2012. Game: on

So here we are, home educating in England at the start of 2012. What's the legal position now?

As far as I can tell, as parents we're still primarily subject to Section 7 of the Education Act :

7. Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age.The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable —
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

which tells us that:

• It's the parent's job - not the government's, school's or local authority's job - to 'cause the child to receive' the education.


• The education has to be full-time, so all day, every day. (Children naturally learn all the time, so this is not difficult.)


• It has to be suitable for the child's age, ability and aptitude. (Hard to achieve in a school class of 30; easy for a parent at home who can constantly assess and adapt to fewer children's unique requirements.)


• The education has to be efficient. So, no waiting around for someone's attention, or to use equipment etc, or for questions to be answered. (Again, easy at home for parents: almost impossible in a school scenario.)

- and therefore leads us to conclude that elective home education is still the best way of delivering the kind of education required by law.

Local authorities have some legal requirements too. Under the Education and Inspections Act 2006:

436A Duty to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education

(1)A local education authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children in their area who are of compulsory school age but—

(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and
(b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.

(2) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.

And section 437 of the Education Act:

437 School attendance orders.

(1) If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.
(2) That period shall not be less than 15 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
(3) If—
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education, and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school, the authority shall serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a “school attendance order”), in such form as may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in the order.

But these are requirements for local authorities, not parents. As far as I know, there is nothing in statute to compel us to try to prove anything about our children's education to our local authorities.

But they'll ask us to anyway.

Why? Mostly, I think, because they're trying to comply with their legal requirements, set out in Section 436A and 437 (above). Some will also be motivated by their own, personal, ideological reasons ("The best place for children is in school"; "Parents can't be trusted and must therefore be monitored" etc) - even though pursuing a personal ideology in their professional role will in most cases be a clear breach of their employment contract.

But legally they're in a difficult position really, and I sympathise - though not enough to jeopardise my children's education just so that they can feel safe from any repercussions their might fear. My child's wellbeing comes before a local authority officer's salary and position in my own scale of priorities, though I'm aware it's probably the other way around for the local authority officer.

Incidentally, my reasons for home educating are:

1. love for my children; and
2. parental instinct

- not just because it's the best way for me to comply with the Education Act! But English Law is eminently sensible in accommodating parental instincts in this way. I want to cause my child to receive an efficient, full time education suitable to his age, aptitude and ability - and I would have done it anyway, even without the law telling me I must.

So here I am, happily complying with my part of the law. And here's the local authority, trying its best to comply with its part. Noticing my child doesn't attend school, it asks me for information about his educational provision.

At this point, I have to make a decision about how to respond.

Often, my response will depend on how I'm asked. A simple, one-off request for information to enable the local authority to ascertain that my child is not 'missing education' isn't likely to cause me any problems, especially if it reminds me of my right (as set out in the Elective Home Education Guidelines For Local Authorities) to respond in a format of my choosing. So I could, for example, give assurance in writing on paper or online, or at a meeting with or without my children, at our house or at any other venue, at a time and place I choose to arrange with them.

But an ultra vires, high-handed and threatening sounding notice of an officer's intention to visit my house, without waiting for my reply to the above request, or sometimes without even bothering to send the request in the first place, is not likely to be received so well by me. Why should I comply with such instructions when there's no statutory reason or need for me to do so? Sections 436A and 437 are not my problem as a parent: they're the local authority's problem, although it's possible that the new Localism Act enables them to send such notices anyway. But in statute I don't have to comply.

Accepting regular visits from the local authority might well affect my ability to comply with Section 7, as might receipt of a school attendance order. Case Law advises me that it's unwise to ignore a request from my local authority for information about my provision. So, how do I decide how to respond?

The conflicting priorities between me the parent (my child's needs and my Section 7 responsibilities) and the local authority (its legal requirements) produces a point of tension between us. A power struggle. A game of brinkmanship, in which there are eventual winners (home educators who get left alone, local authority officers who succeed in extending their power) and losers (home educators facing a barrage of increasingly ultra vires hoops through which they're being asked to jump, local authority officers who must reluctantly be satisfied with receiving minimal information about provision.) And an overall, ongoing war of attrition to establish the new status quo between the two which may or may not lead to future changes in statute accordingly.

In this game, local authorities often try to pretend they have more power than they actually do. ("It is our duty to monitor education provision..." There is no 'duty to monitor'.) Or that they're here "to help and advise you". But the way I see this situation is similar to being arrested by the police. In an interview in which anything I may say could be taken down and used as evidence against me, could their priority really be to help and advise me? No! They're seeking to gather evidence to build a case against me, and to try to assess my strengths and vulnerabilities, to get an idea of how I might come across in a court of law.

Some people respond by asking the local authority for specific reasons why it appears to them that the provision might not be suitable. This is a great stance to take, in my opinion, if it achieves its objective in persuading the local authority to back off.

In any case, I'm going to be very careful what information I divulge to them, in case it might be taken down and used in evidence against me. I won't ignore their request for information, but I will supply the bare minimum to demonstrate (not to prove - it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt to unreasonable people, and I don't know if these are reasonable people) that my child is being caused to receive an efficient, full-time education, suitable to his age, aptitude and ability. And I will do this in a format of my choosing - regardless of how the local authority asks for it.

