NASWE.pdf

 

This document is possibly all or part of supplementary information which the National Association of Social Workers in Education provided to support their response to the Consultation on the Draft HE Guidelines. A search for the document on the Internet has not been successful. It may not yet be in the public domain. We might consider making a pre-emptive response to this, as any guidelines that govt issue are quite likely to be (mis)informed by the information provided by NASWE (among others).

 

See also London Safeguarding Network

 

Full transcript of the NASWE supplementary info doc content follows with our comments in italics and highlighted:

 

 

 

NASWE

For Every Child a Chance

Founded 1884

 

NASWE (National Association of Social Workers in Education) represents Education Welfare Officers who have regular contact with parents of children already registered in a school, who subsequently choose to home educate and with those that come to the attention of the Local Authority (LA). The Education Welfare Service does not have a role in assessing the suitability of the education provided but is usually the service through which the LA exercises It’s (sic) statutory duties in relation to education.

 

Unfortunately, many EWOs and other Local Authority (LA) staff do not know accurately what those duties are or are not and tend to overstep their legal remit. Other EWOs do have an accurate understanding of the local authority's statutory duties but prefer to act upon their preferred image of what statute should include. The author of this document is clearly in one of these two camps as witnessed by some of the content that follows - such as some of the recommendations which would require legislative change, which ministers have already confirmed they are not seeking. This, along with other misleading information discussed below, makes it impossible to accept contributions such as this to the consultation on draft guidance for LAs regarding Elective Home Education being taken into account.

 

NASWE have long been concerned about the lack of regulation on Elective Home Education (EHE). The current legal framework is more than adequate to deal with failings of elective home education and, those finding it lacking do so because they have preconceived, limited ideas about what constitutes a suitable education and prejudices about approaches that do not conform to their personal models, despite being legal and effective. The Association’s view is that the majority of home educators work hard to provide the best for their children and many provide an excellent educational experience. NASWE recognises the right of parents to educate their child as they see fit and recognises that EHE can be an enriching and positive experience and that there are many and different ways of providing effective education.

 

NASWE members are becoming increasingly concerned over the lack of regulation and monitoring of EHE, which has, in a small but significant number of cases, led to children not just being denied their right to effective education, but to have suffered significant harm. We are not suggesting that parents would choose EHE in order to do their children harm although the recent case involving a foster carer from Wiltshire (1) provides an exception.

 

(1)    Eunice Spry, Foster Carer was convicted at Bristol Crown Court on 26 charges of abuse. The abuse occurred over an extended period of time during which the children in her care were home educated

 

The case of Eunice Spry of Gloucestershire, not Wilshire, is a red herring and the DCSF MUST discount it when making their decisions. It would be entirely malicious to cite this case as evidence that EHE requires further regulation or monitoring. Mrs Spry was harming the children in her care before any decision to home educate and the children had informed school teachers, the police, neighbours and others of their plight. In addition, the current legislation was adequate to deal with the problems in the Spry household; the failing was in the lack of use of that legislation not in any weakness of the legislation. The continued use of this case by NASWE to link home education with child abuse and excuse the authorities from their failures with false claims that there were insufficient powers to deal with this case is disreputable and a scandalous slur on the home education community. This argument in the NASWE document casts doubt on the value of any other case NASWE might use to call for tighter regulation.

 

 

Mrs Spry was also a lone parent and a Jehovah's Witness. Quite rightly, no suggestion is made that lone parents or Jehovah's Witnesses should  be subject to more rigorous monitoring or regulations. As the DCSF already know, the case involving Mrs Spry was not about elective  home education, but was a result of the failure of children's services in the county (Gloucestershire, not Wiltshire,) failing in their duty of care toward looked after children. This was acknowledged in a letter from Beverley Hughes(Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families)) to Jo Grills of Gloucestershire County Council who, like NASWE was using this case to call for stricter regulation and monitoring of elective home education. Ms Hughes wrote:

 

"I appreciate you writing to me with your concerns about the case of Eunice Spry. The Serious Case Review found that although Gloucestershire was judged to be serving most children well, in the case of Eunice Spry there were shortcomings in the services the children received as looked after children. The Commission of Social Care Inspection felt that this was the most significant factor in these case, rather than the fact that they were home educated."

 

 The lack of regulation has made it very difficult for local authorities to exercise their duty of care to the child or young person concerned and may compromise a child’s right to education. Whilst the legislation outlining parental rights is clear and is also clear in that the LA is required only to make a judgement about the education provided, this goes against all other aspects of their work with children and the issue of elective home education has become conflated with safeguarding concerns which may exist regardless of the method by which a child receives education.

 

There is a false implication here that local authorities are disqualified from acting on child welfare concerns where is a child is home educated and that further powers are required as a consequence. Section 175, Education Act 2002 states that in carrying out the functions conferred upon them, local authorities should act with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It is therefore not, as NASWE imply, that LAs may not act on child welfare concerns discovered in exercising the functions already conferred upon them.

