Registration and Monitoring Consultation Responses

Available as a download here.

Department for Children, Schools and Families Public Consultation Response

Home Education – registration and monitoring proposals.

1. Introduction

Why the consultation took place

On 11 June, the Secretary of State placed Graham Badman’s report entitled, Review of Elective Home Education in England, in the House of Commons Library. The report set out an analysis of evidence about the standard of education received by home educated children, and the extent to which local authorities were able to satisfy themselves that a suitable, full time education was being provided in a safe environment. It contained 28 interrelated recommendations which, together, mapped out how improved relationships between local authorities and home educators could lead to better support for home education, particularly where home educated children have special educational needs (SEN), want to take formal qualifications, or access education in further education colleges.

The Secretary of State’s initial response warmly welcomed the report and recognised that the review made a compelling case for immediate and urgent reforms to ensure that all home educated children are known to, and monitored by, local authorities. The government announced it was launching a public consultation on the proposals for registration and monitoring. The consultation was launched on 11 June 2009 and closed on 19 October 2009. Replies were invited by letter, e-mail or interactive web-site.

2. Overview and next steps for the policy

The responses to this consultation reflect the views encountered by Graham Badman in the course of conducting his review. Most of the respondents were home educating parents or children, their friends or relatives, or organisations supporting home education. These respondents did not accept the human rights arguments set out in the Badman report. They did not think that there should be a role for the state in ensuring that the quality of home education was adequate, nor that children had a right to education that had to be considered independently of their parents’ preferences.

Many respondents expressed concern that local authority officers do not have a thorough knowledge of home educating methodologies and approaches, and that they expect home educated children to be following broadly the same curriculum as children educated in schools. They doubted that sufficient funding would be made available for high quality training that would help local authority officers gain a deep understanding of educational approaches the home educating community use, including autonomous learning.

The full response to the Badman report published on 9 October set out in detail the funding that the government is committed to investing to meet additional home education costs in full from April 2011. As the full response was published close to the end of the consultation period, it is likely that most respondents did not read it before submitting their response to the consultation. However, we are taking this opportunity to restate the government’s pledge to cover the incremental costs of the review in full when it is implemented.

Most respondents were concerned about the proposal that failing to register or cooperate could lead to prosecution. We have considered alternatives carefully, and we are no longer proposing to make it a criminal offence to fail to register. We are instead proposing that, where parents refuse to cooperate with registration and monitoring, an amended school attendance orders system should be invoked.

The consultation responses suggested some confusion about the proposals to hold school places open for 20 days after parents had taken the decision to home educate. Many respondents thought that home educated children would have to continue to attend school during this 20 day period whereas in fact they would from the point of withdrawal be home educated. The 20 day period represents the length of time before the school place would be offered to another child in case the home educating parents changed their minds during that period. There is no detriment or burden placed on home educators through this proposal so we have concluded that the opposition to this element is due largely to a misunderstanding of what we are proposing.

The most controversial areas were proposals to see children in the home or other location where education is carried out, and proposals for local authority officers to see the child alone. Many home educators felt that a home visit was an intrusion into their privacy and family life that could not be justified. They also felt that the 2 week notice period may not be long enough in the event of a family holiday, for example.

We have considered these objections carefully but have decided that local authorities should visit the place where education is taking place, which will usually be the family home, as part of their monitoring work. This would allow local authorities to ensure that the home is in a suitable condition and is free from any factors that might interfere with the provision of education, such as a lack of power and/or heating, or severe overcrowding, for example. We will consider carefully what can be done to make the notice period of a visit as flexible as possible, to suit the circumstances of individual families. If families choose not to cooperate, and as a result are not on the register, local authorities will be able to use a school attendance order to require the home educated child or children to attend school.

Many respondents were concerned about the proposal to see the child alone. They were concerned that local authority officers acting alone could be at risk of safeguarding allegations, and that some children could find the experience traumatic, particularly if they were young, had mental health problems, or special educational needs. These are important points and we are responding to them by accepting that a blanket requirement for children to be seen alone is neither necessary nor appropriate. We recognise that local authorities will need the power to see children alone or with another trusted adult but this power should only be exercised where there is no other way to ascertain that home educators are providing a satisfactory education. Where a child or parent refuses to cooperate with an interview, and it is not possible to secure satisfactory information about the adequacy of home education, local authorities will have the power to revoke registration and ultimately to issue a school attendance order as a last resort.

Local authorities welcomed the proposals on the basis that they thought the current system did not allow them to carry out their legal responsibilities in ensuring that home educated children were receiving a suitable education and were safe and well. They said that a coherent system of registration would allow them to identify all home educated children in their area, helping to ensure that they could offer better and more tailored support to home educating families, particularly to those with special educational needs. They were also clear that local authority staff who work with home educating families would need high quality, dedicated training in advance of the introduction of the new arrangements to enable them to implement them well.

While we know that most home educating parents are providing a good education for their children, local authorities have provided examples of children for whom this is not the case. They estimate that around 20% of home educating children known to local authorities may be receiving an inadequate education and an additional 1.8% of home educated children (known to local authorities) may be receiving no education at all. We are therefore convinced that “light touch” monitoring is not only appropriate but is also essential if local authorities are to identify those children who are not receiving a sound education.

We have considered carefully the large number of responses and noted the strength of feeling within the home educating community. The arguments put by respondents mirror those put to Graham Badman in the course of his review and we remain clear that we need to make changes to existing arrangements to ensure that home educated children receive an education that prepares them for adult life.

Since this consultation closed, many of our proposals for a registration and monitoring scheme have been endorsed by the Select Committee in their 16 December report and we are grateful for their support bearing in mind the extent of the evidence they collected from many witnesses and written submissions.

We are now considering the detailed recommendations made in the report and will respond to the Select Committee in February.

