For immediate release, 6 September 2010

Scottish Government upholds freedom of choice in education

Scotland’s national home education organisation Schoolhouse has welcomed the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to upholding freedom of choice in education in an unequivocal response to a series of parliamentary questions tabled by Lothians Green MSP Robin Harper. [1]

Commenting on written answers from the Scottish education secretary Michael Russell MSP, a Schoolhouse spokesperson said:

“Schoolhouse is grateful to Robin Harper for once again raising awareness of some of the issues faced by parents in Scotland who are, or may be contemplating, elective home education for their children.  Despite definitive statutory guidance having been in place for well over two years, too many parents are still being routinely misinformed by their local authorities.

“We welcome the  Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting choice in education, as enshrined in our primary legislation. We further welcome the education secretary’s reminder to local  authorities of their duty to adhere to the statutory guidance on home education which was issued following a comprehensive consultation exercise and clearly sets out the respective rights and responsibilities of parents and councils .”

Frustrated by the inconsistency of information on home education from councils across Scotland, Schoolhouse has allocated a dedicated page on its own website for each of the 32 local authorities in order to facilitate access to  local policies and contact details.  Despite using the Freedom of Information Act to request that councils supply details of policies, information for parents and named contacts for enquiries about elective home education, not  all replied and some were unable to produce the information requested.

The Schoolhouse spokesperson continued:

“The law is perfectly clear: parents have a duty to provide their children with a suitable education, either by sending them to a  council run school or ‘by other means’.

“Local authorities have a duty to provide school places for children whose parents choose to delegate their responsibility, and they are further required to ensure that the school education they provide is ‘directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential’, all the while taking account of each individual child’s views.

“Local authorities are accountable to parents on behalf of their children, not the other way around. It is therefore disappointing to note the ongoing reluctance of some public servants to provide parents with accurate information about the law relating to home education in Scotland, or even to direct them to the government’s guidance which makes it clear where the responsibility for children’s compulsory education lies.”

A review of elective home education in England, which was commissioned by the previous UK government in 2009, was shown to be deeply flawed and its controversial recommendations  were thrown out in their entirety by the UK parliament prior to the general election.  Schoolhouse recently criticised one MSP who cited statistics which have been discredited by professional analysts, and who falsely claimed that the law had recently changed in England.

ENDS

For further information, contact the Schoolhouse press officer on 0772 962 3532 or media@schoolhouse.org.uk.

NOTE FOR EDITORS:

(1)     Parliamentary Questions tabled by Robin Harper MSP and answered by Education Secretary Michael Russelll MSP:

S3W-35640 – Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green) (Date Lodged Friday, August 06, 2010): To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on elective home education.

Answered by Michael Russell (Wednesday, September 01, 2010): The Scottish Government considers home education to be a key aspect of parental choice in determining how their children are educated. We recognise the legitimacy of that choice and that home educating parents make that choice in the best interests of their children.

In our statutory guidance on home education, as well as setting out the legislative framework, we offer advice on the roles and responsibilities of local authorities and home educating parents and encourage home educators and authorities to work together to develop trust, mutual respect and a positive relationship.

S3W-35641 – Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green) (Date Lodged Friday, August 06, 2010): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to review the statutory guidance on home education that was issued in 2008.

Answered by Michael Russell (Wednesday, September 01, 2010): The guidance has been well received by both local authorities and home educating organisations. We routinely keep all such guidance under regular review to ensure that it is accurate and up to date. However, we have no plans to review or revise it in any significant way.

S3W-35642 – Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green) (Date Lodged Friday, August 06, 2010): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it will take to remind local authorities that they should have regard to the statutory guidance on home education when formulating local policies and procedures so that accurate information for parents and details of named contacts in relation to home education are included in council literature and easily accessible on council websites.

Answered by Michael Russell (Wednesday, September 01, 2010): Authorities should be well aware of this statutory guidance, section 5 of which focuses on the importance of good practice in terms of the provision of clear contact information. General reminders are perhaps less effective than more targeted ones in circumstances where it comes to our attention that practice may need to be improved. As a general principle we expect local authorities to be constructive, courteous and open when dealing with home educators as with all other individuals and groups.

