This is quite worrying, as although they concede that HE will look different to school, there is the biased assumption that HErs don't value written work, whereas the truth is that HErs allow children to learn to write, and write fluently and comprehensively, in their own time - according to their age, ability and aptitude, as per the law!
It also means that any EHEOs reading this, may assume that this point means there
Section 4.10, though hasn't used the word 'deschooling', does suggest they don't understand it - I repeat the advice to never use the word deschooling with LAs.
Well, duh! But unless you attach time-frames to each of these points, they do not make sense, and are just filler. If you mean that the child has to leave education knowing all this stuff, then there is no point monitoring HE in between, only to create some kind of 'leaving education certificate' or something; and given many more HE kids take some exams/qualifications than don't, it would just cost a lot of money for little gain.
This list is actually useful for HErs because it clearly shows what LAs are looking for, so when you prepare a brief report, or if you accept a meeting with the LA, these are the type of things you'll want to get across.
So, this is the section where they are saying that HErs can no longer write a report, but the LA has to meet the child. This is incredibly worrying, the two main reasons (though there are more) that spring to mind are:
And "communicating with the child"? Do they ask all schooled-children whether they want to be in school? Do they understand how the schooled-child learns best and what areas of learning they are interested in? I thought not... Section 4.24 includes "If it is clear that a child
does not wish to be educated at home although the education provision is
satisfactory, the local authority should discuss the reasons for this with the parents
and encourage them to consider whether home education is in the best interests of
the child when clearly it is not what the child wants." is the converse also true??:-
I can, but, dream.
As yet, it hasn't said whether completion of these questionnaires are compulsory or not, and I'll wait until I get to the Annex to see what they are actually asking for. Usually I advise people not to complete questionnaires, but write a brief report in your own words, where you can control what you say, and you keep a copy.
4.28
As part of these meetings, the local authority should ask to see examples of learning,
to determine the suitability of the education provided. A variety of work both complete
and incomplete to varying standards can be sought and discussed with the parents
and child to learn about the child’s experience of learning. This all reflects learning
and progress made by the child.
So, this is full on monitoring of education, not simply a database to discover whether any child is missing education... <eyeroll and headshake>
4.34
The frequency of meetings with home educating families should be undertaken
proportionately and based on the individual circumstances of each child. A meeting
should take place at least once a year to ensure the suitability of education is
maintained and that the child is considered to be making suitable progress.
So, it's up to the LAs and individual EHEOs whether they are going to allow parents to educate their children and meet once a year, or whether they are going to harass them and make them meet every 3 months or even more frequently!
4.37
The local authority should be reasonable and accommodating when arranging these
meetings. However, if the local authority is not assured that: (a) there are genuine
reasons for refusing a meeting; or (b) if a family has repeatedly cancelled or not
shown up for a meeting; or (c) a family has refused without giving a good reason to
allow their child to take part in meetings, then it will need to consider whether it can
conclude a child is receiving a suitable education (see section 4.21).
Reiteration that parents no longer have a choice to keep things in writing, and that they cannot prevent the LA from meeting their child.
(Again, whilst I understand the Welsh Government's concerns because of what happened to Dylan Seabridge, he was already known and SS already have the necessary powers to see and rescue children. Education and Welfare should not be conflated, as they have been here.)
Section 5 is all about School Attendance Orders etc.
5.3
In the
absence of information that suggests that the child is being suitably educated and
that the parents’ refusal to answer is for some unrelated reason, the only conclusion
that the local authority can reasonably come to is that the home education does not
appear to be suitable.
Does this apply to the questionnaire that was mentioned in 4.27? If a parent does not answer every question, will the LA assume that the education is unsuitable?
Section 6 is about Support for Home Education.
6.5
Some of the ways in which local authorities might choose to support home educating
families include:
Developing a webpage on the local authority website specifically aimed at home
education
Providing general advice
Allowing access to learning centre resources
Allowing access to school resources where feasible
Allowing access to examination centres where feasible
Facilitating access to any discounted rates for educational materials
Providing access to local authority owned community and sports facilities on the
same basis as for school children
Informing home educating families of any projects or programmes which might
reasonably be accessed by home educated children.
"Might choose to support home educating families"??
"Allowing access to..."??
So some LAs might choose to disallow access??
The rest of section 6 seems quite sensible. There may be some additional support that would be better, but there wasn't anything negative that I noticed at first glance. (As I have said before, this is just my initial read-through of the document, and my accompanying thoughts.)
Section 7 is about Safeguarding and Home Education. Don't you remember me saying education and welfare shouldn't be mixed? Hmph!
7.14
There is no evidence to suggest that home educated children are at greater risk of
neglect or abuse than children who are educated at school. Home education is a
positive experience for many children. However, schools and education settings play
an important role in safeguarding children. They are places where children can be
routinely seen and heard. It is important, therefore, that all children enjoy the right to
be safe, regardless of how and where they receive their education.
And how many schooled-children are abused but the abuse gets missed because teachers are too busy writing reports and other bureaucratic nonsense, rather than spending time with the kids? (Not the teacher's fault, I will add!) And what about the schooled children that are abused and bullied at school, whether by students or perhaps teachers?
7.15
A parent’s decision to home educate is not in itself a ground for concern about the
safety and well-being of the child. However, as with any child regardless of where
they are educated, there may be circumstances which, individually or combined, give
practitioners cause to seek further information about a child.
