|
Post by tricia on Oct 3, 2011 22:59:38 GMT 1
According to the audit paperwork, it's the form sent from the EHE team to the CME dept as 'a referral for a child not engaging with EHE.' As you say Jo, that contravenes statutory guidance. Have a look at: www.lancashire-he.org.uk/docs/CME1.doc
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 12, 2011 6:56:00 GMT 1
"Once the LA is satisfied that suitable educational provision is being made for a child who is on EHE, the question arises as to what further action, if any, is required.
Although the EHE guidelines indicate that LAs have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis, we are required by Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 to "make arrangements" to enable us to identify, so far as it is possible to do so, children whose home education is unsatisfactory"
Eh but they have just identified that a satisfactory education is being provided! they clearly got appropriate arrangements in place. It is clearly stated in the Guidance on section 436a that that duty is to be carried out in a way that does not conflict with the Guidelines on EHE.
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 12, 2011 7:14:50 GMT 1
yeh and notice again they say" satisfied that suitable educational provision is being made". grrr they should be satisfied that they have no reason to believe the education is unsatisfactory. They really don't get the difference do they? Jo
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 18, 2011 18:36:53 GMT 1
Hi Not sure where to introduce myself as having recently joined the forum. I have done something which I hope will be helpful but please tell me if it isn't! I've put up a page on my website about the consultation here edyourself.org/articles/lancsconsult.phpThis page is where I set out what seem to me to be the main issues with Lancs current draft policy. I've only looked at the first 13 pages, so the bad stuff about getting approved and registered isn't covered yet. Fiona Nicholson
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 18, 2011 20:01:17 GMT 1
Thanks Fiona. Speaking for myself, I found it really useful and would like to thank you for taking the time to do that. Jo
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 18, 2011 20:14:43 GMT 1
Hi this is Fiona Nicholson. I read this morning here that Fiona thinks you have to respond to initial enquiry with an Ed Phil. I'd just like to say I DON'T think this now, but there probably was a time in the past where I thought "might as well do overkill report to start with and silence any potential critics." I was finally persuaded by Ian Dowty's argument last year about the two-stage sifting process and the need for "evidence" if and only if the LA has issued a formal notice when it appears that education is not being provided. I had read Ian's views on this hundreds of times but something suddenly clicked in my head and I realised it couldn't possibly be otherwise. I STILL think that if you simply say "we are home educating and that's all you need to know" then you'll probably get asked for more info (as per Home Education Guidelines and CME Guidance) but being asked for more info ISN'T the same as the LA issuing a formal notice requiring the parent to satisfy them about the education being provided. So you could perfectly well take the position that you won't offer any more than is required unless and until it is requested through the proper channels. A bit like the trade unionists work-to-rule. Because the Guidance and Guidelines both say that the LA should ask for info and address the situation informally before issuing formal notice. Anyway, I put this up on my ed phil page which I hope makes my position clearer? edyourself.org/articles/edphilgeneral.php#intro"When a local authority first becomes aware that a child is out of school, guidance recommends that the authority contact the parent and ask for information about the education being provided for the child. It is debatable whether the family should respond to this initial request by "sending an ed phil and report" as is sometimes advised. It has been said that sending an educational philosophy will define the parents' belief system by which any efficient education must be judged. However, at the outset, the authority should not be "judging" the provision at all. Some parents may opt to send a comprehensive erudite philosophy and report with the aim of forestalling/pre-empting any further questions, but this goes much much further than the law requires and may inadvertently give the misleading impression that a full-blown educational philosophy is a minimum requirement, which is certainly not the case." The hyperlink on the web page is from Mike Fortune Wood who does seem to me to be moving straight on to the evidence stage, but this was written a while back so maybe he's seen the light now as well! Or else maybe I'm misreading it. www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-ed-phils.pdf
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 19, 2011 8:04:21 GMT 1
Thanks again Fiona.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 20, 2011 10:32:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 20, 2011 11:57:59 GMT 1
Just wondering what you think about this part "Should parents fail to respond to the EHE support worker/officer or to provide information regarding educational provision after two letters and attempts to make contact the EHE team will refer the case to the CME officer for consideration of further action through a CME1. The parents will be informed by the EHE Business Support Officer of any such referral in writing."