_______________________________________________________________________________

For immediate release, 8 August 2010

Schoolhouse slams “grave robber” MSP over Riggi remarks

Scotland’s national home education organisation Schoolhouse has strongly condemned Labour MSP Duncan McNeil’s attack on home education in the wake of the tragic Riggi case, describing his comments in today’s Sunday Post as “insensitive, deplorable and tantamount to grave robbing.”

The charity will now consider making a formal complaint about his conduct via the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

A Schoolhouse spokesperson said: “We find it deeply disturbing that Duncan McNeil has seen fit to use the deaths of three innocent children in Edinburgh last week to peddle vile personal prejudice and score cheap political points at the expense of a minority community of law abiding citizens.

“The fact that the Riggi children were home educated is no more relevant than the fact that they were Americans, and McNeil’s hysterical remarks have caused deep distress and offence to Scotland’s home educating community who have just lost three young members in tragic circumstance.

“He has not only indulged in conduct unbecoming of an MSP, he cannot even get his facts straight. The law in England has not changed and the Badman recommendations were thrown out before the May election.

“Schoolhouse will be writing to McNeil’s office demanding an apology on behalf of our members and asking him to enlighten us as to how, exactly, draconian regulation of home education might have saved these poor children. In the absence of an apology and retraction, we will consider lodging a formal complaint with the Scottish Parliament over his disgraceful conduct .”

ENDS

For further information, contact the Schoolhouse press officer on 0772 962 3532 or media@schoolhouse.org.uk.

_______________________________________________________________________________

For immediate release, 8 April 2010

For immediate release, 2 March 2010

Undue pressure on parents to register under fives for schooling

Scotland’s national home education charity Schoolhouse is calling  on the Scottish Government to remind local authorities of the parameters of “compulsory education age” after receiving numerous reports from parents of three and four year olds who are coming under intense pressure to “register” their children for school or risk losing a nursery place for the year until their child reaches statutory school age.

Schoolhouse convener Sheila Struthers said: “A child does not reach compulsory education age in Scotland until the August after the child’s fifth birthday, but parents are increasingly being pressurised by schools and councils to send their children to school a full year earlier. Some report being harassed into completing registration forms or deferred placement ‘requests’ for a school place they do not intend to take up.

“Others have been told that nursery places will be withdrawn for children who do not start school the August before they attain compulsory education age. Since many parents feel their children would greatly benefit from an extra year outside formal schooling, they are faced with an unscheduled ‘gap’ year if they do not comply with local council demands and have been looking into home-based education as an alternative.

“We already send children to school two years earlier than other European countries, but the ‘outcomes’ of early formal schooling, as opposed to informal play based education, are far from encouraging. It is of course cheaper in the short term, but parents are not convinced it is always beneficial for their children’s individual learning needs.”

Schoolhouse is concerned that parents are being deliberately misled into believing that they are obliged to send their four year olds  to school and that council officials are  unable to cite any relevant legislation when challenged . Writing on the Schoolhouse website after raising her concerns directly with the government, one parent commented:  “According to the Scottish government I do not have to register my almost four year old to start school in August…or ever!”  Another reported: “I declined to fill in the forms and dislike being harassed.”

Sheila Struthers said: “Although many parents who contact Schoolhouse have no intention of  home educating on a full time  basis during the compulsory education years, Schoolhouse considers all parents to be their children’s primary educators and is committed to supporting them in that role. It is parents who are legally responsible for ensuring the suitable education of their children and who are best placed to decide when and if they will benefit from formal schooling.”

ENDS

For further information, contact the Schoolhouse press officer on 0772 962 3532 or media@schoolhouse.org.uk.

_______________________________________________________________________________

For immediate release, 2 August 2009

Scots charity enquiries “skyrocket” as English home educators head for the Highlands

- England’s loss will be Scotland’s gain, says Schoolhouse

Scotland’s national home education support organisation Schoolhouse has reported  a dramatic increase in enquiries from English home educating families who are preparing to move north of the border following publication of a DCSF-commissioned report on elective home education by Graham Badman.

