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

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. 

 

And another month goes by...

So, I'm still seeing my PT twice a week.  My weight was still going up, and I almost hit 100kilos, which I've never been before.  But, I am still decreasing my size, and have even dropped a bra size when I got measured recently.

As sexy as I look in a bra and a pair of shorts (not!), I am pleased that even *I* can see that my back-fat is going, and I now have a waist again.

Both my girls are now in school, as DD2 recently started year 7.  She does enjoy it, but is very tired.  Having gone from needing 10-12 hours sleep a night, to having to leave the house at 7.30am, return near 5, then rush straight to dance lessons and often doesn't get home aain until 9.30 or 10pm, is a bit of a shock for her.

As schools have gone back, I'm tutoring again now.  My days have changed this year, so I work Tuesday mornings, Wednesday mornings and Thursday afternoons.  I don't have much free time, though, as I'm still involved with Home Education locally, nationally and politically.  (Ok, I don't know if 'politically' makes any sense in that sentence, but the rhythm made me feel like it needed a third thing there.)

I am trying to read too, but that has slowed somewhat.  As I don't need to wait at dance in the evenings anymore, I don't have as much time to read.  Also, in the few gaps I've had during the day, I have had a bit of a TV binge, watching non-kids TV during the day! Very exciting.  I have recently watched Sex Eduction, Love on the Spectrum, Motherland, and I was getting into Making a Murderer, until my husband joined me one day, and now I'm 'not allowed' to watch it without him.  Yet, since then, we haven't watched it together at all, so if he's not careful I'm going to continue watching it and just not tell him, lol.

And yes, I am aware that I haven't caught up with the book reviews I said I would write a month ago.  Despite everything I've written here (and this feels like a lot to me), I've even more things going on.

DD1 has been having mini absence seizures/blackouts for a while, though she didn't tell me that they had become frequent until last October.  I told her to keep a diary in case it was related to what she had been eating or time of the month or anything like that, and we made an appointment to see the GP.  Fast forward to February, and we were referred to hospital to see a neurologist and to have an EEG.  As part of this, they gave DD1 a general health check and discovered she had a heart murmur.  Not a big surprise or concern as my husband had one when he was little, but they referred us for an ECG.  And another.  And an echo.  And a heart consultant who told use they would be bringing in the big-guns from a nearby city to look at her heart, because she has a hole in her heart.  As you can imagine, this was a bit of a shock, given she was 13yo at the time, fit as a fiddle, loads of dance, and zero symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, palpatations or enlargement of the heart).

Anyway, we saw the big-gun heart consultant, who did another ECG and echo (which incidentally, is really interesting, as the computor automatically colours the blood blue and red depending on whether the blood has been oxygenised or not).  She confirmed that the hole in the heart is nothing to do with the mini blackouts DD1 had been having, and because the EEG was clear, they (the hospital) are not following that up at the moment.  However, DD1 does not have a hole in her heart - she has two plus a leaky valve! (It's a partial AVSD for anyone who wants to google it.) Due to where the holes are located, they cannot go up the leg/groin to close it, but she will need open heart surgery.  But, it isn't urgent, because she has no other symptoms, so don't worry about it too much.  It's a fairly straightforward procedure, etc etc, and just has to be done before she becomes an adult, as if left unfixed, it could cause massive problems when she's in her 20s and 30s.

Then over the summer we had a virtual consulatation with a surgeon, who said they expected surgery to be in October!  DD1 would have to be in hospital for at least a week, at least a month off school, at least 3 months off dancing.  All of a sudden this became very real!  Due to dance festivals finally starting up again (and the enxt one being in October) we have asked for the surgery to be postponed until the summer term, but we will follow the guidance of the consultant.  Meanwhile, DD1 has had even more hospital appointments, and had to wear a 24hr heart monitor, and been asked to participate in research before/after surgery, so my suspician is that it will be sooner, rather than later.

Oh, and we have got a second dog, Luna.

Where has the time gone???

I can't believe it's nearly a month since I last posted anything on this blog!  I've got lots to say, but want to post it all separately, so I'll give a quick overview now, and hopefully will find some time in the not-to-distant future to actually write properly.

