Notes from 11KBW Webinar about the Portsmouth JR

These are my notes from the webinar hosted by Paul Greatorex (who stood for PCC) and James Cornwell (who stood for the Secretary of State).

As these are notes, they are written in note form.

The presentation was split into four sections:

1. The Law
2. The Case
3. The Implications
4. Q&A session

1. The Law

1996 Education Act: s7, s9, s13, s436 and s437.

2002 Ed Act: s175

Case Law: 

Talmud Torah 1985 - definition of "suitable" education is if it equips a child for life in their community.

Tandy 1998 - suitability is determined by education not resources

Tweedy and Pritchard 1963 - if the LA doesn't see a child, it may trigger NTS

Phillips vs Brown 1980 - LA allowed to ask for information.  If no information is given, LA may trigger NTS.

Children Missing Education Documents

EHEDGLA 2019

EHEDGP 2019

2. The Case

Portsmouth changed their policy, blaming it on the 2019 guidance, to say that a report alone is unlikely to be sufficient.

The Claimant's reports were very detailed, but PCC didn't believe them.

PCC wanted to know the reading and writing levels of the children.

The case was NO challenge to LA's assessment of suitability.

The case was NO challenged based on the change of policy from previous years.

[my paraphrase] After providing work samples for 4 or 5 years in a row, then the LA may simply accept a report.

[My comment] ie samples of work must be provided in most cases.

All LAs are acting lawfully if they ask for more than just a report.

3. Implications

There's nothing wrong with LAs requesting evidence as part of the initial informal request.

LAs can ask for corroborative evidence, eg work samples or to meet the child.

4. Q&As

Dismisses the suggestion that work is the IP of the child.

SEN - doesn't prevent HE.

Different educational philosophies should be no problem, but they recommend a timetable etc

You are NOT in breach of s7 if you knowingly send your child to a school that is in special measures.  Apparently the age/ability/aptitude bit only applies if you do not send your child to school, not if you do.

LAs are not legally entitled to endter the home nor see the child.

If an LA writes unlawful policy, the first set is to complain through the LA's complaints process, then next step would be to take it to JR.

They didn't answer my question about section 6.12 of EHEDGLA which states "Of course, the local authority should give reasonable weight to information provided by parents, on its own merits. For example, an authority should not dismiss information provided by parents simply because it is not in a particular form preferred by the authority".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I have more time, I might come back to this to link to the relevant docs etc.

Portsmouth JR - Part 2

Yesterday I started my read-through of this report of the JR, and today I will be continuing.
It's probably worth your while reading my previous summary, so you are aware of the facts of the case.

H Discussion
This is the meaty part of the report.  This is when we get away from the facts, and look at the arguments and reasoning behind the decisions that have been made.  It is from Paragraph 65 onwards.

There are four grounds that have been brought before the court:

1. The LA puts the burden of proof on the HErs which is inconsistent with the statutory guidance.
2. The LA will not accept just a report, even if there are  no grounds for concern, and will proceed directly to NTS.
3. The LA has a policy of issuing NTS without specifying the areas of concern.
4. The LA has a policy of issuing NTS with no concerns and without suggesting the education is unsuitable.

Ground 1:

The LA puts the burden of proof on the HErs when they should be making "informal enquiries".  Once a NTS has been served, then the burden falls on parents to satisfy the LA and not before.

"Mr Wolfe draws particular attention to the second bullet point in paragraph 5.4 of the Secretary of State's Elective Home Education guidance for local authorities. This bullet point says that where there were no previous concerns about the education being provided and no reason to think that it has changed, the local authority's annual contact with the parents would often be "very brief"."

Unsurprisingly, the laywers (or solicitors - I can never remember the difference.  I'm going to use the term "lawyer" and if it's wrong, it's wrong) for both the LA and the Secretary of State take issue with this.  The LA's lawyer claims that thinking this way "misconstrues and overcomplicates what is intended to be a simple and straightforward process."!!  Personally, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is quite a simple process myself, but that's just me...

The government's lawyer quotes section 7 of Ed Act, and the judge then says in paragraph 70 "The parent is not the ultimate arbiter of whether, for example, the education being received by the child is suitable."

I would like to read a full transcript of the dialogue as to how the judge came up with this conclusion.  Given the parent is responsible, according to s7, and have a duty to ensure the education a child is given is suitable - how can they not be able to determine or be trusted to know when that is the case?  Seems arse-backwards to me (to use a phrase my mum says).

