Thursday 22 November 2012

Bruce's response to the consultation on Registering and monitoring home-based education in Wales

You can find the details about this consultation in this post.


About this consultation

The purpose of this consultation is to seek the views on the Welsh Government’s proposals for the introduction of a compulsory registration and monitoring system for home educated children. This document asks questions relating to specific aspects of the proposals.


Question 1 – Do you agree that a register should be kept and that it should be a requirement to register if a parent elects to home educate?


Agree

Disagree
X
Not sure




Comments:

This proposal is disproportionate and would remove parents’/guardians’ legal duty to provide an education for their children.  The introduction of a de facto licensing scheme would require an amendment to section 7 of the 1996 Education Act as home educators would no longer be able to meet their legal obligations.

The measure is also unnecessary as local authorities have adequate powers to deal with children missing education.

The WAG has provided no robust evidence that a registration scheme is required.  The proposal is based on a whim.





Question 2 – Do you agree that if a parent fails to register or provides inadequate or false information then the child being home educated should be required to attend school?


Agree

Disagree
X
Not sure




Comments:

This proposal fails to meet any basic notion of ‘fairness’.  If the parent/guardian fails to provide sufficient or false information, then the child is punished by being forced to attend school.  Penalising children for decisions or mistakes made by their parents is counter to natural justice.

It is also against natural justice that the decision to compel attendance should be taken by an unelected official rather than by a court.  There also needs to be an accessible, open and transparent appeal system.

The proposal takes no account of the reasons for the inadequacy of the information.  The family making an unintended error would be penalised as severely as someone deliberately seeking to mislead a local authority.

There are no criteria defined for determining whether or not the correct information has been provided (e.g. would omission of a phone number constitute inadequate information, if not, what would?).  The effect would be to confer a considerable degree of discretion on local authority officials.  This will lead to a postcode lottery with similar cases being treated inconsistently between local authorities.  The inevitable outcome will be numerous legal challenges from home educators.

The introduction of this proposal will undermine relationships with home educators and harm the welfare of children.  Forcing home educated children - many of whom, for a variety of reasons, do not ‘fit’ with the approach adopted in mainstream schools - will engender a fall in their self-esteem and confidence and hinder their educational development.





Question 3 – Do you agree that home educating parents should engage with their local authority to enable them to assess the suitability of their home education provision?


Agree

Disagree
X
Not sure




Comments:

This is a poorly framed question and demonstrates that the proposals have not been clearly thought though from the perspective of home educators.  Why would any rational home educator willingly engage in a process that could result in their child being forced to attend school?

The Welsh Government is also proposing a revised definition of "suitable education" [consultation document paragraph 12].  However, this change is unnecessary as the current legal definition – that education has to be efficient and full-time and suitable to age, ability aptitude and to the child's special needs – is fit for purpose.  

The proposal to revise the definition of suitable education will have adverse unintended consequences for WAG.  Any new definition will have to apply to school educated children as well as home educated children.  Given the widely acknowledged poor performance of pupils attending Welsh schools (see, for instance, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20414626) it is highly likely that home educated children subject to a School Attendance Order will receive an unsuitable education according to the new definition.  The implication is that the impact statement for the proposal needs to include a substantial sum to cover the cost of compensation payments to home educated children who were forced to attend schools and as a result received an unsuitable education.  Indeed, this may be the outcome whether or not the definition of suitable education is amended.





Question 4 – Do you agree that the initial meeting between the local authority and home educating parent and child should take place in the main location where the education is being provided?


Agree

Disagree
X
Not sure




Comments:

This is a double barrelled question that assumes a) that there should be a initial meeting between the local authority and the home educating parent/guardian; and b) it should take place in ‘the main location where the education takes place’.

The very notion that the local authority should have the right to meet with the home educating parent/guardian once they have taken the decision to home educate is objectionable and unwarranted.  Given that no evidence or sound arguments have been presented to justify the establishment of a registration scheme, and that any such scheme would undermine and so require legislation to replace section 7 of the 1996 Act, it follows that there is no case for an initial meeting.

What does the phrase ‘the main location where the education takes place’ mean?  If it means the home of the parent/guardian why not say so?  Is it the case that policymakers are reluctant to state explicitly that local authority staff will have a right to enter people’s homes for fear of alarming the wider general public about the erosion of human rights that this proposal would entail?  The proposal is disproportionate (relative to the loss of human rights it demands).  It is also discriminatory as no similar power is to be exercised against school educating parents, yet under section 7 of the 1996 Act there is equivalence in the duty placed on those parents/guardians using schools and those educating otherwise.





Question 5 – How often should the annual monitoring meetings with both the home educator and the home educated child take place at the main location of education?