This past month, it was my 16th wedding anniversary, (did I tell you in July that my hair is no longer purple?  It's red now), I went to Back To the 80s & 90s Festival by myself and had a fab time, I finished reading all the books on my A-Z Challenge list, plus the rest of the Ugly Girl series, I went to London twice with the family to see 2 different shows, I've started going out with friends again in an evening, DD2 had her 11th birthday yesterday, and today was her first day of Summer School (transition week) before starting secondary in September.  I am officially not home educating any more!  I have some new tutees and some old ones lined up for me to start tutoring again.  I am still involved in HE politics, despite it being the summer holidays.  And I'm still seeing my PT.  I know I didn't update you guys with my last set of progress photos (even I can see a difference now compared to how I looked when I started!), but I'm due to take my next set this coming weekend.  I'll also be taking new measurements, and will have a look to see if I am finally starting to lose weight.  Since I started with her in April, I have only put on weight, so it will be good to see if that finally starts to change!  And, as I finished my A-Z of fiction titles I need to set myself a new challenge (based on the books I already have on my kindle that I haven't read yet).  As, on my kindle, I can only sort by Recent, Title or Author, I suppose I'm going to go back to Fiction Authors.  Unlike last time, however, I will not be buying any books to fill-in the letters I'm missing.

Strengthening Home Education - Part 4

If you haven't already read it, please click HERE to see Part 1 of my read-through. 
And HERE is the original report.

Section 3 is entitled "Elective Home Education: Local Authorities and Support".

Local Authority Powers

"64. We note that the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel plans to carry out some work on EHE, focussing specifically on children who are vulnerable to safeguarding risks if they are not at school, and analysing “the extent to which elective home education has been a factor in the serious harm or death of a child.”103 We hope that this work will serve to better inform policymakers, and inject some light into a heated debate."

Conveniently forgetting that EHE has NEVER been a contributory factor in any SCR, and not only that, EHE was wrongly quoted in over 10 SCRs when the child had no connection to home education at all!  Most worryingly about this, there was no process for getting the SCRs reviewed and corrected!

Don't forget: RESEARCH EXISTS! 

"The Local Government Association told us there was “no mechanism” for a council to insist on speaking to a home-educated child without a specific safeguarding concern."

And, in the absence of any concern, why should a random from the council insist on speaking with a specific child?  Why is the assumption that an adult should have the right to speak to someone just because they want to? And if that is a right that adults should have - please can someone get my David Beckham's address so I can invite myself round and demand to speak to him, even "without a specific safeguarding concern"?

I wanted to include a gratuitous picture here of Mr Beckham topless.
However, I couldn't find one due to copyright, so this is the best I could do - 
a photo of a window sticker from pixabay.com 

"On the other hand, HEAS found that the present legal framework provided the “correct balance beween [sic] the rights of home educators and the duties of the authorities.”"

...which is absolutely right.  Powers are already there when they are needed, they do not need to be changed.

"We believe there should be a mechanism for local authorities to speak with a child receiving EHE in order to assess whether the duty to provide a suitable education is being met."

Does the LA or the ESC or the DfE meet with every single schooled child?  Or do they determine the basis of the education from reports produced by the school?  Education and welfare should not be conflated - which is what the current ESC continually does,

"” In Ofsted’s view, local authorities should have powers to visit the child’s home to make assessments of home education but that those powers should be limited to ensure that they can only be used when there are “reasonable concerns” about the suitability of the home education, and not used “routinely.”"

i.e. even Ofsted says that EHE children shouldn't be before an EHEO as matter of routine; only where there are reasonable concerns - i.e. the current guidance.

Government consultation and guidance

This next section is a lot of bollocks and conjecture.  Basically, the ESC seems to think that forcing HErs to jump to the tune of the LA will improve relationships, and that defining a 'suitable education' will be beneficial - clearly they do not understand the nuance within home education.

Tracking SAOs, however, will be a good thing for the DfE to do; especially if they publish the results.

Visibility of EHE in wider guidance

"74. We heard that EHE was invisible in key guidance on keeping children and young people safe. For example, Working Together to Safeguard Children, the statutory guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, does not mention home education."

 Or could it be that it doesn't mention EHE because EHE is not a concern?  I've not read it, admittedly, but does the Working Together to Safeguard Children document mention veganism, because some children are vegans, or perhaps it mentions pink clothes, because some children wear pink clothes?

The potential role for inspection

In this section, there was 1 paragraph that summarised "Of the hundreds of written submissions that we received from home educating families and the organisations that support them, many strongly rejected the inspection of individual families." Yet, there were 7 following paragraphs detailing why there should be inspection.  Given that we no over 75% of the published submissions reject any more interference by LAs, why is there disproportionate amount of space given to the minority within this report?

