I am stealing this post directly from the HE forums. If you or anyone you know have experienced this problem - which is actually very serious - people are being forced into debt and poverty through no fault of their own, but through the HMRC's failings, please do comment on the thread on the forums.
"Has anyone been denied child tax credits for young people 16+ remaining in full time home-based education?
We are hearing some alarming stories of families receiving demands for alleged over payments, despite having clearly indicated their child(ren)'s continuing home educated status on renewal applications.
The eligibility criteria should not exclude home educated children over 16, who are by definition still in full time education, but the child tax credit office is either unable or unwilling to provide a detailed explanation for the exclusion policy they are evidently now implementing to the detriment of home educating families.
If the regulations have been changed to allow such discrimination, HE families are being penalised retrospectively for errors on the part of CTC staff.
Hopefully this is something that Graham Stuart may be able to raise with the Minister as a matter of urgency, but anyone who has been affected by this issue might want to ask their local MP to investigate the matter on their behalf.
Clarity and consistency from public servants should surely not be too much to expect."
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Guidelines Shenanigans - Chickens Coming Home to Roost
Finally the *draft guidelines* have been made public. They were *leaked* some time ago, but it seems that this time the *leak* has been more of a mains water burst than a teeny trickle. By accident or design we can only guess.
I've nothing new to say about them, preferring to treat them with the disdain that they and their author deserve, and anyway, Lisa has said all that needs to be said already, IMO.
Good to see that there are people out there who have the measure of those involved, and aren't afraid to (finally) come out and explain how the farcical process worked, to the rest of us.
Few things in life are certain, but you can be pretty damned sure that the truth will always out, and that chickens will eventually come home to roost. About bloody time.
I've nothing new to say about them, preferring to treat them with the disdain that they and their author deserve, and anyway, Lisa has said all that needs to be said already, IMO.
Good to see that there are people out there who have the measure of those involved, and aren't afraid to (finally) come out and explain how the farcical process worked, to the rest of us.
Few things in life are certain, but you can be pretty damned sure that the truth will always out, and that chickens will eventually come home to roost. About bloody time.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Batting From The Other Side
Great to read Graham Stuart's speech in the house of commons earlier today; I was worried that a rush of power to the head had changed Graham Stuart's support and understanding of HE, but credit where credit is due, he listened, took note, researched and admitted he'd got it wrong - a rare thing indeed in a politician.
Very interesting to read the comments of old adversaries such as Barry Sheerman too.
Also good to see Local Authorities illegal interpretation of HE shown up and recorded in Hansard.
Starts at the bottom of column 1216 here
Very interesting to read the comments of old adversaries such as Barry Sheerman too.
Also good to see Local Authorities illegal interpretation of HE shown up and recorded in Hansard.
Starts at the bottom of column 1216 here
Saturday, 19 March 2011
The State We Are In
This blog post says it all, this should not be happening in this country. Please read, and share far and wide. We owe John Hemming, and all those who dare to speak out about this, our support.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
CME Postcard
I decided that it might be useful if there was a simple postcard that people who support the call for changes to CME legislation could send to their MPs etc.
My daughter did the drawings, we know that they are terribly stereotyped, this was done deliberately to make the point very clearly in the easiest way possible. We do not believe that home educated children all sit studiously at desks all day long in the same way that we don't believe all truants are yobbish, chain smoking graffiti artists.
If you want to read more about this issue then please look at the following two links both of which are included on the postcard:
AHEd letter to Michael Gove
Mieke's blog about how CME is changing relations between the LA and HEers in Cumbria.
You might also like to look at these threads on the Home Education Forums which details further examples of CME being directed at Home Educators.
And at Gill's blog detailing why CME needs changing before we have any new guidelines.
If you click on the highlighted named links you will be able to download a copy of the front and back of the postcard to print off on an A6 sized piece of card. There is a lot of info to try to squeeze into a small space, but it does all print out ok - well, it did for me!
If you don't already know who your MP is you can find out who they are and where to write to them here.
CME Postcard Front
Back of CME Post Card (1)
My daughter did the drawings, we know that they are terribly stereotyped, this was done deliberately to make the point very clearly in the easiest way possible. We do not believe that home educated children all sit studiously at desks all day long in the same way that we don't believe all truants are yobbish, chain smoking graffiti artists.
If you want to read more about this issue then please look at the following two links both of which are included on the postcard:
AHEd letter to Michael Gove
Mieke's blog about how CME is changing relations between the LA and HEers in Cumbria.
You might also like to look at these threads on the Home Education Forums which details further examples of CME being directed at Home Educators.
