political

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

i am afraid i am contacting you again about the government and their management of the home education review. As you know, I, and many other home educators, utterly dispute the majority of mr badman’s report. The statistics are unsound, and the bibliography very small and biased.

However, we are still awaiting a report from the select committee who were asked to assess this review,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/uc999-ii/uc99902.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/uc999-i/uc99902.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/memo/elehomed/contents.htm

and also the report on the following stake holder consultation on implementing this review
‘Home Education – registration and monitoring proposals. An eighteen week consultation with stake holders, 11 June 2009 to 19 October 2009. The Government hopes to publish a response by the end of November’
at the select committee hearing, the dcsf stated that
‘I need to say at this point that I am not able to go into very much detail about the proposals on monitoring and registration today. As you know, they are out for public consultation, which ends on 19 October. We will have to consider carefully the consultation responses before proceeding. I would like to emphasise that no firm decisions have yet been taken.’
yet they are proceeding.

I was therefore astonished to find it still in the Queens speech as a bill in hand, and horrified to find it placed within the safeguarding children part. these are children at home with their parents. unless all parents are automatically assumed guilty by the state now, this is an outrageous slur.
‘• Safeguarding the vulnerable – strengthening the powers of local authorities and others with regards to registration, inspection and intervention will mean effective systems are in place to protect those that most need it. The Bill will introduce a new home educators’ registration system and take new powers for Secretaries of State to intervene in youth offending teams that are failing and potentially putting young people and their communities at risk.’

my children are not within the most vulnerable, and do not most require protection. they are loved and cherished by their family. i cannot and will not accede to this over presumption on the governments part. I will not agree that they have authority here over my family. I would like to point out that we are very law abiding citizens, my husband is xxxxxxxxxxxx, and I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, so not the most likely candidates for civil disobedience. this goes too far however, and i will not agree.

there is a parliamentary group with Graham Stuart MP as chair for home education, and I would ask you to please help represent us, a minority group with so much to lose here. if you read the memorandum submitted by paula rothermel to the select committee, you will see that Mr Badman primarily wanted to see if home educating parents had munchausen by proxy, if you read that from ofsted, you will read that they recommend all home educating parents should be CRB checked before they are allowed to proceed. I am level 2 child protection trained as part of my work and, like many other professionals, highly committed to a high standard of child protection. However, I find all this astounding, child protection gone mad. there are already perfectly adequate, joined-up services which run as well as staffing levels allow for child protection in this country. forcible annual assessment of a further possible 50,000 children at an estimated cost of 34million [governments own figures] does not seem to me to be reasonable.

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!!

……………………………………………………………………………………..

chris is blogging thurs and fri – hopefully – as they were really great days! so i am going to make a start on today!

i got up really late as work has had my nose most definitely to the grindstone, and i had some sleep deprivation to catch up on! the girls were playing beautifully together, and although it is prob the KOD to blog it, they seem to have gone through their grumpy with each other patch and are enjoying each others company again. i *could* worry that this means SB is playing lots of ‘baby’ games with BB, but I like the games they play together, and i am not in a rush to push her game playing older!

We had some postcrossing cards arrive – woohoo!! so put them up on our display. this is gradually encouraging sb to remember continents, and what countries may be found where. OK, so we have not had any arrive from africa, antartica, australasia or asia, but we have sent one to taiwan and australia! SB has started writing more of them as well.

will start the day and perhaps rewrite as i recall! oh i think we started with SB doing recorder prac, and then duets with me as i had got a yamaha recorder treble to match hers. we love duetting. though gina says sb practiced stuff she has been able to do for ages rather than the new things! whilst we were doing this, BB got out a science kit – first electronics, and worked through the book making all the circuits [they are v simple, but i was still v proud as this includes putting batteries in!]
SB did some verbal reasoning and then galore park science – which had an experiment-recipe to make, so we got ingredients. SB fancied crafting before that though, and BB and chris went outside to mend her bike burst tyre from too much skidding!! SB made some dried flower pics which we laminated. unfortunately we seem to have destroyed the laminator when tried to laminate a sweetie wrapper pic. hopefullly chris will take apart and it will work again? we did a short piano practice, concetrating on rhythms.

we then made the rock cakes – these show sediment being laid down over time and creating dinosaur fossils. good fun to make and eat! might remember that idea for a group geology session one day!

so we collapsed infront of tv to cuddle and snuggle, and sb broke the video – it has been a breaking kind of day! so i read rome in cross section to her and bB and we looked for and spotted things and related them to the roman mysteries books. finally watched some mickey mouse dvd, had dinner and then it was bedtime.

my evening work, again, has been home ed politics. making sure i have done as much as i can, writing to mp, dscf, select committee, filling out consultations etc and asking others too.

please, if you haven’t

the petition

the review

and my sense told me to panic!! It was another latinetc wednesday, and i decided we would do spy writing [since i think all the children have destroyed their copies, they are on googledocs!]. so i bundled together a number of reasonably hazardous rather than outright dangerous chemicals, and set off! i turned out to be not so successful for the younger group, as the paper wasn’t starchy enough, but they enjoyed it anyway, and were remarkably dextrous at pipetting and measuring. [they didn't get to have really hazardous chemicals! citric acid, acetic acid and iodine!]

the older group was far more successful, mixing up chemical solutions, being v careful. they got some fabulous results, and are gradually being led into the ways of being a chemist! i haven’t done a great many chemical equations, because i am hoping that they get chemical safe yet interesting stuff skills first to build on! but do throw in the technical words and terms, and i think they are all starting to associate copper with blue, iodine and starch and we even precipitated out some iron today. so i think it is working! a bit out of my comfort zone though, exploring chemistry with the so young!! but they have all done so much ‘safe’ chemistry, that a few chemicals seemed the logical next step! [see the chem 2 page in the sidebar]

