The DCSF refuse to answer any of my Fois despite delaying for five months on some

Sanctuary Buildings

_i(re                              department for                                                                                             Great Smith Street

children, schools and families                                                   Westminster

London, SW1P 3BT

Tel: 0870 001 2345 Fax: [S1] 020 7925 6000 info@dcsf.gsi.goy.uk www.dcsf.gov.uk

Ms M Stafford                                             Email: andrew.partridgedscf.osi.00v.uk

do Whatdotheyknow.com

13 November 2009

Dear Ms Stafford,

Your FOI and other communications with the Department

I am writing in response to your requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and related communications dated 28 July, 27 August (2 emails), 28 August, 9 September, 10 September, 19 September (2 emails), 25 September, 26 September, and 26 October (2 emails) 2009.

2.  1 write to advise you that, other than in relation to any outstanding internal reviews of freedom of information responses which have already been sent to you, the Department will not be complying with your current requests relating to home education, nor further responding to your communications on the matter. It will deaf with freedom of information requests relating to any other matter in accordance with its obligations.

3.                The 'exemption which applies to your requests is section 14 of the Act which provides for information to be exempt from disclosure where the request for information is vexatious, or where the request is substantially similar to earlier requests and a reasonable interval has not elapsed.

4.                The Department has reviewed the volume, timing and content of the requests you have made to us under the Act and other related communications, including postings on the website Whatdotheyknow.com through which you have made your requests. It has considered your requests both cumulatively and on their individual merits under the Act. This process has meant further delay in your receiving a response to your requests, but that is inevitable in the circumstances.

5.                In reviewing the general pattern of your freedom of information requests and related correspondence I note that:

® since June 2009 you have submitted 15 requests on the subject of elective home education to the Department;

0 you have apparently submitted some 15 requests to other public authorities about elective home education via Whatdotheyknow.com; and

0 you have apparently added some 65 annotations to the requests submitted by others via VVhatdotheyknow.com, in several cases encouraging the requesters to apply for internal reviews and complain to the Information Commissioner. It is

open to you to do so, but the Department is also entitled to take this into account in considering the pattern of your requests.

6.The Department has not applied the section 12 cost threshold to any of your requests, as it has not been appropriate to do so, but it has calculated that the cost of handling the 10 of your requests it has already answered was not less than £3,300. It estimates that the cost of responding to your five current requests would be not less than £1375 (excluding the cost of this response).

7.This is a factor that the Department is entitled to take into account in assessing whether section 14 (1) is engaged. Section 14 (1) will be engaged where complying with the requests would impose a significant burden on a public authority in terms of expense and distraction.

8.Your outstanding requests and other communications are set out in Annex A to this letter.

Section 14(1)

9.The Department considers your requests vexatious for the reasons set out below.

10.  The Information Commissioner's guidance indicates that deciding whether a request is vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act is a flexible balancing exercise taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner's guidance indicates that there is no rigid test or definition of the term, but it does provide a number of questions which guide public authorities in what they should consider:

·           Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?

·           is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?

·           Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?

·           Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?

·           Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

11. Taking the Commissioner's questions individually, the Department does not consider that your outstanding requests, or indeed the pattern of your requests as a whole, can definitively be described as obsessive. The Department recognises that elective home education is an issue which is of considerable concern to you, and it respects those who wish to clarify issues of public interest via freedom of information requests.

12. Nor does the Department consider that your requests lack any serious purpose or value.

13. The Department does not take a view about whether your requests are designed to cause disruption or annoyance — while that might appear to be the case from some of your communications and annotations to requests on to VVhatdotheyknow.com, the Department recognises that some of these interventions may result from frustration at delays in receiving a response from the Department

14. The Department does consider that your requests are imposing a significant burden in terms of expense to a publicly-funded authority, and in terms of the distraction of its officials away from other pressing business and non-vexatious requests. It considers that it is not reasonable, and therefore not in the wider public interest, for the Department to continue to devote substantial public resources to answering your requests. In particular the Department has noted that the pattern of your requests and communications in Annex A is such that the requests, when answered, have led to further requests and complaints. Like other public authorities the Department has only finite resources at its disposal, and there are increasing pressures on those resources. It is therefore not a straightforward matter to redeploy staff to deal with your requests.

15. The Department also considers that your requests are - in the sense of the term as used by the Information Commissioner - 'harassing' the Department and causing distress to staff. The Commissioner's guidance makes clear that the requester's intention is not the issue — it is an objective test in which a reasonable person must be likely to regard the request as harassing or distressing. Examples of this are provided in Annex B to this letter:

16. The Department has also noted:

· the availability of ample other opportunities and means to communicate views or concerns to the Government and to the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee: for example by contributing to the Review of Elective Home Education, by responding to the subsequent consultation on changes to the existing statutory arrangements, and lastly through the open invitation to make a submission to the select committee itself;

· the fact that of ten responses sent to you by the Department six provided the

information you requested in full and one in part, in two cases the information was not held, and in one it was reasonably accessible by other means and drawn to your attention:

·              the fact that of some 107 FOI requests received by the Department between

11 June and 27 October 2009 about elective home education, 74 (69%) were from a small group of nine FOI requesters, including yourself, in several instances apparently acting in concert via the website VVhatdotheyknow.com, as evidenced at Annex C. This is in the context of an estimated 20,000 home educated children in England;

that the apparent campaign to inundate the Department with FOI requests about elective home education has been contemporary with the vilification and harassment on the Internet of the author of the review of elective home education and others by unknown persons. Indeed the level of the requests generally on this matter and the nature of the postings on the Internet were such that it was felt necessary to write to the Information Commissioner's Office earlier this year:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage.cfm?action=disclosures.displav&I subca tegorylD=328,i collection1q=345

The Department is not suggesting that you have participated in any vilification or harassment of the author of the report, but those activities are pertinent to the climate surrounding the review — with which the FOI requests were concerned.