While the summer holiday period is usually less busy for the charity, enquiries from England are said to have “skyrocketed” since the report was published in June and its controversial proposals were accepted in full by English Children’s Minister Ed Balls.

Schoolhouse spokesperson,  Alison Preuss, said:

“Our volunteers have been dealing with a growing number of enquiries from England since the home education review was first announced in January, but these have skyrocketed in recent weeks. The latter half of June saw a fourfold increase when compared with the same period last year. We are not only being asked about the law relating to home education in Scotland, but about the political climate, transport links, housing, employment and business opportunities by parents who are making plans to move to Scotland as the direct result of stigmatisation of home educators by the UK Government.

“These are parents who are not prepared to sacrifice their children’s right to a suitable education, nor abdicate their legal duty to provide it, on the altar of DCSF dogma. As law abiding citizens, they are outraged at the prospect of having their private family homes routinely invaded and their children interrogated alone by strangers, which is what the Badman report has proposed and Ed Balls has so enthusiastically welcomed.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has confirmed that it has no plans to undertake a similar review in Scotland since its own statutory guidance on home education, issued in 2008, has proved both helpful and workable. That guidance was informed by a comprehensive consultation exercise and included recommendations from the Scottish Consumer Council (now Consumer Focus Scotland) which had undertaken independent research into relationships between home educating families and local authorities.

Comparing the approaches of the Scottish and UK Governments,  Ms Preuss said:

“Schoolhouse is satisfied that the right balance has been struck with the Scottish guidance. We are disappointed that the DCSF made no effort to learn from the Scottish experience before labelling home educators in England as likely abusers and traumatising their children.  There is no evidence of a link between home education and child abuse, although some local authorities still seem desperate to discredit home education while doing precisely nothing to deal with bullying and abuse in their own schools.

“It  is time to drop the hysteria and accept that the vast majority of parents, whether schooling or home educating in England or Scotland, have their children’s best interests at heart. Local authorities on both sides of the border should surely be focusing their increasingly stretched resources on the protection of children who are at risk, rather than seeking to interfere in the lives of ordinary law abiding families who have simply chosen to reject their schools.”

An unprecedented backlash from home educators has resulted in the announcement of a select committee inquiry into the Badman review. The most contentious government claim, that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse and neglect, has meanwhile been demolished by AHEd, Schoolhouse’s counterpart south of the border, whose members collected child abuse statistics from every English local authority using the Freedom of Information Act. Analysis of the data effectively demonstrated that home educating parents are far less likely to abuse than schooling parents.

Ms Preuss said:

“It will be a sad day for English citizens if they are to be persecuted for choosing to care for and educate their own children in accordance with a long established legal right. If MPs do not reject these draconian proposals when they come before the UK Parliament, Schoolhouse anticipates an influx of home educating refugees from south of the border. England’s loss will be Scotland’s gain as we have plenty of room for well educated, motivated and enterprising people who place the same high value on freedom that we do.”

ENDS

For more information, please contact Alison Preuss on 0772 962 3532  or by email.

_______________________________________________________________________________

For immediate release, 1 June 2008

Every Single Parent Matters – Families fight back in the face of Government forced labour regime

Parents and children across the UK are being urged to ask their MPs and Children’s Commissioners if they will fight for families in the face of the UK Government’s proposed new Social Security regulations which are due to come before the UK Parliament before the summer recess.[1]

Under the new rules, lone parents who depend on Income Support while caring for their children will lose benefits unless they actively seek work as soon as their youngest child reaches 12 (from November 2008), with the age threshhold reducing to seven by 2010.

The Every Single Parent Matters? campaign [2] has been launched by Schoolhouse, Scotland’s national home education support organisation, and AHEd,its counterpart south of the border, in response to the draconian measures, which they have jointly condemned as a “forced labour regime for lone parents”.

The campaign will involve a postcard lobby of MPs and Children’s Commissioners throughout the UK by parents and young people who oppose the Government’s plans to impoverish lone parents whose first priority is caring for their children.

