I am the Very Model of a Pirate Finder General

I am the very model of a Pirate Finder General
My remit runs from a to z, from animal to mineral
The government has issued me with pow’rs plenipotentiary
To seize you and to pack you off to any penitentiary


I’m perfectly remorseless in pursuit of things piratical
I’m always in the office and I never take sabbaticals
You’d be amazed at all the powers that are vested in this entity
To compromise your systems and reveal your identity.


The doctrine of Fair Use I condemn as quite erroneous
And probably harmful if not actively felonious
And though my own position may in time prove quite ephemeral
For now I am the model of a Pirate Finder General


I’m not above resorting to intrusive tricks and hackery
If I chance to be confronted by a lock to which I lack a key
I recognize no boundaries either moral or international
At times my hate for piracy approaches the irrational


I interpret legal precedents with admirable latitude
For which my true employers never fail to show their gratitude
I’m a salaried employee of a corp’rate aristocracy
In fact, my mere existence makes a nonsense of democracy


I exist to serve the interests of a privileged minority
By whom I have been granted quite extraordinary authority
My jurisdiction ranges from the local to the federal
In short, I am the model of a Pirate Finder General


There is more here!

The State I'm In

I am a very visual person, which explains somewhat why I cannot always find the most diplomatic words with which to express myself.

As the attack on home educators grinds remorselessly on

in spite of no evidence to support it,

inspite of many articulate and intelligent arguments against it.

In spite of the consultation analysis being unpublished and a promise made to take this into account

In spite of the DCSF select committee report being as yet unpublished

I have developed a mental image of my self that guards the door to my house

it used to look like this




but since the publication of this it has undergone metamorphosis and I now looks like this.

Home Educators have the Association of Directors of Children's Services to thank for their misery

They are the  people who want to own home educating family’s lives, and probably every other family’s but they are keeping quiet about that for now.

These people would feel much better if we would just behave as pawns in their much more important lives and careers.

They are mistaken if they think that access to our homes and children would really help as it is their own incompetence that has caused them trouble, that and a consistent underfunding and lack of respect for real expertise.

Funnily enough ADCS agree with all the intrusions and assaults on our civil liberties suggested in the consultation, this is probably because they had a large hand in writing the questions.

The major players who have so far come to light seem to be

I want my knighthood and to impose my prejudices on you all Graham Badman

Cover my own back Peter Traves

Snotogram ‘two words’ Maggie Atkinson

but I am sure we have not uncovered all the dirt yet.

We could of course write to these people as part of our campaign to defend ourselves from their attacks.

This response has been compiled on behalf of ADCS by Becky Godar, ADCS Press and Policy Officer. Any queries regarding this response should be addressed in the first instance to Rob Belli, Administrative Officer, ADCS (e) robert.belli@adcs.org.uk.



I am not religious but some sayings from the religion I was brought up in come to mind.

And why do you take note of the grain of dust in your brother's eye, ... the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Well the stone has been well and truly thrown and it would seem that it has been thrown because of the splinter in their eye and the sins on their conscience.

I used to have some sympathy with social workers, it cannot be an easy job, it must often be harrowing for people with humanity and integrity. It cannot be easy to strike the right balance at all times and it must be terrible to be vilified in the press for making a mistake especially when it costs a child their life. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services do not seem to worry about little things like truth, integrity, humanity or justice though. In their campaign to divert negative attention away from the mistakes of their members it doesn’t seem to matter to them who they slur. Well maybe that is not quite true; they probably want access to the home and the child alone of every family in the country, but they know that campaigning for that would create an outcry. So as a misunderstood minority, often verbally abused by school going families for our implied criticism of their choices, suspected of all sorts of unsavoury ulterior motives for our choice we stand as the first barrier to the takeover of all families’ lives.

We cannot afford to give in, those terrible mistakes these people make could be imported into our lives if we do, and for no good purpose. We do not know what prejudice or error on their part might put our family at risk; please do not be complacent and assume it will not happen to you.

We must fight this in every possible way, and if we cannot persuade we must just say NO!

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

Question and Answer session from CSF


Newsletter for staff in Children, Schools & Families
CSF MATTERS


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

Dear Colleague.

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

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

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

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

John Harris'

Thanks to Elaine for the headsup on this.