After considering the consultation responses carefully we decided to implement our proposals for a registration and monitoring scheme for home educated children as part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill. In drafting the primary legislation, we have taken into account many of the concerns expressed by consultees. We have also decided that the appropriate sanction for parents who do not cooperate with the registration and monitoring scheme is use of school attendance orders; we have chosen not to give powers that would allow local authorities to insist that they see children alone in the family home; and we have provided details on 9 October of a substantial support package for home educated parents and their children.

The following section sets out in more detail our response to the key concerns arising from the consultation. A summary of the consultation responses received for each question is given in section 3 below.

Key concerns expressed by respondents

i. Register of home educated children (Q1-7)

· Home educators have been let down by state schools and local authorities in the past and are now being asked to register their children;

· A register would be of little use in identifying the minority of parents who were abusive or neglectful as they will avoid registration;

· Proposal to introduce a criminal offence for failing to register a home educated child is a step too far;

· Statement of approach to education – local authorities don’t understand the methodologies and approaches within home education so how can they assess whether the education is suitable;

· 20 day rule – if issues have not been resolved in the months leading to withdrawal how can a further 20 days on roll achieve anything? Will children have to attend school during this period/will their absence be classed as truancy?

Response – The purpose of a registration and monitoring system is to enable local authorities to keep track of home educated children of compulsory school age, and to ensure that they receive the education and support they are entitled to in a safe environment. It will also enable local authorities to plan and deliver the support package outlined in the full response to Graham Badman’s review.

We want the new arrangements to promote more supportive and constructive relationships between all home educating families and local authorities, with them working together to ensure children receive the best possible education in a safe environment. Statutory guidance will ensure that the registration system is flexible and user friendly.

We envisage close co-operation between home educators, local authorities and children's previous schools, where appropriate, in developing the statement of approach to education. We have earmarked money for local authority officers and others engaged in the monitoring and support of elective home education to be suitably trained. We want this training to give these staff a full understanding of the essential differences, variation and diversity in home education practice, as compared to schools.

It is unsatisfactory that there is no shared, up to date, concept of what constitutes a “suitable” education. We know that autonomous home educators are particularly concerned about any new requirements to plan provision systematically as they perceive this conflicts with their approach to education. We have undertaken to commission further work on what constitutes a “suitable” education and we will take into account the views of home educators and others in developing the specification for this work and in drafting guidance which flows from the findings of this work.

Our aim in proposing that schools should retain their pupils on roll for 20 days is to ensure that any school related problems which led parents to opt for home education could be resolved. Children withdrawn from school can be home educated from the point of withdrawal, but the 20 days allows parents further time to consider carefully the benefits and drawbacks of home education. Our intention is to bring in changes to this aspect of the current legislation from 1 Sept 2011, but we will consult further on the practicalities of taking this action before making these changes.

The new registration arrangements will be enforced through an amended school attendance orders system.

ii. Safeguarding (Q8)

· Safeguarding is a welfare issue and not an educational issue. Why are you dealing with these together under the new legislation;

· What do you mean by “substantial” safeguarding concerns.

Response

Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. If any child protection concerns come to light in the course of engagement with a home educating family these concerns will be dealt with using established protocols for child protection. The proposed legislation is focused on the quality of education rather than on safeguarding arrangements. However, we anticipate that local authority officers meeting home educating families will receive safeguarding training so that they are equipped to recognise safeguarding issues and make referrals where appropriate.

Home educators are understandably anxious about any threshold that might be applied in deciding whether to prohibit a family from home educating. The general approach will be for each case to be considered on an individual basis, underpinned by an assessment of whether it would be harmful to the child’s welfare to become or to continue to be a home-educated child. We anticipate that this assessment will be based on substantial issues only and we propose saying more about this in any statutory guidance.

iii. Monitoring (Q9- 11)

· Visits to family home will be intrusive and two weeks notice may not be enough;

· Children should never be interviewed alone;

· Monitoring levels excessive.

Response

Monitoring must be proportionate and light touch where home educators are doing a good job. We envisage that statutory guidance will set out the detail of any monitoring arrangements. While we think that a two week notice period is generally reasonable, we recognise that local authorities have to be flexible where this does not fit with family routines and commitments. We envisage that during the registration period the local authority will visit the place where the child’s education will usually takes place at least once, and meet the child, its parents and anyone else delivering the child’s education. A local authority officer will not be able to interview a child without their parents being present if either the parents or the child object.

iv. General

· Will funding be available to local authorities to support the additional work?

Response

We have already agreed to provide sufficient funding to underpin any new arrangements.

3. Summary of the responses to each question

We received 5,211 responses to the consultation document of which: 2,222 were from home educating parents; 436 from home educated children/young people; 83 from local authorities; 40 from organisations representing home educating families; 40 from other organisations with responsibility for children. A further 2,390 replies fell into the “other” category including anonymous responses, those who did not specify a respondent type; and “campaign” type responses which were received after groups including the Christian Institute, Education Otherwise and the British National Party lobbied their members to reply to the consultation via their own websites.

The responses are summarised below.

Consultation question	Agree	Disagree	Not sure	Total responses
Q1. Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?	230	4497	106	4833
Q2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?	621	3012	316	3949
Q3. Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?	357	3022	190	3569
Q4. Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?	455	2972	176	3603
Q5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?	245	3409	131	3785
Q6a. Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?	476	2621	416	3513
Q6b. Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?	341	2959	248	3548
Q7. Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?	300	3281	195	3776
Q8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?	577	2371	1189	4137
Q9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place, provided two weeks notice is given?	472	3106	226	3804
Q10. Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not, in the presence of a trusted person who is not a parent/carer?	215	4360	81	4656
Q.11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.	311	4217	189	4717

A question by question summarised narrative of views is provided below.