Always

Every two years

Every three years





Up to five years

Never
X
Not sure




Comments:

As with question 4, this is a poorly constructed question.  It is a double barrelled question covering both the frequency of monitoring and the location of the monitoring.

There is no case for either monitoring or that any monitoring should take at ‘the main location where the education takes place’ (whatever that means – see response to question 4).  Monitoring, irrespective of the frequency or location, would undermine the pedagogy benefits of home education. 






Question 6 – Do you agree that registration should be denied or revoked in the limited set of circumstances set out in the consultation document?


Agree

Disagree
X

Not sure




Comments:

This question is wholly misleading and the specific proposition unacceptable given that there is no case for introduction of a registration scheme or for local authorities to be given the power to decide who can or cannot educate their children at home.

The question is misleading because the consultation document does not propose a limited number of circumstances.  The document lists the following circumstances:

  • if the parent fails to satisfy the LA that they are fulfilling their duty under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 
  • if the LA becomes aware of new or existing welfare or safeguarding issues that affect the suitability and effectiveness of the education provided 
  • if the parent fails to cooperate with monitoring and/or reasonable requests to monitor. 
(para. 26)

Whilst this is only three sets of circumstances they are so broadly defined and all encompassing in their scope that virtually every home educating parent would be at risk of having their license to home educate revoked.  These ‘sets of circumstances’ would grant unelected officials a vast degree of discretion.  The proposal is disproportionate and constitutes a serious attack on the duty of parents to provide a suitable and efficient education under section 7 of the 1996 Education Act.  







Question 7 – Do you agree the amount of time taken between receipt of application to register and notification of registration outcome should be no more than 12 weeks?


Agree

Disagree
X

Not sure




Comments:

Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 it is the duty of the parent/guardian to decide how to provide a suitable and efficient education, not the duty of the local authority.  Once the parent/guardian decides and:

  1. if the child has never attended a school then there must be no requirement for the parent/guardian to inform anyone; or 
  2. if the child attends school then deregistration should commence following the school’s receipt of written notification to withdraw the child.

The proposed period of 12 weeks (comprising two periods of 6 weeks) is unnecessary and arbitrary as no justification is given as to why such a long period of time is require. 





Question 8 – We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

Comments:

The consultation proposals demonstrate that policy makers have failed to grasp the character and nature of home education – had they done so, they would not have even considered making the proposals in the consultation document.

Policy makers could have learnt from the flawed review of home education in England conducted by Badman.  This consultation document, like the review, is undermined by confusing educational and safeguarding issues.  Intellectually and practically these are separate issues and policies that confound them are poorly designed and destined to be ineffective if implemented.

The proposals are ill-conceived and ill-judged and will require amendment of section 7 of the Education Act 1996.  To avoid legal challenges and judicial review of cases, together with claims against WAG and Welsh local authorities for failure to provide a suitable education for former home educated children, section 7 would have to be amended so that the Welsh Government (not parents) assumed sole responsibility for providing a suitable and efficient education for all children.  Such a change would be vehemently opposed by a coalition of parents, educationalists and public schools.








Responses to consultations may be made public – on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to be kept confidential, please tick here:



And here is the final version of mine:



About this consultation

The purpose of this consultation is to seek the views on the Welsh Government’s proposals for the introduction of a compulsory registration and monitoring system for home educated children. This document asks questions relating to specific aspects of the proposals.


Question 1 – Do you agree that a register should be kept and that it should be a requirement to register if a parent elects to home educate?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure




Comments:
As private citizens home educating parents should be served by the state not controlled by it.  There is no evidence of a need for this change in the law and surely with the dire state of education in Wales the money it would require could be far better spent.   Parents are the most suitable people to have responsibility for their children’s education, the state, especially in Wales is failing spectacularly.  Leighton Andrews is talking seriously about removing responsibility for education from LAs, what sense does it make to give them power over home educating parents who for the most part do a far superior job?  There is real danger of introducing one size fits all, broad and balanced requirements that will hinder home educators in meeting the individual needs of their particular children.  This will undermine the major advantage  of this form of private education, that it can be precisely and continuously adjusted to meet the changing needs and interests of the child.   Home education can and often does produce spectacular results and they nearly always exceed what can be achieved for a child as one of thirty children in the stressed, teaching to the test environment so common in today’s schools.


Question 2 – Do you agree that if a parent fails to register or provides inadequate or false information then the child being home educated should be required to attend school?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure




Comments:
No, there should be no register for choosing a legal and equal form of education and no, the child should not be punished if parents do not comply with a draconian state grab for power, remember you are elected to serve!

Also why do you think it would be an improvement for the child to have their own and their parents’ legitimate choice removed violently by the state and the child thrust into the failing schools run by LAs obviously inadequate to meet their actual responsibilities?  