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

Keeping you Informed


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

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

CSF Director's Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

We are living in peculiar: times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: Home Education - Select committee interview

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

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

Many thanks

Dr. Maggie Atkinson

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

tel: 0191 433 2700
fax: 0191 478 3875

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

To: Maggie Atkinson

Subject: Home Education - Select committee interview

Dear Ms Atkinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Best wishes

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

Deborah Markus’ Bitter Homeschooler’s Wish List

Hosted at Blogdial.

Dishonesty or Stupidity, Leicestershire Local Authority Statistical Returns to Badman.

A local authority officer has just admitted in an email to a home educator that 


'the high percentage of children (actual number taken out as it identifies the LA) arose from all the data we have ever had and therefore that includes people that are now adults. This could have included involvements for other members of the family, referrals where the outcome was no further action etc.

The 9% includes all the children known to social care so if they are known to social care because they are disabled then yes it does include disabled children.


This information was given as clarification of the figures in Leicestershire's response to Graham Badman's  request for more data  in the second in depth questionnaire to local authorities.'

DCSF Still Refusing to Give Evidence Behind The Review of Elective Home Education

Our Foi asking for the evidence, for Badman's recommendations has been refused .

Here is our reply to the refusal.

Thank you for your delayed reply to my FOI made on 1^st July 2009; it has taken 80 days, four times your legal limit for you to refuse to give us this information.

We have some specific comments on your letter.

1) You said:

‘I think it is likely that some confusion has arisen with the statement at paragraph 8.12 of the report of the review which indicated that 'the number of children known to children's social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of theirhome educating population'.

Yes and we feel strongly that this misunderstanding could have been entirely avoided if (a) a properly designed questionnaires had been used to collect the data from local authorities in the first instance; and (b) there had been full disclosure of a summary of the data and its sources in the report when it was  published.  It is unacceptable that so many people have had to make FOI requests to get at the evidence unpinning paragraph 8.12.  If there is any confusion it appears to fall at the door of the Department about what constitutes good practice in policy making.  We still await the statistical evidence underpinning the claim made in paragraph 8.12.

2) You go on to say:

‘As background, a copy of information that has already been released to other FOI requesters can be found attached to the Department reply at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...ollection&i_collectionID=312. There is a calculation error in the fourth point of this release.’

Please confirm whether the ‘fourth point’ is the statement:

‘Extrapolating to the national level (150 LAs), this means around 1350 home education children are known to social care in some capacity (6.75%).’

Also please let us know the nature of this error and what the ‘fourth point’ should have said.

3) In addition:

‘Section 40. Having carefully reviewed the information, the Department considers that the absolute exemption at section 40 of the Act is engaged because the some of information requested constitutes personal data, disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles. Data are 'personal data' if, taken with 'other information' they enable a living individual to whom the data relate to be identified.’

We unreservedly accept that such personal data should not be released.  However, we just need to know the proportions of home educated and the proportion of non home educated children for each heading for which data was collected, we need assurances that this is comparable data, and an account of how the data were collected.

4) Furthermore:

‘Section 41 (information provided in confidence) is engaged because this information was imparted in circumstances whereby those providing it did so in the expectation that it would remain confidential because of its very nature. The Department therefore considers that disclosure of it to the public would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.’

There is no problem here as aggregate data will not reveal data about individuals.  This is not an argument for not releasing the data at aggregate level.

5) On the public interest test, you said:

‘In addition the following qualified exemption, requiring a public interest test, is engaged:

Section 38(1)(a) and (b) this section 38 provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely, to

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test which means that even where prejudice or likely prejudice can be demonstrated, it is still necessary to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption covers events that could reasonably be expected but do not have to be definitely foreseeable.’

Again aggregate data cannot do that.

6) With respect to the ‘balancing test’ you say:

‘Having carried out the balancing test, the Department takes the view that it is not in the public interest for the any of the further information to be released.’

This is not a reasonable stance to adopt.  The only quantitative claim made in the Review that there is a ‘problem’ with respect to home education and safeguarding concerns is made in paragraph 8.12.  The data underpinning this claim MUST be subject to critical scrutiny – something that has not yet happened since it is unclear precisely what data was used, hence our FOI.  Failure to scrutinise this data risks implementation of the Review’s recommendations that could cause significant harm to home educated children.  At the moment, the evidence unpinning paragraph 8.12 is untested, and the public interest will not be served until it is.

If it is not the public interest to release this data even at aggregated level so that the case for change can be seen by all; then in what sense is it in the public interest for the author of the Review to be allowed to collect data after the review was ostensibly completed.  Data that relates to a claim he makes in paragraph 8.12

The public interest test does not appear to be being applied consistently.