 

The conflation of EHE and safeguarding concerns is only in the minds of people such as NASWE who display a lack of understanding of the law, prejudice toward home education and mistrust of all parents. It is a sign of that prejudice and mistrust that NASWE call for greater regulation of EHE, which research shows to be effective and for which they can provide no real evidence of a need for greater regulation, at the same time that schools are denying thousands of children every year their right to a suitable education as well as putting many of them at severe risks to their safety.

 

 

 Parents who are providing an effective education, by whatever means have nothing to fear from greater regulation,

 

This comment reveals an incredible lack of understanding about the nature and purpose of EHE; for many families over-regulation is one of the major components of school education that they believe interrupts and interferes with the education process and damages learning, trust and self-esteem. There is in fact a lot to fear from greater regulation and none of it has anything to do, as the assertion is often made by sceptics pushing for that regulation, with having anything suspicious to hide.

 

 

For example, over-regulation takes time away from the child's education and often introduces a system that is alien to the style of education preferred by the family, effectively causing an unwanted, unsuitable change in that style which is detrimental to the education received. Parents often find themselves having to spend time away from their child, converting their understanding of their child's education into a school-based language, so that the LA can understand it and to reduce the risk of prejudicial judgements by staff who do not have any understanding of learning styles other than those used in schools. This in turn leads to parents pre-empting these requirements and consciously or unconsciously adapting their education methods against their philosophy and principles, sometimes to the detriment of the child's education.

 

It is also of great concern that further regulation would unnecessarily impose an invasion of privacy that would remove, from this minority group, the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence afforded to everyone else by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Parents are also often concerned about the risk to their child's well-being that local authority intervention poses where their child has previously been traumatised by authorities in school or their LA or where a child is particularly sensitive to strangers and external judgements.

 

Further, many home educators believe that over-regulation devalues a child's own judgement about what work is worthwhile and meaningful, thereby interfering with self-determination and self-motivation to learn.

 

Another aspect is that it sends a false message to the child that his or her parents are not as trustworthy as teachers and LA staff; they cannot be trusted to act legally and so must be monitored in a manner in which other minority groups are not monitored and other private family practices are not monitored.

 

Finally, it sends a false message to the child that home education is inferior to other education because the state is so concerned about it that it does not trust parents to decide for themselves whether it is efficient and suitable.

 

 

the small numbers of children who are at risk have much to gain.

 

None of the case histories provided supply any evidence that children are put at risk by the current level of regulation - (see comments attached to those case histories); only evidence they are put at risk because current legislation is poorly understood and poorly used and that education welfare and social welfare issues are poorly differentiated by NASWE members, leading to their conflation of EHE with welfare risks simply because the former is home based and the latter often, though not exclusively is too, rather than because there is any causal or actual link. This causes delays in referrals to the appropriate department and inappropriate use of SAO to solve social welfare issues.

 

 

The implication that a child in school is a protected child, is an insult to the incredible number of children abused in schools every year. Despite the lack of real evidence of risk to home educated children that would have benefited from further regulation and an abundance of evidence that children can be at enormous risk in school, NASWE continue to ignorantly push for further regulation of the former with the likely result of such a move being to transfer children out of EHE into the latter. In fact NASWE Principles claim that they are "The voice of all those working to promote school attendance".

 

 

The sentence as a whole is worded to imply that parents, in not wanting further regulation, are selfishly putting their personal interests and privacy over and above their child's education, well-being and safety and that the one is independent of the other. However, the reasons for not wanting further regulation are ALL to do with their child's education, well-being and safety and NOTHING to do with the parent's self-interest other than their natural personal desires for their child.

 

 

In one local authority a summary of all EHE cases within the borough concludes that at least 25% are cause for concern. If this trend is reflected nationally we could be concerned with more than 4000 children and young people. Bearing in mind the lack of requirement for home educators to register with the local authority it is likely that the numbers involved are under estimated.

 

"Cause for concern" can mean many things and it is quite likely that many of these concerns would not be raised if the same child, with the same issues, was a school pupil. After all there appears to be an accepted and expected level of educational failure and welfare problems in schools. That is not to say that home educators aspire to or accept those levels, just that they find it hypocritical of LAs who judge them in a "glass house - throwing stones" manner. 

 

It is also the experience of many parents, that LA staff often have very little understanding of how learning works otherwise than at a school, despite mass schooling being a relatively modern phenomenon. This leads to misjudgements about education provision when little or nothing can be seen that resembles schooling. It is rare, if a family are able to obtain expert counsel/witness, for LA concerns to lead to formal School Attendance Order(SAO) procedures going to court. It is more common for LA concerns to be quashed once they are faced with basing their judgements on legal requirements only and not on personal preferences or prejudices.

 

Those issues aside, if it were true that a particular LA had real concerns about the education or welfare of 25% of the EHE children in their area, they have the Education Act 1996 Section 437 at their disposal. This allows them to make enquiries, offer assistance and advice, put the family in touch with local and national support organisations and ultimately, if all's not well, to issue a SAO and or contact social services.