Register of Home Educated Children

Q1. Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

This question received the highest number of replies – 4,833. The majority of home educating parents, home educated children, organisations representing home educating families and “others” disagreed with this statement. They stated that it is parents’ responsibility to raise their children and to ensure that they receive a suitable education and that they did not accept that there could ever be a conflict between the rights and interests of parents and children. 750 respondents said that the proposals were draconian and represented serious infringements with the civil liberties and family privacy.

Several respondents suggested that many children were home educated because schools were failing in their duty to provide a suitable education. They thought that home education and the school system were two different methods of educating a child. Many raised issues about what constituted a “suitable education”, calling for further clarification on this issue.

610 respondents stated that no evidence had been provided by the Badman review to suggest that parents weren’t doing a good job in the home education of their children or to substantiate the safeguarding concerns raised as part of the review.

Most local authority respondents and some home educated children and their parents (115) agreed that the proposals struck the right balance of rights and interests of parents and children. They would strengthen and clarify local authority roles and responsibilities and recognise a parent’s right to choose to educate their children themselves. Some local authorities suggested that staff training was the key to successful implementation of the proposals.

Q2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?

Almost 900 fewer respondents answered this question compared to Q1. Again, the majority of home educated parents and home educated children, organisations representing home educating families and “others” disagreed with the need for a register. They stated that a register would be of little use in identifying the minority of parents who were abusive or neglectful, that it was a waste of resource, and that it would be used to “control home” educators and to forcibly return children to state education. 537 respondents said that many home educating families had been let down by the state school system and the proposals expected parents to apply for registration to the same people who they considered had already failed their children. 393 respondents disagreed with annual registration and said that this amounted to a licensing scheme.

431 respondents offered suggestions relating to the current availability of information about children who are home educated, including the child benefit database, GPs’ registers and the ContactPoint database.

All local authority respondents strongly agreed with the need for a national register and stressed that this would ensure that information about home educated children was collected in a more consistent way. It would also ensure that a child was receiving a suitable education and support good safeguarding practices. Some local authorities raised the cost of maintaining and updating a register on an annual basis.

A further 539 respondents from across the different categories felt that a register was a logical step towards understanding the home education statistics and in helping to identify additional funding and support for home educating families. 262 suggested that registration should be on a voluntary basis, to provide a more equal partnership and allow home educators to access the support and guidance available from local authorities, if they wish to do so.

Q3. Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?

Over 1200 fewer people answered this question than for Q1. The majority of home educating parents and home educated children, organisations representing home educating families and “others” disagreed with the information to be provided for registration purposes because they did not agree with the need for a register.

424 respondents said that they disagreed with the need to supply a statement of approach to education because they believed that the concept of home education was different to that of state education and a statement might undermine the flexibility of approach that characterises home education.

The majority of local authority respondents agreed with the information to be provided for registration and suggested that clearer guidance was needed to ensure that local authorities could interpret and make sound judgements about the “approach to education”.

148 respondents said that assurances were needed about the arrangements for confidentiality, data security and information sharing of data on the register.

Q4. Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?

The majority of respondents across all categories, with the exception of local authorities, disagreed with this requirement on the basis that it pre-supposed agreement with the introduction of a register. 638 said that they had no wish to comply with the request on the basis that there was no evidence to suggest that home educated children were not receiving a suitable education.

172 said that they thought that the registration system would be too bureaucratic and time consuming and that home educating parents would be better off spending their time educating their children rather than filling in forms.

454 respondents agreed with the proposal, stating that if a register was in place it would become pointless if it wasn’t kept up to date and adding that as parents had a legal responsibility to educate their children then it seemed reasonable to expect them to provide updated information for the register.

Q5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

Most respondents disagreed that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information, stating that this was a step too far by Government in trying to control home educating families. They also thought that this action would be damaging to parent/local authority relationships.

244 respondents, including 117 home educating parents and children and 64 local authorities agreed with the proposal. Some local authorities said that they would have a duty to ensure that their home educating population were fully aware of the requirements of registration and that action to criminalise parents should only be taken in very extreme circumstances and only where parents had already been given additional support and advice to ensure that they fully understood both the requirements of registration and the implications of non compliance.

Q6a. Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

2,621 respondents disagreed with this proposal, many saying that it was within a parent’s rights to withdraw a child from school at any time and that any decision to do so would not have been taken lightly. Concerns raised included: whether 20 days was long enough to resolve any issues if they had not been sorted out in the months leading to the withdrawal of a child from school; that the welfare of the child might be dependent on deregistration from school; that it would be discriminatory to treat home educating children any differently to those who had transferred to another school; that it wasn’t clear whether or not a child would be expected to attend school for the 20 days and how this would work if the child was withdrawn from school within 20 days of the end of the school year.

283 considered the proposal as an invitation to hostile school authorities and local authority officials to attempt to bully parents into changing their minds about home education at a time when the family was under very considerable stress.

475 respondents agreed with the proposal saying that this would have been extremely helpful to them and would have provided a period of time to make absolutely sure that they had made the right decision to home educate their children. Most local authority respondents agreed with the proposals and asked for action to be taken to ensure that any child withdrawn from school but remaining on the register was not classed as being absent throughout the 20 day period and for clarification on the timescales for children with special educational needs where statements might need to be amended.

Q6b. Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

Most respondents disagreed with this proposal saying that once the child had left school there should be no further role for the school in providing information about the child. 413 had concerns that schools might deliberately or unintentionally provide incorrect information about a child’s attainment and that this information would then be used as a means of testing the suitability of home education provision. 566 said that a child’s achievements or future attainment as a home educated child could not be measured or predicted in the same way as that of a child in school as they did not follow a prescribed curriculum, have tests or achieve set targets.

340 respondents, including most local authorities and 167 home educating parents and home educated children agreed that the school should provide the local authority with this information. Several local authorities said that it was essential for them to have the information if they were to be able to carry out their responsibilities to monitor and support home education and also asked that the information be shared with home educating parents to ensure transparency and to promote an open working relationship.

