|
Post by archelaus on Oct 21, 2011 19:33:05 GMT 1
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. Fiona, Have a look at: lancashire-he.dsa-lancashire.org.uk/docs/audit/ELE%20File%201%20Part%203.PDF, pages 85 & 99 It's the flow charts used by the EHE team which confirm that any queries are referred to CME. The charts imply 2 failed attempts to arrange a visit whereas the protocols say 2 failed visits - which do LA officers follow ? Answering self - as the LA counts answerphone messages saying 'I'm coming the day after tomorrow' as an arranged visit then there isn't really any difference is there ?
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 21, 2011 21:01:58 GMT 1
Right, I just had a look at those flowcharts dated July 2010. The charts say "contacts new case and arranges initial visit by phone (if number known) or letter" followed by ""contact unsuccessful make second attempt" and then "contact unsuccessful refer to CME".
I agree this isn't at all clear. I would read it as "made 2 phone calls and sent 2 letters. After unspecified time [ when maybe family on holiday/changed mobile number?] no response from family, give up and refer to CME".
Also, referring to CME is a closed box! There are no arrows OUT of that box.
Presumably this is the CURRENT flowchart because Lancs hasn't changed its policy yet?
The Council could say "this is just the old flowchart, if the new policy is adopted we will bring the flowchart into line"
(And the Council didn't provide the flowchart as part of the consultation documentation, you only have it because of the Freedom of Information request?)
So any consultation response maybe could say something on the lines of "We are not clear what is meant by referring a family to CME if there are 2 failed visits.
1/ How much time will the Council wait for a response from the family ? 2/ Does the council request that the family get in touch to arrange a mutually convenient time for a visit or does the Council simply notify the family of the date of the proposed visit and 3/ What will happen when the family is referred to CME?
Does that cover it?
|
|
|
Post by archelaus on Oct 21, 2011 21:02:21 GMT 1
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 21, 2011 21:48:53 GMT 1
OK I've now looked at the flowcharts in 4.PDF. And yes, all the way through the Council is saying that if the parent doesn't jump through all the hoops, then the family is referred to CME. But what nails it for me is this statement from the audit - also in 4.PDF about a third of the way through which I had seen before but forgotten - where it sums up the situation accurately by saying that the Council has opted to undertake assessments of the home education, but that DCSF guidelines say the LA shall intervene if it appears parents are not providing suitable education, in which case the parents are required to satisfy the Council in writing that the child is receiving such education within 15 days of the notice being served. [ie a formal notice under s.437 Education Act 1996 edyourself.org/articles/sao.php#s437 ] The audit goes on to say CORRECTLY that "this suggests that the Council merely needs a written confirmation rather than having to undertake a formal assessment."
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 27, 2011 7:40:53 GMT 1
I just added some more about CME here edyourself.org/articles/lancsconsult.php#summarykeyissuesThe Council puts an extraordinary and entirely unwarranted construction on paragraph 21 of the Children Missing Education Guidance when it claims that it is obliged to impose regular routine and intrusive monitoring and assessment of ALL home educating families against specific Government Guidelines to the contrary because - and I am not making this up - "the purpose of the duty is to make sure that children not receiving, or at risk of not receiving, a suitable education are identified quickly, and effective tracking systems and support arrangements are put in place." In this context, it is worth considering paragraph 31 of the CME Guidance which has a long list of children who may be considered at risk of missing education. There is no evidence that the Council has an effective strategy for dealing with these priority cases which are ranked as far more urgent and pressing by the Government and therefore the intrusion into home educating families' lives is neither just nor proportionate. edyourself.org/articles/CMEguidance09.doc
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 27, 2011 9:25:14 GMT 1
Thanks Fiona, What is important here is that CME may well direct them to make enquiries of home edding families but it directs them to do that by following the national EHE guidleines which clearly state that there is no legal basis for routine monitoring of home education. If an informal enquiry of home educating parents as per the guidelines (and not routinely repeated on an annual basis) was not sufficient for them to discharge their duties under statutory CME Guidance, then the Guidance would have made other provisions for this such as directing them to make annual enquires. It doesn't and thus this is a really intrusve and legally unjustifiable stance. Of course the LA has powers to enquire again if something new and of clear concern comes to their attention but it is clear that routine monitoring has no legal justification on the basis of Statutory CME guidance.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 27, 2011 20:56:29 GMT 1
I'm really struggling to see how ANYONE who had read the 2009 CME Guidance could come away saying "we are clearly being told to impose routine monitoring and assessment of all home educating families to decide whether or not to keep them on the database for another year or whether to refer them to CME". The only way I can imagine someone might do this is if they read it at the same time as the Badman Review was launched with all its registration and monitoring etc (they did come out on the very same day in 2009) and sort of somehow conflated what was in CME with what was in Badman, adding words and ideas to the CME guidance which aren't actually there.