Paragraph 72 says 

"Section 436A(2) provides that, in exercising those functions, the local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State. I note that there is nothing in this subsection that restricts the duty to guidance that is specifically categorised as statutory in nature."

i.e. the judge is saying that because the guidance doesn't limit what LAs can ask for, they can whatever they want of parents and parents have to comply.  

Paragraphs 84-86:

"As the correspondence between the defendant and the claimant make plain, the defendant began its enquiries with an open mind. It was only when faced with what it regarded as insufficient material from the claimant that the informal inquiries continued, leading to the impasse which then meant it appeared to the defendant that the children were not receiving a suitable education at home. As Mr Cornwell submits, the threshold at this point is a low one. It merely requires the defendant to take a view, as matters then stand, challengeable only on public law grounds.

The four paragraphs of "clarification" which the defendant inserted in its guidance in late 2020, and subsequently removed, have no material bearing on ground 1. Insofar as the language used indicates that, at the informal inquiries stage, a parent may have the task of providing evidence that shows a suitable education is being provided, the clarification accurately describe the statutory scheme, as explained by the Secretary of State's guidance. The same is true of the paragraph under "definition of suitable education", added in late 2020, which is to the same effect.

Ground 1 accordingly fails."

These paragraphs basically say that the HEr did not give enough information to the LA, therefore it's their own fault they were served NTS and SAO.  The judge also says that whilst the "clarification" the LA used has no bearing on Ground 1, it is accurate and lawful.

Grounds 2 & 3

The LA will not accept just a report, even if there are  no grounds for concern, and will proceed directly to NTS.
The LA has a policy of issuing NTS without specifying the areas of concern.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, (I don't think I've mentioned yet, but 40% of the home educators in Portsmouth have been issued with NTS, compared to under 2% on average in other LAs), the judge says "I do not consider it is a fair analysis of the defendant's position".

Paragraph 89 says 

"The real ambit of ground 2 is that the claimant says the defendant has adopted a rigid stance, whereby it will reject reports provided by parents, in deciding whether a child is receiving suitable education at home. This amounts to an unlawful fettering of the defendant's discretion: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Venables  [1997] 3 All ER 97" 

This contains lots of legalese, that I'll try and unpick (mainly because I've had to look up the meanings myself). 'Ambit' means 'line in the sand'. 'Fettering Discretion' means 'rather than exercising discretion, it fetters [binds] itself to someone else's views/policies'. 

Then the judge linked to the transcript of the conviction of Venebles and Thompson - the killers of Jamie Bulger in 1993. I don't know why that has been linked, and tbh, I don't particularly want to read about the case, and the various appeals by the defendants.  It was bad enough reading/hearing about it in the news.  I was only 11yo myself at the time of the murder, and I can still remember the details.  So, I haven't read it, which in turn means I don't know why it is included.

Paragraph 91:

"Although it is true that, in his email of September 2020, Mr McIntyre said to the claimant that a "report alone, however detailed, is in my view, not going to be enough to enable us to be confident that suitable education is taking place", the defendant's actual position, repeated throughout the correspondence, is that "a written report alone, however detailed it may be, is unlikely to be sufficient to enable the Council to determine that suitable education is taking place" (see eg. the Chief Executive's letter of 20 January 2021; my emphasis).

 "

So because Portsmouth LA's policy uses the word "unlikely" it means there is the slimmest of possibilities that a report alone will be accepted, and therefore it isn't unlawful - according to the judge.

Paragraphs 92 and 93 basically say that because the LA's policy uses words like "might", "example" and "not an exhaustive list", the fact that it is asking for things that the government's policy specifically says are not required is not a problem at all. 

Most worrying is Paragraph 94:

"

As can readily be seen, in the present case the defendant did not reject the claimant's reports because they were not in a particular form. The defendant's concerns were substantive ones. Despite the length of the claimant's reports, they were wholly assertive in nature. They contained nothing by way of actual work produced by the children. To take the example of work on To Kill a Mockingbird, which featured in submissions at the hearing, there was no material showing the degree of comprehension of the appellant's daughter concerning the novel; merely a series of statements from the claimant."

So the judge is saying that because the reports did not include examples of the children's work, the word of the parents' cannot be trusted.  They are simply a series of words by the HEr and the presumption that the parents are lying about their children's activities and education is just.

To say that again, the judge is saying that parents cannot be trusted.

