We should all be writing now to educate the Lords on the implications of Schedule 1 and to encourage them to speak at the 2nd reading in the Lords. See here for more details about writing to the Lords and visit the Freedom for Children to Grow site for more information on what goes on in the House of Lords. There is also a list of Lords here where some Lords have included an email address in the "biog" section.
Sent via Write to Them:
Dear Lord xxxx,
I am writing to you with regard to the Children, Schools and Families Bill which is due its second reading in the House of Lords on 8th March 2010. In particular, I and many others in the xxxx area are very concerned about the implications of Schedule 1 which may be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/008/10008.38-44.html#m01s
My husband and I have been home educating for over 12 years now. I have seen how it provides a wonderful and invigorating environment which strengthens the bond between parents and children, which allows for a flourishing of talent, which empowers parents to take care of their children to the best of their ability, delivers advantages to the otherwise seemingly disadvantaged child and which makes for successful young people who are very ready to face the challenges of the modern world.
And yet over the past year or so, one could be forgiven, as a general observer, for thinking home educators the most abusive bunch of parents in the land. Home educators have been subjected to a review with the remit to search for evidence that home education is used as a cover for abuse. When this was not easily forthcoming, highly unusual cases, such as the terrible case of Khyra Ishaq, have been cited as the reason for the draconian proposals at Schedule 1.
However it is clear that in every one of these unusual cases, current legislation would have been sufficient to solve the problems, had it been used correctly. In the case of Khyra Ishaq, social services and the home education teams knew that there were concerns and had heard on numerous occasions that she appeared be at risk. Social services simply had to use their current powers as enshrined in s47 of the Children Act 1989:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890041_en_7#pt5-l1g47
It is extremely unfortunate that they chose not to, though not surprising when you consider how short-staffed, over-worked and under-funded most social work teams are nowadays.
A universal monitoring scheme for all home educators, as proposed in Schedule 1, would not be the best solution here. It would result in the monumental waste of public funds as thousands of otherwise well-functioning families will be inspected for no reason whatsoever and with some devastating implications for these families, and all the while, social work services will be struggling to cope with those they know to be at risk.
Of course, the lack of funding for social service departments only looks set to get much worse from 2011 onwards, and it will therefore be all the more imperative to target the money wisely - where it will be most likely to save children in abusive situations. Schedule 1 will not do this and does not represent a wise investment of public monies.
Further on the ineffectiveness of Schedule 1: if there are any seriously abusive, undiscovered families out there, they are highly unlikely to come forward to register, for what have they got to lose by not doing so? Only law-abiding HEors, with so much to lose, (ie: the right to home educate), will come forward to undergo this licencing process.
It is indeed the case that HEing families have much to lose, should Schedule 1 be enacted. One of the most significant problems is that the licencing process would mean that the state would become the educator of first resort. Parents will no longer be able to determine the nature of the educational provision for their children, since this will be determined by the Local Authority officer. Parents, who after all, usually do know their children best, will no longer be able to tailor the education to fit the child, but will have to provide an education that fits the subjective judgement of "suitable" that the LA officer (a virtual stranger to the child) holds.
This is already a problem for many HE families who are inspected under the current, less draconian regime. It looks set to get much worse should the local authorities be delivered of the powers in Schedule 1. Under Schedule 1, LA officers will be able to force children, many of whom will have previously been failed by state education, straight back into it, simply on a LA officer's say-so. Families will have no defence in courts, as Schedule 1 makes it clear that courts will not be allowed to consider whether the parents were in fact providing a suitable education out of school.
Parents and families will thereby be reduced to acting as agents of the state, required to do its bidding. This will not only undermine parental/familial initiative and familial trust, (qualities that has up till now been very much in evidence in HE circles), but it will also undermine the principles of democracy. A democracy is predicated upon the idea of an articulate, literate and independent populace who are capable of holding the state to account. If everyone is to receive only a state-mandated education, the possibility of a genuine democracy is thereby diminished.
This legislation will have a profound and on occasion, devastating impact upon the lives of many home educated children. We would therefore be extremely grateful if you would consider debating this issue in the House of Lords, not least because this issue received extremely scant attention in the Third Reading in the Commons, and we see here:
http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/display/templatedisplay3.asp?sectionid=5
that there are only a few Lords currently listed to speak.
If you need any further information, you may be interested to know that there is to be a meeting on the subject of Schedule 1 on Tuesday March 2nd 6-7pm, Committee Room 16, House of Commons. Hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group, the room will be available until 7.30pm.
