| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

AHEd letter to Alan Johnson

Page history last edited by starkfamily1@... 17 years, 2 months ago

Group Project

 


 

Group members

  • Home Educators, their supporters and those interested in supporting the freedom of children to live without the school system are invited to take part in this wiki

 

The purpose of this letter

 

Make punchy points in advance of the consultation. Something we can issue as a press release. Seek assurances from the minister.

 

 

(This letter has now been posted to Alan Johnson, the DfES legal department and the Prime Minister. A press release had been issued. Thanks to everyone who wrote it and subjected its purpose to the forces of evolution!)

 

 

Notes

Lord Adonis letter

 

DfES Sustainable Development

 

BBC personalised learning article

 

 

AHEd Letter

 

Alan Johnson MP

Secretary of State for Education and Skills

Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

London

SW1P 3BT.

 

AHEd

 

Dear Alan Johnson,

 

Our members have expressed concerns regarding the proposed DfES consultation on “light touch changes to the monitoring arrangements" for home education. We would like to raise some of these with you for clarification and reassurance.

 

Lord Adonis acknowledges (in a letter sent to David Lepper MP, dated 3rd January 2007) that there is currently no specific duty in statute on Local Authorities to monitor the education that parents provide. Therefore there can be no proposed changes to a duty that does not currently exist. Any proposed 'strengthening of monitoring arrangements' would involve far-reaching changes in the statutory framework surrounding home education. We believe the changes that are being considered would undermine or eliminate a key educational freedom, the freedom to determine the content of the education we provide.

 

We are disturbed that home educating parents, the key stakeholders in this matter, are being consulted about these changes at a stage when the proposals are already well advanced. It is clear from a number of communications between our members and DfES that staff there are already making assumptions about the outcome of the process favouring increased powers for Local Authorities.

 

The Audit Commission identifies a number of possible categories of participants in a consultation process - consumers, taxpayers and citizens. We, home educating parents, are all of these in the current context, whilst Local Authority employees performing their duties as public servants clearly are not. The proposed DfES consultation is therefore flawed from the outset, being as it is based on an incorrect identification of the "end users" as the local authorities. To date, the process has favoured this group, canvassing their views rather than ours in the initial stages, and giving them by far the strongest voice in the “consultation” on the 2005 Draft Guidance.

 

This discriminatory imbalance cannot be redressed simply by counting up the number of forms filled in during the apparently imminent "full" consultation when it is becoming alarmingly clear to us that our involvement is both eleventh hour and tokenistic. We have been put in the position of having to, very actively, assert our right to respond to the wrong questions set by the wrong people, based on assumptions that are often erroneous, ill-informed and discriminatory.

 

We therefore seek your reassurance that this current process will now be halted and submitted to a fundamental review. We trust that home educators will now be invited into a genuine consultation process, i.e. one that meets the Audit Commission's definition, of "a process of dialogue that leads to a decision..... an ongoing exchange of views and information, rather than a one-off event." Any future consultation process must be genuinely accessible, i.e. to marginalised groups such as Travellers, as well as those home educators not accessing email and internet-based information.

 

AHEd is alarmed by references to the right of parents to choose what form of education they provide for their children as "an anomaly". The provision of education outside of the school system is historically well established, demonstrably successful, and an increasingly popular choice for parents seeking an appropriate educational path for their children. As such it has developed its own culture and becomes an integral part of the life of its practitioners, rather than a mere adjunct to their daily routine. To have Lord Adonis cursorily dismiss our choice as "an anomaly" is insulting to us and appears to indicate an intention to eradicate this choice.

 

It is essential that parents should be able to make decisions about the education of their children. For thousands of parents home education is, far from being an anomaly, the means by which they provide an education that is efficient and suitable, as required by law. The current legal framework allows home educating parents to adopt personalised, flexible and creative approaches to educating their children. Our members are concerned that the DfES is considering forcing a state prescription for the provision of home education and that this could be harmful to their children.

 

We believe the government should consider how this approach would be compatible with International Law including article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Does the government intend to remove our freedoms to act in accordance with our conscience in favour of a prescription of the state for all children? We trust you will ensure any consultation will give full and serious regard to the subject and avoid such simplistic thinking.

 

Letters from the DfES and Lord Adonis have mentioned Local Authority concerns about lack of access to Home Educated children. We are concerned that there may be an intention to force our children to meet with public employees, when it might be against their interest or wishes to do so, in order that they may be assessed and quizzed about their views by someone from the Local Authority education department. Is it the case that the government no longer trusts parents to have the best interests of their children at heart? We are concerned that the right of families and children to a private and family life will be cast aside as a result of illegitimate and badly framed consultation resulting in institutionalized abuse of families and children.