As you say Jo, what the CME Guidance actually does is to say "follow the EHE Guidelines."
It reminds me of my local authority in the bad old days where they were stopping families on truancy sweeps and insisting on names and addresses. We got a meeting with the police and the Inclusion Service managers and asked them why they did it. They made the mistake of saying it was the law. We asked them which law. There was a long pause and then one of the policemen said doubtfully that it was perhaps the Children's Act. We asked which one. He said errr the new one. I leaned forward eagerly and peered over my specs saying that the Children Act 2004 was my favourite bedtime reading and did he mind my asking which section he thought told him what to do on truancy sweeps.
Anyway, they changed the procedure after that.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Oct 27, 2011 21:19:20 GMT 1
It reminds me of my local authority in the bad old days where they were stopping families on truancy sweeps and insisting on names and addresses. Sounds familiar. Me & Elizabeth were told by an LA manager that families must give the police their details if stopped by a truancy patrol. When I checked how the police view it they said: 'All children stopped on a truancy sweep would be asked for their details to ensure that relevant checks are made'I then asked what happens if they refuse and was told: 'Practically speaking very few children refuse to give their details to police officers on such operations. If this situation arose officers could not force the issue with the young person unless they suspected them of committing other criminal offences.'So similar tactics to the LA and annual monitoring, 'we'll try and insist you comply but if you don't there's nothing we can do'. I've just had a look at the 2008 draft CME guidance (as it's on the LA's site) but there isn't even anything in there which could be interpreted they way they have. It just shows it isn't a mistake, the LA is deliberately trying to claim duties we all know they haven't got - something they were criticised for during the audit process.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 28, 2011 10:00:58 GMT 1
Lancs is wrong about the law on CME and home education. The Council takes the questionable position that if Lancs is doing something, there must be a good reason. So they rustle about trying to find a Government directive which they can then claim to be following. But the simple fact is that there is no such directive.
Once this has been pointed out in everyone's consultation responses (having already been pointed out in the audit of procedures) then the Council really can't maintain the position that they are only doing it because the law says they should. They will have to go to bat on the position that they are doing it BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.
Councils aren't meant to be going above and beyond what the law requires because it's a waste of resources. The coalition Government (esp the Department of Communities and Local Government) calls this "gold-plating".
I am guessing the figures go something like this: the Council has around 500 home educated children on its books; approx 2/3 have been home educated for over a year; therefore the Council will be conducting unnecessary assessments on 300+ children and laying itself open to additional costs re admin and enforcement in a substantial number of cases. Unless it's just empty threats? (Which would sit oddly with its expressed wish to form a positive working relationship with the home ed community)
ps I'm not saying that formal assessments of NEW home ed children should happen EITHER!
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 28, 2011 11:44:50 GMT 1
So we have had thoughts on this goldplating idea before. at least I am assuming its the same idea - we didn't have the name goldplating for it then. But its basically the idea that people want to be seen to be doing their jobs well and so they go "THE EXTRA MILE" however in this case goldplating is an unwarranted, unwanted and unneeded intrusion into family life that has no legal basis and yet they are producing a document that states (incorrectly) they have a legal basis by citing CME stuff. So this is beyond being just goldplating in the sense of wasting money. ie in some situations, different to our ehe situation, goldplating may well be welcomed by the community it affects - such as say free swimming for over 65s etc. In our case it wastes money and is intrusive and not legally required yet they are trying to make people believe it is a legal requirement. in the audit it says they only fully assess secondary school pupil data to work out who may be CME and they cannot do that for primary school data due to lack of staffing resources. yet here they are monitoring 300 children a year when they have no remit to. Jo
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Nov 8, 2011 9:55:16 GMT 1
Re the Procedures section of Lancs policy I've just added the following to my draft consultation response edyourself.org/articles/lancs.php"The Council proposes to send the home educating parent a form with a list of questions. Parents are expected to prepare a set of answers for discussion with the Council representative who will visit their home. If the Council representative is "satisfied" with the parents' answers, then the child's name is allowed to be entered on the home education database for the year. Lancashire allows that parents do not have to agree to a meeting with the Council but this is presented as a major concession, whereas the audit of home education procedures revealed that the system of home visits is simply not sustainable in terms of staffing or costs. Nevertheless, parents who are not happy about a home visit from the Council have to negotiate and gain the Council's approval for any alternative method. "Where the parent indicates they would prefer to provide information relating to educational provision otherwise than through a home visit, discussions will take place to agree the timescale and method by which such information will be provided to the LA." After a year parents will be required to demonstrate - to the satisfaction of the Council - that they are still providing a suitable education. If parents have successfully negotiated a no-home-visit agreement, they will be asked to "provide a written report on progress" by a specified date."
|
|