Confirmed speakers:
*Dr. Alan Thomas - has written papers on self-directed/autonomous learning - how successful it is and why you cannot monitor this kind of learning.
*Christine Waterman, on Special Educational Needs and how the proposals would impact on home educated children with SEN.
* Mike Crawshaw, on how the government misled the House of Commons with flawed analysis and discredited statistics.
* Jane Lowe (HEAS) on the current situation with the LAs and why no change in the law is necessary.
Many thanks for you help in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Prejudice, Ignorance and Lies from LAs
...as reported in the TES here. The comments are a must-read.
More on the implications of Khyra's case.
Well said, Julie. Social services knew about the risks to Khyra. They just didn't act appropriately on the information they had, despite having all the powers they needed.
The DCSF must NOT waste money inspecting thousands of well-functioning families. They should target the money at families known to be at risk since SS across the country are finding it next to impossible to cope with these.
Gerald Warner in the Telegraph agrees and Merry writes an open letter to Fern Britten and Jeremy Vine, explaining the facts of the matter.
UPDATE: According to Children and Young People Now, Balls has sparked outrage in the HE community. Too right he has. Blogdial puts the full case against the state and N. Shropshire provides useful links and further information.
The DCSF must NOT waste money inspecting thousands of well-functioning families. They should target the money at families known to be at risk since SS across the country are finding it next to impossible to cope with these.
Gerald Warner in the Telegraph agrees and Merry writes an open letter to Fern Britten and Jeremy Vine, explaining the facts of the matter.
UPDATE: According to Children and Young People Now, Balls has sparked outrage in the HE community. Too right he has. Blogdial puts the full case against the state and N. Shropshire provides useful links and further information.
Do Ed Balls and his henchmen like to bully home educators?
Well after reports of the meeting at which defenders of HEors such as Douglas Carswell MP and Paula Rothermel were openly booed, I think we can now even include bullet point 1. All the other bullet points clearly apply, which would seem to suggest that yes, Ed Balls and the DCSF are bullies.
From Unite, here are the questions you should ask yourself if you want to determine if you are being bullied.
From Unite, here are the questions you should ask yourself if you want to determine if you are being bullied.
Am I being bullied?
- Bullies may use terror tactics, open aggression, threats, shouting, abuse, and obscenities towards their target
- Bullies may subject their target to constant humiliation or ridicule, belittling their efforts, often in front of others
- Bullies may subject their target to excessive supervision, monitoring everything they do and being excessively critical about minor things
- Bullies may take the credit for other people's work but never take the blame when things go wrong
- Bullies may constantly override the person's authority
- Bullies may remove whole areas of work responsibility from the person, reducing their job to routine tasks that are well below their skills and capabilities
- Bullies may set the person what they know to be impossible objectives, or constantly change the work remit without telling the person, and then criticise or reprimand the person for not meeting their demands
- Bullies may ostracise and marginalise their target, dealing with the person only through a third party, excluding the person from discussions, decisions etc
- Bullies may spread malicious rumours about the individual
Friday, February 26, 2010
Another of those phone calls today
...from a neighbouring local authority asking me to shop people who HE in that area.
The woman from the LA was slightly more polite than the gentleman (a misnomer) who phoned last time, but she still rapidly descended to extraordinary arguments which made no sense at all.
I, of course, said there was no way I would reveal names and addresses of people I knew of, that I had asked the relevant HEors after the previous occasion when the gentleman (nominally at least from the LA) had rung me, and they had predictably confirmed what I had previously thought, ie: that I was on no account to give out names and addresses to a person I had never met and on the end of a phone line.
She then asked if I would give her numbers of HEors I knew of in that LA. I asked her how this would help, and she couldn't explain.
She then said, "Well how can I do my job?" I told her what I had told the previous caller, that if there were any real concerns, I am sure she would get to hear about them one way or another, but there were no concerns amongst the people I know of.
She then asked if we could meet for a chat. I asked her what would be the reason for this. Again she had no answer.
I suppose I have got better at this. At least she just gave up rather than resorting to shouting at me, which the previous caller had done.
I still think it is a quite extraordinary way to behave. I mean most companies are very aware that people can't be expected just to dole out their details left right and centre, and yet here is a person I have never met, claiming to be such-and-such and so-and-so, but of course, I have no way of checking, demanding that I give out details which other people have entrusted to me. Quite odd and will be reporting the above to the organisations and individuals who are collecting evidence on how LAs behave.
