you know that i responded to their previous response to my first email [rofl at links] , well, i have a response [21 days to get it mind!] and i think it is actually a ‘proper’ one rather than a cribbed one.
home education.
Thank you for your comments on the five Every Child Matters outcomes
which will be fed into the review.
The systems that we refer to are the procedures that are in place for
professionals to follow when they have concerns that either a child is
not receiving a suitable education or they are concerned for their
safety. The review will look at these systems and ensure that they are
fit for purpose.
The questions are designed to identify current practices and procedures
and the opinions held by home educators, Local Authorities and others
about the way home educating families are treated.
Thank you for taking the time to write with your comments they are very
helpful.
Yours sincerely
so, def better i think?
Thankyou very much for your response. I am very concerned that the
review will not be unbiased. the recent article in the independent is a case
in point. Mr Badman had invited the NSPCC to sit on the review panel for
the home education review.
in the independent article, Mr Patel is quoted as saying
-Vijay Patel, policy adviser for the NSPCC children’s charity, also sees the
need for a review. “Some people use home education to hide. Look at the
Victoria Climbié case. No one asked where she was at school. We have
no view about home education, but we do know that to find out about
abuse someone has to know about the child.”-
Looking at the Victoria Climbie case she was neither hidden nor home
educated, and one of the agencies singled out for criticism in this case is
the NSPCC.
In fact, in a previous appearance on the Jeremy Vine show to speak
against home education, Mr Patel admitted that the NSPCC did not hold
any information or evidence that would suggest that home educating was a
risk of abuse.
How can you assure or reassure me that there will be any fairness or
validity in the review, when the experts asked to assess the case are
clearly biased against home educators and promulgating the concept of
home educators as abusers with either no or fabricated evidence.
Please could you ask Mr Badman to include on his panel people with
knowledge of Home Education, and not so obviously opposed to elective
home education. At present I cannot see the validity of this review, and I
am concerned that my childrens’ wellbeing will be jeopardised by an ill
informed, biased review team who are reviewing poorly written questions in
an ill conceived and unfairly shortened review.
And another excellent response from you
from facebook, after lots of home educators wrote on the nspcc wall following that independent article
……………….
NSPCC wrote
at 22:55
NSPCC response:
The NSPCC would like to clarify its position regarding home education. The statement issued by the NSPCC when the review of home education was announced made iit clear that the NSPCC wishes the review to balance parents’ rights to home educate their children with the local authorities’ duty to safeguard children and the child’s right to protection. We sincerely regret any misunderstanding caused by the quote attributed to Vijay Patel in the Independent. The reference to Victoria Climbie was meant to illustrate the point that she was killed at home out of sight of the authorities. It was not intended to imply that Victoria was educated at home or that home education was in any way connected to what happened to her. We are writing to the Independent to clarify our position on this important point.
…………………………………………….
i hope it contains a whopping apology and retraction completely, as not overwhelmed by their not-quite-apology!!! I am just NOT satisfied. though am impressed by the people power leading to a response on facebook.
we want people on the panel to have experience of Elective HE as this seems to get forgotten and the panel members are experienced in HE but not EHE.