Staffordshire

An excellent summary of home education law.

2011-10-17T17:53:00.000+01:00

I have been re-reading some of the blogs, consultation submissions and evidence submitted to the select committee lately after seeing many comments from new home educators about visits going well and "inspectors" being pleased with them. This has probably always gone on but as more and more people begin home education it becomes more worrying that they are accepting the LA on it's own ultra vires terms. Those of us who faught Badman and Balls tooth and nail for our civil liberties and freedom to educate as we see fit know the danger of this but they cannot begin to imagine how vile were the ambitions of that malevolent pair.

One of the submissions to the select committee stood out for me as a very good explanation of the law around home education, which thank goodness did not change, so I am posting it here together with a link to all the submissions just in case anyone wants to follow me down memory lane or learn for the first time what the LA's really think of us and want from us.

You ar

Memorandum submitted by Sarita Goacher

I am a home educating mother of a child aged 6. We have been home educating for two and a half years (if you do not count all the time she spent with us from birth to 5 years).

I am writing to express my deep concerns about the Review into Elective Home Education. No doubt you will read and hear submissions about the following areas regarding the review from many home educators and experts:

1. The harassment of home educators after issuing 4 consultations in 4 years, all with the same outcome (existing guidelines and laws are sufficient) except for this review.

2. The way in which the review was launched amid claims in the press about home educators and child abuse.

3. The person conducting the review and his lack of impartiality or independence given the long string of state-sponsored education credentials he possesses and the lack of understanding he has shown throughout the review of home education.

4. The use of questions for the Local Authorities that were ultra vires and against DCSF guidelines for elective home education, thus skewing any results that could be obtained from such a questionnaire.

5. The fact that despite even though there was no evidence that home education has been used as a cover for abuse or neglect, that the few high profile cases that have been mentioned by Ed Balls have been shown not to have occurred as a result of home education, the recommendations are highly disproportionate and offensive to civil liberties.

6. Lack of meaningful and statistically-significant evidence contained within the report to back up his claims and heavy-handed recommendations, thus it has been impossible to see how the author reached his recommendations.

7. Home education experts testimony and responses were ignored or misinterpreted, including academically rigorous research.

8. Expert Panel for the review consisted of only one expert who showed an understanding of home education. No home educators or home education 'experts' were on the panel. Panellists also included close friends of the author.

9. No data was published with the report - hundreds of FOIs have had to be issued just in order to investigate how the author arrived at assertions made in section 8.12 of the review report. It is unacceptable that these FOIs have been largely unanswered, almost three months since the requests were made.

10. The Literature Review fails to show any reading of research produced in the USA - where over 1 million children are home educated, or in fact any books or research papers at all that any person investigating home education would normally read.

11. The recommendations include criminalising any form of education that is not school at home (goals, targets, tests) and suggests using the force of law to allow children to be interrogated alone without a parent or other trusted adult present. Any child protection training discourages leaving an adult alone with a child. Who would want to be alone with a child, except for a paedophile?

12. The recommendations are highly disproportionate relative to the actual evidence and problems presented.

13. The recommendations are discriminatory in that they fail to acknowledge any alternative methods of education other than forced, institutionalised learning.

14. The author and some of the panellists stand to gain financially from his recommendations, for instance the author is Chair of BECTA. There is a clear conflict of interest here.

15. Failure to include any evidence/summary from the public questionnaire which received over 2,000 responses.

16. The DCSF has been shown to be obstructive in providing any information that shows how the author arrived at his conclusions. This has included smearing the good name of home educators to the Information Commissioner if only for him to uphold their decision not to release the information needed in order to genuinely scrutinise the review report.

17. The DCSF has refused to answer to taxpayers who are demanding to know how much the review has cost them.

18. The DCSF has claimed the home educators are trying to harass and vilify the author of the report, yet no evidence of this 'harassment' has been supplied. Instead the DCSF has eluded to personal blogs, that question the author's credentials, statistics and motives. Surely the freedom of information ifs not dependent on the loss of freedom of speech?

19. The fact that the author only this week has called LAs to provide more 'evidence' to substantiate his claims. If his report findings were robust he shouldn't need to ask for more evidence retrospectively. In fact, this makes the report null and void.

20. The author's latest call for evidence suggests that his figures will be doctored to suit the political agenda, since the questions yet again are highly ultra vires and show a complete lack of understanding for existing law.

However, I will not be covering these issues and will instead be concentrating on the issues of assessments that should have been included in the report but weren't. The author states that he is "not persuaded that under the current regulatory regimes that there is a correct balance between the rights of the parents and the rights of the child either to an appropriate education or to be safe from harm." Yet, he fails to provide any evidence of this lack of balance, by not assessing the current legal framework. There is a systematic failure to address existing laws and guidelines and whether they are being adhered to, failure to understand home education and how it works, a failure to understand how these two shortcomings are endemic within LAs and how it affects relationships with home educators. The lack of any study of existing law and guidelines completely undermines the entire report as there is no factual indication whether change in fact is needed.

I find it unacceptable that a government of a free nation can use one very questionable report to rush through primary legislative change without scrutiny, and ignoring all other consultations deeming any change unnecessary.

I find it unacceptable that a government can use the recommendations of the same report in a draft legislative bill prior to collecting responses from any public consultation regarding the recommendations.

I find it wholly unacceptable that all this has been done without any regulatory impact or cost assessment.

I find it beyond contempt that the media have been used to downplay, hide and even distort the true contents of the report in order to gain public approval for a situation that has not been proven to exist.

Please find attached my submission with the hope that the committee will see this report and the actions of the DCSF for what they are and will call a halt to any consultation or legislative change that is taking place as a result.

1. Introduction:

1.1. The Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England has been not only lacking in academic rigour, very misrepresentative, highly prejudicial and discriminatory and severely lacking in hard evidence but it also fails to tackle what most would consider to be a fundamental part of any review: providing a full appraisal of existing laws and guidelines and whether these are fit for purpose. One cannot begin to introduce new recommendations without a proper, unbiased and comprehensive investigation of the current situation. This report is unacceptably deficient and this submission aims to highlight the different areas where it is felt this has occurred:

- there is a failure to understand existing laws and guidelines.

- there is a failure to independently appraise the existing situation at ground level, within each local authority;

- there is a failure to understand why the home education community are hesitant and wary of engaging with the local authorities;

- there is a failure to properly research examples of good practice in the UK;

- there is a real failure to understand why and how home education actually works;

1.2. All of these shortcomings are underpinned by a failure to properly, respectfully and honestly engage the home education community in a useful and constructive way so as to gain a deeper insight into what is really going on. Home educators have been resourceful and diligent in seeking out the real data, the author would have done well to engage the home education community properly and legitimately in his search fro evidence.

2. Failure to Understand Existing Laws and Guidelines:

2.1. Current law states that parents have a legal duty to ensure that their children receive an efficient, full-time education suitable to the children's age, ability, aptitude and any special needs they may have either by regular attendance at school or otherwise[1].

2.2. This means that even if the parent chooses to delegate their responsibility to the state, he or she is solely responsible and has a legal duty to ensure that their child receives an education that is individually tailored to meet the child's needs. It also means that the parent is not obliged to inform the local authority of their decision to educate otherwise than at school, given that the legal responsibility for education rests with them and not the state.

2.3. It would appear that the author of the Review has either failed to understand, or chosen to ignore, this first and very important piece of primary legislation. Education is the parents' legal duty, therefore to recommend[2] that they have to register annually, seek permission to, and possibly be refused to, because of 'any other concern', undertake their legal duty is an unacceptable breach of civil liberty.

2.4. An efficient education, described by Justice Woolf, "achieves that which it sets out to achieve"[3]

2.5. A suitable education has been defined as one which "primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life within the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child's options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so"3.