 

In July, Mr Johnson, you assured one of our members that the government does not intend to change the right to choose home education. We question the value of that assurance in the context of these suggested changes to the legislative framework. What is being proposed certainly appears to us to be a diminution of our current right to do so free from state intervention and prescription.

 

Our members are strongly opposed to any move that limits "the right of parents to make choices about their children's education which are best suited to those children's needs" (Tony Blair, January 2007) We call on the government to abandon the proposed consultation in its present form. Instead, we believe Local Authorities should be required to act within the perfectly adequate laws that already exist.

 

Yours etc

Comments (29)

Dani said

at 1:28 am on Jan 13, 2007

I made some changes, but didn't get to the end of the text. Will come back to it tomorrow if I get a chance. Would be interested to see what others think.

Roxy said

at 4:03 am on Jan 13, 2007

Great letter, thanks.

Things I would do...if it were OK...

I think I might take out the word "true" from true freedom in education, because I think we don't have true freedom anyhow.

I might add, after the phrase, "would eliminate freedom in education": ",making the state responsible for the form and content of the education of our children" because this is carries with it the inherent threat that we may come after them when their prescribed method fails our kids.

Also that capital "S" business...DfE"S"..(I can so see why this is a block!)

Roxy said

at 5:49 am on Jan 13, 2007

Actually have just gone in and ended up making quite a few changes, eg: introducing stuff about International Law and shifting paragraphs around a bit...Do hope this is OK.

Anonymous said

at 2:59 pm on Jan 13, 2007

Terrible letter.

Having read it several times I have no idea what the point of it is.

Too much negative language.

Too much tittle-tattle presented as fact.

Is he a parent? Stuff like...
"more than almost all other parents,"
is bound to win him over :-/
(I do personally know almost all other parents and can assure you that this claim is not true ;-)

4/10 - Must try harder


Dani said

at 6:48 pm on Jan 13, 2007

We've done a quite severe edit. Hope others can continue to work on this so we have a good agreed text. Dani and Allie

Tech said

at 6:53 pm on Jan 13, 2007

Can we add in something about his comments back in July where he *assured us* that they had no plans to change home ed? - Letter is on HEConsult for exact quote.

Ruth said

at 7:14 pm on Jan 13, 2007

I didn't edit - I just added an e on the end of case cos it was missing.

Roxy said

at 8:45 pm on Jan 13, 2007

That is excellent...much better.

Roxy said

at 8:11 am on Jan 14, 2007

That is excellent too!

Tiny picky question? (Am not daring to touch the text as I am still not sure how to send a notifer), but does that "AND" need to be there, between private and family life? (I agree that they may be threatening to take children away in some instances, but the main problem seems to be a threat to private family life)?

Duncan Moran said

at 8:19 am on Jan 14, 2007

Does the consultation have a title yet? Doesn't the "changes to the monitoring arrangements” imply that we accept that there are "monitoring arrangements" in the first place?

Roxy said

at 8:19 am on Jan 14, 2007

Also...do you think we can call this consultation illegitimate without explaining why this is so?

Duncan Moran said

at 8:23 am on Jan 14, 2007

"Letters from the DfES and Lord Adonis"

Adonis is part of the DfES team. Do we have references for the letters - sources, dates, recipients, etc.

Roxy said

at 8:30 am on Jan 14, 2007

Ah yes, it looks as if Duncan's last point and my last comment are related. The consultation is illegitimate because the stated purpose of it contains a sleight of hand.
That certainly makes the consultation illegitimate morally, though probably not legally I think, since they could argue that monitoring does exist already, in the form of looking into situations where there is an appearance of education is not taking place.

I don't know, but I don't think the consultation does have a title yet. Perhaps it is possible to put in another set of inverted commas to reveal our scepticism about monitoring arrangements...ie "light touch" changes to "monitoring arrangements"...or is that getting silly??

Roxy said

at 8:32 am on Jan 14, 2007

Flip...make that Duncan's point about monitoring arrangements. Don't type so quick Duncan!

