Is this being reported anywhere?

[sorky]

I bought the Independent this morning thinking there would be a mention or even an article in there on this whole nonsense and there is absolutely nothing!

This is the worst thing that could happen, for it to sail through unnoticed unchallenged

Is it in any of the other papers?

but the principle stands. Home ed parents see their own results, they don't need a report to inform them. And the government don't need a report because the responsibility belongs to the parents.

Most poeple Seeker had already accpeted that some form of registration was on it's way and we expected (if we're all honest) that compulsory registration and the right to a V were likely outcomes.

Wat we didn't expect was the invasion of our privacy to such an extent that our children would be expected to be interviewed without the HE'er being present.
There is nowhere in the report which states that this power would only be used in some circumstances (although if LA's apply some common-sense, then that's exactly when it will be used (when there are suspicions of abuse))

However, we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Registration will be yearly!?! and can be revoked if the LA do not think the education you provide is not suitable and effective.
That is all well and good, and some may argue was the power the LA's had before, but now habg on a minute.
Who deicides whether the education is suitable and efficient because (and correct me if I'm wrong here) the government have already decided what constitutes a suitable and efficient education and it's called school!
Specifically, that horse shit they refer to as the NC!

The exact reason I took my Dd1 out of school!!

On the subject of testing, no there is no mention of compulsory tests, but now hang on a minute!.... How are they going to check that a suitable and efficient education takes place?

Welllllll! the government.... do you see were I'm going with this?

The overall outcome is not so far-fetched as Robberbutton has suggested

Why have 3 reviews in 4 years? because the first 2 didn't give the powers you wanted is why

This is erosion of civil liberties and your children will be next!

They have already intimated that they want to see all 3yo in Nursery, indeed there are targets for those already there! It isn't a gigantic leap for compulsory school age to be lowered to 3 yo.

Can I just put it another more contentious way?....

We all know that breast is best, yet some people choose to bottle feed, we're told that exclusive BF for 6mo then weaning is best for babies, but some people don't do this and wean at 4 mo.
Actually there are studies that suggest that extended feeding to 1yo is the best for a child, but very few do this.

NOW
All mothers will be subject to checks that they're BF'ing
All mothers will follow a weaning schedule of purees (BLW hasn't been proven) and will BF until 6mo
A HV has the right to inspect the child to check for BF nappies

See!?!

We're a minority, no one cares, but when they all start interfering with your children, maybe then mothers at toddler groups will reflect on whether they should have stood up and realised the liberties which were being taken

cack, sorry for typo's try and piece it together

OK - the recommendations do say that an inspector would have right of access - and would have the right to speak to a child alone, or in the company of another trusted adult (not the home educator) if that was deemed necessary. This is in the context of a child having a right to an education, and the LEA having a responsibility to ensure that a child is safe and well - surely you can see that there are circumstances where that could not be ensured if the educator is always present. Any visits must be pre arranged, have at least two weeks notice and be conducted by someone who has had specific training in the diversity of HE methods. .

And a home educated child would have to show by "exhibition or other means' that he or she was progressing according to the 'statement of intent" lodged at registration.

Yes well, perhaps when the government/LAs are ensuring that all the children in state provision are getting the education they have right to, they can start to monitor home educators.

Can't they do both?

Going back to the point that the responsibility belongs to parents, the government have no right to monitor at all, like I was said before - the reports prepared on schools are for the benefit of the parents who are the users of the service.

But for that specific point - if their own systems are failing significant numbers of children then how can they set themselves up as the experts who know the best way and define a suitable education?

oops not 'like I was said' - as was said got all mixed in with as I said.....

But none of the recommendations says the government is defining a suitable education. The report says that parents will do that - but they will be asked to show that the child is doing ok in the education that the parent has defined.

And actually, the LEA does have a statutory duty to ensure that children receive an education. It is also one of the rights enshrined in a European Convention - I think it's the Rights of the Child one.

Recommendation 2
That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a ?suitable? and ?efficient? education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of
the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated
curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.

Home educators should be engaged in this process.

Errm, I think that is where they say they'll be taking action to define a suitable education. Kind of them to let home educators be engaged in the process, interesting how they've added in broad and balanced - which is only a requirement of the national curriculum and not any other form of education

Concerning children's rights to an education is this: When performing the duties under the various Education Acts, the Secretary of State must regard the general principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents "so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instructions and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.54]

Also, the UK ruling on a child's right to an education doesn't create a statuatory duty for LAs to ensure an education - it creates aduty for them to promote an education; its the 'fourfold foundation':
"I have previously mentioned the "fourfold foundation" and how such foundation fulfils right to education.