2.6. Another Crown Court judgement held that and education was suitable "if, and only if, the education is as such:

o to prepare the child for life in modern civilised society, and

o to enable the child to achieve his full potential."[4]

2.7. These definitions and the use of the word "suitable" in the original legislation serve to ensure that there is freedom in education; it is a safeguard to ensure that education starts with the needs of the child, and acts as a legal method of ensuring that state-sponsored education does not verge on indoctrination. Education is impossible to quantify into a series of targets and tick boxes, every child is unique and learns in his or her own way. Schools are monitored in this way because they have to be accountable given that their responsibility is to educate children on behalf of their parents and at the cost to the taxpayer. Checks and balances are required in order to make the state accountable to its citizens, not the other way around.

2.8. Again, a failure to understand these fundamental principles has led to a recommendation[5] to review the definition of the word "suitable". The author advises that the Every Child Matters outcomes should somehow be incorporated into this definition5. Since when does the state determine outcomes for its private citizens? The outcomes relate to service provision, not a duty to determine and measure outcomes for children. Children, with their parent's help, should be the sole determinants of their desired outcomes.

2.9. Local Authority duties in respect of Elective Home Education are also enshrined in law and are clearly set out in the DCSF document: Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities 20076.

2.10. Section 436a of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to establish as far as they are able to, the identities of those children not receiving a suitable education. In the statutory guidance issued by the DCSF, it states that in order to fulfil this duty and in making enquiries of home educated children, local authorities should adhere to the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines[6]. There is no additional duty to assess the quality of home education.

2.11. S436a only gives LAs the duty to establish identities. Once they have ascertained that a child is being home educated, the enquiries should end there. This new statutory guidance was issued on the same day the Review was launched. Local authorities have not yet had a chance to implement and measure the effectiveness of this new guidance[7].

2.12. Section 437 (1) then gives the local authorities powers to act should it appear to them that a child is not receiving a suitable education. The author of the review asks how this duty can possibly carry out this duty without powers to monitor home education provision and access to the child. Yet he fails to understand that this duty acts in the same way as any child protection law. If there is cause for concern, then the local authorities have the force of law to ensure that the child is not harmed. A local authority cannot randomly knock on people's doors just to check that a child is not being abused. They have to a welfare concern of some kind before instigating enquiries[8]. The same applies for the police - they cannot come into people's home on the off chance that they might have stolen goods - there has to be a report of some kind. So the same applies to children educated at home. This line of argument also leads very dangerously into undermining a fundamental freedom - that of the presumption of innocence. The author of the review is singling out the home education community as being guilty unless proved innocent.

2.13. The DCSF 2007 EHE Guidelines very clearly lays out how local authorities can act within the remit of their legal duties. They state that they can make informal enquiries, but if not satisfied or if they have any evidence that a suitable education (as defined by the parent and child, not the state) is not taking place, then they can ask formally for written evidence within a deadline. They may also instigate visits to offer support and advice, and if they are still not satisfied then local authorities can issue a School Attendance Order ([9]).

2.14. In other words, if LAs have evidence or concerns about the education of any child educated at home, they have sufficient powers to intervene, advise, support, and even to order children back to school. If there are child protection concerns, then the LAs are afforded the same legal recourses and duties that they have for all children with regard to safeguarding and promoting wellbeing: Section 175(1) 2002 Education Act[10]. However the EHE Guidelines make it clear that this section does not extend the LAs' duties by giving them powers to enter peoples' homes to gain access to the child or to assess the quality of the education. It states that this duty has to be enacted within their existing functions, which in this sense means that they have to have cause for concern before enacting their duties - in other words, they have to presume innocence until proven guilty!

2.15. Yet, according to the author, the evidence that he received from local authorities suggests that these laws are insufficient to the task. Did the author present data to show how many LAs were unsatisfied after informal enquiries, after S437 enquires, how many SAOs were issued, how many were upheld? In fact, there is no such data - home educators, after submitting numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from the LAs themselves have ascertained that not only are these existing powers rarely used, but that they are currently using powers that they do not have[11].

3. Failure to Independently Appraise the Existing Situation within each Local Authority:

3.1. Under current guidelines to LAs with regard to home education and how it works, the following is quoted6:

o Relating to the definition of full-time, the DCSF notes that the "measurement of "contact time" is not relevant to elective home education where there is almost continuous one to one contact and education may take place outside normal "school hours""

o Parents are not required to teach the National Curriculum, provide a broad and balanced education, have a timetable, have premises equipped to any particular standard, set hours during which education will take place, have any specific qualifications, make detailed plans in advance, observe school hours, days or terms, give formal lessons, mark work done by their child, formally assess progress or set development objectives, reproduce school type peer group socialisation and match school-based, age-specific standards."

3.2. So did the review seek to use the guidelines as the departure point to see how effectively the LAs were implementing current guidelines and law?

3.3. Calls for Evidence:

o There were three calls for evidence for this review:

o A public consultation of 6 questions open to everyone (over 2000 responses)

o A 60 question request for data to Local Authorities, with a promise of confidentiality (90 out of a possible 150 responses).

o A further in-depth questionnaire to LAs who responded to the previous questionnaire (25 out of the 90 responses).

3.4. The public questionnaire contained questions that were highly ambiguous and facile and referred to whether home-educated children are able to achieve the five ECM outcomes, a framework not applicable to private citizens. There was no means for the responder to assess LA provision of services.

3.5. The questionnaire sent to 150 LAs failed to assess whether LAs have implemented the 2007 Guidelines and how effective the guidelines and law are, but instead focussed on asking questions about actions that are outside of LA duties, that show a miscomprehension of the Guidelines and the nature of home education and have resulted in LAs revealing their current ultra vires actions, including questions such as[12]:

3.6. "Following the initial assessment visit, are further monitoring visits made to a home educated child?" The author fails to understand that assessment visits is an ultra vires action, as are monitoring visits and assessing the child. It is the education provision that should be enquired about (see above laws and guidelines).

3.7. "How is the 'suitability' of the education provided to the child assessed?" Again, it is not the duty of the local authority to assess the education provided unless there is a cause for concern.

3.8. "Does the Local Authority have systems in place to track the educational progress of the home educated child?" The author fails to understand that the local authority is not responsible for ensuring that children receive a suitable education and are therefore not entitled to track educational progress. To do so would involve changing primary legislation and leaving the LAs and government open to liability.

3.9. "...what proportion in your estimation are receiving a suitable, full-time (20 hr a week) education?" The author has failed to read the EHE Guidelines (see above), but also there is no law or duty that stipulates hours of education for home education, because it is not applicable.

3.10. "Does the local authority face any challenges in assessing whether home educated children receive a suitable education?" This question assumes that it is the duty of the LA to do this, yet it is not. The author's inability to understand this principle of Section 7, that the parent is responsible for the education of their child, regardless of where they receive that education, will lead to LAs being sued up and down the country for failing children in school and will lead to more teen suicide and bullying when LAs place home educated children back in school.

3.11. In other questions, the author uses leading and ambiguous language to obtain the information he requires. Furthermore, the extent to which the current laws and guidelines are not understood by many in government is plainly evident from the research conducted by home educators in requesting data individually from LAs on 'Suitable Education'11. It is noteworthy to say that these LAs, since the authors latest call for evidence to support his Select Committee submission (see below), have now been retracting their data from the research!

3.12. In fact, in Kent, the local authority has failed to, even now, implement the 2007 EHE Guidelines. One year after the publication of the guidelines, Kent was still sending out questionnaires asking for parent qualifications, a timetable and a curriculum (all outside of their remit and not applicable to home education). Kent, for the last 3 years, have been undertaking unannounced Educational Welfare visits to home educated families, illegally, as policy and without informing the families that they have a right to decline the visit, even though they have claimed that this was only in few isolated cases. In fact, in reality none of the document has been implemented and they have even halted all formulation of new EHE policy until the outcome of the review.

3.13. There is also plenty of evidence of ultra vires activity and lack of understanding a non-school method that show that Kent isn't alone in failing to understand home education and the law regarding it. The in-depth questionnaire, on which the author bases his recommendations, show the prejudice and lack of training and understanding of home education law. One only has to read through all the LA responses to the review questionnaires to come to the conclusion that they have been acting outside of their remit and have provided data that is questionable[13]. Research conducted by home educators11 has revealed very clearly how LAs have not adhered to current policy.