This is the worst sort of bullying and abuse of power.


Question 3 – Do you agree that home educating parents should engage with their local authority to enable them to assess the suitability of their home education provision?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure




Comments:
Absolutely not, why should sovereign citizens engage with their employees for a service they do not require, especially when those employees run such an inadequate service.  The LAs are obviously in no position to judge a suitable education and if it is defined they will also be judged against that definition much to the detriment of their budget.  How many parents would just love to sue the state for its failure to educate their children suitably!




Question 4 – Do you agree that the initial meeting between the local authority and home educating parent and child should take place in the main location where the education is being provided?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure




Comments:

The state should not be forcing itself into private homes; as has often been said “1984” was a warning not a helpful guide to state oppression.  The home educating parent has no need to meet state officials unless they can be of service to them or there is evidence of failure on their part.  Do we not live in a democracy rather than an authoritarian despotism?  Home education is equal in law to school education; schools are inspected to let parents and citizens know that their money is being prudently handled and their children well served.  Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case in Wales. Even if it were though there is definitely no reason to let LAs force their way into private homes to make a judgment on the education provided, it is not their responsibility nor something they know anything about.  On what basis would they be fit to judge, and even if such an outrageous intrusion into private family life were at all acceptable, which it is most certainly not, surely they would have to prove that that they could provide an efficient education themselves first?  Parents are the people responsible for the education of their children and do not need to prove that they are using public money well or caring for strangers’ children appropriately because unlike schools they are not.





Question 5 – How often should the annual monitoring meetings with both the home educator and the home educated child take place at the main location of education?


Always

Every two years

Every three years





Up to five years

Never

Not sure




Comments:

Monitoring is entirely inapropriate, would you like me to monitor your computer?  You may well have something on there that is illegal but you benefit from the presumption of innocence and the police will not knock on your door and demand to monitor just in case you have peadophelia on there, they have to have evidence!  Home educators have the same right to the presumption of innocence. The LA has no business concerning itself with private home education unless it is brought to their attention that education is not taking place.  They need to conserve their time, money and energy to put their own house in order, a task that seems to be beyond them.





Question 6 – Do you agree that registration should be denied or revoked in the limited set of circumstances set out in the consultation document?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure




Comments:
Section 7 places a duty on parents to ensure a suitable eduction for their child, how can they do that if the LA override their choice? 

So the choice of method of education, home education or school, state or private is the parent’s choice and no business of strangers ill versed in individual education in the real world and failing in the institutionalised education they are tasked to provide.

If an LA is alerted to real concerns about any child’s welfare, home educated or schooled, then social services are the department to deal with it as they are trained and employed for this purpose.  Confusion over education and welfare has had tragic consequences, don’t muddy the waters.


Question 7 – Do you agree the amount of time taken between receipt of application to register and notification of registration outcome should be no more than 12 weeks?


Agree

Disagree

Not sure


Comments:

It is a parents duty so a parents choice, once the decision has been taken the child is no longer a pupil and no longer under the jurisdiction of the school or the LA.  I think you will find that what you are suggesting here is illegal.   No application is necessary, it is none of your business what choice a parent makes about the education of their child but it is your duty if the parent devolves the education to you to provide a suitable one.  I think you have the nature of the relationship confused here, the parent chooses, you provide a service if required, you do not dictate to the people legally responsible for the choice and the outcome!

Question 8 – We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

Comments:
No to registration, no to monitoring.  Do not take this foolish step, the unintended consequences will drown you in court cases and cause unimaginable harm to home educated children.  There is absolutely no evidence of a need for this policy, policy should always be evidence based.  This seems like some sort of distraction technique in order to avoid considering the dramatic failure of state based education in Wales.

Defining suitable education will mean that schools will have to meet the standards decided not just home educators.  Changing the law so that the state has primary responsibility for education will leave it open to legal challenge from the many parents whose children have been failed by the state.  When the state fails a child that child is just one of many to it, it does not have to live intimately with the consequences.  It is a different matter for the parent.  As a now home educating parent whose children would have been shamefully failed by the state without vigorous intervention on my part, intervention that in the end was not sufficient, I would grasp eagerly at the chance to gain redress against a heartless and unfeeling system that cared not one jot for my children’s wellbeing or learning, believe me I am not the only one!




Responses to consultations may be made public – on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to be kept confidential, please tick here:

I have seen some marvellous responses from others, let's keep them coming!






2 comments:

Danae said...

Absolutely brilliant work, Mr. and Mrs. Stafford.

Maire said...

Thank you Danae, just adding our voices, hearing of lots of other responses going in tonight!

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed