An admirably persistent home educator has kept on at the DfES until he got some result from his many FOI requests for information about DfES communications on "light touch changes to HE legislation", during the second part of 2006. He has made the results of his request widely available on various UK Home Education lists, such as on the here and here .
All in all, it makes for scary reading. You realise just how close we really were to a state-imposed curriculum, and other nasties such as LAs being handed the right to insist on seeing and inspecting HE children.
The thing is, despite the relatively benign-looking EHE draft guidelines, this threat does not look to have gone away for sure. These guidelines are, after all, only in draft form. They could change for the significantly worse and LAs are reportedly making such a racket about not being able to check out our educational provision with a much greater degree of oversight and prescription, that the DfES may buckle if we don't keep shouting about why LA demands are so illogical, damaging and even dangerous for both themselves and for us. We really should keep shouting about these points in our responses to the Consultation on EHE Guidelines.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Nominal Rationale for Contactpoint
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Draft Response from EO
Suggestions for completing the consultation on the draft Home Education Guidelines
We have included some draft responses which we hope you will find helpful when making your own individual response to the consultation. Please forward this freely to local groups and consider making your response as soon as possible since we are informed that the DfES Consultation Unit are collating all the responses as soon as they are received.
We are aware that Local Authorities are already making their views known to the DfES both separately and collectively on a regional basis so please don't wait till the deadline approaches before you make your individual response . The pro-monitoring local authority view is already being heard LOUD AND CLEAR at the DfES.
Another useful thing you can do is to make a response on behalf of your local group because we can respond once as parents and again as members of the voluntary and community sector.
The questions on the consultation response form ask you to comment on various paragraphs in the draft guidelines . Ideally you would have a hard copy of the draft Guidelines for reference, either by printing out a copy from the link on the website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Elective%20Home%20Education%20Guidelines%201.doc
Or by keeping a second window open as you answer the questions
Or by requesting a paper copy of the Guidelines from the Department’s distribution centre Prolog on 0845 6022260 quoting the publication reference number 1479 CONSULTATION ON HOME EDUCATION GUIDELINES LAUNCHED 8 MAY.
In addition we have reproduced the relevant paragraphs from the Guidelines below.
But it is worth getting a look at the complete Guidelines because the Consultation misses out questions on some paragraphs eg there are no Consultation questions on the SEN paragraphs and you can make comments on that fact in your Consultation response. The EO Campaign website has a page of useful links on SEN [http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sen.htm ]
Some home educators have already produced draft responses and general comments on the Guidelines Consultation . You can find links to these from the EO Campaign website LATEST page Saturday 9 June http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/update.htm and they are also reproduced here :
http://www.freewebs.com/hedline/HEdline%20News%204.pdf
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/consultation-on-elective-home-education.html ( and further updates from this blog )
http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/Government_consultation_launched.doc
PLEASE USE YOUR OWN WORDS WHEN YOU REPLY TO THE CONSULTATION. THE FOLLOWING ARE ONLY SUGGESTIONS. OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY WEAKENED IF EVERYONE USES THE SAME FORM OF WORDS.
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conRespond.cfm?consultationId=1479 Respond online or download paper copies of the consultation http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Consultation%20on%20Home%20Education%20Guidelines%20Response%20Form.doc
1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?
Not sure.
There was a need for clarification. I hope the consultation process will improve the guidelines and make it clearer what the local authority should and should not be doing . The draft guidelines are quite out of date ( eg no reference to the Children Act 2004 and out of date reference to the Guidance on deregistering. ) It is good that we are seeing a full public consultation on the draft Guidelines . I am pleased that the draft Guidelines acknowledge the legal right of the family to choose home education. The draft Guidelines don't include any complaints or grievance procedure. It does not seem as though the Guidelines will be legally enforceable, which makes me wonder whether it will really make a difference to my Local Authority.
2. . Do you agree that the description of the law [ paragraphs 2.1-2.3 ] relating to elective home education is accurate and clear.
2.1 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. In England, education is compulsory, but schooling is not.
2.2 Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
This right is enshrined in English law. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
2.3 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. An “efficient” and “suitable” education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but “efficient” has been broadly described as an education that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”, and a “suitable” education is one that “primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.
Not sure.
Comments :
The Guidelines should give a direct link to Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act because this is the statute law referring to home education. : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96056--a.htm
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive an efficient full time education suitable :
a/ to his age, ability and aptitude and
b/ to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise "
The right of parents to educate their children according to their own philosophical convictions is also stated in the British Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm
This section could do with a much better introduction to the whole area of Elective Home Education for professionals who may be new to this area. This job is done by a few Local Authorities such as Staffordshire on their Home Education Website http://education.staffordshire.gov.uk/Curriculum/Services/HomeEducation/
http://education.staffordshire.gov.uk/Curriculum/Services/HomeEducation/FAQs/
Statute law does not define "efficient" "suitable" "full-time" or "education", although we have some clarification from the case law on education which is quoted in the draft Guidelines. The point about home education is that the education has to be suitable to the home educated child's age ability and aptitude. It is personalised learning. and school standards do not apply. Nor is there any obligation for the home educated child or young person to follow a broad and balanced curriculum since this legal requirement .only applies to registered pupils in the maintained sector. ( Introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880040_en_2.htm#mdiv1 )
3/ Do you agree that the description of local authorities' responsibilities [ paragraphs 2.5-2.11 ] is accurate and helpful ?
Local authorities’ responsibilities
2.5 Local authorities should provide written information about home education that is clear, accurate and sets out the legal position, roles and responsibilities. This information should be made available on local authority websites and in local community languages on request. Local authorities should recognise that there are many approaches to educational provision, not just a “school at home” model. What is suitable for one child may not be for another, but all children should make reasonable progress.
2.6 Local authorities have a new duty under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to identify, as far as is possible, children who are missing, or in danger of missing, education. The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example, at home, privately, or in alternative provision). The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home.
2.7 Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis. However, under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities can intervene if they have good reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education. This section states that:
“If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.”
Section 437(2) of the Act provides that the period shall not be less than 15 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
2.8 The most obvious course of action if such a concern were raised would be to ask parents for information about the education they are providing. Such a request is not the same as a notice under s 437(1). Parents are under no duty to comply, but it would be sensible for them to do so.
2.9 Section 437(3) refers to the serving of School Attendance Orders:
“If –
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education, and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school,
the authority shall serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a "school attendance order"), in such form as may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in the order.”
2.10 A School Attendance Order should be served as a last resort, after all reasonable steps have been taken to try to resolve the situation. At any stage following the issue of the Order, parents may present evidence to the local authority, or the court, that they are now providing an appropriate education and apply to have the Order revoked. It will be for a court to decide whether or not the education being provided is suitable and efficient. Detailed information about School Attendance Orders is contained in Ensuring Regular School Attendance paragraphs 6 to 16,.
2.11 Local authorities also have a duty under Section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This section states:
“A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred upon them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.”
Section 175(1) does not extend local authorities’ functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities powers to enter the homes of, or otherwise see, children for the purposes of monitoring the provision of elective home education. "
Answer :
NO
Comments :
There is no requirement in law for the child or young person to make "reasonable progress" and this sentence should be removed.. The law with regard to home education states that it must be suitable to the age ability and aptitude of the child and to any special educational needs he may have. By law the educational provision for a child at home will be suitable to the child and will be in accordance with the parents' philosophical convictions. There is no legal requirement for the local authority to engage in continual or ongoing monitoring of a family's home education provision and any DfES Guidelines for Local Authorities should make this quite clear. Section 437 of the 1996 Education Act which is quoted in this part of the draft Guidelines sets out the end of the road for the Local Authority and as such it has no place here in a discussion of the ordinary responsibilities of the local authority. This information should be included in the Guidelines but this is not the appropriate place to include this. It would be better if this went to the end of the Guidelines in a reference section for local authorities. Section 2.11 is out of date since the local authority will have regard to the more recent legislation contained in the 2004 Children Act with reference to Safeguarding Children. It is however true that neither S.175 ( 1) of the 2002 Act or the 2004 Act give any additional powers to the local authority to enter the private homes of home educating families for the purpose of monitoring the educational provision. Nor does the 2004 Act give additional powers to the local authority in terms of access to the home educated child.
4/ Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority [ paragraphs 3.4 -3.7 ] is accurate and helpful ?
Contact with the local authority
3.4 Many home educating parents welcome regular contact with the local authority as an opportunity to reaffirm their provision. However, where parents do not want any involvement with the local authority, the LA should not automatically assume that there is a problem which needs investigating. Instead, the LA should take a risk-based approach, taking into consideration the individual and community’s circumstances. As one example, recent research shows that “few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable”. We do know that there will be Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children who do receive a good education at home. Those monitoring elective home education should seek advice from Traveller Education Support Services before engaging with parents from these communities
3.5 If information exists which may cast doubt on whether an “efficient and suitable education” can be provided, the local authority should seek to gather any relevant information that will assist them in reaching a properly informed judgement. This should include seeking from the parents any further information that they wish to provide explaining how they are providing a suitable education. Parents should be given the opportunity to address any specific concerns that the authority has. The child should also be given the opportunity, but not required, to attend any meeting that may be arranged or express his or her views in some other way.
