Association of Elective Home Educating Parents

Please share to current home educators and networks to help combat current threats of potentially harmful LA interventions, compulsory registration and anti family sanctions

“ Are you known to your local authority? If so please complete this survey
(can be done in 15 mins for multiple choice only but there is opportunity
to share more if you choose, please allow more time if so). The survey is
on home educator's experiences of dealing with local authorities.

This research is being carried out by Dr Harriet Pattison (Liverpool Hope
University and author of Rethinking Learning to Read) and Rose Arnold
(Suitable Education). If you do have any questions about the research or
about your part in it email addresses are given in the intro of the
survey and you can contact either researcher.

Please share in your local groups or with anyone you think might want to
take part.

https://lhubos.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/lahe-survey "

How do home educators experience Local Authority policy (England)? Online survey BOS

Please do watch, click on the go fund me link and share or donate if you can

Home Ed Freedom Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teHYwxCC_Og&app=desktop

Home Ed Freedom Video https://www.gofundme.com/protectallhomeeducationrights Please share and support this campaign

Just a moment...

Lord Soley's Bull goes to Committee stage, House of Lords.

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/homeeducationdutyoflocalauthorities.html

Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill [HL] 2017-19 — UK Parliament A Bill to make provision for local authorities to monitor the educational, physical and emotional development of children receiving elective home education, and for connected purposes

Home educators and real ehe experts...
Ehe guidelines, England:

Are you worried about renewed efforts to regulate and suppress home education and want to do something about it?

Are you happy just waiting for the government to publish outrageous new guidelines for consultation with no prior input from us; and plenty from LAs, bogus "experts" such as Daniel Monk and associations of elective home education professionals?

You are invited to join a home ed community sourced joint edit of the 2007 guidelines to bring it up to date and into line

http://homeedvoice.pbworks.com/w/page/71635418/FrontPage

HomeEdVoiceEHEGLA [licensed for non-commercial use only] / FrontPage A new version of the Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities is currently being drafted, by those who want to instruct officials to make more stringent checks on home education provision and to back these up with threatened School Attendance Orders for anyone who refuses them. In sh...

http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/home-ed-bill-hl11-2017-faq.html?m=1
Excellent blog re the current private members Bill from Lord Soley seeking compulsory registration and regulated monitoring of home educated children by the ignorant and non expert tools of the state.

Sometimes It's Peaceful: Home Ed Bill: HL11 2017: FAQ The Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill [HL] 2017-19 was given its first reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday. Here's an FAQ about the bill.

Here it is the declaration to refresh our minds in light of current attempted incursions by the likes of Bradford.

PARENTS’ DECLARATION

WE DECLARE our independent status and affirm our responsibility for the upbringing and education of our children in accordance with our lawful rights and natural justice.
WE ASSERT our right to choose the place, form and content of the educational provision for our children in accordance with the following:
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
(a)to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b)to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

(Section 7 of theEducation Act 1996)


In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

(Protocol 1 Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights)


WE WILL protect the rights of our children to own their own lives, to privacy and freedom from undue official interference in accordance with the following rights:


The right to respect for a private and family life, home and correspondence

(Human Rights Act 1998)


the right to be free from “arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence” and from “unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation”

(Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)


WE DEMAND that state officials remain within the bounds of the powers already conferred upon them under current law in their dealings with us, the people.


WE WILL UPHOLD AND DEFEND the above principles without fear or favour where the state forgets its legitimate function, oversteps its bounds or seeks to exert undue influence or power over our lives and those of our children against our traditional freedoms and natural justice.

May 1st 2009

Council workers and education department home education "experts" continue their relentless tide claiming power and authority over families and children. There is a worrying trend exampled by the recent Bradford proposals which parents in the area are currently facing. AHEd has warned the council that their proposals risk breaching data protection laws. Currently councillors feel this is "muddying the waters." (Spoiling their game and interfering with their intentions! )

"News
This happened quite fast. Bradford home eds on the AHEd fb group informing and wanting input re council proposals to

A. Extend deregistration to 20 day period post notification

B. Gather data about and track down children living in the area via CB data from HMRC

Some members involved in Bradford and region, the fb group and admin worked to produce action/response in space of about a day or two.