SB as always loved music, and her and chloe put on a fab latin doctor play. actually 4 other children in pairs did too. BB loves her french and science, so at the moment it does run v successfully. SB had a wobble today though – it has been a while since she has been so easily wobbled, and it reminds me how far she has come in personal resource and strength in the last few years, and how proud of that i am. we had a hug, did some 1:1 chemistry, sorted out the issue, and happiness restored. phew! A bit of discussion going on about the latinetc group, to try and make it work well for all children, and what compromises and adjustments may make a globally better picture. i am always change resistant, but can see that a few tweaks here and there may benefit!! We listened to a max and maxin french story on the way home, to maximise the french!!

home and SB and BB were thrown into the bath and had their hair washed. they were showered after swimming last night, but somehow still looked really grubby all over!! SB did a bit of general home ed stuff, a bit of maths, a bit of preparation for her viking presentation on friday [wish i could be there, chris better blog!], some of her mecchano car and her DK mediaeval project book. We had another postcrossing card to send, so SB had a look at the various maps on our walls, and was struck by the few roads in the scottish isles… I like postcrossing for random map moments!

BB and i went to rainbows, she is loving it. she is by far the tiniest, and she wants someone to stay, which is ok for now. but she joined in readily and loved the guessing game and the bubble blowing. the rainbow leader is v good here, and her daughter also helping out was fun. BB got her rainbow top, so was v happy. passed SB and Chris coming up as we were going home for SB’s brownies and then judo.

BB and i watched toystory as we ate our dinner [spinach, potato and cauli curry, yummy] and when SB returned, she watched the egyptian what the ancients did for you.

now i am catching up with the select committee and home ed activism. i really never pegged myself as someone likely to be an activist!!

I will not give up. I will write persistent letter/they work for you emails to my MP, and also the DCSF. I can’t afford to just give in. I will not under any circumstances follow a chosen curriculum – however woolly it is made out to be, because i do not believe that there are any facts that are more worthy of knowledge at any particular time than the facts my child is interested in hearing or reading about then. I will not seek your permission or approval to home educate and I retain the right to provide an efficient and full time education suitable to my children’s ability and aptitude: I believe that I can fulfill this whereas your schools cannot. I will never let you speak to my children on their own. they are not criminals – otherwise they would have representation. they are minors under MY care.

Your review was flawed and would fit well into a totalitarian state. I will never make the mistake of voting labour in the future. The statistics are worthless and biased: all school children, let alone the home educated know that to do statistics you need a numerator and denominator for your groups. You do not know the number of home educated children and freely admit elsewhere that the total home ed population could be at least double the known population. This would make there no statistical difference between the groups – not that i am sure there is statistical significance in your figures. Your LA sample is still less than 50% and you have not sampled the others – whereas using the FOI act, home educator groups – with no resources other than their own time – have. you have not listened or responded to any of the 2000 home educators, children and others in agreement that responded to the review request originally. your bibliography is paltry – requiring you to rely on ‘beliefs’ rather than facts. Now you carry the juggernaut on, trying to define education! I await to see how twisted the next review is as well. I wonder what it is about home educators that makes you so desperate to control them?

As for monitoring, l blog the formal what is done as a record, but despite my blog sounding at times like school at home, it is v child led – though not autonomous – but my child wants to do science, so sees the need to do maths, loves reading etc etc. and often turns down offers to get crafty/sewing/musicy stuff with mum!! So yes, we would probably pass your ‘tests’, especially with an ex-teacher DH. But, I have no intention of co-operating with your ever increasing mission creep and information demands. I refuse. No Thankyou, I choose to retain my parental rights.

I am not a great wordsmith, and am unlikely to ever sway hearts and minds. but I am someone who just doesn’t know when to stop where my children’s benefit is concerned. DO not expect me too.

i had managed to be mostly organised yesterday, sorting out an acid/bases science and picnic stuff, so setting off this morning ok. introduced myself to the temporary french child at the deependers, drank tea with katy, and eagerly awaited gina and her composing special occasion.

the children divvied themselves into groups with an adult, and i was with jjm combo, plus bb who was sulking because we hadn’t done the day in the right order with littlies science first. it was great fun, and loosely based around petroushka. i think we were probably more ‘loose’ than anticipated! all the children bar bb enjoyed it, and fran conducted the concert at the end. the children all had snack and watched petroushka on you tube, which they were all enjoying.

i hesitantly suggested if science was to happen, it should start, and they all raced at me like loons. i wanted to do it outside, but we had numerous too colds, so went into the deependers home ed kitchen. it was a bit of a squish doing all the kids science together, and reminded me why i wouldn’t want to be a class teacher, as lots of crowd control involved! i think it went really well though, and only had to be ‘slightly’ shouty! we had a solution of acid [distilled vinegar] and we made a solution of base [bicarb and water] and i told them that these were dangerous chemicals, and we were going to practice being v careful – it is a good thing they weren’t, and actually, i think i need to be able to tell m in french things like dangerous chemical. i might print off some hazard signs! i had some red and blue litmus paper – which is more obviously pink and purple! and we worked out that they changed to ‘the other one’s colour’ to detect acid and bases. fab. so some went off to find some other fluids to test, and those remaining looked to see if turmeric really was an indicator too. it was supposed to go red, and not dramatically convincing, but i think it did! the children then all did a litmus blue and red, and chose which of the fluids to test. you would have thought that they might notice i don’t necessarily choose the loudest jumpy up and down one to have a go, but ask the quieter ones! [trying to remember so that all really get a first choice]. we found wine to be acidic, and also hand gel – good explanation from sb for that, and maybe milk to be alkaline.