3.6 If there are any reasonable concerns, a local authority may wish to contact parents to discuss their ongoing home education provision. Contact should normally be made by writing to the parents to request an updated report or seek a meeting. A written report should be made after such contact and copied to the parents stating whether the authority has any concerns about the education provision. Where there are concerns about the efficiency or suitability of the education being provided for the child, more frequent contact may be required. Where concerns merit frequent contact, the authority should discuss these concerns with the child’s parents, with a view to helping them improve their provision in the best interests of the child.
3.7 Many parents welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision that they are making for the child’s education during a home visit but parents are not legally required to give the local authority access to their home. They may, choose to meet a local authority representative at a mutually convenient and neutral location instead or choose not to meet at all. If they choose not to meet, they will need to provide evidence that they are providing an efficient and suitable education. Parents might, for example:
· write a report;
· provide samples of work;
· invite a local authority advisor/consultant to their home, with or without the child being present; or
· meet a local authority advisor/consultant elsewhere, with or without the child.
3.6
3.7 Answer :
3.8 No.
Comments :
3.4 Gives the impression that regular contact is approved .This should be removed. It is irrelevant and misleading. Ethnic minorities who home educate have the same rights and responsibilities in law as any other home educators and therefore 3.4 on the GRT community is irrelevant and should be removed. The Lead Professional for GRT home educating families, as with any other home educating families, is the Elective Home Education Advisor. The Traveller Education Service deals with inclusion and not with Elective Home Education. Section 3.5 is unclear and prejudicial since it says : "If information exists which may cast doubt on whether an “efficient and suitable education” can be provided". This seems to cast doubt on certain types of parents and their ability to provide education. 3.6 There can be no legal definition of "reasonable concerns" or "concerns" . This can only ever be a subjective judgement and should be amended to "serious concerns about educational provision " and these serious concerns must be justified by evidence. Moreover the local authority has no responsibility in law to engage in ongoing monitoring of elective home education provision. Nor is there any local authority funding available to "support" home educating families. 3.7 is not a fair and accurate statement of the law. Some local authorities may press for this but it is not a legal requirement. It is irrelevant anecdotal evidence to say that this is welcomed by parents. This is not a statement of the law.
5/ Do you agree that the section on providing a full time education [ paragraphs 3.11 -3.14 ] and in particular, the characteristics of provision [ paragraph 3.13 ] is accurate and helpful ?
3.11 Parents are required to provide an efficient education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. There is currently no legal definition of “full-time”. Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 39 weeks of the year, but this measurement of ‘contact time’ is not relevant to home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal ‘school hours’. The type of educational activity can be varied and flexible. Home-educating parents are not required to:
· teach the National Curriculum
· have a timetable
· have premises equipped to any particular standard
· set hours during which education will take place
· have any specific qualifications
· make detailed plans in advance
· observe school hours, days or terms
· give formal lessons
· reproduce school type peer group socialisation
· match school, age-specific standards.
However, local authorities should offer advice and support to parents on these matters if requested.
3.12 It is important to recognise that there are many, equally valid, approaches to educational provision. Local authorities should therefore consider a wide range of information from home educating parents, in a range of formats. The information may be in the form of specific examples of learning e.g. pictures/paintings/models, diaries of work, projects, assessments, samples of work, books, educational visits etc.
3.13 In their consideration of parents’ provision of education at home, local authorities may reasonably expect the provision to include the following characteristics:
· consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers – it is expected that parents or significant carers would play a substantial role, although not necessarily constantly or actively involved in providing education
· recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations
· opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences
· access to resources/materials required to provide home education for the child – such as paper and pens, books and libraries, arts and crafts materials, physical activity, ICT and the opportunity for appropriate interaction with other children and other adults.
3.14 If, on considering the educational provision, one or more of the above characteristics appear to be lacking, local authorities may choose to further investigate whether or not an efficient and suitable education is, in fact, being provided. A full written report of the findings should be made and copied to the parents promptly, specifying the grounds for concern and any reasons for concluding that provision is unsuitable. If the authority is not satisfied that efficient education is being provided, and the parents, having been given a reasonable opportunity to improve their provision and report back to the authority, have not done so, the authority should consider serving a School Attendance Order (see section 2.7).
Not sure.
3.11 is reasonable statement of the law. 3.12 does not specify that there is no ongoing duty for the local authority to monitor educational provision or for parents to provide information on ongoing basis. Is this discussion of forms "evidence" relating to an initial enquiry by the LA ? It is equally the case that information may NOT be in theose forms specified in 3.12. 3.13 There is nothing in law about what the LA may "reasonably expect" and this phrase should be replaced by a phrase such as "may find it useful to consider some of the following" . There is no need to specify a list of resources here because absence of any of these resources does not indicate that an efficient suitable fulltime education is not taking place. ."Consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers " may be a criterion for the Local Authority to bear in mind, but it is not derived from any statute on home education. The other items in the list are from the Scottish Guidance and it is misleading to itemise them here as though they were a checklist for education being "suitable", whereas in law education has to be suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of the child. 3.14 is not an accurate statement of the law. . The list in 3.13 is not a checklist and therefore absence of an item from the list cannot be declared to be grounds for concern.
We are not asked to comment on Section 3.15 Special Educational Needs. This section needs more input from experts in case law and experienced people in the field of SEN and Elective Home Education. The Home Education Advisor must have proper training in SEN. The statement of SEN for the home educated child may legally be ceased by the Local Authority and this is not mentioned in the draft Guidelines.
6/ Do you agree that the section on developing relationships ( section 4) is useful ?
Developing relationships
4.1 As noted in the Introduction to these guidelines, the central aim of this document is to assist local authorities and home educators to build effective relationships that function to safeguard the educational interests of children and young people; relationships that are rooted in mutual understanding, trust and respect. The guidelines outline a number of recommendations that are geared towards the promotion of such relationships.
4.2 Whilst there is no current legal obligation on education authorities or home educators to develop such relationships, doing so will often provide parents with access to any support that is available and allow authorities to better understand parents’ educational provision and preferences. A positive relationship will also provide a sound basis if the authority is required to investigate assertions from any source that an efficient and suitable education is not being provided. This will be true whether or not parents are required to demonstrate that suitable home-education provision is being made available.
Acknowledging diversity
4.3 Parents’ educational provision will reflect a diversity of approaches and interests. Some parents, especially those who have other children attending school, may wish to provide education in a formal and structured manner, following a traditional curriculum and using a fixed timetable that keeps to school hours and terms. Other parents may decide to make more informal provision that is responsive to the developing interests of their child. One approach is not necessarily any more efficient or effective than another. Although some parents may welcome general advice and suggestions about resources, methods and materials, LAs should not specify a curriculum which parents must follow.
4.4 Children learn in different ways and at different times and speeds. It should be appreciated that parents and their children might require a period of adjustment before finding their preferred mode of learning. Parents are not required to have any qualifications or training to provide their children with an appropriate education. Their commitment to providing an efficient education that is suitable for their child may be demonstrated by them providing some indication of their objectives and resources (see paragraphs 3.12 to 3.15).
Providing information for parents
4.5 The provision of clear information has an important role to play in the promotion of positive relationships. LAs should provide written information and website links for home-educating parents that is clear and accurate and which sets out the legal position, and roles and responsibilities, in an unambiguous way. We also recommend that contact details for home education support organisations should be provided. A selection of these is included in Part 5. All written information should be made available to parents in community languages and alternative formats on request.
4.6 As noted as paragraph 3.3 we recommend that LAs should, if the parents wish, provide parents who are, or who are considering, home-educating with a named contact within the authority who is familiar with home education policy and practice and has an understanding of a range of educational philosophies. If the authority has cause to invite the parents to meet with a named education authority, any such meeting should take place at a mutually acceptable location and the child concerned should also be given the opportunity to attend that meeting, or otherwise to express his or her views. Either during such a meeting, or otherwise, the parents and the authority should consider and agree what future contact there will be between them.
Contact with parents and children
4.7 Local authorities should acknowledge that learning takes place in a wide variety of environments and not only in the home. Some parents are happy for the local authority to have the opportunity to see the child in their learning environment, to enable them to see the provision at first hand. Seeing the child responding to the educational provision of the parents may provide a strong indication that an efficient and suitable education is indeed being provided. The authority does not, however, have a legal right of access to the home and the matter should not be forced.
4.8 Where a parent elects not to allow access to their home or their child, this does not of itself constitute a ground for concern about the education provision being made. Although it is recognised that the learning environment can have a bearing on the effectiveness of learning, LAs should, in the vast majority of cases, be able to discuss and evaluate the parents’ educational provision by alternative means. Parents might prefer, for example, to write a report, provide samples of work, have their educational provision endorsed by a third party (such as an independent home tutor) or provide evidence in some other appropriate form.
Child protection
4.9 The welfare and protection of all children, both those who attend school and those who are educated by other means, are of paramount concern and the responsibility of the whole community. As with school-educated children, child protection issues may arise in relation to home-educated children. If any child protection concerns come to light in the course of engagement with children and families, or otherwise, these concerns should immediately be referred to the appropriate authorities using established protocols.
4.10 Parents may choose to employ other people to educate their child, though they themselves will continue to be responsible for the education provided. They will also be responsible for ensuring that those whom they engage are suitable persons to have access to children. Parents will therefore wish to satisfy themselves by taking up appropriate references. A small number of LAs choose to assist home-educating parents in this task by undertaking Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks free of charge, for example, on independent home tutors. Tutors employed by an LA may also undertake work for home-educating parents, in which case, CRB checks ought to have been made already.
