Well I don't think Maggie Atkinson can claim ignorance of the details around Khyra Ishaq's death, lies it is then.

Question and Answer session from CSF


Newsletter for staff in Children, Schools & Families
CSF MATTERS


'“I listened intently to the Radio 4 piece this morning re: the proposed
review into the Lord Laming enquiry. I would like to know why there was
no national voice defending children's services when all local authorities
pay a subscription to the Association of Directors of Children's Services
and to the Local Government Association? It's their job to limit the
damage to the sector's reputation and put the case forward for social
services and/or local government. NHS has the NHS Confed, doctors
have the British Medical Association but where can social services turn if
it needs to have its voice heard on a national level? Thanks for listening.
Hope you can help.”

Dear Colleague.

Thank you very much for your question. You are right that Children's Services
needs to have an authoritative 'national voice' for the sector. Indeed the
Association of Directors of Children's Services undertakes that role. ADCS has
been proactive in building credibility for the sector with government and other
agencies.'

AND IT WOULD SEEM UNDERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF PARENTS IN PARTICULAR HOME EDUCATING ONES.

'You may be aware that I am one of the ADCS national policy Chairs,
with the lead for Families, Communities and Young People. I can tell you from
first hand experience that the partnership with DCSF and other government
departments is better than it has ever been. Local authorities are actively
engaged in developing national policy, through formal working groups but also
with informal contacts with key civil servants and Ministers.
The role of ADCS is not just about leading and influencing decision makers,
however. There is also an important role in responding to the media and in
creating a positive perception of children's services with the public. This is
particularly important when there are cases that attract significant media
interest and comment, as happened last week following the death of seven
year old Khyra Ishaq in Birmingham. We need to be able to engage in robust
and constructive debate about the issues that arise - and I have no doubt that
in the light of this case it was not unreasonable to raise questions about the
degree to which child protection and safeguarding had improved since the
Laming Report into the death of Victoria Climbie - equally, however, there is a
need to counteract uninformed and negative perceptions of social work and its
impact. In that regard I had a number of concerns about the way in which the
Birmingham case was reported and the way in which some newspapers
interpreted the comments of Lord Laming and Bether Climbie. I therefore
contacted Maggie Atkinson (DCS - Gateshead), who is the ADCS President,
to discuss how ADCS should respond. In fact, Maggie Atkinson did appear on
the Radio 4 bulletin to discuss Lord Laming's comments. ADCS has since
prepared a position statement that is going to be shared with key officials at
DCSF, the Children's Commissioner, Local Government Association, and the
British Association of Social Workers.

I hope this reassures you that ADCS is providing a national voice, and that
putting the case for social work is at the top of the agenda. You will also find
that I am picking this up as 'issue of the week' in my Director's blog for this
week.

John Harris'

Thanks to Elaine for the headsup on this.

And here is all I have been able to find out so far about the Director's Blog.

Keeping you Informed


CSF is committed to ensuring that all staff across the county council are kept informed of changes that may affect them, future developments and current issues. It also acknowledges the need to listen to what people have to say.
Many measures are taking place in order to ensure that the flow of information is maximised – including the newly-launched Director’s Blog and twice-yearly CSF Roadshows.

Staff in Hertfordshire's schools can access the Director's Blog via The Grid by visiting the link below or the permanent link on the right hand side of this page:

CSF Director's Blog

An issue that remains in the news on a national scale is safeguarding children, particularly following the recent comments of Victoria Climbie’s mother and Lord Laming following the sad death in Birmingham last month of seven-year-old Khrya Ishaq. “Safeguarding children is everyone’s business – not just social workers” is one of the items up for discussion on CSF director John Harris’s blog. In his opinion, safeguarding procedures have changed immensely since 2003 when Lord Laming’s report into the Climbie case was published. He states that there is more to do to ensure that work to safeguard children is delivered in every case and is that he is keen to ensure debate on the subject does not stigmatise social workers.

If you have something to say about this or any other CSF matter, please visit the Director’s Blog and log a comment or question.'

The general public, however concerned, do not seem to be able to access the director's blog, however I would love to be contradicted on that because I definately have a question to ask him.

In the keeness to ensure the debate does not stigmatize social workers we could be forgiven for thinking that it seemed to them that stigmatizing home educators seemed a perfect solution!

Khyra Ishaq a tool in the government’s campaign to oppress children and families.

There is much fear amongst home educators that despite a record 5342 responses to the consultation on registration and monitoring of home educators the government will slip something into legislation that will bring the changes it wants to see into law without them going through due process and without the consultation responses being analysed and taken into account. Government has already sneaked past a dozing parliament major changes to the right of entry to our homes that give the LA and others the power invade homes and seize assets if it suspects citizens of minor misdemeanours. Power to enter our homes without a warrant in a way the police cannot.

If proof were needed that this is a very real danger long before the consultation closed the government had a clause about registration and monitoring for EHE in the Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill.

Plans were hatching back in January when the following exchange took place involving Ed Balls, Maggie Atkinson and the ‘completely independent’ Graham Badman, an expert in Elective Home Education because of his many years of dedicated service to Children’s services, the very people clamouring for entry to our homes and access to our children as a right.

‘On Friday January 16th 2009 the joint president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services wrote about


"a 24-hour session with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and partners about the Children's Plan. Ed Balls introduces. The event is excellent with a great sense of opportunity and shared commitment. My co-president John Freeman and directors Maggie Atkinson and Graham Badman fly the ADCS flag."


DCSF launched the Badman Review of Home Education on January 19th.'

