Yet again – continued conflation of EHE and CME.

Main observations on this closing statement of the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s time in post:

“Families have the right to educate their children at home.  However, where parents choose to exercise this right there is a balance to be struck between that right and the child’s right to a suitable education”. 

Yet again, we see familiar but sadly misrepresentative and unhelpful rhetoric.
Rhetoric that does the opposite of engaging with home educators, but portrays them in a misrepresentative and negative light.

As if home education is something that parents choose that is at odds with children’s rights.

As if home education is something that parents want but children do not

As if home education is something that risks not fulfilling a child’s right to a suitable education, with the unspoken implication – spoken in other contexts – that school education does and will automatically fulfil a child’s right to a suitable education.

Is that the “however” of institutionalised bias?

As if saying, “we have to put up with parents unfortunately having rights”

As if saying that being educated at home is more questionable and less likely to be providing suitable education than school.

Even if this is not the Cabinet Secretary’s intention, it unfortunately is the effect of repeatedly using such statements.
Especially as home educators have repeatedly attempted to make these very points – you will even find articles on this website highlighting the damage of such negative and misleading juxtapositions.
So unfortunately, from the start, the Cabinet Secretary unhelpfully sets a premise for measures that is not based on the actual experiences of those the measures are meant to be impacted.
And does so in a way that indicates that the department writing this statement as not engaged in the way they may seek to portray.

“I want to ensure all children can access and exercise their right”

The legal “duty to ensure” lies with parents, not with Ms Neagle, nor with councils or governments.

“A child who is in receipt of a suitable education at home is not missing education. However, local authorities need to be confident that they know of all the children living in their area, and that they are sure all of those children are in receipt of a suitable education”.

“However” – again creating unnecessary and unhelpful juxtaposition.

“Need to know” “Need to be sure”? As if this is a legal duty? It isn’t.
This does not give an appropriate representation of the actual legal position.

The legal duty in relation to CME is to, “as far as possible” establish the identities of those who are not in receipt of a suitable education. As far as possible is essentially legal code for “don’t break any other laws, ethical boundaries or legal principles in any attempts to do so”.

But local authorities, nor governments, are not legally responsible for ensuring every child is in receipt of a suitable education.
If they were, they would be rapidly bankrupted not only from the need to provide a suitable education for every single child according to not only each child’s age, but also each individual child’s aptitude, ability and additional learning needs, and also from being liable to be sued for every time they did not provide this.

So, governments would be wise to be careful what they wish for in terms of considering themselves to be the ones responsible for ensuring every child has an education that is suitable for them, as they appear to fail to realise what that would mean – IF it were the case.
Thankfully, for the sake of council budgets if nothing else, it is parents not councils or governments that are legally responsible for ensuring that children receive suitable education, and therefore parents who are the determiners of suitability.

“The pilot for the CME database has recently been evaluated”.

One could take dispute with the concept that it has been “evaluated”.

“Evaluation” connotes a balancing of different areas of evidence, experience, input, a testing of the information and evidence provided.
However, with regards to that commissioned “evaluation”, there was

• No involvement of those who were impacted by these pilots,  

• No clinicians or experts in medical ethics involved in considering the impacts of unprecedented mass breaches of medical confidentiality,

• No consideration of risks, damage, negative consequences,

• No demonstration that those pilots identified children who actrually are missing education where state intervention was beneficial

• No evaluation of financial impacts, of cost-benefit analysis, no consideration of how the undisclosed amount of taxpayers’ money could have been used in more beneficial ways

• No reflection in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement of how the evaluation she commissioned gives some insight into the remarkable and expensive chaos caused by these pilots that she championed.

• No reflection in her statement of the significant concerns raised about these measures by families and professionals alike.

“I have agreed that the Welsh Government will work with local authorities and address the recommendations as part of a new ‘CME action plan’. This approach builds on the existing stakeholder engagement arrangements we have in place.”