Q7. Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

The majority of respondents (3,281) did not agree that the DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance on the basis that they did not agree with the introduction of a compulsory registration and monitoring system. 196 thought that home education was so diverse that it would be impossible to monitor. Others felt that the current law was entirely sufficient, if it was fully understood and applied correctly by local authorities. They said that the 2007 Home Education Guidance had been well received by home educators and that it was an accurate and helpful explanation of the current legislation. 398 said that parents had responsibility for bringing up and educating children as they saw fit and the state should not interfere. They believed that there was too much statutory guidance already which infringed on their civil liberties.

299 respondents agreed with the proposal, including 151 home educating parents and home educated children and 78 local authorities. They said that a standardised national system would ensure a more consistent approach to working with home educating families.

Safeguarding

Q8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

This question had a high overall response rate but opinions varied widely. 2,371 disagreed and said that the question seemed to be mixing up safeguarding issues and educational standards. 447 thought that while logic said that a child must be safeguarded, the term “substantial safeguarding concerns” was open to a range of interpretations and a clearer definition was needed. 654 said that if concerns were really that substantial then children should not be in the home at all. Many thought that safeguarding was a welfare issue rather than an educational one and therefore should be dealt with under the existing child protection legislation. 487 did not believe that attending school was a guarantee of a child’s safety.

576 respondents agreed with the proposals. 219 said that there would first need to be substantiated evidence validated through a court process. The majority of local authority respondents said if substantial concerns existed about the safety of a child in the home or if children were subject to child protection procedures then they should have the powers necessary to refuse home education. The important word was “substantial” and this needed to be defined. Many said that it would be sensible to make decisions based on individual cases and then only after discussion with children’s services and other agencies.

Monitoring

Q9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place, provided two weeks notice is given?

The majority of respondents said that visits to a family home by local authority officials were an unwarranted intrusion into family life and were completely wrong. Many felt that the visits would contravene Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and were also discriminatory because officials did not have a legal right to entry to someone’s home without a court order under any other circumstances.

320 said that visits should be on a voluntary basis and only when parents sought out additional support and guidance from local authorities. They also thought that two weeks was not enough notice because of the very nature of home education, which could take place in a number of different venues, sometimes even abroad. 239 said that they would prefer to meet local authority officials in a “neutral” venue, such as a local library, or a home educating centre. They also thought that the current, non-mandatory arrangements worked well and were more conducive to better relationships with the local authorities. Several said that they thought it was vital that local authority staff carrying out visits had a good understanding of home education and were fully trained.

471 respondents agreed with this proposal, including the majority of local authority respondents. Local authorities felt that two weeks notice of a visit was reasonable but that there should be some flexibility built into the system to accommodate, for example, family holidays or circumstances where other concerns suggested the need for an earlier meeting. Some local authorities asked for additional clarity on where meetings should take place and on the implications of non-cooperation by parents. Others raised the issue of funding to meet the cost of additional work.

Q10. Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not, in the presence of a trusted person who is not a parent/carer?

4,656 replies were received to this question with 4,360 disagreeing with the proposal. Many said that it confused education with safeguarding issues. They thought that a child should never be interviewed alone because this might in itself constitute a safeguarding risk to the child and it also had implications for the protection of the interviewer. 1,119 said that it constituted a gross violation of family, would be distressing to children and could potentially undermine the parent/child relationship. 414 expressed concerns that a child could be asked leading questions or say things they didn’t mean if they were interviewed alone. A further 390 felt that properly trained social workers should be dealing with cases where there were thought to be safeguarding concerns, rather than other local authority officers who might not be properly trained.

214 respondents agreed with the proposal, including 104 home educating parents/ home-educated children and 56 local authorities. Most local authorities said that it was important that a child was able to express their views on home education without their parents being present but had mixed views on whether the child should be interviewed alone because of the safeguarding and protection issues mentioned above. They suggested that any interviews should be held in the presence of a trusted third party. They considered that high quality training was essential for local authority officers.

Q.11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

The majority of respondents, 4,217, disagreed with the proposed level of monitoring and thought that it was excessive, stating that Ofsted inspections of schools occurred much less frequently. 1,238 thought that the current law was clear and adequate and that the systems already in place would pick up where home education was failing. Others thought that where a parent had elected to home educate then the state/local authority should have no further responsibility regarding that child’s education.

360 raised concerns over proposals to visit after four weeks, believing that to be too soon for children to have adjusted to leaving their former school and for parents to have “found their feet”. 264 were not convinced that local authority officers would receive sufficient training and understanding of home education to allow them to be able to determine whether a child was receiving a suitable education at home.

A number of respondents said that they would welcome the visits as long as they offered support and resources but not if they were solely to monitor progress against educational plans. They added that they were in favour of easier access to flexi-schooling, school facilities and for help with the payment of examination fees,

310 respondents agreed with the proposed level of visits, including most local authority respondents, 161 home educating parents/home educated children and 2 organisations representing home educating families. Some local authorities raised concerns about the overall resource implications of making these visits and others asked for flexibility to apply discretion after the initial visit, especially where it had been established that good quality educational provision was in place.

Second Reading of Children, Schools and Families Bill

...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.

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.

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)

Free On-Line Resource for Key Stage 3 and 4

Available here.

The press release even targets home educators.

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 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.

It seems that both Ed and Diana persist in rather stolidly side-stepping the Select Committee's criticisms such as this one:

"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.

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/gpg/

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/ You just have to put your postcode in the search box.

This page on the Education Otherwise campaign website gives you tips about writing to your MP - www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/lettermp.htm#sample

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/gpg/

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.org/csfbill.htm

Why you should write to your MP updated December 2009
www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/writemp.htm

Tips on writing to MP + sample letter
www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/lettermp.htm#sample

Position statement from Education Otherwise January 6th 2006
www.education-otherwise.org/gpg/

---

EO Twitter - twitter.com/EdOtherwise
EO Campaign Website - www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org
EO Website - www.educationotherwise.org
EO Videos - www.youtube.com/user/EducationOtherwise

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.

