Our case began in 2003 when I opened my e-mail while on holiday in the West Country (alright, alright Bristol). The Department of Education and Skills (DfES) had written telling me that it had come to their attention that Tyndale Tuition Group had been providing education and that we needed to know that if it were full time education for five or more children ... it would have to be registered as an Independent School (serves me right for opening e mail on holiday).
We had no real worries at this point, as Tyndale had been set up in 1998 specifically to avoid meeting such criteria. In short we did not want to be an independent school. We wanted, and still want, to determine our own curriculum, discipline, employment and other policies in line with the teaching of the Bible and the law of the land. When Tyndale opened, it provided approximately 15 hours of taught time a week to four children. We knew that the Department had defined full time education as a minimum of 21 hours per week since at least 1990.
Tyndale was more open to parental scrutiny than any maintained school in the country and more than most independent schools. Advertising was done openly in the local newspaper and in the Yellow Pages and Thomspon Directories. Nothing was done in a corner. Parents were made aware at interview stage that we were not a school but rather were assisting parents in providing "Education Otherwise than at School" according to the 1996 Education Act (Section 7). I responded to this enquiry by phone on returning home and told the official of the position as we saw it. Unknown to us at the time the Department had written to our Local Authority and asked them to visit us and ascertain the nature of our provision as it appeared to them that we didn't want anybody to know about us.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
An Inspector Calls
Following correspondence from the DFES and various internal discussions, the Director of Education Newham LEA concluded that any children attending Tyndale "cannot be receiving what the law requires". He then asked his Education Welfare team to arrange a visit and to be prepared to serve School Attendance Orders on the parents concerned. These were the first ill-informed steps taken by our Local Authority. If only they had consulted their own lawyers they would have found that neither their assessment nor their remedy would stand up to close scrutiny in a court.
So it was, in November 2003 we received an unannounced visit from two officers of the Education Welfare Department of our Local Authority. I "entertained" them downstairs, away from the children (who were being supervised and taught by another teacher). I told them politely (honestly) and plainly that although I did not believe they had any authority to ask to see the children and to require registers etc I would nevertheless describe our provision. I was, I think understandably nervous, having seen, from a safe distance, how easy it is for a Local Authority to exceed their powers and make a mess of people's lives only to "move on" without so much as an apology.
In short, I told the Senior EWO that if we were an independent school then the Local Authority had no educational responsibility for us at all as we would be entirely under the authority of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). On the other hand, I said, if we were a tuition group then the LA had no supervisory powers in respect of the education we provided. Their only powers and duties were towards individual parents and children (not towards the group as a whole). They were told that we had informed parents that we would be happy to assist in any "inspections" that might be made of their provision. Our reasoning in this case was that we would not be happy for the LA that had so expertly ruined the education of so many children to attempt to exercise any powers in any attempt to "assist" our group.
So it was, in November 2003 we received an unannounced visit from two officers of the Education Welfare Department of our Local Authority. I "entertained" them downstairs, away from the children (who were being supervised and taught by another teacher). I told them politely (honestly) and plainly that although I did not believe they had any authority to ask to see the children and to require registers etc I would nevertheless describe our provision. I was, I think understandably nervous, having seen, from a safe distance, how easy it is for a Local Authority to exceed their powers and make a mess of people's lives only to "move on" without so much as an apology.
In short, I told the Senior EWO that if we were an independent school then the Local Authority had no educational responsibility for us at all as we would be entirely under the authority of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). On the other hand, I said, if we were a tuition group then the LA had no supervisory powers in respect of the education we provided. Their only powers and duties were towards individual parents and children (not towards the group as a whole). They were told that we had informed parents that we would be happy to assist in any "inspections" that might be made of their provision. Our reasoning in this case was that we would not be happy for the LA that had so expertly ruined the education of so many children to attempt to exercise any powers in any attempt to "assist" our group.
When you're in a hole...stop digging
The Education Welfare Officers reported back to the Deputy Director of Education on their visit to Tyndale and from this point onwards it became clear that there was confusion in that department. This confusion was with regard to whether we were, in fact, providing full time education and whether or not School Attendance Orders could be served on our parents. During December the Director concluded that "the school should not be registered". However, following his Christmas Break he concluded that the hours offered to the over eights "might be sufficient to justify a claim of full time education." This was translated by the DfES to say Newham was "of the opinion that it does provide full time education and should be registered."
The upshot of all of this was that the DfES again wrote to us telling us to register Tyndale as an independent school while helpfully reminding us that "anyone who conducts an independent school which is not a registered school is breaking the law and may be liable to a fine or imprisonment." After protracted phone calls and letters from Tyndale the DfES wrote to Newham again, on 11 March 2004, concluding (how many conclusions does that make??) that "The Academy does not appear to offer full time education and cannot therefore be registered as an independent school. I propose to write to Mr Lindsay confirming the position but feel that I should give you the opportunity of commenting before doing so."