Reviewing policies and procedures
4.11 Authorities will wish to review all of their procedures and practices in relation to home education on a regular basis to see if improvements can be made to further develop relationships and meet the needs of children and parents. Home education organisations and home-educating parents should be involved in this process of review. Effective reviews, together with the sensitive handling of any complaints, will help to secure effective partnership.
4.12 Local authorities will also wish to bear in mind that Ofsted will report on the way local authorities cater for home-educating families within their areas.
Answer :
Not sure
Comments :
Section 4.1 should be in the introduction or should be removed. . The second sentence in 4.2. should be removed. 4.3 Should read : "Parents' educational provision will reflect a diversity of approaches and interests. The education provided at home must be suitable to the child's age ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he may have. " The rest of 4.3. is speculative misleading and unnecessary. . It would be possible to retain the sentence "Some parents may welcome general advice and suggestions about resources, methods and materials"as long as it is made clear that the ultimate legal responsibility for decisions about educational provision rest with the family and are based on the family's philosophical convictions. The Local Authority currently has no funding to support any "suggestions." 4.4.refers to paragraphs 3.12 -3.15 which formed the basis for a previous question in the consultation and confirms our fear that the list in paragraph 3.13 WILL be used as a checklist to determine whether education is "suitable" , whereas in law education has to be suitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude. 4.5. is helpful.There should be something about a complaint procedure and how you can resolve problems with officers in the authority. 4.6 the designated home education person must have proper training in Elective Home Education, as must anyone from the authority who answers enquiries on the subject from the general public or the media. 4.6 The last sentence is misleading since there is no obligation in law for ongoing monitoring, so the sentence about "future contact" should be taken out. 4.7 Most of this is misleading and could support prejudice. It doesn't state the law. The first sentence repeats what has been said elsewhere and the rest should be taken out. The same is true of 4.8., it is unhelpful to discriminate between better and worse forms of "evidence". 4.9 The person who is responsible for home education at the local authority should have training in Safeguarding Children procedures established following the 2004 Children Act. 4.10 The last sentence could be kept but the rest should be taken out since the local authority has no legal responsibility in this area of home education so it is misleading to retain it . . 4.11 we agree with 4.11 and it should be made stronger to include reference to the 2004 Children Act and the fact that parents and families are stakeholders and partners in any decision-making processes which affect them. 4.12 With reference to Ofsted how would home educators feed into any Ofsted customer satisfaction process if they were to rate their local authority ?
The remainder of the questions are :
7a . Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful ?
7b . Should any other contacts be included ?
and "Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidance".
We have included some draft responses which we hope you will find helpful when making your own individual response to the consultation. Please forward this freely to local groups and consider making your response as soon as possible since we are informed that the DfES Consultation Unit are collating all the responses as soon as they are received.
We are aware that Local Authorities are already making their views known to the DfES both separately and collectively on a regional basis so please don't wait till the deadline approaches before you make your individual response . The pro-monitoring local authority view is already being heard LOUD AND CLEAR at the DfES.
Another useful thing you can do is to make a response on behalf of your local group because we can respond once as parents and again as members of the voluntary and community sector.
The questions on the consultation response form ask you to comment on various paragraphs in the draft guidelines . Ideally you would have a hard copy of the draft Guidelines for reference, either by printing out a copy from the link on the website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Elective%20Home%20Education%20Guidelines%201.doc
Or by keeping a second window open as you answer the questions
Or by requesting a paper copy of the Guidelines from the Department’s distribution centre Prolog on 0845 6022260 quoting the publication reference number 1479 CONSULTATION ON HOME EDUCATION GUIDELINES LAUNCHED 8 MAY.
In addition we have reproduced the relevant paragraphs from the Guidelines below.
But it is worth getting a look at the complete Guidelines because the Consultation misses out questions on some paragraphs eg there are no Consultation questions on the SEN paragraphs and you can make comments on that fact in your Consultation response. The EO Campaign website has a page of useful links on SEN [http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sen.htm ]
Some home educators have already produced draft responses and general comments on the Guidelines Consultation . You can find links to these from the EO Campaign website LATEST page Saturday 9 June http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/update.htm and they are also reproduced here :
http://www.freewebs.com/hedline/HEdline%20News%204.pdf
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/consultation-on-elective-home-education.html ( and further updates from this blog )
http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/Government_consultation_launched.doc
PLEASE USE YOUR OWN WORDS WHEN YOU REPLY TO THE CONSULTATION. THE FOLLOWING ARE ONLY SUGGESTIONS. OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY WEAKENED IF EVERYONE USES THE SAME FORM OF WORDS.
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conRespond.cfm?consultationId=1479 Respond online or download paper copies of the consultation http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Consultation%20on%20Home%20Education%20Guidelines%20Response%20Form.doc
1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?
Not sure.
There was a need for clarification. I hope the consultation process will improve the guidelines and make it clearer what the local authority should and should not be doing . The draft guidelines are quite out of date ( eg no reference to the Children Act 2004 and out of date reference to the Guidance on deregistering. ) It is good that we are seeing a full public consultation on the draft Guidelines . I am pleased that the draft Guidelines acknowledge the legal right of the family to choose home education. The draft Guidelines don't include any complaints or grievance procedure. It does not seem as though the Guidelines will be legally enforceable, which makes me wonder whether it will really make a difference to my Local Authority.
2. . Do you agree that the description of the law [ paragraphs 2.1-2.3 ] relating to elective home education is accurate and clear.
2.1 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. In England, education is compulsory, but schooling is not.
2.2 Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
This right is enshrined in English law. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
2.3 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. An “efficient” and “suitable” education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but “efficient” has been broadly described as an education that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”, and a “suitable” education is one that “primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.
Not sure.
Comments :
The Guidelines should give a direct link to Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act because this is the statute law referring to home education. : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96056--a.htm
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive an efficient full time education suitable :
a/ to his age, ability and aptitude and
b/ to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise "
The right of parents to educate their children according to their own philosophical convictions is also stated in the British Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm
This section could do with a much better introduction to the whole area of Elective Home Education for professionals who may be new to this area. This job is done by a few Local Authorities such as Staffordshire on their Home Education Website http://education.staffordshire.gov.uk/Curriculum/Services/HomeEducation/
http://education.staffordshire.gov.uk/Curriculum/Services/HomeEducation/FAQs/
Statute law does not define "efficient" "suitable" "full-time" or "education", although we have some clarification from the case law on education which is quoted in the draft Guidelines. The point about home education is that the education has to be suitable to the home educated child's age ability and aptitude. It is personalised learning. and school standards do not apply. Nor is there any obligation for the home educated child or young person to follow a broad and balanced curriculum since this legal requirement .only applies to registered pupils in the maintained sector. ( Introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880040_en_2.htm#mdiv1 )
3/ Do you agree that the description of local authorities' responsibilities [ paragraphs 2.5-2.11 ] is accurate and helpful ?
Local authorities’ responsibilities
2.5 Local authorities should provide written information about home education that is clear, accurate and sets out the legal position, roles and responsibilities. This information should be made available on local authority websites and in local community languages on request. Local authorities should recognise that there are many approaches to educational provision, not just a “school at home” model. What is suitable for one child may not be for another, but all children should make reasonable progress.
2.6 Local authorities have a new duty under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to identify, as far as is possible, children who are missing, or in danger of missing, education. The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example, at home, privately, or in alternative provision). The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home.
2.7 Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis. However, under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities can intervene if they have good reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education. This section states that:
“If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.”
Section 437(2) of the Act provides that the period shall not be less than 15 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
2.8 The most obvious course of action if such a concern were raised would be to ask parents for information about the education they are providing. Such a request is not the same as a notice under s 437(1). Parents are under no duty to comply, but it would be sensible for them to do so.
2.9 Section 437(3) refers to the serving of School Attendance Orders:
“If –
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education, and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school,
the authority shall serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a "school attendance order"), in such form as may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in the order.”
2.10 A School Attendance Order should be served as a last resort, after all reasonable steps have been taken to try to resolve the situation. At any stage following the issue of the Order, parents may present evidence to the local authority, or the court, that they are now providing an appropriate education and apply to have the Order revoked. It will be for a court to decide whether or not the education being provided is suitable and efficient. Detailed information about School Attendance Orders is contained in Ensuring Regular School Attendance paragraphs 6 to 16,.
2.11 Local authorities also have a duty under Section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This section states:
“A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred upon them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.”
Section 175(1) does not extend local authorities’ functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities powers to enter the homes of, or otherwise see, children for the purposes of monitoring the provision of elective home education. "
Answer :
NO
Comments :
There is no requirement in law for the child or young person to make "reasonable progress" and this sentence should be removed.. The law with regard to home education states that it must be suitable to the age ability and aptitude of the child and to any special educational needs he may have. By law the educational provision for a child at home will be suitable to the child and will be in accordance with the parents' philosophical convictions. There is no legal requirement for the local authority to engage in continual or ongoing monitoring of a family's home education provision and any DfES Guidelines for Local Authorities should make this quite clear. Section 437 of the 1996 Education Act which is quoted in this part of the draft Guidelines sets out the end of the road for the Local Authority and as such it has no place here in a discussion of the ordinary responsibilities of the local authority. This information should be included in the Guidelines but this is not the appropriate place to include this. It would be better if this went to the end of the Guidelines in a reference section for local authorities. Section 2.11 is out of date since the local authority will have regard to the more recent legislation contained in the 2004 Children Act with reference to Safeguarding Children. It is however true that neither S.175 ( 1) of the 2002 Act or the 2004 Act give any additional powers to the local authority to enter the private homes of home educating families for the purpose of monitoring the educational provision. Nor does the 2004 Act give additional powers to the local authority in terms of access to the home educated child.
