around professional boundaries.
However, under the terms of Schedule 1:
• Regulations will be issued providing for a right of appeal. Therefore the appeal process that is created will not be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny to see if it is fair, impartial and just.
• The local authority will be able to revoke registration if it considers that the education being provided is not suitable. It will also be able to refuse or revoke registration if the parents violate a number of administrative protocols, regardless of whether the education being provided is suitable or not. The net effect will be to make administrative procedures central to a local authority's consideration, not the needs of the child.
• There is no statutory requirement for the local authority to consider whether or not it is acting in the best interests of the child.
• There is no general requirement for the local authority to consider the suitability of the education being provided, although suitability underpins parents' right to choose to educate their children otherwise than at school. Indeed, local authorities are expressly prohibited from considering the actual education in deciding whether to issue a School Attendance Order.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families to improve the education being provided if there are concerns, as opposed to ordering the children to attend school.
• There is no assertion or recognition that the parents are responsible for the education of their child.
• There is no requirement for local authorities to provide any services or resources for home educating families.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE EDUCATION ACT 1996
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of the Education Act 1996 thus:
• There is no explicit assertion that it is the duty of parents to educate their children either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Instead there is a diminution of the freedom and powers that parents have to exercise their duty by choosing to home educate.
• Local authorities are not required to consider the suitability of the education being provided whenever they consider refusing or revoking registration, and are instructed not to consider it when they issue a School Attendance Order. They are granted broad powers to refuse permission to home educate based only on whether administrative procedures have been followed.
• The issue of suitability of the education parents provide to their children is removed from judicial consideration. Courts instead are directed to enforce a School Attendance Order against any unregistered home educated child.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of the Children Act thus:
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs, welfare and interests of the child as paramount.
• There is no recognition of the importance of family life to the welfare of a child.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs of the child with regards to race, culture, religion, gender, disability, or special needs, or any other factors that may be relevant to the well-being of the child.
• There is no affirmation of the "No Order" principle, that an order should only be sought as a last resort.
• The consideration for the welfare of the child is poorly defined or absent. This is inconsistent with the welfare checklist contained with the 1989 Children Act and with the other acts that shape children's services.
The authority-centred focus of Schedule 1 marks a paradigm shift from the child-centred, family-focused acts and policies that sprang from and were shaped by the Children Act 1989 (Every Child Matters; the Adoption Act; the Children Act 2004; the Leaving Care Act; the Children's Plan).
SUMMARY
The powers enshrined in Schedule 1:
• Curtail the freedom of parents to educate their children otherwise than at school.
• Are inconsistent with the Children Acts.
• Are inconsistent with the Children's Plan.
• Create a conflict between the local authority and parents in who is ultimately responsible for the provision of education, and who is answerable to whom.
• Represent a shift in power from families to civil servants.
Betsy Anderson; Imran Shah. 31 Dec 2009
For additional detail or reference to specific provisions of Schedule 1 to the CSF Bill, see the in-depth analysis of Schedule 1 available here.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
New Year's Resolutions
Well, this one's made very easy since someone else has already done most of the work. From Freedom for Children to Grow:
"Please Write To Your MP This Week
"Please Write To Your MP This Week
Every one of us can make a difference if we write to our MP before the Second Reading of the Children Schools and Families Bill on January 11th. The Government has tried to say that the new law is "about support" but this is categorically not the case and we need to put our MPs straight.
We have been told that if an MP receives three messages from different constituents on the same issue then it is a hot topic.
Read our new page explaining why now is a good time to write to your MP, with links to background information plus a sample letter for you to customise.
Also think about going to visit your MP. This is a chance to raise awareness of home education and to dispel prejudices and stereotypes. Your MP will also be much more motivated to speak in Parliament on behalf of home educators if he or she has actually met a home educating family. Read more here."Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Bearer of Bad Tidings
Whoops, not a nice post to be putting up just before Christmas but I thought the subject constructive in some ways as it will serve to remind us why we have bothered to put in all that effort to preventing Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill from ever becoming law and why we must start all over again in the New Year.