In apparent desparation Newham wrote back on 17th March (never seen them move so quickly) and said that they could not approve of any parent educating their child with Tyndale because the Authority had "no right of inspection of the Tyndale Academy". The desparation of the Authority to have us registered is clearest in their opinion that "in view of the ... difficulties which will arise from any attempt by it to pose as an establishment providing part-time tuition only, I believe that the Tyndale Academy should be expected to register and an independent school". This reasoning threw the DfES into the kind of Yes Minister panic that spells trouble for all (especially for us). The hole was well and truly dug -but there was yet more digging to be done (in the land of metaphors anything is possible).
The upshot of all of this was that the DfES again wrote to us telling us to register Tyndale as an independent school while helpfully reminding us that "anyone who conducts an independent school which is not a registered school is breaking the law and may be liable to a fine or imprisonment." After protracted phone calls and letters from Tyndale the DfES wrote to Newham again, on 11 March 2004, concluding (how many conclusions does that make??) that "The Academy does not appear to offer full time education and cannot therefore be registered as an independent school. I propose to write to Mr Lindsay confirming the position but feel that I should give you the opportunity of commenting before doing so."
In apparent desparation Newham wrote back on 17th March (never seen them move so quickly) and said that they could not approve of any parent educating their child with Tyndale because the Authority had "no right of inspection of the Tyndale Academy". The desparation of the Authority to have us registered is clearest in their opinion that "in view of the ... difficulties which will arise from any attempt by it to pose as an establishment providing part-time tuition only, I believe that the Tyndale Academy should be expected to register and an independent school". This reasoning threw the DfES into the kind of Yes Minister panic that spells trouble for all (especially for us). The hole was well and truly dug -but there was yet more digging to be done (in the land of metaphors anything is possible).
It growed and growed like Topsy
The Department attempted to extricate itself from its uncertainty as to whether we were providing full time education by passing the ball to OFSTED. They arranged for inspectors to make an unannounced visit to Tyndale Academy in the autumn. As it turned out OFSTED informed us of the visit a few weeks ahead of time. The purpose of this visit was to ascertain whether we were providing full time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age. If we were then we would be guilty of "running an unregistered independent school". Before the inspection HMI asked for various documents such as names and addresses of children. Some of these documents were refused on the grounds of confidentiality but otherwise we made it clear that the inspectors were welcome.
Two of them came along on 17th November 2005 and spent the whole day with us. We made it clear that we believed they were only there to ascertain whether we were providing full time education. They made it equally clear that they had wider responsibilities and powers. The day went very well and in fact an excellent and detailed report (not for our eyes) was sent to the DFES. We gained sight of it later under the Freedom of Information Act.
At the end of the day the inspectors asked about the discipline policy of the school (at the time we were unaware that the Department had asked them to find out details of our policy which they knew included corporal discipline). This policy involves an occasional smack to the hand with the hand for deliberate misbehaviour and is exercised only with parental consent.
The inspectors made it clear that they felt that the relations between children and teachers was good and gave no cause for concern . They added that had they felt there was cause for concern they would have been duty bound to relate this to the local authority.
The inspectors commented that our setting of homework when considered alongside the fact that even our breaktimes were educationally productive meant that we were full time. This conclusion was directly contrary to the Department's guidance (Circuler 7/90) on what constitutes "taught time" and the inspectors own guidance which holds that less than 18 hours cannot be considered full time (ROIEJ/OFSTED). The inspectors were apparently unaware of either and made no reference to them. Nevertheless they wrote to the DFES saying that in their judgement we were providing full time education "of a rather good quality at that".
Two of them came along on 17th November 2005 and spent the whole day with us. We made it clear that we believed they were only there to ascertain whether we were providing full time education. They made it equally clear that they had wider responsibilities and powers. The day went very well and in fact an excellent and detailed report (not for our eyes) was sent to the DFES. We gained sight of it later under the Freedom of Information Act.
At the end of the day the inspectors asked about the discipline policy of the school (at the time we were unaware that the Department had asked them to find out details of our policy which they knew included corporal discipline). This policy involves an occasional smack to the hand with the hand for deliberate misbehaviour and is exercised only with parental consent.
The inspectors made it clear that they felt that the relations between children and teachers was good and gave no cause for concern . They added that had they felt there was cause for concern they would have been duty bound to relate this to the local authority.
The inspectors commented that our setting of homework when considered alongside the fact that even our breaktimes were educationally productive meant that we were full time. This conclusion was directly contrary to the Department's guidance (Circuler 7/90) on what constitutes "taught time" and the inspectors own guidance which holds that less than 18 hours cannot be considered full time (ROIEJ/OFSTED). The inspectors were apparently unaware of either and made no reference to them. Nevertheless they wrote to the DFES saying that in their judgement we were providing full time education "of a rather good quality at that".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)