the last bit didn’t work quite so well due to a lack in my number of eyes, ears and hands! basically each child was to put 10 drops of either acid or base in a well with the pipette [divided into 2 sides] and then swap the acid/base and put a specified number of drops in, hoping to then have solutions of different alkalinity/acidity. then drop a tiny bit of indicator paper in. having looked at the results, we didn’t exactly have a range, possibly because some of the young scientists didn’t count, splurged in etc. but on the whole, those starting with the acid were in the acid spectrum of pH paper, and those starting with the base were in the alkaline. and there was a bit of differentiation within them. maybe something to try in smaller groups/individuals.

quick pasta lunch and off to the not back to school picnic, as co-ordinated across the uk by ali – thankyou! we weren’t sure of the turnout, so hadn’t organised press, but in view of the bbc piece, may send something to local paper in case they have a gap! we actually had 10 families attend, which i thought was fantastic – thankyou all! and, a greater suprise, 4 of them were new, 3 had deregistered this term, and 1 new to the area. we are hoping to all see more of each other, and i realised what a good thing a relaxed intro like this is for newly deregged parents! a party to celebrate our childrens’ right to a uniquely tailored education, following their age, ability and aptitude, without having to norm reference within a class of 30. their right to learn in a way that suits them, makes the experience worth it, fun, informative and brings the family closer together. hip hooray for the ability to home ed, and a pantomine boo for dscf for trying to regulate it away.

I need some time to tabulate this again, but this is the dcsf data from the HE ‘consultation’. does it look to anyone as if it has been reflected in Mr Badman’s recommendations? no? so what is a stakeholder consultation supposed to achieve then, obviously not democracy in action.

please refer to original on fOI site [thanks to the staffords]

Basic Information
How have respondents responded?
Response Types Responses
On-Line: 2081 99%
Off-Line: 0 0%
Paper based: 0 0%
Email: 13 1%
Total: 2094 100%

Responses Information
Information Responses
Key Responses: 0 0%
Confidential Responses: 960 46%
Acknowledgements Requested (Sent): 1123 (1123) 54% ( 100% )
Future Contact: 887 42%

Respondent Information Questions
Please specify in what capacity you are responding to this questionnaire
Options Responses Across Consultation
A home educating parent: 1418 68% 68%
Member of the public: 207 10% 10%
A home educated child: 199 10% 10%
Other organisation / capacity (Please specify): 162 8% 8%
Working in local authority with other responsibilities: 39 2% 2%
Working with children or families in another capacity(e.g. third sector): 37 2% 2%
Working in local authority with responsibility for home educated children: 31 1% 1%
Total: 2093 100% 100%

Consultation Questions
1 Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.
There were 2013 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1618 80% 77%
Not Sure: 226 11% 11%
No: 169 8% 8%
Key Indicators:
System will never be failsafe/cannot protect everyone 42 2.1 % 2.0 %
HE parents report to/meet with LA/EWO already/Annual visits are adequate 101 5.0 % 4.8 %
More acceptance/recognition/support for HE 92 4.6 % 4.4 %
More checks/regular contact with LA needed 76 3.8 % 3.6 %
Existing systems/laws/safeguards are adequate 364 18.1 % 17.4 %
Children suffer abuse/bullying etc at school/look at school system 380 18.9 % 18.1 %
HE children are seen by wide range of people/abuse would be reported 210 10.4 % 10.0 %
HE child at no more or less risk than school child 253 12.6 % 12.1 %
This penalises/discriminates/is offensive to HE sector 118 5.9 % 5.6 %
Same guidelines/systems exist for HE as does for all children 137 6.8 % 6.5 %
Home Ed is fine as it is/no further intervention needed 92 4.6 % 4.4 %
Home Ed must register with/be known to LA 58 2.9 % 2.8 %
No evidence suggests they are at risk/where is evidence 159 7.9 % 7.6 %
Current systems to be improved/implemented properly 137 6.8 % 6.5 %
Parents are responsible for safeguarding etc 158 7.8 % 7.5 %
HE parents are caring/committed to childs best interest and safeguarding etc 223 11.1 % 10.6 %

2 a) Be healthy
There were 2049 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1954 95% 93%
Not Sure: 68 3% 3%
No: 27 1% 1%
Key Indicators:
HE children are healthier/more aware of healthy living 374 18.3 % 17.9 %
HE children have more opportunity to excersise/be outdoors etc 643 31.4 % 30.7 %
Food healthier at home than at school 362 17.7 % 17.3 %
No exam/testing stress at home 55 2.7 % 2.6 %
Away from risk associated with school (bullying/physical harm/germs etc) 247 12.1 % 11.8 %
HE children spend more time with parents/parents can monitor diets, spot illnesses etc 328 16.0 % 15.7 %
HE children prepare food/cook 185 9.0 % 8.8 %
HE children have less illnesses 59 2.9 % 2.8 %
Cannot ensure children stay healthy 100% of the time 76 3.7 % 3.6 %
No reason why they shouldn’t be/they are as healthy as school children etc. 424 20.7 % 20.2 %

2 b) Stay safe
There were 2043 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1936 95% 92%
Not Sure: 67 3% 3%
No: 40 2% 2%
Key Indicators:
Bullying/drugs/knives/underage sex etc associated with/experienced at school 678 33.2 % 32.4 %
Smaller child/adult ratio in HE 158 7.7 % 7.5 %
HE children learn independence/how to look after themselves 136 6.7 % 6.5 %
Parents & family monitor & supervise their child/offer best protection or care 672 32.9 % 32.1 %
HE child be at no more risk than school/other child 253 12.4 % 12.1 %

