New Foundations is in no way supporting or promoting the beliefs of any political party, neither are we representing the views of any home educators, individuals, or groups. We all have our own beliefs and our current committee believe the registration and monitoring of home educators is not acceptable. Any home educator who disagrees with this belief is still welcome to come to our group with no fear of predjudice or censorship.

Information on this page has been brought from a variety of sources where possible we have refrenced the author but offer thanks to all those involved in putting together the responses, petition and other details.

The Welsh Assembly Government is currently running a consultation into the registration and monitoring of home educators full details of the proposal can be seen here    They are offering the opportunity to respond to the consultation which is the most important contribution that you can make. Be aware that both children and adults may fill in the response form. Responses can be made from anywhere and not just in Wales. There are notes on responses to the consultation at the bottom of the page.
We have started a petition to try and stop the proposal from being passed this can be seen and signed here   We have around 800 signitures on 10/09/12 more are needed please pass this on to families and friends willing to support us. The petition also has no age restrictions but a seperate email will make us more genuine. The petition signitres are also valid from outside of Wales,

Consultation Response Notes

These notes are possible answers to the questions on the response form, however please do not copy them rather use them to help you form your own response.

The claimed reason for the register is to allow LAs to fulfil their duties
under S.436A and the associated statutory guidance. However, that guidance
specifically states in section 1.20:

Q1 The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory
school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving
a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example,
at home, privately, or in alternative provision) and who have been
out of any educational provision for a substantial period of time,
usually agreed as four weeks or more

Therefore, the whole proposal fails because it starts with the false premise
that there is a duty relating to home education.

To do this would require a change to primary legislation because a valid
defence to non-compliance with a School Attendance Order is to demonstrate
that a suitable education is being provided by other means. A blanket
requirement also fails to take into account what is in the best interests of
the child, and school may not be the best option.

There is a trust issue involved here, where many home educators, especially
those who feel their children have been failed by the state system, do not
consider the state to be competent to judge the education being provided.

If a child has been withdrawn from school and is traumatised, having an
official, who theoretically has the power to send him back there, invade his
safe space may not be in the interests of the child.

There is a side issue here where you have failed to provide the option to
state complete opposition to compulsory meetings of any form.

See Q4. If a family wishes to invite an inspector into their home (usually
considered the main location) then they have that option, but it should
never be forced upon them.

Refusing registration implies that the LA has taken over the section 7
responsibility from the parents by forcing the decision onto them which may
render the LA liable should the child then not succeed at school. Also see
Q2 where there is a conflict with existing primary legislation should the
parents continue home education and successfully use the suitable provision
defence if prosecuted.

Noting the opposition to any form of register in Q1, if a child needs to be
withdrawn from school, it should be possible to do so within a week. If the
system is going to be inefficient enough to require twelve weeks for a
decision, parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from school
immediately, pending a decision

Responses from David Hough


  Wales and the question of annual visits

by Renegadeparent11. September 2012 08:31

Just a quick note for those of you filling in the Wales consultation (which you can find here, please consider responding to let the Welsh government know that parents, not the state, are ultimately respsonsible for the education of their children and this is the way it should stay). Please take a very good look at the questions being asked.

Specifically these two:

Question 4 – Do you agree that the initial meeting between the local authority and home educating parent and child should take place in the main location where the education is being provided?


Question 5 – How often should the annual monitoring meetings with both the home educator and the home educated child take place at the main location of education?

Question 5 IS NOT asking how often annual visits should take place, delicious as this would be. It is simply asking how often the annual visits (that will take place once a year, obviously) should take place at the main location of education -- presumably they mean the family home, although this is in itself a shaky assumption for many home educators -- as opposed to elsewhere (maybe a cafe, council offices, etc).

This is a question of location as much as frequency -- they clearly want access to the homes of home educating families. The only error is that:

  • visits
  • annual frequency
  • sight of the child

are all assumed from the outset rather than consulted upon. Anyone who has done basic consultation design or implementation knows that this is a schoolboy (pardon the pun!) error.