Report from the APPG

Here.

EO on Schedule 1

Here.

More News from Blogland

From Labour MP, Paul Flynn, here and here and from Liberal Vision.

Kelly's Summary

..of the situation to date is nigh perfect. Thanks Kelly.

More from the MSM

...from the North East and Shropshire.

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.

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.

Letter to Sign

...for the press. Go here for details.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kelly on Registration

Kelly Green and Gold explores the issue of registration further.

Despite my diatribe yesterday about how it could only result in trouble for UK home educators, I do think it is worth taking the more balanced view that Kelly achieves.

The Select Committee Report...

...is now available here.

Whilst being critical of Badman's methods and data, it nonetheless recommends that a suitable education be more strictly defined:

"We agree that there should be a more precise definition of what constitutes "suitable" education. The definition must be established prior to any registration and monitoring proposals being introduced "

and that a voluntary registration scheme be implemented. The reason given for the latter:

"In our view it is unacceptable that local authorities do not know accurately how many children of school age in their area are in school, are being home educated or are otherwise not in school. The main argument for a registration scheme, as we see it, is to help to provide this information."

Simply not having this information does not in itself seem like a strong enough reason for the state needing to know the whereabouts of all children of school age. On the same basis of just not knowing, I could argue that I should have the statutory right to know how often our next-door neighbour waters her banana plant. Of course, not knowing is simply not a good enough reason in itself, for intruding upon her privacy, (though I suspect, without any evidence whatsoever, that she doesn't water it enough).

It seems that by not providing a substantial reason for voluntary registration, the Select Committee are merely trying not to stir up the hornet's nest all over again. They are trying not to say that they actually do believe, along with Baroness Morgan, that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse.

But why, oh why, you may ask, (as indeed I was asked yesterday), if I have nothing to hide, do I resist registration?

One of my principle reasons for continued resistance is this: proving your innocence is very often not a trivial matter. It can involve a HUGE amount of work, it can take up almost all your time, it can substantially alter your life so that you cannot live it in a more positive and constructive way. If you stand accused, as any investigation by the LA in this instance would imply, you would have to go out of you way to life-altering lengths, to prove that you educate appropriately and are not abusing your children, and even when you do this, you have no guarantee that the person assessing you will agree with you that you are doing things, since there as many different versions of a suitable education, and there is a strong possibility that they may not understand your form of parenting and may take what is in fact the least abusive method for a form of neglect.

If you don't believe me that proving your innocence can be a huge distraction and vastly detrimental to normal life, let me give you a recent example of the lengths we, as in my family, should have gone to to prove our innocence in another matter entirely.

Not long ago, we received a stern letter from the council informing us of a complaint from a neighbour about our barking dogs. We were quite surprised to receive this, particularly as we actually only have one neighbour, they have approximately six dogs, all of which bark a great deal! Our two do bark occasionally, usually asking to be let in. However, we do respond pdq, so their barks are usually one-offs, though I concede that in the case of the wolf-hound cross, they are ear-shatteringly loud.

Anyhow, I went round to all the neighbours (only three altogether) within the radius of approximately 3/4 of a mile to apologise and say I thought it couldn't really be us. Rather mysteriously, they all looked duly shocked and said they weren't responsible for reporting us.

So we then rang the council and explained that we thought that the letter was over the top and that complaints really couldn't be held against us. We also said that we thought it likely that the barking was coming from elsewhere, though it didn't trouble us in the least as it was far enough away from us to make it almost inaudible in the general hubbub of life here.

The council told us that in order to clear our names, we would have to make a record of any barking that we heard, to note the times, duration and loudness of the barks.

Well we did try, but rapidly found this nigh impossible. Had we done this, all normal life in our home would have had to have ceased. We would have had to have sat still in a quietened house, pen and paper in hand, waiting for the next batch of barking to happen. Of course, the barking is not in the least predictable and is as likely to happen late in the evening and well into the night when the foxes come sniffing around, so you couldn't possibly go for a night out, practice the drums, go to bed early or watch the TV of an evening. Proving our innocence turns out to be no trivial matter and of course, in asking the neighbour to quiet her dogs, her chickens and possibly a piglet or two, or even the TV, the sound system, a lawn mower or heaven forbid, the tractor may well get taken out as collateral.

In trying to improve the quality of life on the hill here, the council has, through failing to understand local need and through the problem of unintended consequences, actually disturbed a perfectly well-functioning system and created a terrible mess.

And so it would doubtless be, should we have to register as home educators. There is so little understanding of how autonomous education works that we would have to go out of our way to prove that it does, and in so doing, we would actually destroy it entirely. This is one of the principle reasons why I resist registration, voluntary or otherwise.

Of course there are others. As Graham Stuart said:

"If enacted, the Government's proposals will for the first time in our history tear away from parents and give to the state the responsibility for a child's education."

Whilst this would *arguably* not result from system of "voluntary" registration, it would nonetheless certainly happen if the 20 day pause in off-rolling a child from a school register, as endorsed by the Select Committee, were to go ahead.

From the Select Committee report:

"We believe that a child who is de-registered from school to be home educated should be nominally kept on his or her school's roll for 20 school days. This would offer much greater scope for resolving problems where parents had any unease about the prospect of home educating their child. We ask the Department to confirm that the child's absence from school during the 20 days would be treated as authorised absence. "

Ho hum.

To anyone from the DCSF and from LAs who happens to pass by this way: please just leave us alone. We will get on with things far better if you do. You DO have the powers to intervene if it appears that we aren't coping. Until that point, please, please just leave us alone, for the damage you cause by your ham-fisted attempts to intervene will only create havoc where there was none.

