Two more questions. Where did *they* come from?
Here are the other two questions anyway, which apparently came to light during an EO meeting at the weekend. (But don't ask me why, or how.. the politics of all this escape me.)
What is a suitable education for the 21st century?
How can EHEers show that their children are receiving such an education?
It's a pity he didn't get around to adding them to our list, because I don't think any of us would have struggled with the answers.
Firstly, a suitable education for the 21st century is one that is:
efficient and full-time education according —
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have
- as per Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act and section 436A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
And secondly, we show that our children are receiving such an education by providing information when asked, as set out in the Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities:
The most obvious course of action if the local authority has information that makes it appear that parents are not providing a suitable education, would be to ask parents for further information about the education they are providing. Such a request is not the same as a notice under section 437(1), and is not necessarily a precursor for formal procedures. Parents are under no duty to respond to such enquiries, but it would be sensible for them to do so.
Just to clarify: it says nowhere in law that a suitable education has anything to do with Professor Heppell's NotSchool.net, or with Becta, by whom I understand Mr Badman is also employed, or with any of its sponsors.
And to further clarify:
At any price.