 

 To illustrate this, NASWE members were asked to supply summary information on cases that have exposed (attempted, yet failed to expose) the dangerous lack of effective regulation and have led to children suffering real harm. The case studies (Appendix) are real but have been anonymised (and dramatised).

 

 Whilst the primary purpose of school attendance is education, we recognise that as a ‘universal’ service, schools also provide an ideal environment for the monitoring of children’s well-being.

 

It must be an embarrassment for NASWE to publicly admit that they support uninvited state surveillance to the extent that they are happy to abuse children's education, privacy and safety to that end. It is well documented that government databases and surveillance systems are unsafe and prime targets for paedophiles and other child abusers.

 

 

Further, it is incredible to think that NASWE imagine that the few hours that children educated otherwise than at school spend other than at a school, leave them at greater risk than schooled children who spend only fractional less time unsurveilled by the state. It is highly probable that EHE is massively safer than schooling for the general welfare, safety, well-being and education of all children. Certainly no-one has produced any evidence to date to suggest otherwise.

 

 The extent and nature of this type of surveillance is of course subject to intense debate, but children who are enrolled at school, and in many cases

heir parents, are subject to huge levels of state regulation and surveillance.(2).

 

The quoted regulation and surveillance processes are all to do with school attendance requirements. Those requirements are in place so that schools can ensure they do a proper job of providing a suitable education to the children whose parents have decided to, or been led to believe they must, delegate that role to them; those schools have a duty to the parents and ironically that sometimes calls for reminders to the parents of their own role in the responsibilities. It is impossible to imagine how NASWE could find a need for similar regulation of EHE.

 

In contrast, the regulation of home-educated children is remarkably lax.

 

 - as one would expect and demand when a public body is not involved in a process. NASWE members and EHE parents, as well as the rest of the UK population, are legally required to refrain from sexual relations with children but they are not legally required to subject themselves to close scrutiny, surveillance, regulation or monitoring, just in case the odd paedophile isn't noticed by some other means.

 

How can it be that education and with it school attendance is such a serious issue for some children and young people but is left virtually without regulation for others?

 

 What NASWE mean by "regulation" is actually "state regulation" and fails to account for the fact that state regulation belongs to state processes, and self regulation and parental regulation are all that are required of private, family processes. A lack of state regulation in EHE does not equate with a less serious concern by those involved, for the education of those children and does not equate with a lack of any regulation.

 

 

Alternatively, try this: school attendance is regulated for those who have opted into school. It is not regulated for those who have not. Is that so hard to understand?

 

(2) Fixed Penalty Notices for term time holidays, parenting contracts, Parenting Orders for truancy and behavior, restrictions during first 5 days of an exclusion.

 

 

We are not suggesting that EHE is in itself a safeguarding issue (it would be impossible to argue otherwise) although arguably the failure to provide a satisfactory education (in any context) may seriously compromise a child’s future opportunities, (It is doubtful that any home educating family would argue with that and it is difficult to see what relevance this comment has to the start of the sentence.)

 

 

what is of concern is that EHE removes the opportunity for what is a very efficient monitoring of children’s welfare through the school system.

 

No it does not. It "moves" it rather than "removes" it and changes it to one more fitting to a system that has closer parental and community oversight.

It is also completely immoral to suggest that just because some people leave it to the state to look out for children's welfare with an inadequate system such as relying on unqualified school staff, that EHE families should subject themselves to the same inadequacies.

 

It is also of concern that some parents, aware of this and wising to avoid intervention opt for home education to avoid contact with welfare agencies, whether safeguarding or school attendance.

 

It is quite legitimate, and often the only option left to a parent attempting to protect their child, to decide that removal from the state education system and its inherent monitoring and interventions, is the safest and most suitable action. It is quite legitimate for a parent of a child with poor school attendance to decide that if the child doesn't attend regularly and doesn't want to, it is unlikely that forcing him or her to attend will result in a suitable education being received. Therefore it is likely that it would actually be negligent for the parent not to try education otherwise than at school.

 

It reflects a lack of understanding and imagination to ignore the fact that poor school attendance is the result of poor, unsuitable school provision for that child, not a fault in the child that requires punishment with more forced school attendance. If something is sickening a child, more of the same won't make them better.

 

 

For the local authority to be unable to prevent a parent from removing a child from school when they are on the child protection register, or where there are documented serious concerns, is both ludicrous and negligent.

 

It would be both ludicrous and negligent, where a child was on the child protection register or where there were serious concerns, for the local authority to rely on school attendance to protect that child, given that school attendance makes up only a small percentage of their time and is proven not to protect children. If a parent cannot be trusted to have a child at home for education purposes they surely cannot be trusted to have the child at home at all and the issue has nothing at all to do with place of education. If this were not the case we would be saying that the parents were only a risk to the child at school times, on school days, in term time or that we were happy for them to harm the child at other times, so long as we could hope to notice it at a school later. 

