http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/11/home-schooling-education-children-policy
We believe that schedule 1 of the children, schools and families bill represents an unacceptable imposition of state control over families. Although it is aimed at children educated outside the school system, it has implications for all families.Most parents would not make home-based education their first choice; but any family might need it if school seriously failed their child. Currently, this choice is lawfully available to all parents. If enacted, the bill would – for the first time – transfer responsibility for a child's education from the parents to the state. We believe this is a matter which should be of great concern to everyone.A change in the law is unnecessary. Parents are already required by law to provide an education suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of their children, and to any special educational needs they may have. Local authorities already have the power to take action if parents do not do this.Evidence indicates that home education is highly effective. Many home educating families use child-led educational methods which lie outside the prevailing educational paradigm. Diversity in education is precious in a democracy, and we need the law to protect it, and to protect the best interests of each individual child.The interests of children are strikingly absent from schedule 1, which is concerned mainly with setting up a bureaucratic system administered by local authorities. They would be given the power to deny parents permission to home-educate, at any time, unless parents adapt their educational approach to fit in with the requirements of the system. The resulting insecurity would be damaging to many children, especially those with special educational needs.Schedule 1 contravenes two principles of the government's own children's plan: that families bring up children, not governments; and that services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries. Given the controversy surrounding this section of the bill, and the serious criticisms made of it by the children, schools and families select committee, we call on the government to withdraw schedule 1 of the bill, and the accompanying clauses.
Ralph Lucas House of Lords, Oliver James, Child clinical psychologist, Anne Fine, Dr Frank Furedi Professor of sociology, Professor Anna Craft University of Exeter, Michele Elliott Founder of Kidscape, Professor Roger Scruton, Graham Stuart MP Chair, all-party parliamentary group on home education, Michael A Peters Professor, educational policy studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Professor Brian Thorne Fellow, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, Professor Emeritus Janet Moyles Early years and play consultant, Tricia David Emeritus professor of education, Canterbury Christ Church University, Professor Andrew Samuels University of Essex, Professor Tony Kouzarides Cancer research scientist at Cambridge University, Professor Ian Cunningham Chair of educational charity, Dr Sacha Powell Acting director, Centre for Research into Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury Christ Church University, Dr Felicity de Zulueta Consultant psychiatrist in psychotherapy and honorary senior lecturer at King's College London, Fiona Carnie Vice-president, European Forum for Freedom in Education, Dr Alan Thomas Visiting fellow at University of London Institute of Education, Harriet Pattison Research Associate, School of Education, University of London, Dr Richard House Senior lecturer in therapeutic education, Roehampton University, Peter Humphreys Chair, trustee, director, The Centre for Personalised Education and Personalised Education Now, Veronika Robinson Editor, The Mother magazine, Sue Palmer Literacy specialist and author of Toxic Childhood, Dani Ahrens Open letter co-ordinator, Badman Review Action Group, Roland Meighan The Centre for Personalised Education Trust, Dr Teresa Belton Educational researcher, Dr Ben Anderson Department of sociology, University of Essex, Melanie Gill Forensic psychologist, Claire Fox Director, Institute of Ideas, Vincent Nolan Trustee, Synectics Education Initiative, Dr Marilyn Fryer, Director, The Creativity Centre, John Harris Professional storyteller/children's author, Norman Wells Director, Family Education Trust, Derry Hannam Researcher/adviser/trainer in education for democratic citizenship to Council of Europe, UK government and NGOs, Liz Steinthal Educare Small School, Dr L Safran Educationist, Chloe Watson Chair, Home Educated Youth Council, Cathy Koetsier Media officer, Home Education Advisory Service, Kathleen Thompson Committee member of Education Everywhere helpline, Annette Taberner Trustee of Education Otherwise, Kelly L Green Founding member of Freedom and Choice in Education, British Columbia, Wendy Priesnitz Founder of Canadian Alliance of Home Schoolers, editor of Life Learning magazine, Beverley Paine Editor Home Education Association Australia publications, Deborah Markus Editor, Secular Homeschooling Magazine and more than 1,000 other signatories (for a full list see http://is.gd/5ViV7)
Monday, 11 January 2010
Monday, 4 January 2010
Friday, 1 January 2010
Children, Schools and Families Bill – Summary of Home Education Provisions and Their Impact
CSF Bill – Summary of Home Education Provisions and Their Impact
(please crosspost)
====================
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of the Children's Plan: "Launching Brighter Futures", which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries.