And - to do my bit to ensure the local authority continues to have no duty to monitor on an ongoing basis - I will only do it once.

"Threatening behaviour can consist of the deliberate use of silence."

- according to this document: 4.17 Working with Uncooperative and Hostile Families Practice Guidance, which was first mentioned on Lisa's post (which ties some prevalent issues together for us) which was brought to my attention by Raquel.

Are you deliberately using your silence in a threatening way? Be careful. You might be. And how would you know if you were? I'd love to hear how that would play out in a court of law (although if it was the Family Court - as it would be - nobody ever would): "She used her silence in a threatening way, Your Honour." Right. Bang her up then. How dare she?

This is being circulated as an official guidance document. By government officers. It's not only in Lincolnshire. It's also in Manchester, Bury, Sussex, Luton, Stockton-on-Tees, Salford, Doncaster, North East Scotland, Barnsley, and Cardiff (whose is actually listed in Google as that of Sheffield LSCB, which is where I understand this thing to have originated). And those are just the ones I could access in a quick Google search this morning. I suspect there will be yet more versions of this same document. So I want to have a look at it in more detail.

It consists of a number of trigger words. These are judgments made - not by a court of law - but by officials on the ground, off the hoof. These labels will be attached to people (and will stick) based on very little information of the person as a whole. In my view then, they're not judgments at all, in a fair sense. They're prejudgments ("An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.") This is a document about prejudice. And not how to combat it, but how to practice it, with official impunity.

I'm going to try my best to give it the benefit of the doubt. To work from the basis of an assumption that the author of this had the best of intentions to help people who were dealing with the worst of circumstances in the course of their everyday work. They perhaps didn't realise how it would read to the rest of us: ordinary parents who might have good and valid reasons for being [*prejudicial labelling alert:*] service resistant. We might imagine - you might say, foolishly in this day and age - that we could parent our children without official input and supervision, as our ancestors have successfully done for these past millennia. We might actually be capable - as our children's continued health, education and happiness would testify, should such a thing every be doubted (and what sort of society would doubt it?!) - of doing so.

So as that kind of ordinary parent, apparently doing a pretty good job (if I say so myself) I'm going to now go quickly through this document and highlight the elements of it that fill me with unease and alarm, from the sheer terror of imagining ever finding myself being [pre]judged in this way, and unknowingly/ accidentally attracting any of these damaging labels to my name. (Please note that the following excerpts are selective and need to be read in context with the full document.)

From time to time all agencies will come into contact with families whose compliance is apparent rather than genuine, or who are more obviously reluctant, resistant or sometimes angry or hostile to their approaches.

First, I want to know what constitutes an 'agency' in this context. What's its legal status? Is it a public body? How is it funded? What laws and regulations is it answerable to?

Then we get onto 'apparent compliance' rather than 'genuine compliance'. But before that.. compliance? With a service? Call me old fashioned, but I'm only in my early 40s and yet I still think of a service as being something that works for us rather than the other way around. An optional thing. Unless the meaning of the word 'service' has now been changed to 'agent of an aggressive dictatorship' when we weren't looking, then 'compliance' is an extremely odd and worrying term to be used.

So how are we, 'service users' - assuming we choose to be compliant at all - to know whether our compliance appears to be 'apparent' or 'genuine'? The answer to this is not yet made clear.

2.1 There are four types of uncooperativeness:

• Ambivalence: can be seen when people are always late for appointments, or repeatedly make excuses for missing them; when they change the conversation away from uncomfortable topics and when they use dismissive body language.

What's classed as 'dismissive body language'? How are we to know? How can we avoid using 'dismissive body language' to avoid the label 'ambivalent uncooperative' - when we don't even know what it is? The answer is: we can't.

• Avoidance: a very common method of uncooperativeness, including avoiding appointments, missing meetings, and cutting visits short due to other apparently important activity (often because the prospect of involvement makes the person anxious and they hope to escape it).

The message I take from that is this: Set your dealings with these people as your highest priority, over and above meeting your children's needs, your own needs, and the needs of other 'agencies'. Otherwise you might attract the label 'avoidant uncooperative'.

• Confrontation: includes challenging professionals, provoking arguments, extreme avoidance (e.g. not answering the door as opposed to not being in) and often indicates a deep-seated lack of trust leading to a ‘fight’ rather than ‘flight’ response to difficult situations.

Not answering the door equals confrontation??! In crazy daisy upside-down world, maybe. But in this one - still, despite these people's best efforts - not answering the door is usually seen as an avoidance of confrontation. The complete opposite.

2.2 Reasons for Uncooperativeness

There are a variety of reasons why some families may be uncooperative with professionals, including the fact that they:

• Do not want their privacy invaded;
• Have something to hide;
• Refuse to believe they have a problem;

Maybe they actually don't 'have a problem'. Who gets to decide whether a person 'has a problem' or not? This is where I worry about the legal status of such 'agencies' and the basis of their power. And to crave more accurate definitions and more thorough rationale. I don't think it's too much to expect from people trying to wield such immense and potentially destructive power over their neighbours' lives.