4/ Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority [ paragraphs 3.4 -3.7 ] is accurate and helpful ?
Contact with the local authority
3.4 Many home educating parents welcome regular contact with the local authority as an opportunity to reaffirm their provision. However, where parents do not want any involvement with the local authority, the LA should not automatically assume that there is a problem which needs investigating. Instead, the LA should take a risk-based approach, taking into consideration the individual and community’s circumstances. As one example, recent research shows that “few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable”. We do know that there will be Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children who do receive a good education at home. Those monitoring elective home education should seek advice from Traveller Education Support Services before engaging with parents from these communities
3.5 If information exists which may cast doubt on whether an “efficient and suitable education” can be provided, the local authority should seek to gather any relevant information that will assist them in reaching a properly informed judgement. This should include seeking from the parents any further information that they wish to provide explaining how they are providing a suitable education. Parents should be given the opportunity to address any specific concerns that the authority has. The child should also be given the opportunity, but not required, to attend any meeting that may be arranged or express his or her views in some other way.
3.6 If there are any reasonable concerns, a local authority may wish to contact parents to discuss their ongoing home education provision. Contact should normally be made by writing to the parents to request an updated report or seek a meeting. A written report should be made after such contact and copied to the parents stating whether the authority has any concerns about the education provision. Where there are concerns about the efficiency or suitability of the education being provided for the child, more frequent contact may be required. Where concerns merit frequent contact, the authority should discuss these concerns with the child’s parents, with a view to helping them improve their provision in the best interests of the child.
3.7 Many parents welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision that they are making for the child’s education during a home visit but parents are not legally required to give the local authority access to their home. They may, choose to meet a local authority representative at a mutually convenient and neutral location instead or choose not to meet at all. If they choose not to meet, they will need to provide evidence that they are providing an efficient and suitable education. Parents might, for example:
· write a report;
· provide samples of work;
· invite a local authority advisor/consultant to their home, with or without the child being present; or
· meet a local authority advisor/consultant elsewhere, with or without the child.
3.6
3.7 Answer :
3.8 No.
Comments :
3.4 Gives the impression that regular contact is approved .This should be removed. It is irrelevant and misleading. Ethnic minorities who home educate have the same rights and responsibilities in law as any other home educators and therefore 3.4 on the GRT community is irrelevant and should be removed. The Lead Professional for GRT home educating families, as with any other home educating families, is the Elective Home Education Advisor. The Traveller Education Service deals with inclusion and not with Elective Home Education. Section 3.5 is unclear and prejudicial since it says : "If information exists which may cast doubt on whether an “efficient and suitable education” can be provided". This seems to cast doubt on certain types of parents and their ability to provide education. 3.6 There can be no legal definition of "reasonable concerns" or "concerns" . This can only ever be a subjective judgement and should be amended to "serious concerns about educational provision " and these serious concerns must be justified by evidence. Moreover the local authority has no responsibility in law to engage in ongoing monitoring of elective home education provision. Nor is there any local authority funding available to "support" home educating families. 3.7 is not a fair and accurate statement of the law. Some local authorities may press for this but it is not a legal requirement. It is irrelevant anecdotal evidence to say that this is welcomed by parents. This is not a statement of the law.
5/ Do you agree that the section on providing a full time education [ paragraphs 3.11 -3.14 ] and in particular, the characteristics of provision [ paragraph 3.13 ] is accurate and helpful ?
3.11 Parents are required to provide an efficient education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. There is currently no legal definition of “full-time”. Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 39 weeks of the year, but this measurement of ‘contact time’ is not relevant to home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal ‘school hours’. The type of educational activity can be varied and flexible. Home-educating parents are not required to:
· teach the National Curriculum
· have a timetable
· have premises equipped to any particular standard
· set hours during which education will take place
· have any specific qualifications
· make detailed plans in advance
· observe school hours, days or terms
· give formal lessons
· reproduce school type peer group socialisation
· match school, age-specific standards.
However, local authorities should offer advice and support to parents on these matters if requested.
3.12 It is important to recognise that there are many, equally valid, approaches to educational provision. Local authorities should therefore consider a wide range of information from home educating parents, in a range of formats. The information may be in the form of specific examples of learning e.g. pictures/paintings/models, diaries of work, projects, assessments, samples of work, books, educational visits etc.
3.13 In their consideration of parents’ provision of education at home, local authorities may reasonably expect the provision to include the following characteristics:
· consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers – it is expected that parents or significant carers would play a substantial role, although not necessarily constantly or actively involved in providing education
· recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations
· opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences
· access to resources/materials required to provide home education for the child – such as paper and pens, books and libraries, arts and crafts materials, physical activity, ICT and the opportunity for appropriate interaction with other children and other adults.
3.14 If, on considering the educational provision, one or more of the above characteristics appear to be lacking, local authorities may choose to further investigate whether or not an efficient and suitable education is, in fact, being provided. A full written report of the findings should be made and copied to the parents promptly, specifying the grounds for concern and any reasons for concluding that provision is unsuitable. If the authority is not satisfied that efficient education is being provided, and the parents, having been given a reasonable opportunity to improve their provision and report back to the authority, have not done so, the authority should consider serving a School Attendance Order (see section 2.7).
Not sure.
3.11 is reasonable statement of the law. 3.12 does not specify that there is no ongoing duty for the local authority to monitor educational provision or for parents to provide information on ongoing basis. Is this discussion of forms "evidence" relating to an initial enquiry by the LA ? It is equally the case that information may NOT be in theose forms specified in 3.12. 3.13 There is nothing in law about what the LA may "reasonably expect" and this phrase should be replaced by a phrase such as "may find it useful to consider some of the following" . There is no need to specify a list of resources here because absence of any of these resources does not indicate that an efficient suitable fulltime education is not taking place. ."Consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers " may be a criterion for the Local Authority to bear in mind, but it is not derived from any statute on home education. The other items in the list are from the Scottish Guidance and it is misleading to itemise them here as though they were a checklist for education being "suitable", whereas in law education has to be suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of the child. 3.14 is not an accurate statement of the law. . The list in 3.13 is not a checklist and therefore absence of an item from the list cannot be declared to be grounds for concern.
We are not asked to comment on Section 3.15 Special Educational Needs. This section needs more input from experts in case law and experienced people in the field of SEN and Elective Home Education. The Home Education Advisor must have proper training in SEN. The statement of SEN for the home educated child may legally be ceased by the Local Authority and this is not mentioned in the draft Guidelines.
6/ Do you agree that the section on developing relationships ( section 4) is useful ?
Developing relationships
4.1 As noted in the Introduction to these guidelines, the central aim of this document is to assist local authorities and home educators to build effective relationships that function to safeguard the educational interests of children and young people; relationships that are rooted in mutual understanding, trust and respect. The guidelines outline a number of recommendations that are geared towards the promotion of such relationships.
4.2 Whilst there is no current legal obligation on education authorities or home educators to develop such relationships, doing so will often provide parents with access to any support that is available and allow authorities to better understand parents’ educational provision and preferences. A positive relationship will also provide a sound basis if the authority is required to investigate assertions from any source that an efficient and suitable education is not being provided. This will be true whether or not parents are required to demonstrate that suitable home-education provision is being made available.
Acknowledging diversity
4.3 Parents’ educational provision will reflect a diversity of approaches and interests. Some parents, especially those who have other children attending school, may wish to provide education in a formal and structured manner, following a traditional curriculum and using a fixed timetable that keeps to school hours and terms. Other parents may decide to make more informal provision that is responsive to the developing interests of their child. One approach is not necessarily any more efficient or effective than another. Although some parents may welcome general advice and suggestions about resources, methods and materials, LAs should not specify a curriculum which parents must follow.
4.4 Children learn in different ways and at different times and speeds. It should be appreciated that parents and their children might require a period of adjustment before finding their preferred mode of learning. Parents are not required to have any qualifications or training to provide their children with an appropriate education. Their commitment to providing an efficient education that is suitable for their child may be demonstrated by them providing some indication of their objectives and resources (see paragraphs 3.12 to 3.15).
Providing information for parents
4.5 The provision of clear information has an important role to play in the promotion of positive relationships. LAs should provide written information and website links for home-educating parents that is clear and accurate and which sets out the legal position, and roles and responsibilities, in an unambiguous way. We also recommend that contact details for home education support organisations should be provided. A selection of these is included in Part 5. All written information should be made available to parents in community languages and alternative formats on request.
4.6 As noted as paragraph 3.3 we recommend that LAs should, if the parents wish, provide parents who are, or who are considering, home-educating with a named contact within the authority who is familiar with home education policy and practice and has an understanding of a range of educational philosophies. If the authority has cause to invite the parents to meet with a named education authority, any such meeting should take place at a mutually acceptable location and the child concerned should also be given the opportunity to attend that meeting, or otherwise to express his or her views. Either during such a meeting, or otherwise, the parents and the authority should consider and agree what future contact there will be between them.
Contact with parents and children
4.7 Local authorities should acknowledge that learning takes place in a wide variety of environments and not only in the home. Some parents are happy for the local authority to have the opportunity to see the child in their learning environment, to enable them to see the provision at first hand. Seeing the child responding to the educational provision of the parents may provide a strong indication that an efficient and suitable education is indeed being provided. The authority does not, however, have a legal right of access to the home and the matter should not be forced.
