Please add your comments/edit this page.
Guidelines Consultation
On 29th November 2007, the DCSF published their delayed "Elective Home Education - Guidelines for Local Authorities" document, after receiving 919 responses to their public consulation.
The results of the consulation can be read here
The finalised publication can be read here
Analysis and comment
The consultation received 919 responses.
The organisational breakdown of respondents was as follows:
Home educator 631
Other* 102
Local authority 91
Young Person who is/was home educated 59
Organisation representing home educators 36
*Those which fell into the ‘other’ category included prospective home educators, organisations involved in or supporting home education, relatives of home educators, consultants and those who did not specify a category.
Home educators have questioned the involvement of some respondents as stakeholders in this consultation. Local Authorities are not stakeholders in elective home education; teachers' unions are not stakeholders in elective home education; NASWE is a body with declared aims representing a vested prejudicial interest against elective home education.
First reaction from home educators has been that results are not as bad as they would have been if we had not had a large input. Indeed, where home educators had been excluded from the previous consultation that consulted predominantly with LAs, it resulted in proposals for radical tightening of the law via changes to the legal framework to clamp down on traditional educational freedoms in the UK.
The community whose lives are affected by these guidelines has been consulted only once on a draft guidance. They have been consulted along with bodies whose interest is to restrict elective home education and even to remove many traditional freedoms so that they can be replaced with a dictatorial regime of prescription, monitoring and general imposition. Their comments have been taken and completed guidelines published with no further opportunity to comment.
Home educators have worked hard to gain a voice in these consultations affecting their freedoms and the well being of their children alongside hostile forces. Despite relief at achieving this and mitigating the results, there is no doubt that there are problems with the new guidance.
Some Problems
2.15
"As outlined above, local authorities have general duties to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (section 175 Education Act 2002 in relation to their functions as a local authority and for other functions in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004). These powers allow local authorities to insist on seeing children in order to enquire about their welfare where there are grounds for concern (sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989). However, such powers do not bestow on local authorities the ability to see and question children subject to elective home education in order to establish whether they are receiving a suitable education."
This section is too open to misinterpretation allowing local authorities to insist on seeing children illegitimately because it is vague about grounds for concern. The section should have quoted the words of children act which are "reasonable cause to suspect that a child ... is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm." It is from long and painful experience that AHEd members believe that some local authotities will purposely ignore the "significant harm" requirement and say they have "grounds for concern" - such as wondering for no good reason, if the child is being abused because no-one at the LA offices has had sight of them.
In order to be acceptable to home educators and to avoid the appearance of incitement to pursue unreasonable "concerns" this section must be amended to include the wording suggested above.
Currently this section is not acceptable.
3.6
This section assumes home visits to be the norm and suggests alternatives.
It remains to be seen whether this causes problems given the traditional preference of LAs for home visits including misrepresentation of home visits as required. DCSF reported that the consultation responses included the complaint of local authoritis that the guidelines should make provision for home educators to comply with their requests for a home visit and some recourse for the LA where families "refuse."
Currently this section is potentially problematic.
3.8
3.10
3.12
3.14
3.15
This section was the subject of specific questioning in the consultation on guidelines. Only 32% of respondents agreed with the list of characteristics of a suitable education that the LA may reasonably expect to observe present. 35% disagreed. Another 33% were unsure. Even DCSF have agreed in their consultation report that a majority of respondents disagreed with the list. The list of characteristics is included in the final guidelines. Why?
Currently this section is not acceptable and has been judged as not accurate or helpful by respondents in consultation.
Why a list is not acceptable:
Section seven gives a list of requirements for a suitable and efficient education saying that it must be suitable for the particular child. Any list of characteristics may not be suitable to a particular child. Covering all potentialities would seem an impossible task. If a group of home educators were able to agree to a list of acceptable or apparently reasonable characteristics of home education in addition to that already specified in law, there is no guarentee that it will be suitable for every child in every case. Therefore, it is wrong to produce a list that may be used to judge the educational provision to a child for whom that list is not appropriate when the law specifies that the education provided must be appropriate for the particular child. To justify a list of generally agreeable characteristics the law would have to be amended to force a child to adapt to what is generally agreeable in preference to what is suitable for the specific needs of a particular child.
Why this list is not acceptable:
"consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers - it is expected that parents or significant carers would play a substantial role, although not necessarily constantly or actively involved in providing education."
While this may be observable from parental response to enquiry, equally it may not. The law already provides that parents are responsible to fulfil section seven of the Education Act 1996 but, to satisfy this characteristic of the list of what is reasonable to expect to observe, families will have to subject their parenting decisions and private family arrangements to scrutiny by a public body in official enquiries. This contravenes the right to a private family life.
"recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations"
"opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences "
"access to resources/materials required to provide home education for the child – such aspaper and pens, books and libraries, arts and crafts materials, physical activity, ICT and the opportunity for appropriate interaction with other children and other adults."
3.16
4.2
5.9
5.10
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.