I have no words, other than disgust, tbh.  If a parent is going to lie about this, they can easily fake 'work' by the children - whether it be searching on the internet, or writing things in their own handwriting.  It's all bollox.

Paragraph 95 doesn't help the situation: "The affidavit, produced by the claimant and her husband, takes matters no further. It does not change the nature of the reports, to which the affidavit refers."
i.e. The judge is saying that it doesn't matter if the parents produce a legal document stating everything they have said is true, it (and they) still cannot be trusted.

Paragraph 96 says: "In any event, the defendant's policy properly takes account of the 2019 guidance documents of the Secretary of State; and there is no challenge to the lawfulness of these"
I don't know to which the "these" refers to in the previous sentence?  If it means the lawfulness of the 2019 guidance, fine.  However, if it means the lawfulness of Portsmouth LA's policy, then I think this was a big gap in the case, and should have been included.

In Paragraph 98, the judge quotes the DfE guidance: "2.12. However, many home-educating families do some of these, at least, by choice. Furthermore, is likely to be much easier for you to show that the education provided is suitable if attention has been paid to the breadth of the curriculum and its content, and the concepts of progress and assessment in relation to your child's ability."

The judge is basically saying that "paying attention to" isn't enough.  You have to be able to document - which is more than what the guidance says.  I don't think this is lawful, despite what the judge says.  [Note: I repeat that I am not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice.]

Paragraph 99 goes further, and says that the LA "could" (which we know that LAs will take to mean "should") meet the child and/or examine the child's work.  What about the rights of the child?  What if they don't want their intellectual property shared?  What if they have been traumatised at school, or have some other issue that means that when they meet new people in authority, they freeze? Or maybe they are defiant, or simply refuse to be a dancing monkey?

Paragraph 101 is telling.  Despite saying repeatedly in different ways that parents cannot be trusted, the judge says "I see no reason not to take the defendant at its word." Parents cannot be trusted, but the LA always can. <eyeroll>
The judge says "The fact that, in the present case, the claimant's report has not been sufficient" - I'm not convinced that has been proved tbh.  The fact is that the LA has claimed it is not sufficient, not that it actually is not sufficient. - my mistake, the LA can always be trusted.  Silly me...
The judge also uses the term "home-schooled".  I would have hoped that a judge in a home education case would have least learnt the basic terminology, but again, I'm clearly in the wrong for thinking that.

Still in paragraph 101, the judge says "Once a local authority has satisfied itself, by reference to the Secretary of State's guidance, that suitable education is actually being received by a child who is being home-schooled, a subsequent inquiry in respect of the same parent and child might be satisfactorily answered by production of a report along the lines of that produced by the claimant."

So, going back to the facts of this case, the HEr has previously given reports that were accepted and the child's education deemed suitable.  Then, in 2020 the HEr gave a subsequent report "along the lines of that produced by the claimant" (given it was the report produced by the claimant) and this was not accepted.  Why not, given the judges statement above?  

Paragraph 102 says "Finally under these grounds, I address the contention of the claimant that she is under no legal duty to respond to the initial or informal inquiries of the defendant."
Where was this claimed or contended?  It's not in this document, that's for sure.  The HEr has said that she has no legal duty to respond in the way the LA wishes - and that is true - but it is clear from the facts of the case that she has responded and repeatedly so!

Paragraph 103: "Grounds 2 and 3 accordingly fail."

Ground 4
The LA has a policy of issuing NTS with no concerns and without suggesting the education is unsuitable.
(Paragraphs 104 & 105)

This is a short section, because it seems the judge has got bored by now and cba.

Paragraph 105:

"Much of this has already been covered in the earlier grounds.  I find that the defendant does not have a policy of issuing an NTS in circumstances where it has no concerns.  The allegation of inconsistency with the legal framework and statutory guidance is unparticularised. It is in, any event, wrong for the reasons given in respect of Ground 1."

 Conclusion

"Each of the claimant's grounds fails."

That's it.  That is literally all it says in the conclusion section and we are at the end of the document.

So, my thoughts and musings...

• The judge seems to have no understanding of home education or learning without school.
• Portsmouth's policy is so clearly over the line, yet the judge seems to have judged whether or not the HEr has adhered to the LA's policy rather than the lawfulness of the policy itself.
• There seem to be some obvious contradictions, that the judge has either overlooked or not understood.
• The bias of the judge towards the LA and against the parents is astounding - though this case is about home education, that alone (ie that parents can't be trusted) should send shockwaves through all families and it could have huge ramifications.