The information Commissioner will no doubt be able to see this exchange which has taken place after our referral when using the link we have sent to this conversation.




And some afterthoughts.

We wish to make some more comments on your letter.

You say,

‘While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information Commissioner has been informed of the situation.’

The solution is, of course, to redeploy staff so that they can answer the FOIs.  Otherwise the department risks looking as though it is being obstructive and stonewalling.

You say,

I am not clear which media reports quoted Mr Badman in the way that you suggest above. For information a link to the Department's press release of 11 June is here:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi...

Been there seen it before.  Possibly the Department’s own press office is slipping up – they should have copies of all press reports mentioning the Department, perhaps the author of this letter could ask her colleagues, or may be go to:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6480288.ece and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/children-educated-at-home-more-at-risk-of-abuse-1703220.html

You say,

I think it is likely that some confusion has arisen with the statement at paragraph 8.12 of the report of the review which indicated that 'the number of children known to children's social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population'.

Yes and we feel strongly that this misunderstanding is entirely intentional and if evidence of that is needed it can be found in the absence of any clarification by the DCSF even though this misinformation is damaging actual real children.  That Badman is having a third go at collecting the data to support this claim, suggests that any confusion is confined to the Review not home educating parents.  It also imples a level of incompetence in collecting data for the Review that is utterly staggering.

You say.

As you will appreciate the Department cannot consider the release of information which it does not hold, but with regard to your requests we have taken them to refer to the information underpinning the reference
in paragraph 8.12 as this is likely to be more helpful to you. As background, a copy of information that has already been released to other FOI requesters can be found attached to the Department reply at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...ollection&i_collectionID=312. There is a calculation error in the fourth point of this release. This has however been released because it is information which the Department holds and which appears to be within - or most nearly within - scope of your request, and which does not engage exemptions under the Act. I understand that the error does not affect the overall findings at paragraph 8.12 of Mr Badman's report.

As Delyth Morgan Dawn Primalo is now on record in letters to Home Educators saying that this is not the evidence that the review recommendations are based on I self evidently don’t accept that this is the evidence most nearly within the scope of our request.


We and the home educating community are still waiting.

Fisking Graham Badman's Plea to Local Authorities for Some Evidence

Letter contained in this request from Badman via the DCSF.


Wonder who asked him to do this so long after the Report has been published and why?


Directors of Children’s Services

All local authorities in England

17 September 2009

Select Committee hearing on the Review of Elective Home Education in

England

I am writing to make you aware of the forthcoming Select Committee hearing

in early October which is likely to examine the evidence from the various

sources which led me to make the 28 recommendations in my Review. The

Review recognised that most home educators do a good job and that they

should be supported by local authorities (LAs) in accessing appropriate

services for their children. You may be aware from press reports and activity

within your local authority that some sections of the home educating

community are questioning some of the LA evidence which assisted me in

arriving at my conclusions.

Well it’s not exactly the evidence but the claims made from it and its selective use isn’t it.  And let’s face it, most of the conclusions.

I had a good response from LAs to my call for evidence to inform the Review.

This provided a rich source of contextual information which I considered

alongside submissions from individuals and a wide range of organisations

with relevant expertise. Most of my recommendations have not been

challenged, reflecting the sound evidence base.

Well as we know that’s another porky, there is no evidence base for the conclusions that’s why he is on hands and knees begging for evidence.

However, a small group of home educators have refused to accept my conclusion that ‘the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of the home educating population’

with others disputing the evidence base that shows that a small but significant

proportion of home educated children are receiving no, or an inadequate,

education.

Well we are in a position to know that it isn’t a small number and includes a professional statistician, a professional public policy researcher and a retired ofsted inspector.  Together with many highly intelligent home educators used to rigorous research in educating their children and answering far too many vexatious consultations from this government.

I would like to strengthen (dig some evidence from under a stone) my statistical evidence in advance of the Select Committee hearing so that it is more extensive and statistically robust. This would allow the Select Committee to consider good quality factual information that supplements the qualitative analyses underpinning my report. For this reason I need a response to this letter by 1 October.

DCSF’s ‘Star Chamber’ gave approval for this voluntary data collection on 15

September.

Why we ask when he is supposed to be ‘independent’ and home educators are unable to ask him questions as he has finished his work on the report?

