group response – Your response identifier is 4778

chris myself and SB have already submitted. this is the last one, submitted on behalf of a group.

It is disagree all the way through! and these are our agreed reasons.

We are a regular meeting parental co-operative for skill sharing. Amongst us, we follow a variety of educational models, including autonomous, child led, montessori, classical and structured. We welcome the diversity within the group.

This consulation respone has been thoroughly discussed and agreed in our partnership. We had no areas of disagreement on the consultation outcomes.

………………………………………………………………….

We believe the current position of home education, with the checks and balances already present is perfectly suitable for the task. We believe that the parent retains the rights and responsibility to ensure and education suitable to the age and aptitude of the child, including any variation due to special educational needs, and to provide an education fit for purpose to the community the child will engage in. We do not agree to any alteration in this. The recommendations suggest more of an annual licensing with continual need to revalidate and reprove the suitability of education. We believe this is unnecessary, will be counterproductive, particularly for some educational philosophies and is entirely against the ethos of home education.

Amongst us, we follow a variety of educational models, including autonomous, child led, montessori, classical and structured. We welcome the diversity within the group, and do not give credence to the review that some of these paths may be more ‘worthy’ ‘efficient’ or ‘suitable’ than any of the others. Instead we believe that the educational models a family uses often varies over time to suit most closely the learning requirements of the child within the family, rather than external constraints of teaching an aspect at a particular time.

……………………………………………………………….

We do not agree with compulsory registration when we are exercising our lawful right to educate otherwise than at school . In particular, this scheme you propose for compulsory registration appears to more closely be recognisable as a yearly ‘license to practice’ with an excess amount of information required, and the possibility of being denied. Also, it appears that you would apply penalties to those failing to register or not providing complete information which may lead to criminal proceedings. All of the above makes the scheme abhorent to us, and we would strongly recommend a voluntary registration scheme, where the likelihood of parental co-operation is gained by the means of suitable resource offering, rather than a compulsary scheme based on forced co-operation with penalties.

…………………………………………………………………….

We disagree completely with compulsary registration as detailed above. in addition, we are uncertain as to why the information is wanted, what it will be used for, the security of whichever database system is used . We also oppose the strange requirement to queue ‘in the flesh’, presumably with appointments, to so register. It seems to us rather that we are in supplicant role.

…………………………………………………………………………………..

We disagree with the compulsary register. Parents would only need to keep up a voluntary register if it suited them and their family, and if they found it useful. This would encourage local authorities to find ways to engage productively with the home educating community.

………………………………………………………………………………………

We find the idea of criminalising law-abiding parents for the sake of a register of dubious use abhorent. This entirely heavy handed approach is one of the many areas in this report which completely jeopardises any possibility of harmonious and equal relationships between the legal guardians of the child, who are legally responsible for ensuring and education is provided, and the local authority, who may, or may not, wish to assist in this process.

………………………………………………………………………………

We understand that this has been discussed previously in 1996, when at the time, it was felt that the parent would then be conflicting with truancy regulations, and therefore in breach of the law.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Although the school may wish to provide the local authority with achievement data to support the educational provision for the child to date, we believe that educational prolepsis is not widely successful, and becomes valueless when the child changes educational models.

…………………………………………………………………………………

We agree with the stance of AHED and we do not accept there is any need for new legislation, and hence there would be no authority for the DCSF to issue such guidance. Should new legislation be introduced in spite of the clear case to not legislate, to allow DCSF to issue statutory guidance in this area would undermine parliamentary process. The details of any such scheme should be set out in any primary legislation introduced, which parliament can scrutinise. If this does not happen then DCSF can change the regulatory framework without consultation, once again taking more control away from individuals and handing it to government departments.

……………………………………………………………………………………

We feel that those for which there is a substantial safeguarding concern should have family plans drawn up through the correct case conference route, at which home education status may be considered. This should be outside the remit of registratrion, which we dispute.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

We disagree entirely that there should be any compulsory visits to the home regardless of the amount of notice given. Home education possibly should be retitled family centred education as much of it is not spent within the home at all, but out and about at museums, group events, at parks, countryside etc. Since it is not confined to a desk in a room, it seems pointless to inspect any part of a house for signs of education, as you perhaps would in an OFSTED inspection.
The home is a secure environment for a child, and many would be discomforted by strangers entering as part of a licensing interview. This may be particularly the case for those with special needs, or who have withdrawn from school after a traumatic event.
We absolutely, therefore, disagree that there should be any compulsion for home visits.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Absolutely not. Especially after hearing the response of Mr Badman to the select committee. if there should be an issue of child protection, this should be escalated to the appropriate team to manage thereafter. in the majority of instances, children are not interviewed alone then.
if this is purely to ascertain the child’s willingness to be home educated, this is truly shameful. this suggests that the government mistrusts and misbelieves that home educating parents are acting in the best interest of their child.
We will not submit to this outrageous, abusive and disproportionate demand.

………………………………………………………………………………

Again, no please see question 9. We believe all the checks you have suggested are disproportionate and emphasise that the government does not wish parents to remain the prime carers of their children, with the prime responsibility for their welfare. It emphaisis the distrust that the government holds for parents, and their commitment to try and force everyone down the same pathway. We reject these proposals to trammel our ability to provide a unique education, tailored to our children’s individual ages, aptitudes and desires for the future.

Am submitting as so tired an early bedtime needed!!

……………………………………………………………………………………..