Here is the response of AHEd committee and membership to the DCSF consultation on elective home education guidelines. Posted Monday 30th July 2007. Response number 612. (Numbers returned to respondents indicate that over 850 responses were received.)
Consultation on Home Education Guidelines
Which of the following best describes you:
X - Other (please specify)
AHED is a group of home educators and supporters working for the rights and freedoms of home educating families.
This is a joint response representing the voices of our full membership. It sets out the criteria for changes to the draft document to bring it in line with the current legal situation and that we would expect before we could support or accept use of Guidelines on Home Education for Local Authorities.
Question One
1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?
X - Not Sure
Comments: Currently, many local authorities do not understand the law, and in some cases they have misrepresented their legal powers and duties. (See "Case Study - Routine Misrepresentation of Legal Powers and Duties." Question 8) This lack of understanding and misrepresentation is at the root of poor public services and poor relations with home educators, enormous unnecessary expense to local authorities and unnecessary demands from these local authorities for increased powers. For guidelines to be helpful, they would need to be clear and unambiguous. They should be addressed solely to local authorities, and not also to parents. If the guidelines accurately interpret the law and demonstrate an understanding of the nature of home education, they are likely to be helpful.
It is a problem for both home educators and local authorities when local authority staff are under the impression that the authority has a duty to ensure the education of children in their area. This causes conflict between local authorities and home educators. The legal responsibility of the LA is to act when there is an appearance of failure; this is not the same as ensuring a suitable education. Ensuring a suitable education is the legal and moral responsibility of parents. Therefore it is essential that guidance from the DCSF should be legally accurate and should not lead LAs to believe they have duties that they do not have. If LAs were legally responsible to ensure the education of children in their area they would be liable to legal action for failures to ensure a suitable education. Some LAs cite fear of such legal action as a concern about the amount of access they have to Home Educated children. This is due to their lack of understanding about where the legal responsibility lies and to a prejudiced view of Home Education. There are widespread and well documented failures to ensure a suitable education in the state school sector and it is precisely because it is the responsibility of the parent, that there is not widespread legal action taken against schools for this tragedy. LAs do not appear to have difficulty accepting this.
AHEd is responding to this consultation to try to make sure that any guidelines produced accurately reflect the current legal situation in the hope of promoting better treatment of home educators and reducing the number of LAs who make ultra vires demands of families. However, we question the value of guidelines given that there are to be no sanctions. Poor guidelines will certainly adversely affect home educating families as local authorities base their policies on DCSF guidance. However, even in the situation of achieving a satisfactory set of guidelines, as there appears to be no intention on the part of the DCSF to enforce these guidelines, we envisage that at least some local authorities are likely to continue to apply heavy-handed and inappropriate measures to home educators. In Scotland there has been Guidance for three years but home educators still suffer unacceptable treatment from local authorities who have no regard for the Guidance, (see Schoolhouse's response to the Scottish consultation here: http://www.schoolhouse.org.uk/news/response.pdf)
How can guidelines for England escape the same fate?
As it stands, some parts of the guidelines are repetitive and/or require tightening to reduce ambiguity. For example, the current draft does little to reassure local authorities about the limits of their duties and the limits of the expectations upon them, particularly with regard to the appropriate way to implement the Children Act 2004. The guidelines should make it clear that this Act does not change the way in which LAs should best approach Home Educators, the principle for which should be that of minimal proportionate intervention. For example, it should be clear that an LA does not have a duty to have any contact with a family when it appears on balance of probabilities that a suitable education is taking place.
Guidance that accompanies the Children Act states that, "the voice of children, young people and their families should be heard at all levels in order to inform local design and delivery of the arrangements.” These guidelines should clarify that since many home educating families expressly prefer to be left alone by the authorities and given that there is no reason to believe that these families are neglecting their duties towards their children, that this position should inform guidance and practice and should not be taken as an indication of risk.
We do not object to children being given opportunities to express their views on issues concerning them, but these opportunities should be presented in an appropriate way, so that they are experienced as an invitation, not an inquisition. The guidelines should make it clear that the Children Act 2004 does not require local authorities to seek out problems be they educational or other/welfare issues) where there is no reason to believe that there are any and that home education, in itself, is not a reason to suspect that child welfare problems may exist.
Your introductory comments: The sentence, "Most parents choose to fulfil this obligation by educating their children at school, but some prefer home education" is unnecessary, reveals prejudice and should be removed.
This is not the first consultation on elective home education guidelines. The consultation, which preceded this consultation, specifically excluded responses from parents. We have not forgotten this consultation or the consequent proposals for changes to the legal framework which are not currently going forward. These were the subject of a complaint to the Cabinet Office by AHEd members.
http://ahed.pbwiki.com/Index-to-pages#Consultationsproceduresflawed.
If DCSF wish to give advice to parents, this should be in a different, separate document, not confused with advice to local authorities.
re: section 1.1. The first sentence should only read "otherwise than at a school" after "children".
re: section 1.2. The word "broad" should be replaced by "suitable". There is no legal requirement for a parent to provide a "broad" education. (Education Act 1996, section 7.)
After "take place" it should read "in the home or any other location." There is no legal requirement regarding the location of the education.
re: section 1.3 This draft makes no suggestion of redress where LAs fail to follow the guidance. Where there is cause for home educators to complain about ultra vires behavior by the local authority there is no standard or independent procedure for addressing complaints raised by home educators. AHEd are unsure of the value of guidelines that are necessarily not statutory but also fail to warn LAs of some sort of redress for failures to comply with their statutory duties or for ultra vires activity.
"at home" should read "otherwise than at school"
re: section 1.4 "various" should read "any number of different". Parents elect to home educate for any number of reasons and local authorities should not make false assumptions on the basis of what they imagine those reasons to be. For example, we have found that some local authorities assume that when parents have removed children from poor schooling situations, these parents will therefore be less well able to home educate than parents who have chosen to HE for other reasons. The LA may therefore apply undue pressure to such families without any other reason to think that a suitable education is not being provided.
The sentence "the authority's primary interest should lie in the suitability of parents' educational provision" should be altered to make it clear that the authority does not have a duty to check for suitability, and only need to do so when there is good cause to suspect that a suitable education is not taking place.
The list of reasons to home educate is not exhaustive, could produce problems where a family has an unlisted reason and serves no useful purpose, given that the reason is irrelevant unless a parent is asking for help to stay in/return to school, this list should be scrapped.
Question two
2 Do you agree that the description of the law (paragraphs 2.1-2.3) relating to elective home education is accurate and clear?
YES
re: section 2.1 It would be more accurate to say that education is compulsory but school is not.
re: section 2.3 The phrase “An efficient and suitable education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but” may exacerbate the concern of LAs that these are not defined. Instead the section should simply report the case law in which “efficient” and “suitable” are defined and state that this is therefore the required standard.
You have not consulted on section 2.4 We add our comments here.
re: section 2.4 Parents who choose to educate their children at home *retain* financial responsibility. Also, there is no reason to emphasise "full" financial responsibility, since there is no reason in statute why LAs could not assist home educators financially, and indeed some already do so, through the provision of various services from their discretionary budget.
DCSF may usefully consider the financial implication if the estimated 40,000 Home Educated children took up state school places, when they advise LAs about financial support for Home Educators. Many families are home educating because of the failures of their local authority provision and it would seem morally appropriate as well as financially feasible, for LAs to allocate funds for matters such as exam centre provision, exam admission fees and course work marking.
Question three
3 Do you agree that the description of local authorities’ responsibilities (paragraphs 2.5-2.11) is accurate and helpful?
NO
Local authorities’ responsibilities
At some point in this section, it would be helpful to remind LAs of their responsibilities under the ECHR legislation, with particular regard here to Article 8:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
In other words, LAs do not have the right of access to the home without there being cause for belief that a child is at risk. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is a duty to be carried out by local authority workers only in the exercise of the functions already conferred on them.
re: section 2.5. The first sentence should be qualified: LAs should clearly distinguish between this information (i.e. the legal position), and anything else they state that is their own opinion.
LAs should not only recognise that there are many equally valid approaches to Home Education, but should also make sure that they are familiar with these and that all personnel likely to come across home educators, including those such as social workers and health visitors, accept all approaches without prejudice.
