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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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?
| 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.
| 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.
|
|
1 comment:
Well done Bruce, excellent answers to, quite frankly, stupid questions.
Post a Comment