>Thank you for your email of 26 January regarding the review of Home
>Education. I have been asked to reply.
>
>With regards to the review of home education, it may be helpful if I
>explain that we are committed to ensuring that systems for keeping
>children safe, and ensuring that they receive a suitable education, are
>as robust as possible. We have been progressively strengthening the
>systems and it is good practice to ensure that they are operating as
>intended. An independent review of home education is part of this
>continuing commitment to strengthening the system and to ensure all
>children achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.

I have read this as quite an aggressive first paragraph actually, and this
does nothing to reassure me with regards to your intentions. I am
concerned when you mention ‘the systems’ in such a blanket way. Which
systems are you referring to?
Also, the every child matters document doesn’t suggest every child should
achieve this. Instead it suggests that :

‘The Government’s aim is for every child, whatever their background or their
circumstances, to have the support they need to:

* Be healthy
* Stay safe
* Enjoy and achieve
* Make a positive contribution
* Achieve economic well-being

which is somewhat different in meaning. obviously one can’t legislate
against ill health! i found the subdivisions of the following document helpful
http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=pr
oductdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DCSF-00331-2008
i would be forgiven for thinking this was entirely aimed at school children
due to the number of times schooling is mentioned. Possibility due to the
risks inherent of bullying and antisocial behaviour at school. If the full 5
every child matters is going to be adhered to strictly, I would like a proper
confirmation and clarification particularly of the sub division that every child
should attend and enjoy school. i think that this is outwith the education
act – all children should receive an education tahter than attend school.
Also, I do not expect that the majority of schooled children will achieve
‘stretching national educational standards’ . Predominantly because if the
standards can be reached by the majority they would then not be
stretching.

I have no objection to the overarching theme of wanting to give children a
‘good start in life’ and the 5 outcomes do appear ‘noble’. but unless you are
planning widespread action against LA’s and schools for not achieving this
wholescale, expecting home educators to achieve wholescale [particularly
when the subdivisions are not recognising home education] appears to be
unfair. In fact, while I appreciate the government having a philosophy that
aims to encourage wellbeing of children in this country, the immediate
responsibility for my child rests with me, unless there are grounds to
suspect that I have been failing in this duty.

home educators have retained the responsibility of educating their children.
Like all parents, they have also retained the responsibility of raising, caring
and protecting their children. i do not believe that parents in this country
have agreed to be bound by every child matters outcomes. I do not believe
that these 5 outcomes are contextually relevant in a non-institutional
setting.
>
>The guidelines on home education that we issued last year have not
>resolved the concerns of some LAs about their ability to fulfil their
>responsibilities in relation to home educated children. The recent
>public consultation suggested that many people – home educating parents
>and local authorities included – feel the guidelines and legislation are
>confusing and sometimes perhaps at odds with each other. We know there
>is an issue now and it is right that we identify any barriers -
>perceived or real – to children’s entitlement to achieve the five
>outcomes. We will take whatever action is necessary to strengthen the
>arrangements.

Having responded to the previous consultation, and spoken to many home
educators on the subject, I believe that if you analysed the commentary as
well as the yes/no then you would find that home educators on the whole
felt the law was clear enough, and the new guidelines in parts were at odds
with the law.

Which barriers do you perceive will threaten children’s entitlements to
achieve the five outcomes? Do you believe that child centred, paced
education within a loving, stable and safe environment is a threat?

I believe that ‘we will take whatever action is necessary to strengthen the
arrangements’ could certainly be take as a threat. I do not know which
arrangements you mean, and whatever actions you would consider, but i
hope you will elucidate.

>
>I note the concerns you have surrounding the shorter consultation, the
>Review of Home Education is being led by Graham Badman, former Director
>of Children’s Services at Kent County Council. Mr Badman has decided
>that he wants his review to be informed by material from a wide range of
>stakeholders, so he decided to offer the opportunity for organisations
>and individuals to contribute to the review by filling in a
>questionnaire.
>

he appears to have used different questionnaires for different ‘stakeholders’
. I would argue, that having not abdicated my rights to educate my child
entirely legally, and there being no evidence that I am not doing so, that
myself and my child are the only stakeholders of interest.

>The new Code of Practice on Consultation issued by BERR says that:
>
>’…a formal, written, public consultation will not be the most
>effective or proportionate way of seeking input from interested parties
>eg when engaging stakeholders very early in policy development
>(preceding formal consultation) ……In such cases an exercise under
>this Code would not be appropriate. There is, moreover, a variety of
>other ways available to seek input from interested parties other than a
>formal consultation’
>
but you are not very early in policy development. your subsequent
paragraph suggests a potential change to either law or guidance.