Apart from my vehement philosophical and moral objections to the government enacting laws that make it the parent of first resort I have very real pragmatic concerns which the Adam Smith institute shares.

‘The government is practically teaching children that they need to be protected from their parents. If public-run institutions are any indication of how well things turn out under government control, then I’m afraid families don’t stand a chance.'

We are living in peculiar: times

We know that politicians are not known for their honesty in fact the profession rather like that of estate agent is somewhat renowned for it’s lack of it but even the most cynical amongst us have been shocked by the extent to which so many dishonest politicians have been seen to be cheating the taxpayer and setting up rules to enable them to pay themselves more without the public realising it. They now whine ‘please miss it wasn’t my fault they said I could do it’ and expect to be forgiven. Let us not forget that the very system was set up as a means to deceive us!

This government in its mad dog days has been setting up more and more improbable and improper legislation, vetting and barring and useless crb checks give parents a false sense of security when they leave their precious children with strangers but parents themselves are deemed unsafe to be around children.

Then there is the drugs fiasco proving that this government have no time for evidence based policy, they much prefer to make it up to comply with prejudiced and ill informed attitudes. Well they do not do this in my name, like many others I do not want my children manipulated by government as if they were too stupid to assess the information for themselves.

So this stupid, any economist would know that a financial incentive creates a moral hazard, dishonest, refusing perfectly reasonable Fois because the truth may make people who have been vilified and harassed even more angry, and sinister government has gone too far.

It cares not about the false positives that will arise from the screening of innocent families for child abuse and the harm this will do to them, it is on a positive campaign to remove our civil rights and reverse the principal of innocent until proven guilty. It does not care about the harm done to innocent children by the harassment of perfectly well functioning families in its no holds barred campaign for total control.

It cares nothing for the waste of money the country hasn’t got even though social services are thoroughly underfunded and understaffed and cannot meet their obligations to children known to be in danger.

Children like Khyra Ishaq, from a family reported to social services while the children were still at school, out of school and therefore a child missing education for many weeks before she was deregistered. A child where there was more reason than most for social services to insist on entry to the house and access to the child on her own; powers they already have in circumstances like this, but powers they didn’t bother to use and so this child is dead. But do the Government and the Directors of Children’s Services hold their heads in shame and say mea culpa, we will make enormous efforts to make sure nothing like this happens through our carelessness again?

No. They say ooh goodie this is an opportunity to get some control of those pesky home educators; look the child was home educated for ten weeks. We can use this to deliver that shopping list of powers we have been after for almost ever. No one will object; we can pretend that if we had had these powers we could have saved little Khyra, who could argue with that. We can lie about these dead children, the NSPCC’s Vijay Patel will help and Maggie Atkinson, the children’s commissioner elect, she will lie for us after all she wants the job. And the period of Kyra’s trial will be a time when lies may abound in our lazy media and opportunities may be created for pushing through draconian legislation due to the moral panic created.

And evidence of this shopping list from Las is here from Lancashire and Derbyshire.
One of the many hysterically ridiculous points here is the idea of Las planning to implement a conciliation service before parents can remove their children to HE. This clearly shows how little they know of what goes on as many parents plead, beg and try to coerce schools to meet their obligations to their children for years before giving up and realising that it would take some effort to do a worse job themselves. These arrogant and ignorant LAs should have stepped in long before if they wanted to stop the total breakdown of such relationships. I tried to liaise with my LA years ago about my one of my kids, guess what, total waste of time and I expect most parents have found the same. How many parents have had to go to tribunal to make Las meet their obligations to children with special needs, a process that eats up a year of your time to say nothing of the stress involved? This is not about helping kids, they really couldn’t give a damn, it is about protecting their own backs and maintaining control of the peasants. Well I don’t work for them so they can bugger off!

Don’t forget to give your guy that extra special expert touch on Guy Fawkes Night this year!

Is this the Level of Courtesy Children can Expect when they contact Maggie Atkinson in her role as Children's Commissioner?

She certainly didn't show any to this home educating parent who's email to her and reply from her are copied below.

She seems unconcerned by her own ignorance of the law around education, has no respect for the general public and feels no need to be in anyway answerable to the ordinary citizen. 

This woman is already a Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services, but she seems to be under an illusion that she is not an employee of the public but is answerable only to her political sponsor bully boy Balls and her own career path.

Her email and address might make you consider sharing your opinion and feelings about her, don't let me stop you.

From: M Atkinson [mailto:MAtkinson@Gateshead.Gov.UK
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:30 PM
To: Anita Dowson
Cc: Mike Fortune Wood

Subject: RE: Home Education - Select committee interview

Thankyou for this message. As I do not take up the post of Children's Commissioner until 1st March 2010 having formally been confirmed in the appointment last week, I have referred this commentary and your offer of a meeting to staff at 11 Milion for reference and any action. I note, but have no intention of responding now or in future to, your commentary on either your dismay, or what in your personal opinion are my shortcomings.

Anita please send this email chain in fulll to 11 Million, for their advice as to whether such a meeting falls within the remit, and any subsequent action.