===============================

UPDATE: Goodness, Diana Johnson's response to the Select Committee report is woefully misleading in almost every regard. Take for example:

"We are confident that taken together, Graham Badman’s recommendations will make sure every child is safe and learning well."

Well, you may be confident, but you would be ridiculously wrong to be so, since your interventions will do next to nothing to ensure that children are learning well, and in most cases, you will probably damage the education of many home educated children by imposing irrelevant state-imposed "standards" for suitability. (Please see post above for analogy of why state-imposed standards do not work).

LAs will also waste a huge amount of money inspecting tens of thousands of otherwise well-functioning families when that money could have been far better spent dealing with families who are known to be at risk.

We believe the introduction of compulsory, light touch registration for home educated children is an important element of the way forward. "

Dear oh dear. What on earth is going on here? Does Ms Johnson really not realise that what the government is actually proposing is so far from LIGHT TOUCH it is hard to imagine. No minister with any sense of rightness or understanding of the situation could possibly pretend that these radical proposals which would shift responsibility for education entirely to the state are ANYTHING LIKE LIGHT TOUCH.

"It is only if all home educated children are registered that local authorities will get the information they need to make accurate assessments about the numbers of home educated children in their areas, and we agree with the Committee that this is essential."

We have yet to establish just WHY this is so essential. See post above for the essential fatuousness of such an argument which contains no actual explanation.

"Home education is a well established part of our education system and we have no plans to change that position."

Yes, you do. Don't fudge the facts. You may be allowing it to continue, insofar as children may still be educated at home, but they must now do the state's bidding and in that regard, it would be but home education in name.

"...we’ve said we want to provide better access for home educated children to facilities that enrich their experience of education, including school libraries, sports facilities and music lessons"

The government may have said this, but like plenty of other promises from the Labour party, there is actually no available evidence at all to show that they are working to implement this policy. There is nothing in the up and coming legislation as far as we are aware and is pure guff as far as we can see.

And anyway, most home educating families manage a far, far richer educational experience and environment for their children than I ever enjoyed in one of THE most expensive private schools in the country, so quite why HEors would want to come with begging bowl in hand to plead for the impoverished offerings of a bankrupted state, one can hardly imagine!

"Home educators also tell us they want more tailored support for children with special educational needs. This is something we’re working hard to address, and we will today publish our response to Brian Lamb’s review of SEN provision."

One would think this only fair as these home educators are saving the state a monstrous amount of money by not sending their children to school where special needs provision usually costs tens of thousands of pounds per child per annum. So yeah, by all means, actually do something useful with the money you haven't got!

Public Petition - Mass Presentation

...deserves a second viewing, I think.

Lessons from the States

Here's Kelly Green and Gold with some instructive histories about homeschooling legislation in the States.

Lord Lucas's Questions

... here, on the so-called harassment of Graham Badman.

Here, on whether a local authority will have the right to refuse permission to home educate if a parent refuses to allow the local authority unaccompanied access to his or her child.

Home Educators' Petition Smashes the Record

It was a historic day. Yesterday evening, the record for the number of petitions presented to the House was well and truly smashed. Home educators really do MEAN it.

What's more, Graham Stuart nailed it in his introductory speech, when he said:

"If enacted, the Government's proposals will for the first time in our history tear away from parents and give to the state the responsibility for a child's education."

It is hard to overstress how important this is and thank goodness this key principle for which many statist proponents appear not to care a jot, is finally getting the publicity it deserves.

The state will never be able to tailor an educational programme to fit the child the way a parent can. To deliver the right to determine the nature of a suitable education for every family in the land into the hands of the state is to destroy any opportunity of parental responsibility in this area. The state must recognise the limits of its efficacy and must only intervene, as now, in cases of clear parental failure.

Fulsome thanks are due to Graham Stuart, and all those who support us. Thank you so much.

The presentation of the petition can be viewed here or from 7 hours, 52 mins into this recording.

From the MSM:

BBC
Channel 4 News
Yahoo/Sky News
North East Journal
The West Country
Western Telegraph
The Southern Daily Echo
London
Liverpool Echo
Birmingham Mail
East Devon
South Devon
North East Chronicle
St Albans' Review
Croydon
The Christian Institute
Politics.Co.UK
Politics.Co.UK
Politics.Co.UK

Update:
So far, it has been confirmed that 321 MPs have been contacted by home educators and have received petitions. MPs have been presenting these to the House and will continue to so into the New Year. So far, home educators have confirmed that 163 petitions have been delivered to the House.

Mass Presentation of Petition Today!

The Mass presentation of the Public Petition, which calls upon the Government to withdraw the home education provisions from the CSF Bill, will take place today - Tuesday 8th December. MPs will be allowed a very brief personal comment before handing over.

Latest news is that 74 MPs will be presenting the petition from more than 120 constituencies and that this will smash the record for the number of petitions presented in one day - (previously 44 in March 2006). It means that more than 10% of Members of Parliament are involved.

Home educators have also had written confirmation of 257 constituencies covered by the Petition to Parliament i.e. at least one third of all MPs. Two thirds of these were where home educators had face to face meetings with MPs.

Home educators are tracking down what is happening with the remaining areas where we haven't had feedback for their database.

Please share this info freely to local lists etc.

Home Educators are also planning a short vigil outside the Houses of Parliament today, Tuesday evening, 18.00 - 19.30 hours.

We have permission to gather at the same place where the mass lobby was held: Old Palace Yard, opposite the House of Commons.

Feel free to bring banners, torches, lanterns, whistles, scary masks, bubbles, and probably umbrellas!

All welcome.

Petition Handovers

Home educators make it 156 delivered so far. We know that 288 constituencies had petitions.

