Now they have sent a letter announcing a visit with under a weeks notice

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

LEA have decided they are visiting me on Friday. If the date is not suitable I 'must' call to rearrange a more convenient time.

I can say thanks but no thanks, and offer to send in an Educational Philosophy instead, right?

[julienoshoes]

Right!

The choice of how to give information about your educational provision is yours.

You can quote section 3.6 from the Elective Home Education: Guidleines for LAs where it says some parents may choose to allow a home vist but are not legally required to do so.
It then goes on to detail other means that you can use to provide information-and that includes a written report.

[Wolliw]

Contact them in writing, and incase they don't receive it in time, be out. Friday is far too soon. That's almost being doorstepped.

Maybe you can agree to something as a compromise. Meet up at the library, with or without children? Don't meet them alone, bring a friend to observe, advocate or both.

That lack of notice is downright confrontational so you should treat them with extreme caution.

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

I will write but as you say it may not get there in time given the lack of notice. I don't have an educational philosophy ready so I'll just have to write and remind them of the law and offer to provide one in the next few weeks.

We are moving away at the end of January anyway so if I can put them off til then we can just vanish. They have been quite confrontational IMO - its only a couple of weeks since they found out about us through their 'children missing education' thing, and they seem to have a bee in their bonnet about me now. So far we have had Education Welfare on the phone wanting to know why I didn't inform them we were HE, the school health service write to me to say they have noticed DD is behind with her vax and could I call them to make an appointment to have them, and now this demand for a very short notice visit.

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

Well, I emailed the 'elective home education consultant' to decline the visit and to say I would be sending him an Ed. Phil. and some evidence of how we are getting on in the form of photos and some work samples.

He emailed back almost immediately, didn't mention my offer to provide alternative evidence, and told me that it is LA policy to visit all HE children within the family home and would I consider this for the New Year. Apparently this is important as we need to have a 'good working relationship'.

[julienoshoes]

It might be the LA policy but it is not law!

Where do you live QueenOfFlamingEverything?

[streakybacon]

For some LEAs, a 'good working relationship' can mean 'we tell you what to do and you do it'. If you don't then you're being obstructive and therefore not contributing to the relationship.

Also bear in mind, a lot of inspectors seem to be trained in their LEA's way of doing things and have little awareness of what is actual legal practice. Perhaps you might like to remind them .

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

julienoshoes - my LEA is not far from where you are, begins with D.

"For some LEAs, a 'good working relationship' can mean 'we tell you what to do and you do it'. If you don't then you're being obstructive and therefore not contributing to the relationship".

I get the feeling this is what he means tbh. I don't see any need for any 'relationship' with him, I can't see any benefit to DD or myself or the education I am providing. If he wants evidence of what we are doing he can have it, but he hasn't responded to my offer to provide it, all he seems to want is to come and inspect my home

[julienoshoes]

really?
D?
Do you want to contact me on [email protected]? If it is the one I am thinking of I am suprised.

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

julie I will email you.

cat64 - I have nothing to hide and I am not trying to hide. They know my DD is not 'missing from education', I have been in communication with the LA on this already, and I have offered to provide evidence of the education she is recieving. I do not wish, however, to accept a home visit. I don't see any need for it, I am under no obligation to permit it, and I am not happy to be told that one has been arranged at 5 days notice!

[ommmward]

there's a huge back story, Cat64

As the law currently stands, the police only have the power to enter your home if there is "probable cause" - ie, if they have reason to suppose that you are breaking or have broken the law in some way, and if they have a warrant. Social workers only have the power to enter a private home, similarly, if they have reason to suppose that a child is being or is in imminent danger of being harmed.

Here we have a family about whom noone has any reason to suppose they are committing a crime, and an employee of the LA trying to intimidate them into consenting to an intrusion into the privacy of their home. That LA employee does not have a leg to stand on, legally. And the family has absolutely nothing to gain from inviting the LA person in. He has nothing to offer them - no funding, no free swimming lessons, no access to school libraries. Why on earth would a family want to meet with him? there is no carrot, and the stick has no legal power.

At present, parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are receiving an education; the LA can make enquiries in order to satisfy themself that an education is taking place, but nowhere in the law are they given the power to demand that those enquiries take place face to face.

The child is not missing from their family, their friends or community. They are only missing from some database, and that is the problem of the database owners, not of the family. It's a big civil liberties issue, Cat64, and home educators have been somewhat in the thick of it since January, when the government announced an inquiry into whether HE is being used as a cover for abuse. The review author concluded that although he had no evidence that this is a problem, it would be a good idea to legislate as though HEers are all child abusers, and subject us to intrusive inspections and a scheme whereby we would have to apply for permission, annually, to HE our children, with permission being granted or denied at the whim of the LA. (they are calling it registration, but it is in fact licensing). It is creating a huge stink - including a select committee enquiry (yet to report) and, only this week, a record number of petitions presented by MPs to parliament on the issue - something like 120 on a single day, mostly with the relevant MPs there putting them into the box behind the speaker's chair, and a few where one person submitted petitions for a couple of constituencies. It's a massive clash between government and governed, with thousands of people campaigning against any change to the law, and the conservatives having decided, thank God, to support us. We are all hoping that labour run out of parliamentary time before the bill goes through. It would fundamentally reshape the relationship between the state and the family, and not in a good way.

[ommmward]

Me, I think the State needs to have some reason to think a child is vulnerable = at risk before it has the right to clod hop into people's lives and homes.

What you may not be aware of is that the government are currently attempting to class ALL electively HEed children as being vulnerable, and therefore to place all EHE families under routine State surveillance. There are thousands of people thinking this is something of a sledge hammer to crack a nut, in fact, to crack the nut of their family wide open, doing God knows what damage in the process. We know enough of the ham fisted dealings of LA staffers with HEed families under the current regime, and are too aware of the damage that contact with social workers does to innocent families, even when the families end up with a clean sheet, to feel sanguine about being legally required to have regular dealings with any of them.

Sorry if this is too "political" for you. You'll have a job finding a non-political home edder at the end of 2009. It's been a hell of a year, and this is not a year at the end of which many HEdders are going to be saying "Oh yes, a visit from the LEA, what a good idea, I'm sure it'll be really constructive". We've been Badmanned out of that rosy tinted view.

[streakybacon]

It should also be borne in mind that in many cases, removing children from negligent schools to home educate is in itself an act of Child Protection. HE has saved countless children who were being harmed by state education. Schools aren't necessarily the save places the state would like us to think they are.

And of course there ARE systems in place to protect vulnerable children, but they are failing dismally. It's those systems that need tighter monitoring and scrutiny, not HE.

[Bubble99]

cat64 A sledgehammer, indeed.

Ofsted have said that parents, as a condition of registration, should require a CRB check to HE their own children.

Left in power this government would, no doubt, turn their attention to parents of nursery aged children. At present the 2.5 to 3 hours of nursery education offered by the gov is optional. The blurb spewed out by them about the 'benefits of early education' make me believe that they would make this provision compulsory.

Can you imagine the uproar if parents who decided that they didn't want their 3 (and, in the not too distant future) 2 year olds to go to a nursery were forced to hold CRBs and undergo home inspections?!