Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What Happens Next...
Thanks due to Fiona N who worked out how this works:
Monday 1st February is the last date for Commons amendments to the Bill Committee.
The Bill Committee will meet on Tuesday 2nd and Thursday 4th next week. The Committee stage will close on Thursday February 4th.
After Committee Stage, if the Bill has been amended, the Bill is reprinted before its next stage and then returns to the floor of the House of Commons for its Report Stage, where the amended Bill can be debated and further amendments proposed.
Report stage gives MPs an opportunity, on the floor of the House, to consider further amendments (proposals for change) to a Bill which has been examined in committee.
There is no set time period between the end of Committee stage and the start of the Report stage.
What happens at Report Stage?
All MPs may speak and vote - for lengthy or complex bills, the debates may be spread over several days.
All MPs can suggest amendments to the Bill or new clauses (parts) they think should be added.
What happens after Report stage?
Report stage is usually followed immediately by debate on the Bill's Third Reading.
Monday 1st February is the last date for Commons amendments to the Bill Committee.
The Bill Committee will meet on Tuesday 2nd and Thursday 4th next week. The Committee stage will close on Thursday February 4th.
After Committee Stage, if the Bill has been amended, the Bill is reprinted before its next stage and then returns to the floor of the House of Commons for its Report Stage, where the amended Bill can be debated and further amendments proposed.
Report stage gives MPs an opportunity, on the floor of the House, to consider further amendments (proposals for change) to a Bill which has been examined in committee.
There is no set time period between the end of Committee stage and the start of the Report stage.
What happens at Report Stage?
All MPs may speak and vote - for lengthy or complex bills, the debates may be spread over several days.
All MPs can suggest amendments to the Bill or new clauses (parts) they think should be added.
What happens after Report stage?
Report stage is usually followed immediately by debate on the Bill's Third Reading.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
And Another...
At the risk of becoming tedious, (see two preceeding posts on the subject of DCSF and government falsehoods,) Kelly documents yet another porkie, this time by Ed Balls.
Lobby a Lord
Lord Lucas has a new post on how to go about this here.
Other useful information: from Lord Lucas and how to address a Lord.
Also Write to Them for the Lords provides a searchable database of Lords by interest (number of times they have spoken on a subject) and by places they are associated with. 12 Lords come up when you enter "home education".
You can then click on each one and find out what they said on each occasion. Clicking on the heading for each of these takes you through to the context of the speech. Not all the references seem to bring up an exact quote but it is certainly useful.
Please make use of this resource to select the Lords you are going to contact. You can also check out which Lords have already been contacted here.
If you can find an email address for them, it might be better to use that rather than the fax facility on the TheyWorkForYouSite. This page lists all the Lords, along with the address of any web sites they have, though it does not say if they have email. However, if you click the 'biog' it gives you an email address if one is listed, or a personal fax number as well as their phone number (which seems to be a direct number rather than the HoL switch-board).
Of course if you prefer ink on paper then all the Lords share the same address:
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
See here and here for further inspiration on what you might say and how you could say it.
Please pass on this information to as many other people/lists as possible.
Other useful information: from Lord Lucas and how to address a Lord.
Also Write to Them for the Lords provides a searchable database of Lords by interest (number of times they have spoken on a subject) and by places they are associated with. 12 Lords come up when you enter "home education".
You can then click on each one and find out what they said on each occasion. Clicking on the heading for each of these takes you through to the context of the speech. Not all the references seem to bring up an exact quote but it is certainly useful.
Please make use of this resource to select the Lords you are going to contact. You can also check out which Lords have already been contacted here.
If you can find an email address for them, it might be better to use that rather than the fax facility on the TheyWorkForYouSite. This page lists all the Lords, along with the address of any web sites they have, though it does not say if they have email. However, if you click the 'biog' it gives you an email address if one is listed, or a personal fax number as well as their phone number (which seems to be a direct number rather than the HoL switch-board).
Of course if you prefer ink on paper then all the Lords share the same address:
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
See here and here for further inspiration on what you might say and how you could say it.
Please pass on this information to as many other people/lists as possible.
Refusal to Co-operate and More Lies from the DCSF
Fiona Nicholson of EO had this to say at the Public Bill Committee:
"I really believe that you will not find home-education support organisations that will deliver training on how to implement the Bill, so in respect of all those plans for softening the edges and making it palatable and home-education friendly, I cannot see where you will find such people. There are two home-education support charities: Education Otherwise and the Home Education Advisory Service. They are both registered charities. They are membership subscription organisations. They get their funding entirely from member subscriptions. Our members are not paying ours to help the Government to implement the Bill, so unless you set up your own home-education support organisation, I do not really see how you will find home educators to train local authorities to deliver the Bill, even with substantial amendments. It will be very difficult."
