admin November 14th, 2008
As most schools are aware our solicitors wrote to the Minister as a ‘letter before action’ before potentially launching a judicial review of the exemptions process. The case we put was with respect to the exemptions process that allows exemptions “when a majority of parents and the provider agree to seek an exemption because the established principles for learning and development of young children governing the setting conflict with elements of the EYFS learning and development requirements.”
Given that this exemption type was added at the last minute following petition from the SWSF and schools in order to cater for cases like us, where there is a conflict between established Steiner EY principles and elements of the EYFS, it was felt that it was unreasonable to:
- Limit exemptions to 2 years
- Require a consultation with parents
- Require discussion with the local authority
Following the response from the government’s lawyers we received last week we will not now be pursuing a judicial review, at least for the time being. Whilst the exemptions process is onerous and bureaucratic the advice was that it would probably not be a strong enough case to force a judicial review. For example the reason for not giving a long-term exemption (and limiting it to two years) was “that allowing parents to retain control over the content of provision is of significant importance”.
Never the less what is most important is that in their formal response we now have clarity of the government’s position. Finally we have their acceptance that, at least, elements of the EYFS are in conflict with Steiner EY principles (eg reading and writing, etc) and that the exemptions process is appropriate for us. As a result it would now be difficult for the QCA to refuse exemptions for Steiner EY settings. Progress of exemptions will be monitored and should it be needed the judicial review can be re-started.
The other legal advice was that we should, as much as possible, present a consistent view of what is in conflict. If for example we all submitted completely different exemptions it would be difficult to argue that they were because of a conflict with the Steiner EY practices. It is quite normal that practices may vary across settings, but not for example in the area of reading and writing.
Given this and the recent meetings of the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship with Ofsted and the DCSF, where both recommended that exemptions would be the best route for Steiner EY settings, it seems that this is the best approach. Whilst this is clear for the parent funded settings it also now seems that it may well also be for the funded settings.
We have always been sensitive to the extra difficulty the EYFS brings to the state-funded settings and have sought to ensure we addressed this with our legal advice. It now seems that for the funded settings at least initiating the exemptions discussion with the local authority would be wise. The local authority will give an indication as to whether they will continue to fund before any application for exemption is made.
Wynstones Schools is now beginning the process of applying for an exemption.
Cialis generic brand name differences
Cialis taken by women in europe
Cialis liver disease
Cialis tadalafil cialis tadafil tal
Cialis pills manufacturer
Cialis vs levitra faq
Cialis istanbul
Cialis name brand cheap
Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Digg