GENERAL FEATURES OF SCHEDULE 1
Under Schedule 1 to the Children, Schools and Families Bill (Schedule 1) local authorities will have a duty to maintain a register of all home educated children within their area. This duty to keep a register will give local authorities the power to refuse parents permission to home educate, and to curtail the practice of home education, without regard to the education being
provided and without regard for the best interests of the child.
Home educating parents will not have an affirmative duty to register their children, but a local authority's first step can be to serve a School Attendance Order on any unregistered home educated child. Local authorities will have many powers to refuse or revoke registration, and then issue a School Attendance Order because of the unregistered status that they have thus created. Parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order will be guilty of a criminal offence. Parents served with such an order will no longer be able to use the defence that they are providing a suitable education.
Under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, it is the parents' duty, not the local authority's, to ensure that children receive a suitable education. Parents may choose to provide that education "otherwise" rather than by delegating that duty to a school.Schedule 1 imposes constraints on how parents exercise this duty, should they choose to educate their children at home.
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the Children's Plan and theChildren Acts, favours administrative protocol over parents' freedom to choose the form of education for their children, and represents a shift in power from families to civil servants.
LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS EXTENDED
Schedule 1 will give local authorities extensive powers to refuse or revoke registration. They may refuse or revoke registration:
• If a parent does not immediately apply for registration, even though there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
• If a parent does not submit a plan for the next year's education on time, or in sufficient detail, or in the authority's designated format.
• If a parent deviates from the educational plan that they have provided to the local authority, even if by doing so they have improved the education being provided.
• If a family's circumstances change during the year. The local authority might, e.g., decide it is a material change if a child is found to have special needs, or if a family changed their educational approach to one that was more workable or effective.
• If an authority, or any other authority in England has ever in the past denied an application to register a child.
• If parents object to the local authority entering their home on a routine visit.
• If parents object to the local authority questioning their child with no parent or carer present. Schedule 1 gives parents the right to object to their child being questioned alone, but then permits registration to be refused or revoked if they do so.
• If the local authority determines that the parents are demonstrating a "failure to cooperate" with any aspect of the local authority's monitoring process.
• If registration lapses, which happens automatically after one year.
• If a parent applies to register in order to stop the school attendance order process, the process stops. However, the LA can then refuse to enter the child onto the home education register, and serve another School Attendance Order.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be empowered to impose further regulations and technical requirements, without parliamentary debate, and thus will be able to set even more conditions upon parents' freedom to home educate.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN'S PLAN
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles ofChildren's Plan: Launching Brighter Futures, which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do
more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and
families, not designed around professional boundaries.
However, under the terms of Schedule 1:
• Regulations will be issued providing for a right of appeal. Therefore the appeal process that is created will not be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny to see if it is fair, impartial and just.
• The local authority will be able to revoke registration if it considers that the education being provided is not suitable. It will also be able to refuse or revoke registration if the parents violate a number of administrative protocols, regardless of whether the education being provided is suitable or not. The net effect will be to make administrative procedures central to a local authority's consideration, not the needs of the child.
• There is no statutory requirement for the local authority to consider whether or not it is acting in the best interests of the child.
• There is no general requirement for the local authority to consider the suitability of the education being provided, although suitability underpins parents' right to choose to educate their children otherwise than at school. Indeed, local authorities are expressly prohibited from considering the actual education in deciding whether to issue a School Attendance Order.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families to improve the education being provided if there are concerns, as opposed to ordering the children to attend school.
• There is no assertion or recognition that the parents are responsible for the education of their child.
• There is no requirement for local authorities to provide any services or resources for home educating families.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE EDUCATION ACT 1996
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of theEducation Act 1996 thus:
• There is no explicit assertion that it is the duty of parents to educate their children either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Instead there is a diminution of the freedom and powers that parents have to exercise their duty by choosing to home educate.
• Local authorities are not required to consider the suitability of the education being provided whenever they consider refusing or revoking registration, and are instructed not to consider it when they issue a School Attendance Order. They are granted broad powers to refuse permission to home educate based only on whether administrative procedures have been followed.
• The issue of suitability of the education parents provide to their children is removed from judicial consideration. Courts instead are directed to enforce a School Attendance Order against any unregistered home educated child.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of theChildren Act thus:
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs, welfare and interests of the child as paramount.
• There is no recognition of the importance of family life to the welfare of a child.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs of the child with regards to race, culture, religion, gender, disability, or special needs, or any other factors that may be relevant to the well-being of the child.
• There is no affirmation of the "No Order" principle, that an order should only be sought as a last resort.