The last clause should be removed as it could create the impression, given that it comes in a paragraph headed "Local authorities' responsibilities", that it is up to local authorities to monitor a child for reasonable progress, but this is not the case. Parents are responsible for this and are indeed best placed to make such an assessment, since they are most likely to know what could be deemed reasonable by way of progress for their own particular child. What is more, LAs should understand that methods for assessing reasonable progress that are developed for use in schools are irrelevant to home education and cannot be applied. (See “Expert Witness Statement – Roland Meighan” under question 8.)
re: section 2.6 This could be worded more helpfully, since from the first part of the paragraph which states that LAs have a new duty to identify children missing from education, it would not necessarily be clear to an LA officer how this duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home, as stated in the last sentence. Perhaps the following could be included by way of further elucidation for LAs: "If a child comes to the notice of a local authority as not being registered at a school, the LA may ask the family about educational provision and upon receipt of information that a child is being educated at home, the LEA should assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this is indeed the case."
re: section 2.7 This section should simply state that “local authorities have no statutory duty to monitor home education.” Including comments about quality or frequency is not relevant and may give the impression that LAs do have duty to monitor for something else. LAs simply have no duty to monitor home education at all. The section may also be confusing in relation to section 2.5 which needs rephrasing to avoid the possibility of creating the impression that it is up to local authorities to monitor a child for reasonable progress. Neither quality nor frequency is relevant in this section, and there is no duty to monitor for reasonable progress, or any other feature that may seem of interest to the authority. The section moves prematurely to how LAs may intervene, without sufficient explanation of when and why this might be necessary.
re section 2.8 It would be helpful if somehow the order of 2.7 and 2.8 made it clearer that the enquiries mentioned in 2.8 should precede the process in 2.7. Those enquiries are not bound by a 15 day minimum - -which LEAs usually also make a maximum - and need never lead to the formal process in 437(1) of the ed act
re section 2.9 More emphasis could be made of the (b) part of 437(3). The LA should ask themselves honestly whether, in the presence of a failure stated in 437(3)(a), they truly believe that the only useful course of action is to get the child into a school ie (b). They should be sure that it is unlikely, on balance, that the child could receive a suitable edn out of school with some more help, input, resources etc. if that is what the family would prefer. The LA should have it made clear to them that they have it within their legal and financial scope to assist the parent in their preferred edn choice and that they must use their funds and resources in non-discriminatory ways to benefit all children in their area, whatever the personal choices of the parent. Elective Home Educators are not to be discriminated against because of their choice any more than persons choosing a particular religious education.
the guidance needs to include the information that before issuing a SAO the LA must notify the parent of their intention to do so and let them know which school the notice will name.
re: section 2.11 Exercising their functions with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children should include avoiding creating stress and pressure for children and their families, for example by not insisting on visits where no right or obligation to do so exists. This applies equally to unannounced visits, which are not required in law and which have caused stress and harm to children.
Some LAs need clarification about Section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002. Some LAs believe that this section of the Act has given them a new and separate, specific duty to check the welfare of all children. It is essential that they are reassured that this is not so and that they only have a duty to ensure that their *current* legal duties are practised in such a manner as to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children involved within those current duties. There is no new function conferred upon them. They have no new duty to check the welfare of home educated children.
You have not consulted on paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3. We include our comments here.
In general, we agree with these paragraphs, and think they provide useful guidance which many local authorities would be well-advised to follow.
re: section 3.1 LAs should develop their policy as far as possible in partnership with local experts on home education, i.e. home educating parents and organisations. Consultation opportunities should be made as accessible as possible, including payments for child care
re: section 3.2 We suggest that the second sentence should read: "LA policies should be consistent with the law, clear, transparent and easily accessible."
Question four
4 Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority (paragraphs 3.4-3.7) is accurate and helpful?
NO
re: section 3.4 We object in the strongest possible terms to the following sentences in this paragraph: "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'."
The guidance should not discriminate between categories of people who may home educate. Rather, it should tell LAs to *avoid* making assumptions based on prejudice concerning a family's membership of any social group, and to instead ensure that the law is applied equally to all home educators, without prejudice. AHEd does not approve of racial, cultural or other prejudice in dealing with home educators.
In addition, we feel that the beginning of this paragraph has the effect of setting up value judgements about the form of response that parents choose in answer to local authorities' enquiries. Parents are free to choose how to respond to local authority enquiries and no option should result in risk-based assessments as to whether the mode of response is a cause for concern.
There is no duty to monitor home education and the reference at the end of this paragraph implying that monitoring is a duty of the local authority should be removed.
re section: 3.5 It is not the responsibility of local authorities to decide whether they believe that a suitable education "can be" provided, but to act where there is an appearance of failure. This section appears to represent a non existent pre-approval system for home education. If a family are already home educating the local authority may seek information on the basis of what is already being provided and not what "can be" provided. There is no system in England for the pre-approval of home education in which the authority is required to come to a judgement, properly informed or otherwise, about an education that might be provided. The section does not make sense in the context of English law and is therefore irrelevant and should be deleted.
The section also includes mention of children being given an opportunity to attend any meeting etc.. There is no legislation that allows LAs to directly approach the child so they have to accept that the parent will have respected their child and offered them, whatever freedoms the parent sees fit, to have access to the LA. A child must be given an opportunity to express their own needs but that does not mean those needs must be sought directly by or expressed directly to the LA.
re: section 3.6 Letters and other communications must not imply that the the LA has a right to meet the child or that a meeting is not optional. Parents may respond to local authority enquiries in a manner that is in keeping with their own preferences and best interests. The word "ongoing" should not be used as it assumes a regular monitoring duty rather than a "snapshot" impression which is all that is required.
re: section 3.7 The wording in this section is weighted toward home visits. LAs should not give the impression, whether verbally or in writing, that parents or children must meet with them. They should also not set up home visits as the norm, their preferred option or in any other way suggest or imply that those choosing not to have home visits are unreasonable or awkward.
In making general enquiries of home educating families, local authorities are simply seeking information that should be sufficient to convince a reasonable person, on the balance of probabilities only, that there is no appearance that a parent is failing to provide a suitable education to a child of compulsory education age in their care. It is therefore unhelpful and confrontational to state that parents must provide “evidence”.
Parents may choose to respond in the manner which best suits the family and that may not be included in a list of possible modes of response. It is not for the local authority to attempt to influence the manner in which a family may respond to enquiries.
You have not consulted on sections 3.8 – 3.10. We include our comments below:
re section 3.8 This section should be discarded. It serves no useful purpose to single out one of many possible deregistration scenarios. It may be misleading because it infers that parents need guidance about deregistration. It is also not necessary to pick out the deregistration process as a time when contact should be constructive and positive, as this should the case at all times.
re: section 3.9 The legal information about deregistration of a registered pupil from a state school is out of date as it has been superseded by a later statutory instrument.
Returns to the LA should be immediate.
The word "wish" would better read "decide" and the word "intention" would better read "decision". The last sentence is not acceptable. If a school fulfills its legal duty to send a return to the LA, notification from a parent would be redundant. Parents should not be used to back up this process in case of school failure.
re: section 3.10 This section is under the wrong heading. It is about LAs making initial contact with a parent, not about deregistration. The section should not refer to parents’ proposals as this may give the impression that approval is required. "Submit their proposals" certainly implies that approval or permission is required and this must be corrected. A reasonable timescale for families to settle into home education should be standard good practice, before they are expected to answer enquiries about their educational provision.
Question five
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?
NO
sections 3.11 to 3.14 come under the heading "Providing a full-time education", yet the content wanders considerably from this topic into the expected content of that education and consequent sanctions.
re: section 3.11 The words "full-time" have been missed from the first sentence. It would be preferable to explain that full-time is not defined and that it is for a parent to judge whether the amount of time their child spends in education is sufficient to provide them with an education suitable to age, ability and aptitude. ie full-time is a personal measurement. The idea of so much one-to-one contact risks creating the impression that home educated children must be hot-housed and/or personally tutored. It is not helpful at all to mention the recommended hours of school attendance as they are neither legally nor practically relevant to Home Education.
There should be clarification (accompanying the list of that which HE parents are not required to provide), that LAs must make all of this information clear to parents when they first establish contact with one another. This is important since LAs often take advantage of those who are new to HE and, for example, do not let these families know that they are not required to teach the National Curriculum.
re: section 3.12 It is essential the authorities should understand that there are many equally valid approaches to educational provision. To this end, and in the promotion of good relations with home educating families, it is important that government and local authority officials should stop producing documentation displaying partiality and making biased public statements to the effect that they believe school is best for most children or that most children should be in schools, that most families choose school, that many home educating families enjoy inspection and monitoring visits from the local authority and so on. These statements cause distrust and support prejudice and negative discriminatory attitudes toward home educating families. This has been the subject of complaint by AHEd members: http://ahed.pbwiki.com/AHED%20complaint%20-%20DfES%20public%20statements
The legal position is one of "audi alteram partem". LAs therefore must accept ANY information from parents in ANY format, not just from a "wide range" which they may feel they can prescribe.
The last sentence of section 3.12 is too prescriptive and should be removed.
Parents in all cases should be able to provide information sufficient to dispel any appearance of a failure to provide a suitable education to a child in their care. This may not necessarily include material "products" of learning for examination. It is important for local authorities to understand and respect this distinction, and that even if the child does produce "work", that this is the property of the child who may not wish to share it with strangers. Information about the educational provision may take any form deemed appropriate by the family.
re: section 3.13 AHEd believes that a list of acceptable characteristics for home education is potentially dangerous since the legal requirement is that a parent should be able to give sufficient information to dispel any appearance of failure to provide a suitable education. DCSF must not use this document to redefine “suitable” and “efficient” which have been defined in case law. In this case we find a list prescriptive and the list within a list in the last item both prescriptive and superfluous.
