The Early Day Motion now has 61 signatories which is a substantial increase in recent weeks. People might want to check to see if their MP has signed and if they haven't, contact them and ask them to do so.
We need to apply pressure to raise this issue in the House because at Business questions on 29th October, Graham Stuart asked Harriet Harman, at 36 mins into this recording, for a debate in the House over the issue of the weaknesses in the Badman report. Harriet Harman said that this could usefully be debated in Westminster Hall or upon the adjournment.
Transcript here, - see annotations below.*
Of course, a debate in Westminster Hall is a way of sidelining the issue. A debate in the House of Commons would be subject to a vote, ministers are more likely to attend and there is more chance of the issue being taken seriously. Westminister Hall Debates are less likely to embarrass the government into actually listening to its populace.
"In December 1999, a new meeting place was opened up for debates - Westminster Hall.
Westminster Hall sits alongside the main Chamber, and is aimed at fostering a new style of debate. Sessions are open to all MPs, who sit in a horseshoe arrangement which is meant to encourage constructive rather than confrontational debate
The meetings are presided over by a Deputy Speaker and there are no votes."
The first reading of the draft legislation "Improving Skills and Safeguarding Children" in which changes to the registration and monitoring of home educators will be after the Queen's Speech on November 18th. There will be a second reading a week or two later. Then the bill will be debated and voted upon in the House and then go through to the Lords.
For more on how bills progress, go here.
Of course, we must also keep an eye on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Learning and Children's Bill, which is due for debate on the Lords Amendments on Wednesday 11th November.
Update: From Comments to the They Work for You Site:
"The issue Graham Stuart raises merits much more than a debate in Westminster Hall since the proposed legislation (the Safeguarding Bill) that springs from Graham Badman's report into Elective Home Education has huge constitutional implications for all families in this country, for it will, in all likelihood determine that the duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education will rest unequivocally with the state.
We envisage that in years to come, when it is clear that the state has failed to ensure that a large number of children have not received a suitable education,(of course almost universally in their schooling system), that the government of the day will live to regret this legislative appropriation of parental duties.
This appropriation of parental responsibilities is but one of the huge issues that is at stake here. There are sadly many others. If we progress further down the route of state intervention into home education, it won't just have implications for home educators. It would impact upon education law for every family in England.
The full consequences of Mr Badman's proposals haven't been touched upon before the House, and deserve a full debate in the widest possible arena."
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Balls is Irritating Virtually Everyone
We repeatedly read of groups other than home educators who suffer terrible frustrations with policies emanating from Mr Balls and the DCSF. Usually it is parents who are not allowed to parent any more. From this story we hear that Claude Knights, the founder of children's charity Kidscape, said that the council were:
"using a sledgehammer to crack nuts. They are encouraging a climate where parents and children are rendered suspicious without any proof of wrong doing or guilt. Caring parents should not be viewed as a threat and if you are a bona fide parent or carer you are in a better position to look after your children than council staff."
You could say exactly the same about the government's proposals for home educating families.
On this occasion however, it is the Tory party who sound exactly like the home education community. They too (along with home educators) have had their FOI requests blocked for spurious reasons.
Michael Gove said with regard to a government-commissioned report on education budgets (concealed on spurious grounds but leaked to the Beeb) that the researcher had said that the DCSF "has little clue about financial efficiency and that millions of pounds are being wasted on poor spending decisions."
Yep, that's right. Amongst other sources of embarrassment, such as spending £35,000 on a photocopier worth just £1,000, millions of pounds would, if the Badman recommendations go ahead, also be wasted interfering with otherwise perfectly well-functioning home educators. Ed Balls SHOULD be embarrassed.
"using a sledgehammer to crack nuts. They are encouraging a climate where parents and children are rendered suspicious without any proof of wrong doing or guilt. Caring parents should not be viewed as a threat and if you are a bona fide parent or carer you are in a better position to look after your children than council staff."
You could say exactly the same about the government's proposals for home educating families.
On this occasion however, it is the Tory party who sound exactly like the home education community. They too (along with home educators) have had their FOI requests blocked for spurious reasons.
Michael Gove said with regard to a government-commissioned report on education budgets (concealed on spurious grounds but leaked to the Beeb) that the researcher had said that the DCSF "has little clue about financial efficiency and that millions of pounds are being wasted on poor spending decisions."
Yep, that's right. Amongst other sources of embarrassment, such as spending £35,000 on a photocopier worth just £1,000, millions of pounds would, if the Badman recommendations go ahead, also be wasted interfering with otherwise perfectly well-functioning home educators. Ed Balls SHOULD be embarrassed.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Not Even Getting a Debate in Westminster Hall
The unconfirmed news via the home educating grapevine is that MPs have so far failed to secure a debate on the problems with the Badman Review and the resulting proposals, even in only Westminster Hall. This is clearly ridiculous. The proposals have huge constitutional implications for every family in the country. We don't just need to secure a debate in Westminster Hall. We need one in the House where the issue would be scrutinized by a larger number of ministers and properly subjected to the democratic process.