surely it should stay with the EHEteam for them to consider whether such lack of response causes it to appear to them that an education is not being provided and as such whether to issue a notice to satisfy under 437? surely this is part of the process of the ehe guidelines which moves towards an SAO as a final step and not a matter for CME.
Jo
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 20, 2011 12:47:37 GMT 1
Also, although I don't think an ed phil is a minimum requirement, neither do I think that it is evidence. It is info about the style/philosophy/method of education you are choosing to use to deliver the education for your child but it is not evidence that you are doing it. So supplying it does not immediately put you in the evidence stage of the 2 stage process. I am not saying it should be supplied just that it is not evidence but information.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 20, 2011 16:56:26 GMT 1
Hi Jo
I don't think the whole "refer to CME" thing is OK!
It comes across as "Just do this like I say or I'll tell yer dad".
We are simultaneously being asked to accept that it's just a technical admin decision to put home ed into the CME department, but at the first whiff of home educators not being 100% approved by home ed team (and therefore being "allowed to be on the EHE database") it is being proposed that the case will be lobbed straight over to CME.
I can only think of 2 possible explanations, neither of which are very cheering.
The first is that the home ed support officer is in fact the junior partner (employed on the cheap) who is just required to tick a set of boxes on a list. First box which can't be ticked, send it higher up to CME.
The second possible explanation is that home ed and CME are really all the same thing, but "home ed" is good cop and "CME" is bad cop, hence "just give the home ed officer what they ask for because then it will stay nice and nobody wants it to go to CME do they."
|
|
|
Post by archelaus on Oct 20, 2011 17:05:05 GMT 1
One question you ask is about registration cards. For several years Lancashire has sent cards to known HE families that can be shown to truancy patrols. They include the child's name, date of birth, an EHE officers name and an LA phone number. Personally I don't want my child showing something with their full name and dob on to a stranger. Also, the LA details are now wrong but replacement cards haven't been sent out. LA officers believe children/families stopped by truancy patrols must give their details even though the police involved know that's not the case. This raises questions about the truancy training/briefing given to officers. The officers involved in patrols must be aware of the law re EHE and so there should be no need for the cards.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 20, 2011 17:25:57 GMT 1
Re "ed phil", it means different things to different people. The first bit is the belief statement, but the other parts are evidential, I would say. edyourself.org/articles/edphilgeneral.php#3elem ie list of resources and examples of how it works in practice. I put this together (+ the EO web page on ed phils which I now can't find on the new site) after everything people told me about Ian's talks at Hesfes.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 20, 2011 17:49:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 20, 2011 18:58:52 GMT 1
Re "ed phil", it means different things to different people. The first bit is the belief statement, but the other parts are evidential, I would say. edyourself.org/articles/edphilgeneral.php#3elem ie list of resources and examples of how it works in practice. I put this together (+ the EO web page on ed phils which I now can't find on the new site) after everything people told me about Ian's talks at Hesfes. I guess it does mean different things to different people and I guess I wouldn't have seen a list of resources and brief examples of how it works in practice as proof or evidence. However I am not suggesting that they are or should be required. Just trying to get my head round the semantics. I think your scenarios about the good cop bad cop may well be spot on as it does seem that the overall "team" decide between them who they think is really ehe-ing before they even make initial enquiries - even if the family have clearly deregged and stated ehe. If they believe the family may not really want to ehe then the CME officer goes on the visit too. Thus they are not in reality just sorting into categories based on info provided but making judgements even when EHE is stated and before they make enquiries. Jo
|
|