A list of desirable characteristics is also problematic because you cannot describe all possible acceptable provisions. Recent extensive research by Mike fortune-Wood, ("The Face of Home-Based Education - 1, Who, Why and How?" Published by Educational Heretics Press in association with "Personalised Education Now" 2005) includes the observation, "Home-Based educators are, on a family by family basis, creating innovative, highly personalised programmes of learning. This feature should be noted by local authorities. There is an increasing trend amongst LAs to try to judge home-based educational provision by school-based standards such as the National Curriculum, or a tick list of prescribed characteristics of education. This type of monitoring totally fails to grasp that home-based educators are constantly personalising education, and can only be judged, as the law allows, on the basis of whether they are efficiently meeting their own innovative criteria."
Point two, that the provision should show recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations, is particularly insulting where a family have removed their child from a state school because the school has failed to meet the needs of the child, or even where the child is being removed from a dangerous situation, such as bullying by other pupils or by teachers or a failure of acceptable provision. These families should certainly not then be required to prove or demonstrate to an official from the local authority that failed to deal with the needs, attitudes or aspirations of their child that they, themselves, are doing so, in order to avoid the suspicion that they may not be providing a suitable education and thus elicit further investigation. This could reasonably be described as harassment. For children registered at a state school there is a high element of compulsion about which children have no choice. However, some local authorities use recommendations, such as that at point 2, to insist on direct access to hear the expressed opinion of home educated children to ensure that these children are receiving the right to be consulted in matters that affect them. This is simple prejudice.
(Please see "Case Study - Recent Developments: section 3.13/3.14" under question eight for an example of the danger from these sections of the proposed guidelines.)
re: section 3.14 This section demonstrates the problem with a list of acceptable characteristics such as that proposed in 3.13. The section directs local authorities to have concern, for example, if a family do not demonstrate that a child has the opportunity to be stimulated by learning experiences or if they do not have 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. These are specific and prone to subjective interpretation according to educational philosophy. A clash of philosophy between traditional state schooling and, for example, child led or child centred educational provision, is not uncommon in our experience. (See “Expert Witness Statement.”) A child may not currently be using paper and pens, may currently have no interest in arts, crafts, ICT or other particular area specified but still be receiving an education suitable for their age, abilities and aptitude. Such a child would not pass this checklist of characteristics comprising an acceptable education.
Obviously, a decision to educate one’s own child oneself outside the school system is to play a substantial role but parents need only provide information sufficient to show that the child is receiving a suitable education.
"promptly" and "reasonable opportunity" should be better defined.
This section should acknowledge that parents' approaches to home education will develop with time and experience, and that this is particularly so in the first year or two of home education, as parents find out what suits their child best. It is not helpful to apply pressure to families at this (or indeed any) stage. Most parents will adapt their approach flexibly to meet the needs of their child, often moving away from school-style provision as they gain experience.
We are very surprised that you have not consulted on section 3.15 – 3.19 Children With Special Educational Needs. We include our comments below:
re: section 3.15 Some children have a statement of special educational needs; they are not "statemented", this is a derogatory term and should not be used.
Guidelines must avoid giving the impression, with words such as "the authority must ensure that parents can make suitable provision", that the LA has a duty to approve the SEN provision before home education can commence.
It is the duty of parents to ensure the educational needs of their children are met. The continuance of a statement against the wish of parents or when it is no longer relevant has caused problems for home educating families and local authorities.
If what is in the statement relates to school, then it is no longer relevant, and could be ceased to be maintained if the parent wishes, but if the statement is relevant to home education, for instance if it contains equipment or therapies, then the LA should continue to supply this and maintain and review the statement every year until either the child is no longer in full time education or the statement is no longer required.
It should be clear that parents are under no legal obligation to provide what is specified in a statement, which may also have become irrelevant to educational provision at home. Therefore where an authority is satisfied that suitable elective home education is taking place, they ought to consider ceasing the statement if the parent wishes it. It should be clear that section 3.11 is equally applicable to families with electively home educated children with special needs.
Items in a statement may be relevant only to meeting the needs of a child in a school situation. Some local authorities, believing that the parent is obliged to provide what is in the statement, unreasonably insist on the inclusion of these elements in the home education provision. The parents duty is only to provide an education as in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Baroness Ashton of Upholland makes it clear (Hansard 29 Oct 2001: column 1261) that "We do not suggest that parents must carry out exactly what is written in the statement"
Continuing to maintain a statement is therefore an inefficient use of the local authority resources where a parent is meeting the child's SEN without any additional resources being provided by the local authority, as it costs the authority time and money and does not benefit the child, parent or the local authority. The process of annual review has also been used as an attempt to impose an additional layer of monitoring for parents who home educate children with special educational needs. This is unfair and discriminatory. A local authority should not be able to use the special needs of a child, or a statement of special educational need to force a parent to do things that are inappropriate to elective home education.
re: section 3.16 This section does not make sense. Where an authority is not satisfied that a suitable education is being provided to a child with special educational needs the same duty is set out in law as with any other child. The local authority is absolved of the duty to arrange the special educational provision specified in the statement it maintains where the parents are making suitable arrangements for the education of the child. However, this does not prevent the authority from offering to arrange some, or all, of the special educational provision specified for meeting a child's special educational needs otherwise than at school. If the LA and parents agree to LA arranged provisions, this can be specified in the statement and duly arranged.
To use the phrase, "parents’ attempt" indicates a lack of respect for parental provisions. This should be removed and replaced with something like, “However, where the education provided is not meeting the child’s needs … “ etcetera.
re: section 3.17 Where the statement is not relevant it should be ceased. If it is not ceased when the parent wishes it, this appears as a device to impose additional and discriminatory procedures and monitoring practices upon families of children with special needs and is not conducive to continued good relationships with home educating families.
re: section 3.18 Permission to deregister a child with a statement of special educational need from a special school must not be unreasonably withheld.
If a child requires special equipment e.g. for communication or mobility, that is normally supplied through the LA education department while the child is of compulsory education age. The LA should not be able to use elective home education as a reason for withholding such equipment (as often happens now).
Question six
6 Do you agree that the section on developing relationships (section 4) is useful?
NOT SURE
We think this section is potentially useful but please note the following points.
re: section 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 …” This is not stated in the introduction which says, “These guidelines offer advice to parents, and advice to support local authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities.” There is a need for clear and unambiguous guidelines. They should be addressed solely to local authorities, and not also to parents. If the guidelines accurately interpret the law and demonstrate an understanding of the nature of home education, they are likely to be helpful. However, we question the value of guidelines given that there are to be no sanctions on local authorities who continue to act outside the law, regardless of the guidelines.
Assisting the development of relationships between local authorities and home educators should not be the central purpose of the guidelines, since these are by no means necessarily essential to the successful education of a child, and indeed may detract from it as parents become overly anxious about meeting the real or perceived requirements of the LA rather than the real educational needs of their child. The main purpose of the document should be to ensure legal compliance and proper treatment by LAs in the service of the provision of a suitable education to home educated children.
re: section 4.2 Whilst section 10 of the Children Act 2004 states that each childrens' services authority must make arrangements to promote co-operation between the authority, each of the authority's relevant partners and such other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to children in the authority's area, there is no clear duty for local authorities to make arrangements to promote relationships between themselves and home educators. Nor is there an equivalent duty placed upon home educators to make arrangements to build effective relationships with LAs, nor could it be stipulated that there is a duty to have these "co-operative" relationships. Although this much is stated in section 4.2, section 4.1 could easily be taken to imply the opposite and should therefore be re-written so as to make it clear that home educators and local authorities do not have to develop a relationship.
This is important because it is the case that many home educators do not want any relationship with the local authority, but would not want to be judged negatively for this. They may simply prefer to maintain the privacy of their families in the knowledge that they are sufficiently well-supported without the assistance of the state, they are not doing anything illegal and therefore do not warrant any investigation by authorities and that meeting with the local authority may prove to be a distraction from the main task of educating their child. Local authorities need to realise that they act as public servants and respond only in situations of need. They should not insist upon establishing relationships as to do so (even if very politely), is to destroy the genuine possibility of an equal, co-operative and trusting relationship.
The assertion that good relationships will provide access to some support is likely to prove false, since LAs do not have a statutory supportive role, their support is extremely limited in nature, and support is usually more easily and effectively achieved through contact with HE organisations and groups.
re: section 4.3. It would be preferable to remove the phrase "especially those who have other children attending school", as it is very likely to lead to false assumptions about the style of education provided. For example, many parents provide a very structured form of education without ever having sent any of their children to school. Other parents with some school-educated children provide a more child-centred form of education where the parent responds to the enquiries of the child.
Although "some" parents may well "welcome general advice", some will not and this should be added after the word "materials". The last point should also include advice to LAs that they must not state their own personal or corporate preferences.
re: section 4.4 Reference to paras 3.12 to 3.15 appears to be an error (? should be 3.12 and 3.13).
Given that AHEd have called these sections into question, the last sentence of section 4.4 is also not acceptable.
re section 4.5 This section repeats a lot of section 2.5
re: section 4.6 This section repeats parts of section 3.3 and 3.5
It comes under the heading "Providing information for parents", yet after the first sentence it is not about this. Rather, it is about meeting parents and access to the child. It may be better included in the following section on "contact". However, there appears to be undue emphasis on visits as a means of contact. There is no legal requirement for "future contact".
