Baumbast Rights and beginning primary education in reception class

Hi all

Does anyone have a take on whether beginning reception class at primary school could counts as general education, given Judge Jacobs’ decision in CIS/0097/2208?

Child’s DOB is 21/06/06 and she went from the primary school’s nursery to the reception class in Sept 2010, aged 4 yrs 2 months odd. She starts Year 1 this Sept.

Many thanks

This rests on paragraphs 17 - 18 of the decision

“17.  I have decided that the right under Article 12 arises when a child enters compulsory education at around the age of 5. The State only accepted responsibility for a child’s education from compulsory school age: section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Children reach that age on 31st March, 31 August or 31 December, depending on when they attained the age of 5. Children are subject to compulsory education from that date. In practice, they might begin that education sooner, depending on local arrangements. That is why I say around the age of 5.
18.  Ms Smyth did not argue that compulsion was an essential feature of such a course. I accept that, because as she conceded educational courses are available after the compulsory school age of 16 and are within Article 12. It is simply that the start of compulsory education coincided with the provision of education in the form of a course within the meaning and intendment of Article 12.”

There may be some scope to argue that the child was following a course of education, within the meaning of Article 12, but I suspect that the Upper Tribunal may consider that to be straining the provision (See paragrpah 26 of CIS/0097/2008)

“26.  These policies provide the rationale for the provision. They are not, though, conditions of its operation. For example: the right arises on the child’s first day in education. If it were necessary to move to another country after a week, there would be no significant interruption to education or deterrence to the worker’s freedom of movement. Article 12 is therefore wider than is strictly necessary to fulfil the policies that I have identified. That is not unusual or surprising; the terms in which laws are drafted often do not coincide with their rationale. This does not affect the operation of the rule, but it is significant for its interpretation. As it is already much broader than is necessary to attain its underlying purposes, it may not be appropriate to extend it further”

Thanks Derek - I think I would be on to loser here!