"88. The Department must assign Ofsted a role in quality assuring the delivery of local authority support for EHE and adherence to EHE guidance. This will require the creation of an inspection framework, based on the clarified guidance for local authorities and EHE families that we also expect the Department to produce."

Will this mean that home educating families can complain to Ofsted when a LA steps out of line?  
It  says in the 2019 Guidance that LAs should tell home educators when there is an upcoming inspection by Ofsted so that they can have their say.  I'm still collating the responses from my FOI requests atm, but the vast majority of LAs have never given evidence from home educators into an Ofsted inspection, and of those that say they have, I think they misunderstood (based on ongoing conversations) and thought I was asking about whether Ofsted has asked to view the EHE department - a totally different thing!

"By contrast, home educators emphasised to us that the fact of being home-educated did not constitute a safeguarding risk. However, ..." 

Home education is not a safe guarding risk.  That is 100% true. However, the ESC likes to ignore facts and rather make up biased opinions in order to grab themselves more power.

"91. The Department must clarify and strengthen the expectation in its 2019 guidance that local authorities make contact with parents on at least an annual basis, so that local authorities have the ability to see a child in person (at a venue of the family’s choosing) in situations where this is necessary to establish the suitability of the education they are receiving. The Department must make any necessary statutory changes to enable this, and make clear that:

• annual contact with an EHE family is a minimum expectation;

• local authorities should be asking to see examples of children’s work and parents should not reasonably refuse this;

• local authorities should be assessing children’s progress from one year to the next, especially in areas such as literacy and numeracy which are essential to access future educational opportunities and employment. By the time children are at the age when they would leave compulsory schooling, they should be able to demonstrate the same baseline numeracy and literacy skills that we expect from their schooled peers. While children with SEND may follow different paths, it is vital that they too have the right support provided so that they can flourish.

92. The Department should provide local authorities with a set of clear criteria against which suitability of education can be assessed, taking into account the full range of pedagogical approaches taken in EHE, as well as the age, ability and aptitude of individual children, including where they may have SEND."

This is quite frankly horrifying.

Annual Contact - only if it is contact (like a report of a phone call [or visit for those who want them]) rather than specifying it must be a visit.

Examples of children's work - how does this work for children who do not produce written work?  Maybe the child reads a lot and has great discussions and in depth conversations? How wil this work for unschoolers who often do not produce formal written work?
And what about the rights of the child?  What if they don't want to share their work?  What if they are a perfectionist and don't want others to see their mistakes? Or what if they had a bad experience at school, and whilst they are happy to produce written work, they do not want it shared?

Assessing progress annually - again, this doesn't make sense and does not take account of all the differing types of home education.  My eldest, DD1, taught herself to read aged 3.  Once she had mastered that skill (solving the puzzle of shapes on a page), she decided she didn't like reading.  She could read, but chose not to.  Now she is in secondary school (her choosing) and can read and write with the best of them.  Would it be deemed that she hadn't progressed, because I couldn't produce a list of books that she had read each year?  When in fact, she could read. On the other side of the HE coin, I know children who couldn't read until they were 10+.  They had no need nor any desire to, but learnt plenty in other ways - visually, audibly, orally, hands-on etc etc. Once they had internalised the need and motivation to learn to read, they got on with it.  Without the stigma of not being able to ready by XX age, the child had nothing to hold them back.  In these cases, it isn't uncommon for the child to develop a love of reading, and reading various 'hard' literary texts.
Similarly in numeracy, children do not learn in straight lines.  They do not learn this one year, that the next, but learning is messy, flows from one topic to another and sometimes covers old ground, sometimes learns things anew.  Expecting children to progress by following some arbitrary standards defined by age (which though they haven't said it, is what will be up ahead if we're not careful) is not realistic of how people learn.

More consistent support from local authorities, including for children with SEND

Most of this section is good in that it emphasises that there is no consistency across LAs.  Unfortunately, my concern is that the ESC will bring all LAs down to the lowest standard <cough>Portsmouth<cough> rather than getting all LAs to behave like their better counterparts.

"The Association of Elective Home Education Professionals told us in their submission that from Autumn 2021 Birkbeck College would be offering essential training for local authority EHE professionals."