It is possible that 4.5 and 4.6 are not necessary
How are the authorities going to satisfy themselves that the child has been given the opportunity to attend the meeting, other than by meeting with the child themselves? If this is the intention here, it should be clear that many children have no desire, and none have an obligation, to meet with the LA whether to discuss their education, or to discuss whether they want to meet with the LA to discuss their education. Likewise, it should be clear that a parent may respond to local authority enquiries in a variety of ways and may decline an invitation to meet. Invitations to parents and children should not give the impression that families must meet with officials or that any prejudicial judgement will be made about any decision to turn down the invitation.
re section 4.7 Singling out home visits and using weighted words like "strong indication" gives undue preference to this one option and must be changed. Going into a Home Educator's home to observe a child "responding to the educational provision" is no more legally valid or more likely to be a useful tool for assessing a parent's educational provision than any other means a parent prefers. To suggest that some parents are happy with this choice is misleading as it says nothing about the larger proportion of parents who do not prefer this choice.
re: section 4.8 A parent may respond to enquiries in any suitable manner (audi alterem partem) and repeated concentration on access to the home in this proposed guidance as well as reference to parents who do not "allow" a home inspection visit is unhelpful and perjorative. It is the right of the parent to choose how to respond to local authority enquiries. There is no duty to monitor or actively evaluate provision in general enquiries. There is a requirement to act if the information provided results in the appearance, on a balance of probabilities, of a failure to provide a suitable education. The section refers to education "by alternative means" which is part of Scottish law. It would be more in line with English law to say education "otherwise than at school".
LAs should be reassured that in those exceptional circumstances when there is real warranted concern that a child is at risk there are already Social Services procedures available and if there is real warranted concern that the child's education is not suitable they have section 437 of the education Act 1996 to call upon. The complaint that SAOs are expensive and they need another tool, is a non-starter when one considers the room for manoeuvre between sections 437(1) and 437(3).
re: section 4.9 This section refers to children who are educated “by other means.” This phrase is from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The law applying to England refers to children educated either by regular attendance at school “or otherwise.” The wording should therefore be amended to reflect English education law and not simply copied from another document that was not written for application of English law.
To suggest that a child's welfare is the responsibility of the whole community is leaving out the first stage that must assume that a child's welfare is the primary responsibility of their parent and only becomes the responsibility of the wider community in situations of clear parental failure.
LAs need to be instructed not to manipulate education laws to address perceived welfare concerns: social services have adequate legal tools at their disposal and genuine concerns should be passed to the appropriately trained professionals.
re: section 4.10 This section states: "Parents will therefore wish to satisfy themselves by taking up appropriate references." It is not for the DCSF or LAs to decide whether parents do or do not acquire references and it should not appear that it is a requirement.
The draft states "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." This token statement is not helpful enough. LAs could provide this service to all HEers wishing to avail themselves of it as a means of ensuring they fulfill their ECM agenda; it would be a legally and morally acceptable use of funds. Why single out CRB checks - some LEAs provide other things that they are not directly obliged to provide and there is no good reason for the DCSF not to promote this assistance to Home Educators.
4.11 "will wish to" should read "should" delete "further develop relationships and".
Question seven (a)
7 a) Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful?
NOT SURE
re: section 5.1 The information sheet mentioned in this section and other home education information on the department's web site, are the subject of complaints from home educators about accuracy and fairness. For example, the second paragraph of the info sheet suggests that parents inform the LA when they withdraw a child from school. We have commented on this at Question 4 re section 3.9 of the draft guidelines. It would be useful, if a set of suitable guidelines are produced, if these informed changes to the web site information.
re: section 5.2 It would be helpful and supportive if local authorities would allow and fund access for home educated children to examination centres as external students, fund examination entry fees and provide and fund a coursework marking service.
"home schooling" should read "home education" or "education otherwise than at school"
Instead of merely stating the current situation, that LAs do not receive earmarked funding for home education, it would be much fairer and much more conducive to good relations, if the Department instructed LAs that it is quite fair and legal to earmark some of their funds for home educators and that it would assist in fulfilling their ECM agenda. The cost to the state of minimal assistance as suggested at 5.2 above, would still be only a tiny percentage of the cost to the state if 40,000 home educated children took up a school place, especially given that the home educated cohort is disproportionately over represented by children with SEN.
re: section 5.3 The first sentence should be rephrased. We suggest something like, "For those home educating families who wish to access the National Curriculum" ....
re: section 5.5 The Learning and Skills Act 2000 120. - (1) states that for the purpose of the provision of services in pursuance of section 114 (Support for 13 to 19 year olds: England) (1), any of the persons or bodies mentioned in subsection (2) *may* supply information about a young person. Where local authorities are asked to provide details of electively home educated young people to the Connexions service, this is not a statutory duty and is therefore subject to normal data protection principles. It should be made clear to authorities in these guidelines that if they are requested to share information about electively home educated children they should not risk breaching data protection principles and that they should, therefore, first seek consent in order to comply with the Data Protection Act.
re: section 5.6 This section needs expanding and flexi time needs promoting as a legal, viable alternative that Heads should be instructed not to withhold unreasonably as many now do. Legality of insurance and National Curriculum requirements need clarifying to LAs as these issues raise most of the objections from Heads to offering flexi time arrangements. It is not acceptable that parents are refused this arrangement because;
a) other parents/children may then wish to do it,
b) teachers feel they cannot assess the whole education,
c) the Head is worried about the parents being able to cover the rest of the NC,
d) the Head is worried about the child's social cohesion in the school or
e) other similar issues that are the parents concern/duty to deal with.
The duty to ensure a suitable education is the parent's, whether the child attends school full-time, part-time of not at all.
It is unsatisfactory that so many people fail to arrange the flexi-time attendance they wish for when it is completely legal. This difficulty is a clear indicator of the level of ignorance and prejudice against home education amongst head teachers and LAs that this guidance document could usefully dispel.
re: section 5.7 "compulsory schooling" should read "compulsory education"
re: section 5.8 AHEd welcomes the encouragement to LAs to support home educators in finding work experience. However, it raises the question why, if the Department can encourage this type of assistance to home educators, it does not encourage - with the same emphasis - assistance in other areas such as examination entry?
re: section 5.9 Home educated children over the age of sixteen years who remain in education, should have access to this benefit in the same way as other students, as they do in Scotland. To carry out a policy of denying this benefit to students whose continued education is carried on outside the school system, is to re-enforce every comment or act of bias and discrimination against home education and home educators that has been directed toward us by national and local government officials. Home educators regard this policy as unwarranted as well as a grossly unfair and outrageous expression of institutionalised prejudice against home educators and their children.
re: section 5.10 Current guidelines are not clear enough and encourage harassment and possible removal or arrest of a child and or parents by the police and there is a serious and growing problem with truancy sweep procedures for home educators, where truancy sweep officials do not know the law and do not understand home education. When the Crime and Disorder Bill was going through parliament many home educators asked for specific mention of home educators being exempt from the measure, but this was denied. Instead, the minister reassured us that the measures would not be applied to home educators saying that if a child said they were home educated no further action should be taken.
This promise has not been fulfilled and early guidance has been superceded by disasterous recommendations such as the phrase in the recent guidelines that "it is not always necessary to confirm a child's status when home educated." In our opinion, this is incitement to harass home educated children for proof of their status. It is not necessary to confirm the home educated status of the child unless the officer has reason to believe otherwise. If there is no other reason to disbelieve a parent or child claiming home educated status, this should not be questioned or require confirmation and they should be taken at their word. The belief that home educated children are subject to a requirement to prove their home educated status and to give their personal details to officials who have stopped and questioned them in a public place has no basis in law. The practice has resulted in harassment and illegal treatment of home educators and their children. Some examples include:
- Large numbers of parents reporting harrassment to prove their home educating status rather than being believed when there is no reason to doubt them
- a home educated child abducted from the street by the police, despite the local postman intervening to tell the officials that he knew the child, and the children of the family were all home educated
- A family being stopped in the street by officials who pulled up and alighted from a van, detaining the family in the rain for twenty minutes whilst they were questioned and forced to give their personal details under duress to prevent further distress to the children
- Families threatened with arrest if they do not give their personal details for checking
- A tutor and child on an educational visit removed from an art gallery and quizzed in a private room
- A family flagged down in their car to be questioned about possible truancy
- Random truancy sweeps, not notified or in a designated area, with unauthorised questioning of families and children
- Police and LA staff in truancy sweep procedures giving home educators their view that all children should be in school
Consequently, this issue requires urgent remedial attention. If you would genuinely like to promote good relations between home educators and local authorities, local authorities should be properly advised that truancy procedures are not applicable to home educators and that if they are informed that a child is home educated, no further action should be taken. This promise was made to us in parliament. The family/child should be allowed to continue about their lawful business, as the minister promised us. A history of broken promises and routine mistrust of home educating families does not promote good relations.
re: section 5.11 To single out GRT in this manner is inappropriate and prejudiced. GRT home educators are subject to exactly the same legal requirements as any other home educator.
The document quoted is about "pupils" and therefore children registered with a school, NOT about home educated children.
Annexe A and B
This information appears to be primarily aimed at home educators rather than local authorities and may be misplaced in this document.
