Local Authorities and Home Education: A Case Study in Bad Behaviour

from Cos I Can

Why I recommend people tell the LA to sod off.

I sent a lovely deregistration letter into the school,  saying how pleased I had been with certain teachers.  I didn't slag the school off even though some teachers had made life difficult for Mathew, because they refused to acknowledge his needs and differences.  I was hoping to leave things on a positive, even though things had been awful for my son.  I didn't get a response, instead I was ignored. This took me by surprise but I wasn't too bothered by it.

Unfortunately I caught a sickness bug not long after deregistering them, I stupidly answered the phone, in between bouts of throwing up, the woman waffled out her name so fast and didn't explain who she was, all I know is that she was something to do with home education and wanted to come and see us, I asked that she call me back another day because I was ill. She agreed, eventually, after trying to push me for a date, I threw up and hung up the phone.

I didn't hear anything for weeks, assuming she had forgotten.  My dad was visiting one day and we saw a lady walk down the drive carrying a briefcase, I said 'I bet this is the woman', she wasn't!  She apologised for turning up unannounced but was in the area, so thought she would bring me the forms out that I had to fill in. She didn't ask to come in.  At the time I didn't see anything odd about this, although reading the forms that asked about our curriculum and subjects made me aware that they clearly didn't know much about home ed, I also felt the forms didn't look official so therefore not compulsory, so i made hamster bedding with them.  I still to this day have no idea who she was.

I thought that was it, oh how wrong I was!  We had been out to toddler group as we usually did on a Wednesday morning, as we got in, the phone was ringing, I answered and all I heard was

'Where were you? where were you?' being bellowed at me

'excuse me, but who are you?'

'Where were you?'

'If you tell me who you are I will decide if you have any right to know where I was!'

'I'm Mrs B from Doncaster Council, ...' she did say her name and job title but I was flustered by this stage and didn't hear her.

'I came to see you this morning and you didn't answer the door'

'Well I was out as I wasn't expecting visitors'

'You told me to come today'

'I have no idea who you are or that I've ever spoken to you'

'well I rang you and we booked today in'

I finally sussed she was the one that called when I was sick, I explained how we had not made an appointment, but I had told her to ring me back another time.

'Are you calling me a liar' she shouted

'er yeah' I said, ' You called me when I was sick and I asked you to call me back another day'

'well I've got it written in my diary to visit you'

'well I think maybe you made a mistake'

this conversation went on for ages, she was obnoxious, it ended with me asking what she wanted to see me for anyway.

'to discuss whether you need support getting your child back into school or help sort any issues with school'

'no I don't and don't ever call or write to me, I never want you to contact me again'

I hung up, I was actually shaking, so I sat and took a moment to pull myself together, then I tried to figure out who she was, so I rang the council and explained to the receptionist that I'd like to talk to the manager of the department that deals with children who are deregistered. She put me through to integration and education welfare. I spoke to the manager Mr D, he listened carefully and agreed I should not be spoken to in that manner, but maybe I had made the mistake, (I forgot to add in here that he also tried telling me there was a new law that meant I had to let them in, I later realise he was attempting to pass the Badman shite off as law!) I didn't back down and sent a written complaint in, I received an apology for the 'misunderstanding'.

All went quiet, then one day I had a letter and the same forms as before, the letter basically said I had to have a visit from the Elective Home Education Consultant, it didn't explain my options. The leaflet which was  included,  talked mostly of curriculum's and lessons and keeping records.  Again I didn't fill the forms in, but there was a date in the letter for a meeting at my house, I didn't know I had an option to cancel.

THE LEAFLET

'...it will, however, be the responsibility of the parent to show the Local Authority that the programme of work is helping the child to learn and that the child is making progress.....'

the purpose of the first visit  is to discuss your plane and he quality and range of the curriculum to be offered....'