What can/should be do?

Firstly, we should send our love and support to the home educators in Portsmouth.  They have worked so hard, and well done to this family in particular for standing up and fighting.  No doubt they'll be in for some stick from some quarters, but it was a very brave thing to do and the right thing to do.

Then, at the moment, we shouldn't change what we're doing.  I know some unschoolers are panicking and thinking that they need to monitor and evidence every little thing - if that's what you want to do, go ahead, but please do it for yourself and not with the intention of giving it to the LA.  At least, not yet.

My prefered path is one of civil resistance or disobedience.  Keep giving brief reports etc as is our right.  Do respond when the LA contacts you, but they should accept the information how you provide it (rather than demanding how it should be provided).  Hold out for as long as you can.  For some people this may be when they issue a SAO; at this point, overload the LA with information, dated (even with random dates - how can the LA prove anything??) and shuffled.  Make the LA work for their money. For other brave souls, it may be when they get taken to court, or beyond. Don't let me tell you what to do - do what is right for your own family.

I'm going to end this post by linking to a list of 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action - just in case it is useful for anyone...

 

Portsmouth Judicial Review - Readthrough Part 1

 Yesterday we had the bad news that the home educators in Portsmouth had lost the Judicial Review.

A lot of people are now panicking about what this means, especially for unschoolers, but at the moment we need to be patient, let Portsmouth HErs regroup and talk to their solicitor in order to determine whether there are any next steps and what they mean.

In the meantime, I thought I'd do a readthrough of the report in case it is helpful to anyone.

(Note: I am not a lawyer.  I have not studied law.  This is not legal advice or assertions, but my own thoughts and feelings, which may be wrong if I haven't understood the nuances.) 

THIS is the link to the full 105 paragraphs of the report.  It is split into 

• A Introduction; 
• B Permission and Hearing; 
• C Statutory Framework; 
• D Secretary of State's Guidance 
• (1) Children Missing Education 2016; 
• (2) Elective Home Education Guidance to Local Authorities 2019;
• (3) Elective Home Education Parents 2019;
• E Defendant's Policy Guidance;
• F Case Law;
• G The Facts of the Present Case;
• H Discussion;
• Conclusion.

The Claiment is Christina Goodread (Portsmouth Home Educator).  Though she alone is named in this JR, she isn't the sole person to whom Portsmouth LA have acted unlawfully.  I wouldn't want any readers to mistakenly think that this is a case from one woman who has simply not been reasonable.

The Defendant is Portsmouth City Council (ie the LA).

And the Secretary of State is the Intervener - someone called to be neutral and give clarity about the situation.  [This may be one of those times I'm wrong.  Here's a link to a definition of an Intervener.]
What is interesting about the definition I've linked to, is that the Intervener shouldn't have a direct interest in the lawsuit (though they may have interest in the outcome).  I don't think the Secretary of State is neutral nor the best person for this role, but back to the text.

A Introduction

Basically, Portsmouth HErs are saying that their children are being suitably educated and Portsmouth LA are imposing an unlawful burden on them, because the LA's policy on EHE is unlawful.

B Permission and Hearing

I don't really understand this section tbh.  Something was refused, even though permission was at one point granted, because the claimant's reasoning had changed.
Then there's a section thanking the Secretary of State for getting involved.

C Statutory Framework

Long list of laws from the Education Act.  
Worth reading through them, if you haven't before, but there's no need for me to comment on it.

D Secretary of State's Guidance

This is a long list of quotes from the various guidances.  If you want to see my thoughts on each of them have a read of the following:
Response to EHE Guidance (LAs) 2019
Comparing HE Guidance for LAs and Parents

CME vs EHE Guidance

E Defendant's Policy Guidance

This is where it starts to get interesting for me, as I haven't read through Portsmouth's policy document before.

Paragraph 35: So, despite listing everything that is not required for HErs to do, Portsmouth LA says

"Furthermore, it is likely to be much easier for a parent to show that the education provided is suitable if attention has been paid to the breadth of the curriculum and its content, and the concepts of progress and assessment in relation to your child's ability."