Who are the AEHEP?  Read my previous blog post to find out what we don't know about them.  Despite them talking to the DfE lots, having input with the HE Inquiry, and setting up meetings for various EHEOs, the AEHEP is not a professional association.  Again, I am in the middle of collating responses from FOIs I have done regarding the AEHEP, and despite repeatedly being told the AEHEP has incurred "no costs except staff time" the number of man-hours x£25/hr means there is in fact a big cost associated with this club.

"99. Given the rise in EHE numbers and lack of consistent support from local authorities, the Department should commission and roll out a national training package for all local authority officers with responsibility for EHE—developed with a wide range of stakeholders—so that those officers have a thorough and consistent understanding of the duties of and guidance for local authorities. That package should explain the various EHE approaches—possibly in the form of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). All local authority officers with responsibility for EHE must be expected to complete that training as part of their job."

This training MUST be produced with collaboration with national Home Education organisations.  The fact that they are suggesting Mr. Monk's training to be "essential" is dangerous and erodes the little faith that home educators have with the ESC and local LAs.

So, that's the end of Part 4.  Part 5 will be looking at outcomes and assessment for EHE kids.

Strengthening Home Education - Part 2

If you haven't already read it, please click HERE to see Part 1 of my read-through.
And HERE is the original report (all 67 pages!).

So, the Introduction starts on page 7 of the document.  Paragraph 2 details that not much has changed since the recommendations of the previous inquiry and that there is indeed a "postcode lottery" - I said that myself in my submission.

The Committees Inquiry

"The inquiry sought not to debate the desirability of EHE, but rather to explore the extent to which current arrangements provide sufficient support for home-educated children to access efficient, full-time and suitable education, and to establish what further measures may be necessary in order to facilitate this."

Except, of course, it is obvious to all who read this, that the "desirability of EHE" for the ESC is that all HE kids get put into schools. 

"We held oral evidence sessions in November 2020 and March 2021"

But did not hear from any home educators during this time, and only heard from a single HE organisation (Education Otherwise) and conveniently twisted their words, so much so that the EHE Alliance (a group of HE organisations and academics all working together for the same goal) had to put out a letter complaining about the behaviour of some during the hearing )this can be found HERE).

"6. The State should not view those who make the perfectly legitimate choice to home educate with automatic suspicion, nor should it put unreasonable barriers in their way. However, as a society we must seek to balance the right of families to make the best choices for themselves with the responsibility to promote good outcomes for all children and young people, whether or not they go to school. It is not unreasonable to seek some reassurance about the suitability of the education received by children who are electively home-educated."

 This sounds all fine and dandy, I mean who in their right minds would complain about this paragraph?  Well, me for one.  Not that I have an issue with what it says, rather than what it doesn't say (though that may be in the document later on.  This is my 'live' read-through, so it's perfectly possible I haven't got there yet).

LAs already have the power to check up on families who have deregistered their child from school, and for these children, they already receive annual updates: sometimes over the phone (or online this past year), sometimes in person and sometimes a written report.  For children for whom there is evidence to suggest they are not receiving a suitable education, the LA already has powers to get further information and if they are not satisfied, they can issue a s437 and ultimately a School Attendance Order forcing that child into school.

"7. The Committee’s primary concerns centre on those children who are currently missing education. Indeed, our understanding is that children receiving an efficient, fulltime and suitable education at home would not fall under the Department’s definition of that category."

So basically, the government are getting battered because they cannot keep children in school, nor keep tabs on the children who are registered at school but not attending.  Therefore, the obvious conclusion is to have a go at EHE children, drumming up more paperwork and therefore possibilities for people to slip through the net, rather than tackling schools with what is their issue.
Yes, makes total sense... <hugely sarcastic tone and eye roll>

The legal framework for EHE in England

"8. Parents in England have a legal duty to secure the education of their compulsory school age children “either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”. Those who choose to home educate are responsible for ensuring that the education provided is efficient, full-time and suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any Special Educational Needs. (SEN)"

And those who choose to school educate are responsible for ensuring that the education provided is efficient, full-time and suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any Special Educational Needs (SEN).  Why isn't that bit mentioned???

"According to Government guidance, parents are not required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, follow the National Curriculum, or aim for children to acquire specific qualifications."

 And (last time I checked), private schools are not required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, follow the National Curriculum, or aim for children to acquire specific qualifications, yet many people aspire to or do send their children to private schools.

 "As of 2016, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that there were around nine million working aged adults in England with low literacy skills, numeracy skills, or both."