'evidence would usually include a written programme of work, samples of work, an interview with a parent and a discussion with the child'

'should parents elect not to meet the consultant the evidence of the programme of work and a full range of work samples is of critical importance'

I spent hours cleaning the house and telling the kids to be on best behaviour, I let the EHE in, and she sat there, belittling all my choices, telling me how important it is to push Mathew to write, that Home Ed kids don't have friends, that school is really the best place, that I should push for a diagnosis for Mathew. She was awful.  She sent a report, that stated I should keep the kids work in date order and split into subjects and that it should all be named and dated, she said that whilst the little bit she was allowed to see showed an education was being provided, she expected at the next visit to see a lot more written work.  She also mentioned my 1 year old daughter in the report.  I made a complaint and had the report altered, but they said that this was the EHE's opinion and only she could amend it. But she was on holiday. Once she came back I contacted her, she said that because it had been a while since she visited (2 months) she would need to do another visit because she couldn't remember us, and her notes matched her report. I declined!

A few months later there was a knock at the door, we were all still in pj's and watching a film, breakfast pots still on the table, she was a social worker and demanded I let her in, without going into it too much, she had an allegation that I loved one kid more than the other and that home ed was an issue. She thought home education was illegal, looked around my house, attempted to talk to my kids, who ignored her lol.  She went away telling me she thought that would be the last of it, but then I got a letter saying they wanted to do a core assessment, which would involve weeks of interviews and meetings and discussions with my children, also that they recomended I have another EHE visit, because their last report (less than 6 months previous) was no longer valid.  I fought them and never met with them again, or let them meet the kids again, I also didn't agree to the EHE visits again.  I sent in doctors reports, to show I was looking into a diagnosis for Mathew, I sent a report of all the activities and places we went where adults were in contact with my children, I had people (25 of them) that were in contact with my children and/or knew me well to write character statements, and I kept fighting until they agreed that actually there was no cause for concern. Which they never actually had, their report said no concern except they are not see by a teacher every day. I told them that this was discrimination against home edders who legally choose to educate their children.  The case was dropped. The social worker was shipped off, from what I have heard she was sacked.  The whole thing had been started by 2 family members, that knew little to nothing about me and had decided cos my kids didn't sit to the table to eat, and were allowed to watch tv and eat sweets and of course now didn't go to school that I must have been covering up abuse. Oh and of course that I loved the older one more, cos he sometimes needed a bit more attention because of his ASD and SPD stuff.

 I got to know more about the law, and the home ed  requirements. Well I was fuming to say the least, they had not once said I could send a report or anything other option for that matter. Then I became ill, I needed my gall bladder removing and it was making me really ill and tired. I got a letter (8 months after initial visit) asking for another visit, I replied saying I would provide them with a report in due course, but due to illness that they give me some time. in the space of a month I had 3 phone calls and 2 letters demanding my report, by this stage I was even more ill.  I sent an email saying it had not been a year since their visit and I would write to them before then.

Then I was admitted into hospital, I spent 2 weeks being admitted, always being told I was next on the list for the op, to find someone else was rushed in in front of me, I kept coming home and back again the next day. I had 2 missed calls from the EHE (still a month before the year was up)  I answered the call laid in hospital, she was really arsey with me and demanded a report, so I emailed a very short report to them from my hospital bed.

'Dear EHE, I am still happy to be home educating and take my responsibilities to provide a suitable education, seriously.  I provide access to numerous materials, including, books, computers and outings. The children are happy to be home educated and thriving

Regards

Me.' (or something like that)

THE REPORT

'...as no evidence of the children's work was provided it is difficuly to write a more detailed report, or relate the children's individual achievements.

 It said they would contact me in a year. Just over a year later I received a letter that said; 

'I would like to introduce myself as the new consultant for elective home education in Doncaster, .......... I note from our records that you prefer to submit a report outlining the educational provision for.......As it is a year since we last made enquiries, I would be pleased to receive your report by the end of April........'

I replied:

Dear Mrs W,

I am still home educating my children, ensuring it meets their individual needs, aptitudes and abilities. As you are probably aware there is nothing in law that states I have to meet with yourselves nor provide a report and you should only be making enquiries if there is evidence that an education isn't being provided.

I am including the following information just so that you have a little bit of info about our home educating, we follow a semi structured/autonomous style, child led, and child centred.  I make sure they have access to plenty of resources including books and computers, we are actively involved in the home education community.