Many thanks

Dr. Maggie Atkinson

Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services
Gateshead Council
Civic Centre
Regent Street
Gateshead
NE8 1HH

tel: 0191 433 2700
fax: 0191 478 3875

From: Mike Fortune Wood
Sent: 25 October 2009 08:49

To: Maggie Atkinson

Subject: Home Education - Select committee interview

Dear Ms Atkinson

I have just read some of the evidence offered by your self to the Education select committee regarding your future appointment as children's commissioner. I was particularly interested in your comments regarding home education. You are quoted as saying: "I will take you back, if I may, to when I was an adviser in Birmingham city council, where there were quite large numbers of home-educated children-it is getting on for 20 years now since I worked in Birmingham. At that time, as an adviser I had a right and a duty not only to knock on the doors of people who were choosing electively to educate their children at home, but simply to go into their premises and, on the most headline of bases, to look at whether the environment was right, whether there were age-appropriate materials in use, and whether the children seemed okay. They were never interviewed on their own, they were never taken on one side, they were never taken away from their parents and there was never any really intrusive work that I did as an adviser from Birmingham city council. I felt it was entirely appropriate, and it was within the bounds of reason. In the last two to three years, the regulations are such that I can go no further than the doorstep. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of families who choose electively to educate their children at home are doing so for entirely right reasons, for entirely honourable, fair, just, creative and admirable reasons. But I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died-Khyra Ishaq. I do not think that it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut simply to be able to go across the doorstep of the home where a child is being electively home educated. Not to interfere, not to insist, not to direct, but simply to check that they are as safe as you need them to be. Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death.  That may be an extreme case, and horrible and dreadful, and it happens very, very, very rarely indeed. None the less, it happened."

 I would like to highlight several issues with respect to this comment.

 1) The law WRT home education has not changed since 1996 when parents no longer needed permission to withdraw their children from school. It has in fact never been the case that an inspector had the right to doorstep parents, gain entry to the home or sight of the child without good cause any more than the authorities have a right of access to the home for children between the ages of 0-5 years (other than one visit following a birth). (This is a misunderstanding, they must offer but cannot insist) my words.

Good cause being that there is evidence or good reason to believe that a child or vulnerable person was in immediate risk of significant harm.

There has never been any statutory guidance on this subject. Such guidance as there has been was simply guidance.

 It may be a surprise to you but quite often it is the children themselves who refuse to see or have contact with officials from education departments.  Frequently children leave the school system traumatised by the experience and for them to be perused into their own home by the self same people who failed to protect them in school from bullying or stress is as unacceptable to the children as it is to the parents.

2) Khyra Ishaq was known by social services who had prior concerns about the child and the family. They therefore had due cause and good reason to require sight of the child and therefore they had a right of access to the child. It is clear from reports on this child's death that it had nothing whatsoever to do with home education and was everything to do with failures in Birmingham social services department.

Your attempt to blame home educators for the death of this unfortunate child has been seen by home educators as a blatant attack on the rights of families to bring up their children in their own way and does not bode well for the future of home educators or their children should you eventually take up post as children's commissioner.

I am frankly dismayed that as head of children's services in a large department and a prospective candidate to the post of children's commissioner you are unaware of the current legal situation concerning home education as a consequence of which you misled members of a committee about to consider the issue of home education.

I am certain that members of the home education community would be willing to meet with you to assist you in understanding our concerns regarding the Badman review and its recommendations.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Best wishes

Mike Fortune Wood
The term I like best for the quality of Maggie Atkinson's reply is snotogram a term used by a poster to one of the HE lists. 

Maggie Atkinson Children’s Commissioner Elect, ignorant or dishonest?

Two word Maggie showed no respect for Khyra Ishaq’s memory when she used her name as a tool to slur home educators, thus lying or showing her ignorance in front of the DCSF Select Committee. They were not deceived and rejected her as a candidate, though much good may it do us with bully boys like Balls in charge.

BabyBalls, originally uploaded by mumbomedia1.

'Who are you covering for Maggie? Is one of your mates in charge of Birmingham? Or did Ed ask you to trot out those tired lies?' asks Jax, as she pleads for journalists who will actually investigate and report news.


Carlotta after reading her evidence to the committee concludes 'Dr. Atkinson demonstrates by the above evidence that she is either ignorant of the known facts of the matters at hand, or she is quite prepared to fudge the facts in order to further her objectives. Either way, it doesn't bode well.'

'Here we are Maggie some more reading material you obviously need educating This is about the Doctor the school brought in because of their concerns over one of Khyra's brothers . Note that the children were at SCHOOL and the school did raise concerns but the agencies who could have stepped in FAILED to do so.' Elaine attempts to educate her here.

Louisa's response to the consultation Elective Home Education, Registration and Monitoring.

1. Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

DISAGREE

The parent, not the State, has both the legal and moral imperative to safeguard the rights and welfare of the child. The only legitimate function the State has is to provide a safety-net when parents do not meet their legal and moral obligations, not to require families to step into that net "just in case". This attempt to proactively ensure the education and well-being of every child is illegitimate. It usurps the function of parents and it also rides roughshod over the rights of children to own their own lives and decide their own outcomes. Imposing State defined outcomes on children is totalitarian. My moral responsibilty to protect my children overrides my civic duty to obey statute. I will not comply with any legislative changes that are incompatible with my child's right to self-ownership and self-determination.

2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?

DISAGREE

Registration is ALWAYS a pre-curser to licensing and needing permission.

Registration always only catches law abiding people. If someone was prepared to go to the considerable lengths needed to hide a child in order to practise some form of abuse why on earth do think a register would catch them?

I will NOT register, I will NOT seek your permission or approval. My child's education is a private matter between me and my child. The State has no function here and I will not recognise or be bound by it's illegitimate attempts to regulate and oversee private family life.

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

DISAGREE

Same as 2

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

DISAGREE

Same as 2

5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

DISAGREE

Same as 2

6a Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

DISAGREE

The duty to educate and reponsibility to educate lies with the parent, not the State and not the school. Once parents cease to delegate this responsibilty the school has no further role or part to play in the child's education. The State, the LA and the school must respect the decision of the parent.

