Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply me with a copy of the submissions to the Elective
Home Education Review that were received from the bodies and
professional experts listed in Annex B of Graham Badman's report
published 11 June 2009. For ease, I list the relevant bodies and
experts.

Association of Chief Police Officers,
Association of Directors of Children’s Services,
Association of Education Welfare Managers,
Autism in Mind,
Bedfordshire County Council,
Birmingham City Council,
British Dyslexia Association,
Cheshire County Council,
Professor James Conroy,
Department of Health,
Derbyshire County Council,
Education Otherwise,
Family Education Trust,
Forced Marriage Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Gloucestershire County Council,
Home Education Advisory Service,
Home Education Research Association,
Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice (IPSEA),
Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network,
Arthur Ivatts,
Leicestershire County Council,
Local Government Association,
National Association of Social Workers in Education,
National Autism Society,
NCB,
North Yorkshire County Council,
NSPCC,
Ofsted,
Dr Paula Rothermel,
Alison Sauer (Sauer Consulting),
Professor Alan Thomas,
Staffordshire County Council,
Wandsworth Council,
West Sussex County Council,
Wolverhampton Council,
Worcestershire County Council

Yours faithfully,

Shena Deuchars

Dear Ms Deuchars,

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0052984

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Deuchars,

Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 15
June 2009. You requested -

a copy of the submissions to the Elective
Home Education Review that were received from the bodies and
professional experts listed in Annex B of Graham Badman's report
published 11 June 2009. For ease, I list the relevant bodies and
experts.

Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Directors of
Children's Services, Association of Education Welfare Managers,
Autism in Mind, Bedfordshire County Council, Birmingham City
Council, British Dyslexia Association, Cheshire County Council,
Professor James Conroy, Department of Health, Derbyshire County
Council, Education Otherwise, Family Education Trust, Forced
Marriage Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Gloucestershire
County Council, Home Education Advisory Service, Home Education
Research Association, Independent Panel for Special Educational
Advice (IPSEA), Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network, Arthur
Ivatts, Leicestershire County Council, Local Government
Association, National Association of Social Workers in Education,
National Autism Society, NCB, North Yorkshire County Council,
NSPCC, Ofsted, Dr Paula Rothermel, Alison Sauer (Sauer Consulting),
Professor Alan Thomas, Staffordshire County Council, Wandsworth
Council, West Sussex County Council, Wolverhampton Council,
Worcestershire County Council

I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
("the Act").

The Department holds information within scope of your requests but it is
being withheld because the following qualified exemption, requiring a
public interest test, is engaged:

Section 38(1)(a) and (b) this section provides that information is
exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely, to

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

The Department has strong reason to expect that one or both of these
consequences would result from release. This exemption is however
subject to the public interest test which means that even where
prejudice or likely prejudice can be demonstrated, it is still necessary
to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the public
interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in
disclosure.

The Act obliges the Department to respond to requests promptly, and in
any case no later than 20 working days after receiving your request.
However, where one or more exemptions are engaged, the Department must
consider whether the public interest lies in disclosing or withholding
the information. In these circumstances the Act allows the time for
response to be longer than 20 working days.

In your case the Department estimates that it will take an additional 20
working days to take a decision on where the balance of the public
interest lies. It is anticipated that you will receive a full response
by 10 August. If any other exemptions are engaged in this case the
Department will consider the public interest balance in those at the
same time. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a
conclusion, we will keep you informed.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you
should make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within two
calendar months of the date of this letter. Your complaint will be
considered by an independent review panel, who were not involved in the
original consideration of your request.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint to the
Department, you may then contact the Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours sincerely,

Josephine Bell
Independent Schools Partnerships and Strategy Team
[email address]
www.dcsf.gov.uk
<http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/system/style/new/...>

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0052984.

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Bell,

Do you think that disclosure of all the submissions is exempt under
Section 38(1)(a) and (b) or does the exemption apply only to
submissions from certain categories of respondent (e.g. named
individuals)?

If it only applies to certain categories, please send any
information that does not fall into that category while you
consider the public interest test.

Yours sincerely,

Shena Deuchars

Dear Ms Deuchars

Thank you for your email of 14 July as follows:

Do you think that disclosure of all the submissions is exempt
under
Section 38(1)(a) and (b) or does the exemption apply only
to
submissions from certain categories of respondent (e.g.
named
individuals)?

If it only applies to certain categories, please send any
information that does not fall into that category while you
consider the public interest test.

