Great to read Graham Stuart's speech in the house of commons earlier today; I was worried that a rush of power to the head had changed Graham Stuart's support and understanding of HE, but credit where credit is due, he listened, took note, researched and admitted he'd got it wrong - a rare thing indeed in a politician.
Very interesting to read the comments of old adversaries such as Barry Sheerman too.
Also good to see Local Authorities illegal interpretation of HE shown up and recorded in Hansard.
Starts at the bottom of column 1216 here
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The State We Are In
This blog post says it all, this should not be happening in this country. Please read, and share far and wide. We owe John Hemming, and all those who dare to speak out about this, our support.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
CME Postcard
I decided that it might be useful if there was a simple postcard that people who support the call for changes to CME legislation could send to their MPs etc.
My daughter did the drawings, we know that they are terribly stereotyped, this was done deliberately to make the point very clearly in the easiest way possible. We do not believe that home educated children all sit studiously at desks all day long in the same way that we don't believe all truants are yobbish, chain smoking graffiti artists.
If you want to read more about this issue then please look at the following two links both of which are included on the postcard:
AHEd letter to Michael Gove
Mieke's blog about how CME is changing relations between the LA and HEers in Cumbria.
You might also like to look at these threads on the Home Education Forums which details further examples of CME being directed at Home Educators.
And at Gill's blog detailing why CME needs changing before we have any new guidelines.
If you click on the highlighted named links you will be able to download a copy of the front and back of the postcard to print off on an A6 sized piece of card. There is a lot of info to try to squeeze into a small space, but it does all print out ok - well, it did for me!
If you don't already know who your MP is you can find out who they are and where to write to them here.
CME Postcard Front
Back of CME Post Card (1)
My daughter did the drawings, we know that they are terribly stereotyped, this was done deliberately to make the point very clearly in the easiest way possible. We do not believe that home educated children all sit studiously at desks all day long in the same way that we don't believe all truants are yobbish, chain smoking graffiti artists.
If you want to read more about this issue then please look at the following two links both of which are included on the postcard:
AHEd letter to Michael Gove
Mieke's blog about how CME is changing relations between the LA and HEers in Cumbria.
You might also like to look at these threads on the Home Education Forums which details further examples of CME being directed at Home Educators.
And at Gill's blog detailing why CME needs changing before we have any new guidelines.
If you click on the highlighted named links you will be able to download a copy of the front and back of the postcard to print off on an A6 sized piece of card. There is a lot of info to try to squeeze into a small space, but it does all print out ok - well, it did for me!
If you don't already know who your MP is you can find out who they are and where to write to them here.
CME Postcard Front
Back of CME Post Card (1)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Conspiracy of Silence
It's now been over a month since the HE grapevine first started kicking off about the rumour that new guidelines were being written.
A month of people wondering, questioning, worrying and debating potential issues.
A month in which the known author of the guidelines could have responded to people's questions. A month in which she could have put people's minds at rest. It is surely what any decent person would do?
Instead we have had nothing. Zilch. Nada. Oh we've had the mutterings of a few self appointed fire fighters, who for their part seem only to have fanned the flames and attempted to stifle reasoned debate. From the Queen Bee though, nothing. She is, it would appear, above reproach.
There are people who could shed some light on the goings on, but we seem to be firmly in the midst of a conspiracy of silence. Whilst this may sound dramatic, I think that anyone who has been drawn into this episode would find it hard to disagree that elements of these effects are evident within parts of the HE *Community*.
Those who are directly suffering, or causing others to suffer, perpetuate their cycle of harm and suffering
Those who have suffered have their suffering extended by having their condition ignored or minimized, and are not considered seriously or redressed appropriately
Lessons that might be learned for future are not learned
Apparently the reason no one will speak out is because they are too frightened to *stick their heads above the parapet*. If those involved had the courage of their convictions then they would not seek to hide behind what they must perceive to be the safety of anonymity, they would be willing to defend their actions. That they are not suggests that self interest is at the heart of the whole sorry mess. We can only wonder at the possible motives involved, but top of the list would surely have to be financial gain. Maybe not immediately, that would be too obvious, but perhaps there is a longer term game plan afoot here?
Words like slander, libel and defamation are flying around the ether; friendships are being torn apart; suspicion is rife. Ed Balls's government couldn't have done a better job of creating such a rift. Meanwhile, silence.
Words couldn't express it better than this photo:
A month of people wondering, questioning, worrying and debating potential issues.
A month in which the known author of the guidelines could have responded to people's questions. A month in which she could have put people's minds at rest. It is surely what any decent person would do?