2 c) Enjoy and achieve
There were 2037 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1926 95% 92%
Not Sure: 75 4% 4%
No: 36 2% 2%
Key Indicators:
Children learn at own pace 363 17.8 % 17.3 %
One to one learning 130 6.4 % 6.2 %
HE children achieve good quals 155 7.6 % 7.4 %
Learning is personalised/tailored to child 723 35.5 % 34.5 %

2 d) Make a positive contribution.
There were 2029 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1904 94% 91%
Not Sure: 92 5% 4%
No: 33 2% 2%
Key Indicators:
Actively/more involved in community 487 24.0 % 23.3 %
Charity/voluntary/fund raising involvement 186 9.2 % 8.9 %
No less likely than school/other children 157 7.7 % 7.5 %
They are confident/can think for themselves 269 13.3 % 12.8 %
More likely to make a positive contribution 372 18.3 % 17.8 %
Positive contribution to what? 133 6.6 % 6.4 %
They achieve academically/will pursue meaningful careers 61 3.0 % 2.9 %

2 e) achieve economic well-being
There were 1997 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1816 91% 87%
Not Sure: 144 7% 7%
No: 37 2% 2%
Key Indicators:
More involved in real life situations/shopping, banking etc 196 9.8 % 9.4 %
Can learn/pursue subjects & careers that interest them/not restricted by curriculum 275 13.8 % 13.1 %
HE children self-motivated/confident/independent etc 303 15.2 % 14.5 %
No different for School or Home Ed children 182 9.1 % 8.7 %
What does this mean? 119 6.0 % 5.7 %
HE achieve better academically 117 5.9 % 5.6 %
Where is evidence/do a survey/provide proof 39 2.0 % 1.9 %
No reason why they shouldn’t/of course etc 265 13.3 % 12.7 %

3 Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?.
There were 1985 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
No: 1157 58% 55%
Yes: 571 29% 27%
Not Sure: 257 13% 12%
Key Indicators:
This is the parents’ responsibility 656 33.0 % 31.3 %
Less interference from Govt/LAs 187 9.4 % 8.9 %
Govt/LA responsible when children are in schools 68 3.4 % 3.2 %
Govt/LA should only be responsible where parent irresponsible/fails to provide etc 85 4.3 % 4.1 %
These targets are not ensured at schools/Govt should concentrate on schools 210 10.6 % 10.0 %
Does not agree with the 5 outcomes 127 6.4 % 6.1 %
Govt’s role is provide support/resources/facilities for achieving 5 outcomes 286 14.4 % 13.7 %
Current systems/measurements are adequate 56 2.8 % 2.7 %
This is insulting/discriminiting to HE 32 1.6 % 1.5 %

4 Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
There were 2006 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Yes: 1162 58% 55%
No: 602 30% 29%
Not Sure: 242 12% 12%
Key Indicators:
LA/Govt to be more understanding of/trained in HE 463 23.1 % 22.1 %
General Financial help/help with books, sports access/subs, resources, libraries etc 576 28.7 % 27.5 %
Exam Centre access or help with costs of exams 411 20.5 % 19.6 %
Help not required/needed/procedures ok as they are 286 14.3 % 13.7 %
Too much bureaucracy involved with support 141 7.0 % 6.7 %
Less harrassment from Govt/LA 118 5.9 % 5.6 %
Tax relief/Taxes paid, or have saved the State money! 226 11.3 % 10.8 %
There is no current support 334 16.7 % 16.0 %
Funding for college/able to attend colleges/training 59 2.9 % 2.8 %
Resource centres 67 3.3 % 3.2 %
Flexi-schooling 50 2.5 % 2.4 %
Offer list of HE contacts/support networks/national facilities 149 7.4 % 7.1 %

5 Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
There were 1995 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
No: 1283 64% 61%
Yes: 477 24% 23%
Not Sure: 235 12% 11%
Key Indicators:
More/regular checks needed 131 6.6 % 6.3 %
Fine as it is 566 28.4 % 27.0 %
LAs need to understand/apply law accordingly/be trained 421 21.1 % 20.1 %
Guidelines needed 47 2.4 % 2.2 %
National consistency within LAs 87 4.4 % 4.2 %
We do not neeed monitoring 468 23.5 % 22.3 %
Mandatory registration 57 2.9 % 2.7 %

6 Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?
There were 1812 responses to this question
Options Responses Across Consultation
Key Indicators:
Nothing 58 3.2 % 2.8 %
Concentrate on known/reported cases 155 8.6 % 7.4 %
This is scaremongering/exaggerated/out of proportion 161 8.9 % 7.7 %
More understanding of/awareness/tolerance/info on HE 186 10.3 % 8.9 %
Systems can never be failsafe 105 5.8 % 5.0 %
This happens to school children/Look at schools 686 37.9 % 32.8 %
Welfare & education not the same thing 57 3.1 % 2.7 %
Too much emphasis on HE/insulting/offensive/discriminative 515 28.4 % 24.6 %
This is Soc Serv’s role – refer to SS 80 4.4 % 3.8 %
Abuse would be picked up by doctors/neighbours etc 110 6.1 % 5.3 %
Where is the proof/evidence etc 616 34.0 % 29.4 %
Staffing issues (pay,training, quality of staff etc) 42 2.3 % 2.0 %
Proper support for HE (finance,books,sports subs etc) 25 1.4 % 1.2 %
Soc Servs needs overhaul/more resource etc 134 7.4 % 6.4 %
Govt to get own house in order 48 2.6 % 2.3 %
More awareness of warning signs 26 1.4 % 1.2 %
This is excuse to regulate/intrude on HE 113 6.2 % 5.4 %
Current systems & laws ok/or ok if implemented properly 225 12.4 % 10.7 %
HE’s good parents/caring/committed/give up time etc 201 11.1 % 9.6 %
Regular checks/on the spot checks/monitoring or registration 178 9.8 % 8.5 %

A work in progress, but popped on here. please please fill it in, even if without comment

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1643&external=no&menu=1

Consultation Questions
Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to
receive a suitable education?
disagree
i think that the dcsf has entirely failed to grasp that home education aims to provide children with a personally tailored,
individual education aimed to stretch them at their age, ability and aptitude. that actually the dcsf is interfering with what is
already suitably legislated for already. my childrens rights and mine are not things that need to be balanced. as a parent i work for my child’s
best interest, they need no other advocate but me.