17.  The Department notes the Commissioner's advice that if a request forms part of a wider campaign or pattern of requests, the serious or proper purpose must justify both the request itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern of behaviour has been taken. As I have said, the Department does not question your serious and proper purpose in making the requests. But the Department does not consider that this justifies the pattern of behaviour described above. Nor, given the several opportunities to contribute constructively to the public debate on this issue, does the Department consider that the requests are necessarily justified in themselves.

18.  The Department is not suggesting that each of your requests is necessarily vexatious in itself, but having taken careful account of the pattern of your

correspondence with the Department, interventions on the website

Whatdotheyknow.com, and the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner on the matter, I have concluded that your requests are vexatious in the sense of the Act.

Section 14 (2)

19.  Section 14(2) of the Act provides that, where a public authority has previously complied with a request from a person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent substantially similar one from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between the two. The Department has looked at the pattern of your correspondence and your latest requests which in broad terms are all about the same or a substantially similar issue, and takes the view based on the evidence before it that this part of the exemption at section 14 is also engaged.

Conclusion

20.   In all the circumstances, and given the analysis above, the Department does not consider that it is reasonable or in the wider public interest for it to devote any further

public resources to answering the requests, or other correspondence, which are the subject of this letter.

21.  The Department will always seek to meet the legitimate rights of requesters to information, but in all the circumstances of the case it must also take into account the need for public servants and other individuals to be able to conduct legitimate business in the public interest without harassment or harm.

22.  While the Department will consider any future request under the Freedom of Information Act on its individual merits, if it concerns elective home education you are advised that it will be considered against the background of this letter

23.  If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your requests and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to, or email_; me within two calendar months of the date of this letter. Please remember to quote the reference numbers (at the foot of this letter) in any future communications.

24.  If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally, the Commissioner will not make a decision unless you have exhausted the Department's own internal review procedure.

25.  Finally, I apologise for the length of this letter. As well as complying with its statutory duties, the Department wishes to ensure that you have a comprehensive explanation for the action it is taking.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge

Information Rights Manager, DCSF

Ref: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942: 2009/0074943; 2009/0090673: 2009/0090678

Summary of outstanding requests and other communications

·        2009/0067849 — 28 July 2009 — FOI request for a frequency distribution of the answers to two questions in a questionnaire sent to local authorities (LA) as part of the review of EHE, and numbers of serious case reviews.

·        2009/0074942 — 27 August 2009 — FOI request for identification of various LA in which there were reported a high proportion of EHE children in social care, and a low proportion of, or no, EHE children receiving suitable education.

·        2009/0074943 — 27 August 2009 — FOI request for further statistics relating to released information about safeguarding intervention.

·        2009/0075134 — 28 August 2009 - an amendment of the previous request.

·        2009/0077597 — 9 September 2009 - a question as to whether the Department was refusing to hold an internal review, and request for a review.

·        2009/0077887 — 10 September 2009 - complaint and allegation of intent to delay on the part of the Department.

·        2009/0079990 -19 September 2009 - complaint about an earlier response - taken into account in an internal review on 3 November.

·        2009/0080057 — 19 September 2009 - further complaint about the earlier response, including the suggestion that the Department should redeploy staff to avoid being seen as obstructive or stonewalling, the allegation that the Department had intentionally misunderstood, and provided misinformation.

·        2009/0081535 — 25 September 2009 - an allegation that the Department has lied in its answer that information was not held.

·        2009/0081887 — 26 September 2009 - request for an internal review.

·        2009/0090673 — 26 October 2009 — FOI request for clarification about an Annex

released earlier.

·        2009/0090678 — 26 October 2009 — FOI request for copies of analysis and documents relating to DCSF verification of a submission submitted to the Select Committee by Graham Badman.

Examples of communications and other factors which have harassed or distressed

o     an allegation (mentioned above in Annex A) that the Department has lied in its response to the effect that information was not held.

·         an allegation of intent to delay on the part of the Department — made on 10

September despite the fact that you were aware of the problems the Department

was experiencing. For example, in its response of 29 July, providing all the information you had requested on 13 June the Department offered the following apology for the delay:

Before answering your request l should like to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is aware that it has missed the statutory

deadline for reply and is in breach of its obligations under the Act. I very much regret this - the Department should meet its obligations under the Act. While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of

requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information Commissioner has been informed of the situation.

m  the frequency of your requests and interventions, sometimes twice in the same day.

·           your apparent reluctance to quote the Departmental reference numbers in

correspondence, and your derogatory remarks about what you perceive to be the inability of Departmental staff to click on links e.g: 'Please accept my heartiest commiserations for your inability to click on a link like the rest of the population, it must be most disabling.' (30 September 2009)

http://wvvw.whatdotheyknow.comirecuest/more clarification of the data i#comment-5423

hftp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestia summary of the answers to

ques#outgoing-33668

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestievidence in support of badma  ns r#incoming-44785

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/recluest/local authority responses to t he#comment-4956

·           your apparent annotations on requests on Whatdotheyknow.com which include:

o 'Four months to say no, such respect for it's masters the DCSF have, not!'

http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home education review rec ommenda#comment-6310

o 'My suspicion is that it is that awkward word evidence that is giving them the problem.'