Petition handovers began on November 30th

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091130/petntext/91130p0001.htm#09113019000001

November 30th

Heywood and Middleton John Dobbin

Walsall North David Winnick

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091201/petntext/91201p0001.htm#09120149000001

December 1st

Burton Janet Dean

West Worcestershire

Hampstead and Highgate

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-12-01b.1080.0&s=john+hemming#g1080.1

also December 1st

Birmingham Yardley John Hemming

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091202/petnindx/91202-x.htm

2nd December

Bath

Cannock Chase

Easington John Cummings

Portsmouth North

Swansea West

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-12-02a.1250.6&s=badman#g1250.9

also 2nd December

Bridgewater Ian Liddell Grainger

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091207/petnindx/91207-x.htm

3rd December

Billericay John Baron

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091207/petnindx/91207-x.htm

also 3rd December

West Chelmsford Simon Burns

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091207/petnindx/91207-x.htm

7th December

Eastbourne Nigel Waterson

Elmet Colin Burgon

Gloucester

Sheffield Hillsborough

Sittingbourne and Sheppey Derek Wyatt

Walthamstow Neil Gerrard

Wells David Heathcoat-Amory

http://www.freedomforfamilyeducation.org/presentation.htm

Mass Petition 8th December 10pm

Graham Stuart presented:

his own constituency of Beverley and Holderness

plus

North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)
Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples),
Winchester (Mr. Oaten),
Daventry (Mr. Boswell)
Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire),
Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry),
Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller),
Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke),
Newport, West (Paul Flynn),
Colne Valley (Kali Mountford),
Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis),
Hereford (Mr. Keetch),
Dudley, North (Mr. Austin),
Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland),
Salisbury (Robert Key)
Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames),
Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner),
South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)
The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard),
Redcar (Vera Baird),
Basildon (Angela E. Smith),
Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford),
Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox),
Conwy (Mrs. Williams),
Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps),
Hartlepool (Mr. Wright),
Beckenham (Mrs. Lait),
Dudley, South (Ian Pearson),
Wrexham (Ian Lucas),
Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik),
Battersea (Martin Linton),
Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick),
City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods),
Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes),
Crawley (Laura Moffatt)
Reading, West (Martin Salter),
Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)
Eccles (Ian Stewart),
Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley)
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter)

Presented on their own behalf

Hertford and Stortford Mark Prisk

Hexham Peter Atkinson

Hemel Hempstead Mike Penning

Ashford Damian Green

Brighton Pavilion David Lepper

Eddisbury Stephen O'Brien

Guildford Anne Milton

Preseli Pembrokeshire Stephen Crabb

Caithness Sutherland John Thurso

Orpington John Horam

South West Bedfordshire Andrew Selous

Wimbledon Stephen Hammond

East Surrey Peter Ainsworth

Carshalton and Wallington Tom Brake

Huntingdon Jonathan Djanogly

Wellingborough Peter Bone

Woking Humfrey Malins

Macclesfield Nicholas Winterton

Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers

Manchester Withington John Leech

Cotswold Geoffrey Clifton Brown

North East Milton Keynes Mark Lancaster

Buckingham John Bercow( speaker) presented by Mark Lancaster

Bromsgrove Julie Kirkbride

High Peak Tom Levitt

Walthamstow Neil Gerrard

Fareham Mark Hoban

South West Hertfordshire David Gauke

Congleton Ann Winterton

North East Hampshire James Arbuthnot

Chesham and Amersham Cheryl Gillan

North Wiltshire James Gray

Hazell Grove Andrew Stunell

Vauxhall Kate Hoey

Enfield Southgate David Burrowes

Croydon Central Andrew Pelling

Regents Park and Kensington Karen Buck

Wokingham John Redwood

Berwick on Tweed Alan Beith

Bristol North West Doug Naysmith

Stroud David Drew

North East Bedfordshire Alastair Burt

Crewe and Nantwich Edward Timpson

Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson

Torbay Adrian Sanders

signatures from South Devon included with Torbay

Henley John Howell

Cities of London and Westminster Mark Field

Broxbourne Charles Walker

Witney ( David Cameron's constituency) presented by Tony Baldry

North Shropshire Owen Paterson

Newbury Richard Benyon

Wantage Edward Vaizey

Kettering Phillip Hollobone

Staffordshire Moorlands Charlotte Atkins

Wycombe Paul Goodman

East Devon Hugo Swire

Barnsley Central Eric Ilsley

Richmond Park Susan Kramer

Birmingham Selly Oak Lynne Jones

Brent East Sarah Teather

Brent South also presented by Sarah Teather

Tunbridge Wells Greg Clark

South Norfolk Richard Bacon

Wealden Charles Hendry

Leominster Bill Wiggin

South Cambridgeshire Andrew Lansley

Southend West David Amess

Havant David Willetts

Epping Forest Eleanor Laing

Windsor Adam Afriyie

Arundel and South Downs Nick Herbert

Also on the 8th

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091208/petntext/91208p0001.htm#0912095000090

Barnsley East and Mexborough Jeff Ennis

Chichester

Ealing Southall

Gainsborough

Hove

Kensington and Chelsea

Kingston Upon Hull West and Hessle

Lincoln Gillian Merron

Luton North Kelvin Hopkins

Maidenhead

Meiryonnyd Nant Conwy Elfyn Llwyd

Reigate

Sheffield Central Richard Caborn

Shrewsbury and Atcham Daniel Kawczinski

Stevenage

Watford Claire Ward

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/22.htm#hddr_8

9th December

Mid Dorset and North Poole Annette Brooke

Harborough Edward Garnier

Bristol West Stephen Williams

Cheadle Mark Hunter

Brecon and Radnorshire Roger Williams

What's Wrong with the Impact Assessment?

Phew, I was thinking that an extensive critique of the Impact Assessment for the EHE component of the Children, Schools and Families Bill was called for and thankfully, here it is.

