HomeSchooler.org.uk

"...on Graham Stuart's Twitter (HT: Jemmo):

"I have confirmed with Michael Gove that the Conservatives will oppose compulsory registration of home educated children in the Bill."

However, we must remain cautious as we have heard from the DCSF that they thought there would be no prelegislative scrutiny of the relevant sections. We are not sure why they think this and thanks to Firebird and Alice, we have news of today's debate on the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which I completely missed earlier."...

Read the comments too...

Sarah

The son of a member of the Badman Review Action Group has very kindly given me permission to reproduce his correspondence with the Children's Commissioner...

***********************First Letter***********************

Dear Children's Commissioner,

I and my brother are electively home educated. My Dad has told me
that should the Badman recommendations become law, I may have to see
and speak to employees of the Local Authority. My brother and I do not
want to do this and we do not want strangers to have the right of
entrance to our house. A recent poll of home educated children found
that 77% of them felt the same way. Could you confirm whether or not we have
the right not to meet or speak with local officials and whether, if we don't
want them in our house, we have to have them in anyway. I understand that Human
Rights legislation protects children from this sort of thing.

Yours sincerely,

LM

***********************Follow Up***********************

Dear Children's Commissioner,

I wrote to you last night saying that Mr Badman's review would let
inspectors come into my house, take me away from my parents and
question me. This will happen even when nothing is wrong. My
brother and I don't want this to happen. This morning we have been looking at
the UNHCR website. Article 16 says that: 'No child shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or
correspondence.' And Article 12 says that children have the right to express
their views freely in all matters affecting themselves and that 'the views of
the child be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the
child.'

Under Articles 12 and 16, my brother and I hereby state that we do
not want strangers breaking into our house, taking us away and
interrogating us. We believe that since our mum and dad are not
suspected of abuse, such interference would be arbitrary and
unlawful.

"I suggest other home educators and home educated children let her know of their doubts

Dear Maire, Bruce and Beth,

Thank you for your email regarding home education. I have spoken with the Deputy Children’s Commissioner, who was actually a member of the review group. She is supportive of the recommendations that the report proposes. She appreciates your concerns and is sure that any visits undertaken by the local authority will be done in accordance with the child’s wishes and her best interests."...more...

A review of home education in England is expected to recommend a national registration scheme for home educators. Fiona Nicholson, a trustee of home education support organisation Education Otherwise, and Peter Traves, director of Children Services for Staffordshire, discuss whether local authorities should have the right to visit any child taught at home.

Thank you to Adele for the following. Originally posted on the AE-UK Yahoo Group:

I find it interesting to note the differences between the wording in the review report and that of the consultation document. It seems that people have many different ideas about the twelve month plan/statement of intent, so it might be worth considering what is meant by that. Also interesting to look at is the thing about seeing the child alone.

With ref to the plans/statement of intent:

The Report Recommendation 1 says:

"National guidance should be issued on the requirements of registration and be made available online and at appropriate public buildings. Such guidance must include a clear statement of the statutory basis of elective home education and the rights and responsibilities of parents."

AND THEN

"At the time of registration parents/carers/ guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months."

AND THEN

"Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to meet local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education and develop the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within eight weeks of first
registration. "

AND THEN (note *immediately following on from the previous paragraphs* so presumably referring to the "support" and "guidance" in preparing the plan as *a requirement of registration* ):

"As well as written guidance, support should encompass advice from a range of advisers and organisations, including schools. Schools should regard this support as a part of their commitment to extended schooling."

If, as stated here, the plan is written under guidance that forms **a requirement for registration* * and with "support" from schools as part of their "commitment to extended schooling", and not registering would be a criminal offence... Well, I don't think a simple statment about supporting our children in following their interests would be accepted...

*The consultation* says:

In the part headed "The Proposals. Register of Home Educated Children":

2.1 "The scheme described in the review is one where education and safeguarding issues are both considered as part of the registration process, with an initial statement of educational intent forming the basis for subsequent educational monitoring arrangements. "

(note the last bit!)

and

2.3 "Regulations will specify the information that parents must provide which is likely to be child's name, date of birth, address, the same information for adults with parental responsibility; a statement of approach to education, and the location where education is conducted if not the home"

Now... By "statement of approach to education" do they actually mean "statement of educational intent forming the basis for subsequent educational monitoring arrangements" as per 2.1? Would these "regulations" include Mr Badman's "guidance" as described above?

The differences between the wording in the report and that of the consultation are interesting.

Even more interesting is the difference between

Review report rec 7:

"...have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer. "

and

2.6 of consultation document:

"The local authority should have the right to carry out the interview without a parent being present, if this is judged appropriate, or alternatively if the child is vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or parent/carer. "

Biiiiig difference between **alone** and "without a parent present".

The wording in the consultation is generally softer than the wording in the review. Why? Do they intend to implement slightly more moderate versions of Graham Badman's recommendations but haven't said so? Or do they intend to implement the recommendations as written and are being very careful about how they word them in order to make it easier to get them through?

I think this is noteworthy.

"I find it interesting to note the differences between the wording in the review
report and that of the consultation document. It seems that people have many
different ideas about the twelve month plan/statement of intent, so it might be
worth considering what is meant by that. Also interesting to look at is the
thing about seeing the child alone."... ...more...

The statements about 'double the number of HEd children known to the authorities is problematic.

He doesn't know how many HEd children there are, so the calculation is impossible.
'Known' to the authorities means nothing - there are many innocent reasons for this 'knowledge'.

This info collated by a member of HE-UK Yahoo Group

This bit is chilling:(

5 May 2009 : Column 76

I looked into the matter covered by the Hon. Lady’s new clause 20 in detail
when I read it. Our belief is that, aside from the odd drafting issue about
the exact role of the key worker, which we do not need to go into today, the
existing statutory law and guidance in the Children Acts 1989 and 2004
achieves the objectives that she sets out. The statutory guidance is clear
that section 47 of the 1989 Act should always involve a social worker
undertaking separate interviews with the child wherever appropriate. It is
also clear that seeing the child alone is not enough, and that the child
must be observed interacting with their family and, if appropriate, with
other adults or care givers. We will revise that statutory guidance later in
the year to make it absolutely clear that if at any point the parents refuse
to allow the child to be seen alone, the local authority has powers under
that Act to apply for an emergency protection order to require parents to
comply with any request to produce the child. The Act authorises the removal
of a child in those circumstances if necessary. Current statute therefore
provides the powers that the Hon. Lady seeks in the new clause.

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice provide
for an appropriate adult to be called to the police station whenever a juvenile
or mentally vulnerable person has been detained in police custody.
Appropriate adults have an important role to play in the custody environment
by ensuring that the detained person whom they are assisting understands
what is happening to them and why..."