On behalf of HE families, is there a good way to make a point to Surrey CC about this?

[procrastinatingparent]

Both DS1 and DS3 have been applying for school places in Surrey. The letters have come through, and we are very irritated by some of the wording:

'It is a legal requirement for us to know that every Surrey child is attending school .... You must tell us the school you have accepted. If you do not, we have to report it to the Education Welfare Service.'

DS1 is not going to be attending a state school, so we will decline the place he has been offered. We feel like NOT telling them which school he is going to, just to make the point that every Surrey child does NOT have to attend school. If a parent had applied for a primary place but then decided to HE from the start, the letter would imply that they cannot do that.

Have I understood the situation correctly? What would be the best way to make this point? Any ideas appreciated.

will ponder this and hopefully come back with something. Just doing tea [tea]

Thanks.

Bumping for ideas.

That is utter poppycock!

I suspect Julienoshoes is your lady she seems to know heaps about such things

Have a look on the educationotherwise.org website - it has alot of useful information for when dealing with the LA such as

Compulsory education

7 Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable?

to his age, ability and aptitude, and

to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Home education is covered under "education otherwise" and ensures that every parent has the right to chose not to send their child into the state schooling system.

A Summary of the Law Relating to Home Education in England and Wales (4th Edition) can be downloaded here for information.

The rights of a parent to chose their childs education is also further enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" (Article 26, para 3).

The LA do not have a statutory powers to make anything other than informal enquiries of parents and these enquiries can be of a nature to suit the family. There is case law relating to this issue:

"an education authority should not, as a matter of policy, insist on inspection in the homes as the only method of satisfying themselves that children were receiving efficient full time education"

This, in short means that the letter you received has misinformed you, as

'It is a legal requirement for us to know that every Surrey child is attending school ..'

They do not have to attend school but must be educated. There is a big difference.

will try to hunt about for something else..

Hold on, are you actually going to HE your dc's? From your post it sounds like your dc's are going to independent schools. Surely you have better things to do with your time than write letter to the CC because you don't like the tone?

So what happens to those of us who have school aged children but haven't applied for state school places? I assume I will be getting a similar letter. I notified the LEA of ds's details when he was 3 but then chose private school so binned the state school application papers as I thought it wasn't worth making an application for a place I had no intention of using. Allocations here are at the end of the month so I'll let you know. I assume the LEA would want to know that you are doing something to have your child educated whether it is state/private/HE.

No, she is not going to HE her kids, but the tone of the letter suggests they have a right to ensure that every child is in school. This is misinformation. It leads people to believe that they should be in school, thus closing the door on eduaction otherwise than at school.

I think it is the 'principle' that they have received a stern letter which does not contain the correct information, and they need to get the facts correct, as they are way off the mark.

Mollie - you may well receive a school place as you have had contact with the LEA in the past.

Those who have never applied for a school are usually left alone.

MagNacarta: we have been flexi-schooling DS1 a day a week - he is going to an independent school for secondary. DD goes to a state primary, which is where DS2 will start this year. I don't want to make an enormous deal out of this - because you are right that it would be time-consuming.

However, there is a strong possibility that we might HE or flexi-school later on. We also know lots of HE parents and those who are thinking about HE. I was just wondering if there was a simple way to make the point that what Surrey CC says on their letter is both wrong and misleading, to the benefit of anyone who wants to HE - which may be us in the future.

Thanks, poopscoop - will try to summarise that.

I think if you have the inclination it would be worth writing the letter for the benefit of other parents who may feel intimidated by this

I am currently thinking seriously about HE my lo's. I have all sorts of worries about it, the last thing I need is to read stuff that isnt true.

Also many parents wont know that that isnt true and it will put them off making a valid decision to HE

I imagine that a better wording for their letter would have been something like:
'It is a legal requirement for us to know that every Surrey child is receiving efficient full-time education ...'.

Do they have a right to insist on knowing how you intend to have your children educated if your child has not been in the school system at all?

Its that bit in poopscoops post: Education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

From what I have read on here if your child has never attended and therefore never registered with an LEA then NO nobody needs to be informed at all - ~I could have got that wrong though!

As far as I am aware, if the child has never been in the school system, you do not have the requests for home visits etc from the LEA.

Similarly, if a child has been removed from an Independent school (and someone correct me if I am wrong) to be HE, the school does not have to inform the LEA that said child has been removed.

Once you are 'on the radar' so to speak, they will write or call and request visits to see you, which you may or may not accept. They cannot insist on a visit.

I know a lot of people feel strongly about HE, as it can be a struggle to be accepted by the local authority I wonder if it's wise to kick up a fuss when it's not relevant to you. If you change your circumstances change then is the time to outline your plans. I just think you may come across as a bit ott.

Thanks for the warning, MagNacarta - point taken. I guess I was thinking about a gracious letter asking them to change their misleading wording.

You could just write, pointing out that the letter i rather misleading regards every child in Surrey must attend school etc, and give the quote

'The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable?
to his age, ability and aptitude, and
to any special educational needs he may have
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'.

Following on with the fact that your child will no longer be taking up the place offeredas his education will be taking place 'outside of the state system'.

This could mean independent schooling or HE, paving the way for you to decide what you would like to do at a later date. You then need not name the school.

Nice, poopscoop. Will talk to DH. Thanks a lot.

I never applied for or received an application form for dd to attend school as she was going to an independant primary.

however oddly enough two years later I received a letter telling me I had missed the deadline for applications for ds to start school and to contact them URGENTLY as I may be allocated a place anywhere.

I called them and said, thanks but no thanks, he is going private (didn't tell them where). They were most insistent that I applied fora state school place as well.

I didn't and heard nothing more.

Still not sure whether not telling them the info they are demanding is just being unnecessary stroppy. Perhaps I should tell them the name of his new school, but attach a letter pointing out how misleading their letter was. Not sure that would get their attention, though.

I complained and got this reply:
Thank you for your enquiry. As you correctly state the Local Authority has the duty to intervene where it believes that a child is not in receipt of appropriate education, whether this is through the provision of education or through taking action against parents.

As part of this duty the Council has to track children and provide central government with regular updates of the numbers of children within the area who are missing education. The relevant section of the letter was sent with a view to addressing this duty.

In response to your comment we will review future years correspondence so that it relates to suitable education rather than schools specifically.

So yes, they know they are wrong with the "every child must attend school" bit, but they do have a duty to follow up any CME they suspect. You don't need to fill it in, but they will chase you up I think.

Thanks, SV - was that Surrey or another CC?

yes, Surrey

Thanks for that SV.
Every bit of defense agaist this creeping opression, makea a difference.