I would bet my bottom dollar that, of these, around nine million of them went to school. 

"10. When the Department’s guidance is next revisited, it must indicate what level of numeracy and literacy is sufficient, in its view, to enable an adult who received EHE as a child to “function as an independent citizen in the UK."

So, there will be a minimum level of numeracy and literacy imposed on EHE kids, but not one for schooled children?  Who can school-parents complain to when their child is unable to read or do basic maths, whether or not the child has SEND?

 "11. Guidance for local authorities specifies that approaches such as autonomous and self-directed learning should be “judged by outcomes, not on the basis that a different way of educating children must be wrong.”

Would the ESC care to explain to me how a child can be monitored yearly and how a child can be "judged by outcomes" (which in England would be at age 18)?  These are contradictory, and we know that the better scenario ("judged by outcomes") will be pushed aside by those proclaiming that children must be monitored annually.

Paragraph 11 also goes on about Fundamental British Values and how HE parents take financial responsibility.

"14. Compared with our European neighbours, the English model is relatively permissive. A 2018 survey of systems participating in the Eurydice network found that “home education at the request of families is possible in a majority of educational systems.” However, in a dozen countries—including Germany—“it is possible only in exceptional circumstances” and “in many cases, parents have to ask for authorisation from top level or local authorities.” Furthermore, students’ progress was “monitored and assessed everywhere except in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom”."

I don't see the point of this paragraph, since we're in England and we've been forced to leave the EU.  Wasn't part of our sovereignty meant to be that we don't have to be forced to follow EU rules and whatnot?  Unless, of course, the government wants to limit home education? Surely that's not the case? <more sarcasm> 

Why do parents choose to home educate?

"18. Submissions from home educating parents and the organisations that support them told us that EHE could deliver a more personalised, individual education which moved at the pace of the child. We heard from parents who had observed huge improvements in their children’s mental health after being removed from schools where they were not kept safe from bullying, and from those who relished the opportunity to spend time together as a family, providing their children with a wealth of experiences outside the relatively narrow school curriculum."

Of course there are only 400-odd submissions that have been published of the 900+ this report has stated to have received.  But anyway, this was a good paragraph, so to maintain the appearance of being balanced, I thought it best to include it here.

"19. The Committee unanimously supports the right of families to opt for EHE, provided it is in the best interests of the child and the education provided is of a suitable standard to meet the needs of the child. In the eyes of the law, the duty to secure an education for a child rests with parents. It follows that the choice to home educate should be afforded the same respect as the choice for children to attend a state or private school. However, without data on outcomes we cannot know how many children receiving EHE are getting a suitable education. For that reason, it is reasonable that local authorities have the ability to assess the suitability of education"

Research Exists!!!

"20. The next iteration of the Government’s guidance for local authorities and parents must set out a clearer vision for a ‘suitable’ education - including the levels of numeracy and literacy which it would usually expect students to have achieved before they move on to later education, training or employment. This vision should take into account the different paths that children with SEND might take."

This paragraph must be super way* important for it to be italicised AND bolded!
        * I've just read a series, starting Ugly Girl by Mary E Twomey, and the protagonist is always saying 'super way' instead of another descriptor.

Again, because of the different routes through home education for ALL children (whether they have SEND or otherwise), specifying levels of attainment in numeracy and literacy on an annual level does not make sense.  And if there are sanctions for parents whose children do not achieve these attainment levels (because of course, a stick is what is needed for parents who are often already down to a single income and are financially responsible for everything), can these sanctions be given to schools who have children who fail to meet these levels?

 Part 3 of this read-through is available HERE.

Strengthening Home Education Report - Part 1

Last night, at 10pm, the Education Committee published its Strengthening Home Education Report.  Apparently, this was so that it could be discussed in today's papers, yet I know many journalists got a heads-up what the report was going to say, so already had their articles written and waiting.  Home educators, otoh, had to wait until it was actually published before being able to read it.

I have not yet read the report myself, though I have seen some people's reactions to it.  I thought I would share my reaction with you, as I read it and jot down notes.  There may be the occasional swear word, but fuck it - I'm an adult.

So, opening up the report I can see that it is 67 pages long. Joy.

Looking at the contents list, under "Summary" it begins - a statutory register for children out of school...