Put your arguments for a debate here.
From comments there:
"The issue Graham Stuart raises merits much more than a debate in Westminster Hall since the proposed legislation (the Safeguarding Bill) that springs from Graham Badman's report into Elective Home Education has huge constitutional implications for all families in this country, for it will, in all likelihood determine that the duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education will rest unequivocally with the state.
Put your arguments for a debate here.
From comments there:
"The issue Graham Stuart raises merits much more than a debate in Westminster Hall since the proposed legislation (the Safeguarding Bill) that springs from Graham Badman's report into Elective Home Education has huge constitutional implications for all families in this country, for it will, in all likelihood determine that the duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education will rest unequivocally with the state.
We envisage that in years to come, when it is clear that the state has failed to ensure that a large number of children have not received a suitable education,(of course almost universally in their schooling system), that the government of the day will live to regret this legislative appropriation of parental duties.
This appropriation of parental responsibilities is but one of the huge issues that is at stake here. There are sadly many others. If we progress further down the route of state intervention into home education, it won't just have implications for home educators. It would impact upon education law for every family in England.
The full consequences of Mr Badman's proposals haven't been touched upon before the House, and deserve a full debate in the widest possible arena."
--------------------------------
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More on the Unexamined Complexities of the Badman Proposals
Lifted (with permission) from comments below:
If Dr. Maggie Atkinson thinks local authorities should check that the materials used by home educated children are "age appropriate", as she said she used to check in Birmingham, then she is also out of touch with government education strategy, which emphasises 'stage not age'.
How do the LAs propose to determine what stage each home educated child is at? Even if they determine it once, it is recognised by experts in child development that children do not develop in a nice even fashion, and intellectual growth spurts and lags occur at different ages in different children, as well as being different for different academic skills. They'll have to determine it every time they see a child, for each aspect of academic study, before they even start to think about whether the materials the child has are 'suitable'.
On a side point, how are they going to find out whether a child who is studying A level and undergraduate material (online, for free :-)) has learnt what they 'should' have done over the last 12 months? Are they going to bring in Uni staff? Are all LA inspectors competent to assess attainment at A level in all subjects? Perhaps they are assuming that every home educated child is either over 16 years old or goes to college to study at this level, but if so, they are wrong, yet again.
I wait with bated breath for the next installment of this nonsense ....
If Dr. Maggie Atkinson thinks local authorities should check that the materials used by home educated children are "age appropriate", as she said she used to check in Birmingham, then she is also out of touch with government education strategy, which emphasises 'stage not age'.
How do the LAs propose to determine what stage each home educated child is at? Even if they determine it once, it is recognised by experts in child development that children do not develop in a nice even fashion, and intellectual growth spurts and lags occur at different ages in different children, as well as being different for different academic skills. They'll have to determine it every time they see a child, for each aspect of academic study, before they even start to think about whether the materials the child has are 'suitable'.
On a side point, how are they going to find out whether a child who is studying A level and undergraduate material (online, for free :-)) has learnt what they 'should' have done over the last 12 months? Are they going to bring in Uni staff? Are all LA inspectors competent to assess attainment at A level in all subjects? Perhaps they are assuming that every home educated child is either over 16 years old or goes to college to study at this level, but if so, they are wrong, yet again.
I wait with bated breath for the next installment of this nonsense ....
Home Education in the Cambridge News
...here.
"I taught in mainstream schools and now run groups for home-educated children in Cambridgeshire. I observe that those parents who do not have a teaching qualification seem naturally to make more efficient home educators than those who have to unlearn habits necessary to manage 30 children at a time."
"I taught in mainstream schools and now run groups for home-educated children in Cambridgeshire. I observe that those parents who do not have a teaching qualification seem naturally to make more efficient home educators than those who have to unlearn habits necessary to manage 30 children at a time."
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What Home Educators Will Do Next
Blogdial outlines what home educators are likely to do next, should the government's recommendations in response to the Badman review be implemented:
"If you can get all the people in your group to agree to obey only common sense, and do disobey any order or directive that violates your rights, then essentially, there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Common sense and order will prevail and insanity and disorder will cease to exist.
This is what the hunting crowd have discovered; they keep hunting and nothing has stopped them. It is directly analogous to Neo’s not running anymore, turning around and saying very calmly ‘No’.
It is directly analogous to THX and SEN being shown by SRT that in fact, there are no barriers to escape, and if you try to escape, nothing will stop you.
Finally, there is no need for violence from you. Power is an illusion. If enough people say no, there is nothing that can stop them, in fact, bullets cannot kill what energises them because bullets cannot kill ideas."