3.14. The author of the review has now (September 2009) called for further evidence from the LAs to support his findings, after the review report was published and in light of his Select Committee submission. One has to ask why a review that is supposed to be robust in its findings is asking for more evidence after the recommendations have been accepted? Is the data flawed? Why are Local Authorities retracting data from home educator research?

3.15. More worrying are the actual questions being asked in this further, extraordinary call for evidence[14], apart from the fact that home educators have already collated this evidence, the questions are again heavily skewed enough to provide data that is highly contentious. The author asks:

o for the number of families not co-operating with visit requests as part of 'non-suitable' assessment, yet families are not obliged by law to accept visits, therefore this should not count as no provision of suitable education.

o For "number of EHE children not known to be receiving a suitable education" rather than the more appropriate known not to be receiving a suitable education. In this way, the author will be including children who may or may not be receiving a suitable education thus inflating the figures and misrepresenting the actual situation.

o In requesting the number of School Attendance Orders issued, the LAs will no doubt be answering to calls for why they haven't effectuated their duties, if they have so many "concerns".

o The author further asks for numbers of NEETS. This is extremely hard to assess within the home education community, as children may just be taking time out to help with the family, to learn a new skill, to research an area of interest - all definitions of being a NEET but not necessarily in the sense that is measured by government. Without any place for comments or understanding of the reasons why young adults are not in employment, formal education or training, the author will again be skewing the results of this further call for evidence.

3.16. These questions will again provide highly ambiguous, misrepresentative and hence unusable data. Is the author trying to make the data fit the desired outcomes?

4. Failure to Understand why the Home Education Community are Hesitant and Wary of Engagement with Local Authorities:

4.1. Home educators have been responding to DCSF consultations for many years. Each time, the same answers are given - that of the ultra vires actions of the LAs, that home education cannot be measured like school education, that the fact that it is child-led means that there can never be a uniform set of criteria on which education can be judged. The ultra vires actions of the local authorities and the lack of understanding of any model of education outside of the school model have made it very difficult for the home education community to trust LAs.

4.2. Families who have never sent their children to school fear the consequences if they engage with the local authority. The author of the review does little to address this fear and its origins, instead concentrating on vilifying families for not engaging. At no point has there been an assessment to ascertain what are the real practices of the LAs. Moreover, in making his recommendations, in the tone of the his report, in the hasty acceptance of the report by the Secretary of State, more and more home educating families are ceasing to engage with their LAs, even where these relationships were good, for fear of having their children sent back to school or wrongly accused of being of 'concern'.

4.3. Over the years, home educators have tried to forge good working relationships with their local authorities and have together formulated local policy. This has led to a host of services provided by the local authority but also a higher incidence of engagement with the LA. There are also no instances of ultra vires actions by the local authority because they understand their duties form a home education perspective as well as a legal perspective. There are examples of good practice, but these were not case studied in the review report.

5. Failure to Properly Research Examples of Good Practice in the UK

5.1. Milton Keynes Council have a 'best practice' reputation amongst home educators. LA officers and home educators meet twice a year to develop policy, discuss ideas, provide support and advice. However, Milton Keynes was missing from the list of consultees to the review[15]. In fact, some of the councils that appear on the list are known for their ultra vires actions (see previous research T. Berlow/Ahed).

6. Failure to Understand Why and How Home Education Actually Works

6.1. Another aspect of the review that seems severely lacking is in understanding how home education works. The credentials of the author of the review show that he has spent his entire career in the state education system or monitoring for it. He knows no other model of education. Although he met with respected researchers in the area of home education, he failed to understand what they were trying to tell him. We know that at least two consultees speaking in favour of home education have refused to sign off notes from the DCSF because they felt that they were either wrong or misrepresentative.

6.2. The author, in recommending a system of registration, monitoring, plans, goals and targets that criminalises anyone who does not follow this regime, he has in effect outlawed many other forms of educational pedagogy. This report is also an attack on alternative methods of education.

6.3. The author negates any value in both educational methods surrounding autonomous learning (has he not heard of Montessori and the fact that DCSF has already implemented her methods in four state-run schools?) and any research that robustly and rigorously shows that home educated children outperform their school peers. In fact, all the research has been dismissed, in favour of questionable and outdated research[16]. The Literature Review for the report is notable by its absence of key works by noted authors on how home education works, which every parent and LA official should read. One has to wonder whether the author read 'the required reading list' before embarking on this task.

6.4. How could the author ignore this evidence and conclude that how families home educate is outside of the scope of the review? It is exactly this lack of understanding that has led to families being extremely mistrustful of LAs and the DCSF.

7. Conclusion:

7.1. Graham Badman has failed to undertake a proper review of home education in England. Instead he has pandered to a political agenda that calls for more government regulation and more powers over its citizens. This review is impartial and lacking in any statistical rigour given that the original Terms of Reference and calls for evidence go beyond the existing duties of both central and local government.

7.2. It is clear that all subsequent actions and legislation that are being pursued because of this faulty report should be halted immediately until all LAs have implemented and have adhered to the current guidelines. Then, and only then, should a review be undertaken to assess whether any change is necessary.

September 2009

[1] Section 7 of the Education Act 1996

[2] p.9, Recommendation 1, Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of elective Home Education in England, Graham Badman, 11 June 2009.

[3] Mr. Justice Woolf in the case of R Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust (12 April 1985)

[4] Worcester Crown Court in Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson (1981)

[5] p.10, Recommendation 2, Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of elective Home Education in England, Graham Badman, 11 June 2009.

6 2007 Elective Home Education - Guidelines for Local Authrorities, DCSF.

[7] http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/resources-and-practice/IG00202/

[8] Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890041_en_7

[9] Section 437 (3) of the 1996 Education Act

[10] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020032_en_15

[11] Suitable Education Statistics - Ahed; T. Berlow, 2009. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao_d0FTV62i4dHR3aDZLV1YzZXhYWE5PbHNJd0hJT0E&hl=en

[12] Annex D, Questionnaire to Local Authorities, Report to the Secretary of State on the Review into Elective Home Education in England, 2009.

[13] See Freedom of Information requests for access to individual responses - www.whatdotheyknow.com or the DCSF.

[14] EHE Review - Request for Supplementary Data - 2009,http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/publications/documents/laeelectivehomeeducation/

[15] List of Consultees, Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of elective Home Education in England, Graham Badman, 11 June 2009.

[16] See FOI request for Literature Review.

New to Home Education?

2011-10-12T21:18:00.000+01:00

Some thoughts on accepting visits from your local authority here.

Possible good news for those who want access to exams.

2011-09-08T13:53:00.000+01:00

Graham Stuart has chosen to communicate the result of the latest APPG on Home Education via ex EO trustee Fiona Nicholson at he site Ed Yourself.

Meanwhile there is no news of anything being done about the appalling tactics of LA's who misrepresent the law, such as Lancashire LA who seem to have been up to some very dodgy dealings.

Here is a quote from Lancashire Home Education, a site created by Local home edders.

"Our Formal Complaint

The EHE team were first notified of the audit in March 2010, it began in May and the Final Report was published in December. During this time we submitted our formal complaint about the EHE department, primarily concerning its procedures. The IAS were not made aware of our complaint and there is no mention of the audit in either the LA's complaint paperwork or the Panel's report. The LA has wasted a lot of time and money by not informing ourselves and the complaints panel that they had already agreed with the IAS to review their procedures to reflect the DfE EHE Guidelines.

We were never given a reason why our complaint was not entered into the official system until our third attempt on 15th December, after the audit was out of the way."

You can read the rest by clicking on the name.

The LTTL Conference

2011-06-15T17:16:00.001+01:00

Would have loved to go to this conference but sadly not well enough yet.

Second best is reading blogs from those who did:

Outside the box

Uncaged family.

Will add more as I find them.

More Blogs re Rubbish Guidelines

2011-06-14T12:15:00.000+01:00

Lou and Tech have their say.