Generally speaking, I have formed the impression that I don't want these sorts of mad people anywhere near me or my family.
The woman from the LA was slightly more polite than the gentleman (a misnomer) who phoned last time, but she still rapidly descended to extraordinary arguments which made no sense at all.
I, of course, said there was no way I would reveal names and addresses of people I knew of, that I had asked the relevant HEors after the previous occasion when the gentleman (nominally at least from the LA) had rung me, and they had predictably confirmed what I had previously thought, ie: that I was on no account to give out names and addresses to a person I had never met and on the end of a phone line.
She then asked if I would give her numbers of HEors I knew of in that LA. I asked her how this would help, and she couldn't explain.
She then said, "Well how can I do my job?" I told her what I had told the previous caller, that if there were any real concerns, I am sure she would get to hear about them one way or another, but there were no concerns amongst the people I know of.
She then asked if we could meet for a chat. I asked her what would be the reason for this. Again she had no answer.
I suppose I have got better at this. At least she just gave up rather than resorting to shouting at me, which the previous caller had done.
I still think it is a quite extraordinary way to behave. I mean most companies are very aware that people can't be expected just to dole out their details left right and centre, and yet here is a person I have never met, claiming to be such-and-such and so-and-so, but of course, I have no way of checking, demanding that I give out details which other people have entrusted to me. Quite odd and will be reporting the above to the organisations and individuals who are collecting evidence on how LAs behave.
Generally speaking, I have formed the impression that I don't want these sorts of mad people anywhere near me or my family.
Ed Balls on Khyra Ishaq
An agency I work for has real trouble getting social services to act in known cases of abuse. Were it not for the agency workers picking up the pieces, unpaid, in their own time, vulnerable people would be left to either starve or freeze or both as social workers routinely fail to pick up the baton.
In our area at least, it appears that social services lack sufficient manpower and resources to protect those they know to be vulnerable and I strongly suspect that, despite what Ed Balls says, this was the problem at the heart of the Khyra Ishaq case. Her problems had NOTHING to do with being hidden through HE (she wasn't - social services knew about her and would have had good reason to think that she was at risk) and EVERYTHING to do with lack of funding for SS departments.
It would be simply criminal therefore, if Ed Balls were to push through Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families which would result in the monumental wastage of public funds as LAs set about inspecting thousands of perfectly well-functioning families, whilst families known to be at risk, languish at the bottom of some social worker's "to do" list.
Further, if there are any Fred Wests out there, the proposals in Schedule 1 will not bring them to light. Only successful HEors will register under this scheme, so it won't work to find the truly abusive.
The ridiculous proposals in the CSF Bill must not see the light of day.
In our area at least, it appears that social services lack sufficient manpower and resources to protect those they know to be vulnerable and I strongly suspect that, despite what Ed Balls says, this was the problem at the heart of the Khyra Ishaq case. Her problems had NOTHING to do with being hidden through HE (she wasn't - social services knew about her and would have had good reason to think that she was at risk) and EVERYTHING to do with lack of funding for SS departments.
It would be simply criminal therefore, if Ed Balls were to push through Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families which would result in the monumental wastage of public funds as LAs set about inspecting thousands of perfectly well-functioning families, whilst families known to be at risk, languish at the bottom of some social worker's "to do" list.
Further, if there are any Fred Wests out there, the proposals in Schedule 1 will not bring them to light. Only successful HEors will register under this scheme, so it won't work to find the truly abusive.
The ridiculous proposals in the CSF Bill must not see the light of day.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Michael Gove on Clauses 26 and 27
In response to Naomi's question here, Michael Gove promises that Clauses 26 and 27 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill will not become law.
UPDATE: There are more assurances from Michael Gove. Thank goodness that it seems that right will prevail.
UPDATE: There are more assurances from Michael Gove. Thank goodness that it seems that right will prevail.
Date of Second Reading in the Lords
The First Reading (in the Lords) of the Children Schools and Families Bill (which is a formality) will occur today - Wednesday February 24th.
The Second Reading will take place on March 8th.
News of yesterday's proceedings here.
The Second Reading will take place on March 8th.
News of yesterday's proceedings here.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Report Debate and Third Reading
...today, to start sometime after 15.00. Live recording available here.
Amendment 63 (calling for the deletion of Clause 26) is apparently up for debate. Still waiting! (18.03 hours)
Information from EO available here.