There will undoubtedly be blogs. Here is comprehensive blog

https://leahurst66.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/bradford-council-data-sharing-may-breach-human-rights/

AHEd wiki showing briefing paper

http://ahed.pbworks.com/w/page/111958612/Briefing%20paper%20re%3A%20Bradford%20Report%2012%20Oct%202016
that people produced and presented to council by Gill Kilner in yesterday evening's council meeting. Council comment on being asked to comply with law along lines that this is to just "muddy the waters."

I expect Gill will also blog re on Sometimes it's Peaceful blog.

Good news on the Supreme Court ruling today re the Named Person scheme. Thanks to N2NP campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513?SThisFB

Newsflash: Justine Greening in as Education Secretary...

Copied with permission from ukhe email group where replies may be shared.

LAWS AND SAUSAGES, HOW THEY ARE MADE
Neil Taylor Moore

Just sat through a day and a half of the online televised proceedings of
the supreme court to see what the supremes looked like making of the data
sharing provisions of the Scottish Children and Young Persons Act which
brings into force this year the state assignment of a 'named person' for
every child in Scotland. Alison Preuss, ex-convenor of Schoolhouse was
there in person and on camera at one point on the 'back benches' and
having useful words behind the scenes. She has been tireless in this
campaign.

This is now the third attempt to challenge the legality of this 'Parent
Replacement Act' as I call it, because that would be its universal
effect. Whatever the outcome, it only has the euro-supremes to survive
and where it seems bound to end unless we win and the Scottish gvt give
in.

The good news is, maybe, that the case against was very well put and the
case for the gvt was not. Their QC, while a decent enough looking chap
seemed barely capable of getting through answering the challenges put to
him by the supremes - 4 male and one female judge. Indeed he had to go
away overnight and do homework, or have it done for him, as Lady Hare
quipped, to come back today to answer deferred points. But there were
just as many points he couldn't answer today.

After yesterday I found myself feeling quite disturbed by the apparent
disconnect between the world of legal niceties and the real world of
despotic LAs with powers they should never be given, and which they will
not fail to abuse. This disconnect persisted today, being a quite
shocking absolute for the gvt QC, while at least in his 25 mins
remaining, which was barely adequate, 'our' QC ended by saying that this
is bad law and the Scottish gvt know it is but are effectively saying to
agrieved parents 'sue us if you don't like it', and inviting the supremes
to contemplate the justice in that for an agrieved parent left to
contemplate the impossibilty of judicial review as a remedy, and
implicitly reminding them that this, collectively with the backing of the
Christian Institute, the NOtoNP campaign and others is precisely the
process its intended victims are having to mount.

Two things really shocked me today, and they came right at the opening of
the second day of the QC's defence of the indefensible. There had been
some discussion yesterday about whether a statute had to invariably or
unavoidably invoke breaches of other laws, in this case principally
Article 8 ECHR, in order to be disqualified as law, or whether it could
pass as law even if it were very likely to produce many breaches, but
could be made to operate without *invariably* doing so. I don't know the
answer to this and curiously it was a Q posed by one of the judges, who
asked the gvt QC 'what are we to make of.....such law?'

Of course we, as their victims know that with LAs the principle is even
if you don't give them an inch and they will take a mile anyway. We know
that unless law is framed in order to prevent its worst abuses and most
hostile interpretations, that worst case scenarios will invariably
prevail. So it was a bit shocking to see the gvt QC making a shameless
bid for the Act to be considered valid law on the test that if it could
be said to be possible to enact its provisions without breaching other
statutes, then it should be considered law. When the supremes have come
to their decision we will know what standard actually applies because
they clearly articulated such concerns. Hence my reference to sausages
in the title of this post. I've not looked in on a sausage factory yet,
so ignorance is bliss, but the law factory don't look too cosher :(

