The next bit, written on the feast of St Charles Borromeo, a man who understood education properly.
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.]
6b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
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anyway] but the issue of monitoring is peculiarly sensitive and it is impossible to give blanket approval before seeing draft guidance.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.]
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].