Bullets will not kill the realisation that Nu Labour, by the implementation of their version of the Badman recommendations, will be appropriating the role of parent. They will be responsible for the education of the nation's children, for setting the ambitions of every family and for ensuring the welfare of children. Given that such an appropriation infringes all good sense, all common decency, every natural and useful instinct in parents, civil disobedience is very likely to be the only way to go.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Maggie Atkinson is Making Things Up
Just before the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee met for the Badman Inquiry on 12th October 09, they interviewed Dr. Maggie Atkinson about her proposed appointment as Children's Commissioner. Below is the transcript of a part of that interview where they touch on the subject of monitoring Elective Home Educators:
"Q36. Paul Holmes: In a few minutes we are going to move on to start looking at the Badman report and suggestions about the regulation of home education. As the person who is 99% of the way to being the Children's Commissioner for England at the moment, what do you think we should be saying as a Committee regarding the legislative process and the Badman report, and whether it is protecting children's interests or trampling all over the interests of home-educated children?
Maggie Atkinson: I will take you back, if I may, to when I was an adviser in Birmingham city council, where there were quite large numbers of home-educated children - it is getting on for 20 years now since I worked in Birmingham. At that time, as an adviser I had a right and a duty not only to knock on the doors of people who were choosing electively to educate their children at home, but simply to go into their premises and, on the most headline of bases, to look at whether the environment was right, whether there were age-appropriate materials in use, and whether the children seemed okay. They were never interviewed on their own, they were never taken on one side, they were never taken away from their parents and there was never any really intrusive work that I did as an adviser from Birmingham city council. I felt it was entirely appropriate, and it was within the bounds of reason.
In the last two to three years, the regulations are such that I can go no further than the doorstep. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of families who choose electively to educate their children at home are doing so for entirely right reasons, for entirely honourable, fair, just, creative and admirable reasons. But I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died - Khyra Ishaq. I do not think that it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut simply to be able to go across the doorstep of the home where a child is being electively home educated. Not to interfere, not to insist, not to direct, but simply to check that they are as safe as you need them to be. Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. That may be an extreme case, and horrible and dreadful, and it happens very, very, very rarely indeed. None the less, it's happened.
Q37 Paul Holmes: Who rewrote the rules to stop you going across the doorstep in the way that you did 20 years ago?
Maggie Atkinson: My understanding is that it was statutory guidance that was rewritten within the Department."
A home educator asks: "What chance for EHE children to get justice, with her in the Children's Commissioner's seat?"
Quite. Dr. Atkinson demonstrates by the above evidence that she is either ignorant of the known facts of the matters at hand, or she is quite prepared to fudge the facts in order to further her objectives. Either way, it doesn't bode well.
Where to start? Well first, the EHE guidelines that appeared in 2007 didn't alter the law in any way whatsover. It didn't reduce the powers of the services to intervene in cases such as Khyra's. It merely explained the powers that Local Authorities have for the numerous LAs who were overstepping the mark, so Dr Atkinson's understanding is way off on this point.
Secondly, Dr Atkinson might use the two words Khyra Ishaq in apparent support of her argument that all HEors should suffer a massive level of unwarranted intrusion, but actually the facts of Khyra's case do not support her argument. Khyra was already well-known to the authorities. Both her father and the deputy head had contacted social services numerous times about her situation and there were numerous attempts to visit the family, from police as well as social services. The fact is that Khyra was not hidden and the Badman registration and monitoring process would not have solved this problem, as presumably the family would still have refused to open the door. The law that exists already would provide the only answer. SS and or the police would have the right to gain entry, forcibly if necessary.
Thirdly, there is good reason to believe that Dr. Atkinson, in her role as an advisor to Birmingham LA some twenty years ago, was acting in an ultra vires fashion, since it has, in fact, never been the case that an inspector had the right to doorstep parents, gain entry to the home or have sight of the child without good cause, any more than the authorities have a right of access to the home for children between the ages of 0-5 years.
Hmm. We rather sympathise when the Select Committee deemed Dr. Atkinson inappropriate for the role of Children's Commissioner.
"Q36. Paul Holmes: In a few minutes we are going to move on to start looking at the Badman report and suggestions about the regulation of home education. As the person who is 99% of the way to being the Children's Commissioner for England at the moment, what do you think we should be saying as a Committee regarding the legislative process and the Badman report, and whether it is protecting children's interests or trampling all over the interests of home-educated children?
Maggie Atkinson: I will take you back, if I may, to when I was an adviser in Birmingham city council, where there were quite large numbers of home-educated children - it is getting on for 20 years now since I worked in Birmingham. At that time, as an adviser I had a right and a duty not only to knock on the doors of people who were choosing electively to educate their children at home, but simply to go into their premises and, on the most headline of bases, to look at whether the environment was right, whether there were age-appropriate materials in use, and whether the children seemed okay. They were never interviewed on their own, they were never taken on one side, they were never taken away from their parents and there was never any really intrusive work that I did as an adviser from Birmingham city council. I felt it was entirely appropriate, and it was within the bounds of reason.