4.8 Where a parent elects not to allow access to their home or their child, this does not of itself constitute a ground for concern about the education provision being made. Although it is recognised that the learning environment can have a bearing on the effectiveness of learning, LAs should, in the vast majority of cases, be able to discuss and evaluate the parents’ educational provision by alternative means. Parents might prefer, for example, to write a report, provide samples of work, have their educational provision endorsed by a third party (such as an independent home tutor) or provide evidence in some other appropriate form.
Child protection
4.9 The welfare and protection of all children, both those who attend school and those who are educated by other means, are of paramount concern and the responsibility of the whole community. As with school-educated children, child protection issues may arise in relation to home-educated children. If any child protection concerns come to light in the course of engagement with children and families, or otherwise, these concerns should immediately be referred to the appropriate authorities using established protocols.
4.10 Parents may choose to employ other people to educate their child, though they themselves will continue to be responsible for the education provided. They will also be responsible for ensuring that those whom they engage are suitable persons to have access to children. Parents will therefore wish to satisfy themselves by taking up appropriate references. A small number of LAs choose to assist home-educating parents in this task by undertaking Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks free of charge, for example, on independent home tutors. Tutors employed by an LA may also undertake work for home-educating parents, in which case, CRB checks ought to have been made already.
Reviewing policies and procedures
4.11 Authorities will wish to review all of their procedures and practices in relation to home education on a regular basis to see if improvements can be made to further develop relationships and meet the needs of children and parents. Home education organisations and home-educating parents should be involved in this process of review. Effective reviews, together with the sensitive handling of any complaints, will help to secure effective partnership.
4.12 Local authorities will also wish to bear in mind that Ofsted will report on the way local authorities cater for home-educating families within their areas.
Answer :
Not sure
Comments :
Section 4.1 should be in the introduction or should be removed. . The second sentence in 4.2. should be removed. 4.3 Should read : "Parents' educational provision will reflect a diversity of approaches and interests. The education provided at home must be suitable to the child's age ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he may have. " The rest of 4.3. is speculative misleading and unnecessary. . It would be possible to retain the sentence "Some parents may welcome general advice and suggestions about resources, methods and materials"as long as it is made clear that the ultimate legal responsibility for decisions about educational provision rest with the family and are based on the family's philosophical convictions. The Local Authority currently has no funding to support any "suggestions." 4.4.refers to paragraphs 3.12 -3.15 which formed the basis for a previous question in the consultation and confirms our fear that the list in paragraph 3.13 WILL be used as a checklist to determine whether education is "suitable" , whereas in law education has to be suitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude. 4.5. is helpful.There should be something about a complaint procedure and how you can resolve problems with officers in the authority. 4.6 the designated home education person must have proper training in Elective Home Education, as must anyone from the authority who answers enquiries on the subject from the general public or the media. 4.6 The last sentence is misleading since there is no obligation in law for ongoing monitoring, so the sentence about "future contact" should be taken out. 4.7 Most of this is misleading and could support prejudice. It doesn't state the law. The first sentence repeats what has been said elsewhere and the rest should be taken out. The same is true of 4.8., it is unhelpful to discriminate between better and worse forms of "evidence". 4.9 The person who is responsible for home education at the local authority should have training in Safeguarding Children procedures established following the 2004 Children Act. 4.10 The last sentence could be kept but the rest should be taken out since the local authority has no legal responsibility in this area of home education so it is misleading to retain it . . 4.11 we agree with 4.11 and it should be made stronger to include reference to the 2004 Children Act and the fact that parents and families are stakeholders and partners in any decision-making processes which affect them. 4.12 With reference to Ofsted how would home educators feed into any Ofsted customer satisfaction process if they were to rate their local authority ?
The remainder of the questions are :
7a . Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful ?
7b . Should any other contacts be included ?
and "Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidance".
Homeschooling Fund Manager
It seems it isn't just Runescape that can teach you the basic principles of the market place. This stock-dealing home schooler started out with Neopets instead.
EO on Responding to the Consultation on Proposed Guidelines
Education Otherwise have the following to say on getting those responses in now:
"We must not think that the threat to our freedoms has gone away. These Guidelines are only a DRAFT and if local authorities use the consultation process to make demands for tighter controls and stricter monitoring then this needs to be counter-balanced by a strong assertive response from the home education community. Local authorities are ALREADY responding individually and regionally to the Guidelines Consultation and in some cases they are making it quite clear that they are not happy about the draft Guidelines. If the home education response is muted then this LA view will prevail.
EO Government Policy Group will be making a comprehensive response on behalf of EO but this will not be submitted until the deadline and in the meantime we need hundreds of individual responses making the legal case for the rights of home educating families. . We have put together some draft responses [ hyperlink ] which you could use as a springboard for your own reply but it is very important to put your own views in your own words If everyone replies using the same form of words then this will only count as one response. Consider giving examples from your own experience wherever possible. The DfES needs to be convinced that hundreds and hundreds of home educating families would be up in arms about any changes to monitoring and they need to be convinced that good clear fair Guidelines are The Way Forward.
Please act now ! "
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Tory Party View of HE
...via Action for Home Education, we hear that the shadow DfES team
"...believe that parents should be free to choose the best education for their children, including home education, and that the Government should make sure that all the options are able to work properly. "
Yup, given that they are positioning themselves as the party of personal/parental/civic (rather than state) responsibility, HE should make sense to them. They also don't go for compulsory education beyond the age of 16. Scroll to the bottom of the wiki page to read the letter in full.
"...believe that parents should be free to choose the best education for their children, including home education, and that the Government should make sure that all the options are able to work properly. "
Yup, given that they are positioning themselves as the party of personal/parental/civic (rather than state) responsibility, HE should make sense to them. They also don't go for compulsory education beyond the age of 16. Scroll to the bottom of the wiki page to read the letter in full.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
DfES NOT Suitably Educated
What an unholy mess this one is. One can only conclude that people in the DfES who really should know better, haven't got a clue about their own laws. No wonder Local Authorities get so confused. Take this, by way of an example:
"Question: Why should LEAs have to monitor home education?
Answer: LEAs monitor home education to ensure that children are receiving a suitable education. Some of our European colleagues have adopted more robust strategies than ours. For instance in Norway the local school government must have supervision of home schooling. In Holland parents choosing to educate their children at home are forced to seek exemption from the education law. The situation in Scotland is different from England but similar to Holland."
Real answer: LEAs do not have to monitor home education to ensure that children are receiving a suitable education, since this remains the duty of the parent. LAs only have a duty to intervene if it appears on balance of probabilities that a suitable education is not taking place. What is more robust about having a frequently failing system that is essentially very different and frequently fails to understand the methods it is supposed to inspect, monitor what could otherwise be a thriving form of education? De-registration in Holland does not resemble the situation in Scotland in any meaningful way. In Holland, families wishing to HE must get an exemption from school registration for deeply held religious or philosophical reasons. This exemption is very difficult to achieve since the actually law insists that children be schooled. Home education is a perfectly legal option in Scotland, and although consent to deregister from school must be sought, the Scottish Statutory Guidance states that if there is no existing evidence indicating good reason for refusing consent, that consent can be granted immediately.
"Question: Who decides what is suitable education?
Answer: LEAs decide what is suitable education out of school for a particular child, in consultation with parents and in line with their own policies."
Real answer: LEAs don't have any duty to monitor elective home education for suitability. Parents are responsible for ensuring that a child receives a suitable education. LEAs only have a role to intervene in any way if it appears that a child may not be in receipt of a suitable education.
"Question: What is suitable education out-of-school?
Answer: “Suitable” education is defined as “efficient education suitable to the age, ability, aptitude and to any special educational needs the child (or young person) may have”. Suitable Full Time education does include contact time and, as appropriate activities like breakfast clubs where there is structured interaction."
Real answer, ok, so it's a question. Where in statute does it say anything about contact time? This is news to me at least.
"Question: Can a statemented child be home educated?
Answer: Yes, however, where a child has a statement of special educational needs and is home-educated, it remains the LEA’s duty to ensure that the child’s needs are met. The statement must remain in force and the LEA must ensure that parents can make suitable provision, including provision for the child’s SEN. If the parent’s arrangements are suitable, the LEA is relieved of its duty to arrange the provision specified in the statement. "
Real answer: It is not the case that a statement of Special Educational Need (SEN) must remain in force in the situation that a child is EHE. It is actually the case that HEing parents may choose to ask for the statement to be ceased, and LAs should not unreasonably refuse to do this. Parents should not be required to make the provision specified in the statement, since these provisions were specified for a school environment and may well be inappropriate for the home setting.
"Question: I want to educate my child at home who is registered at school, what do I do?
Answer: You must inform the school formally and in writing of your intention to de-register your child. The school shall delete the child’s name from their register upon receipt of the written notification, and make a return (giving the child’s name and address) to the LEA within 10 school days of removal."
Real answer: Under the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulation 8, 2006, the return must be made as soon as the school becomes aware of the notification of deregistration.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Why Individual HEors Should be Getting Those Responses in NOW
Ok, peeps, stay with me on this one! I do know how boring I've become on this issue, and I also personally know how very easy it is to get complacent with regard to the proposed Elective Home Education Guidelines. You know, they don't look so bad - they at least read as if they could be used to maintain the status quo, even if they won't actively ensure against bad practice by LAs. So generally, phew, we can sit back, make another tea, (yes, my de-caffination regime isn't going so well), pat ourselves on the back and not worry too much. After all, it might be a terrible chore to have to respond, since it would probably take quite a bit of a nuanced argument to improve upon the guidelines as they currently stand.
