Yet another government review of Home Education

[AMumInScotland]

government review

They're just going to keep on at this. We have 4 weeks to respond!

Not read through it yet myself properly, but according to another forum the questions are:

1. Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are

educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.

1. Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the

following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.

1. Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation

to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?. If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system

for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system

for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used

as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?

Nothing to do with defensive secrecy.
Or the ability to talk to the LA -and I mmam ceratinly not scared of them
Have met with them several times over the years as one of a group of home educators meeting with our local LA.

Everything to do with respecting my childrens rights and wishes-and the law.

oops should have used the spell checker/preview button!

With any law someone has to see that it is being carried out-for example VAT inspectors look at the books, firms don't say our accounts are fine we don't need them checking! Tax inspectors certainly check that people are paying the correct tax. Trading standard officers check traders, hygiene inspectors go ito catering establishments-I could go on and on. I really don't see why HE is the only area where providers are allowed to say we are doing it but you are not allowed to check that it is adequate. Most parents who are HE are doing a brilliant job-sadly some are not and those DCs need a safety net.

But they've got a safety net pisces...LAs can issue SAOs if they find an education isn't being provided.

"LAs can issue SAOs if they find an education isn't being provided." But how will they know if they aren't allowed to visit?

Another thing I don't understand is that no one thinks that teachers in schools shouldn't be inspected to make sure they are doing an OK job - why should the same not apply to people providing education in other contexts?

But how do they know terramum that an education is being provided if people are so defensive and won't have an inspector in their home?

I see it quite simply. The law of the land says that a DC has to have an education. The state provides it free. You can pay for a private education. All these institutions have to be inspected to check that the education they are provided is adequate. Some people don't like either route and prefer to provide it themselves-there is nothing at all wrong with this route, it is just as valid as the other routes.However the parent has then taken on a different role, and in that role, someone should be responsible for checking that they are providing an education. I don't think it is fair that one group should be able to say 'we are providing an education but it is secret and we won't even tell you what we are doing never mind let you see it'.

I don't HE - DD isn't 2 yet - but I can see a lot of reasons why a might. And a fair few why I might not. I've been reading this thread with interest and the different views have given me much to ponder.

It's such a difficult question, and seems to me to partly depend on whether you want to assess the suitability of education subjectively or objectively. Objective assessment would have to be through testing, and that seems a nonsense for a lot of reasons that have already been discussed. So subjective assessment is more suitable to evaluting HE provision. But then you're reliant on whoever makes the subjective assessment being impartial and not having innacurate pre-conceived ideas about what HE should be (which may only occur in a minority of cases, but is still pretty traumatic for the families involved when it does).

What's the general take on the Scottish guidelines as posted by AMIS some long long time ago (Sun 25-Jan-09 21:17:00 )? They seem to strike a good balance between ensuring something constructive is going on without constraining what that something may be. Wouldn't having guidelines like these make it eaiser to deal with contrary LA's by making it straightforward to demonstrate that your are following them?

Linking a review of HE with welfare seems pretty spurious to me. But it does seem as though greater clarity in what a "suitable" education is would help both parents new to HE and LAs that don't have a HE background, and would make it easier to ensure that the current laws are used appropriately and effectively.

LA's are perfetcly able to surmise from the kinds of correspondence/meetings they have with parents whether they are actually seriously undertaking providing an education. If they don't respond to queries or don't give enough detail then I think any resonable person would surmise that you aren't doing your duty & therefore an SAO is in order.

Schools gets inspected because they use tax payers money that has to be accounted for. Plus they are perfoming duties on behalf of parents who need to know that their children are recieving a suitable education.

....and I should add that when I say "reasonable person" I mean someone who has acually done some reading on the different forms of home-based education...which unfortunately many LA officers haven't. Their HEing duties are usually just part of another job they do as it's usually not a full-time post...and so you get problems with them demanding timetables, use of the NC etc as the only education model they are familiar with is a school-based one.

The English Guidance has almost the same details quoted by AMIS in the Sciottish Guidance. My PC won't let me cut and paste them to show ou but you can see them here Tangle

'"LAs can issue SAOs if they find an education isn't being provided." But how will they know if they aren't allowed to visit?'

From the Educational Philosophy, witten report and list of resources used, all of which I have just sent off.

Exactly the same information they would get if they came to my house and asked me. It's just that we have the right to a private family life and the children didn't want to be inspected.

And again the child still home educating has suggested being part of a group going to meet with the LA to provide a voice for local home educated children-so she definately isn't afraid of talking to anyone.
(She recently had a long chat with a social worker and turned his thoughts on home education and parenting a teenager on his head, he told me about it afterwards! )

I don't think we are getting anywhere on this and I doubt that we will!
I fail to see, after reading the thread carefully, what people have to hide. Everyone posting is very positive that they are the right choice for their DC-they most certainly justify it on here. Why not welcome the inspector in, talk in enthusiast terms about what you are doing and let him/her talk to your DCs? They will go away happy and you will be unlikely to be bothered much in the future.
Other educators welcome visitors and are proud of what they do. HE seems to be the one area where everyone is defensive. The continual complaint is that the authorities don't understand HE-I am not in the least surprised since you never want to let them see anything! Of course you will be misunderstood if you are so secretive.