Potential New Home Ed Guidelines

2011-06-10T15:56:00.001+01:00

Just want to express my disgust at this document. What sort of an ego does a person have to have to consider themselves able to take on a role despite many protests that has the potential to affect so many families.

The dangers are very well expressed here. And a far superior outcome has been achieved in negotiation with Surrey LA here.

And to end on a pleasanter note a lovely post about unschooling here.

BADMAN review used by current government

2011-03-29T11:41:00.001+01:00

Changes To The Pupil Registration Regulations And School Attendance Codes

Hi, please share with other home educators and groups. It appears elective home educators were not to be included in the preliminary enquiries about changes before a consultation as replies were supposed to be in by 21st March. There is a link to the original letter at the bottom of this page. Please also note that this document also refers to draft guidance for local authorities which is missing from this letter. Obviously elective home educators and groups should have been asked for comment. We also need to see the draft guidance for local authorities BEFORE a consultation so we can comment. Copied here……
From Organisedpauper.

Parents deciding to Home Educate – Graham Badman's report on his Review of Elective Home Education in England, published in June 2009, recommended that when parents are thinking of deregistering their child from school to home educate, schools should retain such pupils on roll for a period of 20 school days so that should the parents change their minds, the child could be readmitted to the school. This period would also allow for the resolution of such difficulties that may have prompted the decision to remove the child from school. This recommendation was supported by the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee Report on Home Education published in December 2009.

We propose to add a regulation so that where a parent has de-registered their child from school to home educate them, the school will retain the child on the admissions register for a period of 20 school days. To ensure that the school’s absence statistics are not affected by this we propose to change the definition of the absence code Z so that schools may use it to mark the register over the 20 day period (Code Z is currently used as an administrative tool that allows schools to put new pupils on the Admissions Register in advance of them starting at the school, rather than having the burden of putting them all on at the same time, and not have to mark them as absent in the register).

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets...%20handout.pdf

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schooladmin/ims/a0074154/data-collection-sub-ices-dcsi-conferences-march-2011

More on American schools

2011-02-24T10:25:00.000Z

We already have parents in prison because school is so unattractive to their children that they won't go and parents who are told they are not allowed to take their own children away during term time, unless you home educate it looks to me like you have sold your soul to the state in taking advantage of free schooling! THis video rings very true to me.

Are we heading this way?

2011-02-23T13:52:00.000Z

I am so tired at the moment and sleeping so much in the afternoon that despite promises to the contrary I don't have the oomph to blog much.

Added to that the depression at so many Local Authorities acting outside their legal duties and so many tales of what amounts to abuse and neglect on the part of the NHS on the lists I belong to, something that resonates all too clearly in my own life, I do not feel I have anything useful to offer.

However this so shocked me that I had to share it.

'Fourth, such policies criminalize childish, otherwise innocent behavior and in many cases create a permanent record that will haunt that child into adulthood. Moreover, by involving the police in incidents that should never leave the environs of the school, it turns the schools into little more than a police state. For example, 9-year-old Michael Parson was suspended from school for a day and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after mentioning to a classmate his intent to “shoot” a fellow classmate with a wad of paper. Despite the fact that the “weapon” considered suspect consisted of a wadded-up piece of moistened paper and a rubber band with which to launch it, district officials notified local police, suspended Michael under the school’s zero tolerance policy, and required him to undergo a psychological evaluation before returning to class. Incredibly, local police also went to Michael’s home after midnight in order to question the fourth grader about the so-called “shooting” incident.'

Link here.

Is so then surely we will have uprising here as well!

New Year New Decade but Same Old Same Old Response to Home Educators

2011-01-17T16:21:00.007Z

Wow it is months since I blogged; this is always the most demanding time of year for me and the one where I get the least done. Let's hope the season is beginning to shift and I will actually get round to some of the blog posts I think I should make.

One issue that has been distressing me has been the constant stories of Local Authorities totally overstepping the mark and demanding to inspect and monitor home educators for educational and even explicitly welfare purposes. Suffolk LA was a shiningly shocking recent example of this but many others have been playing the same game. Too many for it to be coincidence to my mind. Is Graham Stuart being duped by his own party?

He has asked us to send examples and stories of LAs overstepping the mark to Nick Gibb Minister for Schools (not an ideal title from our perspective), so that he can get a picture of what is going on, presumably in order to remedy it.

I wonder if he knows that Civil Servants are sending home educators who do this replies that nauseatingly echo the ballsian hypocracy of the previous government.

I have been kindly allowed to copy a recent example regarding Suffolk Council here, name and date removed of course:

Dear Mr and Mrs XXXXXX,

Thank you for your email, dated XXXXXXX, addressed to the Minister of State for Schools Nick Gibb, about Home Education and Suffolk County Council. As you will appreciate, Ministers receive a large amount of correspondence and they are unable to respond personally to all emails and letters. I am responding as I have responsibility for home education.

Thank you for taking the time to forward your concerns which have been noted by my team responsible for home education. The Government respects the right of parents to educate their children at home, and recognise that most home educating parents do a very good job, some of them picking up the pieces where children have had problems at school.

Ministers are still considering in detail the policy for home education and whether any changes need to be made to the existing arrangements.Ministers are aware of the strong views expressed by both home educators and local authorities and will take these into account in considering what, if any, changes need to be made, in due course.'

Local authorities have a general duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area. They also have a duty to intervene where they have concerns about the education or safety and welfare of a child in their area. Whilst I note your concerns about the way in which Suffolk County Council are fulfilling their duties, this is a matter for the County Council and in the first instance should take any matters up with the County Council through their complaints procedure so that matters can be resolved locally.

I do hope this is helpful.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Lisa White

Independent Education, ISPS; School Governance

www.education.gov.uk

This looks like an abandonment of central government responsibility and permission for Local Authorities to do whatever they want. Is this what Graham Stuart expected when he made a recommendation for us to contact Nick Gibb? I hardly think so!

Suffolk have thank goodness retracted their threat of welfare visits to all home educators that they have not visited. I think the deluge of objections probably surprised and overwhelmed them but I would love to see this level of protest and objection arising from every transgression however trivial. Where such bullying and ignorance is concerned the saying “give them an inch and they will take a mile” is very pertinent and as they communicate no doubt like we do I think we need to put out every little spark of misinformation at first awareness. Wouldn’t it be satisfying (and much safer for children and families) if when discussing a possible ultra vires policy with a colleague they received the response ‘oh don’t do that, it is bound to cause trouble, it just isn’t worth the hassle’!

Stories are being collected by AHED and The Art of Survival and the more people who record and submit their experience the more evidence we will have to support our claims. This will help us build a case in the present and be a resource if more trouble arises.

I think that it is a very important exercise for every home educator who has experienced illegal demands, lies and threats to take part in. I very much hope the Badman years are over but “prepare for the worst while hoping for the best” seems excellent advice for us right now!

Are you home educating, privately fostering, disabled, according to the Metropolitan Police Service these are potentially vulnerable situations and they will be on alert for signs of abuse!

2010-11-09T14:50:00.003Z

The absence of a child from a conventional school environment where staff are routinely trained in safeguarding responsibilities can in some circumstances lead to that child being in a more vulnerable situation and at a higher risk of neglect or abuse.

Oh really, evidence please. Have they been nobbled by the NSPCC maybe?

Guess what, they don't have any, they are going on a few high profile cases in the media, which as we know were exploited for political purposes and nothing to do with home education. Oh and lets lump in disability and private fostering too, everybody knows children in these situations sometimes are victims of abuse don't they. Unlike children in schools and state care, so safe they are.

As Ali says So no Equalities Impact Assessment, no proper definitions, no evidence base, no justification = prejudice.

Nice to know our police force are so ethical. Not!

Freedom of Information Request re Metropolitan Police Child Risk Assessment Matrix.

Update from Alison at Home Education Forums.

What Grit has to say.

Just in case you hadn't met her

2010-11-08T15:50:00.000Z

I thought it worth linking to Grit, now being gritty in Hong Kong and losing none of that humorous punch!