Do you agree that a register should be kept?
disagree
i think a register will be unnecessary with the arrival of contact point.

Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?
disagree

Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?
disagree

Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
disagree
i strongly disagree with the need for this to be an offence, particularly a criminal offence.

Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend
to home educate?
disagree

Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

Agree

Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?
disagree
i disagree most strongly. the badman report was biased in favour of his preliminary assumptions, and his ‘beliefs’, thus he
disregarded any published evidence of success of autonomous education, and the 2000+ submissions by home
educators and home educated children who very much disagreed with the style of monitoring success and achievement against promised
objectives he suggests.

Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?
not sure
I think this decision should be made through a multiprofessional forum, where substantial safeguarding concerns are
shown to be actual, and interventions planned for the family.

Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?
disagree
i do not believe there should be a right to enter the home. i believe current arrangements under current law are
satisfactory

Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the
presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?
disagree
i absolutely disagree with this. i think that children, whether deemed to be vulnerable or not, should not be interviewed in
this manner unless there are already clearly significant safeguarding concerns, and this has been passed through to child
protection. i do not believe this should be through the local authority education arm at all, and feel that ‘mission creep’ will otherwise see more
chldren upset and traumatised by interogation by strangers without understanding the reason or process.

Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after
6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not
preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.
disagree
i do not agree that they should visit the premises, i specifically do not agree that 4 weeks gives long enough for a
deschooling period for traumatised children, and wonder why home educators should be assessed more frequently than
schools – even known ‘failing schools’. i believe that the more frequent monitoring sets a position for harrassment of home educators. a
maximum of yearly information gathering – by visit or by educational information seems reasonable to me, and especially in the primary years
frequent visits appear to be pointlessly expensive, and biennial may be more reasonable. again i strongly disagree that this needs to be
visiting the home. i note that you have not discussed in this at all whether the local authority should set up committees with home educators,
should be suitably trained in home education and the many methods that may be utilised, nor have you discussed any of the scarce few
positives from the badman review – ie provision of rooms/ resources and exams. this strikes me that you plan to implement a draconian
monitoring system to absolutely guarentee a poor working relationship between home educators and the LA, without implementing anything
that may involve expenditure with a benefit for home educators. i think this is shameful. in my opinion, current legislation is more than
sufficient, both for educational welfare and child safety.

I sent this letter to my MP, as you can see, i did borrow somewhat heavily from the Staffordshire blog, as I am very time pressed at the mo, but still wanted to do something. i note how fabulous and active they are being, and will try and be so myself

Thankyou for all your correspondence whilst we awaited the review into
home education

I wish to seek your support in opposing the reforms to current practice
proposed by Graham Badman in his “Report to the Secretary of State on
the Review of Elective Home Education in England” for the following
reasons:

1. The Review fails to make a case for its recommendations. The
Secretary of State says it contains strong arguments, but there is, in
fact, little argument supported by evidence in the review. We would
have welcomed a well argued, evidence based review, as this would have
enabled an engagement. Instead there is assertion, but little analysis
and evidence – for instance, the review simply says ‘I believe …’ 16
times.

2. The review lacks intellectual rigour, independence or impartiality.
Where evidence is presented there is an absence of critical analysis,
together with highly selective use of quotations from respondents. Thus
it includes without comment a lengthy, and somewhat naïve, quotation
from the Education Division of the Church of England, but does include
a quote from a home educator which is less than complementary about
local authority staff. The use of quotations is not ‘neutral’, they
serve to highlight certain views merely by their inclusion. In the
review, he notes that he is not convinced by any of the positive
research into home education in this country or others, despite this by
well respected researchers. however, no other data being available, his
lack of conviction is without empirical reference.

3. Evidence on abuse by home educators – a key argument used to justify
action (see below) – is absent from the review report. Somewhat
surprisingly given the review’s terms of reference there is no analysis
of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving
home educators. Indeed, there are no robust figures or trends presented
(even at an aggregated level), instead there is a vague reference to
‘local authority evidence and case studies’. Thus it is impossible to
tell whether the concerns about possible child abuse are based in fact
or merely imagined. I requested, through the freedom of information
act, the information from [my local] LA about welfare concerns amongst
home educated families, and they knew of no cases.
[link to the response on what do they know]

The review rightly points out that the number of parents opting for
elective home education is unknown. Yet it also claims that ‘the number
of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities
is disproportionately high relative to their home educating
population’. But given that the size of the home education population
is unknown, it is impossible to calculate the proportion, unless these
councils have made up a base for the calculation; in effect the
statement is meaningless.

4. This lack of evidence and analysis is compounded by the absence of
expertise amongst the review panel. In the absence of evidence, some
degree of confidence in the review’s judgements might rest on the
expertise of those involved. They could perhaps be forgiven for simply
making assertions if they had expertise or relevant professional
knowledge of the subject matter. Unfortunately this is not the case. No
home educating parent was on the review team. This does not accord with
a Government that wishes to listen to the public and empower them.