This concludes:

"Overall there seems little doubt that the proposed options for registering and monitoring...will incur at best a very small net quantifiable gain. Given the potential numbers of EHE children it is more likely that the proposals will produce a net ten year lifetime loss."

And this is putting aside all those other key questions about how one actually judges the nature of a suitable education.

There's another more forthright critique of the IA here.

DCSF Consultation Process Confirmed as a Complete Charade

No great surprise there then, but let's make the depth of government duplicity quite clear for anyone not yet fully in the picture.

Back in June 09, the DCSF announced a consultation on the registration and monitoring of home educators. 5000 individuals and groups had responded by the closing date in October, the large majority of which were home educators who oppose the draconian, disproportionate and utterly wasteful proposals as detailed in the consultation documents.

We still await the report on the consultation, but of course, given the antipathy to the proposals, the DCSF has decided that it is better not to let the democratic process play out by waiting for the report which would only reveal that people will resist the Stasi-like powers that the state proposes to appropriate, so the DCSF ploughs on regardless and quickly produces the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which is one of the most fatuous, ill-conceived and ill-considered pieces of proposed legislation in every regard, not just in relation to home education, in recent memory, (which is saying something!)

The DCSF in it's recent communications, barely bothers to conceal it's contempt for and misuse of the consultative process. See below:

"Thank you for your email of 18 November, in which you asked about the publication of the report on the consultation about registration and monitoring proposals relating to home education and the announcement of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.The consultation ran from 11 June to 19 October and we received over 5000 replies.

We have always said that we would consider the consultation responses carefully before proceeding with legislation because they would help us to make arrangements that support parents to provide quality home education while allowing local authorities (LAs) to take action where arrangements have serious shortcomings. We introduced proposals for a home education registration scheme as part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill which had its first reading in Parliament on 19 November. The consultation replies were analysed by our Consultation
Unit prior to introduction of the Bill and we were able to use the key themes arising from the responses and other correspondence we had received to help us to shape the primary legislation.

We will continue to use the replies to help develop any regulations and statutory guidance. For example, we have listened to the views made in respect of LAs interviewing a child alone; and about whether it should be a criminal offence to fail to register a home educated child
and we have tailored the content of the Bill accordingly. We anticipate that the report will be published shortly.

Yours sincerely


Public Communications Unit"

This government needs to go now, before it's total disregard for the need for proportionate legislation renders any notion of the importance of freedom in this country utterly archaic. However there is a real danger that Labour will be returned to power. With the Scots abandoning the Scottish National Party in large numbers and returning, perforce, to Labour, we may well end up with some simply appalling pieces of legislation that will destroy the education system in this country and that were merely meant to be a load of empty electioneering and false promises made under the assumption that they wouldn't be getting back in.

More on the Petition

..this time in the Sutton Guardian. (page 4), South West Devon and Amersham and Chesham,
and now from Stroud, Bexley, Chesterfield, Hexham, Lincoln and Daventry.

Tim Yeo on Disproportionate Social Services' Intervention

Given that home educators are already regarded with a high level suspicion by many social work departments, it is not wonder that they are afraid.

Where we are now and what to do next.

OK so I'm guessing, though I think my information may well be good, in which case I suspect that the situation in Westminster is currently pretty volatile with regard to the issue of what to do about the monitoring of home educators. Whilst the Labour position is pretty clear on what it pretends to want to do, (see also the EO briefing paper on the CSF bill here), the Tories and the Lib Dems don't yet have a firm policy line and I suspect are being submitted to quite a bit of internal lobbying which may sway them either way.

This is significant because the Tories and the Lib Dems could be HUGELY important should the Children, Schools and Families Bill be selected for the "wash-up" process - which looks to be the only way that this bill could get through, given the shortage of time before the next election must be called. If this were to happen, the government will approach the two main opposition parties and ask them to agree to let the CSF bill through. The Shadow Spokesmen, Michael Gove for Tories, and David Laws for Lib Dems, will have a lot of say since they could amend or remove clauses they do not like.

I believe that right now, we should be taking every opportunity to alert both main opposition parties to the problems with the proposals to monitor educational provision and attainment for home educated children. We have to point out that if they follow the government's path in this regard and choose to implement this type of monitoring as well, they will have a much, much bigger job on their hands than they may currently realise.

Labour have called our bluff in this regard, because other policy proposals for schooling parents in the CSF bill make it clear that they pretend that they don't give a monkeys for the argument that the state should not be held responsible for ensuring that a child "receives", - as in both "is provided with" and "attains" a suitable education, since they are giving schooling parents all those rights to complain about failures over these issues.

You would have thought the government wouldn't have dared go down this route as it looks like a recipe for bankruptcy for most LAs, so I'm thinking that in truth, the government really, really doesn't want this bit of the bill to go through unamended and that it was merely a bit of electioneering via the Queen's speech.

These universal proposals also served to obscure the significance of their proposal to monitor the educational provision and attainment of home educated children, which would mean that the government could slip this bit by the opposition parties whilst the Tories in particular rushed to obliterate the other bit about schooling parents having rights to sue over failure of educational provision and attainment.

So, whether or not the CSF bill comes up in the wash-up, if anyone has a good opportunity to talk to their Tory or Lib Dem MP, it is worth mentioning that universal monitoring of the provision and educational attainment of home educated children will have a huge impact for any government, since it will reinterpret s7 for all children and will mean that any government must do something about every single child should the educational provision or attainment prove inadequate. The government will need to investigate and do something about all failure of educational provision and attainment, whether at home or in school.

No Reason to Refuse our FOI Requests

Ciaran McHale challenges the DCSF's refusal to engage. He has taken apart the government’s claim that Graham Badman has been “vilified” and “harassed,” and he has decimated the government’s grounds for refusal of FOI requests.

More News of the Petition

From Lincolnshire. (We have it on good authority that Asha actually describes herself as home "educated").

And Ealing.