Further on this point, it seems EO are drawing the line in the sand. We heard yesterday that:
"Education Otherwise has just written to the Minister Vernon Coaker declining an offer of a meeting with Diana Johnson."
We also hear that the DCSF have responded to EO's question about the legal status of the DCSF's Position Statement:
"They do not have any legislative status, as the final content of both the Bill and the regulations are subject to the will of Parliament, and there must also be a statutory period of consultation on the content of the regulations."
Well, at least the DCSF recognises that their own Position Statement is legislatively meaningless. Do pass this statement on to your MP, if you haven't already!
It would also be worth pointing out that it seems that the DCSF can't manage a single sentence without coming out with yet another falsehood, for as it stands, the regulations that would result from the Bill would not necessarily be subject to the will of Parliament at all, since there is plenty of scope in Schedule 1 for regulations simply to be subject to the will of the Secretary of State.
"I really believe that you will not find home-education support organisations that will deliver training on how to implement the Bill, so in respect of all those plans for softening the edges and making it palatable and home-education friendly, I cannot see where you will find such people. There are two home-education support charities: Education Otherwise and the Home Education Advisory Service. They are both registered charities. They are membership subscription organisations. They get their funding entirely from member subscriptions. Our members are not paying ours to help the Government to implement the Bill, so unless you set up your own home-education support organisation, I do not really see how you will find home educators to train local authorities to deliver the Bill, even with substantial amendments. It will be very difficult."
Further on this point, it seems EO are drawing the line in the sand. We heard yesterday that:
"Education Otherwise has just written to the Minister Vernon Coaker declining an offer of a meeting with Diana Johnson."
We also hear that the DCSF have responded to EO's question about the legal status of the DCSF's Position Statement:
"They do not have any legislative status, as the final content of both the Bill and the regulations are subject to the will of Parliament, and there must also be a statutory period of consultation on the content of the regulations."
Well, at least the DCSF recognises that their own Position Statement is legislatively meaningless. Do pass this statement on to your MP, if you haven't already!
It would also be worth pointing out that it seems that the DCSF can't manage a single sentence without coming out with yet another falsehood, for as it stands, the regulations that would result from the Bill would not necessarily be subject to the will of Parliament at all, since there is plenty of scope in Schedule 1 for regulations simply to be subject to the will of the Secretary of State.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
More on the DCSF Position Statement
Quite simply, it is a combination of spin and outright lies, designed to deceive MPs, many of whom will have received a far more accurate briefing from their constituent home educators. This document deserves the same sort of fisking that Ciaran gave to the DCSF claim that some home educators were harassing Mr Badman.
I don't actually have the time to fisk the Position Statement thoroughly right now, but below I have picked out some of the obvious corkers and believe me, it is not difficult to do!
If you think there is any chance that your MP might believe what he/she reads here, please write to him/her yet again, and point out that the impact of the Children, Schools and Families Bill will result not from some legislatively irrelevant piece of government agitprop, but from the actual Bill itself.
(UPDATE: Have just realised that Firebird has done an excellent job on fisking the whole thing. Took six posts to do it, mind you, which only goes to show just how much rubbish the Position Statement contains!)
Spin, Lies and Dirty Tricks:
1. "Our reforms will have minimal impact on home educators who are doing a good job"
I am actually still not sure whether this is a lie or a complete failure to understand. Either way it is wrong, for the reforms will impact upon HEors throughout their entire lives. If Schedule 1 were to made law, home educators would, under threat of having their child summarily returned to school, have to provide an education to suit the LA officer rather than one that is suitable for the child.
Given that LA officers do not know the child well and frequently do not have a close understanding of, for example, autonomous education, these can be two entirely different things.
We have no faith that LA officers will understand how autonomous education works. Heck, I tried to explain it to Graham Badman in person, and at the time, I thought I had made a good job of it, since he appeared to understand completely and even made unprompted reference to the philosophical underpinnings of it, ie: Karl Popper.
Yet lo and behold, in the Public Bill Committee meeting, by demanding that home educators produce a statement of their educational intentions and aims for the following year, Badman demonstrated that like many LA officers, he either has ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF AUTONOMOUS EDUCATION or has NO DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
Autonomous home educators in all honesty, can only say that they will offer a range of options and what seem like good theories to their children; they will help their children to employ critical analyses of these theories, and will help their children act on their own best theories, and that they will facilitate the child's interests.