Combined with the first point, this undermines the legitimacy of the
review – why should what appears to be no more that the prejudices of
this group of people be imposed upon the home education community?

5. Furthermore the recommendations are not logically consistent with
review’s limited evidence.
a. The review says that many LAs are not performing adequately, but
then recommends they have more powers. Without an analysis of why they
are failing it would seem inappropriate to give them more powers; this
would simply create problems and maladministration claims for the
future.
b. The review recognises the diversity of home educators, but fails to
take this in to account in its ‘one size fits all’ recommendations

6. A key statement from the review, informing its recommendations is:

“The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right
regulatory regime within a framework of legislation that protects the
rights of all children, even if in transaction such regulation is only
necessary to protect a minority.”

This guiding ‘principle’ is presented with no provisos or limits. It is
highly risk adverse position, and assumes that all parents are capable
of abuse. This leads to recommendations that are disproportionate and
even the Secretary of State is wary of the cost implications.

Indeed, it logically follows from this that parents of all pre-school
children must be registered and inspected annually; even that visits
are required of children attending school during vacations.

7. I would like to draw your attention to one of the recommendations
being that authorised officers should have the right to speak to each
child alone, and only if the child is particularly vulnerable or
communication difficulties can they have a trusted adult. Personally, I
will refuse this right of access for strangers to interrogate my
children.

You also need to know that the review was poorly conducted – for
example:
• It was announced as a consultation on the consultation website then
when it was pointed out that it was not compliant with the Consultation
Code of Practice it suddenly became a review;
• The review outcome was partially pre-judged in advance, Graham
Badman, author of the review, publicly said as much when he asserted
the status quo could not remain long before the review was completed;
and
• The on-line questionnaire used to gather home educators and others’
views was badly designed involving leading and poorly constructed
questions.

In addition, the review process has angered and alienated many home
educators. The review report and the Secretary of State highlight the
importance of there being good relationships with home educators.
However, the review has undermined this objective; it has even been
counterproductive. Many home educators are now opting out of any
involvement with their local authorities after many years of effort to
improve relationships with them.

I realise that policy on home education is probably seen as part of the
‘backwater’ of political debate in Parliament, and that at present
other issues have higher media and public profile. However, the home
education community is a vocal and organised, if disparate, group, and
you might like to advise your colleagues to take an interest in this
issue as it has the potential to generate some very adverse publicity
for the party.

The review report can be found at:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/homeeducation/

If you or a member of your staff require more information or details of
sources, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I believe that
from the outset this review has been prejudiced against home-education
and home-educators, using supposition and flights of fancy to justify
draconian monitoring, registration and interrogation permissions which
far exceed those expected by children at school, and ignoring or
belittling all of the research and evidence in favour of home-education
or maintaining the status quo.

I look forward to hearing from you, and would be happy to meet with you
to discuss this further.

Yours sincerely,

so, sorry for rampant plagiarism, but anyway, he has written back, suggesting this has been discussed in tory policy circles, and has forwarded my letter onto ed balls for further discussion.

This is a long and convoluted tale! but they are still responding – which must be good!!
This was the previous email from them, and i wrote as a sort of response but mostly new query…

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.

SO friday I got a response from them….

Thank you for your further email of 26 February regarding the Review of
Home Education. I have been asked to reply.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families and Graham Badman, who
is leading the independent review of home education, know that there is
no link whatsoever between the tragic death of Victoria Climbie and home
education.

The Government knows 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.

Graham Badman has been appointed to undertake and independent review. I
would like to assure you that he is fully independent of the
Departments: he is not an employee and his terms of engagement do not
specify any constraints to the scope of the review or the range of
outcomes he can report. He has extensive experience of engaging with
those opting for alternative education including experience as an
Education Welfare Officer and other posts in local government. The last
post he held prior to retirement was management of Kent Children’s
Services.

Yours sincerely

A…. H…..
Public Communications Unit

…what do you think????

Philip Pullman
Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness – the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation – after all we have an Established Church – or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.

Philip Pullman will deliver a keynote speech at the Convention on Modern Liberty at the Institute of Education in London tomorrow

http://www.modernliberty.net/2009/philip-pullman-voices-his-thoughts

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.

so, def better i think?

Thank you for your enquiry about the Cambridge Primary Review. The final
report is currently in preparation and will include a short section on
home education. The main focus of the report is on education in school
and while it does not include a comparative analysis with home
educating, we do look at alternative educational settings including the
home.

If you would like to make a submission to the review about your
experiences of home educating we would be delighted to hear your views.

Best wishes
….

Dissemination Co-ordinator
Cambridge Primary Review
Faculty of Education
University of Cambridge
Cambridge
CB2 9PQ

Just to remind those that haven’t done their consultation response that it closes tomorrow. These things are REALLY important, even if you just fill in quickly. If you have an old enough child to fill it in, please do that too. AND also email other comments to the dscf directly – you’ll find loads of links everywhere, but facebook has a good group, there are bits on eo lists and loads of other blogs – search google and loads pop up. PLEASE.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW77.pdf

ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION

Research and Advice Commissioned by the Department for
Education and Skills

6.10 It is suggest that the legislation should ensure that:

a) a standardised national system of registration be implemented by each
local education authority in terms of assessment criteria;
monitoring/inspection visits; and the time sequence related to these events
b) the wishes of children are established and taken into account in the
assessment process.
d) a clear curriculum entitlement is defined which is broad and balanced.
e) all children to be registered (irrespective of whether they have ever been
registered with a school), and that all children registered under EHE are seen
initially and in the teaching and learning situation on a regular basis defined in
law and a standard format for post visit reports and their distribution
f) all children registered under EHE are assessed on a regular basis in
relation to expectations of educational progress.
g) that a timetable be established and defined in relation to the procedures
incumbent on local authorities pursuant to assessment judgements of the
provision being unsuitable.
h) parents and secondary aged children have the right of appeal at any
decision by the appropriate authorities in regard to an application and
continuance of elected home education.