>Once the Review is complete it will be presented to Ministers who will
>then decide whether or not to take forward any of the recommendations.
>We anticipate that any Review recommendations that trigger proposals to
>change the law or guidance would be subject to a full public
>consultation.
>
>With regards to the consultation only being available on the internet,
>experience of other reviews suggests that this approach is an effective
>way of collecting information from the public in a relatively short
>period of time. We know that the home education community uses this
>method extensively in their contact with the Government.
>
Actually, a small minority of vocal home educators uses this medium to
consult with the dscf. If the lower estimate of 20,000 home educated
children is accurate, and approximately 1000 consultation responses are
achieved [similar to the previous consultation] this would confirm only a
minority of views are being canvassed.

>You mention that in the questionnaire, it is suggested that home
>educated children are abused, we know this is not necessarily the case
>and that most home educated children are neither abused nor neglected.
>However, parents who abuse or neglect their children will find it easier
>to conceal this if they say they are educating their child at home as
>they will not be seen regularly by a teacher or other professional. This
>means that LAs do not have the same level of assurance about the welfare
>of children being educated at home, and there is a greater risk that the
>warning signs of abuse of a child not in school will not be picked up at
>an early stage.
>
I think we will very definitely disagree on this one. The NSPCC
spokesperson confirmed that they have no evidence whatsoever regarding
abuse in home educating families. The majority of abused children are
either pre-school or schooled, and the abuse is rarely picked up for these
cases through school concerns. home educated children will see other
professionals as often as schooled children. they are just being educated
otherwise, not cloistered.

please, if you have concrete evidence rather than allegations of abuse
within the home educated community, rather than those missing in
education, please formalise this.

LA’s have no assurance about the welfare of preschool children either.

>We are aware of allegations and concerns in this area but we want to
>establish what evidence is available. This is not just about that
>whether or not home education is currently used to cover child abuse,
>but also about ensuring that proportionate measures are in place to
>prevent it being used in future as a cover for neglect, forced marriage,
>or other forms of child abuse.

I see. i am sure as you wrote this you realised what a poor justification this
is, to curtail freedoms for the conceived potential of future problems. What
would be a proportionate measure for a current imagined future problem?
Are not social services stretched enough with real cases? Please, I would
be most interested in where you felt proportionate measures may lead.

I am aware that this email is starting to seem combatative. Possibly due to
the aggressive and dismissive way in which you formulated your response.
my responses are obviously aimed at your department rather than you as
an individual. After all, very similar responses have been received by other
home educators so I am assuming a departmental basic memo has been
used.

>
>I would like to assure you we are not singling out home educating
>families. Every child – whether home or school educated, is entitled to
>the five Every Child Matters outcomes.

I agree that schooled and home educated children are similarly entitled to
be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve learning objectives relevant to the
childs age, ability and aptitude, make a positive contribution with their
subsequent life and ideally be self funding thereafter [achieve economic
wellbeing]

>We need to ensure that home
>educated children are able to achieve the five outcomes, just as
>children in maintained schools do.

i am not sure that you are able to achieve this within the schooled setting,
and I don’t agree that you need to ensure this within the home educated
population. i am quite happy that you would like this to be a goal for all
children, however, I do not see why one group has to achieve it, when it is
impossible for all children. As I have not abrogated responsibility to an
institution, it is therefore my responsibility to ensure to the best of my
ability that my child’s goals are met.

>The Department has recently announced
>a review of safeguarding in independent schools, non maintained special
>schools and boarding schools. The circumstances of a child educated at
>home are different from those educated at school and we need to be sure
>that the systems and procedures that are in place to protect these
>children are fit for purpose.
>
You are assuming again that home educated children require systems and
procedures to protect them, that home education itself is a risk factor for
abuse.

>Government has also commissioned reviews of Local Safeguarding Children
>Boards and Serious Case Reviews. These reviews are part of our ongoing
>commitment to ensure that all children are safe and well.

Although your arguments may have a superficial appearance of sense and
purpose, in reality the government cannot ensure that all children are safe
and well. However, it can strive to identify and help those that are not.
Home education is a distraction from this goal, as it is not a risk factor in
itself.
>
>i hope you find this informative.

unfortunately, your response has thrown up a number of other questions, I
hope that you will be so kind as to reply to my email in more detail,

Yours sincerely,

I think you’ve made some excellent points indeed.

Whilst I was picking apart the Every Child Matters doc I would have questioned why “Every child ready for success in school with at least 90% developing well
across all areas of the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile by age 5″ is placed over the “Stay Safe” banner, this does sort of hint at where they think children ought to be in order to be safe (and we shall gloss over the child who bit dd, drawing blood, at that age shall we?) I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that it falls directly in line like that in the document, isn’t it?