 

Where a child was on the child protection register, should the parent opt to educate otherwise than at school, the local authority would not have any difficulty gaining access to that child in the home, so use of this example to demonstrate a need for greater regulation of EHE is also ludicrous.

 

 NASWE believes that there needs to be a more thorough review, not simply a rewrite of the guidance, which simply reflects an inadequate regulatory framework. There should be attention paid to the gaps in safeguarding measures, and an end to a situation which allows parents to deny access by the local authority, to their children

 

First, the current consultation process is not to produce a "rewrite" as there has never been a government guidance document in relation to education otherwise than at school.

 

Second, as detailed above, the problem with the current regulatory framework is not that it is inadequate, but that it is inadequately understood and inadequately utilised. Those seeming inadequacies disappear once one grasps concepts such as presumption of innocence, state as parent of last resort only, an inherent desire to learn, schooling as a modern, flawed replacement of home based learning, state regulation being designed for state processes and the harm created by removal of the basic human right to autonomy and privacy.

 

Further, it is unnecessary for a local authority to have uninvited access to all children. It would be abusive for them to have such access, would assume that the state was the primary parent and would equate to living in a police state.

 

NASWE claims to believe "that all children and young people their parents and carers have an entitlement to be treated with dignity and respect. This includes being listened to, consulted on any decision affecting them, and giving due regard to confidentiality". NASWE also claims to "celebrate diversity and promote anti-oppressive practice", both of which appear to be at odds with their call to have uninvited access to children educated otherwise than at school.

 

 

 

There must be a better balance between the rights of parents, the needs and wishes of children and young people and the duty to safeguard.

 

It is disingenuous and discriminatory to raise this issue in regard to EHE. It is precisely because parents are considering the needs, wishes and safety of their children, alongside their own rights, that they choose education otherwise than at school. It is quite possible that the balance is fairer in situations of EHE than it is for schooled children. Distinctly lacking in most local authority information and from NASWE's web site, is any regard to parents' or children's right to be informed about their legal choice to educate otherwise than at a school. It is rare, even in situations where a child is at severe risk in school, for the LA to suggest EHE, despite the legal requirement to safeguard those children in the course of their duties. In fact some LAs may be putting children at risk by informing their staff not to let parents and children know about this option. Also, a parent who does not ask their child if they would prefer not to go to school, is never accused of not listening to the needs and wishes of their child.

 

 The case studies have also highlighted the need for a review and possibly strengthening of school attendance order proceedings. It is not satisfactory that parents should be subject to school attendance order proceedings and for there to be no consequences for non compliance.

 

The Education Act 1996 section 443 provides that:

(1) If a parent on whom a school attendance order is served fails to comply with the requirements of the order, he is guilty of an offence, unless he proves that he is causing the child to receive suitable education otherwise than at school.

and

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (currently £1000)

 

 

 

Further, section 447 provides that:

(1) Before instituting proceedings for an offence under section 443 or 444, a local education authority shall consider whether it would be appropriate (instead of or as well as instituting the proceedings) to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child.

(2) The court—

(a) by which a person is convicted of an offence under section 443, or

(b) before which a person is charged with an offence under section 444,

may direct the local education authority instituting the proceedings to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child unless the authority, having consulted the appropriate local authority, decide that the child’s welfare will be satisfactorily safeguarded even though no education supervision order is made.

 

Once again the problem is due to a lack of understanding and use of the current legislation rather than a need for further legislation.

 

This may be due to a reticence by local authorities to pursue non­compliance and /or their lack of knowledge of other provisions under the Children Act 1989.

 

 The association would be more than happy to meet with the Department to discuss develop these suggestions further.

 

Given NASWE's claim to be "The voice of all those working to promote school attendance and social inclusion in education" they have declared themselves to have a prejudicial vested interest and it would therefore be inappropriate for NASWE to be included as a stakeholder in discussions about education otherwise than at a school.

 

 

 Recommendations.

 

•          A more comprehensive study is made of the extent of the risk of harm experienced by home-educated children.

 

Such a study would of itself be abusive of home educated children. However, home educators are confident that any such study would reveal the relative safety of elective home education when compared to the risk of harm experienced by schooled children. As no figures are collected by government on the risks of or actual harm experienced by schooled children, performing a comprehensive study in that area should be of greater concern.

 

•          (In line with Scottish regulations,) where a child or young person is already known to the local authority, children’s social care, or youth offending and there are ‘concerns’ or they been subject to enforcement proceedings for truancy, that consent for EHE is with held until relevant investigations have been made. This we believe should be done promptly and transparently with parents.

 

Consent cannot be withheld because consent is not required except where a child is registered at a special school under arrangements made by a local authority.

 

Where a child is already known to the the LA and/or there are 'concerns' about the child and a parent decides to educate otherwise than at school, it is flawed thinking to suggest that delaying deregistration provides protection for the child. As stated above, if the child is in danger in school hours, they are in danger per se. Also, delayed deregistration may add to a child's problems; where a child is suffering in school it would be immoral to extend their attendance. For example, a child who has been regularly truant may be avoiding severe bullying and it would be putting her/him at further risk to delay her/his withdrawal from school.

 

Also, bullying, truancy, behaviour problems and conflict with staff, sometimes cited as unsuitable reasons to home educate, are all perfectly reasonable justifications for deciding to home educate, alongside other philosophical, religious, moral or other reasons.

 

•          Where a school attendance order has not been complied with and prosecution is necessary, Magistrates automatically direct the case for consideration of an application for an Education Supervision Order (ESO) and that Local Authorities are encouraged to make use of this provision in preference to prosecution and consider a direct application to the family proceedings court. An ESO effectively removes the right of the parent to educate in a manner of their choosing and allows the LA to put in place a plan, which is in the best interests of the child (which may include EHE).

 

Statute already provides (Education Act section 447(1) that "Before instituting proceedings for an offence under section 443 or 444, a local education authority shall consider whether it would be appropriate (instead of or as well as instituting the proceedings) to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child."

 

The last bracketed section makes no sense at all - if a plan could include EHE, why on earth was a SAO issued - a SAO should only be issued where it is considered by the LA "expedient that the child should attend school."

 

•          EHE parents are reguired to notify the LA even if their child has never been on a school roll. Important that these children are registered within contact point

 

Either Contactpoint is worth the enormous amount of public money being spent on it and will therefore be efficient and do as it is designed to do (automatically include ALL children, including any who have not been notified to the LA as educated otherwise than at school), or it is being considered a failure before it has commenced and should be scrapped. It would be discriminatory to expect parents of these children to ensure that their child's name is on the register when parents of other children will not be required to do so.

 

•          Where parents exercise their right to home educate and the LA is duty bound to assess the education on offer, the LA do this within a prescribed period of time, and to take any necessary enforcement action without delay. Delays in assessment, alongside the timescale necessary for school attendance order proceedings can mean a child for whom EHE is inadequate is out of school for a protracted period making re-integration more difficult for everyone concerned. This alienates parents, confuses children and undermines any action the local authority may wish to take.

 

It is important to understand that the LA does NOT have an automatic duty to assess the education on offer in instances of EHE. Their duty is to issue a notice to a parent, only where they consider that a child appears not to be receiving a suitable education, requiring the parent to satisfy them that the child is in fact receiving a suitable education. Whatever information the parent chooses to provide is to serve the purpose of convincing the LA, on a balance of probabilities, that the child is likely to be receiving a suitable education; it is not  to provide the LA with an opportunity to "assess the education on offer", which is always, including in instances of EHE, the parent's legal role (Education Act 1996 Section 7).

 

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that children who have been out of school for a long period or indeed have never attended a school, have difficulty integrating into school even where they have not followed a school type curriculum.

 

It is more likely that any alienation and confusion arises from the issuing of a SAO, especially, for example, where the child was previously withdrawn from a school that was failing them or the school on the notice is known to fail a significant number of its pupils.

 

•          Where the local authority is dissatisfied with the education provided; that they provide clear reasons why this is so, with evidence to support the conclusion, and clear advice on what steps might be taken to bring the provision up to standard, with a timescale for review.

 

Again, it is important for any guidance to be clear what the LA must be satisfied about. The education has only to be full-time and suitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs the child has and the LA need only to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the child is not likely not to be receiving such a suitable education. There are many common misunderstandings about the education needing to meet other requirements such as being "broad and balanced" or matching school hours; any guidance must dispel these misunderstandings.

 

 

It is telling that although NASWE are keen to have a full report issued telling the parent where they might improve provision, nowhere in their recommendations is there mention of offering any support, resources, information or other assistance; quite a contrast to the time, assistance, resources and advice given to "failing schools".

 

 

•          In order for education to be properly assessed by the local authority the parents are required to allow access to their child and to the place where education will take place, including the home if this is relevant.

 

This requirement to alter primary legislation is entirely discriminatory against this minority group. No other persons are subject to routine inspection of their private lives and denial of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Also, it is entirely fictitious to suggest that, where an education must be investigated (see above for clarity on this), it requires access to the child and their home. Any real concerns that do require access to the child and the home are already covered by current legislation and beyond that, the education of the child and the condition of the home are no-one's business except theirs and their parent's.

 

To illustrate the prejudice at play here, remember that schooled children are required to produce large amounts of homework to supplement their schooling yet, there is no suggestion that the place where that part of their education takes place should be inspected, that their parent's provision for that part of their education should be assessed or that a child should be met by the LA to ensure that their needs and wishes regarding that part of their education are being accounted for or that it can be verified that work presented is their own.

 

•          Children’s Services have a coordinated and consistent responses to EHE within its education and social care sections and there is a protocol with adult mental heath services, youth offending and probation to share information on EHE cases where there are concerns and support multi agency intervention where necessary. Similar to requests made to different agencies where couples are assessed for fostering or adoption.

 

This request contains absolutely disgusting inferences about elective home educators and a relationship with social care, mental health, youth offending and probation and if it were any more specific it would be libelous.