So it would appear that the Cabinet Secretary wishes to continue with “recommendations” from that evaluation, even though all those facets, evidence sources, perspectives and constructive feedbacks are not included.
Without input from those impacted or from professional bodies representing clinicians.
One would hope that, at the very least, there will need to be significant conversation within the medical community of any consideration of routinely breaching confidentiality of access to NHS care for non-healthcare purposes before considering measures that would cause this.
One would trust that subsequent administrations will be more keen to consider these before reassessing any recommendations made on such limited input and perspectives.

“builds on existing stakeholder engagement arrangements”.

We would be very grateful for clarification of who the Cabinet Secretary considers “stakeholders” to be, when it comes to measures that impact families in Wales?

One would expect that families would be the key stakeholders in measures that impact families.
yet sadly that is not represented in the lack of consideration or involvement of families in the two recently commissioned evaluations that the Cabinet Secretary refers to.
And families in Wales have not been given reason to believe they are valued as the true stakeholders in these measures.
Please do read more on the concerns expressed on the lack of engagement with families in Wales, even before publication of these two evaluations.

“ongoing implementation of the statutory EHE guidance”.

Yet again, misleading statements from the Cabinet Secretary. The 2023 guidance on EHE is not statutory, despite her and her department’s insistence in calling it this. The only statutory elements in it are exactly the same as the non-statutory guidance it replaced, and as the non-statutory guidance in England, which is based on the same primary legislation. The only new elements in that guidance are non-statutory.

The continued and intentional use of the term “statutory” is highly misleading.
The 2023 guidance on EHE is not statutory, despite the Welsh Government’s insistence in using this term. The only statutory elements in it are exactly the same as the non-statutory guidance it replaced, and as the non-statutory guidance in England, which is based on the same primary legislation. The only new elements in that guidance are non-statutory.

Regarding the “evaluation” she commissioned on that guidance, she states the

“report includes recommendations that will strengthen local authorities’ existing arrangements”.

So, sadly “recommendations” from such a limited perspective in a commissioned report taken at face value without evaluation or acceptance of other voices and inputs.
We so trust that subsequent Welsh Governments take a more balanced, engaging and reasoned approach to considering any evidence or recommendations laid before them, especially when from commercial sources, or where those involved in contributing to those sources have financial benefit to the measures being recommended.

“That evaluation report supports local authorities’ views that the current guidance and legislation are not sufficient to enable them to identify all children they have responsibility for.”

That evaluation report supports LA’s views because that “evaluation report” only gave selected LA views.

No testing of any comments made,

no true “evaluation”,

and yes, again, no involvement of those impacted by the use or misuse of existing powers.

May we ask subsequent Welsh Governments to test, evaluate, consider and most importantly engage with those who have been and would be impacted before making any subsequent policy decisions.

“all the children they have responsibility for”.

This statement is unfortunately rather misleading, as it risks connoting that the responsibility for all children lies with the council, especially when considering this statement in the light of earlier misleading statements of a similar nature.

Parents are responsible for children, not the council.
The role of the council is a reactive one, to act “if it appears” parents are not fulfilling their duty.
The council are not “co-parents” and the statement risks connoting a greater role for the council than applies.

The Children’s Commissioner for Wales has also raised concerns on Welsh Government practice in relation to the present Welsh Government’s desire to have “piggybacked” onto the CWS Bill. For example, her call for impact assessments and engagement with the community. However the Cabinet Secretary omits to mention these.

“The stakeholder engagement and consultations we have already undertaken in relation to these policies have informed our position and evidence base for the measures in the (CWS) Bill”

Unfortunately, this is another rather misleading statement.

There have been no consultations in Wales on the CWS Bill, nor on key measures in it, such as:

• Mandatory registration of children with the council

• Pilots of meetings before deregistration

• Councils being considered as the ones, rather than parents, to act in the “best interests of children in an increasing range of circumstances

•  On permission to deregister from special schools being based on council’s consideration of “best interests” not just education

• On the complete lack of independent complaints, advocacy, mediation, appeals or tribunal services in relation to existing or increased powers,

• On the concept of asking Westminster to legislate on a devolved issue.

