That there consultation.

Now I could have sworn that the consultation I read specifically said that it wasn’t about changing the regulations around home education.

Let’s see, the email I got said: “it has been decided not to propose any changes to monitoring arrangements or legislation so this consultation is solely on the issuing of guidelines.”

So was it just that the telegraph writer can’t read? As they appear to think that “Parents educating children at home will be subjected to tighter controls amid fears that many young people receive little or no tuition.”

Mind, the guardian aren’t doing a whole lot better, with the first paragraph of their story reading: “The government has issued its first consultation into the growing practice of home schooling to find out whether rules need to be tightened over how children are taught out of the education system.”

So let’s clarify. The consultation is about issuing guidelines to LAs. It’s not about changing regulations, tightening up rules, increasing monitoring or requiring registration. It does require our responses, lots of them, as otherwise the LAs are going to overwhelm the consultation site with things like…no, I’m sorry. I’m not going to give TM any more blogspace than he’s already garnered, the man is just ill informed, with a closed mind, and he needs no more publicity. If you like the proposed guidelines, please respond to the consultation saying so – personally I feel there are a couple of places that are ill worded, particularly in the section about resources, which could be taken to mean every household should have a computer among other things. Then there’s the strand running through that talks about LAs having no requirement to monitor, but goes on and on about how they should communicate with parents, and how parents can submit evidence. The guidelines are pretty strong – my reading of them is that if the LA needs to have a reason to believe there is no education taking place – without that reason, there is absolutely no requirement for them to be in touch at all.

I do think that the first paragraph of the consultation is worthy of repeating here:

A fundamental principle of the English education system is that parents are responsible for ensuring their children receive a suitable education. Most parents choose to fulfil this obligation by educating their children at school, but some prefer home education. It is the legal right of parents to educate their children at home if they so wish and the Department for Education and Skills supports the right of parents to make this choice for their children.

I also recommend memorising sections 2.1 to 2.3 (don’t worry, it’s nothing you haven’t heard before)

2.1 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. In England, education is compulsory, but schooling is not.

2.2 Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

This right is enshrined in English law. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that:

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

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

2.3 The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. An “efficient” and “suitable” education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but “efficient” has been broadly described as an education that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”, and a “suitable” education is one that “primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.

(Note the bold was there in the document as well).

These guidelines lay out the facts that we all know. They are our best defence against the Doncasters and Gloucesters of this world (not putting his name here as I don’t want to glorify him either), and this consultation should not be treated as won until it’s over. I’ve no doubt that many of you were signed up as interested parties to this consultation, at least that many ppl need to respond to it (yes, I’m banging on about it, I think it’s important!) I’m also considering writing to both the telegraph and the guardian, ooh, must pop over to Dave Hill’s to see if he’s got any opinion too. Any more for any more?

And finally (for the moment) if you’re wondering how come the guidelines have come out the way they have, I suggest popping over to Gill’s to join the discussion.