 

Parents are not required to be assessed for suitability for parenting their own children. Causing one's child to receive a suitable education is part of parenting and no parent, whether they register their child in a school or not, are required to be assessed for their suitability to carry out that part of their parenting. To single out for such interference, those choosing not to use schools, would be discriminatory and also highlights the fundamental misunderstanding in this whole submission about jurisdiction in family matters, including education.

 

Children belong to themselves and their parents, NOT to the state, NOT to NASWE nor to any other person or group with pompous ideas about their position in the lives of children and their parents wherever those children receive their education.

 

 

  Appendix EWS Case Studies

 

 

Child S

S attended a private primary school until his parents were no longer able to pay fees. He did not transfer at 11+. Parents were divorced. Father had fortnightly weekend access. The matter was brought to the attention of the LA by the father who was concerned that his son, a bright articulate boy, was not being educated. The LA approached his mother who said she planned to educate at home. The process of inspection was explained to her but she refused access to the advisory service. In the meantime S wrote an eloquent but heartbreaking letter to the director of education, pleading to be allowed a place at a local school. His father maintained regular contact with the LA and reported that S was becoming depressed and gaining weight because of his now sedentary lifestyle. There were also concerns that apart from very short trips to local shops, he and his mother did not leave their home. S’s father also revealed that his ex wife had experienced mental health problems in the past but he did not elaborate.

 

The LA had instituted SAO proceedings as soon as it became clear that the parent was not going to cooperate, but was powerless to move faster despite the concerns. This was upsetting for S, his father and the officer involved.

 

The EWO contacted adult mental health services and was told that the mother had experienced serious mental health problems in the past and

that there had been a very recent self-referral to the local hospital. Shortly after, she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and

forcibly removed from home in the presence of her son. S went to live with his father and was enrolled at a local school within days. He had

already missed all of his first year of secondary schooling.

 

There are a number of things that don't quite add up here. We are told that the LEA issued an SAO as soon as it was apparent the parent was not going to cooperate with the LEAs demands for 'access'. At the end of the account we are told that a whole year of schooling was missed as if to illustrate the need for greater monitoring, and by implication the inadequacy of current measures to protect the child. But it doesn't take anything like a year to issue and enforce an SAO, and if the LEA made their enquiry after deregistration, what was their excuse for dragging this out for so long? There is a lot we are not told, such as the history of SS involvement over the mother's mental health problems if there was any. Might there not have been other non education related grounds for referral and action?

 

Child S - another view:

 

 

S’s mother decided to embark on home education for S when he reached secondary school age because she felt it more suitable to S’s age, ability and aptitude than the state schools and she could not afford a private school, though it is not clear whether she found these suitable either.

 

Unfortunately S’s parents divorced and the difficulties they found in communicating amicably with each other led S’s father’s to involve the LA in their disagreements over S’s education and to inform them about private and historical health issues of S’s mother. S, who was naturally torn between the differing wishes of his parents, approached the LA directly to ask to be school educated rather than home educated, unaware that the LA had no legal jurisdiction over this decision.

 

After contact from the father, the LA unfortunately took a heavy handed approach with the mother which alienated her. The LA explained a home education inspection process to the mother with which they expected her to “cooperate”, despite there being no such legal process and used charged words such as “refusal” when she declined offers of non-obligatory services.  It is not clear whether any proper legal advice was offered or whether she was put in touch with home educator support networks that would have been able to offer her accurate legal information and home education support. Unfortunately, because of this alienation and the lack of accurate advice and support, the mother did not offer anything to the LA that could dispel their opinion that on a balance of probabilities S was not likely to be receiving a suitable education. The LA went on to use the SAO procedure which eventually was not required as the father gained custody of the child and enrolled him in school.

 

The LA were concerned that S had missed a full school year but offered no evidence that he had missed out on a suitable education during that period.

 

Sadly S’s mother, perhaps overwhelmed by the pressure from the LA on top of other difficulties in her life, sought medical help for mental health problems she was experiencing and was eventually sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Once again, the authorities were heavy handed, forcibly removing her from her home in the presence of S, quite possibly adding to his difficulties and further damaging his trust in his own mother and father.

 

It appears that the LA did not adequately separate education and welfare issues and therefore resorted to use of a School Attendance Order to deal with what had already become clear to them was primarily a maternal welfare issue. There was mention of S’s possible depression and sedentary lifestyle but there is no clear indication that these issues were anything to do with his education rather than the difficulty of coping with divorced parents who were not able to maintain an amicable relationship – something that school attendance alone could not remedy.

 

It is clear that the LA had adequate remedies already at their disposal, though there is some question about whether the SAO was handled efficiently enough. They already had access to the mother’s mental health record, presumably within data protection confines, and were able to instigate a process leading to Sectioning and placement of S with his father. They had the SAO process available to them and initiated it early enough to deal with education concerns. Also, if they had genuine urgent concerns for S’s well-being or safety, Social Services could have gained access to him and the home.