"The Association of Directors of Children’s Services projected that as of October 2020 more than 75,000 children were being educated at home, an increase of 38 per cent from the previous year"

The ADCS numbers are inaccurate.  This has already be clarified by WCW of Education Otherwise, yet the Education Select Committee (ESC) still continues to use it.

"It is simply not good enough that we are only able to make a best guess at the number of children receiving EHE, especially when the Department for Education itself acknowledges that there is “considerable evidence” that many children may not be receiving a suitable education"

Really?  I'd like to see this "considerable evidence" as it all seems anecdotal and made-up to me.

 "The Committee remains deeply concerned that we cannot support children who may have been ‘left behind’ during the pandemic without knowing who they are and how many of them there are."

'Left behind' does not make sense when talking about home education.  The law clearly states that the education must be suitable to their age, ability and aptitude.  I am much more concerned about the children in schools who genuinely get 'left behind' because they do not have the individual support needed in order to keep up with the rest of the class. 

"Without a national register for EHE, we have no equivalent intelligence about the impact of covid-19 on the participation in educational activities of the full range of children receiving EHE."

The Centre for Personalised Education (CPE) recently held a conference with leading academics entitled "Research Exists".  The research is there already, and there is still some ongoing research regarding to covid (for exam THIS research project looking at the impact on HErs trying to take exams during covid).  If Robert Halfon (Chair of the ESC) refuses to attend such conferences, how does he expect to find out about the evidence? Oh yeah, by bringing in a register... (See my thoughts on bringing in a register HERE).

"During the inquiry hundreds of parents that home educate their children told us about the benefits they see from EHE."

There were actually over 1000 responses to the HE Inquiry, it's just that they have only published a few hundred of them. 

Summary Recommendations:

1. A Statutory register for children out of school

As I've said before, a register will not achieve anything that they are hoping it to.  They keep saying that the evidence from home educators cannot be trusted to ensure that all HE children are receiving a suitable education, but unless they search every single house (which may be next steps, who knows?) anybody who is nefarious will simply not register their children.  They are encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours for having children.

"Once the register is up and running, we expect the Department to collate, analyse and publish anonymised annual data on the number of children out of school so that stakeholders are better able to understand trends and create effective policy in response to them."

And that's what this is about, really.  Stakeholders in a children's education are the child themselves and the parent.  Schools are involved if the child is registered at school, and the LA should only be involved if there is evidence to suggest that an education is not taking place.  Creating work for paper-pushers within the government is not a good use of tax payer money, especially when there are already researchers from various universities who study trends and can actually understand what they are looking at.

2. Supporting children with SEND and home education

"We do know that for some families EHE is not truly ‘elective’, especially those where children have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and do not get the support they need from the school system. No-one should be forced into educating at home through lack of support—instead the Government must act to ensure that schools are able to provide proper support for SEND in the first place."

This is not a HE thing.  Instead they have conflated two things, and are using it as a way to 'encourage' more children back into school.
The government must act to ensure schools are able to provide proper support for SEND - absolutely!  If a child is in school, they should get all the help and support they need in order to get the education they deserve.
Some parents of children with SEND do look into HE due to the lack of support and services on offer at school.  These parents are then split into two groups - parents who decide that HE is the best way for their children to get a good education, and those who feel forced into home education.  This latter group is then split into a further two groups - those who realise HE is totally flexible and therefore the best place for their children to get a good education, and those who still wish they could send their child to school.  It is this latter group of parents that need the support.  Having already used a school, these children will be known to their Local Authorities.  A register will not make a difference here.

"To ensure that families who are considering EHE receive the right information at the right time to make the best decision for their children, we call for the Department to reconsider the creation of an independent, neutral advocate which has the responsibility for co-ordinating all statutory SEND processes and could support families where a choice about EHE is being made."

Will this "independent, neutral advocate" have knowledge about home education and have firm links with the home educating community, or will it be someone else to suggest that children with SEND need to be in school, and therefore yet another hoop for these parents to jump through?

3. Assessment of a 'suitable' education

 "Local authorities must be able to assess the educational progress of children who are home educated at least once a year, in order to take reasonable steps to reassure themselves that EHE is providing a ‘suitable’ education."

So, I'm not even out of the initial summary of this document (bottom of page 4) and already a recommendation for a register has turned into "at least" annual monitoring. 

"However, as a minimum, home-educated children must have equity of access to the next stage of their education, work or training with their schooled peers. This means attaining essential standards of literacy and numeracy, while also taking into account the different paths that children with SEND might follow."