http://wvvw.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home education review rec ommenda#comment-5439

o     They are doing this regularly now, still not realised we are not stupid.' http://vvvvw.whatdotheyknow.com/requestimore clarification of the da to i#comment-5423

o     They have had more than enough time to conduct an internal review on this, I would refer it to the information commissioner.' http://www,whatdotheyknow.comirequest/communications with nektu  s#comment-5300

o     Not even an acknowledgement, how rude.' http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestinumber of foi requests ma  de conc#comment-5254

o    'you should ask for an internal review and if they don't do that refer to the information commissioner. There is a lot of stonewalling going on ' http://www.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/home education evidence  of curre#comment-5181

o    Tor goodness sake, Graham Badman has accused us of being abusers and knowingly allowed the press to slur us with false twice as likely claims. I also suspect allowed is a misnomer. The DCSF repeatedly refuse to release the evidence probably because they have none and you are getting upset because somebody called him a liar!' http://www.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/communications with infor mation#comment-5114

o    'Evil man'

http://vvvvw.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/comparative statistics requ ested#comment-3363

Instances of apparently acting in concert via the website Whatdotheyknovv.com

·            'I would take you complaint higher asap and also refer this to the information commissioner'

http://www.whatdothevknow.comireduest/elective home education and cone 4 #cornment-5802

n  'I would refer this straight to the information commissioner. I do not see how they
can say the data would harm people when SCRs are put in the public domain.'

http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/serious case review figures pr es#comment-5301

·       Mame] could you follow this up.'

http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/concerns about suitability of e I 14#comment-5216

·       `I have just sent out a general request for people to include the refusal to answer this question in their submission to the Select Committee.

Please anyone reading this who hasn't already done their submission, could you consider including this, and any others like it.'

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reduest/evidence in support of badma ns r#comment-5037

·       It is unclear whether this is referring to your initial request or your request for an internal review, whichever it is I would request another internal review immediately to prevent them giving themselves another 40 days and put the number in because in spite of the fact that they can as easily find the number as anyone else they will ask for it as another delaying tactic.'

http://www.whatdotheyknow.comfreduest/badman report conduct of the rev#comment-5035

·       'This can't be right, this is just part of your original request. I would refer to internal review, they must be trying it on.'

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications between dcsf and#comment-5025

---

 [S1]

DCSF ask do i want their reply to my FOIs to be public?

M Stafford

28 July 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could you supply us with a frequency distribution of the
answers to question 22 of the postal questionnaire and question 51
of the online questionnaire administered to Local Authorities as
part of the Review of Elective Home Education by Graham Badman.

Please report the number of serious case review separately from the
'cover' figures.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_summary_of_the_answers_to_ques#incoming-55329

M Stafford

27 August 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the Explanatory Note 20 August 2009 released to Shena Deuchars
and Louise Thorn
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...
it is stated that ‘* 54 LAs (60%) had one or more cases where there
was some element of safeguarding intervention (over the last five
years).
* In total, 72 cases were notified.’
Please supply the name of the number of children registered with
the 54 LA’s over the last five years in order that I can work out
what percentage of all children 72 is?

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/more_clarification_of_the_data_i#incoming-55333

the mistake where name was included was rectified in a note.

M Stafford

27 August 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the Explanatory Note 20 August 2009 released to Shena Deuchars
and Louise Thorn
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...
it is stated that * Notified of four SCRs (see Annex A for details)
which had an home education element (NB: not including
Birmingham)..’
Annex A does not seem to have been disclosed with this information,
could you please release this annex plus any other documentation
involved in the Badman Review that has not been released?

This should not take you any time at all as you have just released
the Explanatory note and must have it to hand, so any serious delay
will be regarded as obstruction.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

 

M Stafford

27 August 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the Explanitory Note 20 August 2009 released to Shena Deuchars
and Louise Thorn
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...
it is stated that ‘in one LA, 55% of their EHE children is known to
social care.’
Please supply the name of the LA concerned.

It is also stated that

‘* Two reviews recommended that procedures for monitoring and
supporting all home educated children should be strengthened. The
other two recommended that procedures for monitoring and supporting
home educated children where there are welfare concerns, should be
strengthened.’
Does this mean two review responses or is it referring to previous
reviews, (have there been any) i.e. not the 2009 one?

Please also supply the names of the 6 LAs who claim that the number
of EHE children receiving a suitable education ‘was 50% or under’.
Also the names of the,
‘Two LAs estimated there was no education provision in over 25% of
the children on their caseloads. Four LAs said that there was
education provided in all of their caseloads.’

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/clarification_of_the_data_in_the#incoming-55330

M Stafford

26 October 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

OK, the working paper which you have released does not anywhere
contain the label Annex A. Could you please clarify which part of
this document is in fact Annex A? Or is the whole working paper
Annex A?

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_summary_of_the_answers_to_ques#incoming-55329

M Stafford

26 October 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

In his submission to the DCSF Select Committee Graham Badman;

a) asserts that his sample for his third survey of local
authorities is representative
(i) does the department agree with this assertion;
(ii) what analysis did the department conduct to verify the
representativeness of this sample;
(iii) please provide copies of relevant analyses and documents.

b) states in paragraph 5 that the figures used in this paper have
been quality assured by a DCSF statistician, please provide details
on what figures were verified and how they were verified.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

In answer to  these five Fois, some outstanding since July, we have received the following communication from the DCSF.

Department for Children, Schools and Families

12 November 2009

Dear Ms Stafford

Your FOI request 2009/0074942

The Department intends within the next few days to send you a
communication relevant to your request which, we believe, you may wish
to receive privately. I would be grateful, if this is the case, if you
would respond to me letting me know an email or postal address to which
we should send the communication. I would stress that the Department is
only concerned about your interests here, and would have no objection on
its part to its response being made available on Whatdotheyknow.com if
you so choose.