• The consideration for the welfare of the child is poorly defined or absent. This is inconsistent with the welfare checklist contained with the 1989 Children Act and with the other acts that shape children's services.
The authority-centred focus of Schedule 1 marks a paradigm shift from the child-centred, family-focused acts and policies that sprang from and were shaped by the Children Act 1989 (Every Child Matters; the Adoption Act; the Children Act 2004; the Leaving Care Act; the Children's Plan).
SUMMARY
The powers enshrined in Schedule 1:
• Curtail the freedom of parents to educate their children otherwise than at school.
• Are inconsistent with the Children Acts.
• Are inconsistent with the Children's Plan.
• Create a conflict between the local authority and parents in who is ultimately responsible for the provision of education, and who is answerable to whom.
• Represent a shift in power from families to civil servants.
Betsy Anderson; Imran Shah. 31 Dec 2009
====================
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles of the Children's Plan: "Launching Brighter Futures", which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries.
GENERAL FEATURES OF SCHEDULE 1
Under Schedule 1 to the Children, Schools and Families Bill (Schedule 1) local authorities will have a duty to maintain a register of all home educated children within their area. This duty to keep a register will give local authorities the power to refuse parents permission to home educate, and to curtail the practice of home education, without regard to the education being
provided and without regard for the best interests of the child.
Home educating parents will not have an affirmative duty to register their children, but a local authority's first step can be to serve a School Attendance Order on any unregistered home educated child. Local authorities will have many powers to refuse or revoke registration, and then issue a School Attendance Order because of the unregistered status that they have thus created. Parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order will be guilty of a criminal offence. Parents served with such an order will no longer be able to use the defence that they are providing a suitable education.
Under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, it is the parents' duty, not the local authority's, to ensure that children receive a suitable education. Parents may choose to provide that education "otherwise" rather than by delegating that duty to a school.Schedule 1 imposes constraints on how parents exercise this duty, should they choose to educate their children at home.
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the Children's Plan and theChildren Acts, favours administrative protocol over parents' freedom to choose the form of education for their children, and represents a shift in power from families to civil servants.
LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS EXTENDED
Schedule 1 will give local authorities extensive powers to refuse or revoke registration. They may refuse or revoke registration:
• If a parent does not immediately apply for registration, even though there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
• If a parent does not submit a plan for the next year's education on time, or in sufficient detail, or in the authority's designated format.
• If a parent deviates from the educational plan that they have provided to the local authority, even if by doing so they have improved the education being provided.
• If a family's circumstances change during the year. The local authority might, e.g., decide it is a material change if a child is found to have special needs, or if a family changed their educational approach to one that was more workable or effective.
• If an authority, or any other authority in England has ever in the past denied an application to register a child.
• If parents object to the local authority entering their home on a routine visit.
• If parents object to the local authority questioning their child with no parent or carer present. Schedule 1 gives parents the right to object to their child being questioned alone, but then permits registration to be refused or revoked if they do so.
• If the local authority determines that the parents are demonstrating a "failure to cooperate" with any aspect of the local authority's monitoring process.
• If registration lapses, which happens automatically after one year.
• If a parent applies to register in order to stop the school attendance order process, the process stops. However, the LA can then refuse to enter the child onto the home education register, and serve another School Attendance Order.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be empowered to impose further regulations and technical requirements, without parliamentary debate, and thus will be able to set even more conditions upon parents' freedom to home educate.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN'S PLAN
Schedule 1 contravenes two of the fundamental principles ofChildren's Plan: Launching Brighter Futures, which was launched by the government in December 2007. These are:
• Government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do
more to back parents and families.
• Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and
families, not designed around professional boundaries.
However, under the terms of Schedule 1:
• Regulations will be issued providing for a right of appeal. Therefore the appeal process that is created will not be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny to see if it is fair, impartial and just.
• The local authority will be able to revoke registration if it considers that the education being provided is not suitable. It will also be able to refuse or revoke registration if the parents violate a number of administrative protocols, regardless of whether the education being provided is suitable or not. The net effect will be to make administrative procedures central to a local authority's consideration, not the needs of the child.
• There is no statutory requirement for the local authority to consider whether or not it is acting in the best interests of the child.
• There is no general requirement for the local authority to consider the suitability of the education being provided, although suitability underpins parents' right to choose to educate their children otherwise than at school. Indeed, local authorities are expressly prohibited from considering the actual education in deciding whether to issue a School Attendance Order.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families to improve the education being provided if there are concerns, as opposed to ordering the children to attend school.