6b Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

DISAGREE

Such data is completely irrelevant in the context of home education.

7. Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

DISAGREE

The case for registration and monitoring has not been demonstrated.

There is no basis for the State to proactively intervene in the private family lives of citizens. Education is not a civic function it is a private matter that is the sole legal jurisdiction of the parent. I will not comply with any such registration or monitoring. My primary moral and legal responsibilty is to my child. I will at all costs protect him from attempts by the State to own his lfe and determine his outcomes.

8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

DISAGREE

If there are substantial safeguarding concerns which mean the child is unlikely to be safe in the care of the parent(s) then the child should be in local authority care. If it is deemed safe for the child to live with the parents then it is safe for the child to be home educated.

Place of education is completely irrelevant.

9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

DISAGREE

Home education takes place everywhere. Will your officials be visiting the library? the park? the gallery? the museum? the swimming pool? the forest? the supermarket? the post office? the castle? the stone circle?

the lake? the church?

No, of course they won't, because this is not about visiting the place of education at all, it is about getting a foot through the door of private homes. Why? Because the State cannot bear privacy, it cannot bear strong family bonds, it cannot bear the unregulated thinking that might go on behind closed doors. My home is private. It is the place that we can still be in PJs at midday if we wish, have a sink full of messy dishes if we wish, abuse Ed Balls on the telly if we wish. It is nothing to do with the State. It is not a State premises to be "inspected" it is my private home and YOU SHALL NOT PASS.

10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

DISAGREE

No way, no how, over my dead body.

Firstly my child does not want to be "interviewed" and I will defend his right to make that choice come what may.

Secondly, every paedophile in the land will be after this job. No amount of CRB checks or vetting databases will prove to my satisfaction that any public sector employee is not a scrupulously careful paedophile.

11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after

6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

DISAGREE

You are like a stuck record aren't you? No to visits, no to monitoring, no to interviews.

I have always provided information willingly to my LA, on the basis that I was dealing with a human being who respected my choices, understood autonomous education and realised that the education and welfare of my children is my remit not his. I shall cease to do so if coercion is applied on the basis that I will then be dealing with a representative of the State who is mandated to override the choices I have made regarding my child's education, who is mandated to view autonomous education as tantamount to neglect and who believes my child is *his* responsibilty. I will not comply with registration, monitoring or interviews because I am not delivering a civic function, my child's education is a private matter. You have no role here.

Neil's response to the consultation Elective Home Education, registration and monitoring

Neil T

1. Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

Disagree

This disgusting war of attrition on a legitimate section of society, which has used every trick in the book, not to mention outright insults, betrays the total lack of decency, integrity, or even safety of this reivew and therefore also of this government.  The totalitarian intentions that lie behind this attack on fundamental constitutional freedoms, for no credibly demonstrated reasons forces me to conclude that I can have zero confidence in it to do anything but harm.  It has demonstrated to me that it is a completely illegitimate despotism, and I hereby withdraw my consent to its rule.  IMO it is unfit to make any changes to current education law or practice.

The government's role in education has become irredeemably toxic, and the state should get out of education, and repeal the insult of compulsory education altogether, restoring that unmolested natural impulse of the young of our species to learn what it needs to learn without coercion.

The education of my children is none of the government's business unless it appears that I am neglecting my s7 duty.  If LEAs understood and respected this law of the land since my parents generation fought and died fighting for 'freedom' while it was being drafted, then children would be protected as well as they can be, and far better than the current dangerously deficient fiasco of universal child molestation and destruction of their privacy embarked on by this government. 

2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?

Disagree

N/A for reasons cited above.

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

Disagree

N/A for reasons cited above.

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

Disagree

N/A for reasons cited above.

5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

Disagree

N/A for reasons cited above.

6a Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

Disagree

Absolutely not.  Either parents are responsible for the education of their children or the state is.  There is no legitimate reason for this incursion, other than to intimidate and dissuade parents from this course of action altogether, as HEers already experience from those schools and LAs which already assume they have such powers, and for which the Pupil Registration regulations 1995 were always a dead letter, no prosecution ever having been  brought for the many  breaches of a law never intended to be policed, but given as a sop to Education Otherwise to trick us into imagining that talking to government might actually get us anything we wanted.

6b Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

Disagree

The question makes no sense.  Why would a school have anything to do with home education?  The state system has no role in monitoring education that is not provided by it, nor should it have.

7. Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

Disagree

I do not need permission from the government to home educate my children.

Why would any sane parent vote to give up such a fundamental freedom?, and that is what registration is.  The state also has no statutory monitoring role, despite dishonestly claiming such a function, thereby misrepresenting its powers, and since it militantly and relentlessly determines to misunderstand what HEers do, it perpetually demonstrates its own profound unfitness to judge what it cannot and does not want to understand.

8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

Disagree

Is this a trick question?  Children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns will by definition already be being seen by social services.  If in the course of any such contact 'if it appears' that a child is also not receiving suitable education, then the LA is already well placed to invoke s437 and involve the LEA.  Current protections and procedures therefore seem highly adequate.  It is conceivable that a good education might be being provided despite specific welfare concerns for a child, so a blanket ban would seem unnecessary and crude.

9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

Disagree

Our home is not a 'premises', its our home, and we are entitled under human rights instruments not to have it invaded.  The so called home visit, which is really a non legally sanctioned state inspection of families by deception and misrepresentation of powers the state does not possess, should hardly predispose anyone to vote for making such unwanted and unhelpful intrusions legal.

