Hi zazizoma

my understanding is that the welsh assembly will wait and see what happens in England and then decide whether to jump on the band wagon. Welsh HEers are just as worried about the whole thing as the rest of us. Scotland are neatly protected - they have completely separate law in this area and the executive have made it clear there are no plans to follow the dcsf agenda.

For those not following the story closely, you may be interested to learn that, following a heap of FOI requests and number crunching, it has been found that the whole "twice as likely to be abused" stuff you'll have read in the broadsheets a month ago was complete and utter bollocks. So the whole premise of the report, together with Badman's justification for his proposed punitive regime was based on a lie an unfortunate mistake.

linky 1

simple but devastating summary

I've not read all the messages so appologies if I'm off track but I think that the problem is that Badman thinks there is only one type of 'education' that can be called 'education' (ie a very schooly method of learning.) The general public seems to think this too and the people I have spoken to have said that they want to see home edders being checked to see if their children are up-to-age readers and so on. The proposals in the report are suitable for schools but they don't work for home ed.

I think it would be very productive to encourage people to imagaine that autonomous education was what the government thought was 'best' and that the few parents who decided to 'school' their children should be subjected to invasive checking to see if their child was recieving a suitably autonomous education and not being abused. These parents should also show that they have no definate plans or goals to be achieved over the next year. Evidence that too schooly an environment was being created should be treated with suspician and must mean that the child is not being 'educated' 'properly.' I know this would be hard for people to imaagine but this is EXACTLY what home schoolers are being put through, its just that our educational philosphy is not always the 'school' philosophy.

Also, any legislation, which sets a precedent of allowing a right of access to the family home is very dangerous.

How does this affect Wales? Education is one of the social elements that have been completely devolved from England. Ommward?

Whether or not you agree with/disagree with or practice/don't yet practice home education, please take the time to read this article (hope link works), and then make your own mind up as to whether or not this is an issue that may currently/one day concern you.

Well, considering there was talk about reducing the offical school starting age to 4 in a review earlier this year, there would be other ways of doing it. Like changing the EYFS or something. (the proposal was scrapped I think)

HSMM - I'm not missing the point - you need to see what the draft legislation says. If it can only be used for kids of compulsory school age, that means it can't be used for kids under 4/5. Mind you, it doesn't stop a nosey parker inspector having a look at the younger children in an HE family - eg one is 6 and there are, say, younger kids of 1 and 3. However, the devil is in the detail of the draft legislation and how it is framed.

I think some people are missing the point of the potential for expanding these in home visits. There is a 'curriculum' now for babies - the Early Years Foundation Stage. If you are staying home with your 6 month old baby, would you be happy for someone from the local authority coming into your home and asking you to demonstration how your child is progressing through the EYFS and how you are facilitating this? HE starts from birth, so most parents do it for a least a little while. Can you picture them interviewing your 1, 2, 3, 4 year old?

The thing is Helly, despite there being a consultation on this that doesn't close till October it is mentioned on the legislative schedule for 2009-2010. Essentially they've decided to go ahead no matter what the consultation results say. We wouldn't be able to say for sure, but given the speed the rest of this has been done with there are pretty strong suspicions that its being pushed through ASAP.

I hadn't thought that these new powers to inspect home educators could be used for kids not at nursery or pre-school but of course they could easily be used for this - if the legislation is framed that way. If, however, the legislation applies to children of compulsory school age then it can't be used for those who are younger. It would have to be amended at a later date.

I wouldn't worry too much anyway, this government's days are numbered and the Tories won't take forward most of Labour's plans.

I thought that the real reason for this legislation was to catch parents who keep their girls at home to force them into an arranged marriage but of course they can't say that because it would be considered racist.

I don't think social services should be able to talk to a child without a NEUTRAL adult present, even if it is a neighbour or a teacher from a school down the road. At least them you have a witness to what was said - and maybe such conversations should be videoed/taped. Otherwise they can suggest anything. Young children say all kinds of things and it would be very easy to misinterpret them - whether with good intentions or wilfully.

I fear that Baby P will lead to knee jerk reactions in the same way that Soham did. All I will say is: remember Sally Clark. Parents need protecting as well.

Just adding this, in case anyone isn't able to write to an MP or sign the UK petition, or you have people you can forward them to in other countries.

This link is to a global petition about the UK situation.

(Also this link is to a Swedish petition, they are also facing a similar situation as the government are saying that their schools offer such a comprehensive and inclusive education that there is no need for home educating to be a legal option!)

I think the whole thing is a mess and I have no confidence that it will improve! I do think HE should be put forward as an equal, educational choice for parents, but as such needs some regulation-but it needs more vision.

Good post, litchick.

Dare to know specific letter asking MP to sign the Early Day motion

that is good advice from seeker. There are some blogs with sample letters that have been carefully written if people want templates to adapt. the dare to know on that was linked to for the survey is one, and this one is another, and this one has lots sent to different MPs.