In the last two to three years, the regulations are such that I can go no further than the doorstep. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of families who choose electively to educate their children at home are doing so for entirely right reasons, for entirely honourable, fair, just, creative and admirable reasons. But I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died - Khyra Ishaq. I do not think that it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut simply to be able to go across the doorstep of the home where a child is being electively home educated. Not to interfere, not to insist, not to direct, but simply to check that they are as safe as you need them to be. Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. That may be an extreme case, and horrible and dreadful, and it happens very, very, very rarely indeed. None the less, it's happened.
Q37 Paul Holmes: Who rewrote the rules to stop you going across the doorstep in the way that you did 20 years ago?
Maggie Atkinson: My understanding is that it was statutory guidance that was rewritten within the Department."
A home educator asks: "What chance for EHE children to get justice, with her in the Children's Commissioner's seat?"
Quite. Dr. Atkinson demonstrates by the above evidence that she is either ignorant of the known facts of the matters at hand, or she is quite prepared to fudge the facts in order to further her objectives. Either way, it doesn't bode well.
Where to start? Well first, the EHE guidelines that appeared in 2007 didn't alter the law in any way whatsover. It didn't reduce the powers of the services to intervene in cases such as Khyra's. It merely explained the powers that Local Authorities have for the numerous LAs who were overstepping the mark, so Dr Atkinson's understanding is way off on this point.
Secondly, Dr Atkinson might use the two words Khyra Ishaq in apparent support of her argument that all HEors should suffer a massive level of unwarranted intrusion, but actually the facts of Khyra's case do not support her argument. Khyra was already well-known to the authorities. Both her father and the deputy head had contacted social services numerous times about her situation and there were numerous attempts to visit the family, from police as well as social services. The fact is that Khyra was not hidden and the Badman registration and monitoring process would not have solved this problem, as presumably the family would still have refused to open the door. The law that exists already would provide the only answer. SS and or the police would have the right to gain entry, forcibly if necessary.
Thirdly, there is good reason to believe that Dr. Atkinson, in her role as an advisor to Birmingham LA some twenty years ago, was acting in an ultra vires fashion, since it has, in fact, never been the case that an inspector had the right to doorstep parents, gain entry to the home or have sight of the child without good cause, any more than the authorities have a right of access to the home for children between the ages of 0-5 years.
Hmm. We rather sympathise when the Select Committee deemed Dr. Atkinson inappropriate for the role of Children's Commissioner.
DCSF Consultation Responses
Good. More responses to the consultation are getting an airing. This one from Neil T rightly concludes:
"Government should be aware that the people will not be pushed in the direction of totalitarianism for ever, and that there is a line which government can cross that will not be tolerated, such rule, disobeyed.
For myself and many others I know, that line has already been crossed in this shameless and disgusting process, and as I have said before, and now reiterate, government does not have my consent to this process or any outcome from it. I will not submit to such tyranny. I will not obey this rule."
Consultation responses from HEors:
AHED
HEYC
EO
Helen's group response
Ian Appleby
Emma.
Maire
Bruce
Merry
Jax
Clare M
Dani
Neil T
Louisa
Elaine
Shena
Firebird
Michael
Kelly
Jemmo
Nineteenthly
Jennifer
Ruth
Sally
Gill
Beth
The Jumps
Blurred Scratchings
Carlotta
====================
LA responses:
Cumbria
====================
Other consultation responses:
Association of Directors of Children's Services. (PDF). Out of PDF here.
Catholic Education Service
"Government should be aware that the people will not be pushed in the direction of totalitarianism for ever, and that there is a line which government can cross that will not be tolerated, such rule, disobeyed.
For myself and many others I know, that line has already been crossed in this shameless and disgusting process, and as I have said before, and now reiterate, government does not have my consent to this process or any outcome from it. I will not submit to such tyranny. I will not obey this rule."
Consultation responses from HEors:
AHED
HEYC
EO
Helen's group response
Ian Appleby
Emma.
Maire
Bruce
Merry
Jax
Clare M
Dani
Neil T
Louisa
Elaine
Shena
Firebird
Michael
Kelly
Jemmo
Nineteenthly
Jennifer
Ruth
Sally
Gill
Beth
The Jumps
Blurred Scratchings
Carlotta
====================
LA responses:
Cumbria
====================
Other consultation responses:
Association of Directors of Children's Services. (PDF). Out of PDF here.