It is typed, but i think it is still v similar to others from the conservative party! But at least positive. [actually so much similar to others that I cut and pasted it from another response and then changed the odd difference!]

Thankyou for your email of 26th jan concerning the governments consultation into home education. You raise some interesting points

I find it incredible that the government needs to hold yet another consultation on the issue of home education. This is the third consultation in less than 4 years; with the latest guidelines having only been issued in 2007

I have a number of concerns about this latest consultation, most notably that the DFCSF is trying to imply that home education is being used as a cover for child abuse. I find this deeply offensive to those parents who often have to make a very difficult decision about withdrawing theri child from school. I also find it inconceivable that the Department has not provided and evidence for linking home education and child abuse, other than saying it is yet “another unknown”.

I believe it is essential that every child in this country recieves a first-class education and one that is suitable for their needs; to achieve that, parents should have the right to choose the education system that best serves theri child and homeschooling should be included in that choice. Parents who make that choice should be entitled to the same presumption of innocence that school going children’s parents receive, unless evidence dictates otherwise.

I agree that there needs to be an urgent re-assessment of the way that child protection systems operate, but I do not feelthat this should be addressed through victimising those who educate their children at home. The pathetically short consultation period is also unacceptable.

You also raise some valid points about the length and appropriateness of the consultation process. Accordingly, I have written to Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and I will write to you again when I receive a reply

Thankyou again for contacting me

Thankyou for your email response. If you don’t mind i would like to reply for
clarification. to make the ‘thread’ work, i will respond in between your
answers

>
>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 and education. i do not expect that the
majority of schooled children will achieve ‘stretching national educational
standards’ because 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.

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.
>
>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,

Dear Ms [!! and my surname]

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.

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.

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.

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’

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.

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.

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

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.

i hope you find this informative.

Yours sincerely

[deleted by me]
Public Communications Unit

www.dcsf.gov.uk

so very happy to have a response. interesting to see how many identical ones, as it didn’t cover the points as i raised them. but, TBH, i woudl do a mass email response too if I were them

yes, that one. actually this is the second as i have added 3 and 4! but changing the title would prob change various links oops now the third! as have sort of finished, but would really like feedback before i submit, much nearer to the deadline!

i admit that my response isn’t finished or filed yet, that other peoples blogs have v much influenced me, but here goes!!

1 Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.

YES

Comments:

There is no evidence to show that children educated at home are at increased risk of abuse of any kind. in fact, due to the lack of evidence of child abuse publicised in the population subset it may be that they are less at risk. i am presuming that the question is indeed referring to those educated at home rather than those ‘missing in education’.

Like other children they access healthcare providers, community facilities and have families, neighbours and friends, all of whom would be able to access the standard child protection facilities. i cannot see how this would work more or less successfully in the home educated population than it does in the schooled population [where there seems to be woeful under-reporting]

Is this new ‘rushed’ consultation the government response to the consultation that suggested no further inspection powers to be granted for LA’s? from reading the guidance, this does seem to be the premise. Again it seems that there is some muddling of thought between educational provision and child protection. the LEA has provision to investigate if it is felt that there is no evidence of home education provision. even should they investigate, this does not act to safeguard children at home. Are you instead suggesting that all home educators should be regularly visited by social workers? when social workers are already overloaded with cases that potentially have some basis, adding a huge layer of extra work in a population group that has not been evidenced to be of high risk does not sound reasonable. if you are suggesting all home educators are visited for a ‘safe and well’ assessment, is this not targeting the population group unreasonably?

I agree with the Government definition of bullying as:

‘Behaviour by an individual or group, usually repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or emotionally’.

I also find helpful the following clarification by the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which states that bullying mostly falls into two categories:

* emotionally harmful behaviour, such as taunting, spreading hurtful rumours and excluding people from groups; and
* physically harmful behaviour, such as kicking, hitting, pushing, or other forms of physical abuse.

The following three conditions are used to define incidences of harmful interpersonal behaviour as bullying behaviour. Behaviour is bullying behaviour if:

* it is repetitive, wilful or persistent;
* it is intentionally harmful, carried out by an individual or group; and,
* there is an imbalance of power leaving the person who is bullied feeling defenceless.

It crosses my mind that these repeated consultations are a form of government intimidation and bullying. with wilful and persistent spreading of rumours against the home education population, suggesting that the parents within that group abuse their children, are not educating their children, with a clear imbalance of power, leaving home educators feeling defenceless.

2 a) Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.

Be healthy

YES

Comments:

i am not sure why the 5 have been separated. I see no difficulty for any home educator in aiming to achieve these

The aim is for all children and young people to achieve the five outcomes of Every Child Matters, that is to:

* be healthy;
* stay safe;
* enjoy life and achieve their full potential;
* be interested and fully involved in the community they live in;
* achieve economic independence.

In particular, children and young people should expect to:

* be able to grow and develop in safety and free from prejudice and discrimination;
* be listened to and have their views taken into account;
* be treated with respect;
* belong to and be valued in their community;
* see their needs and interests at the heart of everything we all do.

in fact for many of them i would imagine it would be easier to turn the aiming into a reality.