For those LAs which did not submit information earlier

In the course of the Review we collected statistical evidence from a sample of

local authorities on vulnerable children who were home educated. This

provided persuasive evidence for change. However, it was a small sample

and we would like to supplement this data in order to provide more statistically

rigorous information to the Select Committee about safeguarding and

educational issues that affect home educated children. The supplementary

information we are seeking is described below and we would be grateful if you

could indicate for each dataset whether the figures are accurate or estimates.

Home educated children where there are child protection concerns

Each year local authorities return statistics on the number of referrals,

assessments and children who are subject to a child protection plan (the

‘CPR3’ return). We would be grateful if you could identify the number of home

educated children of compulsory school age who are the subject of child

protection plans using the attached spreadsheet (information reproduced

below for ease of reference). We will compare this information on home

educated children with the wider child population using the 2008-09 CPR3

return published on 17 September 2009. 

Ah an inspired thought here, he must be a genius.  (Ooops sarcasm, that’s going to get me barred then!)

CPR3 Category Number of EHE children

Electively home educated children

who were the subject of a child

protection plan at 31 March 2009

Number of electively home educated

children in local authority

Inadequate education

Please can you provide information about the number of electively home

educated children of compulsory school age not receiving a suitable

education:

Number not receiving any education

Number receiving some education but

not a full time education

 Wait a minute when I last looked there was no definition of full time.

Number receiving a full time but not

‘suitable’ education 

Don’t we need to know why here so we can make sure that the Local Authority is not acting outside the law?  

Number not cooperating with

monitoring so no assessment can be

made

Wait a minute when I last looked Local Authorities had no duty to monitor.

Known to home educate but no

assessment yet

Total number of electively home

educated children not known to be

receiving a ‘suitable education’

 Again are these judgements valid, we know how often they are not.

School attendance orders

Number issued in past 12 months to electively home educated children

(please do not include any child more than once).

 Well if the LA is doing its job this should be the same as children not receiving a suitable education shouldn’t it.

NEETs

The Connexions Service carries out an annual survey of year 11 leavers to

check their destination. Please can you forward any figures you have for the

2008 leavers cohort who were home educated,

There are no home educated children in the 2008 leavers cohort by definition, where would they have left?  Home educated children can carry on being educated at home until they are 19 so this data would be nonsense.  (again sigh)

showing the number or percentage that were classified as Not Settled in a Full Time Activity, when this survey was carried out, and comparative information for all young people in this cohort.

  

This at least is an attempt at legitimate data collection, shame that the question is wrong.

The attached Annex helps explain the different categories that

contribute to this total.

Missing children (runaways)

Local authorities should hold information about missing children. If you have

information available that identifies their last known education setting, please

could you provide the total number of missing children and indicate how many

were electively home educated prior to their disappearance.

Background information/case studies

Please add any information or explanations you think would be helpful in

returning this information.

Some local authorities have already provided anonymised

(and we know how carefully anonymised they are NOT)

 case studies illustrating the difficult circumstances that LAs face in making decisions in relation to home educating families: we would be grateful for any further case

studies you are able to provide. These will be treated in strictest confidence,

bearing in mind the significant damage that could be caused if any child could

be identified through any form of disclosure of individual or grouped

information of this type.

Timescales

We need this information by 1 October in order to collate it in time for the

Select Committee hearing. Therefore we would be very grateful if you could

return information on the attached excel spreadsheet to the secure mailbox

independenthe.review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk by 1 October. If you are unable to

complete the entire form we would be very grateful for a partial return as we

appreciate that your administrative systems may not be set up to provide

everything we are requesting.

If you have any questions about this letter please contact Lisa White on 01325

391162 or lisa.white@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.

I am very grateful for your assistance while the Review was under way, and

for your continuing support for DCSF as they carry out their consultation on

legislation to implement a registration and monitoring system. I believe that

my proposals will improve support for home educators, and raise the status

and quality of home education,

(Excuse me, raise it in the way your slurs of abuse have already done, your twisting of the evidence and you desire to see our children on their own, that sort of help we can do without)

and hope that you will help me make the strongest possible case to the Select Committee in October.  I can well imagine.

He should have added be careful what you say because my recommendations are about to land you with and immense amount of extra work with an incredibly hostile population and we won’t be giving you a penny to help.

Yours sincerely

Graham Badman CBE


Right jumping to conclusions myself, must consider the spreadsheet.


Click to see larger.

Not commenting on this because it has been said above.