More and more stories are emerging, usually from local HE email lists, of what amounts to abusive local authority practices. Home educators have been accosted on their doorsteps by LA personel and told that they must let the person in, despite never having seen them before in their lives. The LA bod may then demand to see evidence of the success of the educational provision (ie: will hold the family to an instantaneously FAR higher standard than schools routinely manage), and that the right to continue to home educate is dependent upon an official stamp of approval from this stranger.
The LA officer has also been known to state in front of the children that one of the reasons why they are there is because the parent may be abusing the child. Luckily most HE children I know, however young, are worldly-wise enough to know that clip-board bearing officials can talk complete rubbish, so it is unlikely to create trouble, but REALLY!
Honestly, if LA authorities want to get into the business of actually saving lives, they should get out and grit the roads.
More and more stories are emerging, usually from local HE email lists, of what amounts to abusive local authority practices. Home educators have been accosted on their doorsteps by LA personel and told that they must let the person in, despite never having seen them before in their lives. The LA bod may then demand to see evidence of the success of the educational provision (ie: will hold the family to an instantaneously FAR higher standard than schools routinely manage), and that the right to continue to home educate is dependent upon an official stamp of approval from this stranger.
The LA officer has also been known to state in front of the children that one of the reasons why they are there is because the parent may be abusing the child. Luckily most HE children I know, however young, are worldly-wise enough to know that clip-board bearing officials can talk complete rubbish, so it is unlikely to create trouble, but REALLY!
Honestly, if LA authorities want to get into the business of actually saving lives, they should get out and grit the roads.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Parents v. the State
Although this story from the Guardian describes a parent's struggle to achieve an appropriate school education for their child in the face of state bureaucracy, it is very reminiscent of the struggles that many home educating families experience when it comes to dealing with their local authorities.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Message from Graham Stuart
There will be a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Home Education with the Schools Minister, Diana Johnson, who will address the group and take questions.
Wednesday 6th January, 4- 5pm
Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons.
Make sure your MP is there!
The session is primarily aimed at MPs, MPs’ staff, and Peers, but everyone is welcome. The room has capacity for about 100.
Wednesday 6th January, 4- 5pm
Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons.
Make sure your MP is there!
The session is primarily aimed at MPs, MPs’ staff, and Peers, but everyone is welcome. The room has capacity for about 100.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Home Educators Are a Diverse Bunch
Ah good. I have so little time just now but life in some regards is getting easier as I can now just link to other bloggers. For example, Kelly here blows the myth that home educators bully each other into silence.
I do, however, just want to post an endorsement of Kelly's argument:
Whilst it is true that the majority of home educators do strongly oppose the Badman proposals and the tiny minority who see some merit in it, (though usually not much ) can sometimes fall silent when others are discussing it, it doesn't mean that they are forced to change their minds, or have been forced to change their consultation responses or their letters to their MPs, etc. Great friends disagree over some of the details, yet we remain the best of friends.
Generally speaking, home educators UNDERSTAND the power of non-coercion better than almost any other community I have ever met and it is wrong of the Select Committee to suggest otherwise.
I do, however, just want to post an endorsement of Kelly's argument:
Whilst it is true that the majority of home educators do strongly oppose the Badman proposals and the tiny minority who see some merit in it, (though usually not much ) can sometimes fall silent when others are discussing it, it doesn't mean that they are forced to change their minds, or have been forced to change their consultation responses or their letters to their MPs, etc. Great friends disagree over some of the details, yet we remain the best of friends.
Generally speaking, home educators UNDERSTAND the power of non-coercion better than almost any other community I have ever met and it is wrong of the Select Committee to suggest otherwise.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Press Association
...on the Select Committee Report.
And here's the Independent's take on it, and here, the report by UTV News.
Also, Children and Young People Now , Education Now , the TES , Parent Pages, Teaching Personnel and now EGov.
And here's the Independent's take on it, and here, the report by UTV News.
Also, Children and Young People Now , Education Now , the TES , Parent Pages, Teaching Personnel and now EGov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)