Catholic Education Service
Saturday, October 24, 2009
It's already bad enough as it is
There are those who think that the Badman report won't make autonomous education impossible. Given that in many LAs, for example Southend, autonomous education is already compromised, in that the LA's requirements for a suitable education already restrict the individual's freedom to choose, and this when the current EHE guidelines explicitly allow for different approaches to educational provision, it seems highly unlikely that autonomous education will be a possibility post-Badman, and after the proposed consultation on the nature of a suitable education in most if not all LAs.
The Voice of the Home Educated Child
Unlike Mr Badman, Ann actually asked and listened to the answers.
And here's another survey on the contact that home educated children have with the wider community.
And here's another survey on the contact that home educated children have with the wider community.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Home Educating Parents Prepared to go to Court
The Times has that right.
And an article on the implications of the Badman proposals in the Economist which concludes:
"Local-authority officers would have the right to enter a home where a child is being taught and quiz him in his parents’ absence. Permission to home-school could be denied if inspectors decided a child’s safety was in danger. In a handful of cases, that will be the right decision, but for the overwhelming majority of parents, this is bullying bureaucracy at its worst. Mr Balls clearly believes the nanny state knows best.
And an article on the implications of the Badman proposals in the Economist which concludes:
"Local-authority officers would have the right to enter a home where a child is being taught and quiz him in his parents’ absence. Permission to home-school could be denied if inspectors decided a child’s safety was in danger. In a handful of cases, that will be the right decision, but for the overwhelming majority of parents, this is bullying bureaucracy at its worst. Mr Balls clearly believes the nanny state knows best.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What Peterborough LA wrote
...in response to the consultation.
This is the first response we've seen from a LA. Predictably terrible.
This is the first response we've seen from a LA. Predictably terrible.
HEYC Objects to Children's Commissioner
Their press release here.
Apparently she thinks that inspectors must have an automatic right and duty to inspect home educators. So much for listening to the voice of the child, Dr Atkinson! 77 - 78% of HE children say they don't want to see LA inspectors.
The Telegraph questions the entire purpose of her newly acquired role:
"Anything aimed at making the lives of children happier immediately receives widespread public support, and one doubts that the Conservative Party would want to line up the post of Children's Commissioner for a public spending cut. But what does the job achieve? Are children happier because of it? Is not the history of the last 40 or 50 years a tale of increased interference by the state in family life, quite often with a view to destroying it and dissolving the bonds that normally protect children? Could any commissioner ensure that fewer children are abused, or impoverished, or badly educated? Of course not, so let's stop pretending he or she could."
Apparently she thinks that inspectors must have an automatic right and duty to inspect home educators. So much for listening to the voice of the child, Dr Atkinson! 77 - 78% of HE children say they don't want to see LA inspectors.
The Telegraph questions the entire purpose of her newly acquired role:
"Anything aimed at making the lives of children happier immediately receives widespread public support, and one doubts that the Conservative Party would want to line up the post of Children's Commissioner for a public spending cut. But what does the job achieve? Are children happier because of it? Is not the history of the last 40 or 50 years a tale of increased interference by the state in family life, quite often with a view to destroying it and dissolving the bonds that normally protect children? Could any commissioner ensure that fewer children are abused, or impoverished, or badly educated? Of course not, so let's stop pretending he or she could."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
One in Three Children Unhappy Most of the Time
Have just separately run the gist of this article by the two home educated young people here and have received a rather astonished stare on both occasions.
When I asked if they felt happy/unhappy most of the time, they looked at me as if I needed my head sorted..."sure...HAPPY."
How different is that from my own miserable (schooled) teen years!
When I asked if they felt happy/unhappy most of the time, they looked at me as if I needed my head sorted..."sure...HAPPY."
How different is that from my own miserable (schooled) teen years!
Fear of Social Services
...doesn't just afflict Home Educators. Any parent demanding reasonable treatment on behalf of their children is at risk of falling foul of over-worked and irritable social workers:
"Social work managers admit that overworked staff, who encounter aggression and abuse every day, can become vindictive without careful supervision and support. Even Kim Bromley-Derry, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, confesses that the phenomenon is "obviously not uncommon".
"Ultimately, if there is a difference of opinion between a family and a social worker, who are all the other professionals going to believe? Inevitably, the family are in a much weaker position, and we have to prevent all abuses of that power imbalance," he says."
Media Release from Action for Home Education
Media release from Action for Home Education, 20 October 2009
DCSF "just embarrassing themselves now"
Moments before the deadline, a home-educating parent reported that their submission to the latest consultation on home education had received the number 5340, an unusually large public response with the previous record for DCSF being only in the hundreds.
One of the respondents, JK, a fifteen year old supporter of Action for Home Education, declared today that Ed Balls and the DCSF are "just embarrassing themselves now" as he battled to understand how the government can be so short sighted about the opposition to the recommendations in the Badman Report on home education.