Guidelines are unlikely to be updated often enough to keep up with resources or contacts information. eg, the Education Otherwise membership rate is already out of date.
A website link could perhaps be provided to a government website with up to date information about resources and a contact address for information to be sent in to the site.
If the annexes do find their way into a final publication they should include a disclaimer because it would be inappropriate for the Department to recommend any particular resource or contact.
Annexe A - "Alternative Qualifications" refers to Standard Grades. This document is for England and it is therefore not appropriate to refer to Scottish examinations.
It is also questionable whether the Department should single out the International Certificate of Christian Education for recommendation.
Annexe B - The "DfES related links:" are not relevant to elective home education and should be removed.
Question seven (b)
7 b) Should any other contacts be included?
YES
We are surprised at the prominence given to one or two groups making other groups look less important. For example some groups have only a website link and no other information included, when there is other contact information available and this should be included equally. The contacts list should include AHEd. Here is the information for AHEd and two other useful organisations of interest to home educators.
AHEd (Action for Home Education) is a National Home Education information, support and action network group for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Membership is free to those who support our aims. Members take part in discussion group and membership action to support home education freedoms.
Contact details:
website: www.ahed.org.uk
Email: enquiries@ahed.org.uk or ahed@ahed.org.uk or
Postal Address:
Action for Home Education
PO BOX 7324
DERBY
DE1 OGT
AHEd public wiki, pages of information, articles, news and links of relevance to home education: http://ahed.pbwiki.com/
PEN (Personalised Education Now),
113 Arundel Drive,
Bramcote Hills,
Nottingham
NG9 3FQ UK.
Tel: 0115 925 7261
http://c.person.ed.gn.apc.org/
For information purposes where families might be moving to Scotland:
Schoolhouse Home Education Association,
PO Box 18044,
Glenrothes,
Fife KY7 9AD.
Tel: 01307 468509.
Email: info@schoolhouse.org.uk
Question eight
8 Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidelines
In this section we have included:
1. Expert Witness Statement
2. Case Study - Routine Misrepresentation of Legal Powers and Duties.
3. Case Study - Recent Developments: section 3.13/3.14
(These were referenced in the answers to consultation questions.)
We have also included our responses to the RIAs. Although these documents state that the RIAs are part of the consultation (eg: "This RIA is being published alongside the consultation, and we welcome contributions on the document") you have provided no questions or other space in which to respond and so we include our response here.
Expert Witness
1. Expert Witness Statement
Pr. Roland Meighan
Home Based Education and the Problem of the Competence of Inspectors
Education inspectors are rarely competent to judge home-based education, except in the minority of cases where families adopt school-type formal courses and structures. This was acknowledged over 25 years ago in Harrison v. Stevenson 1981 where the judge accepted the submission of the Harrison family that the reports presented by Dr. James Hemming and Dr. Roland Meighan were valid, as against the local authority inspectors reports, because they had a clear understanding of the logistics of autonomous education, and the LEA inspectors did not.
The fact is that local authority inspectors have only been trained in one approach to education - the authoritarian, based on crowd instruction and crowd control and the dictum of 'you will do it our way, or else'. When they try to evaluate home-based education conducted on autonomous educational principles, we have a situation where basketball experts are, in effect, trying to judge a game of tennis. Admittedly, both have nets, balls and a court, but these similarities are deceptive and lead to absurd propositions like, 'the tennis players did not produce evidence of dribbling skills', and 'the raquets did not appear to produce any scoring of baskets'!
So inspectors report that 'little teaching was in evidence'. But Autonomous Education uses purposive conversation, a method on average, five times as effective as uninvited formal teaching. Next, 'they did not follow the National Curriculum.' No, because the appropriate curriculum for autonomous education is the Catalogue Curriculum. And so on, - I will not labour the point.
Those inspectors wanting to get up to date need to consult the 30 years of literature available on modern home-based education - they can make a start with "Comparing Learning Systems" by Roland Meighan/
Roland Meighan, May 2007
(Professor Roland Meighan D.Soc.Sc., Ph.D., B.Sc.(Soc), LCP., Cert. Ed. FRSA, is a leading thinker, publisher, and author of Education Now and Educational Heretics Press. He has written and presented extensively across the world. His booklist is too numerous to list but includes A Sociology of Educating with Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Continuum Books (4th Edition. 5th with Prof Clive Harber pending) IBSN 0-8264-6815-2. His latest work is Comparing Learning Systems: the good, the bad, the ugly and the counter-productive, Educational Heretics Press, ISBN 1-900219-28-X.)
(A booklist can be provided on request.)
Case Study, Misrepresentation
2. Case Study - Routine Misrepresentation of Legal Powers and Duties.
Mr and Mrs Bonsall
Nottinghamshire.
Our experience with the Local Elective Home Education department, has not at all been a pleasant or helpful one. The department has given incorrect and misleading information and has behaved in a threatening manner toward us. Most contact from them has been over the phone even when requested on numerous occasions that all correspondence should be in written form for our records.
When we started to educate two of our children at home we were informed by the local Elective Home Education department that we had no choice but to have a visit with one of their inspectors. A visit went ahead within weeks of beginning home education. Even though the visit went well, the children felt very uncomfortable being judged by this perfect stranger. A few weeks later we received a copy of the report which was very favorable, but we were informed that we had to have another visit within three months, a third six months later and then annually. We were told that this is normal practice and not informed of other options. We were not happy about this as we felt it would undermine the children and we would prefer to answer enquiries in another way. So we checked the information that the local authority had given to us with local and national home education groups and on the internet and found that both printed and verbal information from the local authority was misleading and incorrect. We decided as a family that we would prefer to send in a written report rather than have another home visit, as the first visit was too stressful on the children, and that we could continue to home educate in confidence having come to this joint decision.
In due course, when the local Elective Home Education department phoned and told us that they were coming to carry out another home visit inspection, we said this was not convenient and informed them in writing that we would be sending a written report on what the children have been learning since the first visit, in response to their renewed enquiries.
Within a week we had the Education Welfare officer arrive unannounced at our front door because they had been told by the Elective Home Education department that we were “ignoring” a request for a home visit & that we had 2 weeks to contact them to arrange a visit, or further action would be taken. We wrote to the Elective Home Education department again informing them that we had learned we had the right to respond to their enquiries in a variety of ways and that we had chosen to send a written report before the date that the Education Welfare officer had given to contact them.
In response to our written report we received a reply saying our report was indeed most helpful. However, "the Local Authority is not in a position to fulfil its duty under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 to accept on face value a written report." This was insulting on two levels. It should not be the policy of a local authority to assume that parents might be lying, and section seven is the duty of parents, not the local authority. The authority threatened that if we did not arrange a home visit they would have “no other option” than to issue a request under section 437.
However, we had no time to respond to this as, on the very same day we received a letter from the Education Welfare officer stating we had 14 days to place the children back in school or to give proof of their education, or legal action would be taken. Not only is this harassment but it is not the proper procedure as set out in the Education Act 1996. At this point the authority had no reason to conclude that there was an appearance of failure to provide the children with a suitable education, and they had carried out one home visit inspection resulting in a good report and had a further report on the educational provision from us, which they said was helpful.
Our Local Elective Home Education department has been very unhelpful with information. They only give information that supports their policy and some of this is incorrect information. We feel that the Elective Home Education department do not abide by the law and are very biased against families that choose to decline an invitation for a home visit inspection. An example of this is when, in response to a complaint about their policy and practice, the Elective Home Education department conducted a satisfaction survey of known Home Educators in the area, which they said would affect policy development. Three families that we know of, including ourselves, were excluded from the survey. When the families asked why, the response was that the LA had included families that they had had "contact" with, i.e. only families who accept a home visit inspection. My family had accepted a home visit and experienced the policy and practice of the authority, but we were excluded from the survey. Only families who continue to agree to home visits were allowed to respond to the survey that would affect policy development. Only one or two questions on the survey dealt with visits. A number of other questions dealt with other areas.
We would like our authority to follow procedures of the current education law, to provide legally correct information and to treat home educators with fairness, and equally, in accordance with the law.
Case Study - Recent Developments
3. Case Study - Recent Developments: section 3.13/3.14
The authority used as an example, above, is not untypical but also happens to have provided an example of why AHEd is concerned about the list at section 3.13 and advice about this list at section 3.14:
The authority has written to some home educators giving a deadline for their expected response to general enquiries and stating:
"...In considering your provision of education at home, it would be helpful if you could demonstrate that the following characteristics exist;
*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
If, on considering the educational provision, one or more of the above characteristics appear to be lacking, I will write to you specifying the grounds for concern and any reasons for concluding that provision is unsuitable. You will then be given a reasonable opportunity to improve your provision and report back to the local authority..."
The over literal application of the list that some home educators feared, is not without justification, as Nottinghamshire LA shows by its ready application of this list with the implication that it has legal force as a list of demands to be met with a deadline, before they are even approved as discretionary guidelines. In fact, the list has nothing to do with the law.
If the list is not removed altogether and substituted with section seven of the Education Act 1996, it should be stated that the list has no legal force. Parents may respond to local authority enquiries with a very good case supporting suitable and efficient provision without reference to any or all of the terms of a list supplied by the local authority.