"Other educators welcome visitors and are proud of what they do."

Ime even schools find Ofsted inspections an ordeal.

"The continual complaint is that the authorities don't understand HE-I am not in the least surprised since you never want to let them see anything!"

While some individuals may not want the intrusion of visits (and other things)there are a lot of home-educators and home-education groups that put in a lot of time and effort trying to interact with leas in an attempt to educate them about home education in it's many forms.

"Why not welcome the inspector in, talk in enthusiast terms about what you are doing and let him/her talk to your DCs?"

Because there is no need to. Parents are not taking on a different role if they HE. All parents are the ones responsible for their children's education. If you choose to ask a school to do it for you, it's still ultimately your responsibility. But because you are not there the whole time, the institution needs to be inspected to make sure they're doing it (which they frequently aren't!). The gov inspect the schools for the parents. They are serving us.

So there is no need for them to inspect and disrupt home education (and disrupt it it could well do) unless they have cause for concern. Cause for concern would be constant refusal to communicate with the LA if/when they get in touch. I would expect most HEors to be perfectly polite and helpfully responsive to LA communication but that doesn't mean inviting them into your private space!

Well put,Lindenlass.

The main objections to this latest 'investigation'as I see them are that
1)The basis is that we are all suspected of potential child abuse
2)The rules etc governing home ed have only been recently reviewed
3)The to diverse way that lea's often act

Dealing with the main probbs as I see them:-

1. Does this not mean then that every parent is now suspected of abuse of some variety(and no school does not always notice abuse in fact some schools are the cause of abuse).If so then it seems to me that all parents should be wary because in reality assuming all parents are abusers is a logical jump from HE'ers being assumed to abuse.Sounds more scary when you think of it like that The government and the NSPCC etc have nothing to base this study on other than a theory with no basis. 2)The recent review set out in simple english the job of the la and the powers they have to step in where needed 3)A lot of la's are very against HE in any way which is not the way they are supposed to be.I'm lucky in so much that our lea has an amazing person who wants to be helpful without interfering,but the horror stories I have heard of have often completely flouted the law.I have even read awhile ago that a couple who worked in education were bullied so badly by the la including visits from ss etc. that they ended up only HE'ing one day a week. I believe that as HE'ers we have an obligation to show that we are educating but I do not believe that our general parenting skills should be under scrutiny more because we HE than any other parent

This very debate is in the Times today
this page I thought it was very good as both sides got a say, for the very reasons stated on here! No need to tell you which I agreed with!
I don't think that general parenting skills are under observation-purely the question of whether the DCs receive an education.The parent is taking on a different role, all parents are educators but they are not the main educator. Glad your LEA is supportive singingmum - I think all LEAs should operate in a similar way. There is no point in sending out someone who isn't sympathetic to and interested in the concept.
I have been trying to think of any other law where no one is allowed to check that it is being followed and I have failed to think of one.
I am completely in sympathy with parents deciding that their DCs best interests are to be educated at home. What I find extraordinary is that parents should say:
"I know what is best for my DC and I intend to do it in private, I have no intention of telling you what I am doing, how I am doing it and you cannot visit to see how it works and you can't talk to my DC even if I am hovering over them".
It would be so much better to have the friendly approach and invite them in,and say " we don't operate in a formal way, we are nothing like a school but in a normal week we will do ...."
If you don't have a normal week you could say " we don't have what you would call a normal week but in the last month we have ......".
It seems pretty obvious to me that HE will be misunderstood while those who partake in it are so defensive and so secretive. The best way to make it valid educational choice is to be completely open and confident.(I mean seen to be confident)

As Ann Newstead said in the link you gave
"In the case of Eunice Spry, the abuse started while the children were in school."

Education Otherwise on Eunice Spry.

Picesmoon "There is no point in sending out someone who isn't sympathetic to and interested in the concept."

I agree with the above. However, I also know of very capable people who have been less than sympathetically dealt with by their LEA and heard the horror stories of others. So unfortunately, it would seem that even if you accept the offer of a visit you are gambling somewhat that the person who visits you is knowledgeable about different methods of home-ed.

And having said that the only reason that an LEA should want information about how a family HE should be if it is brought to their attention that an education is not taking place.
Unless something is brought to the Leas attention which indicates that an education might not be taking place then the assumption should be that it is and people should be left to conduct their private family lives as they wish.

Piscesmoon, I feel that you are not listening. Julienoshoes, OandU, and others explain things much better than I do and they must have headaches with all that banging their heads on brick walls.
You obviously haven't experienced 'the powers that be' who don't listen, have a fixed idea of how things "should" be done and have no intention of taking any notice of someone they deem to be unqualified to know what is best for their own children. My experience of this was when dealing with school regarding one of my children.