But please pay attention to my earlier posts about what you say in your letter - the potential to give them a get out of jail card here is huge.

ommward - thank you for that. I am not sure what has hapened to my nephew and why he is not being assessed. Nor do I know why my sister is not being given more help and support. I suspect it might be because my sister took him out of school because he was being bullied and the LEA have now taken a hands off attitude.

I do agree with the general thrust of ths thread by the way. I do not think these new powers are needed. I do think the existing powers are not being applied and implemented properly by the look of things - at least in some cases.

I suspect LEAs might well quite like new powers to start kicking downs doors at private schools like the one where our DSs are. I am sure a lot of LEAs would like more control there too.

as well as the Early Day Motion for MPs to sign there's a petition about this here for the general public to sign.

SGB agree thoroughly.

betadad - there are alraedy requirements on LAs to assess the suitability of the educational provision. From the 2007 guidelines for LAs (which the LAs hate and mostly ignore chiz)

"3.6 Some parents may welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision that they are making
for the child’s education during a home visit but parents are not legally required to give
the local authority access to their home. They may choose to meet a local authority
representative at a mutually convenient and neutral location instead, with or without the
child being present, or choose not to meet at all. Where a parent elects not to allow access
to their home or their child, this does not of itself constitute a ground for concern about the
education provision being made. Where local authorities are not able to visit homes, they
should, in the vast majority of cases, be able to discuss and evaluate the parents’ educational
provision by alternative means. If they choose not to meet, parents may be asked to provide
evidence that they are providing a suitable education. If a local authority asks parents for
information they are under no duty to comply although it would be sensible for them to do
so.[fn to case law] Parents might prefer, for example, to write a report, provide samples of work, have their
educational provision endorsed by a third party (such as an independent home tutor) or
provide evidence in some other appropriate form.

...

3.14 It is important to recognise that there are many, equally valid, approaches to educational
provision. Local authorities should, therefore, consider a wide range of information from
home educating parents, in a range of formats. The information may be in the form of
specific examples of learning e.g. pictures/paintings/models, diaries of educational activity,
projects, assessments, samples of work, books, educational visits etc.
3.15 In their consideration of parents’ provision of education at home, local authorities may
reasonably expect the provision to include the following characteristics:
􀁺 consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers – it is expected that parents
or significant carers would play a substantial role, although not necessarily constantly or
actively involved in providing education
􀁺 recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations
􀁺 opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences
􀁺 access to resources/materials required to provide home education for the child – such as
paper and pens, books and libraries, arts and crafts materials, physical activity, ICT and the
opportunity for appropriate interaction with other children and other adults."

See, it's all there already, what they need to reassure themselves that an education is taking place, it's just that the LA officials want more P-O-W-E-R

Loo, the current government are a bunch of totalitarian maniacs, incompetents and nest-feathering crooks. Why on earth do stupid people think they should be given any more power to meddle in our lives when they cannot be trusted not to lose confidential data, assess things accurately and actually have the best intrests of the populace (as opposed to their cronies' profits) at heart anyway.

grrr. poll

[[ daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html poll]] broken link

litchick - helpful summary

"1. That all HE'd children should be registered"

I disagree with this because the LA would then have the power to decide who gets to be registered or not - they'll have right of refusal. And then we'll be at the mercy of some LA staffer's prejudices. I'm not in personal danger, btw, I've got lots of the right sorts of qualifications, including a postgrad teaching qualification (not PGCE), the right sort of accent (yah), I'm white, in a stable relationship etc etc etc. But anyone whose circumstances or education the LA don't like can have their application for registration rejected. To hell with that! The outcomes for HEed children from poorer backgrounds where the parents have few if any qualifications are so so so much better than the outcomes, statistically, for those children in schools (cf Paula Rothermal) but what are the chances of some ex-OFSTED inspector having read that research? And those are the kinds od families where some prejudiced LA inspector may well be refusing registration

I would be completely happy to be required to inform the LA that I intend to HE or that I am HEing, but there's no way some LA numpty should have right of refusal. If there's reason to suppose I'm not capable of providing an education, they can take me to court and see if their arguments persuade "a reasonable person".


"2. That the LA will be able to decide which families are suitable to HE and which are not. It's not clear whether the burden of proof will remain with the parents or the LA."

See my concerns above


"3. That all HE'd children should receive regular visits from the LA and where it is suspected that a child may not be able to speak freely in front of their parents that the rep from the LA speak to the child with another trusted adult present."

If this was how it would be, it might be justifiable. But deciding to speak to the children alone will be at the discretion of the LA employee and they only need to be our ex-OFSTEDder who can't really see why any child would rather not go to school, thinking it important to get he children alone to encourage them to say something which can be construed as them wanting to be in school. People are very good at hearing what they want to hear.

Problems include:

- 77% of HE children in a recent daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html poll said they do not want to meet LA staff. Similar responses were found in this survey, which I'd point you towards in particular, pisces. Are we going to disregard the preferences of 77% of HEed children here?