Please respond to me at my email address:
[email address] . I have sent the same message in
respect of all your current FOI requests to the Department on
Whatdotheyknow.com, but a response in respect of any one of them will
suffice.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

Andrew Partridge is I think the person who wrote to the information commissioner complaining of those naughty powerful home educators harassing and vilifying poor Graham.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17150/response/44226/attach/3/Document.pdf dcsf
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/18270/response/54177/attach/3/Copy%20of%20redacted%20DCSF%20letter%20dated%2017709.pdf info comm
Interestingly these are all questions Bruce has asked me to ask as he struggled to understand Badman’s data, are they too much to the point?
What are they going to say about me I wonder that they think I might not want made public.
I wait with bated breath.

Harassment and vilification 

Home Education All Party Group now up and running.

Thanks Ann for this information.

As of last week, as far as I am aware, those that had agreed to be on the group were:

*Conservative*

Graham Stuart

Michael Gove

Mark Field

Oliver Heald

Andrew Selous

Anne Milton

Graham Brady

Alistair Burt

Stephen Crabb

Robert Goodwill

Julie Kirkbride

Peter Bottomley

Philip Davies

Bill Wiggin

Richard Benyon

Sir Charles Walker

Mark Pritchard

John Randall

 *Labour*

Kate Hoey

David Drew

Lynda Waltho

Kelvin Hopkins

Jim Cunningham

Brian Jenkin

George Howarth

Paddy Tipping

Celia Barlow (?)

Jeff Ennis

 *Liberal Democrat*

Paul Holmes

Tim Farron

John Hemming

Annette Brooke

Mark Hunter

Sandra Gidley

Let's hope they can make a difference, surely there are many MPs who would be opposed to us all becoming chattels of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Party_Parliamentary_Group

If you think this is all about those peculiar Home Educators and Therefore Nothing to do with you

You should read this blog post!

PLANS FOR MONITORING AND REGISTRATION OF HOME EDUCATORS SCRAPPED DUE TO EXTREMELY LOW INCIDENCE OF ABUSE.

And parliament promise no more vexatious consultations or reviews to interfere with the exemplary education being provided by home educators.

I have been lost for words these last few days with the Ofsted and Badman revelations, truly gobsmacked and discombobulated.

So I have been mulling it over while appreciating the work of other bloggers to express our outrage and rejection of the foolishness of our so called masters.

Then a facebook conversation with the lovely Mieke sparked a memory and I thought what do we really want.

Remember that imaginary headline, well here is another one!

When the doubts rise up, when the darkness closes in, when it all seems hopeless, keep this thought close to your heart, visualise the print, imagine the discussions on the lists, feel the joy.  Make it as real in your mind as you possible can.  Let it stop those impulses that suggest compromise, in order to salvage something, in their tracks, we have done nothing wrong, the above headline is the only justifiable and reasonable one.

Bruce's submission to the select committee

Children, Schools and Families Committee Inquiry into the DCSF-commissioned review of elective home education


Memorandum by Professor Bruce Stafford

Summary

This memorandum considers the conducted of the Review of Elective Home Education in England (hereafter the Review) by applying three criteria:

Impartiality

• The Review displays some impartiality. However, the membership of the Review team did not reflect the range of expertise needed; the questionnaires used to collect data are poorly designed; the tentative nature of the estimates of home educated children ‘known to social care’ is not highlighted; and survey findings and other associated documentation should have been reported in more detail or published alongside the review.

Honesty

• The published Review includes three instances of highly selective quoting that do not provide a full and fair representation of the evidence submitted.

Objectivity

• The objectivity of the Review is compromised by the extent to which it lacks impartiality and honesty. As a consequence the Review fails to make a strong case for its recommendations.

1 Introduction

1.1 How the Review was conducted is important because any shortcomings are inevitably reflected in its recommendations.

1.2 This submission uses three criteria to assess the conduct of the Review.

1.3 In drafting the memorandum the author draws upon nearly 30 years experience of applied public and social policy research and nearly three years of sharing responsibility for home educating the youngest of his four children.

2 Conduct of the Review of Elective Home Education

2.1 There appear to be few mechanisms for scrutinising the conduct of an ‘independent’ Review, for instance, it falls outside the remit of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Statistical Authority. However, there are several public service codes of conduct – for the Civil Service, official statistics and public life - that could be used to derive criteria to assess the conduct of the Review. The proposed criteria to be applied to the Review are:

• Impartial – whether it presents the full range of argument and evidence on the subject, this would include counterexamples.

• Honest – whether it give a full account of people’s views and experiences.

• Objective – whether the review weights the arguments and evidence in presenting its case and recommendations. This is not possible unless it has been impartial and honest.

3 Criterion 1: Impartiality

3.1 The Review displays some impartiality. It does acknowledge, for example, the ‘passion and commitment’ of many home educating parents (para 1.2), that there is ‘exemplary practice’ in home education (para 3.1), and that ‘… local authorities were much criticised by home educators …, for their perceived lack of understanding.’ (para 5.1). However, it devotes considerably more space to views that raise concerns about child safety than to the strengths and benefits of home education or the case for no change.

3.2 Specific issues that raise doubts about the Review’s impartiality are discussed below

3.2.1 The membership of the Review’s Expert Reference Group did not represent the range of expertise needed. No home educating parents, representatives of organisations directly representing home educators, or academics who had conducted research on home education were included. There was an over-representation of experts with knowledge of early years.