10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

Disagree

If this suggestion does not actually have its specific origins in a paedophile agenda, it might as well have.  This suggestion invokes necessary child protection actions by any responsible parent against a negligent state (at best), that cannot manage to make its own institutions safe from harbouring dangerous child predators, and at worst, manages to look like a perverts agenda in the first place.  This suggestion is beyond vile, and will simply never be tolerated by a large section of society.  No decent government could propose such an outrage against families.  Powers already exist to enter homes where serious welfare concerns exist, but to suggest this as routine for all families is to debase citizenship utterly, and put all children at a new and totally unnecessary risk.

11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

Disagree

The LA is entitled to make enquiries, and draw conclusions from non responders, or responses which only state that the parents are home educating and no more.  It can then require information to be provided or serve an SAO.  That is power enough, or would be if LAs understood the law they are supposed to administer.

HEers have been trying to humanise and get LAs to understand and respect the law, and the validity of what we do, probably ever since there have been LAs, and certainly ever since 1944, but with mostly little success, with one or two notable exceptions.  It is pointless to contemplate greatly increased powers of intervention when so many LEAs are already local despotisms that act as if most of these powers already existed anyway.  It is to shudder to contemplate what would befall us as a result of giving them these proposed new powers, even if they never exceeded them, but it is already no mystery to HEers, and we don't believe it is any mystery to government either, which is the principle inciter to ultra vires despotism by LAs.

Government should be aware that the people will not be pushed in the direction of totalitarianism for ever, and that there is a line which government can cross that will not be tolerated, such rule, disobeyed.

For myself and many others I know, that line has already been crossed in this shameless and disgusting process, and as I have said before, and now reiterate, government does not have my consent to this process or any outcome from it.  I will not submit to such tyranny.  I will not obey this rule.

No virus found in this incoming message.

'Independent' review of elective home education

Looks like the DCSF have taken the select committee's advice and published some of the documents relating to the Bad Man report here.  Although not the evidence behind the report, which they are keeping secret because poor Badders can't stand the heat. Of course it could be because there isn't any real evidence, just a thought.

The 74 LAs who responded to Bad Mans desperate plea for some actual evidence to back up his allegations against home educators are revealed in the answer to this Foi.

Errors have already been found in this list, so caution and double checking is advised.

Deborah Markus’ Bitter Homeschooler’s Wish List

Hosted at Blogdial.

The Uncorredted Evidence from the DCSF Select Committee Short Inquiry hearings into The Review of Elective Home Education

Monday 12th October 2009
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/uc999-i/uc99902.htm


Wednesday14th October 2009
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/uc999-ii/uc99902.htm

Peterborough LAs submission to the consultation on Monitoring and Registering Elective Home Education

here

Thanks Jeremy.

Lincolnshire LA submission to the consutation;: Registration and Monitoring of Elective Home Education.

Here.

DCSF ". just embarrassing themselves now" AHED press release

DCSF ". just embarrassing themselves now"

Moments before the deadline, a home-educating parent reported that their
submission to the latest consultation on home Education had received the
number 5340, an unprecedented public response with the previous record for
DCSF being only in the hundreds.

One of the respondents, a fifteen year old supporter of Action for Home
Education, declared today that Ed Balls and the DCSF are "just embarrassing
themselves now" as he battled to understand how the government can be so
short sighted about the opposition to the recommendations in the "Badman
Report" (2) on home education.

This rather gives the lie to Graham Badman's assertion to the Children,
Schools and Families Committee (12 October 2009, Q2) that the opposition to
his report comes from "a vociferous minority" that he can actually count.
But "why" asks JK, "are they still not listening?"

In the last 90 minutes of the consultation responses were being recorded at
about three every minute, but we also know that some submissions went in by
email or on paper and those are unlikely to be included in the automatically
generated numbers from the online system.

Diana Johnson (Children, Schools and Families Select Committee 12 October
2009,) promised that consultation responses will be carefully scrutinised
and taken into account before policy is made. "But," said Barbara Stark,
Chair of the AHEd group, "we have been very worried that the review was not
really independent and was used by Ed Balls to create policy-based evidence
in order to bully home educators, Most of these responses will have been
from ordinary families who see big government threatening their way of life
and their family choices."

Clare Murton, AHEd supporter said, "This government has lost sight of the
distinction between public and private to the point where even our
youngsters are mystified at their ignorance and arrogance."

Many parents will recognise the frustration these parents feel with the
shortcomings of the state schools, but not many will realise that if they
chose to decline the state's humble offerings in any sphere of life, not
just education, they may be forced to expose their homes and children to
close scrutiny.

Only recently we have seen attempts to screen, control, tax and register
mums and dads who choose to share their child care arrangements but things
are now going too far. Mr Balls and the DCSF have to be made to understand
that normally peaceful home educators who just want to get on with their
lives are drawing a line in the sand - the British public are fed up with
such interference and we will tolerate it no longer. We will NOT comply with
your disgusting agenda for us and our children. If necessary, many of us
will choose to go before the courts to fight any criminal sanctions that
government may introduce. Does NuLabour really want to be remembered as the
government that persecuted law-abiding parents doing their best for their
families?
..................


NOTES FOR EDITORS

(1) Action for Home Education
http://www.ahed.org.uk

Who initiated the call for supplementary evidence to support the recommendations of Graham Badman's Report of the Review of Elective Home Education?

Who initiated the call for supplementary evidence to support the
recommendations of Graham Badman's Report of the Review of Elective
Home Education?

In particular was it the author or the DCSF?