 

It remains to be answered whether the mother might not have been able to provide S with a suitable home life and home education if she’d been offered appropriate help for her mental health issues earlier, rather than just citing them as a reason to doubt S’s education.

 

 

Child M

M was a nine year-old boy experiencing behavioural difficulties at school. His father was aggressive towards the school and other services and

withdrew M from school declaring his intention to educate at home, even though he worked full- time. His mother was trying to cope with a seriously

ill younger child and was not in agreement with this course of action and was barely coping. M could not understand why he could not go back to school and said he was lonely and wanted to see his friends. Social services were already involved because of concerns over the parent’s ability to cope and there were some child protection concerns. They were astonished that the father could legally have done this and believed that unless he was in school on a daily basis this would seriously hamper any monitoring of M’s safety.

 

 By the time the parents had been persuaded that it was in M’s interests to return to school he had been taken off roll and his place filled,

necessitating a change of schools for a child already experiencing difficulties.

 

Notice we are not told what the risks were to the child from the father. They just say 'some child protection concerns'. They have set the scene for glossing over this though by already mentioning that he was 'aggressive' with the school. Maybe he was just angry with the way they treated his son, but they called that aggression, a very commonly blurred distinction. Did he threaten them? What were their concerns for the boy? We are not being given nearly enough information here to form our own opinion.

 

 

Child M - another view

 

 

Nine year old M was unhappy at school. His father visited the school regularly as a result of M’s behaviour there and was frustrated at these visits and became aggressive in the face of the school’s failure to provide an education environment that was suitable and alleviated M’s behavioural difficulties. His father also had difficult relationships with other authorities, such as Social Services; perhaps inevitable given that they were questioning his and his wife’s ability to parent their children adequately. The Education Welfare Service said there were some child protection concerns.

 

The father decided his only choice, in light of the difficulties he and his son were experiencing with the school and the LA, was to home educate M, despite the difficulty this would add to his family’s already stressful life with a very sick younger sibling and his own full-time employment. However, M’s mother felt home education was not an appropriate solution.

 

M, was confused about his withdrawal from school and it is quite possible that he had no understanding of the legality or process of home education and the possibilities for socialisation, and he may have been under the impression, as many children and parents are, that school attendance is a legal requirement.

 

Social Services' own argument that they are overstretched and under funded is widely accepted and this particular situation highlights that concern; Social Services felt that a major part of M’s welfare protection was the reliance on school teachers and other school staff, who have minimal training in welfare issues, to look out for M’s well-being. Despite their belief that M was at some level of risk, they were “astonished” that they may have to monitor the situation without this amateur support.

 

No concerns were raised about the ability of M’s parents, given the support and encouragement of the LA and introduction to EHE support networks, to provide him with a suitable education.

 

However, the LA felt M would be better off in school, primarily for welfare reasons due to their inability to do their job properly without the help of teachers and other untrained school staff. Therefore, they worked hard to persuade the parents to send M to school. Rather naively the LA expressed concern about the consequent change of place of education that M encountered due to his previous school being fully subscribed, despite never expressing concerns about the change of education place encountered by home educated children whom they subject to SAOs.

 

 

Child J

J is now 11 years old and has never been a registered pupil. He first came to the LA’s attention in 2001 after a member of the public rang in with concerns. A home visitor visited between 2001- 2004 and reports ranged from Satisfactory (x5) to unsatisfactory (x3). The home visitor also reported unacceptable home conditions and persuaded the parent to seek help through social services. Fearing a visit from social services (evidence?), the parent presented herself claiming she was OK. She then refused to allow anyone into the home or to have contact with any agency. The parent failed to comply with two school attendance orders and refused to answer the door or respond to letters.

 

In an attempt to re open communication with her, a new home visitor was offered to meet with her in the local library. This she did and was given

guidance on how to turn what was deemed provisionally satisfactory into satisfactory provision .  She refused to produce J, quoting her rights. Two

strategy CP meetings have also been called to voice concerns about not seeing the child, or the home, and other people’s concerns when J and his

parent are seen out. He had seen a GP in 2006 so a forced entry by police was not considered appropriate.

 

 Earlier this year J was admitted into hospital as an emergency patient suffering from an undiagnosed advanced stage of diabetic ketoacidosis and in an emaciated condition. J weighed less than he did 3 years previously. He was described as being close to death. He was subsequently place on the child protection register under the category of neglect and emotional harm. After a month in hospital on J was discharged from hospital into foster care.

 

 The police obtained a warrant to enter the house and it was uninhabitable. There was rubbish piled high in all rooms, a toilet that was open to the elements and a bath full of rubbish. There was no heating and no room for anything other than a mattress on which they both slept covered in rubbish. The parent is suspected to have mental health issues particularly around hoarding. The parent still wants to educate him herself and hopes to have him returned to her care when she is able to provide acceptable living accommodation.

