Petition about the Home Education Review.

[julienoshoes]

Home Education Review petition

Would you please consider signing this petition and asking others who may
support home education and parents' rights to choose what they consider
right for their own children without state interference unless there is a
real problem?

Just as some parents choose:

a.. not to give birth in a hospital
b.. not to immunise
c.. not to use health visitors
d.. not to use nurseries
e.. not to use state schools
f.. not to use NHS hospitals when possible
g.. not to eat meat
h.. not to have a TV
i.. not to use aeroplanes
j.. not to have a credit card
k.. not to have a mobile phone
etc...

So, also, some parents choose

a.. not to use a school to help them fulfil their duty to provide their
child with a suitable education - maybe for philosophical reasons, maybe
because schools have let them down, maybe for any number of reasons.
What all of those parents want is to go about their business unhindered by
an automatic suspicion by the state that they must be deviant and therefore
require monitoring.

Support those not using schools by signing the petition - it may be your
choice that is next targeted by government for unnecessary monitoring if
they get away with it this time!

Anyone with their own e-mail address can sign - so the whole family and
friends can make their own voice heard - please pass this mail on.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/Homeedreview/

Some background info and links here:

en-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45453211491

Signed and will pass on

Thank you!

bump

and another bump for the lunchtime crowd

and another bump for the evening ...

done

200 more votes gets the petition into the top 50 - please sign it folks

signed

I am just curious why you feel that monitoring of home educated children is such a bad thing. Reading the Independent article there is no plans to actually ban home education. If you are doing a good job of home education then why would it worry you being visited and having your children assessed independently?

Prehaps there should be option of parents paying for a private educational pschologist who is sympathetic to home ed. to assess their kids if the parents don't want the LEA.

You have to agree that its a bit mad that children can completely disappear if they never go to school.

Children don't disappear if they don't go to school.

Quoting the independent article

"Currently, parents whose children have never been in school are not obliged to inform the local authority of their existence, but pupils withdrawn from school are subject to local authority inspection"

Surely this is illogical and needs changing.

I think the problem with child abuse is that it has happened although its rare. Victoria Climbe was never registered at a school.

Prehaps its unfair that GPs are subject to closer scutinary because of Harold Shipman murdering all those old ladies.

I am sure the percentage of home ed parents who are abusive is similar to the percentage of GPs who are murderous. The problem is once a tragicity happens, then it makes people/ authorities over cautious.

Reallytired - Victoria Climbie has nothing to do with HE and shewas known to the authorities.

From a post of Julienoshoes (hope you don't mind Julie)
"Victoria was in fact registered with the local education authority and was
not in school simply because the LEA were unable to provide her with a place.
She was not being home educated and was not in any way shape of form connected with home education. She was not even missing from the LEAs records.

The LEA were perfectly aware of why she was not in school and equally aware of her educational status. Indeed it was their fault being unable to find her a place. Any failings to provide a suitable education were entirely down to the failings of the LEA!"

Pupils withdrawn from school are not subject to inspection by law unless the education authority has reason to believe that they are NOT receiving a suitable education. If they have no reason to think this then they have no duty to act.

The Independent article is incorrect in so many ways.

Children who have been deregistered from school are known to the LA. If there is a Welfare concern, then Social Services have a duty to investigate it. they have the power to see a child, I don't think any of us would question that.
However the LA may make informal enquiries if they have reason to believe an education is not taking place.
In Case Law it has been said that we would be sensible to answer any such enquiries-so we do.
BUT the way in which information is given to the LA about the education being provided, is down to the parents.

Our children were in school and we deregistered them. However they were not at all happy with the idea of someone coming into our home and judging us, so we have always respected their views and not had a home visit.
The children have never wanted to share any 'work' with the LA either (and after all it is their intellectual property) and so we haven't done that either.

What we have done is to provide a written 'educational philosophy' and written report and the LA have declared themselves satisfied ever year for the last eight years.

Eunice Spry's children were fosterd and then adopted through the LA (even though concerns were voiced at the time) before she home educated them. The Judge in the case said it was the system that let these children down and not the fact they were home educated (when actually they did receive home visits.

The Victoria Climbie Foundation has said:

"The Victoria Climbie Foundation UK is genuinely concerned about the link being made between Victoria Climbie and home education and Victoria as a hidden child. Victoria was neither home-educated nor hidden.
The reality is that there is no such thing as a 'hidden' child only children who are allowed to fall through the gaps. The key issue here is how statutory services interact with children that are known within the child protection system"

The NSPCC have no apologised for the fact that they inferred that Victoria was home educated.
They say they meant to infer that Victoria was murdered out of sight of the 'professionals' which is very ironic and almost unbelievable when you read that the NSPCC was [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1781399.stm criticised over their role in not safe-guarding her!!}}

Sorry that link should read

'the NSPCC was criticised over their role in not safe-guarding her!!'