I now do not expect to hear from you again unless there are concerns.

Regards

ME

I got a thanks for that, email.

Since then, I have met with the LA with other local people, at their offices, to discuss their recent bad behaviour, letters and website. At this meeting it was agreed that we (the home edders) would write drafts for their letters. website and leaflet and that they would be checked over by the EHE and authorised by management. We were promised that they wanted to improve things and that an open meeting would soon be organised for all families and the LA to attend to discuss issues etc.

We spent hours rewriting and discussing these documents, I organised to meet Mrs W at my home to discuss them and hopefully get her to agree to what we wanted.  When she turned up, it was clear that she felt intimidated by me,  but also her boss, who didn't even know she was here.  She went away promising that the letters would be sorted. Also that the open meeting was being sorted.

Then it all went tits up, her boss left unexpectedly to a different role, leaving her not knowing who, what or where.  I'd asked to see a copy of the EHE policy and been fobbed off, so I sent a FOI (freedom of information request) it came back with a copy and a copy of the new draft, which is awful.   I sent emails (so did Fiona Nicholson, who had been working with us) to the people we knew of at the LA that might be able to help make some progress, we had a list of names, but no one willing to say yes lets get this done.  We finally were given the name of the replacement, Mrs V, I emailed her and she responded with 'I'm sure we will meet and talk soon' I replied asking when, I didn't get a reply, nor did I get a reply from my emails to Mrs W, or any of the other staff, there seemed to be a strange silence. We found this worrying, so drafted a complaint and sent it in. I'm still waiting for a response. We know they were having a meeting this week, so we are waiting on the outcome.

Meanwhile, I was emailed by a newcomer to home ed to say she had had a letter from Learning and Behaviour Support ;

'..........Although I am sure you have already given serious thought to such an important matter, we would like to arrange a visit with NW our Re-Integration Officer to discuss this with you before we formally

process home education. We would ·Iike to arrange a visit for X date if this is convenient. You can telephone us on 000 or write to her at the address below to confirm this  date, and we will be able to discuss this with you.I am sure you will appreciate that the Local Authority must ensure that you are clearly informed about the legal situation, the relevant sections of the Education Acts and the Authority's procedure for monitoring education at home. Accordingly, information and guidance notes for parents are attached with this letter. It is important that you read all this information carefully, but I must draw your attention

to Part 1 The Legal Framework........'

She couldn't understand what they wanted, when she already new it was Mrs W that did EHE, she had a few things going on so I called on her behalf and spoke to NW and cancelled the appointment.  She told me that the appointment was so she could discuss with the family whether they were happy with the decision to home educate, or whether there were issues she could help resolve with the school. I told her they were happy, to which I was told, 'ok, I will pass the families details onto Mrs W the EHE, so she can organise a visit' I told her the family probably wont be having a visit 'oh well that's ok they can send children's work in instead as evidence'  'yep they wont be doing that either' I replied, to this she didn't know what to say, I asked if she knew EHE law, no she didn't, and was surprised that what she thought was law, actually wasn't.  I suggested that we meet and discuss all of this, she liked the idea and welcomed ways to make things better.  But, and isn't there always a frigging but? she spoke to her manager who rang me eventually a few days later, he was not willing to discuss anything, and downright refused to acknowledge that their behaviours were not appropriate. I also notified him (as we had already done every other member of staff) that the cooling off period that they had instigated was actually illegal and went again the 'pupil registration regulations 2006' his was not interested and wanted to know who would take action against them if it wasn't sorted.  He said that they would contact home edders if they ever felt the need to ask for their input on the LA policies. 

So not only do they know they are acting beyond the EHE guidelines, they are breaking the law, by telling schools not to remove children's names immediately, they don't actually care.  They are refusing to speak with us, or meet with us.  So I await a response to the complaint, and see if anything happens off the back of the meeting they've had.

I don't hold out much hope, so for now, I tell any local family to not deal with them at all, opt out of visits, don't send lengthy reports and definitely don't fill in their dodgy forms.  I happily will help any family and as I have before I will speak on their behalf. I will help write letters, I will say you should always reply to their correspondence, even if it is stating the law and saying sod off!!!!!