3.2.2 Relevant annexes/working papers and the literature review were not initially published. Some of the shortcomings with the data underpinning the Review have been revealed through a series of Freedom of Information requests. A more impartial report would have included a copy of a second questionnaire sent to local authorities and of a statistical annex/working paper.

3.2.3 The Review process included the administration of an on-line public questionnaire and two questionnaires to local authorities. However, the surveys are not sufficiently robust, the tentative nature of estimates is not made explicit and the findings were not reported in full in the published report.

Data collection

3.2.4 The on-line public questionnaire used to gather home educators and others’ views was badly designed involving leading and poorly constructed questions. For example, question 3 is a ‘double barrel’ question as it asks views about the role of Government and local authorities in achieving the five Every Child Matters outcomes, but a respondent might believe only one of these two bodies should have any obligation or that, say, councils should have a duty for some but not all five outcomes. Two separate questions are required that allow responses for each child outcome.

3.2.5 A supplementary questionnaire was administered to the 90 local authorities who replied to the Review’s original questionnaire sent to 150 councils, but was not included or even mentioned in the report. This questionnaire appears to address a serious shortcoming of the initial questionnaire by seeking to collect statistical data on elective home education and safeguarding concerns and is important because, together with data from the first local authority questionnaire, it seems to be the only statistical basis for subsequent claims about home education and possible child abuse (but see below). However, only 25 local authorities responded to this second questionnaire.

3.2.6 This questionnaire is also poorly designed. The first question asks what number and proportion of the local authority’s current elective home education caseload is ‘known to social care’. The data sought includes open and closed cases of ‘known to social care’. But the data will not be comparable because of differences in the composition of the elective home education in each local area. The questionnaire ought to have collected more data on the make-up of the population so that it could be weighted to make it comparable between local authorities.

3.2.7 The inclusion of closed cases also means that the data may include some inappropriate referrals to social care. For instance, it collected data on Section 47 cases and these include child protection inquiries but also referrals to social care irrespective of whether or not child abuse is subsequently established. It is likely that home educators are, wrongly, over-represented amongst Section 47 referrals because (concerned) third parties, unaware of the legal right to educate at home, mistakenly contact social services. The Section 47 figures, therefore, over-estimate the number of ‘at risk’ cases amongst the home educating community. These difficulties with interpreting ‘known to social care’ statistics are not mentioned in the main report nor in the working paper.

3.2.8 The second question asked: ‘What proportion of your current caseload do you estimate have safeguarding implications? However, as the Departmental working paper acknowledges, the data on safeguarding concerns is ‘less reliable’ than the ‘known to social care’ data. Local authorities may well have interpreted safeguarding implications very differently. Moreover, the extent to which cases reported under ‘known to social care’ (Question 1) were also reported under ‘safeguarding implications’ (Question 2) is unknown and hence the data are incompatible.

3.2.9 None of the questionnaires asked for comparable data for children educated at school which severely limits the usefulness of the data. For example, 95 per cent of respondents to the on-line public questionnaire thought that home educated children are able to achieve the ‘be healthy’ Every Child Matters outcome, but without a comparable figure for school educated children this finding is difficult to interpret – is this a ‘good’ or a ‘poor’ finding relative to other children?

Estimates

3.2.10 The Review document states at paragraph 8.12 ‘….the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population…’. This is the only substantive statistical claim made in the report which suggests there is a policy ‘problem’ to be addressed. The actual estimates of the proportion and number of home educated children known to social care are (again) not presented in the published report.

3.2.11 An initial Freedom of Information request for the data behind paragraph 8.12 produced an extract, headed Annex, from the working paper mentioned above. The implication was that the claim in the report was based on data from the two local authority surveys; the first to estimate the size of the home educated population and the second the number ‘known to social care’. However, the Freedom of Information request that lead to the release of the working paper (mentioned above) includes an explanatory note that claims that paragraph 8.12 of the Report ‘… is based on the raw data returns from LAs, rather than directly from the information contained in this working paper.’ Notwithstanding that an extract from the working paper was originally released to explain the claim made in paragraph 8.12. At the time of writing this memorandum the statistical basis for paragraph 8.12 remains unclear – what ‘raw data’ over and above that reported in the annex/working paper was used? The creditability and robustness of the assertion made in paragraph 8.12 remains unclear.

3.2.12 There are also concerns about the estimation method used that undermine the validity and accuracy of the claim made in the report. The tentative nature of the ‘known to social care’ estimate ought to have been highlighted in the report and in the annex/working paper.

3.2.13 The annex/working paper’s estimated number of registered home educated children known to social care (‘around 1350’) appears to be obtained by applying the median (or mid-point) percentage (6.75 per cent) for the 25 local authorities to the estimated total number of registered home educated children. However, there are a number of problems with this calculation.

3.2.14 Firstly, the estimate assumes a median of 139 registered home educated children per local authority; giving 20,850 (139*150) nationally. The Freedom of Information response rounds this up to 21,000 whilst the Review report rounds it down to 20,000. The median value of 139 comes from the survey of 90 local authorities. Whether it is a typical value for all local authorities is unknown, because the representativeness of the 90 councils is unknown. No attempt appears to have been made to correct for sample response bias.

3.2.15 Secondly, the median value (6.75 per cent) is taken from the sub-sample of 25 local authorities. The representativeness of these 25 local authorities (17 per cent of all English local authorities) is also unknown; although the estimated mean number of ‘know to social care’ for these authorities (19 compared to 9 for the country has a whole) suggests that they are atypical and have an above average number of cases. For such an unrepresentative sample, even the use of the median percentage is likely to be an over-estimate of the proportion that should be used in national estimates. Thus grossing-up using 6.75 per cent is likely to produce an invalid over-estimate of the number of home educated children ‘known to social care’.