Instead we have had nothing. Zilch. Nada. Oh we've had the mutterings of a few self appointed fire fighters, who for their part seem only to have fanned the flames and attempted to stifle reasoned debate. From the Queen Bee though, nothing. She is, it would appear, above reproach.
There are people who could shed some light on the goings on, but we seem to be firmly in the midst of a conspiracy of silence. Whilst this may sound dramatic, I think that anyone who has been drawn into this episode would find it hard to disagree that elements of these effects are evident within parts of the HE *Community*.
Those who are directly suffering, or causing others to suffer, perpetuate their cycle of harm and suffering
Those who have suffered have their suffering extended by having their condition ignored or minimized, and are not considered seriously or redressed appropriately
Lessons that might be learned for future are not learned
Apparently the reason no one will speak out is because they are too frightened to *stick their heads above the parapet*. If those involved had the courage of their convictions then they would not seek to hide behind what they must perceive to be the safety of anonymity, they would be willing to defend their actions. That they are not suggests that self interest is at the heart of the whole sorry mess. We can only wonder at the possible motives involved, but top of the list would surely have to be financial gain. Maybe not immediately, that would be too obvious, but perhaps there is a longer term game plan afoot here?
Words like slander, libel and defamation are flying around the ether; friendships are being torn apart; suspicion is rife. Ed Balls's government couldn't have done a better job of creating such a rift. Meanwhile, silence.
Words couldn't express it better than this photo:
I would ask that the person responsible stand up and own her actions, but I know all too well that I would be ignored. Reprehensible doesn't begin to cover it.
Of course this post is probably just another example of me *Doing a Tech*.
Of course this post is probably just another example of me *Doing a Tech*.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
What's In A Word?
Guidance Guidelines what's the difference?
Guidance is statutory that is it is prescribed or authorized by statute. The CME (Children Missing Education) guidance is statutory because there is a clause in the original act which directs the relevant authority to take note of the contents of any guidance issued. It would appear that this is a neat way of altering the law without having to keep changing the primary legislation.
Guidelines are not statutory, and are basically just advice as to how to carry out particular duties.
GuidANCE trumps guideLINES.
As I understand it, HE cannot have statutory guidance because there is nothing in statute which refers an authority to any guidance. So to have statutory HE guidance we would need a change to the primary legislation.
It seems to me that this would not be a good thing, as each new guidance issued alters the legal situation - if I have misunderstood this PLEASE tell me, and explain to me how.
We have a situation where the 2007 HE Guidelines specifically state "The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home." This was in relation to CME and pointed to the 2007 guidance on CME.
3.3.16. If it becomes known that a child identified as not receiving education is being home educated, this should be recorded on the local authority's database and no further action should be taken unless there is cause for concern about the child's safety and welfare. Monitoring arrangements already exist for children being educated at home. Where there are concerns about the child's safety and welfare, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures must be followed.
However, the guidance was updated and so now it is the 2009 guidance which is the one that must be adhered to, and this is where the problems arise.
2009 CME guidance gives over a whole section to Home Education I would like to draw attention to this particular section:
92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.
So in one fell swoop we have gone from a case of - "record the fact that the child is home educated and that's all you need to do", to "make inquiries".
It would seem from looking at the websites of various local authorities that they have interpreted this new duty by immediately referring HEers to the CME department. North Yorkshire for instance was certainly a week or two ago advising headteachers not to deregister a child 'on demand' but to instead pass the details onto the CME team.
"2.1 Regarding the Headteacher's duty to inform the LA before deleting pupil who is to be home educated from the register. In such cases please inform: Julie Fenny, CME coordinator"
Unless I have misunderstood the law regarding deregistration, the headteacher is supposed to remove the child from the register immediately the deregistration letter has been received, and then notify the LA, not vice versa.
If we look at what is happening in Bedfordshire, it's an even worse scenario:
"When parents withdraw their child from school to EHE, the child’s name can only
be deleted from the admissions register when the parents inform the school in
writing (section 8 (d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006)
giving reasons for decisions. The Head Teacher/Governor has to inform the LA of
withdrawal together with reasons before the child’s name is deleted."
Compare that with the actual law:
"It is then the duty of the proprietor of the school to inform the LA within 10 working days under Regulation 13 (3): “when the name of a pupil has been deleted from the admission register in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c) the proprietor shall make a return to the local education authority giving the full name and address of that pupil within the ten school days immediately following the date on which the pupil's name was so deleted”.