The closest that any previous consultation in Wales has come to touching on issues in the CWS Bill was Welsh Government’s attempt in the 2023 guidance to give the appearance of home visits being a requirement (when they are not a lawful requirement). However, that clearly has not “informed” the position, nor the “evidence base”, as those consultations overwhelmingly opposed such concepts, with even a former Education Secretary noting that “a significant number of the many responses also raised complex technical, policy and legal matters which require careful consideration”

“evidence base”

It would indeed be intriguing to learn what the Cabinet Secretary considers this “evidence base” to be, other than the views of those whose careers and pay-packets benefit from being given increased powers.

We would be very grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would provide this “evidence base” for full consideration.

We would also trust that subsequent Welsh Governments would not only be transparent on any “evidence bases” that they develop, but also seek to ensure that all perspectives and inputs are fully evaluated.
We would trust that subsequent Welsh Governments would give due weighting to evidence presented to it.
We would ask for consideration of evidence and research presented on this website, and by others in the community as a whole.

“undertake a full public consultation”.

This does not inspire any confidence in the home educators in Wales given how present and previous Cabinet Secretaries have repeated disregarded the lived experience and concerns of families of Wales.

Sadly this statement does not inspire confidence in home educators in Wales.
It has regrettably been the experience of many that the input of those with lived experience has been disregarded.
Many home educators have felt that such consultations have been more of a “tick-box” exercise than a genuine desire to base policy on the needs and experiences of the community.
Please do read more on the experiences of Welsh home educators of consultations and claims of “engagement” to date, in the section on “engagement” in that article.
We greatly hope that subsequent Welsh Governments would truly engage, would pause, listen, hear and reflect, and then base policy on the needs and experiences of the community, rather than seek to impose unnecessary and unwanted measures upon it.

“consideration also needs to be given to how funding is allocated”

Surely consideration should have been given to the funding required  before deciding to agree to such an unprecedented increase in powers over ordinary families.

Does this mean diversion of funding from measures that could benefit children into administrative duties and unnecessary monitoring and oversight of normal families?

any decisions on future priorities and the governance of this work will be for the next Welsh Government.”

It is very regrettable indeed that many home educators will find ourselves breathing a sign of relief at this statement. Home educators reflect diverse communities of a wide range of political persuasions and perspectives, and we ourselves have no party-political bias or preference. We simply seek politicians who listen to, who truly hear, the voices of those with lived experience.

We were assured that this present administration would be “less adversarial” towards home educators than the previous one,

and sadly our experience has been the opposite,

not because of the name used by the party,

and not only because of the policies adopted,

but because our experience is far from that of “engagement” or feeling that voices of those with lived experience, voices of those warning of harm and damage to the wellbeing of their children are heard, respected and given priority.

That treats consultations as the foundation for understanding the needs and experiences of the community in order to direct policy development, rather than deciding on set policies and then undergoing “tick box” token gesture exercises of consultations.

That does not ignore the findings of consultations even if they are uncomfortable or require a change in policy and approach.
To quote the present Cabinet Secretary, “there is not point in having consultations and then ignoring the results of those consultations.”.
 

We can only hope and trust that the next Welsh Government, regardless of whatever parties or names that may or may not include, will be one –

that will truly represent the people of Wales,

that will truly listen to the people of Wales,

that will truly draw its policies from the expressed needs and input of the people of Wales,

rather than impose measures, powers and policies onto them against their will and against the warnings of damage and harm.


We simply and sincerely hope that we do not have a government that imposes legislative measures on sectors of society and refuses to truly engage with them or consider the impact on them.

We hope for a Government that truly listens to and represents the people of Wales.