I will admit that my only experience is my SIL who has never had any bother from visits,despite not doing formal work and not even knowing what is in the NC.
I think that LEAs are at fault and they need to rethink the whole policy on HE so that they don't equate it with formal, school centred learning.
It is not that I am not listening-I understand perfectly what people are saying-I just think that it should be open, without all the secrecy. The one thing that strikes me is that HEers are always on the defensive, this is because they are criticised; they are criticised because it isn't understood. It is a vicious circle. It will only be broken when it becomes as valid as any other educational choice, and the only way to do that is to be open and friendly IMO.

"It will only be broken when it becomes as valid as any other educational choice, "

But that's the thing, you see. Home-ed is as valid a choice as school in law. It just doesn't seem to be recognised as such by some LEAs.

Exactly juuule-my whole point! It is as valid but it isn't seen to be as valid by many people.

Could someone give me an example of a horror story? You see, I have never heard of anyone who has been "inspected" as a home educator who didn't find the person doing it polite and empathetic. They may not have completely understood what they were seeing, but they tried to, and the experience has either been a positive, or a neutral one.

I think that problems come from set views. Statistics are put forward on bullying, suicide so that schools look like the instrument of the devil. There is a general thought that schools kill the natural curiosity of children, that they are not allowed to question or be quirky. In my experience, teachers love the questioning, quirky children with minds of their own-there is nothing worse than docile,brain dead children expecting to be spoon fed!
I accept that there are bad schools, but luckily not the ones that I come across.
I have nothing at all against HE, I see it as a valid choice-suited to some children. I think that the problem comes from inspections. A lot of HEs do not even want to be approved of-they are rebels and mavericks and there is nothing worse than being approved of by authority! A lot of people who work in education do not like a lot of what happens in school so many inspectors are going to be sympathetic to alternatives. I would imagine that you could have a visit and sum up really quickly whether the DC was receiving a suitable education without seeing any 'work'.
I don't see why a DC should fear them, unless they are presented as some sort of bogeyman, they are just another visitor to the house. My SIL was very apprehensive before her first visit but she didn't pass it on to the DCs-they didn't even know who he was. It is like a school that had an Ofsted last week. At the end of the day a six year old said in accusing terms 'you said we we were going to have a government person coming'-in actual fact the inspector had been sitting in a lesson and hadn't even been noticed by the class!
If you have a friendly open house and DCs are used to visitors dropping in there is no need for them to be fearful.
If you are anti school and think you can do much better then I don't see why you are so fearful of an inspector- be proud of what you are doing! If you persist in being defensive, unfriendly and secretive you can't really moan that you are misunderstood!

Well, some DC do fear "just another visitor to the house", whoever they are and whatever their reason for being there.

And some children have a history of the LEA being a negative factor in their life. For some, school has been a source of trauma, and the LEA have been involved with them and made it clear to them every step of the way that they side with the school, and that they will do everything they can to force the traumatised child to attend school, and have shown no signs of understanding or sympathy for their problems.

We're not necessarily talking about small children here, who can be convinced by their parents actions that of course the "nice visitor" isn't going to suggest dragging them forcibly to school in their pyjamas if they refuse to go. We can also be talking about teens who have had exactly that suggsted to them when they've been refusing to go to school in the past.

Yes, for most HErs the inspection would be ok, an inconvenience at worst. But we have to defend the rights of the small minority for whom it would be harmful, because frankly who else is going to stand up for them? Their LEAs have already shown it won't be them.

Unfortunately I know of the horrors of insepections from home educators coming along to a meeting I organise and camps we have attended.

Tales of 'inspectors' telling children they will be sending them back to school, if their work isn't up to scratch,
Of 'inspectors' telling lies to parents who home educate children with SEN saying that they must do what it says in the statement, when they don't (A statement applies to the services the LA must provide if the child is in school)
Of 'Inspectors' demanding to hear children read to them and then telling the child that it isn't good enough.
Inspectors demanding to see work from families who home educate autonomously, where there may be no written work.
Inspectors demanding that work be dated.

Right now I am helping two families whose LA is demanding to see a timetable/programmes of work and in one case is asking for photographic evidence of the child mixing with other home educated children.

This family no longer wish to see the LA.

This same LA then referred the family to SS-because the child had not been seen by a professional in six months-even though the family told them the child has been seen by her GP, by a maths and English tutor, gymnastics and swimming tutor and by other home educators very frequently at meetings and workshops. Social Workers came round, met the family, talked to the child and reported there was no case to answer.

The LA re-referred the family (for the same reason) and this time the Head SW came along and said she had no choice but to attend. After meeting with the mother and child again, she has closed the case again and told the LA there is still no case to answer.

Sigh.

Thankfully not all LAs are the same.