elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 13, 2011 20:06:42 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaus on Oct 13, 2011 22:34:58 GMT 1
Don't forget the words of the previous head of EHE:
'The LA’s mode of working does address all EHE children and therefore safeguarding remains our primary duty'
and also the audit:
'the LA’s do try to see children in person for safeguarding reasons and evidence of work'
iirc, there was also another section which put assessing the child's social skills above assessing the education.
So home visits are for far more than the LA leads parents to believe.
As one county councillor has warned the LA:
'There is substantial risk that the authority has gained access, and used the time of homeeducators, based on materially inaccurate statements, and the authority is vulnerable to accusations from home educators that they have been required to provide has been onbtained by deception, which may expose the authority and its officers to criminal and civil liability.'
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 22, 2011 8:47:31 GMT 1
of course when they have no clear assessment process for these areas they risk having their staff working out of their competency zone. If they have not been clear about their purpose with parents they are working without informed consent.
|
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Nov 14, 2011 11:39:11 GMT 1
The only issue I have with the ahed article is it states that a parent should produce enough evidence as would satisfy a reasonable person.
This is incorrect. If an LA makes initial inquiries there is no burden of proof on the parents. They can choose to give some information but that is very different to evidence. If the LA then have reason to believe it appears a suitable education is NOT taking place they can ask to be satisfied and specify their concerns by issuing a s437 notice. At this stage the parent is required to provide evidence such as would satisfy a reasonable person etc.
This is not required for initial inquiries.
Jo
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 15, 2011 8:15:40 GMT 1
I think the Sarah FitzClaridge article comes across as very dated now. It was apparently published in the EO newsletter in 1998. The battle at that time was over "home visits" and how home educators could write a report or get an independent expert to write a report instead of having a "home visit." As Jo says it jumps straight to talking about "providing evidence" so it does give the impression that as soon as the LA asks to visit you at home, you should set about collecting evidence to avert the prospect of The Visit.
I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing about writing a beautifully presented report and getting your friends to go to solicitor's offices and make sworn statements. This sounds just as oppressive as The Visit and - in common with many home ed articles - it doesn't take into account that many of the people who are contacted by the LA have only just begun home educating. I feel very sorry for new home educators who think they have to keep the LA at bay while they toil over a beautifully presented report and I've never really understood why home educators have agreed to do this to themselves!
|
|