- what SEN training is the LA person going to get? How will they cope with children on the autistic spectrum, for example, or children with receptive language difficulties or communication disorders? Will the word of the parents be enough to explain that the child simply won't talk to the LA official, or simply won't be prepared to be alone with strangers? Parents of SN children, especially those who have taken them out of the education system which was failing them, are not confident about some LA staffer being competent to communicate fairly and effectively with their children. Nothing in the proposed legislation about this. Plus, a lot of HE families with SN children don't have diagnoses, often because the process of getting one is massively traumatic and the benefits of having one can be minimal if the child isn't in school. Will these families have to go through the hours of appointments and months of waiting lists to get the piece of paper which shows what they have known for years, purely in order to defend their child from some total stranger invading their home and expecting to see normal neurotypical behaviours?

4. That there should be some assessment of the quality of the education received.

I'll be perfectly h appy about this if the person doing the assessing is an expert in the style of educational provision the HE family is providing. But that's not going to happen, is it? Whether we are autonomous or waldorf-inspired or christian curriculum or whatever else, the chances of an LA employing anyone with any experience og HE, let alone someone with experience of any particular style of HE, is vanishingly small. Ex-teachers don't tend to have a clue, tbh.

But if the school isn't providing an education that suits a certain child, then the parent would be responsible for
a. going to the school and asking them to do things differently,
b. arranging extra support
or
c. changing schools to another school that better supported their DC.

They would use information provided by OFSTED reports to make decisions like this. But the OFSTED report wouldn't tell them how their specific DC would react to the school. You often see parents on here saying they choose the satisfactory school not the outstanding one, because they felt their child would be happier/acheive more/get support there.

The OFSTED report also informs the LA of the schools provision because they are responsible for that. So they need to know. But the same for home ed would be the parent asking someone of their OWN choice to come and tell them what they thought of their educational provision - not an outside organisation doing it. Because both the LA and OFSTED are government organsations working with State provision.

I think the intent is very good, but I would say that it is misguided because there hasn't been enough consultation. Both sides need to talk and compromise-outright hostility will get you nowhere-it all comes down to talk in the end, so better sooner than later.

I think you should send them to catholic school

I agree that it is very wrong if it is pre determined-I find that annoying. My DSs school consulted the parents on a change in the school hours after they had made the decision, so I can see where you are coming from.
I think we will have to disagree on the Ofsted-I think the purpose is to check that the individual DC is getting a good education provided by the school, and if the school isn't providing it they have to change. Feedback to parents is secondary. In fact now the DCs get a letter from the inspectors telling them what they think-and so they should-education is about the child and not the parent. It is only fair to ask the DC what they think.

the intent may be good, but its misguided at least. And likely to be far less efficient than simply investing in the current systems would have been.

I won't do it. I don't think this is an attack on HE. It's an attempt to protect children from falling through the cracks.

I've seen the results of far too many forced marriages and education cut short in order to think this is solely an attack on Home Educators.

Yes, Contactpoint is solmething I object to also and good point about HE children having to be registered twice. When do you think the govt will announce that people will have to pay to register their child (or be fined...)?

I saw that in the paper yesterday Ommmmward - and couldn't even begin to understand the grounds for taking the children away. Deeply scary stuff.

I also think that registration of all HE children, in itself, is not a bad thing thought it depends on the way this is run and how much information will be required. I do object very strongly to points 2 and 4 and feel ambiguous about 3 as I have little faith that this would be in any way useful and could be open to LEA officers wrongly accusing parents of abuse/neglect just to meet some target or other.

I don't get it piscesmoon, you've had this discussion enough times that it always comes to the same points. But perhaps you can tell me how we can engage with the government and come to an 'arrangement' when the outcomes of the review are obviously pre-determined? How could they be ready to move on to drafting legislation otherwise?

Contactpoint is the way the govenment have chosen to move forward with registration of children. People may have objections to this, but at least it is fair in that every child is included in it. Why would home educators need ADDITIONAL registration to partake in a 'completely normal educational choice'?

The feedback comment is to do with inspections. That is what OFSTED do. They don't inspect the education that each individual school child receives. They inspect the school's provision and give feedback to the public on this. The public do not need feedback on home-educated childrens education, the same way that OFSTED don't publish detailed reports on each child.

And as I said a few posts ago; if these changes go ahead and are intended to give children a voice and be free to disclose abuse or express preferences on their educational provision, then I believe they should be applied to every child. Why limit it to home educated children when school children are not usually consulted about if they go to school, and their homes aren't checked out by anyone.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear...

Imagine proving you have nothing to hide.

'For what it's worth. I'm in favour of registration. I think once the gov know the numbers they'll have to stop viewing the HE community as some sort of fringe element.'

This is my point-it should be a completely normal educational choice for parents and should come into the mainstream and away from being what looks like a secret cult to the outsider. It should be open and not secret.

'Home educating parents are there and don't need feedback from a government body to tell them if they are meeting their responsibilities.'