And at Gill's blog detailing why CME needs changing before we have any new guidelines.
If you click on the highlighted named links you will be able to download a copy of the front and back of the postcard to print off on an A6 sized piece of card. There is a lot of info to try to squeeze into a small space, but it does all print out ok - well, it did for me!
If you don't already know who your MP is you can find out who they are and where to write to them here.
CME Postcard Front
Back of CME Post Card (1)
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Conspiracy of Silence
It's now been over a month since the HE grapevine first started kicking off about the rumour that new guidelines were being written.
A month of people wondering, questioning, worrying and debating potential issues.
A month in which the known author of the guidelines could have responded to people's questions. A month in which she could have put people's minds at rest. It is surely what any decent person would do?
Instead we have had nothing. Zilch. Nada. Oh we've had the mutterings of a few self appointed fire fighters, who for their part seem only to have fanned the flames and attempted to stifle reasoned debate. From the Queen Bee though, nothing. She is, it would appear, above reproach.
There are people who could shed some light on the goings on, but we seem to be firmly in the midst of a conspiracy of silence. Whilst this may sound dramatic, I think that anyone who has been drawn into this episode would find it hard to disagree that elements of these effects are evident within parts of the HE *Community*.
Those who are directly suffering, or causing others to suffer, perpetuate their cycle of harm and suffering
Those who have suffered have their suffering extended by having their condition ignored or minimized, and are not considered seriously or redressed appropriately
Lessons that might be learned for future are not learned
Apparently the reason no one will speak out is because they are too frightened to *stick their heads above the parapet*. If those involved had the courage of their convictions then they would not seek to hide behind what they must perceive to be the safety of anonymity, they would be willing to defend their actions. That they are not suggests that self interest is at the heart of the whole sorry mess. We can only wonder at the possible motives involved, but top of the list would surely have to be financial gain. Maybe not immediately, that would be too obvious, but perhaps there is a longer term game plan afoot here?
Words like slander, libel and defamation are flying around the ether; friendships are being torn apart; suspicion is rife. Ed Balls's government couldn't have done a better job of creating such a rift. Meanwhile, silence.
Words couldn't express it better than this photo:
A month of people wondering, questioning, worrying and debating potential issues.
A month in which the known author of the guidelines could have responded to people's questions. A month in which she could have put people's minds at rest. It is surely what any decent person would do?
Instead we have had nothing. Zilch. Nada. Oh we've had the mutterings of a few self appointed fire fighters, who for their part seem only to have fanned the flames and attempted to stifle reasoned debate. From the Queen Bee though, nothing. She is, it would appear, above reproach.
There are people who could shed some light on the goings on, but we seem to be firmly in the midst of a conspiracy of silence. Whilst this may sound dramatic, I think that anyone who has been drawn into this episode would find it hard to disagree that elements of these effects are evident within parts of the HE *Community*.
Those who are directly suffering, or causing others to suffer, perpetuate their cycle of harm and suffering
Those who have suffered have their suffering extended by having their condition ignored or minimized, and are not considered seriously or redressed appropriately
Lessons that might be learned for future are not learned
Apparently the reason no one will speak out is because they are too frightened to *stick their heads above the parapet*. If those involved had the courage of their convictions then they would not seek to hide behind what they must perceive to be the safety of anonymity, they would be willing to defend their actions. That they are not suggests that self interest is at the heart of the whole sorry mess. We can only wonder at the possible motives involved, but top of the list would surely have to be financial gain. Maybe not immediately, that would be too obvious, but perhaps there is a longer term game plan afoot here?
Words like slander, libel and defamation are flying around the ether; friendships are being torn apart; suspicion is rife. Ed Balls's government couldn't have done a better job of creating such a rift. Meanwhile, silence.
Words couldn't express it better than this photo:
I would ask that the person responsible stand up and own her actions, but I know all too well that I would be ignored. Reprehensible doesn't begin to cover it.
Of course this post is probably just another example of me *Doing a Tech*.
Of course this post is probably just another example of me *Doing a Tech*.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
What's In A Word?
Guidance Guidelines what's the difference?
Guidance is statutory that is it is prescribed or authorized by statute. The CME (Children Missing Education) guidance is statutory because there is a clause in the original act which directs the relevant authority to take note of the contents of any guidance issued. It would appear that this is a neat way of altering the law without having to keep changing the primary legislation.
Guidelines are not statutory, and are basically just advice as to how to carry out particular duties.
GuidANCE trumps guideLINES.
