Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 2
3.4 Furthermore Article 28 of the UNCRC recognises the right of the child to an education. Education is compulsory in England and it can be provided at school “or otherwise”. The responsibility for the provision of a child’s education rests with their parents who also have a duty to ensure that any education provided is “efficient”, “full time” and ”suitable”.
Someone has just emailed to remind me that, while educational provision is compulsory, its uptake by the child is not. I seem to remember this being part of Summerhill's defence when threatened with closure by the government about ten years ago, though I'd need to do some research to find the details about that and they might no longer apply anyway.
Point 3.6 makes inappropriate use of the term 'required to intervene', which doesn't even fit grammatically with the ensuing quote:
3.6 This poses a further problem for local authorities charged with a statutory duty under section 437 (1) Education Act 1996 in that they are required to intervene:“If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education”. [citing Mr Justice Woolf in the case of R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust (12 April 1985)]
But this is not wholly incompatible with Donaldson's informal inquiries and does not signify the 'requirement to intervene' in cases where there is no appearance of lack of suitable provision. It seems to me that by use of the term 'required to intervene', Mr Badman is attempting to attribute a different meaning to Woolf's words to the one that was originally intended.
He goes on, in point 3.6, to say:
Additionally local authorities have a duty which requires them to:….. make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children in their area who are of compulsory school age but—
(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and
(b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. [citing Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 inserted by section 4(1) Education and Inspections Act 2006]
'So far as it is possible to do so' being, I think, the key phrase, (ignored by Mr Badman).
As a result of this confusion, in point 3.7 he raises the strange and convoluted question:
How can local authorities know what they don’t know with no means of determining the number of children who are being electively home educated in their area, or the quality of what is provided, without rights of access to the child?
- which raises more issues - mostly unnecessary - than any reasonable question should:
- How can local authorities know what they don’t know? - They can't, and section 436A of the Education Act doesn't require them to. (Remember: 'So far as it is possible to do so')
- They have means of determining the number of children - wasn't that what Contactpoint was supposed to be all about?
- Local authorities are still, to date, not expected to assess the quality of provision, only to take action if it appears to be unsuitable or inefficient, and
- Accessing the child is no gauge of quality of the provision. It doesn't tell them anything, except that there is a child and that he is or is not willing to speak and/or demonstrate some small part of his learning on that occasion. Insistence on 'access to the child' (by which we must assume is meant some form of questioning or testing of the child) to verify educational provision can only be based on an intrinsic failure to trust parents to supply accurate information when asked. In other words: parents are assumed to be automatically guilty of lying unless and until they can be 'proved' innocent.
I'll continue this series with my next post.