I find this peculiar. The child is at the centre of education-feedback to the parent is secondary. Of course the parent knows what they are doing but they are not always the best judges of whether they are providing a good enough education.
The child comes first in my view.

From Litchicks list -
Point 1 -I agree with totally.
Point 2-in theory, but more work would need to be done on how the conclusion is reached.
Point 3-I think the DC should have a voice. In school they get asked questions with no teacher present-they are free to say whatever they like-HE DCs should have the same freedom.
Point 4-another tricky one-I would be very much against the national curriculum.

Points 2 and 4 are the ones that the HE community need to come to an arrangement with and the LEA need to appoint people who are sympathetic to HE-if they have people who see it as 'school in the home' they are onto a non starter.

Actually I think they could start by listening to the teenage DCs who are HEd-I always find the ones that I have heard speak, quite refreshing-they are articulate, friendly and thoughtful and don't have axes to grind in the way that the adults do.

nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

And if people write to their MPs saying that they object to Ed Balls wanting "to force children to submit to an interview on their own with LA staff.", the MP will just write back saying "Thank you for your letter. I am happy to be able to reassure you that there is no such provision in the proposed legislation". And there you are back to square one. You are giving them a let-out by not quoting the proposals accurately and they will be able to discount all such letters. There will then be a statement saying something like "A number of concerns were raised by HE parents and other interested parties, but these were largely based in insufficient understanding of the proposals and we were able to offer reassurance and clarification where necessary."

I know these things - I used to write garbage like that for a living.

mahoosive disagreement.

I'm a massive supporter of HE and was involved in the consultation process due to my experience in child protection.
I am in agreement with some of the proposals and in mahoosive agreement with some of the others.
However the OP does not fairly represent what is being suggested and unfortunately anyone who does write to their MP complaining about this won't get the desired effect.

The governemt are proposing ( I'm paraphrasing here and anyone contacting their MP should read both Badman's report and Ed Balls response first):
1. That all HE'd children should be registered.
2. That the LA will be able to decide which families are suitable to HE and which are not. It's not clear whether the burden of proof will remain with the parents or the LA.
3. That all HE'd children should receive regular visits from the LA and where it is suspected that a child may not be able to speak freely in front of their parents that the rep from the LA speak to the child with another trusted adult present.
4. That there should be some assessment of the qualitry of the education received.

For what it's worth. I'm in favour of registration. I think once the gov know the numbers they'll have to stop viewing the HE community as some sort of fringe element.
I'm undecided about two until I know about burdens pf proof and who will regulate the decisions? The courts? A tribunal?
Providing the person speaking with the child is not hostile to HE per se and the trusted indv is of the child's choosing I have no problem with pont three.
I totally disagree with four. The gov wants to impose it stupid national curicculm on everyone and has no idea how HE works. Nanny state. Bleugh.

I'm glad you agree the reaction is not at all proportional to the possible outcomes. LAs having access to children wont stop child abuse, school children are still abused despite being seen reguarly.

The thing is, there are already adaquate laws to protect children. What isn't adaquate is the funding, staffing and training. Many LA staff dealing with home educators don't even seem to be aware of the actual laws, so had can they use them effectively. Cases where there are welfare concerns SHOULD be being dealt with by social services - and they do have the power to see a child whether the parent is home educating or not. If communication between these 'department's is not working that needs to be looked into. New laws wont help with all of this.

If the LA is concerned that a child is not being educated they can ask the parent to show that they are, in court if needed. Failings within the system can't be blamed on home educatino being 'unregulated'

anastaisia - I freely admit, I am not a HE expert but surely there is some kind of legal responsibility to provide a child with a certain level of education?

I do not agree with the new law being brought in to let LEA officials into the home but some kind of agreed basis on which the home education environemnt can be fairly assessed needs to be in place. My sister is simply not giving her son a good education and no one seems to care. He is not being educated at all as far as I can see and he has been in a sort of legalised truancy since 14 even though she says he is doing HE.

I am not against HE at all, in fact I know someone that very successfully did HE all 5 of her children. I disagree with this part of what you said though:

"Home educating parents are there and don't need feedback from a government body to tell them if they are meeting their responsibilities."

Whatever the arguements, I do not agree that some offical from the LEA can just come into your house and interview your child. No way.

Piscesmoon. A proportion of the homne education community is extremely politically active - but really what is the point of engaging with the government when what you say is ignored.

The public consultation on this matter doesn't close until October. Why then is drafting new legislation already under discussion. How can the government claim to listen to the public when they have not waited to hear what the public have to say about this before moving ahead with it. It makes a mockery of the democratic process, and EVERY person in the country should be taking note of this because whatever they think about home education because along with other government plans it shows a total disregard for the opinions of the people of the UK.

I don't know how many times I've typed this on other threads but her goes again. ABetaDad, schools are providing a service to parents who delegate their educational responsibilities to their children. At all times the parent's remain legally responsible for theit child receiving an education so they need to have feedback about how the school is meeting this role. Local authorities are accountable to the parent's, and State schools need to show that they are providing value for tax money.