Read the comments here.

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!

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

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.

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

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?

Thoughts on meeting with Helen Sadler

Never got round to a more sophisticated interpretation of my meeting than this.

Pleasant but has her own agenda which is not in our best interests

Says she wants to help new home edders as do I

Acts surprised when say literature does not reflect the law but think she is bluffing

Means it is a real battle on and cannot rely on her to work to make stuff reflect the law

So need to approach councillors

How does one approach the Ombudsman?

Who is answerable for the policy documents?

It is clear that whoever implemented the new policy took little or no notice of our contribution to the consultation.  At a glance the policy and information pages seem to have changed very little and still misrepresent the law and imply that the LA has more power and responsibility than it actually does.

Ofsted’s report is seriously flawed

Press release from Graham Stuart MP.

NEWS RELEASE
June 17th, 2010

Ofsted Home Education Report Seriously Flawed Says Graham Stuart MP

Graham Stuart MP, who last week was elected to take the Chair of the Commons Education Select Committee, today condemned Ofsted’s report on home education, “Local Authorities and Home Education” as “an unpleasant hangover of the last government: a manifesto for more state power at the expense of dedicated home educators and their children”.

Mr Stuart went on, “It is astonishing that the Chief Inspector of Schools should stray onto home education and get it so wrong. In Ofsted’s official press release she says that “it is extremely challenging for local authorities to meet their statutory duty to ensure children have a suitable education”, when they have no such duty. Parents, not the state, have the statutory duty to ensure that their children have a suitable education.

“I find it deeply concerning that, after months of work, the Chief Inspector should make such a basic mistake and so utterly confuse the duties of local authorities and parents. Parents who home educate deserve our respect and awe at their dedication and achievements, not the relentless suspicion of an over mighty state.”

Under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, local authorities have a duty to identify children who are not receiving a suitable education in their area, so far as it is practical to do so. As the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear, however, ‘local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis’ and are only required to intervene if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education.

Mr Stuart went on, “As local authorities do not have the power to demand access to home educated children and cannot insist on parents registering with them, the obvious and correct answer is for local authorities to improve their support for families so that more families make contact with them voluntarily. If they did this and made sure that they employed sympathetic staff who built good reputations, then the number of “unknown” children would be reduced. Such a positive approach would respect the primacy of parents in determining the education of their children and put the onus on local authorities to serve and support, rather than catalogue and monitor, families who home educate.

“Ofsted’s report has little to say about improving local authority support for home educated children and says only that the Department of Education should “consider” funding an entitlement for home-educated children to take public examinations. Ofsted’s report is seriously flawed and damaging to the confidence of home educating parents who had hoped that the relentless disinformation and bullying of the previous regime was over.”

ENDS


More details here.

Department For Education

Well I am tentatively pleased with the outcome of the General Election, Bruce is worried that the poor the sick and the vulnerable will suffer but I am biding my time and holding my judgement.

The first bit of really good news is the demise of the DCSF and I am churlish enough to wish for a few members of staff to find themselves jobless.

The Next Battle - Going Local

Going to talk to  Leicestershire EHE advisor tonight with a group of other he ers.  Hope I will be able to keep my cool.  One main thing I want answering is who is responsible for their policy and documents?  No point arguing with someone who actually doesn't have a say.  (Must remember to listen to myself for a change.)

We did respond to their consultation last year but I fear that very little of what we said has been taken on board.  I have been avoiding finding out for the sake of my blood pressure but needs must, so if nothing else going will make me read their documents here.  Just look at the links you have to follow to get there, You are here: Home > Education > Going to School > Elective Home Education, it makes my blood boil!  (Calm down dear, it's only an abuse and waste of hard earned taxpayers money!)

Well I am going to try and mostly listen; yes Bruce laughed too when he heard that.  I won't even have read all the documents, a lovely sunny afternoon is beckoning and I think the garden deserves some attention.  I need to see this as a long haul, I am in good company many others will now be taking this on in order to make sure we have a more level playing field for the next attack supportive consultation.   It does not help that the first thing I run into is the dratted Ever Child Matters nonsense quoted totally inappropriately, sigh.  