The other thing I predicted their QC would do and he did, was to offer
the supremes the opportunity to address their concerns for safeguards in
how the law operated in the statutory guidance, which currently falls
almost totally short, and clearly they thought so. He was effectively
offering them a way to retain the Act by this means. This is exactly what
the minister did with home educators over our objections to the Crime and
Disorder Bill new truancy powers of interrogation and detention. And of
course we have also learned the hard way what guidances are worth by now.
The police revealed to us over our challenge to their conduct of the
truancy patrols that they never even read the guidances! Chocolate
fireguards indeed. I found that utterly despicable - contemptible.

It isn't as if the sociology of law is not understood, or how
bureaucratic institutions operate principally as self serving first and
ostensible purpose serving second. Whether it is part of the education
of the supremes I guess we shall find out in due course.

For me at least, law as a possible remedy for injustice or oppression
hangs by its last frayed thread. I personally would not know how to be
effective with that inaccessible arena. Ultimately the only remedy I
suspect is that the despots have to be told, and in sufficient numbers
where to stick it.

Quick straw poll. Interested in numbers...

Anyone here had to remove their children from school for their own safety or because of safety concerns?

Thanks.

Notice

Home educating families denounce the NSPCC for failing to engage openly and honestly with the issues raised in a recent petition signed by 5820 individuals who have called for them to withdraw their defamatory report and cease their ongoing smear campaign against us.

Holding a private meeting with an altogether different and highly contentious agenda, while excluding the vast majority of stakeholders from any dialogue, demonstrates the contempt in which the NSPCC holds our community.

We hereby call upon the NSPCC to do the decent thing and respond publicly to the issues raised in the petition!

Please add your comments below ...

Attention 1011 experts! There is foul play afoot as self appointed mouthpieces collude with the . Parallel dialogue it is! https://www.dropbox.com/s/n7ddmjzul8h2sgo/Meeting%2020160901.jpg?dl=0

Meeting 20160901.jpg Shared with Dropbox

So, the NSPCC is meeting today with some gov bods, journo, ed consultancies and some home educators over their recent uses of a report and comments about the risks to home educated children which distorts a number of SCRs to create the idea of inherent risk and conflate it with the idea that legislative and regulatory change is needed to register and monitor the legitimate and lawful activities of the population.

Part of the agenda seeks to identify areas of agreement among those present, followed by a discussion inviting them all, (NSPCC, Gov Bods, EHE Consultancies, journo and home educators present,) to "work together" to ensure the safety of the very few children at risk.

There is some excitement about the leaking of this information to the very prey, excuse me, subjects of their discussion. Although keeping this stuff a bit schtum is the general practice of these guys.

Well, they seek a resolution in finding ways to work together ...

Will these be happy bedfellows?
Will anyone wake up with fleas?
Will they require very long spoons in order to sup together?
Will interested participants be able to carve out a rentseeker career?
Will they harass and label innocent families with their sexed up SCR reports dossier?
Will it all make anyone look as though they are earning their vast subsidies from taxpayers?
Will they save one single child?

Experts comments welcomed here...

Should there be a prize for our 1000th expert? Maybe s/he could provide a few scintillating soundbites for the press from a expert's perspective? (Note the position of the apostrophe)

20 more likes to reach a thousand Home Educating experts.

Why were AEHEP experts not invited to comment on the latest anti home ed smear campaign? http://www.home-education.biz/forum/media/17563-nicky-morgan-gets-into-bed-with-donald-trump.html

Nicky Morgan gets into bed with Donald Trump - Home Education Forums Nicky Morgan gets into bed with Donald Trump Media

NSPCC should withdraw its scurrilous allegations https://www.change.org/p/peter-wanless-ceo-nspcc-please-withdraw-your-report-children-not-educated-in-school-learning-from-case-reviews

Peter Wanless, CEO, NSPCC, Please withdraw your report “Children Not Educated In School:... When an organisation with extensive resources, child welfare experience and significant media and political influence publishes a report, one expects that report to be thoroughly researched, factually accurate, well evidenced, free of bias and well written. The NSPCC report “Children Not Educated i…

Only 51 more members to reach a thousand home education experts!