2.3 A range of social, cultural and psychological factors influence the behaviour of parents. The more uncooperative the family, the more likely it is that the main influences are psychological.

This is blatantly not true. I know lots of families who would resolutely deny official screening of their homes and families, who would - no doubt - present as 'extremely uncooperative' in such circumstances (but who are perfectly nice people in other circumstances, and exemplary parents). Without exception the main influences of this would be idealogical. Political. Emotional. Protective. Not psychological, which makes it sound like an irrational choice. (Although I suppose, if these 'agencies' are threatening to remove children from families on an arbitrary basis, then anything other than a terrified and absolute compliance could increasingly be viewed as irrational! One of the main problems with this being, it would be difficult to work out from this document even how to demonstrate such compliance in the 'correct' way! How have we come to this?)

2.4 In general a parent will try to regain control over their lives, but they may be overwhelmed by pain, depression, anxiety and guilt resulting from the earlier losses in their lives. Paradoxically, the uncooperativeness may be the moment at which the person opens up their feelings, albeit negative ones, at the prospect of help. They are unlikely to be aware of this process going on.

I simply cannot believe the patronising tone of that paragraph. Bear in mind, these might be people who have had their beloved children forcibly removed from them, or received explicit threat of such. By those very people who are there to 'help' them, whether they like it or not.

3. Impact on Assessment

3.1 Accurate information and a clear understanding of what is happening to a child within their family and community are vital to any assessment. The usual and most effective way to achieve this is by engaging parents and children in the process of assessment, reaching a shared view of what needs to change and what support is needed, and jointly planning the next steps.

This sounds quite cosy, doesn't it? I wonder if the family and community are also made aware that if they are accidentally silent or seen to be using the wrong body language, this could affect their treatment considerably. It would be only fair to tell them in advance, so they could be sure to keep any gaps in the conversation well filled at all times.

3.2 Engaging with a parent who is resistant or even violent and/or intimidating is obviously more difficult. The behaviour may be deliberately used to keep professionals from engaging with the parent or child, or can have the effect of keeping professionals at bay. There may be practical restrictions to the ordinary tools of assessment (e.g. seeing the child on their own, observing the child in their own home etc). The usual sources of information/alternative perceptions from other professionals and other family members may not be available because no-one can get close enough to the family.

This harks back to the old chestnut that 'a child not seen is a child at risk'. Not true. Not true. Could just be that the parents want to protect their child from the stress of being interviewed, of knowing their conduct is under question, of feeling insecure. Could be that the parents are - quite justifiably, reading documents like this - worried about being misjudged or prejudged, based on their 'presentation'. Or their child's. Could be that they struggle to see why their privacy should be invaded if a convincingly valid reason for this has not been properly cited. (To be fair, the document does mention this reason, but I think only in the context of yet another obstacle to be patiently surmounted by the official.)

There's a lot more, but I've had enough now. Suffice to say (in suitably panicked tone):

• If it doesn't look like there's 'enough' food in my fridge, that's probably because I haven't been shopping yet today. (Are we all to go shopping all the time and keep excess food stores in case of spot checks?)
• If my child is happy with her sleeping conditions, why do they need to be checked?
• Why can you not take anything I say as a parent at face value, whatsoever?
• Why must we have this climate of policing one another with perpetual mistrust?

Yes, child abuse happens. It happens in the upper classes, in the middle classes, and in the under classes. It happens - as those examples show - both at school and at home. It happens to children in 'care' and in church. It is surely endemic, across the board.

But it is still the exception, not the rule. Most parents are good and loving parents who are their children's best advocates and staunchest protectors. We are the people who know and understand our children best - the only ones who can offer them truly unconditional love. The document I've been reading today completely overlooks this crucial aspect of the picture. In its tone - in my opinion - it is patronising, superior, careless and suspicious. It seems to be designed to engender conflict rather than to resolve it.

I accept there are problems in society and some families, and that some children need help. But this kind of 'help' cannot be the way. Why aren't we looking for causes of the problems, instead of dirty, ineffective sticking plasters like this? Why don't we address the issues that cause unbearable stress for some families (mostly, IMO, based on lack of sufficient natural space, resources and influence over their environment such as is required for good mental health) instead?

I'm wondering who wins, in this current situation. Not the abused children, for whom adequate salvation is often not found regardless of the quality of 'interventions'. Not the non-abused children, who have to live in this environment of perpetual suspicion of all parents, just in case. Not the abusing parents, whose real problems are invariably never addressed. And not the innocent parents, whose innocence is never trusted or taken at face value, so that we're all treated as guilty until proven innocent. Not the 'agency operatives' (officials, social workers, etc) who are paid to execute this crazy process. I can't imagine a more stressful career.

So who wins? Who profits from a nationwide climate of fear, suspicion and separation? If we can work this out, we might stand some chance of collectively resisting it.

Government monitoring of home education provision: some points.