There that is it, but this wouldn't be good enough for Mr. Badman. He is determined that we should be able to predict our children's progress for the next year. In the Public Bill Committee meeting, he used the example of a parent predicting that a toddler would develop their vocabularly at such and such a rate over the coming year. Oh honestly, surely Mr Badman knows that toddlers are actually not so predictable in this regard. Apparently not, however, for it appears that he wants us to develop the mystical powers of soothsaying. Of course, this would be a poor way to proceed for all home educators, but it will be all the more difficult for autonomous home educators who will not try to force their children to meet these pre-conceived objectives.
We must make it clear to our MPs. The impact of the reforms is actually in the Bill. The DCSF might like to claim that autonomous education will be respected, but the plain fact of the matter is that most LA officers don't really understand it, and some of them haul HEors over the coals for it.
Our own (new) LA officer says she understands AE but then presents you with a form that requires answers that make it seem that you must provide a school-based curricula. With the threat of a School Attendance Order directly in front of us, our right to home educate hanging in the balance, will we dare to continue to educate autonomously, despite the fact that we know it suits our children perfectly???? Already, I am bullying the children, and already this is destroying what we have.
These reforms WILL NOT BE MINIMAL IN THEIR IMPACT. They will be devastating to the education of children, and may well impact upon relationships between parent and child too.
2. And now for an example of a Dirty Trick. The Position Statement was published without notice by DCSF 19 January 2010 and not circulated in advance to the panel giving evidence at the Public Bill Committee on 19 January, so there was no chance to air criticisms of this document. It would appear that the DCSF are not being confident in the document for otherwise they would have let us have sight of it and it would have stood up to criticism.
3. Further from the Position Statement:
"Our proposals will help overcome those obstacles and assist local authorities in focusing their efforts on children who are missing education as opposed to wasting time and public money pursuing home educators who are providing an adequate standard of education but who are unwilling to provide reliable evidence to their local authorities."
The first thing is, obstacles to a police state are NOT A BAD THING. If you want no obstacles to state intrusion, the government could set up CCTVs in all our rooms, fingerprint and store our genetic information, they could lock us up without charge for as long as they liked...these things WOULD make the job of the police and LAs a lot easier, but it wouldn't make it right.
Plus, the reality is that LAs don't spend much of their time chasing unwilling home educators. LAs almost always get what they want out of us pretty darn quickly, so this is a complete red herring. And there is good reason to believe that home educators will actually make the whole process FAR more uncomfortable for LAs should this system be implemented for HEors will see this as defending some of their most basic liberties, such as the right to a private life. Plans are afoot for this right now.
4. From the Position Statement:
"There will also be funding to help local authorities provide support to home educators such as access to school libraries, music lessons, after school clubs and sports facilities."
This is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill itself and is pure guff as far as we can see. LAs have no money, (and what little they have should be spent on pot-hole and land-slide repairs as this would actually save lifes). Real support from LAs has been extremely hard to access and has only happened extremely rarely, so unless this is legislated for, we won't see it. MPs must be made aware of this.
5. "Local authorities are currently not under a duty to monitor home education on a regular basis but they are under a duty under section 436A EA 1996 to have arrangements in place to identify children not receiving a suitable education. Subsection (b) of section 436A makes clear that this provision does not relate to home educated children that are receiving suitable education. However, in order for a local authority to establish whether the education is suitable, the duty supposes some kind of investigation by a local authority. Arguably it imposes an obligation to act. Currently this can only be done with the co-operation of those home educating parents that the local authority know about. Our proposals for registration and monitoring will ensure that all home educated children are known to their local authority and none are missing out on their education."
To give the DCSF it's due, s436A actually IS the source of the problem. S436A is based upon the presumption that the state knows what suitable educational provision actually is and that it has a right to impose this upon everyone. It behoves the DCSF to take what probably is a big step for them, ie : to try to wrap their brains around the fact that an LA officer cannot possibly know what would be the best education for a child they barely know, and to leave this to the parents, unless there is significant reason to believe that the parents are not fullfilling their duty to provide a suitable education. In other words, re-institute the legal situation prior to the issuance of the January 2009 Guidance on Identifying Children Missing a Suitable Education.
I have run out of time, and am quite sure that home educators will find loads of other stuff in there that is not a good portrayal of the reality of the impact of the reforms. It would be great if you could write to your MPs to explain that the Position Statement is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the Bill.
I don't actually have the time to fisk the Position Statement thoroughly right now, but below I have picked out some of the obvious corkers and believe me, it is not difficult to do!
If you think there is any chance that your MP might believe what he/she reads here, please write to him/her yet again, and point out that the impact of the Children, Schools and Families Bill will result not from some legislatively irrelevant piece of government agitprop, but from the actual Bill itself.