"Next stage of their education" means, imo, age 16+ when they go off to college/sixth form or apprenticeships.  At a push, it could be brought back to age 14 (when schooled children start studying for their GCSEs) to ensure that these options are available for home educated kids, but however you look at it, it does not mean there should be annual monitoring.

Then there's a sentence about LA staff needing effective training, which I totally agree with, but again, there should be input from one of the national HE organisations (Educational Freedom, Education Otherwise, or whoever) to ensure that this training is correct wrt HE, and not just pushed from the government/ESC to make even more LAs act unlawfully.

"While we know that a number of local authorities do more than the bare minimum, local authorities must have the ability to see children (at a venue of the family’s choosing) and evidence of their progress as appropriate, even where educational content and style varies widely from the school curriculum"

So a child no longer has autonomy over themselves or their belongings?  They cannot refuse to meet a stranger?  They must hand over their work to be scrutinised by some random?
Small consolation - but at least they have said "at a venue of the family's choosing", rather than demanding to see and inspect children's homes and safe spaces too.

4. Better data on outcomes

As I've already said, there has even been a conference entitled Research Exists.  Even anecdotally, join a national HE facebook group or two, and you can see loads of examples about outcomes from home education. 

Personally, I don't think this section is a bad thing, however, it should be voluntary (whilst acknowledging that may skew the data slightly).

5. A level playing field on access to examinations

"The Department for Education must work to establish the appropriate level of entitlement, to which examinations the entitlement will apply, and the additional funding the Department will commit to support this, in order to help EHE children gain the qualifications needed for the future education, training and employment that will allow them to play active roles in society."

Apart from the derisive suggestion that only people with specific qualifications "play active roles in society", I do think there should be better support for HE kids taking exams.  However, these should not be limited to specific subjects, qualifications nor age of the child - they should be available as and when needed.

This is the end of the summary of the document.  In Part 2 I will go through the introduction of the report.

 

Who are the AEHEP?

 And why are they so secretive?

The week, the Education Select Committee published this letter from the AEHEP which they wrote after the second oral evidence hearing of the Inquiry into Home Education.  This submission has prompted a load of questions about who the AEHEP are and what their agenda is?

The AEHEP stands for the Association of Elective Home Education Professionals - and that is about the total of the information that is publicly available.  They have no website, no email address, no phone number nor physical address.  They do not seem to be listed with Companies House, they are not listed on this Wiki page, nor are they on this list on the government's website.  Yet, since they formed in 2014/5 (depending on where you read), they have been in regular contact with the government, trying to influence various laws, bills and inquiries.  And though I said people have been questioning their agenda in the first paragraph, it is actually pretty clear that they want to bring in compulsory registration for home educators, and give even more power to Local Authorities, which may potentially lead to a forced curriculum on home educated children too.  They regularly conflate education and welfare, and in the recent submission to the government, have listed national home education groups Education Otherwise and Educational Freedom alongside a neo-Nazi, far right, nationalist group.  Accidental? I'm not convinced, tbh.

Surely it's not right for a group to try and influence the government that is so hidden?
(Ok, I know there are various groups that influence those in power or have hidden power, but hey - even the Freemasons have an online presence!)

Dave Harvey (Hampshire) is currently the Chair, though that may be shared with Jenny Dodd (Staffordshire), and Anna Shaw (Hertfordshire) has said on her LinkedIn Profile that she's a founding member of the AEHEP.  The second link below lists only 14 members of the AEHEP, each of them LA/Council workers; yet I have been informed that over the past few years, the AEHEP has members in most LAs around the country.  

In looking up information about them I have found the following links.  I have not yet been able to go through them with a fine toothed comb yet, but hopefully these will start the conversation along.

https://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/association-of-elective-home-education.html 

http://edyourself.org/articles/LAletters.php

https://edyourself.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/aehep-committee-members/ 

http://edyourself.org/search/?q=AEHEP

https://edyourself.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/background-information-lord-soleys-home-education-bill/#more-12743

Women Rising by Meghan Tschanz

I am on a Faith & Feminism group on Facebook because I think both Christianity and Feminism are important things in our world, not to mention that in some Christian circles, Feminism is considered a dirty word.

One of the admins of that group has recently written a book, Women Rising, so I thought I'd check it out.