This rather gives the lie to Graham Badman's assertion to the Children, Schools and Families Committee (12 October 2009, Q2) that the opposition to his report comes from "a vociferous minority" that he can actually count. But "why", asks JK, "are they still not listening?"
Diana Johnson (to Children, Schools and Families Select Committee hearing 12 October 2009,) promised that consultation responses will be carefully scrutinised and taken into account before policy is made.
"But Ed Balls accepted the widely criticised Badman review in full immediately and dismissed out of hand the Cambridge Review, a long term academic study of education that suggested children should start school at six and sit fewer tests", said Barbara Stark, Chair of the AHEd group.
"We are watching to see if even the large number of responses is going to be taken seriously by Ed Balls who, so far, has ridden rough shod over the wishes and needs of home educated children to push forward his own ideas. We think that the review was not really independent and was used by Ed Balls to make up policy-based evidence biased towards a predetermined agenda to bully us and our children."
AHEd believes most of the consultation responses will have been from ordinary families who see big government threatening their way of life and their family choices.
Supporter Clare Murton said, "This government has lost sight of the distinction between public and private to the point where even our youngsters are mystified at their ignorance and arrogance.
"Many parents will recognise the frustration home educators feel with the shortcomings of the state schools, but not many will realise that, if they chose to decline the state's humble offerings in any sphere of life, not just education, they may be forced to expose their homes and children to close scrutiny."
Recently there have been attempts to screen, control, tax and register mums and dads who choose to share their child care arrangements, but things are now thought to be going too far. AHEd believes that Ed Balls and the DCSF have to be made to understand that normally peaceful home educators who just want to get on with their lives are drawing a line in the sand.
Ms Stark said, "The British public are fed up with such interference and we will tolerate it no longer. We will not comply with this disgusting agenda for us and our children. If necessary, many of us will choose to go before the courts to fight any criminal sanctions that government may introduce.
"Does New Labour really want to be remembered as the government that persecuted law-abiding parents doing their best for their families?"
ENDS
For further information, contact AHEd.
DCSF "just embarrassing themselves now"
Moments before the deadline, a home-educating parent reported that their submission to the latest consultation on home education had received the number 5340, an unusually large public response with the previous record for DCSF being only in the hundreds.
One of the respondents, JK, a fifteen year old supporter of Action for Home Education, declared today that Ed Balls and the DCSF are "just embarrassing themselves now" as he battled to understand how the government can be so short sighted about the opposition to the recommendations in the Badman Report on home education.
This rather gives the lie to Graham Badman's assertion to the Children, Schools and Families Committee (12 October 2009, Q2) that the opposition to his report comes from "a vociferous minority" that he can actually count. But "why", asks JK, "are they still not listening?"
Diana Johnson (to Children, Schools and Families Select Committee hearing 12 October 2009,) promised that consultation responses will be carefully scrutinised and taken into account before policy is made.
"But Ed Balls accepted the widely criticised Badman review in full immediately and dismissed out of hand the Cambridge Review, a long term academic study of education that suggested children should start school at six and sit fewer tests", said Barbara Stark, Chair of the AHEd group.
"We are watching to see if even the large number of responses is going to be taken seriously by Ed Balls who, so far, has ridden rough shod over the wishes and needs of home educated children to push forward his own ideas. We think that the review was not really independent and was used by Ed Balls to make up policy-based evidence biased towards a predetermined agenda to bully us and our children."
AHEd believes most of the consultation responses will have been from ordinary families who see big government threatening their way of life and their family choices.
Supporter Clare Murton said, "This government has lost sight of the distinction between public and private to the point where even our youngsters are mystified at their ignorance and arrogance.
"Many parents will recognise the frustration home educators feel with the shortcomings of the state schools, but not many will realise that, if they chose to decline the state's humble offerings in any sphere of life, not just education, they may be forced to expose their homes and children to close scrutiny."
Recently there have been attempts to screen, control, tax and register mums and dads who choose to share their child care arrangements, but things are now thought to be going too far. AHEd believes that Ed Balls and the DCSF have to be made to understand that normally peaceful home educators who just want to get on with their lives are drawing a line in the sand.
Ms Stark said, "The British public are fed up with such interference and we will tolerate it no longer. We will not comply with this disgusting agenda for us and our children. If necessary, many of us will choose to go before the courts to fight any criminal sanctions that government may introduce.
"Does New Labour really want to be remembered as the government that persecuted law-abiding parents doing their best for their families?"
ENDS
For further information, contact AHEd.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hansard from 19th October
Haven't had chance to read yet. Here for the record!
And one to watch (for tomorrow, Wednesday, from 09.30 hours.
And one to watch (for tomorrow, Wednesday, from 09.30 hours.
"All Pointing at Mr Badman".
5342 responses reported on one of the lists. Way to GO, people! Most government consultations don't get anywhere close to that.