Thanks to Elaine for the heads up on this, and on Home Ed Forums you will find updates on what is known on the current Home Ed political manoeuvring situation, what goes on behind closed doors we can only guess at but Graham Stuart occasionally updates us on his perspective here.

A Home Ed Blog to watch

2010-10-29T12:59:00.000+01:00

Here at Learning Liberty is the latest on the Governments mistaken attempts to interfere in family life!

2010-10-23T16:07:00.002+01:00

What are the Elective Home Education Departments of English and Welsh Local Authorities Up To?

2010-10-20T08:30:00.006+01:00

A little late in the day for this as I have been distracted but it seems that the Local Authority Home Education Departments have had some sort of government directive and are sending blanket letters and questionnaires to known Home Educators in their area.

At the same time there is much noise and confusion on the lists (a phrase borrowed from a fellow home educator who shall remain nameless) about secret meetings with home educators who may or may not have the interest of all home educators at heart or just their own livelihood or the soothing of unexamined fears.

These talks seem likely to include Graham Stuart, who may or may not have our best interests at heart but has obviously learned nothing from the parliamentary petition secret committee debacle if he ever noticed it in the first place, just see if you can find the petition blogged by any of the avidly active HE political bloggers in a positive light.

As anyone who reads this blog even occasionally will know I have no time for interference in private family life by officials, local or otherwise, and I mean to walk the talk and to some extent already am.

Here Lou takes action on the ground, click the text to go to her blog and read more.

FAO: Mr. John Heath,

(Principal Education Welfare Officer),

Cornwall Council,

County Hall,

Treyew Road,

Truro,

Cornwall,

TR1 3AY. 24^th

September,2009.

jheath@cornwall.gov.uk

Dear Mr. Heath,

As a home educating parent in North Cornwall area, I wish to complain specifically about the behaviour of your EHE Co-ordinator for North Cornwall and more generally regarding Cornwall Councils approach toward home educating families.

The Cornwall Council Information for Elective Home Educators website states that;

“No visit will take place unless you have agreed to one and an appointment has been made”.

Update:

It seems that some home edders have been contacted by services such as the school nurse offering services and assurance that no snooping is going on, so I think that this is another facet of the questionnaires and letters being sent with blanket coverage to all known home edders by some LA's and there is Graham Stuart in secret talks re new guidelines with some "unnamed" home edders, causing a lot of fuss on the lists as most will know, and now home edders being assured that services are just as available to them as any other child.

Hysterically funny and stupid, all done in secret and all causing distress, paranoia and consternation, lol,and rightly so , why not just tell us?

Anyone got a better explanation?

My Bambi

2010-10-17T17:51:00.002+01:00

My Bambi, originally uploaded by maire52.

Wrong blog don't care, this is mine, Barclays hurry up with the transfer, I want it now!

And here she is home.

Great New Blog

2010-10-07T09:11:00.003+01:00

from Peter and Carol, long time home educators who insist on the freedom to choose their child's education.

Leicestershire County Council are they abusing some of the families and children they owe a duty of care to?

2010-10-04T00:24:00.000+01:00

I think the my LA is gatekeeping and rationing resources it should be provided to a child with life threatening medical issues who had been assaulted by fellow pupils. The school have refused any responsibility as it took place outside the school gate. The police have decided they have no role as although the result was “criminal”? assault the child may have also done something, not clear what to the other child, my understanding is that the other child was unhurt.

So I think the story is: child out of school, traumatised, unwilling leave the house for some time. Some help is being offered for problems but I suspect it is inappropriate to the point of making matters worse due to a poor grasp of the cause of the problem. I am telling you this just having other agencies involved might be significant.

To my limited understanding the parent is actually carrying out their section 7 duty when they refuse to send their child to a school they feel is too far away given their child's medical issues. I also think that the child's mental state may make attending any school difficult for a while.

The parent is being told by an Education Welfare Officer that as they are refusing this school there is nothing more the local authority can do and their only option is home education!

This seems an example of off rolling but am I right that it is entirely due to the LA being negligent of its duty of care to this family?

This is my suspicion and what I have been trying to find out by searching for Leicestershire’s policy document on children to ill to attend school is whether that is right.

I have ascertained that the parent does not really want ot home educate and my understanding is that the Local Authority still has a duty in this case.

My best guess is that the most appropriate way of meeting its obligations would be to provide the child with at home tuition.

My sister’s child has had this for three years due to ME but she had to fight to get it I think, although she has had to fight for so many vital services and modifications that I am not sure if I am right.

This parent, whom I have only spoken to over the phone and via email, is unlikely to have my sister’s experience, education or resources, and may very well be in a vulnerable position.

I have offered to support her in my very new role as home education contact for my area. I am aware of the irony of my first case being supporting someone who needs to not be coerced into home education!

Problems with Safeguarding - Rawlins Community College Quorn Leicestershire

2010-10-03T14:36:00.002+01:00

Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy 2010-11
Rawlins is
• An inspirational centre of learning where all excel
• A safe, healthy and fulfilling place to work and learn
• A respectful and successful community to which all are proud to belong
Effective safeguarding procedures which are understood and implemented by all staff are essential
if Rawlins is to be a safe, healthy and fulfilling place to work and learn.

post under construction

http://www.rawlinscollege.org.uk/files/policies/COMPLAINTSPOLICY.pdf

And I have no clue what 'policy test' might mean and haven't the faintest clue but it is on the list, but so so way down.

http://elearning.rawlinscollege.org.uk/course/view.php?id=906&edit=0&sesskey=1GW3qmJSCb

Can Comet Help, no, why on earth do they offer to?

2010-10-02T16:59:00.002+01:00

Denver, come back, you promised me so much, and now you cannot even hear me!

Can you see this

You: denver I don't know what has happened to Kayleigh but my bath is going cold so i need to know am i wasting my time looking at ablank text box waiting for an answer

You: helo denver are you there

You: Ok I will post this conversation to Comets managing director when i find the address

You: is this all i can do

You: are you actually going to help me

I honestly do not know!

Can Comet Help

2010-10-02T16:03:00.001+01:00

Welcome to Comet's free chat service to assist you through the checkout pages.
Your estimated wait time is 0 mins and 8 seconds.

My name is Denver, can I take your name to make this session more interactive?

You: hi wanting to by as samsung tv package

You: Package for SAMSUNG LE40C750 (x1) £899.98 Package consists of: SAMSUNG LE40C750 SAMSUNG BD-C5900/XEU Total (excluding delivery)

You: can i buy this anywhere at the moment

Denver: Please wait a moment.

You: ok

Denver: Are you looking for home delivery or store collection?

You: I am looking at both

Denver: Can I have your postcode please?

You: le11 3sy but we can travel

Denver: Please wait a moment.

You: ok

Denver: I see that this item is available for collection in Tamworth store.

Denver: The store address would be :

Denver: Unit 3 Ventura Retail Park

Denver: Bitterscote

Denver: Tamworth

Denver: B78 3HD

Denver: Are you comfortable in collecting from it?

You: I think so

You: but my husband has just said it might be available in arnold

Denver: Please reserve the item online using the postcode B78 3HD

Denver: On reserving it online, the item would be ready for store collection within 30 mins and you need to collect it within the store closing hours in the following day.

You: we have reserved on line at leicester st george and it let us reserve and sent me a confirmation but it turns out the store does not exits so i am not sure that the websites are correct

Denver: If you were able to reserve an item online and able to get the reservation reference number, that itself is a guarantee that it will be reserved for you until the store closing hours in the following day.

You: the store is not open or active, I reserved and got confirmation unless I am confused, is the leicester St George branch open?

Denver: I see that this branch is CLOSED FOR RE-FIT WILL RE-OPEN IN OCT 2010. It would be probably best that you call our customer care at 0844 800 95 95 and they would be able to confirm you in this.

You: I do not want to call anyone.

You: I thought comet said you could help

Denver: I am transferring you through another department, please bear with them while they review the conversation so far to assist you further.