(UPDATE: Have just realised that Firebird has done an excellent job on fisking the whole thing. Took six posts to do it, mind you, which only goes to show just how much rubbish the Position Statement contains!)
Spin, Lies and Dirty Tricks:
1. "Our reforms will have minimal impact on home educators who are doing a good job"
I am actually still not sure whether this is a lie or a complete failure to understand. Either way it is wrong, for the reforms will impact upon HEors throughout their entire lives. If Schedule 1 were to made law, home educators would, under threat of having their child summarily returned to school, have to provide an education to suit the LA officer rather than one that is suitable for the child.
Given that LA officers do not know the child well and frequently do not have a close understanding of, for example, autonomous education, these can be two entirely different things.
We have no faith that LA officers will understand how autonomous education works. Heck, I tried to explain it to Graham Badman in person, and at the time, I thought I had made a good job of it, since he appeared to understand completely and even made unprompted reference to the philosophical underpinnings of it, ie: Karl Popper.
Yet lo and behold, in the Public Bill Committee meeting, by demanding that home educators produce a statement of their educational intentions and aims for the following year, Badman demonstrated that like many LA officers, he either has ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF AUTONOMOUS EDUCATION or has NO DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
Autonomous home educators in all honesty, can only say that they will offer a range of options and what seem like good theories to their children; they will help their children to employ critical analyses of these theories, and will help their children act on their own best theories, and that they will facilitate the child's interests.
There that is it, but this wouldn't be good enough for Mr. Badman. He is determined that we should be able to predict our children's progress for the next year. In the Public Bill Committee meeting, he used the example of a parent predicting that a toddler would develop their vocabularly at such and such a rate over the coming year. Oh honestly, surely Mr Badman knows that toddlers are actually not so predictable in this regard. Apparently not, however, for it appears that he wants us to develop the mystical powers of soothsaying. Of course, this would be a poor way to proceed for all home educators, but it will be all the more difficult for autonomous home educators who will not try to force their children to meet these pre-conceived objectives.
We must make it clear to our MPs. The impact of the reforms is actually in the Bill. The DCSF might like to claim that autonomous education will be respected, but the plain fact of the matter is that most LA officers don't really understand it, and some of them haul HEors over the coals for it.
Our own (new) LA officer says she understands AE but then presents you with a form that requires answers that make it seem that you must provide a school-based curricula. With the threat of a School Attendance Order directly in front of us, our right to home educate hanging in the balance, will we dare to continue to educate autonomously, despite the fact that we know it suits our children perfectly???? Already, I am bullying the children, and already this is destroying what we have.
These reforms WILL NOT BE MINIMAL IN THEIR IMPACT. They will be devastating to the education of children, and may well impact upon relationships between parent and child too.
2. And now for an example of a Dirty Trick. The Position Statement was published without notice by DCSF 19 January 2010 and not circulated in advance to the panel giving evidence at the Public Bill Committee on 19 January, so there was no chance to air criticisms of this document. It would appear that the DCSF are not being confident in the document for otherwise they would have let us have sight of it and it would have stood up to criticism.
3. Further from the Position Statement:
"Our proposals will help overcome those obstacles and assist local authorities in focusing their efforts on children who are missing education as opposed to wasting time and public money pursuing home educators who are providing an adequate standard of education but who are unwilling to provide reliable evidence to their local authorities."
The first thing is, obstacles to a police state are NOT A BAD THING. If you want no obstacles to state intrusion, the government could set up CCTVs in all our rooms, fingerprint and store our genetic information, they could lock us up without charge for as long as they liked...these things WOULD make the job of the police and LAs a lot easier, but it wouldn't make it right.
Plus, the reality is that LAs don't spend much of their time chasing unwilling home educators. LAs almost always get what they want out of us pretty darn quickly, so this is a complete red herring. And there is good reason to believe that home educators will actually make the whole process FAR more uncomfortable for LAs should this system be implemented for HEors will see this as defending some of their most basic liberties, such as the right to a private life. Plans are afoot for this right now.
4. From the Position Statement:
"There will also be funding to help local authorities provide support to home educators such as access to school libraries, music lessons, after school clubs and sports facilities."
This is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill itself and is pure guff as far as we can see. LAs have no money, (and what little they have should be spent on pot-hole and land-slide repairs as this would actually save lifes). Real support from LAs has been extremely hard to access and has only happened extremely rarely, so unless this is legislated for, we won't see it. MPs must be made aware of this.
