This section dragged some comments out of me:
Response – The purpose of a registration and monitoring system is to enable local authorities to keep track of home educated children of compulsory school age, and to ensure that they receive the education and support they are entitled to in a safe environment. How can they possibly do this when they fail in the schools that they control It will also enable local authorities to plan and deliver the support package outlined in the full response to Graham Badman’s review.
Ah that must be why home educated children are explicitly excluded from the home access scheme,the government is desperate to support them.
We want the new arrangements to promote more supportive and constructive relationships between all home educating families and local authorities, with them working together to ensure children receive the best possible education in a safe environment. Statutory guidance will ensure that the registration system is flexible and user friendly.
This is some sort of fantasy on their part, constructive relationships NEVER start with, continue with, and end with the sort of abuse and manipulation the government has treated us to.
We envisage close co-operation between home educators, local authorities and children's previous schools, where appropriate, in developing the statement of approach to education. We have earmarked money for local authority officers and others engaged in the monitoring and support of elective home education to be suitably trained.
What give money to actual home educators and children!, don’t be stupid!
We want this training to give these staff a full understanding of the essential differences, variation and diversity in home education practice, as compared to schools.
Seeing as you have totally failed to begin to understand it that is a very unlikely event.
It is unsatisfactory that there is no shared, up to date, concept of what constitutes a “suitable” education. We know that autonomous home educators are particularly concerned about any new requirements to plan provision systematically as they perceive this conflicts with their approach to education. We have undertaken to commission further work on what constitutes a “suitable” education and we will take into account the views of home educators and others in developing the specification for this work and in drafting guidance which flows from the findings of this work.
Further work of ours to be ignored as they impose a curriculum that will undermine our children’s education.
Our aim in proposing that schools should retain their pupils on roll for 20 days is to ensure that any school related problems which led parents to opt for home education could be resolved. Children withdrawn from school can be home educated from the point of withdrawal, but the 20 days allows parents further time to consider carefully the benefits and drawbacks of home education. Our intention is to bring in changes to this aspect of the current legislation from 1 Sept 2011, but we will consult further on the practicalities of taking this action before making these changes.
La la la la do what you want with your schools.
The new registration arrangements will be enforced through an amended school attendance orders system.
Amended? I sense danger here.
Reading the rest of it, it is obvious that there is a complete split between the views of most home educating families and children and the views of most local authorities. It is also clear that the government has decided to ignore the views of most home educating children and families, and to ignore the views of the majority of respondents to the consultation and in Ed Balls case lie about what the majority want and just give Local Authorities what the want. But they want constructive relationships with home educators so that OK then.
Why do we bother?
This is also covered, here, by Kelly here and here, by Mumtosix here, by Gill, Tech, Carlotta and Grit. And Billysue.