Talk:Children, Schools and Families Bill/Amendments to Section 19E of Schedule 1

Hi This is a test page. I am out of my comfort zone with wikis.

Fiona Nicholson Trustee Education Otherwise

Hi - sorry I am also out of my comfort zone with wikis. I wanted to ask about this section:

1 - can part (3)(d) be changed/removed. There are many good reasons that some families might have for not wanting what seems like a 'home inspection'; we should be able to insist that any meeting takes place outside of our family home. Unless there is genuine suspicion we are doing something illegal then our homes should be ours to *invite* others into or not as we prefer. Is the suggested amendment clear enough about this?

2 - in part (5), I would suggest that 'two weeks notice' is not a long enough period. Also, notice of a visit is not the same as consensually and cooperatively *arranging* to meet. LAs should have to at least try to communicate with families in a reasonable way before they start to issue 'notices' of proposed 'visits'. LAs should be required to exhaust all other avenues of meeting (eg via drop in group 'HE support' sessions; at LA offices; at a time proposed by/suitable for the family rather than imposed by the LA).

The phrasing in this whole section is off imho. Families which include any member, adult or child, with any health problems will have most difficulty in cooperating with this section, I foresee all sorts of problems with the inflexibility. I dont even agree that meeting with an LA person is necessary or useful, but if an amendment to this section is going to be proposed, then it must be clear that the LA should put good effort into making these arrangements with the family rather than imposing them on the family.

I know that this sort of stuff will be probably stuck in 'best practice' guidance but I dont think thats good enough.

What is the meeting supposed to achieve anyway? Its not clear what these meetings are for - so they shouldnt be written in to legislation!

If it is intended to assure the LA that the child is healthy and being educated, this could be ascertained by a/ simply assuming that unless there is genuine reason to suspect otherwise the above is true and/or b/ perhaps by means of a letter/statement from a 'trusted' third party eg the family GP, or a leader of an activity group the child attends.

Imposed meetings by the LA should be a last resort, basically, rather than written into this legislation as standard operating procedure. The Bill should be amended to remove all this gumpf, or it should be made clear that it is last resort once all other avenues of 'checking on the child' have been exhausted unsatisfactorily.

Sorry again if Ive done all this wiki-ing wrong!

notcricket