Arse about face isn't it? (You can see the full details here)
More and more cases are turning up where HEers are being *found out* having come into contact with local authority services. It would seem to be the case that everyone with a connection to children's services has a duty to inform the CME department about any HE children they come across in the course of their work. Previously, as far as I understand it, the librarian, school nurse, health visitor, hospital, gp etc etc could choose to *shop* you if they felt that way inclined, but equally could choose to do nothing and let you go on your merry way with no further hassle. It would seem that the CME guidance has changed all that, so unless you are able to avoid all public services you stand a very good chance of becoming known. If all LAs follow N Yorks lead and report straight to CME officers before deregistering a child, and it seems unlikely that N Yorks are acting as a maverick authority, then we effectively have non voluntary registration.
Whilst the 2007 EHE Guidelines are not statutory, they do stand as a clear reminder that HE was not to be conflated with CME. If we put in place new, updated guidelines, will that particular element be removed? If it is, are we left with not a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the CME guidance, which is what I believe we need to do before we even think about putting new guidelines in place.
Thanks to Gill for laying this out on this blog piece, and to Elaine for digging out the dodgy LA practices.
ETA: thinking about it further, would it even be possible to refer to outdated guidance in new guidelines? I would imagine not, so it would seem that that particular section will have to go.
Another addition: I have had a message passed to me via a third party from Alison Sauer:
"You might, if you are brave enough, like to suggest to Tech that she revisits her blog post and quotes the correct law........which sadly means that all these policies are actually technically correct. I'd really hate her to look daft. And this is not a sarcastic comment, it's genuine otherwise I would be on there correcting her.
Tech is quoting 1995 regs not 2006 ones. And the guidance accompanying it is poisonous and confusing. It tells schools to notify LAs ASAP and if the dereg is with immediate effect to delay dereg for 2 days.
I went ballistic when they changed it but it had no effect........
Alison Sauer"
Which is interesting as the section I quoted came Derbyshire Council's website screenshot linked to above and here too.
Elaine has posted this rather clear graphic dated 01/09/08, along with some other interesting information on the forums
Guidance is statutory that is it is prescribed or authorized by statute. The CME (Children Missing Education) guidance is statutory because there is a clause in the original act which directs the relevant authority to take note of the contents of any guidance issued. It would appear that this is a neat way of altering the law without having to keep changing the primary legislation.
Guidelines are not statutory, and are basically just advice as to how to carry out particular duties.
GuidANCE trumps guideLINES.
As I understand it, HE cannot have statutory guidance because there is nothing in statute which refers an authority to any guidance. So to have statutory HE guidance we would need a change to the primary legislation.
It seems to me that this would not be a good thing, as each new guidance issued alters the legal situation - if I have misunderstood this PLEASE tell me, and explain to me how.
We have a situation where the 2007 HE Guidelines specifically state "The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home." This was in relation to CME and pointed to the 2007 guidance on CME.
3.3.16. If it becomes known that a child identified as not receiving education is being home educated, this should be recorded on the local authority's database and no further action should be taken unless there is cause for concern about the child's safety and welfare. Monitoring arrangements already exist for children being educated at home. Where there are concerns about the child's safety and welfare, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures must be followed.
However, the guidance was updated and so now it is the 2009 guidance which is the one that must be adhered to, and this is where the problems arise.
2009 CME guidance gives over a whole section to Home Education I would like to draw attention to this particular section:
92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.
So in one fell swoop we have gone from a case of - "record the fact that the child is home educated and that's all you need to do", to "make inquiries".
It would seem from looking at the websites of various local authorities that they have interpreted this new duty by immediately referring HEers to the CME department. North Yorkshire for instance was certainly a week or two ago advising headteachers not to deregister a child 'on demand' but to instead pass the details onto the CME team.
"2.1 Regarding the Headteacher's duty to inform the LA before deleting pupil who is to be home educated from the register. In such cases please inform: Julie Fenny, CME coordinator"
Unless I have misunderstood the law regarding deregistration, the headteacher is supposed to remove the child from the register immediately the deregistration letter has been received, and then notify the LA, not vice versa.
If we look at what is happening in Bedfordshire, it's an even worse scenario:
"When parents withdraw their child from school to EHE, the child’s name can only
be deleted from the admissions register when the parents inform the school in
writing (section 8 (d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006)
giving reasons for decisions. The Head Teacher/Governor has to inform the LA of
withdrawal together with reasons before the child’s name is deleted."
Compare that with the actual law:
"It is then the duty of the proprietor of the school to inform the LA within 10 working days under Regulation 13 (3): “when the name of a pupil has been deleted from the admission register in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c) the proprietor shall make a return to the local education authority giving the full name and address of that pupil within the ten school days immediately following the date on which the pupil's name was so deleted”.