3.2.16 Both the Review report and the annex/working paper ought to have included a range of estimates of the proportion of home educated children known to social care.

Reporting

3.2.17 The Review report lacks impartiality through failing to summarise the results of the surveys. For example, results of the on-line public questionnaire are only cursorily summarised in paragraph 4.2 of the published report. Paragraph 4.2 gives an indication of the range of responses, but not the magnitude of opposition to further reform, because it fails to quote percentages from the survey. Headline findings include:

• 80 per cent think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate;

• between 91 per cent and 95 per cent of respondents believe that home educated children are able to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes; and

• 64 per cent think there should not be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families.

3.2.18 A breakdown of these findings by client group suggests that the overwhelming majority of home educating parents and children believed that there was no need for policy reform and that the Every Child Matters outcomes were being met. The on-line survey suggests that only local authorities believed that legislative change was required. That there may be an element of ‘rent-seeking behaviour’ motivating these responses is not considered in the Review.

4 Criterion 3: Honesty

4.1 The published Review includes three instances of highly selective quoting that do not provide a full and fair representation of the evidence submitted. Firstly, the report contains a quote from a home educator that is less than complimentary about local authority staff:

“”… no one from the LA [local authority] would in my opinion be on my child’s intellectual level or they wouldn’t be working for the LA.” (para 4.3)

Leaving aside the questionable motives for the inclusion of this quote, the Report fails to give the apparent context to the observation:

‘It was in response to a question about whether a scientifically gifted child would benefit from having a science teacher from the LA come and give them tuition. It was to point out that scientists at the top of their profession are rarely working for the LA, so anyone sent out would not be on the same intellectual level as the scientifically gifted child.’

4.2 Secondly, the Review selectively quotes from a submission from the Education Division of the Church of England. The report includes a fairly lengthy extract that expresses their concerns about home education. However, the Review does not quote the Church’s overall conclusion:

‘10 We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children in a (sic) home-educating this should be a matter for Children’s Services.’

The report omits the Church’s view that they are not convinced of further reform, yet it does quote their concerns. An honest view would have included their concerns and their reservations about the need for further reform; as this would have ‘set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully’.

4.3 Although the Church gave permission for the quote to be included in the report, an email from a Church representative says that at the time they were unaware of the report’s content and are now ‘not comfortable’ with the selective use of their evidence.

4.4 Thirdly, there is selective quoting from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Report quotes paragraph 1 of Article 12 which requires Governments to ‘… assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’ This is then used to help justify giving local authorities a right of access to determine the child’s views without the parent(s) being present.

4.5 However, the Report does not quote paragraph 2 which would imply that the child’s views could be presented by someone other than a local authority representative:

‘For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.’

Yet the Review makes no mention of this possibility. (The Report also fails to address the situation of where the child refuses to see the local authority’s representative, a right the child should have under Articles 15 and 16.)

4.6 Whilst the use of quotations is never ‘neutral’ - they serve to highlight certain views merely by their inclusion – the way in which they are used in the Review’s report arguably does not meet the standards a ‘reasonable’ person might expect in terms of providing an overview of individual’s and organisation’s points of view. However, that this has occurred with at least three pieces of evidence cannot be simply dismissed as accidental; rather it appears to be systematic attempt to selectively present evidence.

5 Criterion 3: Objective

5.1 The objectivity of the Review is compromised by the extent to which it lacks impartiality and honesty. As a consequence the Review fails to make a strong case for its recommendations. Little of the argument is supported by evidence. Where evidence is presented there is an absence of critical analysis. This might help to explain why the published report long on assertion and short on evidence and argument, with the author simply stating ‘I believe’ 16 times.

5.2 If policy in this area is to be based on ‘what works’, a more objective base for policy formation is required than is provided by the Review.

My submission to the select committee

Memorandum submitted by Maire Stafford


Summary

This memorandum considers the recommendations of the Review of Elective Home Education in England (hereafter the Review), it finds:

• There is a lack of evidence of abuse in the home educating community.

• The recommendations are disproportion to the perceived problem.

• The recommendations, if implemented, will have a negative effect on the ability of home educators to educate efficiently.

• There is anecdotal evidence that local authorities fail to understand and implement current legislation, and so cannot be trusted with further powers.

• The recommendations would results in an inefficient use of public money.

• Implementation of the recommendations would require a change in the law that would alter the relationship between all parents and the state.

• And they would create a new criminal offence only applicable to home educators exercising a completely legal choice.

• Relationships between home educators and local authorities would be further damaged if the Review's proposals were implemented.

1 Lack of evidence of abuse in the home educating community

1.1 The Review fails to make the argument that its recommendations constitute a proportionate response. The author states

'... no evidence that elective home education is a particular factor in the removal of children to forced marriage, servitude or trafficking or for inappropriate abusive activities. Based on the limited evidence available, this view is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is not to say that there are not isolated cases of trafficking that have been brought to my attention.' (para. 8.14)

1.2 Also the evidence of home education being used as a cover for child abuse presented in an associated working paper only identifies a very small number of cases in absolute numerical terms. Only four Serious Case Reviews are identified in the working paper[1] as involving home educated children - and even these are not 'clear cut' in the sense that the Review's recommendations would not have prevented the abuse from occurring, and there were opportunities in three possibly four cases (if I am correct about the Birmingham case) for the abuse to have been identified prior to the home education commencing.