Home educating parents are there and don't need feedback from a government body to tell them if they are meeting their responsibilities.

It is true that a small number of parents do fail there children. However to single out home educators is a strange proposal. The report itself stated that Badman found no evidence that home educated children were at increased risk of abuse, but he believes that just in case it ever happened we should make x, y and z changes. What a phenomonal waste of public money. Surely any national legislative changes should be evidence based and not a reaction to media pressure to be seen to be doing something about certain high profile cases?

If its the children's rights aspect that is concerning people, then I propose that every single child in the UK is visited to check thier home environment and to ask them if they are happy with their parents educational provision. Not doing this leaves under-fives vunerable and many school children are abused or leave school without satisfactory levels of literacy and numeracy.

If home educated children express a desire to be at state or private school this will be taken into account. If state school children want to be home educated or move to a private school this will be taken into account. If private school children want to be home educated or move to a state school. It is important that children are consulted on their place of education.

The government want all children to have a certain standard of education. If a child is attending a school that is not achieving an outstanding grade at OFSTED inspections then parents will have to outline how they are supporting their child, because all children deserve the best possible education and parents are responsible for this. If a child is not achieving the grades expected by a child of their age then parents will need to show how they plan to support their child to achieve these grades. If by the next annual visit no progress has been made towards raising the child's standard then the parent will be issued a home education order to see if home education suits their child better than schooling.

Parents of under-fives will be expected to show how they work with the Early Years Foundation Stage goals if their child is not in full time childcare provision or not achieving as expected. This annual visit will also show that these children are not hidden away at home for the rest of the year to hide abuse or neglect.

Does that sound as reasonable as monitoring home educators just in case they aren't fullfilling their parental responsibility to educate their child?

And if people write to their MPs saying that they object to Ed Balls wanting "to force children to submit to an interview on their own with LA staff.", the MP will just write back saying "Thank you for your letter. I am happy to be able to reassure you that there is no such provision in the proposed legislation". And there you are back to square one. You are giving them a let-out by not quoting the proposals accurately and they will be able to discount all such letters. There will then be a statement saying something like "A number of concerns were raised by HE parents and other interested parties, but these were largely based in insufficient understanding of the proposals and we were able to offer reassurance and clarification where necessary."

I know these things - I used to write garbage like that for a living.

Just a hought on the HE thing. MY sister does HE with her DS. He is 15 and she is not doing it well.

I would not object to hildren who are HE beng taken for regular assessment and an inspector coming to the home to help set up a good HE physical environment, check the chld has the right learnng resources etc. Just like a school.

I think that HE should just be be a normal educational choice. I have never understood why it has to be shrouded in secrecy. I always thought that they were all visited by the LEA, until I started reading thses threads. It doesn't crop up much in RL conversations, but when it has everyone is very surprised to find that the LEA has no right to check the quality of education.
It will come in the end, IMO, so it makes sense for the HE community to get involved from the start to make sure that it is done in a way that suits them.

Why is it 'stirring" to want factual accuracy?

gah..you beat me to it there

They already have

Fair enough, let's just hope no party gets in that tries to stamp on anything you hold dear then.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your question, Kayteee.The BNP are not in power (and are most unlikely to be so) but, since we live in a democracy, we take that risk. My dislike of the government of the day doesn't entitle me to flout the rules I don't like and, if I do, I have to accept that there may be repercussions.

Oh hello seeker,

brought your wooden spoon with you again?


would love to stay and chat but bed beckons

As a point of accuracy, the suggestion is that the child could be interviewed either alone, or with another trusted adult. The point is that there should be the opportunity in certain circumstances to talk to the child without the person who is providing/facilitating the education being present, not that the child should be interviewed alone.

Not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, just getting the facts straight.

I think we have actually agreed more than disagreed Kayteee! I was a bit surprised to find you agreeing with me last week.

oh my word Pisces,

Agreement between us yet again

Exactly Kayteee-the whole thing is ill conceived-it needs to go back to 'the drawing board' and have a lot more discussion. Taking up opposing positions isn't going to get anywhere.

Pisces,

The LA and SS already have the powers to intervene and they've messed it up big time.

Why not just provide better training/funding for the existing system?

I spoke to a LA "inspector" the other day who was aghast at these recommendations. She admitted that she did not feel experienced enough to deal with potential abuse cases and would not appreciate having that added to her workload.

ok, Scummy,
This was recorded, if you notice at the end, before the Graham Badman report had come out.

She was not aware, at the time of this interview, of the proposals that have come to light since.

Since the report EO has not condoned any of the recommendations that this man (who incidently knows nothing about HE, along with all the so-called experts on his panel).

The only thing I agree with you about is that she is very sensible and reasoned. Opinions have changed however as this issue has not, at the end of the day, been handled with any sensitivity whatsoever.

I think both sides should work together to find a suitable solution.