The government's own, existing EHE Guidelines for Local Authorities clearly state:

2.7 Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.

None. No annual visits. No annual reports. No biannual visits or reports or meetings elsewhere or otherwise jumping through hoops to get permission from anyone else to home educate our own children.

If you can get your head around the unarguable reality of that legal position, you can perhaps start to understand something about how important it is, and why it's vital for home educators to work hard to maintain it. Or at least, do nothing to erode it.

It's the position that stops the inevitable bureaucratic turn of the screw. If you don't know what I mean by that, then Adam Curtis's The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom, aired on the BBC in 2007, the same year as those guidelines were published (DVD here) is the best explanation I can think of citing.

Some home educators think we should all be monitored by the state. Read that again if you like. Believe it, because it's true. Some of the reasons I've heard for this are as follows:

• "If it saves one child.."
  
  But monitoring of elective home education won't save any children at all. Eunice Spry was monitored, every single year. Home visits and everything. But because routine monitoring is not, by definition, a response to specific concerns, it becomes just that. Routine. Blasé. Easy to fool.
  
  There is already a good enough Child Protection system in this country, which applies to all children: home educated and schooled. Yes, I think it's a mistake to focus this on schooled children, but would I sacrifice the freedom of home education to fix that? Of course not! I'd switch the focus of it back to the community instead, duh.


• "The reputation and therefore the value of good home education is sullied by those people who aren't doing it properly. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff so that our children stand a chance of getting into some of the better universities.."
  
  Here is my answer to that. It's a very dangerous position to take, because once you've opened yourself up to monitoring, it won't stop. That screw just keeps on tightening until your own provision is monitored out of existence along with all the others. Your child has a proven academic record of excellence? Some officials would think this meant she was being hothoused and socially deprived. You live in a good neighbourhood? Some officials would think this meant your children were 'denied the opportunity of getting to know and understand other children from different backgrounds.' There's always someone who will disagree with what you're doing and seek to stop it, whoever you are. Whatever you're doing. So don't give them the power. Don't fall into that trap.


• It doesn't do any harm and it's good to get some feedback to know whether I'm on the right track..
  
  I answered this a couple of years ago: suffice to say, speaking as someone who's done about 17 years of different kinds of home educating now (yes, I was a hot-houser once upon a time!) I now know that it does do harm and - to be blunt - if you feel the need for official sanction of your home education provision... well. You perhaps need to rethink a few things! Anyway, officials are always available to be consulted on an as-and-when basis for people who want to do that. It's not a right I'd take away from them.

So I'd really appreciate it if they didn't try to take my rights away from me.

Once again:

2.7 Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.

A 'family' of home educators in Wigan has tendered for and secured the job of monitoring home education provision in Wigan, which is the reason for this post, and my current feeling of despair.

Localism Bill - emergency Trojan Horse alert for home educators.

I haven’t blogged for a long time. Apart from some talk about a bunch of clowns trying to write a set of guidelines to which they daren’t even put their names, nothing much seems to have been happening in the world of home education politics since Graham Stuart’s speech to the Commons at the defeat of the horrific 20-day deregistration clause. Consequently I've been digging our field instead of blogging.

But now there's something to cause us to jam the brakes on developing the self-sufficient dream, stop cruising happily along and come screeching to a halt, dropping the spade and everything. To look, suddenly, in the field full of horses nearby - because something's not quite right with it somehow. They all look innocent enough, quietly grazing away there - except one, which looks a bit oversized and yes.... wooden. A fake horse. A Trojan Horse. Quite convincing though - I wouldn't have noticed it if it hadn't been for Neil T's helicopter searchlight patiently shining on it, pointing it out to anyone with eyes who cares to see.

The fact that this horse must have been there for quite some time, slowly advancing below the radar, is pretty scary. Its builders must possess some skill and so I just know that whatever's concealed inside it can only mean one thing: Big Trouble.

Sigh. I'd much rather just keep digging away here and keep ignoring the weird looking things in other fields, despite my growing unease and despair about them all, despite my - surely paranoid? - feeling that they all seem to be getting closer. Digging earth and tending crops are quiet and contemplative activities, while the children play happily nearby in the grass and the trees. For a long time I can pretend that all is still right with the world. But I know that to ignore that particular searchlight is to lay down and die. And I can't do that to my children and future grandchildren. I have to address the issue - which means approaching the horse and inspecting its contents.

Luckily Neil has beaten us to it, extracted them and laid them out on the grass for us to see. And he's jumping up and down with his searchlight again, shouting "OVER HERE!" He's even made some helpful, eye-catching signs in large print, comprising full explanations in case we didn't recognise them for what they are. I don't know what we'd do without his help, and that of a few others of his ilk. Next to nothing, in my case, except keep digging and try to look the other way - even though I was fast running out of other ways to look.

What exactly is laid out on the ground, then? Some parts of a huge machine: it can only be the one taking shape in the distance - the only machine anyone's working on, these days. (In fact, most people seem to be working on it in some way or another - whether they realise it or not!) So big by now that it keeps blocking out the sun. The machine we're told is going to help us all, but I can't see how my crops can grow and my children can thrive without sunlight, so I don't believe them.

