Of not wanting engagement with those with lived experience of the very thing they are trying to legislate to control and monitor?

(1) 🚩 🚩 🚩 The Welsh Government have asked for all the CNIS (Children not in school) clauses and amendments of the CWS Bill to apply to Wales,  

– all that is – except one amendment.

Welsh Government (WG)would like the clauses and amendments that relate to surveillance, monitoring, registration, fines and imprisonment to apply to Welsh families.  

But WG don’t want a singular amendment that brings even a step towards accountability of local government conduct or engagement with home educators.

Amendment 159, which says LAs MUST, twice a year, offer parents of home ed children the opportunity to attend a forum to discuss how the LA is behaving towards them-…
-that part alone is England-only. WG don’t want that.

So, the clauses that many would feel are about mistrust and suspicion of parents –WG want those to apply to Wales.

But it would appear WG do not want there to be a duty of constructive engagement or feedback for if and when there are concerns about conduct, or for when the community have identified ways to optimise or improve practice.

Community feedback – wanted in England it would seem, but not by WG.

Dramatically, unprecedently increased powers for council staff wanted. But the only point where Wales is not following England on these clauses is to fail to provide any duty for accountability or even to have to give a listening ear to concerns of those with lived experience.

(2) 🚩 🚩 🚩 The “evaluation” of Welsh Government’s EHE guidance, publication date initially claimed to “inform” the planned vote on the CWS Bill at Plenary.

Were home educators involved in “evaluating” how “effective” this guidance about their lives is?

No.

Not at all.

How were home educators portrayed in this “evaluation”?

As those not to be trusted, not just to routinely all need surveillance and monitoring of their normal healthy family life,

but also to be not just on exceptional occasions but routinely considered to be liars and deceivers.

Those who follow lawful remits and duties designated to be nor cooperating. Terms such as “resistant” and “resisting” used for them.

Indeed, the evaluation describes the desire and intention for “powers to compel parents”.

Those who try to engage with WG for more information or feedback repeatedly called “adversarial”.

Those who provide information and support for other home educators, including to aid adherence to lawful remits and duties, treated as if an irritation, as time wasters, as something of an irritation or source of frustration. Even when having to admit that the information home education groups give is accurate in understanding of laws and duties, “articulate” and “well-informed,

Where templates and information provided by home education groups – seemingly deemed a nuisance and irritation, whereas if produced by WG or councils these are so welcomed that more requested, even when the accuracy and lawfulness of existing ones have been called into question. The aim of the evaluation is said to be to determine if the guidance is “effective”. This lack of engagement with the community, in conjunction with such disparaging content and tone towards home educators, does call into question what WG would consider “effective” guidance to achieve.

More on our evaluation of this Welsh Government commissioned evaluation here

(3) 🚩 🚩 🚩 AND SO, how confident can we be in the selection for this recently advertised and remarkably well-paid position of  “Professional Advisor Alternative Education” , whose role would be to oversee implementation of, amongst other measures, the unprecedented increase in powers of the state over normal loving families, and that WG commissioned “evaluation” of their guidance that speaks in such disparaging terms and tones about home educators?

Given that the post is only those who have worked in, with and for LAs in these areas. Meaning only those who have been willing to implement WG wishes and policies can apply.

Excluding those with many years of lived experience of alternative education such as home educators, potential candidates who run support groups for those that these measures would impact – all such candidates excluded.

So, an advisor that’s not exactly that “alternative” then?

Read more on how those with lived experience are excluded and only applications are only open to those who have previously agreed to work in accordance with Welsh Government policy here

(4) 🚩 🚩 🚩 And, of course, just how much involvement has the been of home educators and those families with vested concerns in the issues of the CWS Bill in the decision to apply key clauses to Wales?

0

Zero.

Having said that, even other Senedd members weren’t informed until the amendments to apply those clauses to Wales were laid at Westminster.

So, one would hope that other Senedd Members would identify with the frustrations of home educators in being overridden and ignored.

We trust that Senedd Members would be more than willing to not just give a party-line response, but to hear the voices, experiences and concerns not only of home educators and their families, but also of so many experts in a wide range of fields, of so many concerned citizens from many walks of life, about the dangers of this CWS Bill- and choose to not “piggyback” onto Westminster on such a crucial devolved issue.