You can listen to it here, kayteee. I think both Fiona Nicholson of EO and Peter Traves of Staffordshire Children's Services are very reasonable and sensible. Fiona specifically ends by saying that this measure doesn't have to be a disaster and can be handled sensitively. She is clear that CHILDREN, not parents or local authorities ranged against each other, are the important people in the mix here. I think she is right.

Campion,

You say "we all have to accept some state intervention in our lives". For arguments' sake, would you stand by that statement if, for example, the BNP were in power?

Exactly SammyK,

I feel especially bad for single parents who are now expected to go back to work and hand their dc over to child minders when the youngest turns 7 (I think).

It's really getting ridiculous and I agree with everything you've just said.

Yet another reason to vote Conservative.

I have emailed my local councillors, as I feel strongly about this from the point of view that I feel we are coming closer and closer to our children being in daycare also from a very young age, and definately can see the stepping stone path that is forming. All the way along this path are the messages, 'parent's are not doing a good enough job educating and caring for their dcs', 'we officials know what is best for your dcs', 'if your child is not confirming to our institutionalised curriculums and tick boxes you are at fault', and so on. I don't like these underlying messages that we are being given.

I also object to early formailsed learning, I know that is going off the path slightly, but if your beliefs as a HE'er are not to teach formal learning to a set curriculum, will you then be deemed as a bad parent/educator? What will happen then? The idea someone could walk into your home with such power and ask your children questions alone is quite worrying in terms of what the consequences may be to innocent parents and children.

I do not currently home educate, but I would consider it for DS is we came to that stage, which we may do in the future due to his specific situation.

A child being well cared for will be on the radar anyway, they will have a GP +/or HV, will be part of a community, have neighbours and so on. It is the children not on the radar that need finding and supporting, not children being educated at home who are healthy and happy.

I also don't see how being in LA school means you are picked up on as a child in need do they have psychics in the playground? I'm sure there are just as many children school educated who are suffering at home, I know I was as a child.

sorry, Scummy.

Scrummy,
that EO spokeswoman is a good friend of mine and I know for sure she didn't say anything like that.

You obviously feel strongly about this ommmward, but I somehow doubt that ' armies of state approved busybodies' are about to materialise. This government doesn't exactly do joined-up thinking / action as far as I've noticed and there simply wouldn't be the personnel available to do this to any great extent. Let's face it, visits from Health Visitors are a rare event these days so I can't see them finding all the resources and bureaucracy needed for such a large task.

Trouble is, there just might be some children being abused right now under the cover of being home educated and I don't know and you don't know.I really don't think you're being singled out because you say you don't conform to societal norms. We all have to accept some state intervention in our lives.

I'm still not sure how muslims don't conform to societal norms.That's a bit sweeping.

What should I report them to social services for, ommmward? I haven't seen any abuse taking place or I would give social services a ring. I worry that the children look unhappy and that the older one doesn't treat his brother well- perhaps reflecting how he is treated himself. If I see them out and about and there is something concrete to report I will report it. They keep their kids very close though and, apart from family, who is about to notice if there is something wrong? No one. Perhaps a visit will be the start of something better for them. Or indicate that there is no reason to worry and they are clearly thriving. Who knows? Not me.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Home Educators are guilty until proven innocent either. The Education Otherwise spokeswoman was on the Today programme talking about this and pronounced herself all in favour. She was great actually. Really measured and balanced in her views.

Yes, I wouldnt mnd.

No campion - the parallel with muslims would just be the singling out of a random minority group which doesn't conform to the societal norm.

the really important question is:

If you were/are a SAHP, not using OFSTEDed child care, do you think it would be right for the State to therefore regard you as under suspicion of child abuse and of not helping your child develop according to some State-approved guidelines (like EYFS, maybe)? And to come and test you according to their own personal prejudices and without proper training either in social work or in non-EYFS-compliant forms of child development?

Because that, right now in the coming months, is what the parents of about 80,000 children are facing.

Campion,

I don't think Ommward was saying that HE is a religion, merely suggesting that any other minority group being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" would not be tolerated in general.

Imo though, HE is a kind of belief system if you want to look at it that way. Why should home educators beliefs about their kids' education/lives, come under such scrutiny, just because we choose a different way to bring our children up?

What about SAHMs with children under 5 who don't go to nursery? Should they have to put up with their children being taken away for questioning too??

Is HEing a religion now, ommmward?

No thank you.

"if things are very bad and a child is in school, well, that's a massive source of extra eyes and ears and chances that someone will notice that something is awful for that child. God knows schools, health and child protection services screw up often enough but at least the chance is there for that child to be helped. If the child isn't in school and things are very bad (rare, I know, most HEers are loving parents but it does happen) then who picks up on it? Who notices? A compulsory check is better than nothing, imo."

Before legislating, it would be important to establish whether it is likely that annual spot checks would catch abuse (I read a story via Blogdial of a woman who, as a child, was indeed home educated for a while by a horribly abusive mother, who beat the children soundly the night before the LA inspection to ensure that they would say they were happy to be learning at home with Mum... if there was the silghtest chance of the plans catching abuse, they'd have a better chance of eliciting my sympathy.