5. "Local authorities are currently not under a duty to monitor home education on a regular basis but they are under a duty under section 436A EA 1996 to have arrangements in place to identify children not receiving a suitable education. Subsection (b) of section 436A makes clear that this provision does not relate to home educated children that are receiving suitable education. However, in order for a local authority to establish whether the education is suitable, the duty supposes some kind of investigation by a local authority. Arguably it imposes an obligation to act. Currently this can only be done with the co-operation of those home educating parents that the local authority know about. Our proposals for registration and monitoring will ensure that all home educated children are known to their local authority and none are missing out on their education."
To give the DCSF it's due, s436A actually IS the source of the problem. S436A is based upon the presumption that the state knows what suitable educational provision actually is and that it has a right to impose this upon everyone. It behoves the DCSF to take what probably is a big step for them, ie : to try to wrap their brains around the fact that an LA officer cannot possibly know what would be the best education for a child they barely know, and to leave this to the parents, unless there is significant reason to believe that the parents are not fullfilling their duty to provide a suitable education. In other words, re-institute the legal situation prior to the issuance of the January 2009 Guidance on Identifying Children Missing a Suitable Education.
I have run out of time, and am quite sure that home educators will find loads of other stuff in there that is not a good portrayal of the reality of the impact of the reforms. It would be great if you could write to your MPs to explain that the Position Statement is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the Bill.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Relevant Bit of the Transcript
Public Bill Committee Meeting
Here. Mention is made of home education at 53 mins and at 1 hour 9 mins where lawyer John Friel appears to agree with Graham Stuart that Schedule 1 is very damaging for home educated children with special educational needs, but the main body of evidence starts at 1 hour 11 mins.
UPDATE: News from EO of a DCSF Position Statement that wasn't circulated prior to the meeting. Oh honestly. It would rather suggest that the DCSF are far from confident in their arguments. It seems to be aimed at selling the Bill to MPs who have been lobbied by their constituents and naturally enough, doesn't represent the bill accurately.
And, yes according to Badman's argument, it would seem that Graham Stuart went to a better school than Graham Badman since Stuart's mathematical and logical skills are superior.
UPDATE: News from EO of a DCSF Position Statement that wasn't circulated prior to the meeting. Oh honestly. It would rather suggest that the DCSF are far from confident in their arguments. It seems to be aimed at selling the Bill to MPs who have been lobbied by their constituents and naturally enough, doesn't represent the bill accurately.
And, yes according to Badman's argument, it would seem that Graham Stuart went to a better school than Graham Badman since Stuart's mathematical and logical skills are superior.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Anniversary of Badman Report
...EO deplores nine months of policy-based evidence making.
This contains a link to the Revised Impact Assessment which the DSCF squeaked in just in time before today's meeting of the Public Bill Committee.
This contains a link to the Revised Impact Assessment which the DSCF squeaked in just in time before today's meeting of the Public Bill Committee.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
What I think we should be asking for and why
Instead of proceeding with Schedule 1, the Secretary of State should strive to ensure that LAs understand the current legislation which, apart from the most recent, revised guidance on Identifying Children Missing an Education in January 2009, has evolved to allow for the fact that parents, not the state, should raise children.
He should help LAs understand the limits of their responsibilities under s436a of Education and Inspections Act 2006, in which regard we would ask him, instead of proceeding with Schedule 1, to take the pressure off LAs by reinstating the earlier version of Guidance on Identifying Children Missing an Education from February 2007. Section 3.3 of this guidance in effect allowed parents to determine the form of education of their children and enabled LAs to make a proportionate and less wasteful response to HE families.
There are plenty of reasons why he should do this in preference to continuing with Schedule 1. This course of action would allow for the right balance to be struck, allowing for a proportionate response on the part of LAs. On the other hand, Schedule 1 would be:
*useless in detecting hidden abuse, (what have abusive parents to lose by not registering),
*is extremely damaging (as parents now have to tailor an education to fit the LA inspector and not the child,)
*is extremely wasteful of public money (inspecting thousands of well-functioning families when social work departments can't cope with known cases of abuse),
*would be useless in protecting the government from red top abuse when a case is found. (The headline will be: Ed Balls enforces inspection of thousands of well-functioning families while social work departments are too overworked to deal with real problem cases).
*is an appropriation of parental responsibilities, (as the state would now raise the child by determining the form of education),
*is an invasion of privacy and an total devastation of children's rights. (A large majority of HE children do not want to see LA personnel).
*Since NuLab's Stop and Search powers have recently been deemed excessive by the European Courts, and given that Schedule 1 is similarly excessive in its impact upon law-abiding citizens, anyone wanting to use these powers should be very cautious indeed.
He should help LAs understand the limits of their responsibilities under s436a of Education and Inspections Act 2006, in which regard we would ask him, instead of proceeding with Schedule 1, to take the pressure off LAs by reinstating the earlier version of Guidance on Identifying Children Missing an Education from February 2007. Section 3.3 of this guidance in effect allowed parents to determine the form of education of their children and enabled LAs to make a proportionate and less wasteful response to HE families.