The launch has been timed to coincide with the short consultation [3], which ends on Friday 13th June, prior to the regulations being brought before Parliament.

Launching the campaign, AHEd Chair, Barbara Stark, said:

“These regulations will effectively transfer parents’ responsibility to decide what is best for their own children’s care on to Job Centre bureaucrats, who will simply follow the government mantra to ‘get lone parents into work’ regardless of family circumstances.

“Financial sanctions will be imposed on lone parents who fail to comply because they already have a full time unpaid job, and the loss of benefits will plunge already poor families below subsistence level. If parents are punished in this way, their children will pay dearly.”

Schoolhouse Convener, Alison Preuss, added:

“The UK Government has made it clear they see no value in parenting and would rather see mums and dads out flippping burgers on the minimum wage, topped up with tax credits, child care subsidies and housing benefits, than caring for their own children. This will of course cost the public purse far more than providing the safety net of Income Support for families, especially where children have special needs.

“Despite assurances from the Government that flexibility will be built in to the new system at local level, lone parents have reported that Job Centre Plus staff have already stated there will be no exceptions.”

While Social Security matters are reserved to the UK Government, campaigners argue that the new regulations will impact adversely on children and families and should therefore also be a matter of concern to the devolved administrations. MSPs and AMs will also be asked what they will do to support lone parent families.

AHEd and Schoolhouse will collate the responses from elected representatives and Children’s Commissioners and make these available on their websites, along with details of non respondents.

ENDS

For further information please contact:

Barbara Stark ahed@ahed.org.uk

Alison Preuss media@schoolhouse.org.uk or 0772 962 3532

NOTES FOR EDITORS

[1] See http://www.ssac.org.uk/pdf/draft_regs_140508.pdf

[2] For campaign information, see http://schoolhouse.org.uk/pc or http://www.ahed.org.uk/pc

[3] See http://www.ssac.org.uk/pdf/consultation_140508.pdf

_______________________________________________________________________________

For immediate release, Friday 9 May 2008

UK Government accused of impoversihing children through forced labour regime  for lone parents

Scotland’s national home education support organisation, Schoolhouse [1], and its counterpart south of the border, Action for Home Education (AHEd) [2], have jointly expressed deep dismay and disappointment at the UK Government’s decision to remove the safety net of Income Support (IS) from lone parents whose youngest child is aged 12 years from November 2008. The age threshhold will subsequently be reduced so that, by 2010, lone parents will be required to actively seek work when their youngest child reaches seven.

While the Government claims it will help “lift children out of poverty”, the move promises to cause extreme stress and hardship for many families, including those who home educate, those whose children have special needs or disabilities and those who have been abandoned by partners, as well as widowed parents and mothers fleeing domestic violence.

Despite warnings from individuals and organisations representing vulnerable families that children will be further impoverished as a result [3], the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has indicated that it will press on with draconian measures to force lone parents into work as soon as their children reach the designated age threshhold, regardless of individual circumstances.

Danny Alexander MP has tabled a Parliamentary Question [4] seeking Government reassurances in relation to specific vulnerable groups who will be thrown into financial crisis by the new rules and for whom it was strongly felt that there should be no extension of conditionality during the ‘In Work Better Off’ consultation.

Meanwhile, Tom Clarke MP has indicated that he is to table a further Parliamentary Question seeking clarification from the Minister as to which specific regulations will apply, following the withdrawal of Income Support, to “home educating lone parents who are already engaged in full time employment providing a full time education for their children”.

Schoolhouse convener Alison Preuss said: “These UK Government proposals were first flagged up in January 2007 by one of our members who was concerned that lone parents home educating their children, often through necessity as a result of special needs or disabilities, would have their Income Support withdrawn if they did not make themselves available for paid employment. Tom Clarke MP subsequently obtained assurances from the then Minister John Hutton [5] that home educating lone parents’ responsibilities would be fully recognised, but the Government has now indicated that no exceptions will be made to its forced labour regime for single parents.”

