|
Education
Otherwise Response to the DCSF Proposals for the Registration and Monitoring of
Home Education Consultation
|
Question 1: 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?
|
|
Comment: In English law, parents have
a duty to cause their children to receive education. The question presents a
false dichotomy and betrays a lack of understanding of the law. These
proposals categorically do not represent a positive move towards greater
rights for children. The parent is the child's best advocate and home
education is an expression of the rights of the child. It would be
ill-advised disproportionate and extremely damaging for the Government to
proceed to legislation on the basis of a tiny minority of serious cases where
the parent was not acting in the best interests of the child.
|
|
The proposals shift the
decisions about education from the parent to the Local Authority in the case
of home educated children and are in conflict with section 7 of the 1996
Education Act and with statutory guidance on Children Missing Education.
|
|
Barrister Ian Dowty states:
|
|
"If as the Badman Report says in 3.5 and
3.6 the Talmud Torah test causes a further problem for local authorities, it
cannot be solved by changing the position for home educators. The Talmud
Torah test applies to schools and it is in that context that it is an
expression of the law. A private or faith school supplies education suitable
to age aptitude ability and special needs and within logistical limitations
also to the preferences and values of the parent. If a parent can discharge
their s7 responsibility by sending a child to such a school, then why should
they not be able to home educate in accordance with the same principles. To
decide otherwise would unfairly discriminate against home educators."
|
|
It is clear from the
proposals to involve schools in the planning of provision that school
pedagogy will be imposed on home education. This is inappropriate for
settings with a much higher adult:child ratio. Many families home educate
because they disagree with the imposition of the national curriculum, the
constant testing of children, the lack of a child's ability to shape their
own provision and be a full participant in directing their own learning. The
proposals negate the right of parents and children to define for themselves
an appropriate education suitable to the age, ability, aptitude and any
special needs of the child. The proposals will remove richness and diversity
in current provision and instead will bring ever-increasing prescription and direction
over the child's education at home.
|
|
The requirement for a twelve
month plan in advance flies in the face of best practice in terms of
encouraging reflective and responsive provision. This point was made in Oral
Evidence to the Select Committee on October 14th .
|
|
The Badman Review has damaged innovative
and constructive joint working between local authorities and home educators
which does nothing to benefit children or to promote the rights of the child.
Some families have felt compelled to withdraw voluntary co-operation with
local authorities as a result of the Review. The Review places the
relationship between home educating families and local authorities in an
adversarial context, institutionalises mutual suspicion and does nothing to
establish and address the reasons why some families choose not to have a
relationship
|
|
The
emphasis on producing work for inspection and the requirement for a child to
"exhibit" learning show a fundamental lack of understanding of home education
and the dignity and respect afforded to children by home educating parents.
There are good reasons why some families choose not to have a relationship
with local authority officials who undermine their provision and destroy the
self confidence and self esteem of children through a lack of appreciation
and awareness and a lack of respect for the child.
|
|
There appear to be a number
of conflicting reasons for home visits and interviews with children: a safe
and well check by observing the child, ensuring that the child is receiving
suitable education and verifying that the child is able to answer questions
about academic work undertaken during the year.
|
|
It also appears to be
envisaged that the home interview would give the child an opportunity to
disclose abuse to a trusted and familiar adult. These four objectives are
counter-productive and wholly incompatible.
|
|
Should these proposals be
implemented, we predict a barrage of complaints throughout the country,
escalating through local council complaints procedure to Ombudsman level.
Many home educating families have already been to talk to their MP about
these proposals.
|
|
The present law is sufficient
but there is no established framework for liaison between home education
representatives, local authorities and the Department at a local authority
level. Nor is there a framework or mechanism or channels of communication
between the Department at a national level and home education organisations
and local authorities. We suggest that regional and national conferences
should be organised to bring together practitioners and stakeholders to
investigate, discuss and disseminate best practice.
|
|
There has been inadequate
central government guidance and a failure to educate local authorities in
home education. Elsewhere in this consultation submission, Education
Otherwise proposes that the Government take powers to put the 2007 Home
Education Guidelines on a statutory basis.
|
|
The parent has a duty to
cause the child to receive education via section 7 of the Education Act 1996.