The thing is, I do think it would be worth putting our responses in soon, (well before the 31st July deadline), not least because there is good reason to believe, (from a number of sources), that LAs are doing just that, and that rather unsurprisingly, their responses are frequently very negative about the proposed guidelines. It is after all, pretty easy just to tick NO, NO, NO to a load of boxes, and then put in a complete counter-argument in the comments section. Problem with this is that these kind of responses are the ones that are currently informing the DfES.
The other problem we have is that in responding to the guidelines, rather than responding to the LA's responses, we risk not putting up the counter-arguments to the LA's possible proposals to the DfES, so for example, the DfES may be hearing that all HE children should be reaching such and such a standard by such and such an age and doing this or that curriculum. The DfES may never get to hear or understand why such measures would be so counter-productive for many HE families and may well end up thinking "Oh, what a good idea, let all HE children be reading book 14 of the Oxford Reading Tree by the time they're six."
So, my thinking is this: let's get those responses in now. They don't have to be perfect or represent anyone's views other than your own. Indeed, it would probably help if you were to personalise it by telling the DfES how HE has suited your children, or how you have suffered mistreatment at the hands of LAs and how you need the guidelines to protect against this mistreatment, or indeed, how your children would suffer if the guidelines were made more stringent. Or if your LA is exemplary, tell the DfES about it. Let them have that model of good practice. Show them that this is possible and that other LAs could conform to this model to the benefit of everyone.
Let's make the reality and success of the personalised learning that is HE vivid to them there at the top and the sooner the better.
The thing is, I do think it would be worth putting our responses in soon, (well before the 31st July deadline), not least because there is good reason to believe, (from a number of sources), that LAs are doing just that, and that rather unsurprisingly, their responses are frequently very negative about the proposed guidelines. It is after all, pretty easy just to tick NO, NO, NO to a load of boxes, and then put in a complete counter-argument in the comments section. Problem with this is that these kind of responses are the ones that are currently informing the DfES.
The other problem we have is that in responding to the guidelines, rather than responding to the LA's responses, we risk not putting up the counter-arguments to the LA's possible proposals to the DfES, so for example, the DfES may be hearing that all HE children should be reaching such and such a standard by such and such an age and doing this or that curriculum. The DfES may never get to hear or understand why such measures would be so counter-productive for many HE families and may well end up thinking "Oh, what a good idea, let all HE children be reading book 14 of the Oxford Reading Tree by the time they're six."
So, my thinking is this: let's get those responses in now. They don't have to be perfect or represent anyone's views other than your own. Indeed, it would probably help if you were to personalise it by telling the DfES how HE has suited your children, or how you have suffered mistreatment at the hands of LAs and how you need the guidelines to protect against this mistreatment, or indeed, how your children would suffer if the guidelines were made more stringent. Or if your LA is exemplary, tell the DfES about it. Let them have that model of good practice. Show them that this is possible and that other LAs could conform to this model to the benefit of everyone.
Let's make the reality and success of the personalised learning that is HE vivid to them there at the top and the sooner the better.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
A Sad Day for the HE Community
Sarah and family are moving to New Zealand. We wish them every happiness and will be keeping an eye on their musical progress here.
The New Revolution: Children's Rights
Looks to me as if Action for the Rights of Children should be talking to Andrew Sullivan about getting the word out.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Bee Garden
Dd and I are feeling rather like Alfred Russell Wallace (whose monument we chanced upon in Usk the other day), or Ernest Duchesne in that we had spent a couple of hours with our noses buried in our bee garden, taking notes as to which flowers the bees preferred. We hadn't actually collated the numbers or drawn any conclusions, but we were darn close to doing this, when what should happen but we wake the next day to hear first thing on the BBC news...BEES PREFER PURPLE FLOWERS.
It now emerges that we could have told them that. Can we have an enormous research grant please?
Bee Garden
I love this patch of the garden so much. Credit is due to Dh for sticking with the idea when I had most definitely lost the faith! All native plants, blue/pink/ purple crane's bills, fox gloves, forget-me-nots, clovers, poppies, hedge wort, dead nettles, spurges, buttercups, dandelions, shepherds purse, vetch, cornflower, scabius, fumaria and a yellow one whose name I've forgotten, but I think it's a member of the cabbage family.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Dr Phil Baffled by Unschooling
If you can cope with a stream of fatuous remarks, you can see how a couple stoically attempted to deal with Dr Phil's misperceptions about unschooling here.
Now What With Contactpoint?
Here's Blogdial's take on Contactpoint, aka: The Information Sharing Index/Children's Database:
"Parents have the absolute right to care for their children in the way that they see fit. By saying that the parent does not have the right to opt their children out, the state is taking on the role of the parent in saying what is and is not of benefit to the child which is totally unacceptable to any decent person. They are making the children of the UK into property."
The rest of the piece is well worth a read for other eminently sensible views on the matter.
And now with the database coming to a place near you in the very near future, could it finally be the moment to be digging in our heels? Perhaps we should all be asking to see the details contained within the database? Checking and quite probably asking for all the errors in it to be corrected, well this might at last give the lie to all those claims that a database will make information-sharing and detection of children at risk so much easier.
"Parents have the absolute right to care for their children in the way that they see fit. By saying that the parent does not have the right to opt their children out, the state is taking on the role of the parent in saying what is and is not of benefit to the child which is totally unacceptable to any decent person. They are making the children of the UK into property."
The rest of the piece is well worth a read for other eminently sensible views on the matter.
And now with the database coming to a place near you in the very near future, could it finally be the moment to be digging in our heels? Perhaps we should all be asking to see the details contained within the database? Checking and quite probably asking for all the errors in it to be corrected, well this might at last give the lie to all those claims that a database will make information-sharing and detection of children at risk so much easier.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Being home-educated didn't do me any harm - look at me now!
A group for young people who have been home educated and who are now in further education can be found through the search facility in Facebook. Registration may be required...not sure if it is my cookies helping me out!
Sunday, June 17, 2007
More on Raising School Age and Diplomas
Jonathan Dimbleby hosts a panel-led studio debate on the raising of the school leaving age in which Jim Knight (Schools Minister) implies that there will most likely be a re-writing of Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act in order that it be made clear that young people (aged 16 - 18), rather than their parents, will be responsible for their education; this even though government appears to want to dictate not only that they must do it, but also what form it should take.
Yup, apparently being responsible for something doesn't mean that one is actually responsible for any significant, life-altering decision-making, such as whether or not one wants to be a youthful entrepreneur, or researcher in an entirely new field, or an apprentice who would rather learn entirely on the job rather than periodically in a college. Being responsible means doing exactly what you are told, within a certain limited range of options.
The debate on school leaving ages is followed by an extended discussion on the proposed diplomas which are due to be introduced from 2008.
HT: Aspie Home Education
Yup, apparently being responsible for something doesn't mean that one is actually responsible for any significant, life-altering decision-making, such as whether or not one wants to be a youthful entrepreneur, or researcher in an entirely new field, or an apprentice who would rather learn entirely on the job rather than periodically in a college. Being responsible means doing exactly what you are told, within a certain limited range of options.
The debate on school leaving ages is followed by an extended discussion on the proposed diplomas which are due to be introduced from 2008.
HT: Aspie Home Education
Open Society's Enemy
Blogdial is on fine form in his response to Blair's oblique attack on bloggers. What next, it makes one wonder? A Google Thames Barrier?
Could This Be Why France is Doing So Badly?
From what we saw in France, I would say this article about parenting style is just about right. The level of violence towards children from their parents was quite shocking.
Hmm...and guess which country in Europe is on a determined run for the bottom of the pile!
Hmm...and guess which country in Europe is on a determined run for the bottom of the pile!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Deadline Tomorrow, Thursday 14th June
Below a response to the Raising Expections Consultation.
Please do use and adapt for more responses.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Consultation Questions
Chapter 2: The benefits of requiring participation
1. Do you agree that there is a case for introducing compulsory participation to age 18?
No.
Compulsion is a very poor substitute for genuine engagement in education. Learners who are compelled to be involved in education at this stage are very likely to be demotivated, disenchanted, even rebellious and we therefore question the assumption that the best way to have a trained workforce is to force compulsory education onto teenagers.
A better solution would be to remove the barriers to education and training for people both under and over the age of 25, to provide attractive educational options for all, to broaden access to and state funding for tertiary education with a view to including those who already have work experience. We suggest that this would better solve the problem of the skills shortages as identified in the Leitch Report, since the learners involved in education that is freely chosen are more likely to be motivated to learn, and often, as in the case of those who return to train after working, will have a clear idea of the skills they require.
There is a flawed analogy with the previous raising of the school leaving age to the end of the Summer term after the young person's 16h birthday in 1998. This affected relatively few young people for a few months, not the whole youth population for two years. The Secretary of State for Education cites this to the Education Select Committee in April 2007 as the main source of evidence for the benefits of raising the leaving but as the authors or the report themselves point out point out, there was a complex interplay of factors here to do with the age of pupils relative to their classmates as well as the fact that the young people who previously left before final examinations were now staying on a few months to take the exams and get some form of qualification.