 

There appears to be a gap of 3 years between 2004 when the LA reported 'unacceptable living conditions' and 2007 when the boy was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency close to death.  The SS appear not to have acted on information it already had in its possession which should have resulted in their action to investigate the living conditions. The educational provision barely seems to have been an issue in itself with 3 out of 5 satisfactory reports based on home inspections, but the reported living conditions went unchecked.  Yet another example, it would seem, of SS failure to act on information already in their possession, and not a problem of access which they should have insisted on on welfare grounds. 

 

The medical emergency described is presented in such a way as to invite the lay reader not familiar with Type 1 diabetes, which usually only takes a few weeks to develop, to conclude that the boys condition, especially the weight loss, itself a symptom of the condition, with rapid onset, was a direct consequence of neglect and malnutrition. Parental neglect appears to have been assumed as the cause of the boy's condition, but this condition can occur independently of poor conditions or care. 

 

Either the author of this account is ignorant of the aetiology of the condition, or prefers to hope that the reader will be, and draw the intended conclusions about parental intended neglect.

 

While the condition of the house does sound appalling, one can't help being left with the concern that SS, when they finally acted, did so in the belief that the parent caused the boys condition, when that condition and medical emergency can and does arise where there are categorically no such issues of neglect, incompetent care or abuse present.  If they did not, then the presentation of the case to create that impression is disingenuous.

 

It is an extremely sad reflection of the mistrust and almost hatred of parent as primary carer that is being culturally normalised, that this struggling parent was vilified rather than offered assistance.

 

Child K & Child F    

 

K& F were both withdrawn from school during year 8 & 9 respectively. Both had a poor record of attendance. The children’s father is a known to be a problem drinker and may have mental health problems. He has on many occasions been involved in incidents at the children’s school, which have

resulted in him being banned from the premises. The children’s mother has mental health difficulties and is receiving treatment. Both parents are in

receipt of incapacity benefit. Parents are obsessively concerned about perceived risks to their children who have previously been placed on the

child protection register because of emotional abuse. K had missed a period of schooling following an accident and home tuition was provided during his recovery. A further period of tuition was provided because of concerns about K’s mental health. However his reintegration to school proved problematic and despite offers of alternative provision both parents were prosecuted by the local authority for their child’s poor attendance. They then withdrew them to home educate. Parents have refused to cooperate with the LA as they are in the process of appealing against sentence. Both children had a history of poor attendance and difficulties at school that started in primary. Currently there is no contact with the children and no reason to believe that education is taking place.

 

Charles Kennedy was a problem drinker;, lots of people are, including many members of gvt who may also have 'mental health problems'; and most probably do.

The stupidity and sheer viciousness of prosecuting struggling parents unable to force their children into the hated institution of school, then produces the entirely predictable result of them taking the only option legally left to them of withdrawing them to home educate. What other options were left to them? It is hardly surprising (and probably legally prudent) that they would refuse to cooperate with such a hostile and unhelpful LA that they were fighting through the courts. The authorities, by their heavy handed actions, have effectively cut themselves off from access to the children, and now wish to remedy that by being given even more powers of access.

 

Having treatment for mental health problems and/or receiving incapacity benefit, in themselves do not automatically preclude ability to cause one's child to receive a suitable education  - to hint that it does is distasteful in the extreme.

 

NASWE claim that there is "no reason to believe that education is taking place". However, they fail to point out that there is also no valid reason to believe that education is NOT taking place.

 

 Child P

Child P was withdrawn from school in year 9 because of allegedly getting in with the wrong crowd. Both parents have difficulties with literacy and

numeracy and both attended a special school because of mild learning difficulties. Despite the parents best efforts they are unable to help with basic tasks. An older brother experienced difficulties at school and was refusing to attend he was removed from school in year 9 to be educated at home. Although the education on offer to him was not satisfactory the parents did allow the LA access. Concerns over the education for P have been raised. P is underachieving and very little work is evident and is of a standard that might be expected of a child in primary school. P agreed with the LA officer that this was work done in primary school. The parents have been subject to school attendance order proceedings on 2 occasions and have failed to comply. They have now refused to cooperate with the LA.

 

This 'case' invites the Q 'what exactly is the problem?' Are they not aware that failure to comply with the SAO should result in prosecution for that offence? They make no mention of going down that road. They appear not to be even using the powers they do have, and it is completely unclear as to how a statutory duty to home inspect would help in this instance.

 

Furthermore, consider these statements:

"Both parents have difficulties with literacy and numeracy and both attended a special school because of mild learning difficulties."

"P is underachieving and very little work is evident and is of a standard that might be expected of a child in primary school."

Is it so remarkable that a child of parents with learning difficulties also has learning difficulties? Can his lack of academic success be laid purely at the door of his short home education?  What, exactly, does the LA hope to achieve by returning him to school?

 

 

Note also that the child was withdrawn from school in year 9, four years beyond the end of primary schooling. Yet the fact that he is producing primary school level work is somehow due to being home educated for a short period of time, rather than the presumed nine years of conventional education prior to this.

 

Child P was failed by conventional schooling, both academically and socially. What could it possibly offer him any longer?