This can be done through school or outside the school system.
|
|
Since February 2007 the local
authority has a duty via s.436A of the Education Act 1996 to make
arrangements to identify children missing education. Paragraph 87 of the
statutory guidance on Children Missing Education states that:
|
|
" local authorities should make inquiries with parents
educating children at home about the
|
|
educational provision being made for them. The
procedures to be followed with respect to
|
|
such investigations are set out in the EHE Guidelines,
2.7-2.11 and 3.4-3.6. "
|
|
Section 437 of the Education
Act 1996 requires the local authority to seek information from parents if it
appears that a child is not receiving education. Ultimately if the local
authority is not satisfied, it has a duty to serve a School Attendance Order.
|
|
The authority has further
duties via the Children Act 1989 sections 17 and 47 in relation to establishing
whether a child is in need of services and a duty to step in if the child is
at risk of significant harm.
|
|
Section 10 of the Children
Act 2004 obliges the local authority to co-operate with statutory partners to
improve wellbeing of children in the area.
|
|
Question 2: Do you agree that a register
should be kept?
|
|
Comments: We have answered "not sure"
because the question is ill-conceived and cannot be answered in the context
of the Badman Report. Is this a question about the principle of voluntary
registration, of compulsory registration, or of the specific
licence-to-home-educate registration scheme proposed by Graham Badman and the
DCSF? We are implacably opposed to the compulsory registration scheme
proposed by Graham Badman. In the few areas where the local authority has
been able to offer access to services and non-judgemental support to home educating
families there has been an increase in the take-up of voluntary registration
and a far more positive working partnership between home educators and the
local authority.
|
|
We should like to query the
term "register" rather than "database." These proposals would create the
offence of having an unregistered child. We are not clear whether the parents
or guardians of a child entering the country for a holiday would have to
register the child as home educated, since the proposals refer to residence
but a timeframe is not defined. Nor is it clear how asylum seekers between
the ages of 5 and 16 or children of no fixed abode might be brought into the
scope of the proposed registration scheme. We would also have grave concerns
about registration and disclosure for the children in families where there
has been domestic violence since there has been no guidance or reassurance
about shielding.
|
|
The proposals appear to be
incompatible with recent statutory guidance on Children Missing Education
which directs local authorities to follow procedures set out in the
Government's Elective Home Education Guidelines. The complexities of a
compulsory registration scheme create the potential for legal challenge.
|
|
On a technical point, there
are security issues with locally administered databases which may not conform
to a central agreed standard. All the security, data protection and data
cleansing issues raised by ContactPoint are equally applicable to home
education databases.
|
|
Question 3: Do you agree with the
information to be provided for registration?
|
|
Comments: Education Otherwise does not
support compulsory registration or conditional registration. We therefore
object to all the information outlined in the proposal for compulsory
registration.
|
|
We take particular issue with
the statement of educational approach and the requirement to produce a 12
month plan as a condition of registration. We believe that this proposal was
conceived in haste and we understand that Graham Badman's Expert Reference
Group had serious reservations.
|
|
Registration and monitoring
as specified in the Badman Report would be extremely costly. There has still
been no Impact Assessment for the Government's proposals. In particular there
has not been a Race Impact Assessment or Disability Impact Assessment or
Equality Impact Assessment.
|
|
The Review did not adequately assess the
benefits of voluntary engagement nor the corresponding danger that families
will disengage if forced into an adversarial relationship with their local
authority. We have also addressed this issue in our answer to the first
question of this
|
|
A
lack of engagement with the authority is not an indicator that there are
difficulties, that the family is isolated or that there should be concerns
for the children.
|
|
Question 4: Do you agree that home
educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?
|
|
Comment: It is not possible to keep
such a register up to date and the question betrays a lack of understanding
of home education. The place of education may change from day to day and the
educational approach may of necessity and principle diverge from the
statement contained in the 12 month plan. Under the Government's proposals
parents would be committing a criminal offence if they failed to supply any
part of this information to the authorities at the earliest possible
opportunity in order not to break the law.
|
|
The proposals are in conflict
with recent statutory guidance on Children Missing Education which directs
local authorities to follow procedures set out in the Government's Elective
Home Education Guidelines. The complexities of a compulsory registration
scheme create the potential for legal challenge.