The blurb says:

Fresh out of college, hating her job, and searching for meaning, Meghan Tschanz left everything to join a mission trip around the globe, and quickly witnessed oppression experienced by women that she never thought possible.
Over the next several years, she befriended women around the globe who had survived sex trafficking, female genital mutilation, and violence so extreme Meghan wondered at the woman's survival. Through listening to their stories, Meghan started to notice a pattern that pointed to systems of injustice that held women back―systems that her childhood church had taught and in which she was complicit.
She was changed.
Returning to the United States, Meghan became keenly aware of how the teachings and messaging surrounding women in her own upbringing were part of the problem. In the process, she began to find her voice, one that spoke out against injustice and moved her into tension with her Christian community.
Women Rising is Meghan Tschanz's personal journey of transformation. But it's also a Christian blueprint for anyone wanting to confront injustice against women while pointing to a biblical standard for gender equality. With humility and grit, Meghan calls Christian women to amplify their voices for righteousness―and she calls the church to listen.

I found this book to be a book of two halves, but I think that is mainly because of my own misconception. Both halves are important, and I can see why they are put together like this.

The first half of the book is an autobiography about missionary life, and tbh, I think it should be considered essential reading for all who are considering to go into missionary work.  Though it is written with a focus on women, I think it should be read by young men who want to work in the field too.  It is a very honest account of Meghan's journey through many countries, many experiences, and the many things she has learned, not least that she has her own privilege and has fallen foul of white saviourism.

The second half of the book is about how women are treated in the church in America (and it applies to England too, so I could say all the western World).  This was the area of the book that I was most interested in, and it didn't quite go far enough for my liking, but will open the eyes of people who haven't thought this way before.  Meghan has also given references to other books that will go deeper into the subject of patriarchy within Christianity, so I have added those to my wishlist.

All in all, this book is very easy to read, whilst talking about some tough subjects.  As I said, I think this should be compulsory reading for everyone going into mission work, and is an easy introduction for people who are interested in the systemic patriarchy within Christianity (or indeed, it's a quick read for people who don't think there is a problem, to perhaps open their eyes a little).

The only thing I wish (and this is a rarity for me!) is that I didn't buy the kindle version, but a hardcopy that I could pass around.  Definitely worth reading.

It's been nearly a month!!!

My poor neglected blog!  I'm so sorry!  You wouldn't believe how busy I have been - actually, you would, given how sporadic my posting has been so far this year.  I'm hoping I'll have finally turned a corner now, but who knows?  I have been posting mildly more often direct on my facebook page, so if you don't follow it, you should do so now: https://www.facebook.com/MusingsMiddleagedMum .

The Education Select Committee's Inquiry into Home Education is still ongoing.  I have given further submissions, but that hasn't been published yet, nor my personal one.  I'm still involved in helping home educators locally and nationally know their rights, answer their questions, deal with their Local Authorities, etc.  I'm also talking at an upcoming HE conference, so I hope people will have plenty of questions as I'm not good at talking about nothing, lol.  I suppose I should find some FAQs and have them on standby so I can ask and answer my own questions if I need to.  Details of the conference: https://www.learnfree.org.uk/ 

Have I mentioned that DD2 got into the same school as DD1?  So from September, I'll no longer be a home educator! <sob>  I'll still be involved in the community and the politics, but will be stepping down from some of my adminning duties on FB as I don't think it's right that a non-home educator admins local groups.

Weightloss has been a bit up and down.  More up than down, but hopefully that has turned a corner now.  I've got a(nother) new exercise routine that I've paid for so will be sticking with for a while.  Had my first session on Monday, and boy, did I ache afterwards!!!  I hope to be doing this every Monday and Friday for the foreseeable, so hopefully that will have an impact on my weight.  I've also decided to try some monetary incentive.  From a starting weight of 94kilos, for every 1kg I can keep off for a solid 3 weeks, I will put a tenner to one side.  The Pros: If I get down to my dream weight, I'll have £300 to spend on new clothes. The Cons: My weight is up and down like a yoyo, so I could be averaging , for example, 75kilos, and then randomly have 1 day of 82kilos.  But, it's added incentive, so lets see if it works.

I haven't listened to my hypnotherapy CDs for a while either - I've not even had time to take 30min for myself at home.  But, now that the girls' dance classes are back in the studios, I've magically got more time for reading (because I am sat in my car waiting!) so hope to start writing reviews again.

So sorry, again, for the silent treatment.  I hope to be posting more regularly again soon xx