Please wait while I transfer the chat to Kayleigh.

My name is Kayleigh, can I take your name to make this session more interactive?

Kayleigh: Welcome to Comet’s Dedicated Chat Enquiry Service. My name is Kayleigh. May I take your name please?

You: ok

You: why

Kayleigh: How can I help?

You: can you read the previous conversation please because i have explained

Kayleigh: I have read through the above conversation, yes. Do you want me to check if the Leicester store is open?

You: I think if you read again that denver says it is

You: closed

Kayleigh: I can see that, but our reservation system has not been letting reservations go through for that store while it has been closed and if you say that you have done so, it may either be an error with the web in the order processing or it will be an error on the store list and may now have re-opened

You: CLICK AND COLLECT CONFIRMATION YOUR RESERVATION NUMBER: 322579178 Dear Mr Bruce Stafford Thank you for choosing to click and collect with Comet. We are happy to confirm that your reservation is being held for you at our LEICESTER ST GEORGES (NEW) store. Your Order 674931 Package for SAMSUNG LE40C750 (1) £899.98 631337 SAMSUNG LE40C750 (1) £899.98 669059 SAMSUNG BD-C5900/XEU (1) £0.00 611611 GOODMANS LD2410D (1) £189.99 Total £1089.97 Please bring this reservation number with you when you collect and pay for your product. Your reservation will be ready for collection after 30 minutes of receiving this e-mail and will be reserved in-store up until closing time Sunday 03 October 2010. On arriving at the store please go to the Click and Collect Collection Point located in the cash desk area where we will be pleased to process your order. For your information the address and opening hours of your chosen store is - LEICESTER ST GEORGES (NEW) UNIT 3 ST GEORGES RETAIL PARK ST GEORGES WAY LEICESTER View a map and find directions to this store Opening times on Saturday 02 October 2010 are 09:00 - 18:00. Opening times on Sunday 03 October 2010 are 10:30 - 16:30. Should you require any further information, please contact us using one of the methods outlined below. Further Contact Details General help & information : http://www.comet.co.uk/services Frequently asked questions (FAQs) : http://comet.custhelp.com Telephone: 0844 800 9595 Thank you for shopping at Comet. Comet Direct http://www.comet.co.uk Comet Direct is a trading name of Comet Group plc, George House, George Street, Hull, HU1 3AU REGISTERED NUMBER 278576 ENGLAND No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3170 - Release Date: 10/01/10 19

You: what is it?

You: Are you still there

You: hello

You: Can you see this

THE EQUALITIES ACT - WILL THE DISABLED HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ITS INFORMATION?

2010-10-01T19:42:00.000+01:00

My problem, their problem, disability, stupidity, incompetence, Ballsian Delusion, or not a problem?

I want to see the equalities act

I click on the gov page that google finds which says Equalities Act

Wait what it this it is not the equalities act

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx

It is a lot of random funny coloured tiny tiny words.

Is it really the equalities act and I am mistaken in what I was expecting?

Am I not looking properly and so seeing what is not there?

Am I seeing more than actually is there?

I need to look more closely.

To be honest it doesn’t make much sense and there doesn’t seem to be a link labelled the Equalities Act

Wait a minute, peer closer

Code of practice

That sound familiar, is it a useful tool, or did it turn out to be full of bullshit no one but the naive and honest expected any one to take any notice anyway?

Oh well, nothing to lose I’ll click on the link

Codes of Practice on the Equality Act 2010.

Wait a minute that isn’t a document

Have I done something wrong, did I click the wrong link?

I usually do, so it is the best fit explanation

I will go back and click the link again and check

Codes of Practice on the Equality Act 2010.

No it is the same place, look at it more closely

Hmmm Codes not code

That might be why, I wonder how many codes an act can have?

I would never have considered it might have more than one.

Ok is everything on this page a code of practice?

Let’s look again.

Ok it is looking like I may have no idea what a code of practice is!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cr=countryUK|countryGB&rlz=1C1SKPC_enGB352GB352&qscrl=1&tbs=ctr:countryUK|countryGB&defl=en&q=define:code+of+practice&sa=X&ei=Ux6mTP-UOMaEOpyC5akC&ved=0CCsQkAE

Ah may be I both make things more complicated that they are and expect them to be simpler than they are.

I expect them to be what they say they are.

But is this a code of practice?

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/home/legal-and-policy/equality-act/equality-bill-timeline/

it is on the code of practice page but it doesn’t feel like it could be a code of practice.

Need a couple of hours nap, back later! Zonk!!!!

2010-09-24T18:30:00.000+01:00

Policy for Children with Medical Needs in Schools

DRAFT

April 2010

Leicestershire County Council

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 states that “each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless arrangements are made for them.”

1.2 It is expected that education for pupils who are unable to attend school because of medical needs can be provided for in a variety of ways. This can include the use of an integrated hospital/home tuition service.

1.3 Such a service is provided by the Children’s Hospital School (CHS) based at Leicester Royal Infirmary. The authority has made use of this service for many years. Recent inspection evidence points to high quality provision by CHS.

This hospital school provides outstanding quality of education and care. Key to it all

is the tremendous teaching that is evident in all classes. The support that pupils

receive from the teachers and the teaching assistants is second to none. As a result,

pupils are able to achieve their best both personally and academically. Pupils'

achievement is outstanding in recovering from ill-health, developing social skills and

learning skills in a new environment and then reintegrating back into their home

school. It is an excellent accomplishment. (Ofsted Inspection Report, June 2008)

2. DCSF Guidance: “ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH MEDICAL NEEDS”

2.1 “Access to Education for children and young people with Medical Needs” DfES 2001[1] sets out the guidance to be followed by local authorities in meeting their statutory obligations. The guidance applies equally to all children and young people unable to attend school because of medical needs, both those who are physically ill or injured and those with medical problems. Local authorities are expected to show particular care to ensure that there is adequate provision for pupils suffering from mental illness such as anxiety, depression and/or school phobia including separation anxiety and school refusal associated with depression.

2.2 Whilst the majority of pregnant schoolgirls and young mothers have their educational needs met by their mainstream school, a minority may require special provision to meet health, social or emotional needs. Such provision is not the subject of this policy, and is not made by CHS.

2.3 The Guidance sets out Local Authority’s responsibilities as follows:

LEAs’ responsibilities towards pupils who are unable to attend school because of their

medical needs should ensure that:

• Pupils are not at home without access to education for more than 15 working days.

• Pupils who have an illness/diagnosis which indicates prolonged or recurring periods of absence from school, whether at home or in hospital, have access to education, so far as possible, from day one.

• Pupils receive an education of similar quality to that available in school, including a broad and balanced curriculum.

• Pupils educated at home receive a minimum entitlement of 5 hours teaching per week This is a minimum and should be increased where that is necessary to enable a pupil to keep up with their studies. This is particularly important when a pupil is approaching public examinations.

Whether the child or young person is able to access this entitlement will depend on medical advice, and perhaps more importantly, when they feel able to cope with it. The right balance must be struck between encouraging pupils to study and recognising when they are not well enough to benefit from teaching. This must be kept under regular review. (DfES 0732/2001, page 8)

2.4 School’s responsibilities are similarly laid out:

Schools should:

• Have a policy and a named person responsible for dealing with pupils who are unable to attend school because of medical needs.

• Notify the LEA/EWO if a pupil is, or is likely to be, away from school due to medical needs for more than 15 working days.

• Supply the appropriate education provider with information about a pupil’s capabilities, educational progress, and programmes of work.

• Be active in the monitoring of progress and in the reintegration into school, liaising with other agencies, as necessary.

• Ensure that pupils who are unable to attend school because of medical needs are kept informed about school social events, are able to participate, for example, in homework clubs, study support and other activities.

• Encourage and facilitate liaison with peers, for example, through visits and videos.

(DfES 0732/2001, page 8)

2.5 The requirements of school policies in this area are also laid out:

• The school’s responsibility to monitor pupil attendance and to mark registers so that they show if a pupil is, or ought to be, receiving education otherwise than at school.