UPDATE: See comment below.
Further Update: More news of the Report Debate.
Amendment 63 (calling for the deletion of Clause 26) is apparently up for debate. Still waiting! (18.03 hours)
Information from EO available here.
UPDATE: See comment below.
Further Update: More news of the Report Debate.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Capita are at it again
Capita are at it again re Children Missing Education. Their 6th National Conference on the matter includes (rather alarmingly, seeing as it isn't law)....
"Understand how to execute the recommendations of the Badman Review on elective home education"
Oh dear.
Meanwhile, news from home educators who have been visited by our local authority is not good. Reports suggest that our woman, who can parrot the word autonomy without any deep understanding of it, is already getting uppity. For example, she is demanding visits at three monthly intervals, with each visit taking at least two hours. She puts pressure on families who refuse the three monthly visits, and you feel as if she has eyes everywhere. Heaven forbid that she be delivered of the powers in Schedule 1.
If you have any similar recent experiences with your LAs, please do mail in comments.
"Understand how to execute the recommendations of the Badman Review on elective home education"
Oh dear.
Meanwhile, news from home educators who have been visited by our local authority is not good. Reports suggest that our woman, who can parrot the word autonomy without any deep understanding of it, is already getting uppity. For example, she is demanding visits at three monthly intervals, with each visit taking at least two hours. She puts pressure on families who refuse the three monthly visits, and you feel as if she has eyes everywhere. Heaven forbid that she be delivered of the powers in Schedule 1.
If you have any similar recent experiences with your LAs, please do mail in comments.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Kelly on the DCSF Letter re Special Educational Needs
Friday, February 19, 2010
Report Stage of Children, Schools and Families Bill
...coming up soon, 23rd February 2010. More details on the Report Stage and the Third Reading here.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Home Education Meeting for Lords
PLEASE mention this meeting to any Lord with whom you have contact. The APPG is officially responsible for issuing invitations but the personal touch might just encourage a few.
Home education meeting for the Lords
Tuesday March 2nd 6-7pm
Committee Room 16, House of Commons.
Hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group. The room will be available until 7.30pm.
Confirmed speakers:
*Dr. Alan Thomas - has written papers on self-directed/autonomous learning - how successful it is and why you cannot monitor this kind of learning.
*Christine Waterman, on Special Educational Needs and how the proposals would impact on home educated children with SEN.
* Mike Crawshaw, on how the government misled the House of Commons with flawed analysis and discredited statistics.
* Jane Lowe (HEAS) on the current situation with the LAs and why no change in the law is necessary.
-----
If you are planning to attend, please let Karen Bartlett know, so that she can keep an eye on numbers. (Space is limited.) Mail Karen on: karenbartlett@btinternet.com
If you need further information, email Carolyn on: carolyncrawshaw@btinternet.com
Home education meeting for the Lords
Tuesday March 2nd 6-7pm
Committee Room 16, House of Commons.
Hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group. The room will be available until 7.30pm.
Confirmed speakers:
*Dr. Alan Thomas - has written papers on self-directed/autonomous learning - how successful it is and why you cannot monitor this kind of learning.
*Christine Waterman, on Special Educational Needs and how the proposals would impact on home educated children with SEN.
* Mike Crawshaw, on how the government misled the House of Commons with flawed analysis and discredited statistics.
* Jane Lowe (HEAS) on the current situation with the LAs and why no change in the law is necessary.
-----
If you are planning to attend, please let Karen Bartlett know, so that she can keep an eye on numbers. (Space is limited.) Mail Karen on: karenbartlett@btinternet.com
If you need further information, email Carolyn on: carolyncrawshaw@btinternet.com
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
From the Guardian
here:
"Why have you got it in for home- educating families?
Ed Balls:
Home education is a long-standing part of our education system and that should continue. The vast majority of home-educated children receive a good education in a safe and loving environment.
"Why have you got it in for home- educating families?
Ed Balls:
Home education is a long-standing part of our education system and that should continue. The vast majority of home-educated children receive a good education in a safe and loving environment.
But we have to ensure that this is the case for all children. There have been some cases of "home-educated" children being badly neglected. That's why we are taking forward the recommendations of the independent review of home education, including the call for extra support for home educators, especially where a child has a special educational need. I think people will increasingly see that the proposals are necessary and strike the right balance."
I wonder which people these will be? Will these be the few who actually know what they are talking about or the uninformed majority?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)