The first element is the duty of parents under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 to cause their children to receive efficient and suitable full time education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

The second element is the Secretary of State's duty under Section 10 of the Education Act 1996 to promote the education of the people of England and Wales;

The third is that LEAs are required by section 13 of that Act to secure that efficient education is available to meet the needs of the population of the area;

and The fourth is the maintained schools themselves: each such school is under direction of its governing body who must conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at their school."

So basically the parent's have a duty to ensure that children are educated, and can be sued sucessfully if they are not.

LAs must promote education and also make sure that they make provision for all children who's parent's choose to delegate that responsibility to the state are provided with adaquate school places.

And the schools themselves must promote high standards of education.

However as the parent's remain responsible they would be responsible if the child was not suitably educated due to failure by the LA or school as they would need to have taken appropriate action.

I thought all education should be broad and balanced!

Legally education should be suitable for the 'age, ability and aptitude of the child'. It should also be 'efficient'.

This is one of the ways in which changes to the current law will have a negative effect on families home educating where there are physical or educational needs. For example a child with autism may not function with a broad and balanced curriculum, but would do perfectly well if allowed to develop their own interest in (lets just say) engineering. Through that with parental support I'm sure they'd usually improve other skills, but to many inspectors coming from a school back ground they already do assume that the education is not broad and balanced and is therefore not suitable. Currently a parent could challenge that assumption, but if the law changes they may now longer be able to do so.

Ditto for autonomous education, showing in research now to be extremely effiecient. Because at anyone time the actual interests of the child may be incredibly focussed and very unbalanced. But following the child's interests over time will be very different. Yet these families will not be able to meet a demand for plans of intentions and outcomes, because if they could it wouldn't be autonomous education.

The national curriculum needs to be broad and balanced because it has to work as well as possible for as many of the children in schools as it can (although many teachers would prefer it not to be I think)

Also from the fourfold foundation letter by Lord Adonis:

First, the ECHR "right to education" Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR), as given effect in national law by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, is currently phrased negatively "no one shall be denied the right to education"). The fact that the right is phrased negatively has influenced the way in which the Courts have construed the right. It has been held that the negative formulation does not require that Member States establish at their expense, or subsidise, education of a particular type or at any particular level, but rather implies for those under the jurisdiction of a Member State the right to "avail themselves of the means of instruction existing at a given time. Its primary objective has, therefore, been held to be to guarantee a right of equal access to the existing educational facilities. A positive right, along the lines of that envisaged by the amendment which you tabled at Committee Stage, would I am advised be likely to be construed differently by the Courts. It might be interpreted as imposing an obligation on local authorities to ensure that children could receive education of a particular type or standard which the authorities were unable to provide (or which they considered undesirable to provide). Taking, for example, the Belgian Linguistics case itself, the Court held that the right to education, as phrased negatively, did not give rise to a right to be taught in the language of the child's (or their parent's) choice, nor was there a right of access to a particular school of choice.

"At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of
their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months."

this is actually what it says in the report - it isn't saying that the LEA will impose a curriculum, just that a home educator must have thought about what they are planning to do over the following year - which I presume they will have done anyway.

No Seeker that's precisely why Autonomous education is at risk, because we cannot say what our children will learn over the year, only that they will learn.
You might as well ask the child themselves what they will learn over the year, or a crystal ball etc.

One the subject of requesting lone audience with the child to ascertain whether they want to be HE, I do hope that Ofsted will be asking for the same access to schooled children to ascertain whether they're happy with being schooled.
Then because the rights of the child override family ideology etc the parents can be forced to HE, lose an income etc.
Always the rights of the child eh? My arse!

I don't think HE have anything to worry about here. All the HE's I've ever met do a fantastic job - certainly I would HE if I was able to. This new Govt imposed thingie is legislation for the sake of it - a waste of time and money.

and we get back to recommendation 2 - redefine a suitable education:
Such a review should take account of
the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum

Can I ask a 'baby steps" question of the people who feel so threatened by this?

Has there ever been suggestion anywhere that people should not be allowed to educate their children at home?

Has anyone ever been told that they HAD to send their children to school when they were home educating?

HEer seem to feel like a beleaguered, threatened group - and I don't really understand why.

As I read the reports recommendations, it seems to be putting the onus on LEAs to do the job of supporting HEers better, rather than threatening the status of HEers.