As you will recall your email was in response to Ms Bell's email
to you of 14 July which indicated that section 38 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 was engaged and that we would aim to let you have a
final response to your original request by 10 August having balanced the
public interest in release against that in withholding

The Department is aware that attempts are being made on the
Internet to vilify and harass the author of the review. It is the
Department's view that, whilst dealing with each request on its merits,
this situation will have to be taken into account in dealing with any
relevant FOI requests. We therefore consider that section 38 is engaged
in respect of all the submissions you have requested. In balancing the
public interest we anticipate the need to consider whether it is in the
public interest to release information likely to intensify any such
campaign, or to lead to harassment or distress to individuals. A
number of individuals have participated in and responded to the review,
often in an official capacity on behalf of local authorities, charities
and other bodies. The Department will always seek to meet the legitimate
rights of requesters to information, but under section 2 (2) (b) of the
Act ("in all the circumstances of the case") it will also take into
account the need for public servants and other individuals to be able
to conduct legitimate business in the public interest without
harassment.

The Department is not suggesting that you have participated, or
are participating, in such a campaign. As far as we are concerned you
are a bona fide requester under that Act and we shall treat your request
accordingly, applying the public interest test fairly and
conscientiously. It is unfortunate that the activities of a minority of
people on the Internet have caused us to engage section 38 and to take
further time to consider the balance of public interest.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

As it is now 10 August 2009, I look forward to receiving the result
of your public interest test.

Yours faithfully,

Shena Deuchars

Dear Ms Deuchars

Thank you for your email of 10 August.

I very much regret the delay in responding substantively to your
request. I had hoped to have provided you with a final response by
yesterday, but that has proved not to be possible. This has been partly
because of the issues involved in balancing the public interest in this
case, and partly due to the volume of FOI requests received about
elective home education.

The Department will require further time to consider the balance of
public interest in relation to your request, and I hope to be able to
let you have a final response by 8 September, or before then if it is
possible to complete the public interest tests sooner.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Our reference: 2009/0052984 and
2009/0063810

Dear Ms Deuchars,

I refer to your request for information, which was received on
15 June 2009. You requested :

a copy of the submissions to the Elective
Home Education Review that were received from the bodies
and
professional experts listed in Annex B of Graham Badman's
report
published 11 June 2009. For ease, I list the relevant
bodies and
experts.

Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of
Directors of
Children's Services, Association of Education Welfare
Managers,
Autism in Mind, Bedfordshire County Council, Birmingham
City
Council, British Dyslexia Association, Cheshire County
Council,
Professor James Conroy, Department of Health, Derbyshire
County
Council, Education Otherwise, Family Education Trust,
Forced
Marriage Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Gloucestershire
County Council, Home Education Advisory Service, Home
Education
Research Association, Independent Panel for Special
Educational
Advice (IPSEA), Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network,
Arthur
Ivatts, Leicestershire County Council, Local Government
Association, National Association of Social Workers in
Education,
National Autism Society, NCB, North Yorkshire County
Council,
NSPCC, Ofsted, Dr Paula Rothermel, Alison Sauer (Sauer
Consulting),
Professor Alan Thomas, Staffordshire County Council,
Wandsworth
Council, West Sussex County Council, Wolverhampton Council,
Worcestershire County Council

Your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 ("the Act"). Ms Bell's email of 14 July indicated
that the Department holds information within scope of your request, but
it was being withheld because the exemption at section 38 of the Act
(health and safety) was engaged, and that the Department required more
time to consider the balance of public interest in withholding as
opposed to disclosure. My email of 11 August extended the time needed to
consider the balance until 8 September. It has not been possible to
complete the public interest tests until now, and I would like to
apologise again for the delay.

You will recall that your email of 14 July asked:

Do you think that disclosure of all the
submissions is exempt under
Section 38(1)(a) and (b) or does
the exemption apply only to
submissions from certain categories
of respondent (e.g. named
individuals)?

If it only applies to certain
categories, please send any
information that does not fall into
that category while you
consider the public interest test.

My email of 17 July indicated that the Department believed that
section 38 was engaged in respect of all the submissions you have
requested. To the extent that some of these have been put into the pubic
domain by others the Department considers that the absolute exemption at
section 21 is engaged. Under section 21 of the Act, the Department is
not required to provide information in response to a request if it is
already reasonably accessible to you.

In considering the balance of public interest under section 38
the Department also concluded that the exemption at section 35(1) of the
Act is also engaged.

This section applies specifically to information held by
government departments. It provides that information is exempt if it
'relates to:

(a) the formulation or development of government policy.'

The exemption in section 35(1)(a) is subject to the public
interest test which means that when the exemption is engaged it is
necessary to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the
public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.

The Department has therefore carried out public interest tests
in relation to the exemptions at both sections 35 and 38. The Department
has decided that the public interest lies in withholding the
information.