However, I don't see how I - just one insignificant person - can do anything to stop it being built, so I've been trying to ignore it and concentrate on helping the crops and kids instead, in spite of the lengthening cold, dark times. What else could I do? Also - significantly - I don't personally remember asking for help in the first place, but never mind. Such details are lost in the midst of time now, and we're here. Looking at these things on the ground.

These parts look like yet more of the same kind of universal little cogs we're all so used to seeing everywhere around that they've become part of the scenery. But according to Neil's signs, they're quite definitely not the same kind. No, these are *vital components* in transit. In disguise, wrongly labelled, packed up in a Trojan Horse. Neil's right: they must be important.

The box is labelled: Localism Bill, which sounds like a good and useful thing, surely? We've all been feeling starved of proper communication and real democracy at the local level - not to mention that nourishing sense of belonging and protection one feels from prolongued co-operation with one's neighbours. Real local community. That's where most of the important decisions should be made - collectively and face-to-face, in people's kitchens or at most, in village halls. With everyone given chance to speak, no matter how big or small. This might be good news then...? Neil's shaking his head slowly. (First group on this page, if you want to read for yourself, although posting anything on there is a bit like blogging, or booking a spot on the open mic session at a big, busy pub. Pretty daunting in itself! Crowds of spectators, loads of whispering behind hands. Lots of not paying attention. Not much open feedback or response, since responding in itself is to grab the mic and draw attention to oneself, isn't it?)

Its contents include, in 'plain English', the following:

General power of competence

Local authorities´ powers and responsibilities are defined by legislation. In simple terms, they can only do what the law says they can. [Neil says: "ie. they are not free to act ultra vires." (outside the law)] Sometimes councils are wary of doing something new - even if they think it might be a good idea - because they
are not sure whether they are allowed to in law, and are concerned about the possibility of being challenged in the courts.

The Government thinks that we need to turn this assumption upside down.Instead of being able to act only where the law says they can, local authorities should be free to do anything - provided they do not break other laws. [Neil says: "In other words, be free to act ultra vires."]

The Localism Bill includes a `general power of competence´. [Neil says: "ie. power without competence!"] It will give local authorities the legal capacity to do anything that an individual can do that is not specifically prohibited; they will not, for example, be able to impose new taxes, as an individual has no power to tax."

More from Neil:

"Legally [it will mean] I can ask you if I can come and visit you in your home and see you home educating your child! Currently, despite such widespread and long established custom, this is currently an abuse of power, a misrepresentation of powers they do not possess when the LEA does it. They will be able to fix that, and goodness knows what else if the localism bill becomes law. :-( Oh, and they will have the power to tax us for these 'services', so the above example is as disingenuous as it is possible to be."

In other words, our current power as families to restrict officials' ability to monitor, test and otherwise control our home education provision - our ability to say "STOP. You can't do that, because it goes beyond the law," (and the only means we had to keep the Badman/Balls dream from becoming a horrific reality) - will be removed from us. This power will be negated. We won't be able to use it any more. It will no longer apply.

That's what was in the Trojan Horse, and how it will affect home education in England.

So now we know, now that we've all seen it for what it is (in part. I'm sure it's lots of other things besides!) - what are we going to do about it?

"Who do these people think they are?"

Asked Graham Stuart in his brilliant speech to the House of Commons about local authority's treatment of home educators on Wednesday. (You can read it here, watch it here between 3:59:00 and 4:22:00 and read commentary and discussion about it here, here, and no doubt elsewhere.)



Some of my favourite excerpts:

On the face of it, that recommendation seemed reasonable, which I am sure is why the Government came forward with proposals to implement it, having seen that both Badman and the Select Committee supported it. However, it was not recognised that the Government’s formal consultation on the Badman recommendations had shown that, far from being uncontroversial, the proposal had attracted opposition from 75% of those who responded, with only 13% agreeing. Why would that be the case? Why would families be concerned about having the power to return their children to school within 20 days, with no restriction whatever on their freedoms and no delay forced on the start of their home education? The answer lies in the behaviour of local authorities.

His reminder about the consultation response initially came from Raquel of AEUK. It's a very good thing for home educators that Raquel is so on-the-ball, with her excellent memory, logical thinking and constant willingness to engage where it counts and I know this isn't the first time she's made a big difference to outcomes in a very quiet way.

Tameside metropolitan borough council’s elective home education guidelines say:

“It is up to parents to show the local education authority that they have a programme of work in place that is helping their child to develop according to his/her age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he/she may have.”

But it is not up to parents to justify that to the local authority; all too often, it is the local authority that has let down that family and those children through its failure to provide proper education. The local authority should be the servant of the family; the family should not have to answer to the needs of the local authority.

This was exactly what needed to be said. Mr Stuart has surpassed all of my hopes and expectations; I was expecting a dry debate about the 20-day deregistration clause and I think that's because we're so used, after many years of Ed Balls, his party and the compliant education department that seemed to evolve around them, to politicians just completely ignoring the key issues which negatively affected our families in favour of their own high-handed agenda for us. Graham Stuart certainly can't be accused of that.