The huge response is exactly as it should be as it helps to demonstrate the strength and depth of feeling across the home education community about the damaging nature of Mr Badman's proposals.
Someone commented "He's got large numbers of EHEers all pointing in the same direction. I don't think he likes it, however, 'cos we're all pointing at him!"
Now, we just have to wait and see if Balls dares to worsen his bully-boy image by ignoring us.
The huge response is exactly as it should be as it helps to demonstrate the strength and depth of feeling across the home education community about the damaging nature of Mr Badman's proposals.
Someone commented "He's got large numbers of EHEers all pointing in the same direction. I don't think he likes it, however, 'cos we're all pointing at him!"
Now, we just have to wait and see if Balls dares to worsen his bully-boy image by ignoring us.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Last Chance to Respond
...to the consultation today, (Monday 19th) till 23.45 hours.
Badman seems to think it is the vocal minority who are responding and that most home educators actually secretly agree with him.
This is not how it seems from this end. We visit home education groups in over five counties, and almost every single person at these groups thinks his proposals to register and monitor home educators are terrible!
There are over 3,800 responses already done and dusted. Please do respond too. Let's provide Mr Badman a better impression of the strength of feeling out here.
Badman seems to think it is the vocal minority who are responding and that most home educators actually secretly agree with him.
This is not how it seems from this end. We visit home education groups in over five counties, and almost every single person at these groups thinks his proposals to register and monitor home educators are terrible!
There are over 3,800 responses already done and dusted. Please do respond too. Let's provide Mr Badman a better impression of the strength of feeling out here.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
If You're Still looking for a Reason
...to find a mo to fill in the consultation before tomorrow (Monday 19th) at 23.45 hours, you might like to try to imagine what it will be like to have to put up with the minutiae of your parenting being scrutinized by someone who doesn't know you from Adam. Or you could read this.
Then after that, you can read about Alex Dowty's experiences of being home educated without the heavy hand of the state here.
My response number: 3419.
Then after that, you can read about Alex Dowty's experiences of being home educated without the heavy hand of the state here.
My response number: 3419.
My Final Answer to Question One of the Consultation
Consultation Questions
1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?
Agree
Disagree *
Not sure
No Response
Comments: The short answer is "no".
1.1 No, because in a huge majority of home educating families, there is no conflict between these rights. Setting out to screen the entire population of home educators on the basis that a few families fail to balance these rights would actually result in the infringement of far more rights of the child than these proposals would protect. (See section 1.3 for further details.)
1.2 Further, implementation of the registration and monitoring proposals would also be a disproportionate use of the law (see section 1.7) and a waste of money (see section 1.9). It would damage families by intruding on their privacy and by removing their autonomy. It would mean that the law at s7 of the Education Act 1996 (1) would be applied inconsistently, so that home educators would be required to reach a higher standard in law than schooling families (see section 1.4) . It would over-ride principles of good practice and intent as laid out in the Children's Plan, whereby the government requires that agencies work in partnership with parents (see section 2.4) and it would damage the unwritten constitution (see section 1.8) and premises upon which education law in England has been constructed (sections 1.5 and 1.6 below).
1.3 With regard to the issue of children's rights, Graham Badman made the case for intruding upon all families on the basis of a child's right to be heard. He wrote at paragraph 3.3:
However, in setting out to strike a balance between the above rights, (which in practice it would fail to do - a point to which we shall return later), his review's proposals will in fact override hugely significant UNCRC-mandated (2) rights of the child, and in the process will actually make it more difficult for parents to offer a suitable education.
1.4 Mr Badman's proposals don't just represent a problem for UNCRC-related law. There would be conflicts with current English law too. In English law at s7 of the Education Act 1996 (1), parents are required
"....to cause the child to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
Given that there are no proposals to subject schooling families to a judgement as to whether they provide a genuinely suitable education, it appears that in this context a "child's right to receive a suitable education" must mean that this right is all about appearances, since the societal norms dictate that by sending their children to school, schooling parents appear to be making suitable provision, whether or not a suitable education is actually attained.
This would make epistemic sense too, since parents may offer an apparently suitable education, and yet their child may resolutely refuse to accept it. Since every act of learning is learner initiated and parents thankfully cannot open up the brains of their progeny and pour knowledge into it as you would pour water into a bucket, it would be wrong for the law to hold parents to account for something over which they have no control.
However, we must accept that a judgement on the apparent suitability of provision is a poor judgement for anything useful since actual educational attainment is often very poorly correlated to apparent suitability of provision. Many children at my own private school were delivered of an education that was routinely described as excellent, and yet they failed educationally, often utterly and miserably. On the other hand, we know of someone who, as a child, was allowed to truant routinely, wandering the bomb sites of Coventry, completely neglected by his parents and who went on to become a university professor of ecology, since his boyhood wanderings resulted in an obsessive interest in the ecology of bomb-sites, then the local woodlands and beyond. Aged 19, he presented himself to a university department with no qualifications to his name, begging them to take him on as an undergraduate. He ended the day accepting the offer of a lectureship.