Furthermore, LAs have neither the responsibility nor the power to insist on any aspect as a condition of approval of home education provision. None of the items in the list is necessarily required in order for a parent to furnish the local authority with sufficient information to dispel any appearance of failure to provide a suitable education. The lack of one or two should certainly not be used to indicate concern as recommended in section 3.14, or to conclude as a result that the educational provision is, therefore, unsatisfactory.
The law states:
s7:
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient fulltime 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".
and
s437:
"(1) 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."
If the local authority says that a parent is failing to provide a suitable education because the family is not providing something specified in a list, that is ultra vires. The local authority may not assume the power to say what constitutes a suitable education as this is the duty of the parent in accordance with the age, ability and aptitude of their child and any special needs they may have. "Suitable" and "efficient" have been defined in case law without reference to a list of characteristics, or recommendations to have concern if particular characteristics are not demonstrated. The guidance, therefore, must not be framed in such a way as to allow hostile or inflexible interpretation as this authority has already demonstrated before the end of the consultation period. Authorities need clarification of the law but the list has the potential to further complicate matters.
In effect, the list at 3.13 and the recommendations about the list at 3.14 have already provided false legitimacy to ultra vires practices and this must be corrected.
RIAs Response
4. Re: PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION CONSULTATION
DCSF: Purpose and intended effect
AHEd: Response
The Heading of this RIA should have been clear that this is a consultation about Guidelines for LAs not a consultation about Home Education per se. There are also a number of issues, inaccuracies and statements in this RIA based upon biased information such as description in negative terms of the motivations of parents who withdraw their children from schools as though this were problematic in itself. These are addressed below.
RE DSCF Objective
"1. To ensure that all children who are being educated at home receive a full-time, high quality education which is suitable to their needs."
There is a fundamental dichotomy between the stated purpose of the guidelines on the guidelines document and the statement of objective above, which could also be said to be in conflict with the later statement in this document that the consultation simply proposes guidelines on home education. Guidelines must be in accord with legislation and should therefore aim to make clear the law relating to education otherwise than at school. Guidelines must not have as their objective the creation of a new government role to ensure the education of all children. The government is not responsible to ensure that children being educated at home by their parents are receiving a suitable education. Local authorities are not responsible to ensure that children being educated at home by their parents are receiving a suitable education. it is parents who are legally responsible for ensuring the suitable education of their children either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Local authorities are obliged to act where there is an appearance of failure. Advising LAs that they are responsible to ensure the suitable education of children educated at home by their parents will inevitably lead to policies that are ultra vires in practice and produce poor relations between families and their local authority.
"2. Whilst most parents choose to educate their children at school, a small proportion of parents prefer home education. Estimates of the number of children who are being educated at home vary significantly, but as many as 40,000 children might be being educated at home."
This first sentence is an assumption based on a lack of public information. It is the experience of AHEd members that many parents "choose" to educate their children at a school because they are unaware of their legal right to choose to ensure an education "otherwise" than at school. Guidance such as that currently being drafted should insist that local authorities are open and informative about ALL legal options available to parents in ALL information they produce for parents about educating their children. Information about home education is often buried or non existant in local authority publications and websites. It is likely that Contact Point will make concerns about the unknown numbers of children being educated outside the school system irrelevant.
"3. The regulatory framework for home education is currently minimal."
The current legal framework is far from minimal. The perception that it is minimal is only found amongst local authorities that are unclear about the limitations of their responsibilities and where lack of respect is given to the ability of parents to take personal reposonsibility for their own child's education. The current framework allows for parental responsibility and choice, enquiry to establish if there is cause to believe a child is not receiving a suitable education and action to be taken if there is such a concern, including further enquiry, the issue of a notice to satisfy, the serving of a school attendance order and bringing parents before a judge if there is non compliance with a school attendance order. The defence against a charge of non-compliance with a school attendance order is that the child is already receiving a suitable education otherwise than by attendance at school. Sadly, home educating networks are accustomed to hear of local authorities who take the attitude that they are responsible to ensure a home educated child receives a suitable education and that they wish to see it in a particular form. It is essential, to avoid continued difficulties, that the DCSF is clear about the respective legal duties of parents and local authorities. The implications of DCSF failure to properly address the legal duties of local authorities would be far reaching for families and for the country in terms of unnecessary public expense. AHEd does not agree with any implication of deficiency or weakness of the current legal framework expressed in terms of it being “minimal”. We believe the legal framework is currently more than adequate for all concerned and to ensure the proper education of electively home educated children.
"If children have never been to school, there is no requirement to inform the local authority that home education is taking place."
There is no requirement for parents to inform the local authority either that their child is being home educated or that they are withdrawing their child from school for home education. The requirement is never for the parent to inform the local authority about how they are fulfilling their duty under the Education Act 1996 (section 7). Local authorities may make enquiries of parents if they wish.
"Parents are under an obligation to provide a ‘suitable’ full-time education, but there are no set standards or curriculum requirements."
This is completely wrong. There is a set standard. The standard is set out in the Education Act 1996, Section7, which requires that children be caused to receive a full time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs they may have. That is, that the education will suit the individual child. “Suitable” and “efficient” have also been defined in case law. If necessary these definitions should be provided to local authorities who are in confusion about the meaning of "suitable" or "efficient." It would be against the primary responsibility of the parent and their right to have a child educated in accordance with their own philosophy and beliefs for an outside body to dictate curriculum requirements more rigidly than section seven requires. AHEd would vigorously oppose any such attack on freedom of conscience and belief.
It is a matter of grave concern that the DfES/DCSF impact statement can get things so wrong:
Parents are responsible to ensure the suitable education of their children.
The regulatory framework accords parents choice and flexibility whilst requiring that children are educated efficiently.
The regulatory framework provides a role for authority to make enquiry and to act if there is, in their judgment, an appearance of failure.
There is no requirement on parents to inform the local authority of the lawful choice to provide for the education of their children outside the school system, for which parents are responsible.
The law provides a specific standard to which all children must be educated. Although it is not explicit, the RIA infers that the perceived lack of set standards and curriculum requirements requires remedy.
The imposition of externally derived curricula upon families is not supported in law and would constitute an attack on the primary responsibility of parents with regard to their children.
The imposition of externally derived curricula upon families is not supported in law, and would constitute an attack on the right of parents to have their children educated according to their own philosophy and beliefs.
Under, "Rationale for Government intervention" you state, "4. The Every Child Matters framework sets out the five outcomes which the Government wants all children to achieve. These are to stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. Local authorities have an interest in ensuring that all children – whichever education setting they are in – achieve those outcomes."
Most parents want the same outcomes for their children as a minimum. There is an inherent assumption here that the government cares more about children than anyone else and that government needs to protect and defend all children. This notion gives rise to the idea that government needs to police parents. This is to criminalise the position of parents in the lives of their children. Parents are the primary defenders of their children and should not all be viewed with suspicion because some few parents default.
Local authorities should remember therefore, that they are empowered to make enquiries of home educating families but they do not have powers to intervene in the private family life of law-abiding citizens. Such powers would be disproportionate and would constitute an abuse of the family likely to be contrary to the continued happiness and well being of children which would be against the desired outcomes of the ECM agenda.
The regulatory impact assessments all state a version or repeat of, "5. Whilst many parents provide a high-quality education, there are concerns that a small minority of parents are unable or unwilling to do so. Local authorities report that a small – but increasing – number of parents may be withdrawing their children from school as a way to avoid School Attendance Orders. There are also concerns for the safety and well-being of a small number of children. The current system is often insufficiently responsive. Additionally, a lack of data makes it very difficult for local authorities and central government to plan services properly."
Failure to provide a Suitable education:
The law requires parents to ensure that their children receive a “suitable” education. The term “high quality”, as stated here and in the objective at point 1, is not part of the legislative wording and introduces an unnecessary confusion, although AHEd agree that many parents are providing high quality home education for their children. In the event that a home educating parent is not providing a suitable education to their child, the law sets out clearly the steps that must be taken by the local authority. These steps are more than adequate to intervene in a case of parental failure to ensure the suitable education of a child. The fact that it is possible for a parent to fail in their duty does not promote the case for increased governmental intervention in any family beyond that which is already mandatory, any more than vague “concerns” that such parents may exist would promote the cause of intervention where there is no actual cause for concern. In fact, increased intervention may directly or indirectly create additional problems or failures because of the pressure that is brought to bear on the family, the child and the education being offered. Failure to provide a suitable education does not produce a rationale for increased government intervention beyond that already required by the existing legal framework.
Avoidance of a School Attendance Order:
Withdrawing a child from school for home education is not a way to avoid school attendance orders. School attendance orders can be issued where a parent is thought to be failing to ensure the suitable education of their child otherwise than at school. There is a misunderstanding here about the legal position of parents whose children may not be receiving a suitable education. A School Attendance Order usually applies in situations where a child is not a registered pupil at a school and therefore withdrawing a child from school for home education is likely to increase the risk of receiving a school attendance order rather than being a means of avoiding one. On the other hand, where a child who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly, the parent commits an offence under Section 444 of the education Act 1996 and is liable to a fine, not liable to receive a School Attendance Order. It is this offence of “failing to secure regular attendance at school of a registered pupil” that some parents will wisely endeavour to avoid by withdrawing their child from the school register. Facing such legal action on top of the problems already faced when a child is refusing school attendance can only exacerbate the difficulties for a family who have decided to try home education as an alternative means of causing their child to receive a suitable education.