Dani said

at 1:04 pm on Jan 14, 2007

Lord Adonis's letter was sent to my MP, David Lepper. It's dated 3rd January, 2007. But the words he uses are a word for word quote from an email sent by a DfES official, Mark Houston in an email to Neil Taylor on November 8th, 2006 with the case reference number 2006/0324253. Lord Adonis is a minister, not an official, so I think it's fair enough for us to distinguish between his letter and the earlier emails from officials.

starkfamily1@... said

at 1:09 pm on Jan 14, 2007

I have included a comment in my last edit about changes to monitoring arrangements along the lines that there are no such duties in the first place. Does anyone have the quote from Alan Johnson that Tech mentioned?

starkfamily1@... said

at 1:14 pm on Jan 14, 2007

It is illegitimate to consult on tightening ultra vires practices like monitoring. They are trying to argue that the Donaldson judgement in which they may make enquiries to see if there is an appearance of failure is the same as monitoring but it's not!

Dani said

at 1:20 pm on Jan 14, 2007

I've reordered it so that we explain why we think it's illegitimate before we say it is. Hope that makes it more understandable. I don't think the quote is going to help us much, as they will say they are not trying to remove our right to HE, just to bring in some changes to the way it can be done.

starkfamily1@... said

at 1:26 pm on Jan 14, 2007

I like the re-ordering and the letter is looking far better now than any of our previous versions I think.

Roxy said

at 2:54 pm on Jan 14, 2007

Coo, this is GOOD. Next question...Should we cc everything to the legal department?

The reason I am asking is because I think lawyers will see problems for the intentions behind the consultation which DfES will not necessarily see or want to acknowledge, or want to let us know about. They will know by our ccing that we intend to use the judiciary as a check and a balance on their powers.

This ploy has recently worked very well in our local authority. When we just mailed the LA, they didn't really take the issue that was raised seriously at all. When lawyers were cc'd, they immediately seemed to take us very seriously indeed and actually did exactly as we asked.

Possible advantage of mailing their lawyers now: lawyers can tell the DfES where they may have problems with the intentions behind the consultation...ie: things like...the DfES may be creating a stat duty and therefore be making LAs liable when they don't meet this duty, lawyers may be worried about the implication that we may be required by the state to force our kids to see LA officials, and I think lawyers will be worried that we may sue the state for their responsibility in determining the form and content of education.

The advantage of doing this now, it seems to me, is that they won't have much to lose by abandoning the consultation, since they won't have invested time and energy in it, whereas if we get lawyers involved later on, it may be harder to get the DfES to give up on the idea.

OTOH, I think they may try to prime their lawyers to think up arguments. BUT against this, I think lawyers actually do know that they really do run some quite serious legal risks if they do as they propose.

Or perhaps another letter for this...(in haste but hope makes sense)...

starkfamily1@... said

at 3:52 pm on Jan 14, 2007

The DfES have a legal department? Where is it please?

Duncan Moran said

at 5:23 pm on Jan 14, 2007

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/whoswho/legal.shtml

Not sure if you can get directly to them.

Duncan Moran said

at 5:25 pm on Jan 14, 2007

We / They / Our Members.


Do we have a preference? My vote would be for a collective/united We.


Tech said

at 9:05 pm on Jan 14, 2007

putting the letter up on ahed members now




Tech said

at 9:15 pm on Jan 14, 2007

re the quote from AJ, I'd argue that it is worth persuing. He said they are not going to change our right to HE, well as far as I'm concerned, my right to HE includes the right to do it free from state intervention and prescription. Anything that they do to alter that IS changing my right as a parent.

Duncan Moran said

at 11:54 pm on Jan 14, 2007

Has The purpose of this letter changed?

starkfamily1@... said

at 12:32 am on Jan 15, 2007

why do you ask? It's not so punchy now, as longer, but makes an excellent case for the illegitimacy of the consultation and then expresses our other concerns about the direction of government intentions. It still addresses the letter from Adonis doesn't it?

Roxy said

at 6:51 am on Jan 15, 2007

I think Barbara has it. The purpose of the letter remains very clear...ie: the message: DON'T HOLD THIS CONSULTATION and DON'T MESS WITH HOME EDUCATION.

I think a letter to Alan Johnson doesn't have to be punchy since it is his job to read it and to give close consideration to the matter. It is also his legal department's job to think about the issues very closely too, so we may have to make close argument on these matters.

Of course, we couldn't use the letter directly as a press release, but we can easily precis it for that purpose.

I think the letter is excellent since it makes the most pertinent cases against the consultation very clear, and I think lawyers will pick up on the other inferences very nicely. Apart from threatening them directly with UN law, we haven't actually said we will haul you over the legal coals, but it is certainly inferred, which I think is a nice balance.

Roxy said

at 7:52 am on Jan 15, 2007

I don't have an email addy for the legal team yet...but the snail mail addy seems to be: DfES Legal Department, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London SW1.

This info from: http://www.gls.gov.uk/about/departments/dfes.htm

You don't have permission to comment on this page.