| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

AHEdGuidelinesLetter

Page history last edited by starkfamily1@... 16 years, 1 month ago

Guidelines for local authorities on elective home education were published at the end of November, 2007 and AHEd members began to assess and respond to the document. We gathered responses re the problems with the guidelines on this wiki.

 


 

 

 

AHEd members joint response

to the guidelines is represented in the letter to the Minister below.

 

 

3rd January, 2008

 

Dear Mr Balls,

 

Following publication at the end of November of the "Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities" Action for Home Education (AHEd) members have now had time to digest the content and would like to appraise you of our initial response.

 

First reaction from many home educators has been that the guidelines have definitely benefited from the input of the relevant stakeholder group (home educators) since their draft form. Comments have been made that we, the stakeholders, have had to fight hard to gain a voice in these consultations affecting our freedoms and the wellbeing of our children alongside hostile forces and that, thankfully, DCSF have in large part been influenced by reason and law rather than the scaremongering that some third parties chose to input, and for that our members are happy.

 

However, while there are these good points, we feel that following what amounts to a simple survey of views in the consultation, the Department has failed to listen to us on a number of key issues with consequent worrying effect.

 

There is no doubt that there remain problems with the guidelines, despite protestations and clear warnings about grey areas from the home education community. These difficult areas of the guidelines will have serious adverse effects for some families. This renders the Guidelines document only partially useful and in other parts problematic or harmful and therefore, as a whole, not fit for their purpose as legal guidelines and, sadly, unacceptable.

 

We therefore give notice that the Guidelines are in contention and that AHEd members demand a new edit and will also be collecting evidential material of Local Authority (LA) abuses to support that demand.

 

We have already appraised the department of some problems and areas of concern both in the consultation and before publication, including those situations that could be abused by LAs. We list below problems in the Guidelines which we consider would have benefited from a second round of the consultation period and upon which we now therefore expect further engagement.

 

The good relations that the Guidelines were intended to promote will not flow unless home educators experience proper engagement with their serious and valid concerns as the ONLY true stakeholders in this process.

 

Appended is a list of our concerns and measures required to correct problems in the published guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

 
( )
(Chair, AHEd.) For the committee and membership of AHEd
http://ahed.pbwiki.com/ The Action for Home Education Group.
 
Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities - Outstanding concerns

 

The guidelines produced by the DCSF

 

  • do not state that home education is an equally valid choice with schooling and appear negative and grudging about the existence of this choice
  • are, in various places, misleading or confusing about the duty to monitor home education, not stating clearly that there is no such duty
  • dangerously fail to quote the proper wording about grounds for child welfare concerns leaving home educators vulnerable to authorities pursuing unreasonable or trivial concerns through social services
  • normalise and legitimise routine home inspection regimes
  • encourage the creation of delay in deregistration procedures and premature notification where parents have sought the advice of the school but have not yet deregistered a child
  • encourage authorities to pressurise parents by inciting them to persuade parents to inform the authority of their home education decision
  • encourage schools to conceal options from parents and children
  • provide narrow and specific examples about parental choices
  • have included a list of required characteristics of home education provision with which the majority of consultation respondents disagreed
  • encourage local authorities to judge a provision unsuitable if it does not meet characteristics that are not a legal requirement
  • imply preferential treatment for home educators seeking to access services if they have a "positive relationship" with the local authority
  • imply additional difficulties for home educators under investigation if they have not developed a "positive relationship" with the local authority
  • confirm institutionalised prejudice and discrimination against home educated young people by the continued denial of their right to EMA
  • fail to address the long standing betrayal and abuse of home educators meeting truancy officials in spite of being well informed of the difficulties they have already undergone
  • encourage, in preference, the incitement to truancy officials to harrass and abuse us and our children
  • far from promoting relationships "rooted in mutual understanding, trust and respect," the guidelines many recommendations assume monitoring is necessary/advisable/valuable,  and are therefore likely to promote mutual misunderstanding, mistrust and contempt

 

In view of this:

 

We require a statement that the decision to home educate is not a cause for concern.

 

We require clarity that local authorities have no statutory duty in relation to monitoring the quality of home education. References that promote continued contact and imply that it may be legally required should be removed.  Local authorities should not be led to believe they should monitor the quality of home education at all. Unjustified assumptions that monitoring must take place should be removed along with all encouragement to local authorities who develop ultra vires policies and practice.