In these instances home education should be considered as a potentially acceptable solution to the problem for all parties concerned. Punishing the families of school refusers or school phobic children is not a solution but a further abuse. Taking this decision should certainly not be cited as rationale for government intervention into elective home education.
Sadly, it is not uncommon for AHEd to hear of cases where local authorities have hidden the choice to home educate from parents in their public information and have misinformed families about their rights when problems with schooling arise. This perceived ‘problem’ therefore is the result of the failure of public bodies to provide all full and relevant information to members of the public in an attempt to influence them when they are making decisions about the educational choices available to them, including when problems with schooling arise.
Some local authorities, in published notes or guidance on home education, openly state in these home education notes or guidance that it is their opinion that their schools are the place where most children should be. It is not surprising in that case, and given that they also often believe that the local authority is responsible to ensure the suitable education of all children in the area, that even these home education guidance notes are not easy to find.
However, it is inappropriate and beyond the scope of any sort of advisory and supportive role for local authorities to express an opinion about the family's choice in education. Local authorities should therefore provide readily accessible and correct information to the public.
Any regulatory or other intervention by government should be aimed at ensuring members of the public are properly informed by their public services and that school attendance orders are not inappropriately used to force the attendance in schools of children for whom this would be harmful or otherwise inappropriate.
Local Authorities should make no distinction between families who choose home education for different reasons or between families from different communities. Concerns about the reasons that parents have for withdrawing a child from school do not produce a rationale for increased government intervention beyond that already required by the existing legal framework, although it may give the authority valuable feedback on how the school services can be improved.
Child Welfare:
Education at home is not a welfare issue. It is a slur on home educating families to imply that home education is a welfare risk indicator even when qualified by number. There are already procedures to deal with any welfare concerns that arise when working with children and families. There is no need to create further intervention into family life, as this is a potential abuse of families and children in itself.
Concerns about child welfare do not produce a rationale for increased government intervention beyond that already required by the existing legal framework.
Insufficient Data:
It is ridiculous to talk about the difficulty of planning services to families about whom you are unaware. This does not produce a rationale for increased government intervention beyond the existing legal framework.
Under "Public Consultation" you state, "6. The research which informed the consultation paper involved consultation with Education Otherwise and the Home Education Advisory Service, home educating parents and local authorities."
The consultation of March 2005, which preceded this consultation, specifically excluded responses from parents, who were told they could not respond. We have not forgotten this consultation or the consequent proposals for “light touch changes” which have been dropped. These were the subjects of a complaint to the Cabinet Office by AHEd. http://ahed.pbwiki.com/Complaint-to-Cabinet-Office
"The formal consultation period will run for 12 weeks and will include directly approaching stakeholders who have expressed an interest in the subject."
This is insufficient to ensure that as many as possible of those parties with an interest are aware of the consultation. AHEd believes that the department whilst not, on this occasion, actually excluding parents, has not made suitable efforts to reach large numbers of difficult to reach families and that local authorities have failed to act on the department's request to inform even those home educators of whom they are aware. Other measures could have been employed to reach families such as public notices in local newspapers. This would have gone some way to ensure that families including those not currently known to their authority could also respond. Merely approaching stakeholders who have been sufficiently informed already to express their interest is hardly bothering to make much effort.
Costs and benefits
"8. Whilst issuing guidelines would not impose any new costs on any parts of the system, it would ensure that current costs continue. Given the great uncertainty around the numbers of children being educated at home, it is very difficult to provide an accurate estimate of these costs."
Local authorities are aware of those families to whom they consider themselves to be providing services. They will also be aware of withdrawals from schools for home education as they happen. It is ridiculous to talk about the difficulty of estimating the costs of providing services to families about whom you are unaware and who are not receiving services. These families involve no costs to the local authority.
"However, we do know that local authorities already monitor the standard of home education which parents are providing"
There is no duty or right in law for local authorities to monitor the standard of home education which parents are providing. Guidance needs to make this clear. If the DCSF are aware of such monitoring and have not instructed local authorities to cease this activity, they are condoning expensive and traumatic ultra vires activity. There is a right to make enquiries to ascertain if there is an appearance of failure to provide a suitable education to a child, and a duty to act in the case of such an appearance. Any further expenses caused by an ultra vires policy of monitoring standards is additional unnecessary cost that could be better spent providing services to home educating families that are actually desired, such as access to examination centres as external students, supporting home educated children under sixteen who wish to use courses at the local college of further education, or the use of local authority rooms for home education meetings and sharing of teaching library resources etc.
"These costs range from £125 per child per annum to £275 per child per annum, with an average cost of £200."
There is no legal duty or right to insist in regular monitoring, either annual, biannual or otherwise. Home educating families save the authorities thousands of pounds per year per child by educating them outside of the state education system. If there is a concern about the discretionary budget of local authority education departments being used to monitor the standards of home education being provided, it should be remembered that this is not a statutory duty of local authorities and if the guidance document accurately reflects the legal position, money will be saved by reducing the number of unnecessary interventions local authorities make.
"this means that local authorities are currently spending around £4m per annum"
… quite unnecessarily … as stated above, this cost could be cut dramatically if the guidelines instruct local authorities to limit their interventions to those that are legally necessary. This saving could be redirected to services actually sought by home educating families, such as exam access
"This is in addition to the costs of advising and supporting home educators, which would not be affected by changes to the current legal framework."
Why is this reference to changes to the legal framework here? If changes to the current legal framework are being proposed, this is not clear. The DfES has written to home educators regarding this consultation saying that proposed changes to the legal framework are no longer being considered. Either they are still being considered or this RIA is ill thought out and improperly constructed with reference to the current consultation. References to changes to the current legal framework should be removed and guidelines produced only with reference to the current legal situation. All documents of the consultation should relate properly to the terms of the consultation so as to avoid misunderstanding.
It is our experience that few home educators want or need advice and support of the DCSF or local authority in their home education. Advice and support is better obtained from many other sources more directly geared to their needs such as home educating organisations specifically designed for the purpose, (AHEd, Home Service, HEAS, EO and others,) fellow home educators, curriculum providers, and from internet information and support groups as well as books about home education. It would be helpful if local authority officials were sufficiently informed to point new home educators in this direction.
"10. Research has shown that the current regulatory framework relies on good will."
Sadly, many home educators are educating their children in a situation where local authorities are hostile to home education freedoms and consequently fail to give correct information or actually mislead home educators about procedures in order to limit their choices. This applies where local authorities are complaining about the perceived weaknesses of the regulatory framework. For example, DCSF requested that local authorities inform home educators that this consultation is taking place. A poll by AHEd has revealed a large number of local authorities who have not acted on this request. This is in line with our experience that local authorities seek to limit information and choice to home educators.
AHEd agrees that there has been a large measure of good will from home educating families over decades of dealing with LAs. This is because local authorities have been accustomed to making ultra vires demands, which depend on the good will of home educating familie for their fulfilment. However, decades of compliance with ultra vires demands have resulted in a situation where local authorities are not satisfied when a family do not wish to comply and are now asking for increased powers to eliminate our choices. This most often relates to local authority “monitoring procedures,” where a family wish to exercise their legal choice to respond to enquiries in a way that they judge to be in the best interest of their children, but this is not the preferred manner of response of the local authority. They may, for example, decline a home visit and offer other forms of information instead. These families frequently experience difficult relationships with the local authority as a result of these ultra vires demands with which they do not wish to comply. Some authorities refuse to accept any form of information from parents other than that received by the preferred methods of the authority and consequently, they threaten families with legal action.
Another situation in which Local authorities ultra vires demands depend on the good will of parents for their fulfilment is where a child has a statement of special educational need. Parents report that authorities maintain the statement when they aught to consider ceasing the statement if it is no longer relevant and with the agreement of parents. Some authorities make irrelevant demands based on the statement.
"Where that good will is absent or has broken down, local authorities tell us that the system becomes extremely cumbersome, and does not provide the tools they need to monitor effectively."
It is the law that does not provide the tools for LAs to monitor in the way that they would wish, or to force compliance with monitoring demands. This is because the demands to carry out monitoring procedures are outside the scope of the powers as set out in the Education Act 1996. The above complaint is that LAs do not have powers to act outside the existing law.
The negative impact on the home educating community of the failure of LAs to properly follow the Education Law for England is widespread and sometimes serious. It is essential for LAs to understand what it means that parents are responsible to ensure the suitable education of their children and can choose how and where this is done, and that the duty of the LA is to act as set out in law if there is an appearance of failure on the part of the parent. The law enables parents to answer any enquiry in a variety of ways and to choose a way that is in the best interests of their children. Sometimes this means an LA cannot carry out their preferred procedures but must allow the family to exercise their lawful choice.