Whilst the Star Chamber has allowed it who within the department
recommended to the Star Chamber that is should proceed or asked
permission of the Star Chamber to initiate it?

Graham Badman initiated the call for supplementary evidence to support
the recommendations in his review. Penny Jones, Deputy Director,
Independent Schools and School Organisation, asked for Star Chamber
approval to initiate the request.


Foi here

BY OCTOBER 19TH you need to have made your voice heard. Consultation on the proposals of the Badman Report

Only the bad ones of course.

I am crossposting this letter about the consultation, it gives details of where to answer it.  There are summaries of the thoughts of group members to each of the questions in the  badmanreviewgroup  files.   

Carlotta  has posted her answer here, Merry's is here, and Jax's, and here is Deb's and Sally's and Emma's.  Carlotta has added information on how the review proposals infringe UNCRC mandated right of the child.


One from the jumps. One from firebird.  A brilliantly concise one from Elaine. Here is Heyc. And Jennifer. A response from Michael.  And from Shena. And from Gill. Claire M's response is hosted here. Helen submits a group response here. Neil's, is here and here Louisa's


And Carlotta has a list here which has some I don't have.

And even one from the lovely Kelly in Canada.
My own response is here.

Bruce's is here. 


Beth's is here.


Ahed's response is here.


Here is Autism in mind.


The Family Education Trusts, plea for submissions to the consultation and its own submission is here.

Christian concern for our nation have some suggestions here.


Transcripts of the uncorrected oral evidence session at the DCSF Select Committee short enquiry can be found here.

Hi,

please read the whole of this email as it contains important information for every home educator, information that some may not be aware of.

We are currently facing the biggest threat there has ever been to home education and everything could hinge on this current consultation which ends on this Monday 19th Oct. I cannot stress just how important it is that these proposals are defeated because they are planning much more than registration.

Hot on the heels of this consultation they intend to consult on the definition of what constitutes a suitable education. First they intend to hog tie us with compulsory registration, inspections and annual licensing to home educate and then they intend to determine the content of our home education.

Here is a link to the announcement that they are planning a consultation on suitable education.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8299694.stm

Smaller URL

http://tinyurl.com/yg3t56k

Please do fill out the consultation on home education and enourage friends and family to do so too. Even if you think the consultation has pre determined outcomes you have nothing to lose. You do not have to write a lengthy response to each question, you can answer a simple no or yes.

Here is a link to the current consultation. Please note it ends very soon.

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

Smaller url

http://tinyurl.com/l82dxm

Please feel free to cross post this email to other home educators and groups, but please remove my personal details/email address first. Thanks for reading

BWs Elaine

Bruce's response to the Consultation, Home Education: Registering and Monitoring

1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: The Review itself makes this false dichotomy between the right to home educate and the right to receive a suitable education; it is a good example of the lack of intellectual rigour and absence of robust evidence that permeates this poorly conducted Review.  The proposal only makes sense if the child’s right to a suitable education is legally enforceable otherwise it is merely rhetorical and renders the proposal meaningless.  However, the Review seems to be confused about the law on education in England and in particular the crucial distinction between enforceable duties and legal rights.  The proposal would require replacement of Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which places a duty on parents to provide a suitable and efficient education, with a new clause giving (amongst other things) legal rights to elect for home education or for the child to receive a suitable education.  In effect the Review is proposing a fundamental reform of education law in England.  To give the child a new legal right to suitable education requires the abolition of the current duty on all parents to provide a suitable education.  You cannot both confer a legal right on the child to a suitable education and place a duty on the parent to provide a suitable education.  The Review failed (as on so many issues) to properly think thorough the implications of its proposals.  For instance, if children are given a legal right to a suitable education will the Government increase the resources available to the Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts to represent all the children who, disagreeing with their parents’ wishes on their education, take them to courts to enforce the child’s right to a suitable education?  Or to represent those children in schools judged to be failing by OfSTED, as presumably the children at such schools will have a right to take the local authority to court for falling to provide a suitable education.  The proposal implies that the Review found robust evidence that some elected home educated children did not receive suitable education.  It did not.  A third unrepresentative survey of local authorities conducted by the reviewer after the review report was published purports to show 1.8 per cent of home educated children did receive any education and a further 5.3 per cent received education that was neither full-time nor suitable.  However, the sample for this survey is unrepresentative and this is important because if the sample was biased the resulting estimates would not be valid.  Whilst the response rate was 49 per cent (74 out of 150 local authorities responded), that nearly half replied does not make the sample representative – because the half that did not reply might be very different from those that did.  More evidence is required to demonstrate that the sample is representative.  Indeed, there are reasons to believe that the sample tends to over-represent those local authorities with a larger proportion of the child population.  Badman states that the mid-2008 population estimate for the 74 local authorities was 4,303,700.  The same mid-year population estimates show that the total number aged 5 to 16 years was 7,201,400.  This means that the 74 local authorities covered 60 per cent (4.5m/7.2m = 59.6%) of children of school age.  Or the 76 local authorities that did not respond had a smaller child population (40 per cent).  There is a prima facie evidence here that the sample is not as representative as claimed. In addition, the survey responses are not an objective assessment of the quality or quantity of education delivered, but merely the subjective opinion of local authority staff completing the questionnaire.  This would not be problematic if they were disinterested officials, unfortunately they have a vested interest in the outcome of the Review – it could lead to more resources and higher status for their work.  The responses thus reflect those engaged in rent-seeking behaviour.  The failure of the reviewer to highlight this as a possibility is yet another example of the poor quality of the Review. Moreover, if local authorities are claiming that they need extra powers to intervene in home education settings on the basis that they do not know what is happening in the home, how can they then possibly provide estimates of the number not receiving home education.  It’s not logical.  Either the responses they provided are valid and accurate, in which case there is no need for further powers; or they need additional powers because they do not know what is being provided in the home, in which case their estimates are fictional. It is also not clear that the education system is prepared for the large scale de-registrations that may occur once children dissatisfied with their schools become aware that they (not their parents) have the right to determine who provides a suitable education.

