Dear Alex,
Thank you for your letter and the attached reply from Jim Knight, Minister of State for Schools, in reference to my recent enquiry about changes to the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations. I am afraid that I found the information contained in this letter far from reassuring, and I hasten to make a renewed request for
information on how the changes to the deregistration of pupils can be halted.
This is my personal reply to the letter: I am also soliciting views from home education support groups and mailing lists all over the country - many of whom have written to their own MPs to express concern. I will certainly make you aware of the feedback that I have from other people over the next few days.
As you know my original concern was that the two-day delay was being introduced in order to "approve" or "disapprove" the applications to home educate. While denying that this is what is happening, the reply from Mr Knight appears to confirm that suspicion:
"Whilst we accept that the majority of parents who educate their children at home do so well, there is a small minority who do not. It is important that local authorities are able to intervene as early as possible to protect these children’s education. The requirement for advance notice of the deletion ensures that the
authorities are aware of such cases and, only where necessary, are able to intervene."
Does this not sound as though the school and the LEA are going to collaborate in order to make a judgement about whether or not a parent is able to home educate? Does it seem likely that "intervene as early as possible to protect these children's education" means anything else?
It seems to me that it is common for the DfES and the LEA to take the view that a middle-class and well-educated parent IS capable of home educating their children, and that a parent of lower socio-economic class and education is not. Despite a lot of good research showing the contrary, that home educated children from all socio-economic groups, but especially those with a lower level of education do better than their schooled counterparts, the authorities seem to be dividing parents into the deserving and the undeserving of their legal right to home educate. If his letter can be read in any other way, I would be glad to hear another interpretation.
The law of England is very clear that it is parents, and not LEAs or the DfES who are responsible for the education of their children. Parents are responsible for their children's education, whether the child is schooled or educated at home, and I deplore the way that the government continually fiddles with guidance and regulations in order to make it seem that this is not the case.
I am appalled by the idea that a home education group or any other, would think it is right that a family with poor attendance should be prosecuted and jailed rather than learn of their right to home educate. If school were a universally successful education solution for the children and young people of the UK, then perhaps I
would understand the zeal with which the authorities try to prevent the people of this country from learning of their right to opt out of it. If Mr Knight requires supporting information for the efficacy and efficiency of home education, even when parents may not have a high level of education themselves, I will be pleased to
supply it.
I am seriously alarmed by the idea that the DfES thought, after several months of consultation over this legislation, that this measure would be a good idea, and that home educators would be in favour of it. It will confuse headteachers, LEAs and parents far more than the current arrangement of immediate deregistration, the potential "intervention" of the LEA will have no basis in law, and I honestly believe it will be a retrograde step for the relationship of home educators and the authorities.
If it is possible to object to this going into the statutory instrument before it is laid before parliament, I would ask you to ask Mr Knight how this can be done. I am prepared to come to Westminster to make my concerns plain in person, if necessary.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Berry
As from
caliandris@yahoo.co.uk
Monday, July 03, 2006
Reply from Jim Knight on Education (pupil registration) regulations
Covering letter from my MP:
Further to our previous correspondence, I now enclose a letter I have received from Jim Knight, the Minister of state for Schools, about the proposed revisions to the Education (pupil registration) regulations.
The attached will be self-explanatory and I trust you will find it of interest. However, if there are any further points you would like me to raise with the minister, I hope you will not hesitate to get in touch with me again.
Letter to my MP from Jim Knight:
Thank you for your letter of 12 June 2006 enclosing correspondence from Fiona Berry of (my address) about the proposed revisions to the Education (Pupil Registration) regulations. She is concerned about the possible impact of the changes on parents who would to educate (sic) their child otherwise than at school.
First, it may be helpful if I explain that we are planning to revise the Regulations, which have been in place since 1985 (with subsequent amendments) to make them easier for local authorities and schools to use; to clarify one or two ambiguities in them; and to bring them up-to-date. We therefore carried out a full public consultation on the review of the Regulations which ran between September and December 2005. Responses were received from a range of organisations and individuals including those with an interest in home education.
Mrs Berry expresses concern that we “appear” to be introducing two-day delay in deleting children who are to be educated at home from the school registers. What we are planning is to introduce a requirement that schools give local authorities advance notice of when a child is to be deleted for this reason. I do not believe that this will in practice cause a delay between the child leaving school and being deleted from the register. In most cases schools will be aware that the children are leaving before they do so; either because a school is waiting for parents to confirm verbal notification in writing or because they have given their school advance warning of the withdrawal. This will give schools ample opportunity to advise their local authority of the deletion before a child leaves and the deletion becomes necessary.
On those occasions where the parents do not give the school advance notice that they are withdrawing their child there will be a short delay. This is simply to allow time for the school’s notice to reach the local authority and the length of the delay will depend on the method used to give it. The guidance that will accompany the regulations reminds schools that they must send the notice immediately and allow reasonable time for it to arrive. The example in the guidance is that they should allow two days for a letter to arrive by post. This will not affect the parent’s ability to educate their child at home: the requirement is solely concerned with the school notifying the authority of the child’s withdrawal and deletion from the register. Nor is their (sic) any intention that the authority will have to “approve” the parent’s wish to educate their child at home or the school’s deletion of that pupil from the register.
I should explain that one of the reasons that we have introduced the requirement for schools to notify their local authority of deletions in these circumstances is the concerns raised by home educators’ groups and others about parents being persuaded to withdraw their child in order to avoid either exclusion or prosecution for poor attendance. We believe that the requirement for advance notice will discourage the practice and allow local authorities the opportunity to offer support to those parents who want it.