1.3 Indeed, most of the cases mentioned in the Serious Case Reviews were children who were already seen and care was thought to be satisfactory; the changes recommended by the Review would have made no difference.

1.4 A series of Freedom of Information requests to local authorities have been collecting data on the actual percentage of abuse amongst home educated children. As I write the percentage of home educated children found to be at risk of harm stands at 0.32% based on data from 129 local authorities, less than a third of the number of children at harm in the population as a whole.[2]

Yet the government is still disseminating disinformation about home educators. As late as 9th September 2009, Ed Balls was publicly asserting that: 'there have been high profile cases of 'home educated' children who have been very badly neglected. Graham makes clear that this is a small minority, though disproportionately larger among home educated children.'[3]

2 The recommendations are disproportion to the perceived problem

2.1 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.' (para 3.2)

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 disproportionate recommendations. Indeed, it logically follows from this 'principle' that parents of all pre-school children must be registered and inspected annually; even that visits are required of children attending school during vacations. In fact it would seem to suggest exactly the wrong balance: and if this attitude were generally adopted in public policy then all citizens would, for instance, have their homes inspected in case they contained stolen goods.

3 The recommendations will have a negative effect on the ability of home educators to educate efficiently

3.1 The Review's first recommendation would in effect demand that home educating parents seek a one year licence from the Local authority in order to carry out their responsibilities under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 - instead of delegating them to a local authority or an independent school.[4] This is troubling as it would override the parent's current responsibility to choose the best education for their child.

3.2 Many other parts of recommendation 1 would also be problematic in the context of home education but most importantly it states:

'At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.' (recommendation 1, page 10)

3.3 The demand for a 12 month plan within one month of deregistering would mean that de-schooling would be next to impossible. De-schooling is a well recognised requirement for children who have been unable to cope with school or who have found the school unable to meet their needs. It allows their confidence and curiosity to recover while removing coercion from the environment. The inability to allow a child to do this would seriously compromise the chances of home education being successful.

3.4 The Review's author has also publicly declared that all children should be able to read at 8.[5] A primary school classed as excellent by Ofsted was unable to achieve this with one of my dyslexic children even though his cognitive ability was discovered to be in the top 3% of the population by the school's educational psychologist. He did not learn to read at all fluently until eleven and still tests below his age and way below his IQ; despite this he has just started a university degree. That a child should read at age 8 is the sort of mistaken demand I fear parents would get from ill-informed local authority officers who will be backed by the power to remove permission to home educate from parents - even though the parents may well actually be doing an exemplary job.

3.5 This requirement would also effectively outlaw autonomous education as when educating autonomously parents do not know what their child will be learning the next day never mind for the next year. My daughter has been very set against any sort of classroom based teaching since leaving school, however after recently spending time with a child taking a private class in French she requested to join and has happily completed a term of lessons. This could not have been predicted 12 months ago. While the home educating parent and the community provides many resources and ideas, uptake is decided by the child and one can never be sure where their interest may take you both. It would be equally important to let her leave the class if she chooses to do so; something that would be even more problematic in the event of an enforced one year plan. In summary, it makes no sense to plan learning outcomes a year in advance or to specify the 'place' of education for a child learning autonomously. The very nature of the recommendations illustrates that the Review lacks a full understanding of what is meant by 'autonomous education'. However, informal learning at home was recently found to be an exceptionally effective pedagogy; an 'astonishingly efficient way to learn', in a recent study by Alan Thomas and Harriet Patterson at the University of London.[6] A study remarkable for its absence from the Review's associated literature review.[7]

3.6 Also as Summerhill School is not expected to supply planned outcomes for each pupil and can operate their school following a philosophy which allows children autonomy, home educating parents should have the same freedom.

3.7 Another of the reports' suggestions would interfere with parents' ability to provide an education that meets the needs of their children:

'However, such is the demand and complexity of 21st Century society and employment that further thought should be given to what constitutes an appropriate curriculum within the context of elective home education' (para 3.1)

This implies imposition of a 'one size fits all model' onto home education just as government is planning to introduce personalised education in schools. It is unlikely that a single curriculum is desirable; we are after all not fitting children for just one role in society. It would seem that while the Review recognises the diversity of home educators, it fails to take this in to account in its 'one size fits all' recommendations.

3.8 I note that Ed Balls plans to bring in the Report's monitoring and registration recommendations at the earliest possible opportunity, whilst leaving the supportive recommendations such as training for local authority officers in doubt.[8]

4 There is anecdotal evidence that local authorities fail to understand and implement current legislation, and so cannot be trusted with further powers

4.1 Some local authorities appear to be expressing concern about home educating families because some families will not submit to the councils' demands and instead choose to exercise their rights in current law. That is, sending an educational philosophy and report rather than accepting a visit from an official, or educating without a structure in a child-led way. There is anecdotal evidence that these local authorities can and do use bullying and intimidation in order to get their own way, as can be readily seen in the information on their websites, and as the report acknowledges. These councils currently breach existing legislation and should not be rewarded with greater powers. It is worrying to consider where their mission creep might take them once able to force themselves into private homes and demand a certain approach to home education as the Review suggests.

4.2 My own home educated child who feels let down and traumatised by her time in the local authority school would feel betrayed and unsafe if we were forced to abandon her to interrogation by personnel from the same organisation, as this report demands.