• Management structures and staff responsibilities.

• Strategies for ensuring support in cases of long-term absence, including the provision of assessment and curriculum plans within 5 working days and work programmes on a termly basis.

• A named contact within the school to aid communication with other parties, to attend reviews, and to facilitate communication generally between the pupil and the school.

• The provision of work and materials for pupils who are absent from school because of medical needs.

• Procedures for ensuring that pupils who are unable to attend school because of medical needs have access to public examinations, possibly as external candidates.

• Procedures for ensuring that pupils are reintegrated smoothly into the school.

• Issues related to pupils with statements of special educational needs.

• How the school’s procedures will take account of the pupil’s views.

(DfES 0732/2001, page 11)

3. CRITERIA FOR REFERRAL

3.1 Leicestershire’s policy is to support Leicestershire children and young people with medical needs who cannot attend school through the City Hospital School.

The aim of the Children’s Hospital School Service is to support the educational progress of pupils, who are temporarily unable to attend mainstream school on a full-time basis. Services are provided in three ways: to in-patients on wards, through a hospital day school, and through home-tuition. Pupils will at all times remain the responsibility of the school at which they are registered.

3.2 All children who are hospital in-patients will receive support from the Children’s Hospital School as set out in section 5.

3.3 Support for other children and young people with medical needs will be delivered through a tiered approach as set out below and referrals to the Children’s Hospital School will follow the pathway described.

3.3.1 Most cases of medical need will be dealt with by the school. The school will liaise with the family of a pupil who is not attending for medical reasons and ensure that the child or young person is able to maintain progress by setting appropriate work and giving appropriate feedback and support. The school will offer this level of support to their pupils where the absence is anticipated to last for no longer than 3 school weeks[2]. Schools are also expected to make reasonable adjustments to a pupil’s time-table and to offer part-time education for a limited period to help the pupil maintain access to education.

3.3.2   Where a school is encountering difficulty in maintaining effective liaison with a pupil, or progress is poor, the LA will offer support. A number of support services may be able to offer specialist advice:
            - The Educational Psychology Service;
            - The Education Welfare Service;
            - The Advisory Teacher for Children with Physical Difficulties (Specialist                           Teaching Services).

The Children’s Hospital School may also be contacted for specialist advice.

3.3.3 Where a pupil’s absence for medical reasons has been or is likely to be greater than 3 weeks, the school should inform the Education Welfare Officer (EWO). If written evidence from a health professional[3] recommends that the pupil is medically unfit to attend mainstream school the EWO will make a referral to the Children’s Hospital School (CHS) by submitting a referral form, together with supporting evidence, to the Attendance Strategy Manager, who will, if it is deemed appropriate[4], authorise and refer on to Leicester City authority[5]. On receipt, the Children’s Hospital School (CHS) will scrutinise all referrals to ensure compliance with the service level agreement and then initiate action directly with the pupil and carers. Schools should continue setting appropriate work and giving appropriate feedback and support to pupils while referrals for CHS support are considered. Internal procedures should ensure that no more than 15 working days elapses between the referral to the Education Welfare Service by the school, and the provision of CHS support, or notification to the family that the case does not meet the criteria for CHS support.

3.4 Home tuition will not be agreed without careful consideration and discussion with the family. It will always be supported by a Personal Educational Plan which includes a strategy for reducing reliance on individual teaching at home where this is consistent with the young person’s difficulties. Alternatives to home tuition, for example, support from relevant support services, will be considered before a referral to CHS is agreed.

3.5 Locality based teaching will be explored where young people are on extended periods of support through either the day school, or home tuition. Local area school partnerships could take a lead in developing such provision with guidance from CHS and budgets delegated from the local authority.

3.6 Once a referral to the service has been agreed, the service will write to both school and family setting out the general terms of their involvement, and a point of contact with the service.

4. OVERALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOSPITAL SCHOOL

4.1 The following services are required:

provision for pupils whilst in hospital as in-patients (which offers continuity with what the child is learning in their mainstream school);

home tuition for pupils who by reason of medical needs are unable to attend either their mainstream school or the Children’s Hospital School day school;

a day school for pupils who by reason of medical needs are unable to attend a mainstream school;

guidance and consultancy to the authority and its schools in order to assist in the meeting of statutory requirements and best practice in meeting the educational needs of children and young people with medical needs;

places available as per demand.

5. NATURE OF HOSPITAL SCHOOL PROVISION

5.1 The school provision offered will be expected to meet the following general requirements and objectives in so far as it is possible given a child’s medical condition:-

To provide a high standard of education which is consistently being updated to meet the needs of the children;
A curriculum that enables children to succeed;
Education that can offer academic, vocational and leisure as part of the curriculum as appropriate and addresses all five outcomes[6] of the Every Child Matters framework;
Offer a range of external examinations opportunities and vocational courses;
Provide a safe, secure and caring environment;
Offer links with the wider community;
Enable young people to achieve as much as they can;
For all children to make measurable progress;
Children and Young People with medical needs are not at home without access to education for more than 15 working days.

5.2 For children who are in-patients, the school will normally liaise with the child’s mainstream school to ensure that progress is made towards a child’s school based programme of study. The hours of teaching will vary according to a child’s medical condition but will normally deliver two sessions per day.

5.3 For children who are in receipt of home tuition, the Hospital School will normally liaise with the child’s mainstream school to ensure that progress is made towards a child’s school based programme of study. Except in agreed[7] unusual circumstances, a pupil will be timetabled to receive an entitlement of 5 hours per week. Where a pupil is in year 11 and is approaching public examinations and would benefit from additional support, the time allocated will be increased in so far as staffing and resources permit.

5.4 For children, who attend day school, the Hospital School will normally liaise with the child’s mainstream school to ensure that progress is made towards a child’s school based programme of study, except where it is agreed[8] that a child in Key Stage 4 is not likely to return to their mainstream school. In these circumstances the Children’s Hospital School will determine an appropriate programme of study. All children attending school have an entitlement to receive full time education appropriate to their age and stage. Where a young person’s medical condition is such that s/he is not able to manage full time education an agreed specified time allocation will be established through discussion.

5.5 All children and young people attending the hospital school will continue to be on the role of a mainstream school and have dual registered status. The mainstream school will be considered and the main school and the Hospital School the subsidiary school for the purpose of recording attendance and absence. Details are included in Appendix 3.

6. LIAISON

6.1 The following specific requirements must be met:-

6.2 The Hospital School will:-

· Liaise with a child’s mainstream school to ensure that:

- the programme of study will facilitate a child’s return to that school.

- the school receives regular progress reports.

- the school receives regular attendance reports.

- the child’s return to school is supported.

· Liaise with officers of the County Council:

- agree the terms of a child’s placement in day school or receipt of home tuition.

- to report on a child’s attendance and progress (not in-patients).

- to vary the terms of a child’s original placement

- Provide regular reports summarising county pupils being supported by the school.

· Liaise with Health Care Services e.g. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy and other agencies to share information about individual cases.

6.3 Recoupment will be termly in accordance with the City Council agreement for all recoupment between the two authorities. A schedule of County children’s names, dates of birth, home address, mainstream school, and dates when tuition was provided, will be kept by the Hospital School and reported to the County Council. A suitable proforma is included in appendix 2.

7. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARENTS AND CARERS

Parents and carers hold key information and knowledge and have a crucial part to play. They should be full collaborative partners and should be informed about their child's educational programme and performance[9].

7.1 Children and young people also have a right to be involved in making decisions and exercising choices.

7.2 Wherever possible, parents, carers and pupils are informed about the education available before a child is admitted to hospital. Booklets and leaflets will be available to provide information about educational and medical services and about the organisation of the hospital day.

7.3 All parent and carers are consulted before teaching begins at home and offered advice and support during the child's illness. Parents' and carers' views of their child's education are taken fully into account when planning programmes. Parents and carers are encouraged to provide additional liaison with the pupils' home school both at the beginning and end of a stay in hospital and with the hospital school tutor. The positive involvement of parents with the school once the child has returned to school provides reassurance for the child, teachers and parents themselves and promotes rapid and effective reintegration.

