Here and here.
From the first piece, we gather that Graham Badman, contrary to the impression formed when we met him, doesn't appear to have taken anything we said seriously, doesn't understand autonomous education and hasn't given due thought to the constitutional implications of what he proposes.
"Mr Badman said a further review would be carried out to judge the structure of an acceptable home education. Releasing the report in central London on Thursday, he suggesting children aged eight should be "competent in handling numbers, have "rudimentary" computing skills and be able to read. Lessons for those aged 11 to 16 should be based around "broad systems of knowledge", he said.
Ed Balls implicitly appears to agree that the state should be responsible for determining suitability of education. In his letter to Graham Badman he states:
"We accept that LAs need greater powers to monitor home educated children to confirm they... are receiving a suitable education."
Ok, sirs, tell us this. How would you argue that only home educated children have the right to necessarily achieve what the state deems to be a suitable education? Surely, if you believe that HE children have these rights, then school children do too, since after all, the government itself maintains that Every Child Matters, and as children's rights are framed by the UNCRC, they do seem to apply universally? In which case, what would happen to the more than one in six children who, treasury figures reveal, leave school unable to read, write or add up?
I can see this playing out one of two ways. Either it is still deemed the parent's responsibility to ensure that the child is in receipt of a state-determined "suitable" education, in which case, these families should be pursued by the state in much the same way that Badman proposes HE families should be pursued. Children should be interviewed in their own homes, as their welfare is clearly not being attended to, case conferences should be called, parents rights to determine the place and nature of their child's education should be even more clearly rescinded.
Or, and this seems more likely to me, it will be deemed that the state, by determining the nature and content of an education, and by determining that children have a positive right to such an education, will now be held responsible for provision of this education. It really is no longer up to the parent any more to decide on the actual suitability of the form and content, and they therefore cannot be held responsible when that state-determined education fails their child. So when the child is indeed failed by the state-determined form of education, as with the more than one in six children who leave school unable to read and write, parents will rightly hold the state responsible and I imagine they will do this through the courts.
Other related blog posts:
Adam Smith Institute
Alfred the Ordinary (Detailed critique. Suggests Badman should look to US not Europe)
Bishop Hill (on Human Rights)
Douglas Carswell, MP (on Ed Ball's motivations)
HSLDA on how the UNCRC has been manipulated by Graham Badman and the UK gov't
James Bartholemew (What's wrong with the government inspecting all home schoolers)
Nothing Exceptional (Reasons to be angry re the review)
Peter Hitchens (on the Jack Boot of the state)
Reflections in the Green House
Sometimes it's Peaceful
Staffordshire (Letter to MP)
The Telegraph Blog
Other press reports:
The Times (with comments explaining the situation re HEors being known to SS)