A Labour MP intervened to talk about abuse, and Mr Stuart rounded on her and dealt with this magnificently:

She has done what Badman did, and what the former Secretary of State did under the previous Government, which is to conflate child abuse with home education. Education and welfare are two separate things. Contrary to what Graham Badman stated in his report, and failed to substantiate in the Select Committee, there is no evidence that home-educated children are more subject to abuse than children in general. When there is a risk, local authorities have all due powers to intervene, and so they should. When such evidence arises, the authorities can and should go in to ensure the protection of the child. However, we cannot have the suggestion that home-educating families are linked to a problem of abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is important to nail that fact. We must not do as the previous Home Secretary did, which was to smear the reputation of home-educating families by suggesting that there is a problem, because there is no evidence for that.

In that moment, for possibly the first time since the election, I felt very glad I'd voted Conservative. My vote was for home education, and mainly for this man - one of the very few politicians in which I still have faith. As home educating families, we suffered abuse under Ed Balls and Graham Badman. Graham Stuart brings us healing.

After a challenge from Barry Sheerman, he responded:

Local authorities must honour and observe the law as it stands and not overstate it because they happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman. They cannot make the law up as they go along because they do not like the current settlement. The current settlement is clear: local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education.

Exactly what needed to be said.

And here is that glorious "Who do these people think they are?" moment:

I have already dealt with Tameside, so let me touch quickly on Barnsley. Its elective home education information leaflet says that

“the law allows parents to educate their children at home instead of sending them to school, if they fulfil certain conditions.”

That is subtly done. I am not sure whether it is strictly inaccurate, but it is suggestive enough to make it sound as though the council decides whether those conditions are fulfilled. It goes on to make it clear that that is precisely its conclusion:

“Barnsley MBC will need to be satisfied”—

in other words, the council will need to be satisfied—

“that a child is receiving suitable education at home, and the Assessor”

- these people are even called assessors; who do they think they are? -

“will ask to meet with the family in order to talk to the parents and to look at examples of work and learning.”

That is beyond the law. I want the Minister to confirm that he will make sure that local authorities no longer produce misinformation like that and use it in order to abuse their power over families.

It really needs to be watched to convey the full effect though. Hearing his outrage expressed so powerfully and eloquently is empowering and uplifting, after years of being worn down by attitudes like this local authority's and many others.

This next is possibly the best of all:

The Lancashire local authority, in one of the most egregious examples, states:

“Lancashire Officers will take the lead on this because they have the responsibility to ensure the safety of all children as well as to monitor the quality of education received by children educated at home.”

That is a nice one, neatly conflating the issues of safety and home education. No one has yet arrived at my house during the summer holidays just to check up on the safety of my children, who are, after all, spending months at home with me. Who knows what my wife and I might get up to, or what the younger or older sister might do? Who knows what visiting relatives might do? What we need are visitors from the local authority, just to make sure. I do not want people such as the director of children’s services in my local authority to lose a moment’s sleep because they feel that they are not pursuing every possibility of intervention to cover their own backsides and telling me how I should run things in my own home. That is precisely what the local authority suggests should be done in the case of home-educating parents, who deserve its intervention no more than the rest of us.

Quite.

Labour's Ian Mearns then intervened (and it's to be noted that Mr Stuart, unlike our observations of so many other politicians, gives way with generosity and good manners) in part to say:

There is a problem with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If a child becomes unwell or is injured at the hands of parents or other relatives, the focus of attention is often not on the family but on the director of children’s services in the local borough. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that? Will he also reflect on the rights of the child who, despite the wishes of their own parents, may or may not receive a good level of education at the hands of those parents? I know that the hon. Gentleman inhabits a middle-class, or possibly upper-middle-class, ideal in which his own children will be extremely well catered for, but that is not always the case. As policy makers, we must provide for the rights of every child in the country, no matter what their circumstances.

And again, I loved Graham Stuart's reply:

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee and who brings years of experience of education to it, so I hesitate to say what I am about to say. However, he is suggesting, as a Labour Member of Parliament, that working-class families involved in home education should be treated with more suspicion than those in better-off areas, that they are not to be trusted with the education of their children, and that inspectors and assessors and all those other people with acronyms should be wandering into their homes, because of — my God — what they might do to their children.

Of course working class families are no less able to keep their children safe and well educated than other families, and to suggest they might be was a scurrilous, contemptible marker for the hidden truth behind the traditional Labour dislike of home education.

Barry Sheerman made a quiet comment which I don't think made it to the Hansard transcript, about people having a vested interest in the education of children. My dad is an 'Old Labour' man too, who shares a lot of Mr Sheerman's philosophy - one that seems alien to me, but which I think runs fundamentally through that brand of idealism. The best way to explain it might be to repeat my dad's immediate, instinctive response when I told him thirteen years ago that I'd deregistered my children from school to educate them at home.

"But you can't do that! It's not your decision to make! They belong to the state, not to you!"