So we have the minimal chances of a child opening up to a complete stranger on a once a year check with Mum in the next room

to weigh up against the parents of approx 80,000 children being subjected to the stress of having their home and family life invaded by some ex-OFSTED inspector with the power to decide whether the children would be better off in school, the horrific fall-out of false positives (I keep saying "remember Orkney"), loss for those families of the presumption of innocence.

finance: current estimates are that there are about 3 HE children unknown to the LAs for every one who is. And there is currently no requirement for LAs to visit. If they are happy that allis hunky dory they leave the family alone - as they should - not only because the parents are, after all, responsible for educating their children, but also because the EHE bit of the LA education department is strapped for cash. So this more than quadruples the workload. Oh, plus this requirement to "register" with subjecting detailed plans for the next year, quite apart from perhaps being a v. useful thing for a teacher with 30 children to juggle, but totally pointless for a responsive parent and even counterproductive, will also require someone to evaluate all those plans. And the lovely Mr Balls is going to pay for all this how exactly?

"Social workers are supposed to talk to children without their parents being present too. Tis a key Laming recommendation."

Why yes, scummymummy, but that would just be children in families where there is reason to believe that abuse is taking place. This suggests non-social worker LA numpties having that power over any family whose child is not in school. Surely if the LA education dept suspect abuse, they shouldn't be taking children off into rooms alone, they should be referring to SS pronto, because social workers are properly trained to communicate with children in such situations?? Oh, but that's the current law isn't it, and without his 15 new laws a day, how would Ed Balls sustain himself?

"There are is one set of HEing parents round here whom I wouldn't trust with my cat, let alone a child." If you think there is a family maltreating a child, you should, surely, be reporting them to social services rather than suggesting that ALL HE parents should be treated as if under suspicion? How about if you'd written "There are is one set of muslim parents round here whom I wouldn't trust with my cat, let alone a child." and then suggested that all Muslim families should be subjected to annual safe and well checks, just in case?

Agree with ScummyMummy. And all those services quite often get it right but that's not news.

I have used www.faxyourmp.org.uk a few times with great effect (affect?).

They publish ratings of MPs who do and do not respond.

Its free too.

I wish this new bill would work but I dont think it will. IF I thought it would get my great niece to a safe place i would push for it with all my might. But it wont. It will still be a lottery.

I think it's very hard to prevent child abuse, hat. Really difficult. No one's that good at it. But if things are very bad and a child is in school, well, that's a massive source of extra eyes and ears and chances that someone will notice that something is awful for that child. God knows schools, health and child protection services screw up often enough but at least the chance is there for that child to be helped. If the child isn't in school and things are very bad (rare, I know, most HEers are loving parents but it does happen) then who picks up on it? Who notices? A compulsory check is better than nothing, imo.

but scummy mummy - a "quick visit" from an LA official actually means huge use of resources - with no evidence that it would be a remotely effective way to prevent child abuse. ie a complete waste of our council tax, when it could be spent on other forms of intervention. eg reducing the ridiculously large caseload that social workers have - an easy non-structural change that I would have a lot more confidence in than this completely random targetting of a group, based on zero evidence.

(and that's the purely pragmatic argument - not to mention the deeper ideological ones that others have mentioned)

Social workers are supposed to talk to children without their parents being present too. Tis a key Laming recommendation.

I think the checks are a great idea. There are is one set of HEing parents round here whom I wouldn't trust with my cat, let alone a child. And I'm sure there are some lovely HEing parents too and a quick visit from an LA official to confirm that nothing's obviously amiss that won't kill them.

"What is to stop that happening? Does anyone have right of appeal? What if mistakes are made?"

1. nothing as far as I can see

2. I hope so, otherwise we're emigrating. I jest not.

3. No mistakes will be made. Ed Balls is in charge.

3. (alternative answer) isn't it in the Laming report where it says that it is MUCH better for children to be removed from their families in error than for an abused child to be missed and left in the care of their family? We are all waaaaay up the proverbial creek here.

I would not want to be a social worker.

My concern is how the powers will be used against you if you make a complaint about your LA education department.

What would happen if, say you made a complaint about bullying at the school your DC is at? Does the LA send an interviewer round to 'make sure the home environment is not the real source of the problem'?

What is to stop that happening? Does anyone have right of appeal? What if mistakes are made?

Not enough checks and balances in my view. They already have the powers they need but do not use them well as we know.

now write to your MP and tell him/her so

Yes - fair points both of you. And the questioning of young children by staff who are not unlikely to be properly trained (and may well ask leading questions) is a huge no, no.

The thing is they already have these powers if abuse is suspected. They always have had. They've just messed up, big time. All these poor kids were known to the relevant depts and they were sadly let down but forcing entry into innocent peoples' homes and interviewing their kids without parents present is unacceptable to me. I thought we were all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round?

This whole thing is very dodgy, imo, and it won't stop at home educators. It will be pre-schoolers under 5s next.