As I understand it, HE cannot have statutory guidance because there is nothing in statute which refers an authority to any guidance. So to have statutory HE guidance we would need a change to the primary legislation.
It seems to me that this would not be a good thing, as each new guidance issued alters the legal situation - if I have misunderstood this PLEASE tell me, and explain to me how.
We have a situation where the 2007 HE Guidelines specifically state "The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home." This was in relation to CME and pointed to the 2007 guidance on CME.
3.3.16. If it becomes known that a child identified as not receiving education is being home educated, this should be recorded on the local authority's database and no further action should be taken unless there is cause for concern about the child's safety and welfare. Monitoring arrangements already exist for children being educated at home. Where there are concerns about the child's safety and welfare, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures must be followed.
However, the guidance was updated and so now it is the 2009 guidance which is the one that must be adhered to, and this is where the problems arise.
2009 CME guidance gives over a whole section to Home Education I would like to draw attention to this particular section:
92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.
So in one fell swoop we have gone from a case of - "record the fact that the child is home educated and that's all you need to do", to "make inquiries".
It would seem from looking at the websites of various local authorities that they have interpreted this new duty by immediately referring HEers to the CME department. North Yorkshire for instance was certainly a week or two ago advising headteachers not to deregister a child 'on demand' but to instead pass the details onto the CME team.
"2.1 Regarding the Headteacher's duty to inform the LA before deleting pupil who is to be home educated from the register. In such cases please inform: Julie Fenny, CME coordinator"
Unless I have misunderstood the law regarding deregistration, the headteacher is supposed to remove the child from the register immediately the deregistration letter has been received, and then notify the LA, not vice versa.
If we look at what is happening in Bedfordshire, it's an even worse scenario:
"When parents withdraw their child from school to EHE, the child’s name can only
be deleted from the admissions register when the parents inform the school in
writing (section 8 (d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006)
giving reasons for decisions. The Head Teacher/Governor has to inform the LA of
withdrawal together with reasons before the child’s name is deleted."
Compare that with the actual law:
"It is then the duty of the proprietor of the school to inform the LA within 10 working days under Regulation 13 (3): “when the name of a pupil has been deleted from the admission register in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c) the proprietor shall make a return to the local education authority giving the full name and address of that pupil within the ten school days immediately following the date on which the pupil's name was so deleted”.
Arse about face isn't it? (You can see the full details here)
More and more cases are turning up where HEers are being *found out* having come into contact with local authority services. It would seem to be the case that everyone with a connection to children's services has a duty to inform the CME department about any HE children they come across in the course of their work. Previously, as far as I understand it, the librarian, school nurse, health visitor, hospital, gp etc etc could choose to *shop* you if they felt that way inclined, but equally could choose to do nothing and let you go on your merry way with no further hassle. It would seem that the CME guidance has changed all that, so unless you are able to avoid all public services you stand a very good chance of becoming known. If all LAs follow N Yorks lead and report straight to CME officers before deregistering a child, and it seems unlikely that N Yorks are acting as a maverick authority, then we effectively have non voluntary registration.
Whilst the 2007 EHE Guidelines are not statutory, they do stand as a clear reminder that HE was not to be conflated with CME. If we put in place new, updated guidelines, will that particular element be removed? If it is, are we left with not a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the CME guidance, which is what I believe we need to do before we even think about putting new guidelines in place.
Thanks to Gill for laying this out on this blog piece, and to Elaine for digging out the dodgy LA practices.
ETA: thinking about it further, would it even be possible to refer to outdated guidance in new guidelines? I would imagine not, so it would seem that that particular section will have to go.
Another addition: I have had a message passed to me via a third party from Alison Sauer:
"You might, if you are brave enough, like to suggest to Tech that she revisits her blog post and quotes the correct law........which sadly means that all these policies are actually technically correct. I'd really hate her to look daft. And this is not a sarcastic comment, it's genuine otherwise I would be on there correcting her.
Tech is quoting 1995 regs not 2006 ones. And the guidance accompanying it is poisonous and confusing. It tells schools to notify LAs ASAP and if the dereg is with immediate effect to delay dereg for 2 days.
I went ballistic when they changed it but it had no effect........
Alison Sauer"
Which is interesting as the section I quoted came Derbyshire Council's website screenshot linked to above and here too.
Elaine has posted this rather clear graphic dated 01/09/08, along with some other interesting information on the forums
Guidance is statutory that is it is prescribed or authorized by statute. The CME (Children Missing Education) guidance is statutory because there is a clause in the original act which directs the relevant authority to take note of the contents of any guidance issued. It would appear that this is a neat way of altering the law without having to keep changing the primary legislation.