AHEd and Schoolhouse have challenged the Government to explain how it is possible to lift children out of poverty by removing IS payments from lone parents when they will effectively be precluded from claiming JSA due to already having full time caring and/or educational responsibilities. In particular they have questioned the justification for withdrawing IS from home educating parents when the costs to keep a child in school are considerably greater than the costs of providing benefits.

AHEd chair Barbara Stark said: “One of our members received via her MP a wholly unsatisfactory and insulting response from the Minister, Stephen Timms, who suggests that home educating parents can be much more flexible in their working arrangements than schooling parents. Who exactly will be available to look after and educate children while their parents are at work outside the home? These parents are already working hard with parenting and education responsibilities and doing an excellent job. Does the Minister only deem child care and education to be ‘work’ if it is undertaken by someone other than the parent?”

Despite the revenue savings to the Treasury, the Minister suggests that home educating families are receiving a subsidy by accepting subsistence benefits, stating in his letter: “The Government position is that parents who choose to home educate their children will not receive any financial assistance from the State for doing so. It is therefore consistent with the Government principles. Under the new welfare reform changes, we require home educators to look for work when their child reaches the new relevant age threshold.”

Schoolhouse and AHEd have jointly condemned the Minister’s failure to recognise that schools are unable to accommodate the needs of a significant number of young people, leaving some parents no choice but to take full responsibility for their children’s education, since schools are unable or unwilling to provide for the needs of individual children.

Former Schoolhouse member, Karen Best, who was a lone home educating parent reliant entirely on IS until her daughter reached school leaving age, has also spoken out against the government’s proposals which she believes will remove an essential lifeline from desperate parents. Describing her own circumstances, she said: “I removed my daughter, who has profound learning difficulties and special needs, from school when she was 10 years old after a prolonged period of bullying which had resulted in her self harming and threatening suicide. I was a single parent on Income Support and struggling to cope financially as well as with an extremely unhappy child. Since the school and local authority failed to deal with the problems, home education became the only option for us and we never looked back, although I lost entitlement to free school meals and clothing vouchers as soon as I removed my daughter from school and got no support or resources from the local authority. Now, it seems, the Governnment wants to completely pull the financial rug out from under the most vulnerable parents and children. How on earth can they justify impoverishing children and penalising single parents in this way?”

Karen went on to obtain higher qualifications and now works full time in the travel industry, while her daughter Charlene, now 20, is currently on a work experience placement in Greenock, having previously undertaken supported learning at her local further education college. Commenting on her own experience, Charlene said: “I hated school so much because it was full of bullies and the teachers didn’t want to know about it. I have a great life now because home education saved me from the bullies.”

ENDS

For further information, please contact Alison Preuss on 0772 962 3532 or

media@schoolhouse.org.uk

NOTES TO EDITORS

[1] See www.schoolhouse.org.uk

[2] See www.ahed.org.uk

[3] One Parent Families Scotland’s comments on the proposals when first mooted:

“Lone parent organisations are strongly challenging this simplistic view, and we need to….counter the underlying assumption that work should come before parenting responsibilities.

“We agree that those who choose to should be helped to work, but suggest that benefit penalties will damage the very families who need support. Many lone parents of teenagers have strong reasons why they want to stay at home – let them decide.”

[4] Lib Dem spokesperson for Work and Pensions, Danny Alexander, MP, has tabled the following PQ:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he thinks that lone parents receiving income support should be subject to increased conditionality in cases where they are a) parents of disabled children b) carers of both disabled children and adults c) mothers fleeing domestic violence d) parents who choose to home educate.”

[5] Excerpts from a reply by John Hutton, former DWP Minister, to Tom Clarke MP in February 2007:

“We have been very clear that we are not proposing to force lone parents into work, nor cut lone parent benefits – this would be wrong in principle and damaging to the health and well-being of children. It is a matter of individual choice for each lone parent as to whether they look to move into work or continue to claim benefits.

“I hope this reassures your constituent that our aim is to help those parents for whom work is a realistic option to take the necessary steps so that they can get back to work and lift their families out of poverty”

_______________________________________________________________________________