Fisking Oona Stannards Home Education Review Response Pt 2

The next bit, written on the feast of St Charles Borromeo, a man who understood education properly.

4. Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?Agree. [She agrees that parents should have to be licenced by the state to excercise their rights and duty in the education of their children. Then I notice at the foot of the page it says “EB on behalf of Oona Stannard” so who is the anonymous EB then?]
5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
Not sure. Failing to register or giving false information should be offences [so parents should face prosecution for refusing to allow their children to be owned by the state; for refusing to be licenced. This is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Parents, not the state have the responsibility and may delegate to schools if they wish. Perhaps Ms Stannard could take a day off to read a Catechism], provided LAs advertise the duty effectively.[This makes me think Ms Stannard is well aware of the shortcomings of so many LAs. Why then does she not spend some time thinking it out instead of her usual ‘Govt must be right’ approach?} However, criminalising parents for inadequate statements of their approach to education, for example, would be harsh and probably unenforceable. How could it be proved that a statement was wilfully inadequate? So the grounds for considering that deficiencies merit criminalising the parents will need to be clarified rigorously and should only be invoked as a last resort.[All this is moot if parents weren’t being undermined and forced to register to gain a ‘licence to do what parents do’. She is already starting from the premise that family rights can be removed by the state and then finds the process a bit knotty.]
6a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?
Agree. We believe that it is very important that a track is kept of each and every child, how and wherever educated. [ This answer shows she didn’t understand the question. It also shows she does not understand what happens now when a child is de-registered from school. I think she should have found out before writing this guff. She also shows no knowledge or understanding of what state a child can be in when removed from school or the damage done by forcing them to stay on role as though they may be forced back. Stannard’s lack of basic knowledge here does actually shocks me. Is she actually saying that the school the child has been removed from should be tracking and assessing the education of that child? The school that has already failed the child? ]

6b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

 Agree. To be precise the word ‘probable’ needs to be added before ‘future attainment’. [The SCHOOL should do this! She agrees that the schools that have failed our children -my own son was 14 and functionally illiterate when I pulled him out and the kid bullying him that the school could do nothing about ended up stabbing someone and did time in a YOI-THOSE SCHOOLS should be deciding on our children’s “probable” future attainment. Catholic schools are there to support parents in the education of their children, not usurp it and certainly not take the rights of parents and children and sell out to the state].

7. Do you agree that the DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?Not sure; see 6a). In principle we agree in relation to registration, [in other words; in principle we agree with removing the rights of families and parents to educate their children despite Catholic teaching to the contrary-but we have no god but caesar anyway] but the issue of monitoring is peculiarly sensitive and it is impossible to give blanket approval before seeing draft guidance. The training of staff and quality of communications will be central to success here. [Okay, we all agree LA staff need a lot more training. Of course the money to pay for it is a question and who does the training another one and why we can’t leave the home ed community to get on with when countries like the USA do well without this much interference and where both Canada and New Zealand are dropping their unnecessary registration schemes because there hasn’t been a single case of abuse in- what was it? 20 years I think.]


8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding
concerns should not be home educated?
Agree. This is highly sensitive. It will be important to have complete clarity on
safeguarding matters and for these to be robustly upheld. Once again, the training
of staff will be paramount in ensuring that discretion is exercised wisely. [She agrees that children where there are safeguarding concerns should not be home educated but never thinks what those safeguarding concerns might be. Home education might be the very safest option for children who are facing bullying and violence in school. Home ed may even be a safer option for a child in a divorce where one parent may be abusive and violent and tends to turn up at the school gate. Those cases are no uncommon are they? Her blanket agreement because Big Govt says so is thoughtless and lacks any sensitivity at all]

9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks’ notice is given?

Not sure. We are uncertain about LAs in this role for reasons rehearsed above; might an Ofsted inspector not be better placed for this role? [ Not sure why Ofsted who inspect schools would be any better at inspecting parents, and there is no reason given in the response. It just seems to be that LAs don’t seem up to much, maybe Ofsted inspectors-equally ignorant of home education-would be better. I really don’t know what to make of this.]

The notice period seems generous.[why?] Perhaps two weeks is appropriate for the routine four weeks, six months and annual visits, [ I must have missed something. There are to be a four week visit and six months visit and then annual visits?? Does anyone know anything about this?]but it could be important to provide a right to visit at shorter notice in case of particular concerns. [Oh dear, ignorance of Catholic teaching and now ignorance of the law; If there are particular serious concerns then social services and indeed the police can simply turn up on the doorstep. The law has been around a long time].

More later.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s