There are plenty of reasons why he should do this in preference to continuing with Schedule 1. This course of action would allow for the right balance to be struck, allowing for a proportionate response on the part of LAs. On the other hand, Schedule 1 would be:
*useless in detecting hidden abuse, (what have abusive parents to lose by not registering),
*is extremely damaging (as parents now have to tailor an education to fit the LA inspector and not the child,)
*is extremely wasteful of public money (inspecting thousands of well-functioning families when social work departments can't cope with known cases of abuse),
*would be useless in protecting the government from red top abuse when a case is found. (The headline will be: Ed Balls enforces inspection of thousands of well-functioning families while social work departments are too overworked to deal with real problem cases).
*is an appropriation of parental responsibilities, (as the state would now raise the child by determining the form of education),
*is an invasion of privacy and an total devastation of children's rights. (A large majority of HE children do not want to see LA personnel).
*Since NuLab's Stop and Search powers have recently been deemed excessive by the European Courts, and given that Schedule 1 is similarly excessive in its impact upon law-abiding citizens, anyone wanting to use these powers should be very cautious indeed.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Update on CSF Bill and Public Bill Committee
It is possible to subscribe for updates about the CSF Bill here.
The notices of amendments to the Children, Schools and Families Bill can be found here and continued here. There are several proposed amendments to Schedule 1 in the second link, which could do with scrutiny. At first glance, MPs Mr Loughton, Mr Gibb and Mr Wiggin appear to want to take out scrutiny for a suitable education. This is a very, very good place to start. We heard yesterday of a family providing an apparently very suitable autonomous education, but their provision was deemed unsuitable by the LA. We are set for trouble on this point folks, and these amendments would help a great deal to prevent it.
The news is that the Public Bill Committee will be sitting on 19th and 21st January. Submissions to the Committee can be made by sending an email to scrutiny@parliament.uk, making it clear to which Bill it relates. Further details about submissions to Public Bill Committees here:
UPDATE:
First meeting of the Public Bill Committee:
Meeting date: Tuesday 19th January 2010
Time: 17.15 - 19.00 hours.
Location: Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, House of Commons, London.
The witnesses giving oral evidence on the panel at this session are:
Graham Badman - author of report 'Review of Elective Home Education in England'.
Fiona Nicholson, Education Otherwise
Chloe Watson, Home Education Youth Council
Sir Paul Ennals, NCB
Beth Reid, National Autistic Society
And with thanks to Jilly UK, we now know who is on the Public Bill Committee:
CHAIRMEN: Mr David Amess, Janet Anderson
CLERKS: Mrs S. Davies, Miss Howe
16 MEMBERS
Conservative:
Nick Gibb, (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)
Tim Loughton, (East Worthing and Shoreham)
Graham Stuart, (Beverley and Holderness)
Edward Timpson, (Crewe and Nantwich)
Bill Wiggin, (Leominster)
Liberal Democrat:
Annette Brooke, (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
David Laws, (Yeovil)
Labour:
Vernon Coaker, (Gedling)
Ann Cryer (Keighley)
Andrew Gwynne, (Denton and Reddish)
Diana Johnson, (Kingston upon Hull North)
Martin Linton, (Battersea)
Kerry McCarthy, (Bristol East)
Bridget Prentice, (Lewisham East)
Ken Purchase, (Wolverhampton North East)
Lynda Waltho, (Stourbridge)
Liberal Democrat:
Annette Brooke, (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
David Laws, (Yeovil)
The notices of amendments to the Children, Schools and Families Bill can be found here and continued here. There are several proposed amendments to Schedule 1 in the second link, which could do with scrutiny. At first glance, MPs Mr Loughton, Mr Gibb and Mr Wiggin appear to want to take out scrutiny for a suitable education. This is a very, very good place to start. We heard yesterday of a family providing an apparently very suitable autonomous education, but their provision was deemed unsuitable by the LA. We are set for trouble on this point folks, and these amendments would help a great deal to prevent it.
The news is that the Public Bill Committee will be sitting on 19th and 21st January. Submissions to the Committee can be made by sending an email to scrutiny@parliament.uk, making it clear to which Bill it relates. Further details about submissions to Public Bill Committees here:
UPDATE:
First meeting of the Public Bill Committee:
Meeting date: Tuesday 19th January 2010
Time: 17.15 - 19.00 hours.
Location: Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, House of Commons, London.
The witnesses giving oral evidence on the panel at this session are:
Graham Badman - author of report 'Review of Elective Home Education in England'.