However, in the be healthy, like in any population subgroup this is an aspiration rather than a 100% achievable goal, children may have illness, disease, accidents in this group as in any other. however, in a home educated environment, many children may find it easier to achieve their full potential despite illness that would cause difficulty in a larger group setting
2 b)

Stay safe

YES

Comments: I think this is palpably easier to achieve in the home educated setting, where the child’s abilities and freedoms are scaffolded by the parent, where there are less opportunities for being bullied, for having undesirable interactions with peers that may involve physical, sexual or mental aggression [as evidenced by a number of surveys]

2 c)

Enjoy and achieve

YES
Comments:

home education is a more direct, interactive and child focused method of education, whether it be of a ‘home school’ type, following a curriculum [even if not the rather dire national curriculum] , a child led or autonomous approach, or the many shades in between including Montessori, Charlotte Mason etc styles. This leads to a clear feedback between child and parent on interest, on the speed and depth which might suit each child individually. This means that the child is far more likely to enjoy their education, as it is tailored to them personally, with varying levels of child/parent involvement as suits the individual and the family. It is clear that not only do children learn at different speeds, but they learn in different ways at different times, and home education, is ideally placed to follow these patterns.
research has suggested that autonomous education is indeed a very efficient learning method.
I would suggest that home education has the ability here to outperform other educational establishments.
I also think that in looking at this question, perhaps the government is ignoring the ability of home education families to be flexible in their resourcing, using open university, online course, colleges, tutors etc to provide as high an educational rigour as many schools do for examination subjects as required.

ultimately, i think that home educated children have a higher likelihood of being able to ‘enjoy life and achieve their full potential’ due to the freedom and ability they have to influence daily the education and knowledge they learn.

2 d)

Make a positive contribution.

YES

Comments:

i think this is a very poorly thought out aim. A positive contribution to what? Society, community, family, scientific theory? or just…
it seems that really the 4th aim is
‘be interested and fully involved in the community they live in’
and I believe that home education is ideally tailored to this, as the child to adult is fully participating in the community from early on.

2 e)

Achieve economic well-being

YES

Comments:

I think that any home educated child is as likely if not more so to ‘achieve economic independence’ as a school educated child. this is because as the child progresses into their teens, then part of the process is considering interests, and moving forwards. Skills suitable to ability and aptitude are developed.

I notice no great mention is made of the subsidiary aims
* be able to grow and develop in safety and free from prejudice and discrimination;
* be listened to and have their views taken into account;
* be treated with respect;
* belong to and be valued in their community;
* see their needs and interests at the heart of everything we all do.
which again I would say are probably at the heart of every families educational philosophy on how to proceed. I sincerely wonder how these aims can even be begun to be achieved in large schools with huge class sizes of disparate educational goals, abilities and aptitudes.

3. Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?. If you answered no, why do you think that?

No

Comments.

from reading around the admirable every child matters documentation, it is clear that these targets are an aspirational goal, for LA’s to put systems in place that can work towards helping children achieve these goals. there is no outcome framework attached with 100% targets. They are in fact ambitions, not backed by legislative force, and certainly couldn’t be achieved to 100% within the schooled population who you seem to believe are more adequately monitored.

4. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

yes

Comments:

I don’t actually see that the home educated community is supported in any way at the present. If you actuallyy wish to support home education, rather than vilifying and deriding, there are some simple and low cost options:
the provision of free meeting rooms for group home education meetings
the provision of places to sit free of charge examinations as external candidates – such as GCSE etc, and possibly the availability of free Open university courses.
suitable training and resourcing of any liaison personnel with home educators, such that they are not extrapolating school to school at home, but have a broad ranging understanding of the different methods of home education and can encourage the diversity without bias.
free access to school resources through local libraries would also be much appreciated.

5. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

no

Comments:

I believe that the law as represented in the Elective Home Education Guidelines 2007 is appropriate for monitoring educational provision. This appeared to be the outcome from previous exhaustive consultations. please see guidelines at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/index.cfm?action=content&contentID=11357&categoryID=75&subcategoryID=106 and the follow up consultation on implementation, both of which I responded to. Suggesting that a single question in a further consultation might negate the previous consultation does not appear valid.

I also feel that having a separate much larger consultation for LA’s/professionals only rather than all stakeholders running concurrently seems designed to purposefully introduce bias towards the governments agenda and hoped for outcomes.

The law needs to respect the balance between citizen and the state. Local authorities must respect the law, understand where they genuinely have duties and where they don’t and not overstep these duties

6. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?

Answer:

I would like to see the evidence behind this. it appears that the NSPCC itself holds no evidence for this. i find, in the absence of any references given, this to be a defamatory statement [In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image] and feel that this should be immediately retracted.

Introducing compulsory checks for all home educating families will be a waste of valuable and limited resources, is highly unlikely to turn up the needle in the haystack and would be an abuse of civil rights and human rights, in contravention of Article 8 of the ECHR. Should this be introduced, the logical extension is for all children not receiving external childcare, and this would include those of pre-school age who do not attend nursery or alternative external to home placements.

I would like to reiterate that like other children, those home educated access healthcare providers, community facilities and have families, neighbours and friends, all of whom would be able to access the standard child protection facilities. In all the high profile child protection stories in the newspapers, there have been multiple flags from a variety of professionals including doctors and social services already involved. It does not appear that the presence [or absence in the case of some withdrawn] of schooling has been a deciding or flagging factor in raising the alarm of abuse.

I would again like to state that these repeated consultations are a form of government intimidation and bullying. There appears to be wilful and persistent spreading of rumours and slander against the home education population without corroborative evidence, suggesting that the parents within that group abuse their children or are not educating their children or looking towards their wider welfare. there is a clear imbalance of power towards the government, leaving home educators feeling defenceless and bullied.

I will be including this in a complaint to the Select Committee for Children Schools and Families [csfcom@parliament.uk] and also to my MP
————————————————————————-

hmmm comments please so i can improve on this. i really am quite crap at consultation writing! i got a bit bored towards the end, so have stopped there for now!