I really think this needs to be seriously addressed because the state should be the parent of last resort...not the first

Yes, janeite, that's exactly what they are trying to do.

The problem is that Kyra Ishaq was ALREADY KNOWN to SS, there were already safeguarding concerns about her, before she left school. But SS did not act on those concerns. The proposed changes to the law would not have saved her. The current law, plus social workers who did their jobs, could have done.

Ed Balls is using those headline cases, hiding the fact that there are already powers and responsibilities to intervene in such situations, and using them to control how home educators raise and educate their children. We will become hostages to the LA numpties (yes, maybe that's unfair - but I'd guess there are as many trustworthy and competent employees in LA education departments as there are clued up and competent health visitors...).

what Kingcanute said.

The problem is that the proposed legislation fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and the family.

If I have a 5 year old, then just minus one year, and this is the equivalent of an LA employee (not even a health visitor or a social worker) coming by law to do compulsory inspections of my non-nurseried pre-schooler.

The employee would make sure they are exactly on target for all of the EYFS goals [whether or not that is suitablefor my child, and whether or not I agree with the EYFS goals as the best way of interacting with a pre-schooler). If not, they could force me to send my cihld to full time nursery.

The employee would make sure the child wasn't being abused. Hard to tell how they'd judge this, what with being some ex-OFSTED inspector from the education department rather even than being a social worker. But they'd take my pre-schooler off into a room on their own, ask them God knows what questions and interpret the answers in God knows what ways (does anyone remember Orkney?). If they judge our family dynamic to be wanting (God help us if we are Gina Ford afficionados and the LA staffer is a Continuum Concept fanatic), they have the power not only to force me to send my child to full-time nursery, but also they will refer us to social services. We won't be happy - SS referrals are never anything but traumatic. SS won't be happy, because they have more than enough to do looking after the families who really need their help, and a wave of false positives coming from the LA department is not going to be accompanied by any extra funding in the current climate.

In case you are worried, there are already ways for the LA to check whether we are educating our children according to the law. But the current ways do not give them as much power over the way we live and the way we educate as they would like, which is why they are pushing for this intrusive regime.

Remember. There is NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE between my HEing family and a family with a SAHM. Ed Balls is trying to sneak this legislation in thinking that HEers are a minority community and noone will hear us. He has engaged in a smear campaign in the national press (oh what a surprise from Mr "gosh, Damian McBride, I hardly knew him") which brands Home Ed as probably being a cover for child abuse (complete smear and the SS stats actually show that abuse is less than half as likely in HEing families as in the general population. But oddly enough, the government aren't shouting an waving that about).

Families with a SAHP are next. Please support us now. We are sleep walking into a future where the State owns our children and we are allowed to care for them on the terms of the State officials. I know it sounds paranoid, but that's what this proposed legislation is after.

I guess this isn't really an attack of home-ed though but an attempt (albeit not well-considered and albeit like using a spade to open a boiled egg to continue with your food imagery) to avoid terrible events like the little girl whose mother stopped sending her to school and then starved her to death in Birmingham recently.

I think that allowing children to be interviewed alone is decidedly fishy. This has always been a no-no, no matter what the situation - and rightly so.

Would it be ok if SS were awarded the power to enter peoples homes without even needing to suspect that there was a problem? I would say that most people would think that is a step to far for SS so I find it surprising that you would think it is ok for Local Authority staff to be able to enter homes!

Agree with gerbil - I can't see a problem with checks. If Home education is being delivered properly and there is no evidence of abuse/neglect or whatever, then what's the problem?

No, sorry. I think checks are probably a good idea.

acksherly... it'd be truly wonderful if you could drop a short message to your MP saying "this is awful" - we are trying to get it so every MP has lots and lots of letters so they are all aware of the problem. Even more worth doing if the MP is a Labour one with a smallish majority!

BUMP.

Not going to write to my MP as he's utterly useless and never responds to ANYTHING from me. I think its because I'm a councillor from a different politcal party LOL.

Fully supportive of the EDM though good luck.

write to your MP and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 1785

Mr Ed Balls wants to give LA officials the power to enter private homes without any reason to think anything is amiss and to force children to submit to an interview on their own with LA staff. These are powers that even the police and social services don't have!!!!

He wants to do it because he is concerned that not having your child in an institutional setting (that's school now, but he could easily extend these plans to those who don't use nurseries or child minders) might be a cover for abuse. His planned legislation is a sledgehammer to crack a nut- he doesn't have evidence that HE is being used as a cover for abuse and it will cost a great deal of our tax money to have LA staff coming to do welfare checks - but he hasn't even done an impact assessment!

So please write to your MP, tell them the planned EHE legislation is disproportionate, uncosted, and has no evidentiary basis, and please would they sign the EDM 1785 or, failing that, 1784 (less good wording IMO)

If you don't HE you probably think this has nothing to do with you. But those with children not in child care are next in line for such heavy-handed state intrusion. We will support you when that time comes. Will you take 5 minures writing an email to support us HEers now?