|
|
In the few areas where the
local authority has been able to offer access to services and non-judgemental
support to home educating families there has been an increase in the take-up
of voluntary registration and a far more positive working partnership between
home educators and the local authority.
|
|
Question 5: Do you agree that it should
be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false
information?
|
|
Comment: We would strongly oppose any
move to impose a criminal record on parents and we feel that the question is
offensive.
|
|
Would local authorities be
liable in law for failing to keep a comprehensive register and how might this
be determined or enforced?
|
|
It is difficult to imagine
the legal input to the Department in drafting this question since "inadequate
information" is an impossibly subjective criterion for prosecution.
|
|
It is simply not possible to
keep such a register up to date and the question betrays a lack of
understanding of home education. The place of education may change from day
to day and the educational approach may of necessity and principle diverge
from the statement contained in the 12 month plan.
|
|
Home educators are not the
only people to object to this proposal. Select Committee witnesses from the
National Children's Bureau and the Association of Directors of Children's Services
stated on October 14th that the case had not been
made for criminalising parents and that other options were preferable.
|
|
How is it envisaged that the
Government might enforce registration especially for highly mobile families?
|
|
It makes little sense to legislate for increased intervention in
the area of home education and to appear to promise a menu of support to home
educating families, without first assessing the cost of implementing these
proposals. The Government is clearly not able to do this until the total
number of home educated children is known. Therefore it is not logical to
proceed to legislation in the absence of any reliable data.
|
|
There has still been no
Impact Assessment for the Government's proposals. In particular there has not
been a Race Impact Assessment or Disability Impact Assessment or Equality
Impact Assessment.
|
|
This proposal should be
withdrawn.
|
|
Question 6 a): 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?
|
|
Comment: This will cause undue stress
to families as the school puts pressure on the child to attend school during
this period in order not to prejudice Ofsted-rated attendance targets,
particularly persistent absence figures. The proposal undermines children's
rights and is damaging to the welfare of the child.
|
|
Schools will seek to persuade
parents not to take children off the school roll and to remain as pupils.
Local authority officials will become involved in discussions over whether
the parent is capable of producing a detailed 12 month plan at this stressful
time. The potential for conflict and legal challenge is considerable.
|
|
This proposal is also in
conflict with section 7 of the 1996 Education Act and with recent statutory
guidance on s.436A of the Act and with the 2006 Pupil Registration
Regulations.
|
|
This proposal is
ill-conceived and should be withdrawn.
|
|
Question 6 b): Do you agree that the school
should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment
data?
|
|
Comment: The case has not been made.
We are unable to see why this is necessary or desirable. Schools do not
routinely provide home educating parents with this information. It is not
proposed that consent be sought from the parent or from the child. The reason
for taking this information could only be to judge the parent's educational
provision against school standards and projected school attainment targets.
|
|
We have feedback from members
indicating that in some cases schools under-estimate a child's ability and future
attainment, stating that the child will never be academically successful,
that the parent is deluded or biased to think otherwise.
|
|
In other cases, members have
been routinely misinformed by schools about the child's actual level of
attainment and understanding based on the curriculum material covered in
class which may not have been understood or assimilated by the child,
necessitating a great deal of one to one remedial work at home once the child
has been removed from the state system.
|
|
Moreover, the parent may not
wish to adopt school-based values and a school-type curriculum but would come
under pressure from the local authority to base the home education on the
framework set out by the school. We already see this in many cases where the
local authority interprets the
|
|
Question 7: Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to
issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of
home education?
|
|
Comment: The Government should not
take powers to issue statutory guidance on registration and monitoring. This
is the wrong question about statutory guidance. We should have been asked for
our views on statutory guidance regulating the rights and responsibilities of
the parent and the local authority which was the focus of the Government non
statutory Guidelines in 2007.
|
|
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/publications/elective/
|
|
The Badman Review did not
seek comprehensive reliable information about local authority practice and
procedure. Education Otherwise has begun much-needed research in this area.