The results are as follows:

Section 35(1)(a)

Taken as a whole the considerations for disclosure add up to an
argument that more openness about the process may lead to better quality
policy formulation and development, greater accountability, an improved
standard of public debate, and improved trust. While in this instance
there was opportunity for key organisations and individuals to input
views, greater openness about the process may more generally lead to a
climate in which policy is not seen as a narrow preserve of Ministers,
officials and advisers, but one in which there is greater engagement by
the public.

Conversely the case for withholding rests principally in the
nature of the activity involved in policy making about highly sensitive
and emotive issues. Ministers and those advising them, including
independent experts and reviewers, need to have the necessary confidence
and space to carry out a difficult task effectively, while ultimately
being able to ensure, through the mechanism of publication of a final
report, that generic lessons can be identified and learned, that
thoroughly-considered policy recommendations can be made, and that
public interest and accountability are appropriately served. This is
important in all policy arenas where the disclosure of provisional or
tentative advice, or information which might be interpreted to reveal
reservations could have a distracting, disruptive or otherwise
detrimental effect on the continuing development of policies and their
delivery. It is particularly important to avoid such effects where there
could be adverse impact on the health and safety of individuals.

Having taken careful account of the arguments for both release
and for withholding, the Department takes the view that it is not in the
public interest for any submissions to the review of elective home
education to be released. Nor does it consider that any component parts
of them should be released. While there are general arguments for
greater openness and accountability in the policy making process, one of
the purposes of the report already published in this specific case is
precisely to provide a balanced and coherent overview of all the issues
without disclosing any sensitive information, and to satisfy the need
for public accountability. The paramount public interest lies in
ensuring that the independent report process is an effective method of
identifying the lessons that need to be learnt as swiftly as possible,
and that sound policy and implementation results; and this can only be
done when participating advisers, experts, officials and Ministers have
the necessary space and assurance of confidentiality. This is a
continuing area of policy development in a highly sensitive area and a
release of the submissions is highly likely to have a negative effect on
the development and delivery of key policies designed to safeguard
children and improve educational provision.

Section 38(1)(a) and (b)

The case for disclosure of information protected by this
exemption rests mainly on the desirability of greater openness for the
purposes of increasing public understanding and trust, and on
encouraging the greater accountability of professionals.

Conversely, it is likely that a deterrent effect would apply to
participation in, and co-operation with, review processes in the future,
leading to increased risk to vulnerable children. It is also reasonable
to expect, especially in the climate of vilification and harassment
surrounding the review that authors of submissions would be subjected to
similar treatment. Such action could never be justified. The most
effective precaution which could be taken to prevent anticipated danger
to individuals lies in not disclosing information which could put them
at risk.

Taking all these factors into account he Department takes the
view that it is not in the public interest for the submissions to be
released in whole or in part The purpose of the review report already
published is to provide a balanced and coherent overview without
disclosing any sensitive information, and this includes information
which would put at risk, or greater risk, the health and safety of
individuals.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference numbers above in any future
communications.

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled,
you should make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within
two calendar months of the date of this letter. Your complaint will be
considered by an independent review panel, who were not involved in the
original consideration of your request.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint to the
Department, you may then contact the Information Commissioner's Office

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge

Information Rights Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request
'Submissions to the Elective Home Education Review'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...

In particular, I would like you to consider if there is any
substance in the suggestion that there is "a climate of
vilification and harassment surrounding the review" and "that
authors of submissions would be subjected to similar treatment." I
believe it is vital that this information is disclosed. The DCSF
and ministers have exposed home educators to vilification and
harassment by the terms in which this review and its report are
couched, despite a lack of evidence. In fairness, home educators
should be fully appraised of the reasons for which this was done
and any substance on which it was based.

Yours faithfully,

Shena Deuchars

Dear Ms Deuchars

Thank you for your recent email, dated 8 September, requesting an
internal review of previous correspondence ('Submissions to the Elective
Home Education Review'.). Could you please advise the case reference
number that would have been assigned to the specific correspondence in
question, in order that we may consider an internal review of that case.
Your current request has been allocated the reference number
2009/0077158

Yours sincerely

Josephine Bell
Indendent Schools Partnerships and Strategy Team

Department for Children, Schools and Families
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/index.htm
<http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/system/style/new/...>

show quoted sections

Dear Josephine Bell,

I am astonished that you are apparently unable to do what I have
just done and copy the case reference numbers from the other items
in this thread.

Please examine cases 2009/0052984 and 2009/0063810.

Yours sincerely,

Shena Deuchars