In my view, they belong to themselves but when they're very young, parents are their guardians precisely because - unlike the state - we have a natural, instinctive, loving bond with our children. We know them from birth, we spend the most time with them and we are therefore best placed to make decisions with them and on their behalf. The cold, impersonal, self-serving machine of state should be a parent of last, not first resort and the law properly reflects this.

I think over the years, having seen the many positive results of my decision, my dad has changed his view somewhat. At least, I hope so. Sadly, I'd have much less confidence in my ability to convince the likes of Barry Sheerman whose grandchildren I did not raise - but luckily I don't have to. That philosophy has had its time, and we now seem to be moving into a new and enlightened era in terms of educational policy.

More on Pupil Registration Regulations

The following is by Mike Fortune-Wood, of the long-established and newly-redesigned Home Education UK website, reproduced here with his permission:

The government are proposing to introduce changes to the Pupil Registration Regulations which govern the registration of pupils at state school in England.

One of the changes being introduced (probably in September) will create a 20 day delay between a parent informing a school that they are home educating and the school actually removing the child from the register. It will also introduce a new registration code (Z) which will allow the child not to attend while still formally registered.

This proposal is intended to create a cooling off period for the parents so should they change their minds, a place will be kept for the child at their former school so that a return can be guaranteed. This was a proposal originally suggested by Mr Badman.

However, As was pointed out at the time of Mr Badman's review in 2009-10, such a change to the regulations would open what is known by some as the 'Ibiza loophole'. This is where a parent books a holiday in term time, de-registers the child for the duration of the holiday and then re-registers the child upon return, thus circumventing the anti truancy rules.

This not only makes a mockery of the governments anti truancy policies but also raises the concern among home educators that such abuse of the system will bring authentic law abiding home educators, who do sometimes take holidays during school terms (choosing to study instead during school holidays), into disrepute.

This regulation change is ill thought out and badly formulated. The education department will come to regret the change as news of how it can be used by feckless parents spreads.

Deregistration [from school] on demand - a vital civil liberty

... and one which successive UK governments have tried to chip away at with typically Fabian strategy for years.

Why is it of interest to home educators that the right of parents to deregister their children from school on demand be maintained?

Elaine Greenwood-Hyde says it better than I can:

Deregistration on demand is an incredibly important law for home educators and any tinkering will produce problems. It’s a very slippery slope. It is parents who are legally responsible, so when we deregister it should not be up to the government to say: "No, no … you have to wait 20 days." That’s not in accordance with section 7, for one thing.

It will mean 20 days of harassment that can be used to try to stop a family home educating. In particular I think families with children with SEN will be singled out. Ask any parent what it was like before deregistration on demand. There are horror stories.

It also leaves a loop hole for term time holidays for school pupils which might later be all-too-easily closed by government. The obvious next step is for them to decide that deregistration on demand itself is a nuisance.

Add to this that home educators have neither been informed or consulted about this and you know this doesn’t bode well for the future. Sneaky is as sneaky does. Beware the frog boiling...

Here's the latest, and here's the schedule for these changes:

By 21 March - responses received
W/c 28 March* - regulations to be signed
By 1 April* - regulations laid in parliament
6 April - House rises for recess
......On 1 September* - regulations come into force
* these timings depend on nature and content of the comments received from this letter.

So the new regulations are due to be signed this week!

Home educators were not informed - I gather someone came across the letter by accident this week. Ofsted - which has no role in home education - was informed, as was something called The Education Forum, which I've just joined but can't find any discussion about this.

People are emailing the letter's author (address in the heading) to make their views known, and some people are also emailing their MPs.

I think if this proposed change goes through, the general public will be even more reluctant to enroll their children in school in the first place.

Edit:

Letter from Greg Midcalf, Policy Manager, School Attendance Safety Team:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/p/pupil%20registration%20regulations%20-%20handout.pdf

Questions questions...

I think most of us recognise the pattern by now. A set of staged questions like this, followed by an announcement of a consultation like this.

I'd like to know how the system works, and who drives it. Paid lobbyists, obviously, but paid for by whom? And the Culture Secretary this time, not Michael Gove? Could this be because of Gove's words in Parliament of the 11th January 2010? He said then:

I am deeply concerned about the additional bureaucratic burden that will now potentially be placed on thousands of our fellow citizens whose only crime is to want to devote themselves as fully as possible to their children's education.

It is a basic right of parents to be able to educate their children in accordance with their own wishes, and to educate them at home if they so wish. There may be many reasons why parents take that decision: they might be dissatisfied with local provision; their child might have a specific educational need that they feel can be better supported at home; or they might have philosophical objections to the style of education on offer at the local state schools that are easily accessible.

Each of these decisions can sometimes be illuminating, in that they can tell us what is wrong with current provision-there might be a lack of diversity, for instance. Ultimately however, this is a basic human right that every parent should have, and I feel the Bill erodes that right, because, as I read it, it allows the state to terminate the right of a family to educate a child at home if the education offered is not deemed suitable according to regulations that the Secretary of State writes.

I wonder if there's a way of finding out who is doing the lobbying.