In addition the comparison with the school leaving age in other European countries is flawed since there are many other differences between the English education system and those in Europe, not least that we begin formal learning in this country earlier than anywhere else. Why not look at raising the school entry age rather than the school leaving age?
- - - - - - - -
Chapter 3: A new requirement to participate
In paragraphs 3.2 – 3.10 we set out our central proposal for a requirement to participate.
2. Do you agree that participation should include participation in school, college, work-based learning and accredited training provided by an employer?
No.
Participation must not be compulsory. Funding for training and education opportunities must not be dependent on attendance at an institution or on the acquisition of certain narrow qualifications. This is rigid and inflexible and ignores the wide variety of educational opportunities to be found in employment. (freelance or as an employee), voluntary work and in self-directed learning. We are concerned that the proposals will discriminate heavily against home-based education and also forestall the many flexible and creative approaches to education which we already see in our home educated young people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Do you agree that the requirement should include a requirement to work towards accredited qualifications?
No.
No because this is inflexible and inappropriate. There are many cases where this would not be the best use of a young person's time, for example for those people working in their own business, who could rightfully be said to be learning all the time, without any accreditation of their learning. Instead more consideration should be given towards supporting the young person to complete a portfolio of work, which would be of far greater benefit in terms of pursuing their interests towards a career. In many areas, qualifications are out-of-date by the time they achieve ratification or accreditation.
It is also unclear how people with unusual learning styles will be catered for in this system. Far too many children with special educational needs are being failed by the inability of the schooling system to cater for their needs. It is not clear how increasing the age of compulsory education and requiring all learners to do accredited qualifications will not simply exacerbate this problem.
- - - - - - - - - - -
4. Do you agree that for those who are not in employment for a significant part of the week, participation should be in full time education?
No.
If by "education" you mean attendance at an institution or working towards a limited range of qualifications, then of course not. Many home educated young people, for instance, continue their full-time education beyond their 16th birthday, but they do not accept the narrow criteria of education suggested here.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5. Should full time education be defined for this purpose as at least 16 hours of guided learning per week?
No, should be less
We are dismayed to find that there was not a box with an unambiguous "no". We have therefore checked the box "No, should be less" and by this we mean that there should not be ANY element of mandatory "guided learning". For example, home educated young people are entirely capable of self-directed learning and organising their own curriculum and studies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. Do you agree that a young person who is employed could participate part time?
It may or may not suit the employer or the young person for the work to be part time. It may be highly damaging for both, since the employer may find it hard to fund such a position, may refuse to take on young people, or his business may fail as he cannot access cheap labour, so that the employment options for young people may get significantly worse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7. Is a minimum of 280 hours of guided learning per year appropriate for a young person who is employed?
No, should be less.
There should not be a minimum mandatory amount of "guided learning" for young people of this age.
- - - - - - - - -
The central proposition outlined in 3.2 – 3.10 would require a young person to participate until their 18th birthday. An alternative described in para 3.11 would require a young person to participate until either their 18th birthday or they achieve qualifications at level 2, whichever is the earlier.
8. Which version of the policy do you prefer?
They are both wrong. We believe that the 18th birthday cut-off is the thin end of the wedge and that the ultimate plan must be for young people to stay at institutions until the end of the academic year in which they become 18. This is the only way that further education institutions could make funding projections.
From reading the Consultation Document it is clear that the Government favours an age criterion rather than a qualifications criterion but both are wrong. We are looking at a blunt instrument to fine-tune some very different problems here.
1/ Young people are disaffected and disengaged.
2/ Much of the current potential working population does not have Level 2 qualifications (but this includes many older people and it is not suggested that these people will be the target for mandatory education or training) and a substantial proportion are functionally illiterate and innumerate.
3/ An increasing number of jobs in the future will require graduate level skills so the Government identifies Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications as necessary for for entry to university. However, home educated applicants are increasingly finding that university admissions offices look favourably on different academic routes which include innovative freelance work and self-directed study and are not just the run-of-the mill applications from 18 year olds with the same clutch of certificates. This trend should be encouraged and diversity and creativity should be fostered rather than extinguished as they would be by the current proposals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 4: A suitable route for every young person
9. Do you agree that, taken together, the routes outlined in this chapter mean that there will be an appropriate and engaging option for all 16 and 17 year olds by 2013?
No because the present proposals are not sufficiently flexible. In addition the element of compulsion is fundamentally misguided. Education Otherwise is particularly concerned about the emphasis on "attendance" and "participation" and "accredited qualifications" because this is bureaucratic, over-rigid and not suitable to the personalised self-directed learning of home educated young people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. Should there be requirements for young people who are training to do more than just an accredited occupational qualification? (for example, should they be expected to do functional English or maths and/or wider technical education?)
There should not be a requirement for an accredited occupational qualification by the age of 18 and therefore there should not be additional qualification requirements either. This will become an exercise in ticking boxes. Once again this discriminates against young people. We are also unclear as to what 11+ years of compulsory schooling are meant to have achieved if this proposal is even being considered as necessary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 5: Enabling all young people to participate
11. Do you agree financial support should still be provided to young people from low income households, if participation is compulsory?
Participation should not be compulsory and we are not able to answer questions predicated on compulsory participation. On the other hand, the present funding arrangements should not be cut and indeed the Education Maintenance Allowance should be extended to home educated young people aged 16-19.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
12. What would be the right financial support arrangements for young people required to participate to age 18?
Young people should not be required to participate.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
13. Should we consider other incentives, such as withholding driving licences from 17 year olds who are not participating in education or training?
No.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
14. Would the proposals outlined here about support and guidance be enough to ensure that all young people are able to participate, regardless of their personal circumstances?
No because the proposals are impersonal. For example, the educational options will undoubtedly fail significant proportions of young people with SENs, as the current schooling system shows, despite years of trying to facilitate inclusion for all children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 6: Employers playing their part
15. Would the proposals outlined in this chapter provide employers with the right framework to help make sure all 16 and 17 year olds are participating in valuable learning, including those who want to learn as they work?
The proposals discriminate hugely against small businesses and self-employed teenagers. We are unclear as to why the word "want" is being used here when the Consultation Document speaks of 280 + hours of enforced learning as defined by the Government.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16. Given the benefits of a better skilled workforce, what responsibilities should employers have to encourage young people to participate in education and training?
It is not clear that they should have any responsibilities in this regard. If a skilled workforce is beneficial to them, presumably they will try to acquire one in some way or other. If the skill base is not available to them, then they will either do without and fail, or will have to create it themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 7: Making sure young people participate
17. Do you agree that there should be a system of enforcement attached to any new requirement to participate, used only as a last resort?
No, since we do not believe that there should be a legal requirement to participate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Is it right that the primary responsibility for attending at age 16 and 17 should rest with young people themselves?
We object to the word "responsibility " being used in this context. If we are talking about whether the sanctions and penalties for non-compliance will fall to the parent or the child then we are unable to answer this question as we disagree fundamentally with the thinking behind it. Young people are responsible for their own self-directed learning but they are not "responsible" for complying with an unjust undemocratic system which offers them no choice.
- - - - - - - - - - -
19. Do you agree that if a parent of a young person is helping them to break to law, it should be possible to hold them accountable as well?
No. Since attendance at an institution/working on accredited qualifications should not be the sole criteria for determining whether someone is "being educated", we fundamentally object to "the law" being cited in this way. The Consultation Document speaks of civil offence rather than criminal offence but this question does not give that impression. Moreover the young person could be living away from home or married by this age.
- - - - - - - - - -
20. Is the process outlined in this chapter the right way to try to re-engage young people and enforce the requirement?
No. The answer is in the question. The Government should rather be asking itself WHY so many young people are disengaged and disaffected . The primary issue is motivation. Compulsion and extrinsic rewards and sanctions largely destroy motivation. Home educated young people engage in self-directed learning. They may or may not be working towards a recognised qualification but they are learning all the time and this quality of self-motivation is increasingly being recognised as invaluable by employers and higher education. You cannot compel this level of engagement but you can surely extinguish it by inflexible rigid proposals such as we are reading in this Consultation Document.
- - - - - - - - - - -
21. On breach of an attendance order, should criminal sanctions be pursued, or civil/administrative ones?
Neither. We fundamentally object to the whole principle of attendance orders.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
22. Please use this space for any general comments you would like to make.
We would welcome a broadening of access to education so that all who are willing could participate. We would welcome the provision of attractive courses with funding being made available, but we would ask that this be done without compulsion and that employers are not forced to provide young people with training since this is likely to result in discrimination against young people. It should be recognised that young people are very likely to learn valuable skills simply in being given the opportunity to work.
Please do use and adapt for more responses.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Consultation Questions
Chapter 2: The benefits of requiring participation
1. Do you agree that there is a case for introducing compulsory participation to age 18?
No.
Compulsion is a very poor substitute for genuine engagement in education. Learners who are compelled to be involved in education at this stage are very likely to be demotivated, disenchanted, even rebellious and we therefore question the assumption that the best way to have a trained workforce is to force compulsory education onto teenagers.
A better solution would be to remove the barriers to education and training for people both under and over the age of 25, to provide attractive educational options for all, to broaden access to and state funding for tertiary education with a view to including those who already have work experience. We suggest that this would better solve the problem of the skills shortages as identified in the Leitch Report, since the learners involved in education that is freely chosen are more likely to be motivated to learn, and often, as in the case of those who return to train after working, will have a clear idea of the skills they require.