Whilst we accept that the majority of parents who educate their children at home do so well, there is a small minority who do not. It is important that local authorities are able to intervene as early as possible to protect these children’s education. The requirement for advance notice of the deletion ensures that the authorities are aware of such cases and, only where necessary, are able to intervene.
Another reason is our belief that some decisions, such as those made in the circumstances that I outlined above and disputes between parents and school, are made in the heat of the moment. A gap between the parents advising the school of the withdrawal and the deletion, whether before the child leaves or after, will allow parents to re-consider their decision and, if they wish, change their minds before the child loses their school place.
Mrs Berry also expresses concern that we are changing the regulations in relation to the deletion of children with special needs. I can confirm that we are not changing the regulations in relation to children with special needs.
We have no intention to change the right of parents to educate their children outside the school system. Nor do we intend introducing further requirements for English local authorities to approve parents’ decisions to withdraw their children from school in order to educate them at home. The proposed regulations are explicit that it is mandatory for the school to delete the child from the registers in these circumstances and place no requirements on the local authority to acknowledge the advance notice. Indeed, the accompanying guidance makes it clear that schools should not wait for an acknowledgement.
Mrs Berry asks about the Parliamentary procedure associated with making the new Regulations. Our intention is to present them to the House in the normal way in July and subject to the wishes of parliament for them to come into force on September 1, 2006.
I hope this is helpful and reassures Mrs Berry on her points of concern.
Further to our previous correspondence, I now enclose a letter I have received from Jim Knight, the Minister of state for Schools, about the proposed revisions to the Education (pupil registration) regulations.
The attached will be self-explanatory and I trust you will find it of interest. However, if there are any further points you would like me to raise with the minister, I hope you will not hesitate to get in touch with me again.
Letter to my MP from Jim Knight:
Thank you for your letter of 12 June 2006 enclosing correspondence from Fiona Berry of (my address) about the proposed revisions to the Education (Pupil Registration) regulations. She is concerned about the possible impact of the changes on parents who would to educate (sic) their child otherwise than at school.
First, it may be helpful if I explain that we are planning to revise the Regulations, which have been in place since 1985 (with subsequent amendments) to make them easier for local authorities and schools to use; to clarify one or two ambiguities in them; and to bring them up-to-date. We therefore carried out a full public consultation on the review of the Regulations which ran between September and December 2005. Responses were received from a range of organisations and individuals including those with an interest in home education.
Mrs Berry expresses concern that we “appear” to be introducing two-day delay in deleting children who are to be educated at home from the school registers. What we are planning is to introduce a requirement that schools give local authorities advance notice of when a child is to be deleted for this reason. I do not believe that this will in practice cause a delay between the child leaving school and being deleted from the register. In most cases schools will be aware that the children are leaving before they do so; either because a school is waiting for parents to confirm verbal notification in writing or because they have given their school advance warning of the withdrawal. This will give schools ample opportunity to advise their local authority of the deletion before a child leaves and the deletion becomes necessary.
On those occasions where the parents do not give the school advance notice that they are withdrawing their child there will be a short delay. This is simply to allow time for the school’s notice to reach the local authority and the length of the delay will depend on the method used to give it. The guidance that will accompany the regulations reminds schools that they must send the notice immediately and allow reasonable time for it to arrive. The example in the guidance is that they should allow two days for a letter to arrive by post. This will not affect the parent’s ability to educate their child at home: the requirement is solely concerned with the school notifying the authority of the child’s withdrawal and deletion from the register. Nor is their (sic) any intention that the authority will have to “approve” the parent’s wish to educate their child at home or the school’s deletion of that pupil from the register.
I should explain that one of the reasons that we have introduced the requirement for schools to notify their local authority of deletions in these circumstances is the concerns raised by home educators’ groups and others about parents being persuaded to withdraw their child in order to avoid either exclusion or prosecution for poor attendance. We believe that the requirement for advance notice will discourage the practice and allow local authorities the opportunity to offer support to those parents who want it.
Whilst we accept that the majority of parents who educate their children at home do so well, there is a small minority who do not. It is important that local authorities are able to intervene as early as possible to protect these children’s education. The requirement for advance notice of the deletion ensures that the authorities are aware of such cases and, only where necessary, are able to intervene.
Another reason is our belief that some decisions, such as those made in the circumstances that I outlined above and disputes between parents and school, are made in the heat of the moment. A gap between the parents advising the school of the withdrawal and the deletion, whether before the child leaves or after, will allow parents to re-consider their decision and, if they wish, change their minds before the child loses their school place.
Mrs Berry also expresses concern that we are changing the regulations in relation to the deletion of children with special needs. I can confirm that we are not changing the regulations in relation to children with special needs.
We have no intention to change the right of parents to educate their children outside the school system. Nor do we intend introducing further requirements for English local authorities to approve parents’ decisions to withdraw their children from school in order to educate them at home. The proposed regulations are explicit that it is mandatory for the school to delete the child from the registers in these circumstances and place no requirements on the local authority to acknowledge the advance notice. Indeed, the accompanying guidance makes it clear that schools should not wait for an acknowledgement.
Mrs Berry asks about the Parliamentary procedure associated with making the new Regulations. Our intention is to present them to the House in the normal way in July and subject to the wishes of parliament for them to come into force on September 1, 2006.
I hope this is helpful and reassures Mrs Berry on her points of concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)