So, the law and the guidance say you don't have to do this, but tough shit, we're going to make you do it anyway. As a reminder, this is the list that HErs are not required to do:

There are no legal requirements for you as parents educating a child at home to do any of the following:

• acquire specific qualifications for the task
• have premises equipped to any particular standard
• aim for the child to acquire any specific qualifications
• teach the National Curriculum
• provide a 'broad and balanced' curriculum
• make detailed lesson plans in advance
• give formal lessons
• mark work done by the child
• formally assess progress, or set development objectives
• reproduce school type peer group socialisation
• match school-based, age-specific standards
  

Paragraph 36: Then in 2020, the LA added a section into its policy document, stating that the education should be "Broad", "Balanced", "Relevant" and "Differentiated".  That there should be a "curriculum" of some description being used.  All of which are unlawful and go against the guidance.

There is also a list of reasons given as examples of why an education may be deemed unsuitable, including "There is no or very limited examples of work submitted.", "There is no or very limited detail of how the child's progress is being monitored or examples of work to demonstrate relevant progression", and "There is no clear academic or time structure."  Again, all of which are unlawful and go against the guidance.

Paragraph 37: The LA has then 'clarified' by stating " a written report alone, however detailed it may be, should not be relied on in order to satisfy the council that suitable education is taking place." i.e. parents cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  We will not accept a written, signed document.

Paragraph 38:

"The defendant subsequently removed the "clarification", on the basis that it considered the passage was causing unnecessary confusion."

F Case Law
This paragraph goes through a previous example of case law: Phillips vs Brown 1980.  
This is the case where it says that if you don't give any evidence to the LA, they are in their right to assume that education is not taking place.

G The Facts of the Present Case
(Paragraphs 42-64)

• 17 July 2020 the LA wrote to the HEr
• 26 July2020 the HEr gave a report.
  "There followed a description, by reference to subjects, of what she said the children had been doing."
• 7 Aug 2020 LA asked for more detail.
  "1. What progress/achievements has your child made this academic year? How has this been monitored and recorded? Can you provide supporting evidence of this?
  2. Can you provide any supporting documents of completed educational subjects covering this academic year? Is this marked and dated?
  3. Can you provide dated reports, assessments or feedback from the online resources which are being used?" 
• 8 Aug 2020 HEr replied that education was suitable, and LA shouldn't be monitoring.  She gave more detail, but said work was not marked nor dated.
• 3 Sept 2020 LA says that a report alone isn't suffient.
  "This was because "for every example of a parent whose child is receiving education and performing exactly as described in the report, there will be another example of where this is not the case"."
• [Musings: I would like to know how many fake reports Porstmouth have ever had?]
• 6 Sept 2020 HEr asks specifically for the LA's concerns.
• 10 Sept 2020 LA emailed stating "concerns centred "around evidence of ability to read and write to a level suitable to age, aptitude and ability for example and indeed evidence of the programme being described, taking place"."
• 15 Sept 2020 HEr gives yet more info, stating the children are working above their school-peers-ages in various subjects and have progressed over the year.
• 29 Sept 2020 LA says that isn't good enoughand issues Notice to satisfy (NTS).
• 9 Oct 2020 HEr makes official complaint about their treatment (Stage 1).
• 2 Nov 2020 LA says due to rise in numbers HEing there have been more unsuitable education. 
  "Cases where the parents concerned meet the defendant, demonstrating suitability of education and sharing examples "usually provide a much more comprehensive picture, which in turn enables the view to be reached more swiftly and easily". "
• 4 Nov 2020 HEr wrote "To whom to it may concern" letter again setting out "a list of some of the examples of completed subjects [the children] have done as per your request" with even more detail. Complaint rises to Stage 2.
• 25 Nov 2020 LA served notice to issue School Attendance Order (SAO).
• 1 Dec 2020 HEr provides yet more information and an affidavit signed by herself and her husband.
• 14 Dec 2020 LA serves SAO.
• 16 Dec 2020 LA responds to Stage 2 Complaint
  " it could confirm it had no evidence of any safeguarding concerns regarding the claimant's family."
  "The defendant's officers had been "clear that a written report alone, however detailed it may be, is unlikely to be sufficient to enable the council to determine that suitable education is taking place"."
• 17 Dec 2020 Complaint rises to Stage 3.
• 11 Jan 2021 LA tells HEr there has been failure to comply with SAO and they will start legal proceedings.
• 18 Jan 2021 Letter of action from Portsmouth Home Education Group.
• 20 Jan 2021 LA responds to Stage 3 complaint reiterating that a written report alone is not sufficent because too many parents lie [Musings' paraphrase].
• 25 Jan 2021 LA refusd to revoke SAO.
• 22 Feb 2021 Present claim issued.