There is a flawed analogy with the previous raising of the school leaving age to the end of the Summer term after the young person's 16h birthday in 1998. This affected relatively few young people for a few months, not the whole youth population for two years. The Secretary of State for Education cites this to the Education Select Committee in April 2007 as the main source of evidence for the benefits of raising the leaving but as the authors or the report themselves point out point out, there was a complex interplay of factors here to do with the age of pupils relative to their classmates as well as the fact that the young people who previously left before final examinations were now staying on a few months to take the exams and get some form of qualification.
In addition the comparison with the school leaving age in other European countries is flawed since there are many other differences between the English education system and those in Europe, not least that we begin formal learning in this country earlier than anywhere else. Why not look at raising the school entry age rather than the school leaving age?
- - - - - - - -
Chapter 3: A new requirement to participate
In paragraphs 3.2 – 3.10 we set out our central proposal for a requirement to participate.
2. Do you agree that participation should include participation in school, college, work-based learning and accredited training provided by an employer?
No.
Participation must not be compulsory. Funding for training and education opportunities must not be dependent on attendance at an institution or on the acquisition of certain narrow qualifications. This is rigid and inflexible and ignores the wide variety of educational opportunities to be found in employment. (freelance or as an employee), voluntary work and in self-directed learning. We are concerned that the proposals will discriminate heavily against home-based education and also forestall the many flexible and creative approaches to education which we already see in our home educated young people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Do you agree that the requirement should include a requirement to work towards accredited qualifications?
No.
No because this is inflexible and inappropriate. There are many cases where this would not be the best use of a young person's time, for example for those people working in their own business, who could rightfully be said to be learning all the time, without any accreditation of their learning. Instead more consideration should be given towards supporting the young person to complete a portfolio of work, which would be of far greater benefit in terms of pursuing their interests towards a career. In many areas, qualifications are out-of-date by the time they achieve ratification or accreditation.
It is also unclear how people with unusual learning styles will be catered for in this system. Far too many children with special educational needs are being failed by the inability of the schooling system to cater for their needs. It is not clear how increasing the age of compulsory education and requiring all learners to do accredited qualifications will not simply exacerbate this problem.
- - - - - - - - - - -
4. Do you agree that for those who are not in employment for a significant part of the week, participation should be in full time education?
No.
If by "education" you mean attendance at an institution or working towards a limited range of qualifications, then of course not. Many home educated young people, for instance, continue their full-time education beyond their 16th birthday, but they do not accept the narrow criteria of education suggested here.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5. Should full time education be defined for this purpose as at least 16 hours of guided learning per week?
No, should be less
We are dismayed to find that there was not a box with an unambiguous "no". We have therefore checked the box "No, should be less" and by this we mean that there should not be ANY element of mandatory "guided learning". For example, home educated young people are entirely capable of self-directed learning and organising their own curriculum and studies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. Do you agree that a young person who is employed could participate part time?
It may or may not suit the employer or the young person for the work to be part time. It may be highly damaging for both, since the employer may find it hard to fund such a position, may refuse to take on young people, or his business may fail as he cannot access cheap labour, so that the employment options for young people may get significantly worse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7. Is a minimum of 280 hours of guided learning per year appropriate for a young person who is employed?
No, should be less.
There should not be a minimum mandatory amount of "guided learning" for young people of this age.
- - - - - - - - -
The central proposition outlined in 3.2 – 3.10 would require a young person to participate until their 18th birthday. An alternative described in para 3.11 would require a young person to participate until either their 18th birthday or they achieve qualifications at level 2, whichever is the earlier.
8. Which version of the policy do you prefer?
They are both wrong. We believe that the 18th birthday cut-off is the thin end of the wedge and that the ultimate plan must be for young people to stay at institutions until the end of the academic year in which they become 18. This is the only way that further education institutions could make funding projections.
From reading the Consultation Document it is clear that the Government favours an age criterion rather than a qualifications criterion but both are wrong. We are looking at a blunt instrument to fine-tune some very different problems here.
1/ Young people are disaffected and disengaged.
2/ Much of the current potential working population does not have Level 2 qualifications (but this includes many older people and it is not suggested that these people will be the target for mandatory education or training) and a substantial proportion are functionally illiterate and innumerate.
3/ An increasing number of jobs in the future will require graduate level skills so the Government identifies Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications as necessary for for entry to university. However, home educated applicants are increasingly finding that university admissions offices look favourably on different academic routes which include innovative freelance work and self-directed study and are not just the run-of-the mill applications from 18 year olds with the same clutch of certificates. This trend should be encouraged and diversity and creativity should be fostered rather than extinguished as they would be by the current proposals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 4: A suitable route for every young person
9. Do you agree that, taken together, the routes outlined in this chapter mean that there will be an appropriate and engaging option for all 16 and 17 year olds by 2013?
No because the present proposals are not sufficiently flexible. In addition the element of compulsion is fundamentally misguided. Education Otherwise is particularly concerned about the emphasis on "attendance" and "participation" and "accredited qualifications" because this is bureaucratic, over-rigid and not suitable to the personalised self-directed learning of home educated young people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. Should there be requirements for young people who are training to do more than just an accredited occupational qualification? (for example, should they be expected to do functional English or maths and/or wider technical education?)
There should not be a requirement for an accredited occupational qualification by the age of 18 and therefore there should not be additional qualification requirements either. This will become an exercise in ticking boxes. Once again this discriminates against young people. We are also unclear as to what 11+ years of compulsory schooling are meant to have achieved if this proposal is even being considered as necessary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 5: Enabling all young people to participate
11. Do you agree financial support should still be provided to young people from low income households, if participation is compulsory?
Participation should not be compulsory and we are not able to answer questions predicated on compulsory participation. On the other hand, the present funding arrangements should not be cut and indeed the Education Maintenance Allowance should be extended to home educated young people aged 16-19.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
12. What would be the right financial support arrangements for young people required to participate to age 18?
Young people should not be required to participate.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
13. Should we consider other incentives, such as withholding driving licences from 17 year olds who are not participating in education or training?
No.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
14. Would the proposals outlined here about support and guidance be enough to ensure that all young people are able to participate, regardless of their personal circumstances?
No because the proposals are impersonal. For example, the educational options will undoubtedly fail significant proportions of young people with SENs, as the current schooling system shows, despite years of trying to facilitate inclusion for all children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 6: Employers playing their part
15. Would the proposals outlined in this chapter provide employers with the right framework to help make sure all 16 and 17 year olds are participating in valuable learning, including those who want to learn as they work?
The proposals discriminate hugely against small businesses and self-employed teenagers. We are unclear as to why the word "want" is being used here when the Consultation Document speaks of 280 + hours of enforced learning as defined by the Government.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16. Given the benefits of a better skilled workforce, what responsibilities should employers have to encourage young people to participate in education and training?
It is not clear that they should have any responsibilities in this regard. If a skilled workforce is beneficial to them, presumably they will try to acquire one in some way or other. If the skill base is not available to them, then they will either do without and fail, or will have to create it themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 7: Making sure young people participate
17. Do you agree that there should be a system of enforcement attached to any new requirement to participate, used only as a last resort?
No, since we do not believe that there should be a legal requirement to participate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Is it right that the primary responsibility for attending at age 16 and 17 should rest with young people themselves?
We object to the word "responsibility " being used in this context. If we are talking about whether the sanctions and penalties for non-compliance will fall to the parent or the child then we are unable to answer this question as we disagree fundamentally with the thinking behind it. Young people are responsible for their own self-directed learning but they are not "responsible" for complying with an unjust undemocratic system which offers them no choice.
- - - - - - - - - - -
19. Do you agree that if a parent of a young person is helping them to break to law, it should be possible to hold them accountable as well?
No. Since attendance at an institution/working on accredited qualifications should not be the sole criteria for determining whether someone is "being educated", we fundamentally object to "the law" being cited in this way. The Consultation Document speaks of civil offence rather than criminal offence but this question does not give that impression. Moreover the young person could be living away from home or married by this age.
- - - - - - - - - -
20. Is the process outlined in this chapter the right way to try to re-engage young people and enforce the requirement?
No. The answer is in the question. The Government should rather be asking itself WHY so many young people are disengaged and disaffected . The primary issue is motivation. Compulsion and extrinsic rewards and sanctions largely destroy motivation. Home educated young people engage in self-directed learning. They may or may not be working towards a recognised qualification but they are learning all the time and this quality of self-motivation is increasingly being recognised as invaluable by employers and higher education. You cannot compel this level of engagement but you can surely extinguish it by inflexible rigid proposals such as we are reading in this Consultation Document.
- - - - - - - - - - -
21. On breach of an attendance order, should criminal sanctions be pursued, or civil/administrative ones?
Neither. We fundamentally object to the whole principle of attendance orders.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
22. Please use this space for any general comments you would like to make.
We would welcome a broadening of access to education so that all who are willing could participate. We would welcome the provision of attractive courses with funding being made available, but we would ask that this be done without compulsion and that employers are not forced to provide young people with training since this is likely to result in discrimination against young people. It should be recognised that young people are very likely to learn valuable skills simply in being given the opportunity to work.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
It isn't just the Harrisons
and Joy Baker who nearly lost their kids. Aspie Home Education has a link to a YouTube story of the injustices that were faced by the home educating Sibley Family. Not pretty, but thankfully that they did it and are still sticking to their principles, if not their guns. (Iris..!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)