A Lancashire home educator tells us that the Admin officer from Lancashire County Council's EHE team reports that the next meeting of the AEHEProfessionals is in Stafford on the 14th October. Mike Fortune Wood says that there will be a full agenda. It is one year sin e they formed so this might be the AGM. Actual home education experts in the field are excluded. Naturally.

Apparently those jumped up imposters have been organising official sounding posts for themselves. I would like to affirm that each member here is the venerable expert and official post holder of representative for their own life and family.

Here is the list sorry if formatting is iffy...

These are the members of the AEHEP committee

Regional Groups Nominated Representatives

West Midlands Jenny Dodd Staffordshire
Kate Clegg Worcestershire
Yorkshire & Humber Fiona Lowery Doncaster
Venetta Buchanan Sheffield
North East Jill Varney Northumberland
Jeffrey Lough Newcastle
North West Lawrence Warburton Blackburn with Darwen
Frances Molloy Lancashire
South West David Harvey Hampshire
Tony Waller Somerset
East Region Anna Shaw Hertfordshire
Vivien Trundell Buckinghamshire
LHEO Penny Stephen Hounslow
Elaine Grant Croydon

A fellow expert faces prosecution by council (*after* taking council advice) for term time educational expedition http://home-education.biz/education/deregister-or-be-damned/

Deregister or be damned A Herefordshire parent with many years of experience home educating her older children is being prosecuted for taking her nine year old daughter on a backpacking 'holiday of a lifetime' during term time. Ironically, had she exercised her parental right to deregister (under which circumstances the sc…

Today we are having a very very, very important meeting. Please do not disturb us as we have very important plans to discuss!

It has been brought to our attention that our AEHEP brand is being passed off by a bunch of state agents masquerading as 'home education professionals', aided and abetted by the sort of rentseeking sorts who have already sold their own grannies and are now looking to exploit our children. The really sinister aspect is that, despite being paid for from our taxes, we can't seem to contact them directly to issue a cease and desist notice in respect of our previously established brand. What do our 866 experts think about this threat to our association's standing in the community?

Been watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88nrxRHNOMU&t=394

A Prison by Any Other Name - Schools Are Prisons Support Us! Don't forget to Like and Share the Videos and Subscribe to our YouTube Channel. -peace Not everything that is familiar and commonplace is good. W...

**POLL** of your views!
Are you an elective home educator? If so, you may suspect by now that some people would like to take a ride on the back of your parenting choice sticking their spurs into YOUR side for their own purposes. Yes. It is true. We call these -
RENTSEEKERS!

(Definition: Someone who seeks to gain advantage concerning the legitimate parenting choices, vocation, lifestyle and family practice of home educating families including by the manipulation of government or regulatory agencies to gain power, influence, status, financial or other gain even when this imposes disadvantages or disempowers individual elective home educating families.)

QUICK POLL:

Are we in favour? What do we say to rentseeking parasites?

A.) yes!
B.) no!
C.) get stuffed!
D.) other (please specify.)

Map of convicted 'professional' child abusers (for experts' reference) http://www.home-education.biz/forum/general-discussion/17051-map-of-convicted-professional-child-abusers.html

Map of convicted professional child abusers - Home Education Forums Map of convicted professional child abusers General Discussion

769 likes, Will this week bring 1000?

750 experts and counting!

Who will be number 750, very heartened by the number of home educators who have liked this page and assert that they are the experts on their own child and their education!

700 Experts here.

Breaking news: has officially ripped up its ancient Declaration of Freedom is officially capital of Europe. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1367/Petition-for-Judicial-Review-of-the-Children-and-Young-People-(Scotland)-Act-2014

Petition for Judicial Review of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 - Judgments &... Summaries of Court Opinions

600 experts!