2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: The Review itself proposes that a register of elected home educated children be kept; it is a further example of the lack of intellectual rigour and honesty that characterises this Review.  It is intellectually dishonest to describe what is being proposed as a registration scheme.  As the registration can be refused or revoked at any time, it is in practice a license to home educate.  To single out elected home education for licensing is discriminatory and is likely to face legal challenges. Introducing a register presupposes that there is a problem that registration addresses.  However, a defining feature of the Review is its utter failure to produce any robust evidence of a ‘problem’.  Notwithstanding three surveys of local authorities (one (unbelievably) conducted after the report was published) that incorporated badly designed questionnaires and unrepresentative samples, and the unethical misuse of quotations from submissions to the Review (for instance, from the Church of England), the reviewer has not made a case for registration.

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

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: The recommendations on the information to be provided for registration demonstrate that the reviewer of this highly flawed and badly executed review totally failed to comprehend the essential features of elected home education or to think thorough the implications of his proposals.  A simple example will suffice.  My daughter is educated autonomously, thus learning takes place 24/7, 365 days of the year.  The requirement to state the location of the education will result in a flood of emails to those administering the scheme as changes in where her learning takes place occur throughout the day.  The administration of the scheme will collapse due to the sheer volume of reported changes of circumstances – some of us have Blackberries!  If policy makers try to ameliorate this by use of terms such as ‘usual’ for location of education then will not prevent this from happening, as there is no ‘usual’ location of learning.  Similar problems will arise from attempts to specify an action plan or learning outcomes for the year – the substantive content of these could change daily if not hourly. How the ‘approach to education’ is to be specified by parents and assessed by officials is not specified in the consultation document (or the Review).  Were these proposals taken forward then this element of registration will need to be the subject of a separate inquiry and review.  As currently proposed the duty that only elected home educated parents should provide a statement of their approach to education is discriminatory.  If the aim is to ensure that all children receive an efficient and suitable education, and registration is a means to secure this, then it follows that parents sending their children to poorly performing schools must also register and explain their reasons for sending their children to an institution that does not meet the requirements of Section 7 of the Education Act 1996.  Case for registration has not made – see 2 above.

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

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: As the Review fails to present any convincing evidence that there is a need for any registration (or more accurately licensing) scheme it follows that there is no case for it to be kept up-to-date. (see Question 2 above) The Review, which has to be the most poorly conducted social policy review of the last 30 years, completely fails to marshal any evidence that a licensing scheme for elective home education is justified.  The Review both before and after the report was published, makes use of three unrepresentative samples of local authorities.  In addition, the survey questionnaires employed are badly designed, and in its main report is misquotes submitted evidence.

5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: To introduce a new criminal offense on the back of a wholly inadequate Review of elected home education would be unjustified.  As the Review builds its case on results from three unrepresentative samples of local authorities, badly designed questionnaires and dishonest quoting of submissions it follows that the proposal is both disproportionate and unreasonable. Existing legislation requires that a parent ensures that his or her child to receive a full-time efficient education suitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude and any special needs.  The very serious shortcomings in the conduct of the Review means that no convincing case has been made to change the law.

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

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: This is a recommendation of what is a flawed and poorly executed review of elected home education.  In effect the Review is proposing a 20 school day ‘cooling off’ period so that a parent could change their mind and ‘readmit’ their child.  However, the Review (typically) fails to provide any evidence that a cooling off period is needed or would be effective.  The selection of 20 school days is an arbitrary period of time; and like so many other aspects of this deeply flawed report, is not justified – for all intents and purposes it is a number ‘picked out of the air’. The law requires the parent to discharge their duty either by ensuring the regular attendance of their children at school or `otherwise'.  The failure to justify the need for the cooling off period or its duration means that the law should remain unchanged.

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

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: Yet another ill-conceived recommendation from a Review that has numerous shortcomings.  De-registration means a loss of income for a school.  Threatened with de-registrations schools have a vested interest in minimising the numbers deregistering and for those that do to help bring about the circumstances in which the child re-registers.  Schools will have a perverse financial incentive to provide future attainment data that implies an outcome that the home educated child could never reasonably attain and which could be then be used to revoke or not renew a registration (or more correctly the license to home educate).  There is a real risk that the future attainment data will not be a fair and reasonable prediction of a former pupils performance.  Such future attainment data will be unreliable.   On ethical grounds any data on actual and future attainment should be confidential between the school and the parent.  The Review simply asserted that this data should be made available to local authorities – but (reflecting its general lack of reasoned argument to support its proposals) it provided no rationale for this proposal and does not address ethical and data protection concerns.  Its failure to address these concerns means it would be unreasonable to proceed with this proposal.

7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: It would be a serious mistake if the DCSF were to take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education on the basis of a Review that was poorly conducted.  The Department should exercise caution in taking statutory powers when the evidential base for change is so weak.  The Review incorporated three unrepresentative survey samples of local authorities, poorly designed questionnaires, failed to provide a full and detailed account of the survey results and – breaching acceptable ethical conduct – failed to state in full the views of those making submissions.  Seeking additional statutory powers on the basis of the Review’s findings would seem to be a risky undertaking for the Department, because the Review’s findings are so unreliable.