H Discussion

At this point I'm going to stop, and I'll write my thoughts about the discussion in a separate blog post (Link to Part 2).

I hope that this has been clear enough for you to see why Portsmouth HErs are right to take this to JR and fight the LA.  It is appalling how this woman, and other HErs in Portsmouth have been treated.

#FairHearing4HomeEd #EducationalFreedom #WeStandWithPortsmouthHErs

Yesterday by Amanda Tru

This is the last book in my A-Z Challenge (yes, I'm aware it is only Y, but I'm trying not to buy more books until I have finished all the ones I already have, lol).

The blurb says: 

Her yesterday was five years ago. What will her tomorrow bring?

When HANNAH KRAEGER saves a family injured in a car accident, she has no idea she has changed events in the past. Waking the next morning, Hannah discovers her yesterday was really five years ago.

Each trip Hannah takes through time changes the timeline and her own life. With help from DR. SETH MCALLISTER, Hannah must unravel the mystery of why she time travels and who she actually is before the strange ability costs her future, the man she loves, and even her life.

What I found interesting about this time travel book is that the time travel is not instantaneous.  What I mean, is that when Hannah finds herself back in time, the timeline she left continues so to those around her it looks like she has run away or left.  It also means that she ages at the correct rate for her personal timeline, rather than living life in the past, coming back to the present/future and have aged for no reason to her friends and family.

This book is a sweet romance with a time travel twist. I'm not sure whether to class it as Fantasy or SciFi since the time travel is not because of a machine but because of divine intervention - so I've labelled it as both on the side. >>>

I did enjoy this book.  I liked trying to work out how the stories of the different characters interacted.  I liked seeing whether the romance between Hannah and Seth would blossom and how it was impacted due to her changing things in the past.  It's a nice book.

Gov Response to Strengthening HE Report

The Government's response to the Strengthening Elective Home Education Report has been published on 3rd November 2021.  It can be found HERE.

[My read-through of the original report is over 5 posts starting HERE]

I am doing a quick skim read of the document, and highlighting certain sections.
If it appears I have missed out chunks it's because there is a lot that is to do with school rather than EHE.

In summary (my paraphrase):

• The current definition of 'suitable' education is enough.
• Government is committed to a register.
• There should be a meeting for parents considering HE.
• Govenment will consider including EHE in Safeguarding.
• Ofsted already does enough.
• More research would be good, but there are problems to overcome.
• Access to exams are the parents' problem.

Page 2 Paragraph 8:

The Department remains of the view that a centralised definition of ‘suitable’ education would not be in the interests of home educating children, families or local authorities. Each individual assessment of whether education being provided is deemed ‘suitable’ must rest on a balance of relevant factors depending on the circumstances of each child.

However, this may be an area the Department considers further when it next reviews its 2019 EHE guidance for local authorities and parents, which may need to take account of the outcome of the impending judicial review between Portsmouth City Council and an EHE parent.

 Page 2 Paragraph 9:

The Government remains committed to a form of local authority administered statutory registration to identify children not in school. This would likely encompass children who are electively home educated and those who are missing education

Page 4 Paragraph 13:

We would already expect a similar approach to take place when dealing with parents considering withdrawing pupils to home educate. We advise that local authorities, schools, and other key professionals work together to coordinate a meeting with parents considering EHE to ensure they are making a fully informed choice that considers the best interest of the child.

[Musings - surely this only applies before deregistration?  Once you've handed in the dereg letter, you are no longer "considering" but have decided.]

 Page 5 Paragraph 22:

EHE expectations on local authorities, other parts of the sector and parents was not part of the scope of the Children Not In School consultation and as such would not be included in the government response.

Page 6 Paragraph 25:

The Department continues to review all key statutory guidance regularly. We will consider including EHE in Working Together to Safeguard Children at the next review point.

Page 6 Paragraphs 26 & 27:

26. Ofsted already assess a local authority’s EHE work as part of normal inspections of Children’s Social Care services. Specifically, an inspection would request the following information: The information the local authority uses to monitor the welfare of electively home educated children, in particular those children who are electively home educated and are either on a child protection plan, education, health and care (EHC) plan or are a child in need. If available, please provide the policy on elective home education. (2.04)

27. Furthermore, in the ‘Evaluating the educational progress of children in care and care leavers’ section of the Ofsted framework for inspections it states that the Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) will analyse data and information about elective home-educated children and children missing education. 