7.4 In the case of a child or young person in public care the local authority, as the corporate parents, is responsible for safeguarding and promoting their welfare and education.

7.5 Parents should have a named contact within both the home school and the Children's Hospital School for all issues relating to their child's education.

7.6 Parents may decide not to accept the offer of home teaching.

7.7 The Local Authority may withdraw support if it believes the arrangements to be ineffective. It will always consult with the family and other partners before withdrawing the service.

8. TRANSPORT

7.1 It shall be the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council to arrange for and meet the costs of transporting pupils to the Hospital School.

9. MONITORING & EVALUATION

9.1 This will be undertaken with the City Council to ensure that the service continues to meet the needs of both City and County Children and Young People. It will focus on learning outcomes of children and young people using the service, the views they and their parents have of the service, and the views of other stakeholders, including schools. Monitoring and evaluation will be led by the Named Officer (see section 9).

9.2 The Hospital School will provide information pupils attending the provision each term. A proforma for this purpose is included in appendix 2. The one return will be used for both monitoring and recoupment. The information should be sent to the named officer, Attendance Strategy Manager, Principal Educational Psychologist, and Special Needs Assessment Service.

10. NAMED OFFICER

10.1 The named officer with responsibility for the provision of education for children and young people who are unable to attend school because of medical needs in Leicestershire, is:

Dr Charles Palmer, Head of Specialist Education Services,

Leicestershire Children and Young People’s Service,

County Hall, Glenfield, Leics, LE3 8RF.

Telephone 0116 305 6767

email charlie.palmer@leics.gov.uk

10.2 The named officer will appoint a representative to sit on the governing body of the hospital school.

11. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

11.1 Appendix 1 includes an action plan covering work related to the further development of provision for Children and Young People with Medical Needs.

11.2 The action plan and policy will be subject to regular review.

12. RELATED DOCUMENTS

Code of Practice No 18: Management of Children’s Toileting Needs, January 2005, Leicestershire County Council http://www.leics.gov.uk/schooladvice

Code of Practice No 5: The Voluntary Administration of Medicines, January 2005 Leicestershire County Council http://www.leics.gov.uk/schooladvice

Access to Education for Children and Young People with Medical Needs, DfES 0732/2001 (http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DFES-0732-2001.pdf)

Managing Medicines in Schools and Early Years Settings, DCSF 2005 http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/11162/Managing%20Medicines.pdf

Guidance on Children Missing Education: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ete/schools/childrenmissingeducation/childrenmissingeducation/

Appendix 1: Action Plan

Area of Work	Specific Action	Who, by when	Finance	Update
ICT and VLE support for children with ill health should be developed
Develop service level agreement with Hospital School
Time limited nature of mental health provision needs discussing with Specialist CAMHS
Develop local area working to enable Hosp Schl staff to better support local schools and families

Appendix 2: Annual Return on County Pupils

Pupil Name	DoB	NC Yr	Mainstream School	Home Address	Pupil Needs	Date Start	Date Finish	DS/Ward/HT

Appendix 3: Pupil Registration and Attendance Management

Extract from DCSF guidance (2009) on attendance codes:[10]

REGISTRATION CODE: D

Brief Description	Dual registration (i.e. pupil attending other establishment)
Statistical Meaning	Approved Educational Activity
Legal Meaning	Attending approved educational activity
Physical Meaning	Out for whole session
DCSF Definition	The law allows for dual registration of pupils at more than one school. Where a pupil is dually registered at institution X and Y, institution X marks the pupil approved educational activity while they are attending institution Y and vice-versa. Both institutions share responsibility for the child. Failure to attend either institution at the proper time without good reason is unauthorised absence.

Additional useful information:

This code is to be used when a pupil is dually registered at two schools and, for the session in question, they are not required to attend your school.

The school where the child is expected to attend is responsible for accurately recording the pupil’s attendance and chasing up non-attendance.

Pupils who are dually registered at two schools should be registered as such in both schools’ information management systems (MIS) under “pupil enrolment status”. For example - A student who is on roll at school A but attending school B (which could be the PRU or a special school).

· School A - record M (Main – dual registration)

· School B – record S (Subsidiary – dual registration)

This code can be used for Traveller children when it is known that:

· they are attending another school; and

· are dually registered at both schools.

It should NOT be used unless these two conditions are met.

Schools should ensure that they have in place arrangements whereby the school where the pupil is scheduled to be can notify the “other” school of any absences by individual pupils so that both schools can record the pupil absence using the relevant absence code. For safeguarding and educational reasons, one of the schools must follow up all unexplained and unexpected absence in a timely manner, such as through “First Day Calling” procedures.

Approved Educational Activity must be supervised by someone approved by the school. It must also take place during the session for which the mark is recorded.

Appendix 4: Evaluation of casework undertaken prior to hospital school referral

This schedule is designed to assist the evaluation of case work support to a family where a young person has an ongoing medical need that may require hospital school support. It seeks to ensure that all alternatives have been explored before a referral to the hospital school is considered.

The scheduled should not be used where young people are in-patients or already on a fast track procedure for chronic conditions.

Criteria	Evidence Cited	Evaluation	Scoring Criteria	Score
1. Assessment of Need			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action
2. Exploration of Support from other agencies			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action
3. Design and Implementation of support programmes			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action
4. Monitoring and evaluation of support programmes			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action

Continues on next page

5. Think family focus to support			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action
6. Resources committed to support			1. Limited evidence of action 2. Satisfactory evidence of action 3. Good evidence of action

Appendix 5:

[1] DfES/0025/2002 includes a summary of the fuller guidance issued in 2001 (http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DFES-0025-2002.pdf)

[2] 3 weeks equates to 15 working days

[3] Where ever possible the medical evidence should be from the consultant with responsibility for the child’s condition.

[4] The Attendance Strategy Manager will evaluate previous case work support using the schedule in appendix 4.

[5] Where the child or young person attends a hospital other than LRI- individual arrangements will be made with local services by the attendance strategy manager.

[6] Staying safe; being healthy; enjoying

and achieving, achieving economic well-being, making a positive contribution

[7] Agreed should be taken to mean agreed by all relevant parties: CHS, mainstream school, EWO, parent, and clinician.

[8] As footnote 5

[9] This section of the policy has been based on Leicester City’s policy, permission sought.

[10] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/13903/Absence%20Data%20-%20Absence%20and%20Attendance%20Codes%20Jan09.doc

the reason given for its absence from the website is that it is a draft policy an investigation of properties suggests that they have had from 20 October 2009 12:46:00 to move to the final document.

I also wonder if the excuse is reasonable and removes their responsibility to have information available completely.

Improving relationships - Leicestershire County Council

2010-09-23T18:32:00.000+01:00

Hello Helen

I notice there is a meeting

Next Home Educator Meeting:

Wednesday 29th September 2010 at

6.30pm.

Although I will attend if I can and I do want to help you improve provision for and relationships between home educators and the council, it has become apparent that I am not able to contribute well to a group discussion or to give my best at any time unless the discussion takes place through an exchange of email or even better using google docs.

If you are happy to do this we might start with a few issues I have below.

I may be wrong but I cannot see a meaningful link to home education here can you point it out if I have missed it.

http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/education.htm

This seems a bizarre unhelpful page to find when Home Education is clicked in the A-Z index. You may never have tried to find it this way so may not be aware of this.

http://www.leics.gov.uk/service.htm?initial=H&pid=1

I am not sure if you know that your policy document still contains this paragraph

2.8 This document is subject to review. In 2009, a review of the framework of Elective Home Education was commissioned at the request of The Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families. The review was published in June 2009 and made recommendations for changes in the regulatory and legislative framework relating to Elective Home Education.

This is a red flag to informed home educators and incompatible with a sincere attempt to establish a good relationship with them.

If all this is not in your power to change any of this but you would still like my input then we may be able consider other approaches to the removal of unnecessary barriers.

Looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Maire Stafford