8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: This is an appalling question and the replies you receive will be impossible to interpret in any meaningful manner.  To answer the question ‘substantial safeguarding concerns’ must be defined.  Without any such definition it is impossible to give any sensible or reasonable answer to the question.  When the responses to this consultation are collated and analysed please to not count my response as a non-response.  The point made above is very important and not to be lightly dismissed!

9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: Given that this badly conducted Review failed to establish that there is a need for such a power, then local authorities should not have the right to visit the premises where home education is taking place.  The Review fails to provide any robust evidence that inspections are needed on grounds of higher levels of abuse or that suitable education is often not provided in home education settings.  This is because the data collected from three local authorities surveys (one of which was bizarrely conducted after the Review was published) used unrepresentative samples and poorly designed questionnaires. A key statement from the review, informing its recommendation is: “The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right regulatory regime within a framework of legislation that protects the rights of all children, even if in transaction such regulation is only necessary to protect a minority.” This guiding ‘principle’ is presented with no provisos or limits.  It is highly risk adverse position, and assumes that all parents are capable of abuse.  This leads to recommendations that are disproportionate and even the Secretary of State is wary of the cost implications.  Indeed, it logically follows from this position that parents of all pre-school children must be registered and inspected annually; and given that in numerical terms more children attending school are abused then inspection visits are required of children attending school during vacations.  To do otherwise is to discriminate against parents opting to home educate, and ignores the logic of the Review.  Taking this power will seriously undermine the close collaboration between local authorities and parents choosing to home educate that many policy makers desire.  Indeed, this proposal unbalances the power relationship between parents and local authorities to the extent that it makes the development of a close relationship virtually impossible to achieve.  How is close collaboration to be realised when one party can impose an inspection on the other? The Review proposes a not less than 2 week notification period – but as with other proposals fails to justify why the period should be 2 weeks as opposed to any other time period.  Thus its recommended time period is arbitrary.

10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: Where abuse is suspected social care should use existing legislation irrespective of whether the child is educated in school or otherwise.  The case for additional powers to police children who have been home educated has not been made in the Review.  This is because the conduct of the Review was abysmal – due to unrepresentative survey samples, poorly designed questionnaires and a failure to meet minimum standards in quoting from submissions the Review fails to provide a justification for such powers.  In the absence of robust evidence it is a serious infringement of home educating parents’ rights to single them out in this way and to invade their privacy. The consultation question is difficult to respond too because no definition of ‘judged appropriate’ is provided.  Where an interview is to take place what happens if the child says no or later refuses to answer any of the officials’ questions?  Some home educated children are likely to be (severely) distressed if interviewed alone or even with a trusted third party.  The potential dire consequences of the interview will be known to many home educated children, some of whom had bad experiences of being in school, and the threat of a forced return to school will create circumstances that are unlikely to engender a productive encounter.  As the interview itself can lead to a form of ‘mental abuse’ for the child, what is the balance of local authorities’ duties to protect such children? Given that the underlying presumption of the Review’s report is that no adults can be trusted not to be child abusers, it follows that it would be negligent for any home educating parent to allow an official to interview their child on their own.  As a minimum if this ill-conceived proposal was taken forward regulations would need to require that a minimum of two officials interview each child and that the interview is videoed.  Only if this is done can home educating parents safeguarding concerns be met and fears that the officers’ interviews are not being used as a cover for abuse allayed.

11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis?  This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

Comments: Given the extensive shortcomings that underpin the Review, which have been mentioned in Question 9 and 10 above, and mean that the case for reform has not been made it follows that this proposal should not be implemented.  The use of unrepresentative survey samples and poorly designed questions negates any proposal for introducing an inspection regime.  The allegation that the proportion of home educated children known to social care is disproportionately high is unsound because of the samples used in three local authorities surveys are unrepresentative.  Even the third survey, which amazingly was the only survey to collect comparative data for school educated children, utilises an unrepresentative sample.  The third survey of local authorities conducted by the reviewer had a response rate of 49 per cent (74 out of 150 local authorities responded), however, that nearly half replied does not make the sample representative.  The half that did not reply might be very different from those that did.  Indeed, there are reasons to believe that the sample tends to over-represent those local authorities with a larger proportion of the child population.  Badman states that the mid-2008 population estimate for the 74 local authorities was 4,303,700.  The same mid-year population estimates show that the total number aged 5 to 16 years was 7,201,400.  This means that the 74 local authorities covered 60 per cent (4.5m/7.2m = 59.6%) of children of school age.  Or the 76 local authorities that did not respond had a smaller child population (40 per cent).  There is a prima facie evidence here that the sample is not as representative as claimed.  Given that in numerical terms most cases of child abuse involve pre-school age children or child attending school, the proposed inspection regime represents a significant misuse of scarce public resources, which ought to be better targeted at vulnerable children.  It also follows that if this measure was taken forward it would only be a matter of time before it had to be extended to all parents of pre-school age and of those whose children attended school.  Such ‘mission creep’ is inevitable because of the larger number of cases involved – not to extend the scheme would be difficult to justify.  However, recent public disquiet over the volunteer registration scheme suggests that there is no widespread political support for such inspection and monitoring schemes.  With a general election looming and a now politicised and web savvy home education community opposed to being discriminated against by these proposals, it is possible that political opposition to this proposal and its extension to the wider community will develop.  In short this proposal is ill-conceived and politically not viable.