The definition of 'annual' is not in question, but this structural flaw, alongside any others, needs to be addressed in as many returns as possible. This also reduces opportunities for the Welsh government to make generalised assessments about home educators and their supporters (hotheaded! vociferous! reactionary!) from the responses they receive.



Put your own house in order

Picture yourself considering a childcare provider. A national one catches your eye: they seem popular, have outlets across the UK, and lots of your friends have used them. Fantastic! Sounds like a definite possibility. So you decide to give them a call and ask for some further information, wanting to make sure you'll be sending your child somewhere safe.

"Good morning, you're through to the childcare provider of choice, Bob Bobbleedob speaking, how can I help you today?"

"Ah, hi! I'm currently thinking of applying for a childcare place for my daughter, Charlie, with your company, I just wanted a bit more info from you."

"No problem, what information did you need?"

"Well, I obviously want to make sure that Charlie would be as safe as possible with you. What's your figure for children who are bullied at any of your outlets?"

"That would be 69% of them. So, er, not all. Ahem."

"Right. Erm, that sounds like quite alot. Do you have figures for any injuries sustained by children in attacks in your care? Probably sounds a bit overly cautious but I just want to be sure haha..."

"Ahem, well, actually yes, since you're asking, more than 150 children who attend our childcare outlets are injured in attacks."

"Oh. Wow. Gosh. Like, every year?"

"Erm, well no, that's each week. And, well, while we're kind of on the subject, it's thought that at least twenty of them kill themselves each year due to bullying here. But, y'know, we're working on that."

"Errr, ok, well I think I might be looking elsewhere, but I might as well ask you the rest of my questions, just for comparison's sake if that's OK. How well do kids learn the basics with you? Reading, writing, that kind of thing."

"Well, we've previously announced that just under 60% of children who have spent eleven years of their childhood in our care, can read and write properly!"

"Soooo, more than four in every ten kids can't after that time?"

"Well, if you want to be pedantic and turn it round that way... no."

"OK, What about your staff? No incidences of any problems there I hope?"

"Oh dear, this is getting a bit awkward now. We obviously try and employ child carers who we think, based on them not having been caught abusing children, won't do that. But... welllll... let me email you over a nice little graphic that shows the situation more easily than I can probably explain."

"Oh thanks, it's come straight though here, it's a map. Oh. Gosh. I don't even know what to say, that's appalling. Thanks for your time and everything, I'm sure there are other good reasons that people do use your service, but we'll not be using you for Charlie's childcare. Bye!"

"Hold on please, before you hang up, can I just check whereabouts in the country you live?"

"Wales. Why?"

"Ok great. We'll need to take your details so we can register you."

"No, I said we wouldn't be using your service, thanks though."

"I don't think you understand. You'll still need to register with us."


"Because we say so. We've decided that in addition to those who use our service registering with us, we'll arrange for you legally to have to register too."

"To register with you?"


"Even though we don't require your services?"



"Ah, are you maybe thinking you don't want to register with us if you're not getting anything for it?"

"Well, kind of..."

"Then maybe this will help: We'll probably want to monitor you. So there's that. Help any?"

"Are you kidding? Monitor what? To see if in your eyes I'm succeeding with my own child where your company is failing with millions of other people's children???"

"Er, yes."

"How can you possibly think that that's ok???"

"Because we're the best. Oh, I know there's all those attacks, and bullying, and abuse, and suicides. And, yeah, yeah, figures show that children who don't use our service are much less at risk blah blah blah. And the research that shows how good educational outcomes are for those kids. Yadda yadda. But we've decided we're the best anyway, and so we'll be monitoring you. And if we don't like what we see, we'll make Charlie come to us after all. That'll be nice, won't it?"


This situation brought to you by:

(reproduced with permision)