Fiona Nicholson, Education Otherwise
Chloe Watson, Home Education Youth Council
Sir Paul Ennals, NCB
Beth Reid, National Autistic Society
And with thanks to Jilly UK, we now know who is on the Public Bill Committee:
CHAIRMEN: Mr David Amess, Janet Anderson
CLERKS: Mrs S. Davies, Miss Howe
16 MEMBERS
Conservative:
Nick Gibb, (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)
Tim Loughton, (East Worthing and Shoreham)
Graham Stuart, (Beverley and Holderness)
Edward Timpson, (Crewe and Nantwich)
Bill Wiggin, (Leominster)
Liberal Democrat:
Annette Brooke, (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
David Laws, (Yeovil)
Labour:
Vernon Coaker, (Gedling)
Ann Cryer (Keighley)
Andrew Gwynne, (Denton and Reddish)
Diana Johnson, (Kingston upon Hull North)
Martin Linton, (Battersea)
Kerry McCarthy, (Bristol East)
Bridget Prentice, (Lewisham East)
Ken Purchase, (Wolverhampton North East)
Lynda Waltho, (Stourbridge)
Liberal Democrat:
Annette Brooke, (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
David Laws, (Yeovil)
Proposed Amendments to CSF Bill, Gibb, Loughton and Wiggin
Proposed Amendments to Schedule 1, available here are as follows: (deletions/ alterations in red. NB: Line nos. have been changed).
------------------------------------
70. Schedule 1, page 40, leave out lines 17 to 19.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
"9C Entry of child’s details on home education register: supplementary provision
(1) Regulations may make provision about steps to be taken by an authority in connection with an application for a child’s details to be entered on their home education register.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about matters that are or are not to be taken into account by an authority in deciding—
(a) whether to register a child’s details under section 19B(3);
(b) whether a child is within section 19B(7);
(c) whether section 19B(8) applies to a child’s application.
(3) Regulations under section 19B(1)(a) may, in particular, make provision within subsection (4) or (5).
(4) Provision within this subsection is provision—
(a) about how an application for registration of a child’s details is to be made;
(b) requiring an application for registration of a child’s details to include a statement giving prescribed information about the child’s prospective education; [red text would be deleted]
(c) requiring an application to include other prescribed information;
(d) about the form in which a statement mentioned in paragraph (b), or any other information required to be included in an application, is to be provided;
(e) for an application for registration to include an undertaking to provide a statement mentioned in paragraph (b), or other prescribed information, to the authority within a period
determined by or in accordance with the regulations.
---------------------------------
71. Schedule 1, page 41, leave out lines 28 to 29.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19E Monitoring provision of home education to registered children
(1) A local authority in England shall make arrangements with a view to ascertaining, so far as is reasonably practicable—
(a) whether the education provided to a child whose details are entered on their home education register is suitable; [red text would be deleted]
(b) whether it accords with information provided to them for the purposes of the application for registration;
(c) what the child’s wishes and feelings about it are;
(d) whether it would be harmful for the child’s welfare for the child to continue to be a home-educated child.
-------------------------------------
72. Schedule 1, page 42, leave out line 38.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19F Revocation of registration
(1) A local authority in England may revoke the registration of a child’s details on their home education register if it appears to them that—
(a) the child’s parent has failed to fulfil an undertaking given by virtue of section 19C(4)(e),
(b) information that has been provided in connection with the application for the child’s details to be entered on the register is incorrect or inadequate in a material respect (whether or not it was so when it was provided),
(c) the child is not a home-educated child,
(d) it would be harmful to the child’s welfare for the child to continue to be a home-educated child,
(e) by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1),
(f) the child is not receiving suitable education, or [red text would be deleted]
(g) the child is no longer in their area.
--------------------------------------------------------
73. Schedule 1, page 42, line 28, leave out from ‘respect’ to end of line 29.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19F Revocation of registration
(1) A local authority in England may revoke the registration of a child’s details on their home education register if it appears to them that—
(a) the child’s parent has failed to fulfil an undertaking given by virtue of section 19C(4)(e),
(b) information that has been provided in connection with the application for the child’s details to be entered on the register is incorrect or inadequate in a material respect (whether or not it was so when it was provided), [red text would be deleted].
-------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
70. Schedule 1, page 40, leave out lines 17 to 19.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
"9C Entry of child’s details on home education register: supplementary provision
(1) Regulations may make provision about steps to be taken by an authority in connection with an application for a child’s details to be entered on their home education register.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about matters that are or are not to be taken into account by an authority in deciding—
(a) whether to register a child’s details under section 19B(3);
(b) whether a child is within section 19B(7);
(c) whether section 19B(8) applies to a child’s application.