It won't stop there though, will it? CME -> ECM, *invalid* guidance and mission creep

"If we can set out how often the provision should be checked..."

"Perhaps we can send in a report every five years or so..."

"Maybe not even that. They could just phone us or something..."

- are some of the things I've been reading in discussions about these new, non statutory draft guidelines.

It's just that there are two very real phenomena we shouldn't be forgetting about. The first one is mission creep, which is what happens when, for example, the government comes up with a scheme to track down all of the Children Missing Education (CME) and makes this a legal requirement for local authorities. "But isn't this going to affect us?" asked home educators anxiously. "No no," we were told. "This isn't about you."

They even wrote it into our non-statutory (advisory) 2007 guidelines for local authorities:

The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home.

Look fondly on those words, because once we have new non-statutory (advisory, as opposed to the compulsory CME) guidelines, they'll be gone forever, and the mission creep gap between "It's not about you," and "Oops! It's all about you. Did we not say?" will be neatly sealed over, lost without trace. They can't be used in the new version, because they're no longer correct: the statutory (compulsory) CME guidance was amended in 2009 - in the same month the Badman review was launched - to say nothing of the sort.

So now we have a problem that needs a solution: the EHE guidelines disagree with the current CME guidance. The first says our provision doesn't have to be checked for suitability, because back in 2007 a parent's word was trusted unless there was good reason to doubt it. The second says it does, because by 2009 it was not. That's one version of events anyway. The best solution for us to that problem would be amended CME guidance, not a replacement of the EHE guidelines which are advisory only. Given that these two disagree with each other, which do you think local authority officers follow? The compulsory ones, or the advisory ones? The compulsory ones, of course.

Changing statutory guidance is apparently quite a straightforward procedure, which has been managed twice for home educators in Scotland. I've been reading about it, and first point I discovered was this:

1.2.5 Provisions in subordinate legislation must be intra vires, that is they must be within the scope of the enabling power. If they are ultra vires they are invalid.

In my previous post, I set out the bits of the enabling power (section 436A of the education act) and the subordinate legislation (Sections 87 and 92 of the 2009 CME guidance)which concern us the most. Are those sections of the CME guidance within the scope of section 436A? I don't think they are. What do you think? Because if they're not, they're

ultra vires

and therefore

invalid.

The other thing we should always remember is the elephant in the room called ECM (Every Child Matters), which provides local authorities with five outcomes that every child in its authority is supposed to meet. The five outcomes are: Be healthy; Stay safe; Enjoy and achieve; Make a positive contribution; and Achieve economic wellbeing. They all sound quite nice on the face of it, but are actually linked to a complicated system of tick-boxed measures and checks, intended for each and every child in every local authority. Home educating parents in Oldham have been falling foul of the first one already: we hear that some of their children are being weighed every six months and that three school attendance orders have already been issued there. I can't imagine what kind of breakdown in communications between home educators and local authorities has brought this state of affairs about, but the problem is that the CME guidance "gets their foot in the door", as it were, and once there, officers are obliged to check that all five outcomes are being met, not just the educational ones.

So it's really important that home educators are not the target of the CME guidance and that this is set out clearly in that guidance. Once parents say they are home educating, then unless there is good reason not to, officers should take their word for it.

New Labour did not trust parents to tell the truth about their own children, or even to make decisions about them. Does the present government? It remains to be seen.

No new guidance for HE, until you've fixed the CME.

No new guidance for HE, until you've fixed the CME

"The CME" is the Statutory guidance (revised) for local authorities in England to identify children not receiving a suitable education and the parts of this that need to be fixed before we can safely and effectively move forward with new and correct guidance for Local Authorities on Home Education are as follows:

87. Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make arrangements to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children who are not pupils at schools and who are not otherwise receiving suitable education. In order to comply with this duty local authorities need to make arrangements which will as far as possible enable them to determine whether any children who are not pupils at schools, such as those being educated at home, are receiving suitable education. In order to do this 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. [My emphasis.]

But the EHE guidelines say:

2.6 Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, to make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities, so far as it is possible to do so, of children in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example, at home, privately, or in alternative provision). The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home. [My emphasis]

This makes it very clear that the CME guidance was not originally intended to provide a tool for Local Authorities to seek to monitor home education provision, and yet the 2009 CME guidance was cited by my Local Authority later in 2009 for that very reason.

Next, from the 2009 CME guidance:

92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.

I think this is supposed to interpret section 436A of the Education Act, which says:

436A Duty to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education

(1)A local education authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children in their area who are of compulsory school age but—

(a)are not registered pupils at a school, and

(b)are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.

(2)In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.

(3)In this Chapter, “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have.”

- but that's not an interpretation I would agree with, and nor is it one that preserves the principle set out in Section 7 of that act: that parents are responsible for their children's educational provision, not local authorities. Point 92 goes a step too far and urgently needs to be rewritten.

I can't understand why new guidance for local authorities on home education is being proposed, while the damaging 2009 CME guidance - which will have the effect of bringing in compulsory registration of home educators by the back door - is presumably to remain unchanged.