5 The recommendations would result in an inefficient use of public money

5.1 Baroness Morgan in an answer to Lord Lucas states that:

'An impact assessment is not required for the consultation at this stage as the proposals are still at an early stage of development. We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education.'[9]

She is factually incorrect; at the moment local authorities have no duty to monitor home education, rather they have a duty to intervene if it comes to their notice that no education is taking place (para 2.7).[10]

5.2 Even if local authorities do, in contravention of current law, monitor the home educators they know about (estimated by the Review to be 20,000), if it becomes a criminal offence for a home educator not to register with them their responsibilities will at least double and may increase enormously if the upper estimates of 150,000 home educators mentioned in the literature review for the Review are correct. The Home Education Advisory Service has calculated that the costs nationwide could be as much as £500 million. [11]

5.3 Furthermore, the money required to implement the Review's recommendations would be far better spent on better training and resources for the authorities involved so that they were in a better position to spot abuse when it was brought to their notice and could respond more effectively when it was confirmed.

6 Implementation of the recommendations requires a change in the law that would change the relationship between all parents and the state and remove from home educating parents the presumption of innocence and a redrafting of Section 7

6.1 In painting the background for the report's recommendations the Report says:

'Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside of a schooling system.' (para 1.5)

6.2 However, the Review's proposals would take primary authority for educational choice away from the parent and give it to the state through the local authority. This would be against the wishes of the major stakeholders as evidenced by the 80% of respondents to question 6 of the Review's own on-line questionnaire who thought that current arrangements were adequate.[12] Moreover, such a change would undermine the parent's legal responsibility as it would require a redrafting of Section 7 of the 1996 Act - otherwise it would discriminate against home educators.

6.3 The report argues:

'However, there has to be a balance between the rights of the parents and the rights of the child.' (para 1.5)

Here the Review is suggesting a conflict that doesn't exist in order to make the recommendations seem reasonable. Parents do not have a right but a duty to ensure a suitable education for their child. The vast majority of parents will know their child better than anyone else and wish for them the best possible future in the world. Yet the Review suggests that in every case the local authority knows better and has better intentions than the parents, so should investigate all home educating parents as if they may all wish to cause their child harm. This would isolate home educators, alone amongst parents in England as unsafe to be with their children unless checked upon. It would remove the presumption of innocence from this minority section of the population alone.

6.4 Furthermore, the ability to interview a child alone, even against their wishes and the wishes of their parents, without any evidence or suspicion of harm being done, is something no government agency or any other agency has at present. If this recommendation became law, then home education officers from the local authority would have more power with regard to children than the police or social services. Surely no one should have automatic 'right of access' to our children.

6.5 One of the justifications for this requirement is to give the child a voice; there is a suspicion that children are being home educated against their wishes. There is, worryingly, no confirmation that the child's voice will be heard when they say no to an interview. It would also surely be discriminatory if only home educated children had the right to a voice where their education is concerned, surely if they are to be asked, with the implied promise that the local authority will take action if they are unhappy with their parent's choice, then children at school are entitled to be asked the same question.

6.6 Extremely worryingly, a major omission seems to be the establishment of any appeals process for parents to challenge a local authority officer's decision. This lack of an appeal seems to assume complete competence and an absence of prejudice on the part of the local authority that it is not logically consistent with Review's limited evidence. The Review says that many local authorities are not performing adequately (para 1.4), but then recommends they have more powers that cannot be challenged. Without an analysis of why local authorities are failing it would seem inappropriate to give them more powers; this would simply create problems and maladministration claims in the future.

6.7 And in the light of this the 'anything else' (para 8.12) reason for refusing permission for a parent to home educate it is particularly troubling.

7 And they would create a new criminal offence only applicable to home educators exercising a completely legal choice

7.1 The recommendations of this review would create a new criminal offence of failing or refusing to register that was only applicable to home educators. I know very little about criminal law but surely this is not the way it should be developed.

8 Relationships between home educators and local authorities would be further damaged

8.1 The report says:

'I have taken account of the views of local authorities who are strongly of the opinion that the current guidelines are unworkable in that they are contradictory and confer responsibility without power.' (para 1.4)

However, the Review appears to only have taken into account the view of local authorities and only a self selected number of them; it has ignored the views of the vast majority of home educators and members of the public. Yet the Review states:

'Good relationships and mutual respect are at the heart of the engagement of local authorities with home educating parents - this is evidenced in many authorities but such is the number of children now within elective home education that the development of these relationships cannot be left to chance or personality.'(para 1.4)

I know from my membership of numerous home education support lists that many of the good relationships that the Review observed have been destroyed by its mere publication. The intrusiveness, suspicion and bias evident in its recommendations have offended many. Healing these relationships is unlikely to be achieved by stigmatising home educators with the slur of potential abuser (when accurate research shows that abuse is exceptionally low in the home educating community) and allowing local authorities to ride rough shod over their privacy, human rights and civil liberties.



September 2009



________________________________________

[1] See http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/14543/response/41308/attach/html/3/Safeguarding%20evidence%20briefing%20paper%202%204.doc.html

[2] See http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rbrk5-GEdrUdcmfi670Mihg&gid=2



[3] See http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/820977?pg=13 message from Ed Balls at 13.40:14

[4] See http://tinyurl.com/sectionseven

[5] See http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/11/home-education-parents-face-tighter-regulation

[6] See Alan Thomas and Harriet Patterson (2008) How Children Learn at Home, Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.; 2 edition (31 Jan 2008)

[7] See http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/literature_review_produced_for_g#outgoing-24510

[8] See http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/Ed%20Balls%20to%20Graham%20Badman%20110609.pdf

[9] See http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-29a.6.4#addcomment

[10] See http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf

[11] See www.heas.org.uk

[12] See http://maire-staffordshire.blogspot.com/2009/08/analysis-of-6-question-online.html