If HE is not "in itself a ground for concern", then it shouldn't be included in a sentence which alludes to "circumstances which individually... ...give practitioners" cause for concern.
7.16
Local authorities should approach all cases where the suitability of home education is
in doubt using their powers in the Education Act 1996 (please refer to section 5), but
they should also be prepared, if a lack of suitable education appears likely to impair a
child’s development, to fully exercise their safeguarding powers and duties to protect
the child’s well-being, which includes their suitable education.
And even if a HEing parent is struggling and needs help to provide their child a good education, just because there is a lack of education it does not follow that their welfare is a concern. Education and welfare are different!
7.17 includes the sentence "
Reasonable
cause can include the lack of any substantive information about a child’s education" :(
7.19
‘Harm’ can include the impairment of health or development, which means physical,
intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development, so the provision of
unsuitable education clearly can amount to this. The causing of significant harm need
not be intentional or deliberate, but case law indicates that it must be ‘considerable,
noteworthy or important’. This is a key point for local authorities in considering
whether the use of safeguarding powers is appropriate in a case relating to a child
who is not receiving a suitable education. However, local authority staff should be
clear that when the use of safeguarding powers is justified, they should be used.
I don't disagree with this, but wonder how much the LA/Welsh government get involved with schools that are harming their pupils? I don't specifically mean schools that fail OFSTED, rather 'good' schools but that may be failing individual students.
7.23
There may be circumstances where a child has not had direct contact with public
services for a significant period of time. This is not in itself evidence that a child is at
risk of harm, but should make practitioners think about what further action they may
need to take in discussion with the senior officer responsible for home education.
There have, however been a number of cases where children out of contact with
public services have been significantly harmed. There may be cases where there are
grounds to report a safeguarding concern to Social Services when there is evidence
to suggest that there has been no direct contact between a child and public services
for a prolonged period. An All Wales Practice Guide will be made available to provide
further advice and which is to be used in conjunction with forthcoming the Wales
Safeguarding Procedures.
Again, I can see the reflexive reasoning for this knee-jerk response. However, essentially, it is saying that if your child is fit and well (so doesn't require visiting a GP for example) that may be grounds to suggest that there
may be cause to report that family to SS.
With the requirement for all HE children to be seen at least annually, that should remove the need for this section.
Now I have come to the Annexes.
I confess, I cba to read through the flow-chart in detail from Annex 1.
Annex 2 is an initial contact letter. Given that keeping everything in writing is no longer an option, you have to agree to a meeting. What the letter doesn't say, however, is that you can choose to have the meeting in a different location (not your home), nor does it specify whether the attached questionnaire is optional. It does say "it would be useful..." which implies it is not mandatory, but I think it would be better if it was totally open and honest.
Annex 3 is the Pre-Visit template for parents. i.e. the questionnaire.
It asks for the Learner's Current Knowledge and Skills, Learner's Development and Progress and the Learner's Goals and How they will be Achieved. With each of these, there is potential for them becoming a stick to beat you with.
I always normally advise people to never talk in the future tense, or about specific goals you have. It may be that you plan to learn XYZ, however, your child has suddenly got interested in ABC - should you force your child to continue with XYZ so that the LA is satisfied you are achieving your goals, or do you allow HE to have the flexibility that it should have, and allow your child to follow their interests and continue to love learning?
Development and Progress is a funny thing too. Just like you can't see your child growing (whereas if there's a cousin/niece who you don't see as often you can see the comparison that they have grown), it is hard to see the child developing in front of you. Progress - and by progress I'm assuming it means 'achievements' is easier to monitor, and demonstrate, but again, it means that you will always have to be documenting things, rather than enjoying the HE journey for what it is.
And as for Learner's Current Knowledge and Skills? Unless this is a simple C&P job where you take everything you wrote last time in Progress, and dump it in this box, cumulatively, of course, then what is it's purpose?
Then there's a load more bullshit boxes: Where does the education take place? Experiences. Opportunities for physical activities and play. Interactions. Resources.
The next question is my pet peeve - after asking who provides the education, it asks about DBS checks for tutors. SELF EMPLOYED TUTORS
CANNOT GET ENHANCED DBS CHECK ON THEMSELVES!!!!
The final question seems a bit of a "how often do you beat your wife?" question - "
Are you happy for us to contact you again, in line with the local authority policy
document?" and if you mark 'No' then that will raise a red flag.
Annex 4a is the Pre-Visit Template for children (age 5-10) - and presumably the first
test is whether the child can read and write themselves. 4b (for children aged 10-16) is a bit better, and at least because they are open-answer questions, the child can reply with a simple No, if they want.
Annex 5 is the LA Visit Report.
Annex 6 is the Annual Review Letter, with the same issues that I identified with Annex 2.
Annex 7 is the Annual Home Visit Template, which is very similar to Annex 5, but includes a space for the parent's signature. At least it means that if the parent isn't happy about something that has been written, they won't sign it and should be able to get it amended.
I don't know how the two documents will work together, unless Annex 7 is what they write up with you, and Annex 5 is what they write up
about you?
Annexes 8, 9 and 10 are all about serving notices and implementing SAOs, and I haven't read them through because I'm tired, and I know that if you're reading this, you care about your child's education so it won't be applicable to you, anway.