If the comments given by so many MN'ers on here as to why they feel threatened don't give you enough reasons Seeker, if you still don't understand, then I'm really not sure any of us can help you.

You've taken part in many discussions where people have openly expressed varied views and concerns. Julienoshoes has posted numerous times about her involvement with heavy-handed LA's trying to force children back to school.

Anastaisia has provided eloquent counter-arguments to all of your points.

I think you do understand and I also think your stirring.

I have quoted the recommendations. Others have quoted their own interpretation of the recommendations.

I am not stirring. Having a different point of view and expressing it is not stirring. And making unfounded accusation is not debate.

A mumnsetter had some problems with her LEA - I am afraid I cannot remember the details. However, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Seeker - your arguement that the LAs need these changes to the law to meet their statuatory duty towards children with reference to education has been refuted. This duty does not exist.

Furthermore, the government's own rulings state that it is the parent's wishes that matter in education - ie they have the right to choose home, state or private. If the government wish to make this about children's rights VS parent's rights then it must follow that ALL children should be consulted about their place of education. So school children can express to an impartial person whether they wish to be moved to a different private/state school or be removed for home education. So when that happens, and when 1 in 6 children aren't leaving state provision without adaquate standards of literacy and numeracy, and when government organisations show that they can work with the policies, procedures and Laws that already exist. Maybe then we should have this discussion again.

Right now though I think the government have identified something they can 'do', without making much needed improvements to their own services. Something that will fool the puclic into thinking they've made huge steps towards ensuring all children being protected from harm. Something that is working because you, along with others, have this idea that if it protects one child from harm it is worth the fundamental shift in civil liberties. Legislation should never be made for extreme individual cases but for the majority. It is not worth changing law to give government officials equal say to parents in the first instance of exercising choice. The government is, and should be, the parent of last resort but they should not have a say in the lifestyles and decisions of law-abiding families without any reason to have concerns for the child.

Seeker, there ARE suggestions in the review that people who autonomously home educate might not have the right to do so for much longer.

Aside from all that is implicit in the recommendations (requirement to present plans, subject to a curriculum, however broad, subject to performance testing etc) that would make life very difficult for AHErs, Badman explicitly states in Section 10 of the report that he is concerned by autonomous learning and does not believe evidence that shows how well HE children perform when compared to schooled peers. He says both these issues need further investigation.

What more do you want? IMHO, you really agree with him and we can answer your questions till we're blue in the face, but unfortunately we can't seem to convince you to see both sides of the "argument".

What I mean is, of course you are entitled to your opinions, and I know lots of people, including some Home Educators who think that registration is a good idea.

The trouble is that this review goes FAR beyond that, and that is what we are trying to get accross.

FWIW, we don't plan to AHE and I don't (at the moment) think we'll have any problems complying with whatever the review wants - but that doesn't mean that I think it's right, or that I won't fight for AHErs rights to continue to bring up their children in the way that is right for them.

I don't actually agree with everything in the review.

However, I do think that registration is a good idea - it worries me that there could be children who nobody really knows exist. And I don't necessarily think that parents should always be allowed to bring their children up exactly as they see fit, or that parents always know best. I am not talking about abuse. What I am concerned about is that there are some people who will not educate their children effectively. That is just a fact.

I am sure that everyone on here is doing a fantastic job, but some won't. And their children deserve an education - and they have a right to expect that someone will make sure they get it.

It should not be good enough for a parent to say, for example, that "I have a right to tell my child that the world is 6000 years old and all fossils are hoaxes" and not let them be exposed to any alternative point of view. as you know, this sort of fundamentalist view is the reason for a significant number of HEes in the States - and it is a growing movement in this country.

I take your point about autonomous education, but I would expect that the reccomendation that says " "At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of
their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months." is broad enough to encompass it.

Okay, then I would propose that EVERY child in the UK deserves to be safe and deserves an education suitable to their age, ability and aptituded, and deserves (as in the ECM guidance) to be consulted on their place of education.

So EVERY home in the country should be visited once a month (because 10 weeks out of sight was too long for Khyra Ishaq, who incidently wasn't removed for home education but was simply removed from school) in their home. The parents may or may not be allowed to be present. Children shall be asked whether they want to go to/leave school. If the child is attending a school with less than an outstanding OFSTED report then the parents will have to demonstrate to the LA what steps they are taking to bring their child's education up to scratch - because actually every child deserves not just an education but the best possible education.

And you keep ignoring the point about a curriculum. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't fit with your view that this is just a quick check to make sure children aren't being abused?