LEAs should bear in mind when considering the replies to such informal enquiries (and other more formal ones, should the matter go that far) that parents taken to court for failing to comply with a School Attendance Order only have to show to the court that they are providing a suitable education on a balance of probabilities. That is the test that LEAs must also apply. Also a court will receive any evidence a parent produces, it will not have to be in any specified form and it will be sufficient so long as it shows that a suitable education is being given. Similarly an LEA has no power to require that information be given to it in a specified form or way.

The DfEE acknowledges this in their information leaflet entitled
"ENGLAND AND WALES EDUCATING CHILDREN AT HOME":

"3. LEAs, however, have no automatic right of access to the parent's home. Parents may refuse a meeting in the home, if they can offer an alternative way of demonstrating that they are providing a suitable education, for example, through showing examples of work and agreeing to a meeting at another venue."

Another "example" might be information provided in written form, sufficiently comprehensive to establish competence and intention, and beyond the mere assertion that education is taking place which Donaldson determined was inadequate. Judge Roy Ward (in Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson, Worcester Crown Court 1981) maintained that, "The burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities only."

Many parents are quite concerned not to have their child's privacy invaded out of respect for the child's autonomy, and any hint of testing or examination by strangers with a different agenda can be experienced as undermining. Therefore for reasons of educational approach, some parents may not wish to provide information to their LEA through home visits.

It would be helpful if LEAs do not disguise their duty to accept information provided in any reasonable and adequate form, by making a prior assumption of the normalcy of any particular form this might take, but on first approach to present the parents with the free choice the law supports.

In the case of R v Surrey Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Tweedie (1963). Lord Parker held that:

'.....an education authority should not, as a matter of policy, insist on inspection in the home as the only method of satisfying themselves that the children were receiving full time education.'

There is no legal requirement for the LEA to make continual enquiries. Once in receipt of a reasonable account of the educational provision, their legal obligation is fulfilled and no further contact is necessary. However, some parents may appreciate continuous help, support and contact and under these circumstances further contact can be arranged. Some LEAs arrange 'drop-in' centres where families can maintain contact.