fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 6, 2011 19:10:00 GMT 1
Just to say I spoke to Ian today. He will put critique of Lancs policy in writing next weekend in good time before your meeting on the 23rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Nov 6, 2011 19:40:42 GMT 1
Can't tell you how I feel to read this. It is such good news!
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 13, 2011 23:27:10 GMT 1
I spoke to Ian again today. He has strong views about the errors in Lancs draft policy. He says that the only powers which the LA has come from s437 (School Attendance Orders) and that guidelines on s437 are provided by the Elective Home Education Guidelines which are not in themselves statutory but are given the effect of statutory guidance by being included in the statutory guidance on s436A (Children Missing Education) As long as Lancs fail to follow the law on s437, any subsequent prosecution they brought for failure to comply with a School Attendance Order could be successfully defended and the Council would lose in court. (In other words, asking for info is NOT the same as LA's requiring to be "satisfied")
Ian thinks it is perfectly clear and straightforward and can't understand how Lancs can maintain their position if they have actually read the CME guidance all the way through. He's busy till midweek but is mindful of your deadlines before the meeting on November 23rd.
Another point he was very clear about was that CME is in a sense an artificial construct. There is either attendance at school or there is education otherwise. Ian's expression both this week and last week was that it is binary. In law, there simply isn't a third category of "CME" to which children can be banished. He said that your Councillor who stated that there was no legal requirement to make formal assessment of home ed provision and that it would require change of law to enact this change was perfectly correct.
Oh and he deplored the fact that the Council had not supplied the "school concerns form" and the "parental contract form" with the main consultation document.
|
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Nov 14, 2011 8:45:21 GMT 1
Thanks Fiona.
Really glad to hear that Ian is working on a response.
Jo
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaus on Nov 14, 2011 11:12:39 GMT 1
That's great news.
We know Ian's very busy so are very grateful that he's willing to give up his time for us.
The LA has been intent on ignoring locals telling them they've got it wrong, hopefully they'll stop and think before ignoring a Barrister. They're going to look pretty stupid if this has to go further after the consultation.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 21, 2011 7:38:50 GMT 1
When I signed in this morning I found Ian had just sent the finished document he has been working on. He is happy for it to be shared in advance of your meeting so I'm just waiting for confirmation from him about whether he wants me to upload it here or whether he is going to send it to you separately, just in case he has any last minute revisions this morning. I've given him the Enquiries.EHE@lancashire.gov.uk address.
|
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Nov 21, 2011 9:03:27 GMT 1
Great. Thanks Fiona.
Does he have an email address for us as well as the LA?
Jo
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 21, 2011 9:29:52 GMT 1
I have sent the document offlist for you to read. I think Ian would prefer to wait and see if you think any further clarification is necessary before he sends it to the Council.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 23, 2011 9:30:13 GMT 1
Just so folks are aware, Ian would like the earlier document recalled because he felt it didn't adequately address Lancs' bypassing s437 statutory duties with relation to School Attendance Orders. The document you should use is marked "amended", is dated November 23rd and has been sent offlist.
|
|