The complaint of LAs that the system is “cumbersome” is indicative that many Local Authorities do not understand the law and are struggling to carry out nonexistent duties at public expense. In some cases they have misrepresented their legal powers and duties and in view of this we believe that what is meant by “tools” to carry out monitoring or any “light touch” changes to enable this is really a demand for compulsory monitoring procedures which would be against the human rights of children and of parents to educate their children in accordance with their own philosophy and beliefs and to have a private family life. It is, in fact, these calls and proposals for change that are cumbersome and expensive in terms of time, money and energy. For these guidelines to be helpful, they must be clear and unambiguous concerning the current legal situation. They should be addressed solely to Local Authorities to clarify the law, and not also to parents.
"For example, one of the main current mechanisms is legal action to obtain a School Attendance Order"
A school attendance order is not a mechanism to ensure that the local authority can monitor home education provision. This is a mechanism to enforce school attendance where it has been concluded by the local authority from information received that a child is not receiving a suitable education at home. It is our understanding that the authority is entitled to issue the School Attendance Order themselves and that this is not cumbersome. For example, they do not have to seek the permission of a court or weigh the case of the local authority and the parents before a judge in order to issue a school attendance order.
Authorities are simply permitted, but not obliged, to make enquiries and gather information. In the case of an appearance of failure the procedure is exactly the same whether in the presence or absence of good will. A failure to provide information to an LA that is making enquiries could result in an appearance of failure and consequent SAO. Information can be received in a number of ways and is neither more nor less cumbersome depending on the good will of parents, unless the authority wants to misuse public office to engage in measures to try to impose their preferred procedures upon an unwilling family who wish to exercise their lawful choice. This is indeed cumbersome and a waste of public monies.
To complain that non-compliance with ultra vires demands makes the work of the authority cumbersome is to complain about and wish to limit the free choice of parents. In fact, the frequently preferred procedure of home visits, to which many families accede, is likely to be more expensive and time consuming to the local authority than receiving written or photographic/video reports, or meeting with the parent in a neutral place to discuss educational provision.
Benefits
"11. Issuing guidelines would not increase burdens of registration"
Why is there a reference to registration? There is no requirement for parents to be registered with the local authority in order to home educate their children. This reference should be removed.
"or monitoring"
There is no duty or right in law for local authorities to monitor the standard of home education which parents are providing. There is a right to make enquiries to ascertain if there is an appearance of failure to provide a suitable education to a child and a duty to act in the case of such an appearance. References to monitoring requirements should be removed.
"12. Another clear benefit of this would be the avoidance of additional monitoring costs. However, it is likely that the current large costs and inconvenience of legal action would continue."
AHEd believes that legally accurate guidelines would actually reduce the number of costly interventions by local authorities, such as issuing School Attendance Orders. If local authorities produce proper highly visible information about the right to educate otherwise than at school, it is likely that many more children would receive a suitable education at home rather than be avoiding schooling and missing education, leading to costly local authority intervention
Enforcement,sanctions and monitoring
"14. We will consider how to take forward the guidelines on elective home education in light of the consultation responses. No enforcement of the guidelines is planned."
In that case, authorities that have already shown themselves to be abusive of home education rights will continue to behave in the same manner and the guidelines will provide no redress or protection to families faced with such an authority. The experience of home educators in Scotland in the years since their guidance was introduced would support this expectation. If there is no enforcement and no sanctions, we wonder about the purpose of guidelines? We note that these proposed guidelines are not written specifically for England but are amended versions of already existing documents. This further puts into question the launch of this consultation, the seriousness of its purpose and the respect afforded to home educators, or the need for clarification of the law with regard to the education of children otherwise than at school by the DCSF.
"RACE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Part Two: Full Impact Assessment
Detailed aims of the policy and its context:"
This section contains a number of mistakes and false issues. Please see our previous notes in the RIA.
"The incomplete nature of the data has made it difficult to assess whether there are differences in the rate of home education between different ethnic groups. In order to obtain a more complete picture, the Department has commissioned two research studies, including one focussed on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. These studies found that children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families are substantially over-represented amongst families who choose home education. Children from other minority ethnic groups appear to be no more or less likely to be educated at home than children from White British families."
Local Authorities should make no distinction between families who choose home education for different reasons or between families from different communities. The references to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in the draft guidelines are discriminatory and inappropriate. The research commissioned by the Department is very limited and is flawed and cannot be relied upon for meaningful input when producing these guidelines. For example, one study in Kirklees found over representation of Asian minority ethnic groups amongst their home education cohort. It is true that data collection is difficult and it is likely that Gypsy/Roma/Traveller families are over represented amongst home educators known to the local authority but not amongst ALL home educators. Drawing conclusions from the Departments two studies is inherently risky.
"We will send copies of the consultation to groups representing religious, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, and Black and Minority Ethnic communities, home educators, groups representing home educators, and local authorities."
There appears to have been very limited attempt to reach stakeholders in this consultation.
"The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES, 2007) ... concluded that “the current definition of ‘efficient and suitable’ education is considered too vague to enable LAs to assess the suitability of elective home education (EHE) and protect the welfare of children”."
The York study is also flawed and this conclusion cannot reasonably be drawn from that study, it is mere opinion put forward by frustrated poorly informed LAs. The Department has already informed AHEd and other home educators that there are no plans to alter the legal framework in which the terms "efficient" and "suitable" are already defined in case law. As mentioned above, the LA does not have a routine duty to assess the suitability of elective home education and legal powers are already in place where suitability of education provision or welfare can be reasonably said to be in doubt.
"The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006) states, “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. And yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is increasing at a high rate.” It concludes, “The legal context now requires a legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements."
AHEd believes that this study put too much emphasis on the school at home model of education which unfairly discounts the different abilities, aptitudes and cultural philosophies of diverse groups. The Department has said that NO legal changes are planned and this impact assessment should accurately reflect that. Current legal arrangements are not at all weak, as we have clarified above, if the LA are happy to acknowledge their limited powers to prescribe the educational lives of home educated children.
"The DfES needs to address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being educated under the EHE arrangements."
The Department should be careful not to describe children in GRT communities, or any elective home educators, in such a manner as to suggest that they are "very vulnerable" just by virtue of being in that community.
"Local authorities tell us that it is difficult to establish whether or not a child is receiving a ‘suitable’ education at home, as there is no definition of what ‘suitable’ is in a modern context. The arrangements for monitoring rely mainly on good will, and there are insufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare of the child when parents are unwilling to cooperate."
LAs create this problem for themselves by expecting to intervene in families where they have no duty. It is wrong for this impact assessment to suggest that because they meet opposition to their interventions that this is parents being uncooperative and that this situation may require redefinition of terms that are already defined adequately in case law for those following a legally acceptable protocol.
"Home educators are concerned that some local authorities go beyond their legal duties and are unhelpful or unnecessarily intrusive. Clearer legal standards would be helpful to ensure that the rights of the home educators are respected and observed"
Clear legal standards already exist. This impact assessment should not conclude that because parents are concerned when LAs overstep their legal duties, that standards need redefining. The standards simply require observing and the guidance should aim to instruct LAs to that end.
"Whilst this would give local authorities a much clearer idea of which children are being educated at home, it would not give them with any better tools to ensure that the education which is being provided is adequate for children’s age and ability."
As the LA has no legal duty to ensure that the education is being provided is adequate for children’s age and ability (this is the parent's duty ) this would be a pointless alternative in any case. The LA already has adequate tools where they have good reason to suspect a parent's failure in that duty.
"Other alternatives to achieving the policy aim include new legislation which would require all home educating parents to register with their local authority and giving local authorities the power to monitor home educators"
The Department has told AHEd and other home educators that there is no plan to make legislative changes. AHEd believes that legislative change is completely unnecessary if LAs are properly instructed about the limit of their legal obligations. AHEd would strongly object to any legislative change to introduce registration with the local authority or monitoring of home education. Both would be against basic human rights.
"After the final guidelines have been issued, we will examine whether it would be possible to commission a short research study to assess the impact of the changes."
If changes are planned to anything other than the presence of a guidance document, this is not clear. DfES has written to home educators saying that regulatory change is not now planned or being consulted upon and that the guidelines will be about home education under the current legal situation to which no changes are being arranged. The previous answer indicates that no changes in policy have been made.
"DISABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
"Initial screening for impact"
AHEd have commented on this section above.
"...Introducing compulsory registration will allow local authorities to find out more about the characteristics of children who are being educated at home, and respond to any particular needs they have. This may include learning more about the proportion of children who have a disability."
This section suggests that the Department expects the introduction of compulsory registration of home educators. The Department has told AHEd and other home educators that there is no plan to make legislative changes. AHEd believes that legislative change is completely unnecessary if LAs are properly instructed about the limit of their legal obligations. AHEd would strongly object to any legislative change to introduce compulsory registration with the local authority.
"The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006)"
This research is not directly relevant to disability impact assessment.
"Our preliminary analysis is that a full impact assessment is unnecessary. This is because the policy on home education is not major when set against the Department’s other policies and priorities.
"However, this is a preliminary conclusion. We will consult groups with particular interest and expertise in disability during the consultation process, and will review the need for a fuller assessment in July."
AHEd would like to be kept informed of any review of the decision not to make a full disability impact assessment.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.