 Page 6 Paragraph 29:

As outlined in the response to Recommendation 1, we already provide guidance and outline good practice on what we would expect when assessing suitable education. We have no plans to stipulate specifically how a local authority assesses the suitability of home education, as ‘suitable’ education assessment needs to consider a range of relevant factors depending on the circumstances of each child.

Page 7 Paragraph 30:

Paragraph 9.4 of the Department’s EHE guidance for local authorities already details eight factors for local authorities to consider when determining whether education is ‘suitable’. Components as to how the term ‘suitable’ should be seen by local authorities.

Page 7 Paragraph 32:

The Department is committed to helping children and young people achieve the best outcomes in life, so they can realise their potential. While we can see the value of longitudinal research into outcomes of EHE children, we also recognise the challenges in undertaking such research given a lack of data on which households undertake EHE and approaches to involved. This includes the absence of requirements for formal assessments at set points, which are typically used to measure the outcomes of children attending school. 

Page 8 Paragraphs 34 & 35:

34. Many schools, colleges and other examination centres accept private candidates for examinations. The decision to accept private candidates is a matter for the individual centres to decide in light of their specific circumstances and the needs of the students concerned. The Department encourages all available exam centres to consider supporting private candidates and we have worked closely with the sector to ensure that there are enough centres available to support private candidates to take exams, with JCQ publishing a list of available centres to assist students in finding a suitable centre ahead of the entry deadline, first for the exceptional 2021 summer TAGs, and now on an ongoing basis.

35. The Department’s guidance on EHE highlights that parents/carers who home educate will need to assume full financial responsibility for their child’s education. This includes paying for the cost of entering their child for examinations. Some local authorities may provide financial or other assistance to home-educating families for public examinations, but this is discretionary. 

 

The Wave at Hanging Rock by Gregg Dunnett

 

The Wave at Hanging Rock is my W in my A-Z Challenge.

The blurb says:

Natalie, a young doctor, sees her perfect life shattered when her husband is lost at sea. Everyone believes it’s a tragic accident. But a mysterious phone call prompts her to think otherwise. She sets out on a search for the truth.

Jesse, a schoolboy, is moved half way around the world when his father is blown up in a science experiment gone wrong. 

Two seemingly unconnected tales. But how they come together will have you turning the pages late into the night. And the twist at the end will leave you reeling.

This is a really good book.  It is a bit of a slow burner to begin with, and you randomly flip between each story, but there is enough going on in each of the separate stories to keep you wanting to know what will happen next. 

It is a psychological drama and a mystery and is very cleverly written.  I enjoy it when I'm reading a book, and I think a character is particularly clever (as opposed to having a lot of qualifications, if that difference makes sense?).  I'm keeping this review shorter than usual because I don't want to give anything away.

Definitely recommend it.

The Vine Witch by Luanne G Smith

 

I have to be honest, I thought this was going to be a kids' book, but I was wrong.  The very start of the book is odd, because the protagonist is in the body of a toad who as to eat it's own shedded skin in order to defeat the magic that has cursed it.

The blurb says:

A young witch emerges from a curse to find her world upended in this gripping fantasy set in turn-of-the-century France.

For centuries, the vineyards at Château Renard have depended on the talent of their vine witches, whose spells help create the world-renowned wine of the Chanceaux Valley. Then the skill of divining harvests fell into ruin when sorcière Elena Boureanu was blindsided by a curse. Now, after breaking the spell that confined her to the shallows of a marshland and weakened her magic, Elena is struggling to return to her former life. And the vineyard she was destined to inherit is now in the possession of a handsome stranger.

Vigneron Jean-Paul Martel naively favors science over superstition, and he certainly doesn’t endorse the locals’ belief in witches. But Elena knows a hex when she sees one, and the vineyard is covered in them. To stay on and help the vines recover, she’ll have to hide her true identity, along with her plans for revenge against whoever stole seven winters of her life. And she won’t rest until she can defy the evil powers that are still a threat to herself, Jean-Paul, and the ancient vine-witch legacy in the rolling hills of the Chanceaux Valley.

I did enjoy this book.  It is written really well, and though I wouldn't say I'm particularly interested in historical France, nor wine-making, nor even this type of fantasy (modern fairy tales), it kept my interest, and I wanted to know what happened next.  There is even a twist at the end of the book that I didn't see coming.

This book is the start of a series, but I read and enjoyed it as a standalone.