(3) Regulations under section 19B(1)(a) may, in particular, make provision within subsection (4) or (5).
(4) Provision within this subsection is provision—
(a) about how an application for registration of a child’s details is to be made;
(b) requiring an application for registration of a child’s details to include a statement giving prescribed information about the child’s prospective education; [red text would be deleted]
(c) requiring an application to include other prescribed information;
(d) about the form in which a statement mentioned in paragraph (b), or any other information required to be included in an application, is to be provided;
(e) for an application for registration to include an undertaking to provide a statement mentioned in paragraph (b), or other prescribed information, to the authority within a period
determined by or in accordance with the regulations.
---------------------------------
71. Schedule 1, page 41, leave out lines 28 to 29.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19E Monitoring provision of home education to registered children
(1) A local authority in England shall make arrangements with a view to ascertaining, so far as is reasonably practicable—
(a) whether the education provided to a child whose details are entered on their home education register is suitable; [red text would be deleted]
(b) whether it accords with information provided to them for the purposes of the application for registration;
(c) what the child’s wishes and feelings about it are;
(d) whether it would be harmful for the child’s welfare for the child to continue to be a home-educated child.
-------------------------------------
72. Schedule 1, page 42, leave out line 38.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19F Revocation of registration
(1) A local authority in England may revoke the registration of a child’s details on their home education register if it appears to them that—
(a) the child’s parent has failed to fulfil an undertaking given by virtue of section 19C(4)(e),
(b) information that has been provided in connection with the application for the child’s details to be entered on the register is incorrect or inadequate in a material respect (whether or not it was so when it was provided),
(c) the child is not a home-educated child,
(d) it would be harmful to the child’s welfare for the child to continue to be a home-educated child,
(e) by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1),
(f) the child is not receiving suitable education, or [red text would be deleted]
(g) the child is no longer in their area.
--------------------------------------------------------
73. Schedule 1, page 42, line 28, leave out from ‘respect’ to end of line 29.
Mr Nick Gibb
Tim Loughton
Bill Wiggin
ie:
19F Revocation of registration
(1) A local authority in England may revoke the registration of a child’s details on their home education register if it appears to them that—
(a) the child’s parent has failed to fulfil an undertaking given by virtue of section 19C(4)(e),
(b) information that has been provided in connection with the application for the child’s details to be entered on the register is incorrect or inadequate in a material respect (whether or not it was so when it was provided), [red text would be deleted].
-------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Why Schedule 1 Won't Work
In our time as home educators, I have come across a very small number of HE families who weren’t coping. This is about as much as you can say about them. They weren't evil and indeed all of them had nothing other than the best of intentions for their children, but for one reason or another, usually an accumulation of adverse circumstances, things had gone wrong. Usually the living standards were unhygienic to a degree that meant that health was compromised, and sometimes children weren't being given the appropriate moral guidance or basis for understanding how to live in this world.
At the time I met these families, some of them were not known to the authorities. At that point I would go away and agonise. Several times, I thought it would be possible for the HE community to help in a significant enough way that these families would be able to get back on their feet. However, on each occasion the situation was taken out of my hands, as someone else then rapidly referred them to social services.
Home educators, the poorly functioning and the successful families alike, get referred to social service departments left, right and centre. Indeed there is one HE group we attend in which we are the only family who has not been utterly spuriously referred to and then discharged by a social services department.
Unless a family hides their child under the stairs, home educators are highly visible. Neighbours, relatives, friends, friends of friends, village gossip, the net spreads fast and wide and if there is a hint of concern and very often even when there isn't, people take it upon themselves to let the authorities know.
Problem is, since Baby P, social workers have gone into "covering their backs" mode. Indeed, we strongly suspect this is the reason why one UK HE child we know was taken away from his/her family, only to be returned a year later after huge efforts by the family, their lawyer, their MP, and even the police. This is scary stuff for all HE families who will be wondering "might we be next?"
But this parlous situation will not be resolved by implementing the registration process as proposed in Schedule 1.
As I said, I think the number of children who are abused under the guise of being HE who are not known to the authorities is vanishingly small. However, if there are any such families it would not be rational for them to come forward to register, since what have they got to lose? The worst that can happen to them under the new proposals if they don’t register is that their children will be sent back to school and seeing as far worse could happen if they were known, a rational decision would be for them to keep schtum.
Schedule 1 won't work to patch up any holes in ContactPoint and given that Ed Balls' main motivation in all this seems to be to avoid any negative red top coverage, he might as well know this.
Instead the Schedule 1 proposals will damage well-functioning families with the loss of privacy and autonomy and will be a massive wast of public money which could be far better spent on overloaded social services depts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)