Philip Noyes giving evidence on behalf of the NSPCC the Select Committee on
October 14th noted that the Badman Report
was lacking in this respect.
|
|
The 2007 Government
guidelines on home education were published after wide consultation and
deliberation. The problem is that these non-statutory Guidelines were not
publicised by the Government. Many local authorities either remained unaware
of their existence or treated them as merely advisory since they were not
statutory.
|
|
In Oral Evidence to the
Select Committee on October 14th there was some discussion of
what constituted suitable education and the local authority witness suggested
that in home education there should be the consistent involvement of parents
or other significant carers; recognition of the child's needs, attitudes and
aspirations and opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their
learning experiences.
|
|
These proposals are of course
already contained in the Government Guidelines at paragraph 3.15 further
demonstrating that there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/publications/elective/
|
|
The Review did not have sufficient
time to investigate models of good practice nor did the Department for
Children Schools and Families consider pilot studies. Much more work needs to
be done in this area.
|
|
There can clearly be no
headlong rush to legislation as there is no Impact Assessment for the
Government's proposals. In particular there has not been a Race Impact
Assessment or Disability Impact Assessment or Equality Impact Assessment.
|
|
Question 8: Do you agree that children
about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home
educated?
|
|
Comment: We have answered "not sure"
since a yes/no answer is not applicable to this question and the subject
demands further consideration. Recommendation 23-24 of the Badman Report
propose that any "concerns" not otherwise specified could also be grounds for
refusing home education registration. This is prejudicial to any meaningful
discussion of question 8 and recommendations 23 and 24 should be withdrawn
and redrafted. The current proposals are open to legal challenge.
|
|
If the child is considered to be at risk of significant harm
there is legislation and guidance in place via section 47 of the 1989
Children Act and Working Together to Safeguard Children which sets out
procedures to be followed. The mode of education is irrelevant. A child is
either safe with the parent or not safe, yet this proposal would create a
third category of child who is "safe to go to school."
|
|
Members tell us that where
the child has special educational needs the school or local authority often
raises "safeguarding concerns" as an obstacle to the family's home education,
in some cases leading to a section 47 referral which remains on the family's
record. The value and legality of home education is not adequately
understood.
|
|
Children and families may be
known to social care services for a variety of reasons. In some cases the
child may be in need of services and therefore the family has approached
social services or health services. This take-up of services is surely to be
encouraged and not to be adduced as evidence that the educational provision
made for tens of thousands of other children is in urgent need of inspection.
|
|
Question 9: Do you agree that the local
authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place
provided 2 weeks notice is given?
|
|
Comments: The Badman Report conflates
education, welfare, child protection and safeguarding. No justification has
been given for imposing a duty to visit the home and question children
without the parent present. The proposal is operating on the assumption that
any and every child could be at risk and is a wholly disproportionate
response to a minority of cases. The proposals also burden the local
authority with additional liability in law in cases where the official has
signed off the family and reported that there is no cause for concern.
|
|
It is illogical that the
local authority should only visit the homes of children who are educated at
home and not the homes of all children. Children spend more time at home than
they do at school and are of course based at home for relatively long periods
during the summer holidays, where the parent may be working away from home.
|
|
There appear to be a number
of conflicting reasons for home visits and interviews with children: a safe
and well check by observing the child, ensuring that the child is receiving
suitable education and verifying that the child is able to answer questions
about academic work undertaken during the year.
|
|
It also appears to be
envisaged that the home interview would give the child an opportunity to
disclose abuse to a trusted and familiar adult. A moment's thought should
reveal how unlikely this would be.
|
|
These objectives are mutually
incompatible.
|
|
A mass home visit scheme for
80,000+ home educated children would be astronomically expensive and would
represent an extraordinary priority for the Government when there is still no
funding for support or services to home educating families. There has been no
Impact Assessment for the Government's proposals. In particular there has not
been a Race Impact Assessment or Disability Impact Assessment or Equality
Impact Assessment.
|
|
Question 10: 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?
|
|
Comments: The proposals to interview
and question children in their home without a parent present have met with
widespread and determined opposition and are unworkable.
|
|
The civil rights organisation
Liberty has stated: "Any power of access to the home must be
tightly regulated and a full explanation as to the power's necessity should
be given."
|
|
There appear to be a number
of conflicting reasons for home visits and interviews with children: a safe
and well check by observing the child, ensuring that the child is receiving
suitable education and verifying that the child is able to answer questions
about academic work undertaken during the year.
|
|
It also appears to be
envisaged that the home interview would give the child an opportunity to
disclose abuse to a trusted and familiar adult. We believe that these
proposals lack clarity and that these objectives are counter-productive and
mutually incompatible.
|
|
Should this proposal be
implemented, we predict a barrage of complaints throughout the country,
escalating through local council complaints procedure to Ombudsman level.