 

Paragraphs that appear to incite LAs to pursue unreasonable "concerns"  and emphasise potential child welfare concerns related to home education should be amended or removed. There should be no implication that there is cause for concern about the welfare and protection of our children. We are concerned that paragraphs encourage LAs to misinterpret paragraphs 2.12-15 as conferring a duty to monitor EHE for welfare purposes.

 

The assumption of home visits as the norm and the mere suggestion of alternatives is not satisfactory

 

We require correction of the deregistration information, which is confusing and advises a period of notification prior to deregistration as well as inciting local authorities to persuade parents to inform the authority of their home education decision.

 

Apparent collusion with some local authorities who seek to restrict public information about education choices must be corrected. This should be replaced with a statement that schools and LAs must ensure that where children are experiencing difficulties, their parents are aware of all the legitimate alternatives open to them, including home education, in line with a legal duty to broaden information (paragraph 4.5.)

 

We object to the inclusion of a list about which only 32% of respondents agreed, while 35% disagreed and another 33% were unsure. We have specific objections to the concept of such a list and to the list itself.

 

We require the removal of incitement of local authorities to conclude that provision is not suitable if it does not tick all the boxes in a list of extra legal requirements.

 

Guidance appearing to place home educators under duress to develop potentially unwanted relationships with their local authority out of fear must be corrected. There should be no implied threat and no implication of preferential treatment for home educators who agree to build positive relationships. All functions of the local authority should be carried out in a fair and legal manner regardless of whether the parents have chosen to develop a relationship with the authority.

 

Home educators are opposed to policies of discrimination and prejudice against young people who are electively home educated. Home educators are therefore opposed to the denial of EMA to home educated young people who live in England.

 

We are appalled that the guidelines further abuse and betray home educators in relation to truancy sweeps by the failure of the DCSF to use this opportunity to properly represent our freedoms and to halt the catalogue of abuse and harrassment experienced by home educators because of truancy measures. We demand proper treatment in regard to our freedom of movement. The fact that these guidelines simply refer the reader to another document and do not do anything to stop the abuses of which the department has been made aware, is a further indication of prejudice and discrimination against home educators which must be corrected as a matter of urgency.

 

~~~~~

 

Reply (1)

 

Ed Balls passed on the mail for reply by Denise Hunter at the DCSF. That reply is below.

 

Sent: Mon Jan 28 14:49

Subject: Fwd: Case Reference 2008/0001057

 

Dear (AHEd)

 

Thank you for your email of 3 January to the Secretary of State about the Department’s guidelines for local authorities on elective home education (the guidelines).  Your email has been allocated the reference number 2008/0001057.  As I hope you will appreciate, the Secretary of State receives many letters and emails each day and cannot reply to them all personally.  I have been asked to reply as I work on the team which deals with home education policy.

 

I note your concerns about the guidelines, however, the Department believes that they are a fair and reasonable reflection of relevant legislation and guidance as it relates to home education.

 

Turning to your concerns about education maintenance allowance (EMA), the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is currently trialling new criteria of valid provision and if home education provision meets those criteria then the LSC would class it as valid for the purpose of EMA during the trial period. Information on the trial criteria is available at http://ema.lsc.gov.uk/faq/validproviders/.  In addition to meeting the criteria, all providers that offer EMA must: demonstrate that they can report via the electronic EMA administration system; and that the reporting arrangements for EMA payments are robust and free from the risk of fraud, for example by showing a clear separation of duties to ensure financial probity.

 

You were also concerned about truancy sweeps.  If parents and their children have concerns about the actions of individual local authority officers, they should use the relevant authority's complaints procedures which will be detailed on its website and literature.  Where the complaint is about the actions of an individual police officer or a police community support officer, I suggest that parents and children contact their local constabulary.  Alternatively, they can contact the Independent Police Complaints Commission via its website at http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

 

If you are unable to resolve a complaint against a local authority by using its complaint procedure, then the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is able to investigate complaints of maladministration.  The LGO’s website http://www.lgo.org.uk/ provides further information on how to make a complaint to them.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Denise Hunter

 

~~~~~

 

AHEd members are working on further action ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.