Will endeavour to keep this site updated with my endeavours

Would be very interested to know what others are doing and perhaps link to it here.

Wow we have Won the Battle

Ok maybe we have to still keep up our guard, continue to educate people and promote home ed but I think we very much deserve to celebrate.

So lets all Engish and Welsh home educators raise our glasses tonight at nine thirty and congratulate ourselves and fellow home edders for a fantastic result.  Of course we have to thank our supporters in Scotland and Canada and elsewhere and hope they and any and all home educators will join us.  Please could you share a photo here so we can all share each others celebrations.

The first indication that all would be well came with a notification of amendments to the Children Schools and Families Bill, the second when Ed published his open letter to Michael Gove.  Then the conservatives published it and finally the DCSF themselves.

We are of course very happy that Ed isn't and I expect the other parties are delighted with this piece of propaganda on their behalf, so generous!

So cheers me dears, , the fat lady hath sungeth and the balls bill has shrunk in the wash up, for sure, oh happy day.  Tonight we celebrate.  Woo hoo! Woo hoo!

Letters to Lords and Ladies

We have in the last two days sent 58 emails and 124 letters to the Lords.


Here is the template letter:


The Lord xxxxxx

House of Lords

London

SW1A  0PW

Dear Lord xxxxxx

We are writing to ask you to oppose Sections 26 and 27 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.  We are a home educating family and this Bill replaces our right to educate ‘otherwise’ with a licensing scheme and in so doing so removes our right to privacy and the presumption of innocence.

The case for opposing these clauses of the Bill is as follows:

1.   The review on which these Sections are based was poorly conducted and as a consequence the (Badman) Report is, in our opinion, the most flawed evidential review of recent times.  Fair and reasonable legislation cannot emerge from such poor quality work. 

There are numerous examples of the shortcomings of the Report, for example, the Church of England complained of their evidence being selectively quoted and home educators using the Freedom of Information Act revealed such fundamental flaws in the statistics used in the Report that the author had to conduct a survey of Local Authorities AFTER the Report had been published when called to appear before the CSF Select Committee.  This further data has also been debunked by home educators. 

2.   The policy delivers very poor value for money as there is no problem to be solved and its recommendations will divert scarce resources from child protection services.

Research by home educators using the Freedom of Information Act has found that abuse in home educating families is very low compared to the rest of the population.  Most abuse happens before the child is of compulsory education age, therefore, this intrusion into the lives of home educators is neither warranted by the degree of abuse nor will it address the real problem.  Social Services are overstretched and in many areas cannot recruit enough staff.  This will divert money away from such services and will harm more children than it could ever help by removing their sense of security in their own home.  There are already measures and laws in place to protect and investigate where there is a suspicion that children are at risk of harm or that insufficient education is taking place.  The Department of Children Schools and Families estimate that this will cost between £10 and £21 million, however, this is likely to be a serious underestimate as the number of home educating families is not known.

3.   If enacted the policy will seriously damage the education of home educated children.

In order to learn effectively some children need the security and confidence boost that only home education can provide.  It is inevitable that to some extent monitoring will change the emphasis from the child’s educational needs to satisfying the local authority officer and this cannot be in the child’s best interests.  Our own child was very averse to anything that looked like school work on being de-registered, yet by choosing her own learning and aided and resourced by us she is reading at exactly the same age as her schooled siblings with none of the trauma or feeling of being inadequate that they suffered.  Many children who are on the autistic spectrum will be very disturbed by a stranger forcing (and that is what it will happen as the majority of people who responded to the consultation were extremely opposed to the recommendations for registration and monitoring) their way into their home and possibly demanding to see them without a parent present.  Many children on and off the spectrum do not like being forced to talk to strangers (especially if they have the power to issue a School Attendance Order) and to insist that they do so without the reassurance and sometimes memory aid that parents can provide will, paradoxically, be abusive.  As already mentioned, if actual abuse is suspected then legal measures already exist to investigate.