• There is no assertion or recognition that the parents are responsible for the education of their child.
• There is no requirement for local authorities to provide any services or resources for home educating families.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE EDUCATION ACT 1996
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of theEducation Act 1996 thus:
• There is no explicit assertion that it is the duty of parents to educate their children either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Instead there is a diminution of the freedom and powers that parents have to exercise their duty by choosing to home educate.
• Local authorities are not required to consider the suitability of the education being provided whenever they consider refusing or revoking registration, and are instructed not to consider it when they issue a School Attendance Order. They are granted broad powers to refuse permission to home educate based only on whether administrative procedures have been followed.
• The issue of suitability of the education parents provide to their children is removed from judicial consideration. Courts instead are directed to enforce a School Attendance Order against any unregistered home educated child.
SCHEDULE 1 AND THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Schedule 1 is inconsistent with the spirit and nature of theChildren Act thus:
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs, welfare and interests of the child as paramount.
• There is no recognition of the importance of family life to the welfare of a child.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to work in partnership with home educating families.
• There is no requirement for the local authority to consider the needs of the child with regards to race, culture, religion, gender, disability, or special needs, or any other factors that may be relevant to the well-being of the child.
• There is no affirmation of the "No Order" principle, that an order should only be sought as a last resort.
• The consideration for the welfare of the child is poorly defined or absent. This is inconsistent with the welfare checklist contained with the 1989 Children Act and with the other acts that shape children's services.
The authority-centred focus of Schedule 1 marks a paradigm shift from the child-centred, family-focused acts and policies that sprang from and were shaped by the Children Act 1989 (Every Child Matters; the Adoption Act; the Children Act 2004; the Leaving Care Act; the Children's Plan).
SUMMARY
The powers enshrined in Schedule 1:
• Curtail the freedom of parents to educate their children otherwise than at school.
• Are inconsistent with the Children Acts.
• Are inconsistent with the Children's Plan.
• Create a conflict between the local authority and parents in who is ultimately responsible for the provision of education, and who is answerable to whom.
• Represent a shift in power from families to civil servants.
Betsy Anderson; Imran Shah. 31 Dec 2009
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Friday, 11 December 2009
Friday, 4 December 2009
Please pass this leaflet on...
There are many home educators who do not use the internet very often, and may not know what the new Children, Schools and Families Bill is proposing. The following leaflet can be downloaded, in pdf form, from HERE
If you can, please print it out and take it to your local groups, or pass it to your local email lists. The Bill is going through parliament NOW and not enough home educators know what it really contains.
The text from the leaflet is below.
“Parents bring up children, not Government”1
If you think this is New Labour policy, think again
Clauses 26 and 27 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill currently in Parliament would lock home educating families into a bureaucratic system that is all about restricting educational freedom and nothing to do with ensuring children are well educated and looked after.
What is the Government proposing?
If the proposals in the Bill become law:
• Every year, parents would have to ask permission from the Local Authority to home educate
The Government is calling this a ‘register’, but a more accurate word would be ‘licence’. Local authorities would have the power to refuse ‘registration’ or to remove children from the ‘register’ if their parents do not cooperate with the system. ‘Registration’ would have to be renewed every year.
• Unregistered home educated children would be ordered to attend school
Local authorities would not be allowed to consider whether the education of unregistered children is suitable for their needs. The only consideration would be whether the child was ‘registered’ or not.
• Parents would be required to supply an advance plan for their children’s education every year in order to remain on the ‘register’
Local authorities would be given the power to decide whether the education provided is suitable, and whether it measures up to the plan. The power to decide what constitutes a suitable education for an individual child would be taken out of the hands of that child’s parents and given to a local council officer, who may have met the child only once.
• Local authorities would have to reassess home educated children and parents every year
If home educated children, or their parents, do not give consent for a child to be interviewed alone, the local authorities would not have the right to insist. But they would have the right to remove that child’s name from the ‘register’ as a punishment for this refusal to cooperate. Loving parents would be forced to override their children’s wishes in order to protect their freedom to be educated outside the school system.
Clause 26 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill gives this or any future government the power to issue guidance to local authorities about what they may demand of parents as part of this new ‘registration’, monitoring and inspection regime. MPs are being asked to approve the Bill without having sight of this guidance.
Clause 26 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill has been presented to Parliament before the results of a public consultation on the proposals have been released. Over 5000 people responded to the consultation but their views have been completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill.