Guidelines are not statutory, and are basically just advice as to how to carry out particular duties.
GuidANCE trumps guideLINES.
As I understand it, HE cannot have statutory guidance because there is nothing in statute which refers an authority to any guidance. So to have statutory HE guidance we would need a change to the primary legislation.
It seems to me that this would not be a good thing, as each new guidance issued alters the legal situation - if I have misunderstood this PLEASE tell me, and explain to me how.
We have a situation where the 2007 HE Guidelines specifically state "The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home." This was in relation to CME and pointed to the 2007 guidance on CME.
3.3.16. If it becomes known that a child identified as not receiving education is being home educated, this should be recorded on the local authority's database and no further action should be taken unless there is cause for concern about the child's safety and welfare. Monitoring arrangements already exist for children being educated at home. Where there are concerns about the child's safety and welfare, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures must be followed.
However, the guidance was updated and so now it is the 2009 guidance which is the one that must be adhered to, and this is where the problems arise.
2009 CME guidance gives over a whole section to Home Education I would like to draw attention to this particular section:
92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.
So in one fell swoop we have gone from a case of - "record the fact that the child is home educated and that's all you need to do", to "make inquiries".
It would seem from looking at the websites of various local authorities that they have interpreted this new duty by immediately referring HEers to the CME department. North Yorkshire for instance was certainly a week or two ago advising headteachers not to deregister a child 'on demand' but to instead pass the details onto the CME team.
"2.1 Regarding the Headteacher's duty to inform the LA before deleting pupil who is to be home educated from the register. In such cases please inform: Julie Fenny, CME coordinator"
Unless I have misunderstood the law regarding deregistration, the headteacher is supposed to remove the child from the register immediately the deregistration letter has been received, and then notify the LA, not vice versa.
If we look at what is happening in Bedfordshire, it's an even worse scenario:
"When parents withdraw their child from school to EHE, the child’s name can only
be deleted from the admissions register when the parents inform the school in
writing (section 8 (d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006)
giving reasons for decisions. The Head Teacher/Governor has to inform the LA of
withdrawal together with reasons before the child’s name is deleted."
Compare that with the actual law:
"It is then the duty of the proprietor of the school to inform the LA within 10 working days under Regulation 13 (3): “when the name of a pupil has been deleted from the admission register in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c) the proprietor shall make a return to the local education authority giving the full name and address of that pupil within the ten school days immediately following the date on which the pupil's name was so deleted”.
Arse about face isn't it? (You can see the full details here)
More and more cases are turning up where HEers are being *found out* having come into contact with local authority services. It would seem to be the case that everyone with a connection to children's services has a duty to inform the CME department about any HE children they come across in the course of their work. Previously, as far as I understand it, the librarian, school nurse, health visitor, hospital, gp etc etc could choose to *shop* you if they felt that way inclined, but equally could choose to do nothing and let you go on your merry way with no further hassle. It would seem that the CME guidance has changed all that, so unless you are able to avoid all public services you stand a very good chance of becoming known. If all LAs follow N Yorks lead and report straight to CME officers before deregistering a child, and it seems unlikely that N Yorks are acting as a maverick authority, then we effectively have non voluntary registration.
Whilst the 2007 EHE Guidelines are not statutory, they do stand as a clear reminder that HE was not to be conflated with CME. If we put in place new, updated guidelines, will that particular element be removed? If it is, are we left with not a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the CME guidance, which is what I believe we need to do before we even think about putting new guidelines in place.
Thanks to Gill for laying this out on this blog piece, and to Elaine for digging out the dodgy LA practices.
ETA: thinking about it further, would it even be possible to refer to outdated guidance in new guidelines? I would imagine not, so it would seem that that particular section will have to go.
Another addition: I have had a message passed to me via a third party from Alison Sauer:
"You might, if you are brave enough, like to suggest to Tech that she revisits her blog post and quotes the correct law........which sadly means that all these policies are actually technically correct. I'd really hate her to look daft. And this is not a sarcastic comment, it's genuine otherwise I would be on there correcting her.
Tech is quoting 1995 regs not 2006 ones. And the guidance accompanying it is poisonous and confusing. It tells schools to notify LAs ASAP and if the dereg is with immediate effect to delay dereg for 2 days.
I went ballistic when they changed it but it had no effect........
Alison Sauer"
Which is interesting as the section I quoted came Derbyshire Council's website screenshot linked to above and here too.
Elaine has posted this rather clear graphic dated 01/09/08, along with some other interesting information on the forums
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)