4.   The concept of education contained in the Bill is archaic and unworkable. 

It is the experience of parents who home educate that local authority officers often do not really understand the philosophies and approaches used by home educators.  Schedule 1 of the Bill itself shows a remarkable lack of understanding, for instance, autonomous educators cannot by definition provide the yearly plan which it demands.  When you follow the child’s interests as autonomous educators you do not know what your child will be learning from one day to another, so to plan a year in advance is meaningless.  Although it may be difficult to believe, such informal learning has been shown to be astonishingly effective by the work of Alan Thomas of the Institute of Education.

5.   The Bill is a disproportionate response to a perceived problem, which the best available evidence suggests does not exist.

Graham Badman, who conducted the Review, was not able to produce any convincing evidence that the home educating population is any more at risk of abuse than any other section of the population.  In fact, his Review provoked home educators to collate the data for themselves which demonstrated conclusively that home educated children are at significantly LESS risk of abuse.  The measures in the Bill are draconian and have a ‘tilting at windmills’ quality rather addressing a real problem.

6.   It damages the relationship between the local authority and home educating parents and makes the relationship one of distrust and hostility.

Whilst many home educators may be polite towards local authority officers entering their home, they will be outraged and incensed at what is effectively forced entry and a gross invasion of privacy.  This is no basis on which to build the good relationship the government so often stresses that it wants with home educators. 

Indeed, the Review process has already harmed home educator’s relationships with local authorities.  Launching the Review with the claim – absolutely without evidence – that home education could be used as a cover for abuse, domestic servitude and forced marriage set the tone of this exercise and relationships between home educators and local authorities have been damaged and undermined with many home educators withdrawing from any discourse with their local authority.  Only if the clauses are not enacted is there any realistic chance that relationships between local authorities and home educating parents can be re-built.

7.   The Bill purports to implement a registration scheme, but is not as Schedule 1 means that non-registration is not a viable option.

Although registration is not formally compulsory under the Bill, non-registration is not a feasible course of action as local authorities are required by Schedule 1 to issue a School Attendance Order to any unregistered home educated child without any consideration of the quality of education being provided.  This in no way shows any concern for the well-being of the child, and shows that for home educated children ‘every child matters’ is empty rhetoric. 

8.   The Bill’s proposals are opposed by the majority of home educators.

4497 out of 4833 (93%) respondents to the consultation thought that the proposals did not strike the right balance.  3281 respondents out of 3776 (87%) disagreed with the proposals for registration and monitoring.

9.   Home educated children’s confidence and trust in the state and its institutions will be seriously undermined.

Children’s understanding of the State are shaped not by what it claims to be the case, but by its actions.  If the child experiences the power of the State as unreasonable and disproportionate in intruding into its life with no good reason and with no good arguments to support its actions, then the child will see the State as failing to protect its citizens.  Many home educated children are following the progress of the Review and its recommendations very closely, and it has provided an invaluable learning opportunity, for example, on the work of Parliament and how legislation is enacted, however, it is doing nothing to advance their belief in the fairness of the policymaking process.

If you have any queries about the Review or the Clauses 26 and 27 then please do not hesitate to contact us.  We are looking forward to hearing your views and hopefully confirmation that you will oppose these Clauses of the Bill.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following event hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Home Education where various speakers will explain the problems with Sections 26 and 27 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill:

Lords Briefing Event on Home Education

Committee Room 16, House of Commons

Tuesday, 2^nd March, 6-7pm.  (The room will be available until 7.30pm.)

Yours Sincerely

Professor Bruce Stafford

Maire Stafford






We chose to lobby cross bencher Lords and Ladies and created this spreadsheet of them with email details where available and the proper form of address.  We made it easier for ourselves when there was no email address available by creating mail merge files.  This file contains the name of the Lord to go on the envelope and in the address on the letter in the first column and the name  to go after the Dear in the second column, and we used it to personalise the letter.  This file contains the labels for the envelopes.


We will soon update this spreadsheet which contains details of all the Lords and information on their interests, how likely they are to be helpful and which have been contacted by home educators.


Carlotta also has a letter she has sent to the Lords on her blog here.