Many home educating families have already been to talk to their MP and
hundreds of home educating families visited parliament on October 13 to raise
awareness of this issue.
|
|
There is absolutely no
information about the procedure if the child does not want to be questioned
without a parent present and it was this very question which Graham Badman
said he most dreaded in evidence to the Select Committee on October 12th .
|
|
This proposal is causing a
huge amount of concern, anger, distress and outrage. For children who have
been bullied at school the home is a place of sanctuary and safety. The
Badman Report does not address the issue of recommended procedure and the
rights of the child if the child refuses to be interviewed. The proposal is
open to legal challenge.
|
|
For safeguarding reasons we
believe that many parents would not be prepared to allow children to be alone
with unknown adult in position of power and authority. The child seems to be
viewed both as a witness against the parent and also as evidence for the
efficacy or otherwise of the parent's educational provision. A third view of
the child is as potential abuse victim in all cases until proved otherwise.
This is an extraordinary way to segregate and objectify children while
allegedly promoting the child's right to be heard. Meanwhile parents are
viewed with suspicion and mistrust, being characterised as likely to mislead
or deceive the authorities or as being the last people who might know what
their child actually needs.
|
|
Graham Badman does not want
the parent present as an advocate for the child. Nevertheless the child needs
an advocate chosen or approved by the parent and the child. An independent
advocate is also necessary for the professional reputation of the local
authority officer who should never see the child alone.
|
|
We note that there has been
no Impact Assessment for this proposal.
|
|
Question 11: 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.
|
|
Comment: The proposals to interview and question children in
their home without a parent
|
|
present
have met with widespread and determined opposition and are unworkable. There
is absolutely no information about the procedure if the child does not want
to be questioned without a parent present and it was this very question which
Graham Badman said he most dreaded in evidence to the Select Committee on
October 12th .
|
|
The civil rights organisation
Liberty has stated:
|
|
"Any power of access to
the home must be tightly regulated and a full explanation as
|
|
to the power's necessity
should be given."
|
|
A mass home visit scheme for
80,000+ home educated children would be astronomically expensive and would
represent an extraordinary priority for the Government when there is still no
funding for support or services to home educating families. There has been no
Impact Assessment for the Government's proposals. In particular there has not
been a Race Impact Assessment or Disability Impact Assessment or Equality
Impact Assessment.
|
|
There appear to be a number
of conflicting reasons for home visits and interviews with children: a safe
and well check by observing the child, ensuring that the child is receiving
suitable education and verifying that the child is able to answer questions
about academic work undertaken during the year.
|
|
It also appears to be
envisaged that the home interview would give the child an opportunity to
disclose abuse to a trusted and familiar adult.
|
|
Since February 2007 the local
authority already has a duty via s.436A of the Education Act 1996 to make
arrangements to identify children missing education. Paragraph 87 of the
statutory guidance on Children Missing Education states that:
|
|
" local authorities should make inquiries with parents
educating children at home about the
|
|
educational provision being made for them. The
procedures to be followed with respect to
|
|
such investigations are set out in the EHE Guidelines,
2.7-2.11 and 3.4-3.6. "
|
|
Section 437 of the Education
Act 1996 requires the local authority to seek information from parents if it
appears that a child is not receiving education. Ultimately if the local
authority is not satisfied, it has a duty to serve a School Attendance Order.
|
|
The authority has further
duties via the Children Act 1989 sections 17 and 47 in relation to
establishing whether a child is in need of services and a duty to step in if
the child is at risk of significant harm.
|
|
Section 10 of the Children
Act 2004 obliges the local authority to co-operate with statutory partners to
improve wellbeing of children in the area.
|
|
The present powers are
sufficient but poorly understood and the Department has not taken a lead in
promoting the 2007 Guidelines.
|
|
Education Otherwise recommends that the Government should take
powers to put the 2007 guidelines on a statutory basis.
|
|