There is no need to change the law regarding home education. Home educated children are at no more risk of abuse than any other group of children. Local authorities already have powers to take action if parents are not educating or caring for their children properly.
Please write to your MP now and demand that they vote for the removal of Clauses 26 and 27 from the Bill.
1 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/childrensplan
If you can, please print it out and take it to your local groups, or pass it to your local email lists. The Bill is going through parliament NOW and not enough home educators know what it really contains.
The text from the leaflet is below.
“Parents bring up children, not Government”1
If you think this is New Labour policy, think again
Clauses 26 and 27 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill currently in Parliament would lock home educating families into a bureaucratic system that is all about restricting educational freedom and nothing to do with ensuring children are well educated and looked after.
What is the Government proposing?
If the proposals in the Bill become law:
• Every year, parents would have to ask permission from the Local Authority to home educate
The Government is calling this a ‘register’, but a more accurate word would be ‘licence’. Local authorities would have the power to refuse ‘registration’ or to remove children from the ‘register’ if their parents do not cooperate with the system. ‘Registration’ would have to be renewed every year.
• Unregistered home educated children would be ordered to attend school
Local authorities would not be allowed to consider whether the education of unregistered children is suitable for their needs. The only consideration would be whether the child was ‘registered’ or not.
• Parents would be required to supply an advance plan for their children’s education every year in order to remain on the ‘register’
Local authorities would be given the power to decide whether the education provided is suitable, and whether it measures up to the plan. The power to decide what constitutes a suitable education for an individual child would be taken out of the hands of that child’s parents and given to a local council officer, who may have met the child only once.
• Local authorities would have to reassess home educated children and parents every year
If home educated children, or their parents, do not give consent for a child to be interviewed alone, the local authorities would not have the right to insist. But they would have the right to remove that child’s name from the ‘register’ as a punishment for this refusal to cooperate. Loving parents would be forced to override their children’s wishes in order to protect their freedom to be educated outside the school system.
Clause 26 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill gives this or any future government the power to issue guidance to local authorities about what they may demand of parents as part of this new ‘registration’, monitoring and inspection regime. MPs are being asked to approve the Bill without having sight of this guidance.
Clause 26 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill has been presented to Parliament before the results of a public consultation on the proposals have been released. Over 5000 people responded to the consultation but their views have been completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill.
There is no need to change the law regarding home education. Home educated children are at no more risk of abuse than any other group of children. Local authorities already have powers to take action if parents are not educating or caring for their children properly.
Please write to your MP now and demand that they vote for the removal of Clauses 26 and 27 from the Bill.
1 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/childrensplan
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Protect the family home! Please sign.
PETITION
Title - Home-ed-families
Category – Education and skills
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to uphold that parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child, not to undermine parents legitimately fulfilling their fundamental duties, and to assume that the best interests of their child is the basic concern of parents unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.
In particular, the government should ensure :-
• No right of access to the family home without evidence of a crime
• No right to interview a child alone without evidence of risk of serious harm
• No CRB checks or registration for parents to look after their own children, or to informally look after those of their friends, family etc
• No licensing / registration / assessment / monitoring of methods by which parents fulfil their duties without evidence that they are failing to do so, and with specific recognition that education "otherwise" than at school is a perfectly legal option to fulfil their duty regarding education
• No undermining of parents as being in the best position to determine how to meet their child's needs, according to their age, ability, aptitude, and any special needs they may have
• Greater focus on applying existing resources and procedures to cases of children known to be at risk, rather than dilution of these resources by routinely monitoring whole sections of the community
• Compliance with the fundamental presumption of innocence unless there is specific evidence to the contrary
Category – Education and skills
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to uphold that parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child, not to undermine parents legitimately fulfilling their fundamental duties, and to assume that the best interests of their child is the basic concern of parents unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.
In particular, the government should ensure :-
• No right of access to the family home without evidence of a crime
• No right to interview a child alone without evidence of risk of serious harm
• No CRB checks or registration for parents to look after their own children, or to informally look after those of their friends, family etc
• No licensing / registration / assessment / monitoring of methods by which parents fulfil their duties without evidence that they are failing to do so, and with specific recognition that education "otherwise" than at school is a perfectly legal option to fulfil their duty regarding education
• No undermining of parents as being in the best position to determine how to meet their child's needs, according to their age, ability, aptitude, and any special needs they may have
• Greater focus on applying existing resources and procedures to cases of children known to be at risk, rather than dilution of these resources by routinely monitoring whole sections of the community
• Compliance with the fundamental presumption of innocence unless there is specific evidence to the contrary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)