Arse about face isn't it? (You can see the full details here)
More and more cases are turning up where HEers are being *found out* having come into contact with local authority services. It would seem to be the case that everyone with a connection to children's services has a duty to inform the CME department about any HE children they come across in the course of their work. Previously, as far as I understand it, the librarian, school nurse, health visitor, hospital, gp etc etc could choose to *shop* you if they felt that way inclined, but equally could choose to do nothing and let you go on your merry way with no further hassle. It would seem that the CME guidance has changed all that, so unless you are able to avoid all public services you stand a very good chance of becoming known. If all LAs follow N Yorks lead and report straight to CME officers before deregistering a child, and it seems unlikely that N Yorks are acting as a maverick authority, then we effectively have non voluntary registration.
Whilst the 2007 EHE Guidelines are not statutory, they do stand as a clear reminder that HE was not to be conflated with CME. If we put in place new, updated guidelines, will that particular element be removed? If it is, are we left with not a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the CME guidance, which is what I believe we need to do before we even think about putting new guidelines in place.
Thanks to Gill for laying this out on this blog piece, and to Elaine for digging out the dodgy LA practices.
ETA: thinking about it further, would it even be possible to refer to outdated guidance in new guidelines? I would imagine not, so it would seem that that particular section will have to go.
Another addition: I have had a message passed to me via a third party from Alison Sauer:
"You might, if you are brave enough, like to suggest to Tech that she revisits her blog post and quotes the correct law........which sadly means that all these policies are actually technically correct. I'd really hate her to look daft. And this is not a sarcastic comment, it's genuine otherwise I would be on there correcting her.
Tech is quoting 1995 regs not 2006 ones. And the guidance accompanying it is poisonous and confusing. It tells schools to notify LAs ASAP and if the dereg is with immediate effect to delay dereg for 2 days.
I went ballistic when they changed it but it had no effect........
Alison Sauer"
Which is interesting as the section I quoted came Derbyshire Council's website screenshot linked to above and here too.
Elaine has posted this rather clear graphic dated 01/09/08, along with some other interesting information on the forums
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Guidance Connivance
Gill has already done an excellent blog post about all this. Read it here.
For my part, all I want to say is this:
People who think they are qualified to write such things on behalf of the rest of us, without telling us, should at the very least be known to their LA, and have gone through the process of providing information to them. Training them in how to deal with the rest of us does not equal expert knowledge unless you have actually sat on both sides of the fence and come through the other side. It's the difference between theoretical knowledge and actual experience.
ETA: GS apparently has this to say about it all:
"For home education I think we need new guidance issued by the government to local authorities (LAs) which lays to rest, once and for all (hopefully), the agitation by LAs for more powers and encourages a new culture of support and humility ...from LAs rather than suspicion and distrust. I have spoken to a number of different people about this (including the Minister) and hope to come forward with a proposal for everyone to look at, dispute, improve etc to deliver the above aims. I have initially asked a few people to help come up with a first draft before opening out to the full drama of HE community input. Fundamental to anything I come up with will be the primacy of parents in determining their child's education and a complete rejection of compulsory registration and all the other "licensing" facets of the last government's approach. I think we have a real opportunity to settle this issue in a way that LAs can live with and which makes the chance of future action by government unlikely so that the Badman proposals are never resurrected."
For my part, all I want to say is this:
People who think they are qualified to write such things on behalf of the rest of us, without telling us, should at the very least be known to their LA, and have gone through the process of providing information to them. Training them in how to deal with the rest of us does not equal expert knowledge unless you have actually sat on both sides of the fence and come through the other side. It's the difference between theoretical knowledge and actual experience.
ETA: GS apparently has this to say about it all:
"For home education I think we need new guidance issued by the government to local authorities (LAs) which lays to rest, once and for all (hopefully), the agitation by LAs for more powers and encourages a new culture of support and humility ...from LAs rather than suspicion and distrust. I have spoken to a number of different people about this (including the Minister) and hope to come forward with a proposal for everyone to look at, dispute, improve etc to deliver the above aims. I have initially asked a few people to help come up with a first draft before opening out to the full drama of HE community input. Fundamental to anything I come up with will be the primacy of parents in determining their child's education and a complete rejection of compulsory registration and all the other "licensing" facets of the last government's approach. I think we have a real opportunity to settle this issue in a way that LAs can live with and which makes the chance of future action by government unlikely so that the Badman proposals are never resurrected."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)