Between provision and attainment, there is a far greater gap than many people are prepared to countenance, and yet Mr Badman proposes that the state is capable of making the difficult and subjective judgement about suitability of provision.
We should also accept that actually no-one can be sure what "suitable" education provision should really look like, not only for every individual, with all their different quirks and requirements, but also in this age of information. It is quite conceivable, for example, that a child who watches TV all day will end up with a wider range of knowledge than a child who has sat in a classroom all day. We do not really know of what we speak, and yet Mr Badman is asking a bureaucrat who barely knows the child to make this monumentally important and yet hugely tricky call.
Many LA inspectors do not understand that provision that does not fit the schooling model can in fact be highly suitable in that a suitable education is actually attained. Autonomous education can look to the uninitiated or to the rigidly prejudiced, to resemble neglect, (it is not, and differs substantially yet often subtly) and yet it has proved efficacious over and over again. In our area, it has supplied a steady stream of motivated, skilled adults, many of whom had been or would have been woefully failed by standard schooling techniques.
But the difficulty in making subjective judgements about the quality of provision of a suitable education is by no means the end of the problems Mr Badman's proposals to monitor home educators present for English law. From recommendation 7 of his Review:
"That parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means to demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of intent lodged at the time of registration."
it is clear that Mr Badman interprets a parent's duty to offer a suitable education to mean that a suitable education must be both offered and attained and thereby that home educating parents are actually to be held to a far higher account than schooling parents, being judged not merely on appearance of suitability of provision, but upon demonstration of educational attainment.
This would clearly mean that s7 of the 1996 Education Act (1) would be applied to home educating parents in a different way to schooling parents. HEing parents will be held to far higher account, since if schooling parents were also to be held to account for educational attainment of their children, there would be no end of prosecutions of parents for their children's educational failure, given that so many school children leave school functionally illiterate and innumerate.
It seems that if the review's proposals were to be enacted, s7 would simply have be applied inequitably and yet consistent application of the law is one of the tenets of good legislation. In order to solve this problem of consistent enactment of the law following implementation of the proposals, either every parent in the land should be held to similar account (ie: be shown to be offering their child a genuinely suitable education which results in educational attainment), or when local authorities begin the process of judging HEors' educational attainment, home educators will have to resort to anti-discrimination legislation in order to rectify the inconsistent application of s7, or we will all have to accept that s7 is only about the "appearance" of suitable educational provision and LAs will no longer have to assess the educational attainment of the HE child, and should therefore accept a written philosophy of intent from the HE parent.
1.5 Further on the issue of suitable education, (whether provision or attainment), we need to ask who's task it should be to determine the nature of the appearance of suitable educational provision. Should it be the state, in the form of some nameless bureaucrat who doesn't know the child from Adam, or should it be the parents, who have intimate knowledge of the child's learning style?
We hear in the DCSF's recent full response (4) to the Home Education Review that the government intends to hold a further review upon the nature of suitable education:
"The response also outlines that more work will be done to clarify what is ‘suitable and effective’ home education to support new guidance to local authorities on supporting and monitoring home educators. This will emphasise how local authorities can work with home educating parents to make sure that the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, can be met in the home environment where appropriate. The guidance will take account of findings from the Lamb Inquiry, to be published later this year."
The DCSF must understand that if they determine the nature of a "suitable" and "effective" home education, the state will have taken over the reins for ensuring educational provision and attainment. Parents could no longer be held responsible for educational failure when they deliver that which the state determines, and the state will be held responsible for educational provision and attainment by families everywhere, in every educational setting.
The law must not be allowed to create a situation whereby a parent is held to task for something over which he has no control since it would be analogous to a general telling his men what to do, and then holding them responsible when they act upon his orders and yet his tactics fail. The general must be held responsible, and parents will go to court to prove that this is how the lines of responsibility are working.
In the real world, it would be far better to acknowledge that the judgement of educational provision and attainment is something that will forever be fraught with difficulty. We can never be certain of what we speak and an obsession with quantifying levels of attainment in the mind of another, as evidenced in school exams and league tables, is about the most pointless task that we currently undertake as a nation. Many of us have exam results that in no way reflected our educational attainment and do not accurately reflect our abilities to function. We hear how year in year out, results from public exams are improving, and yet at the same time, how we now live in a broken society where the youth of today are increasingly feral and irresponsible. The disconnect between so-called educational attainment and the reality of how well people live their lives seems all too obvious.
It would seem wise therefore, to restrict judgements in this area to judgements about the nature of provision. It would also seem wise, given that parents are in a better position to know, and given that the state would otherwise be taking on a task it couldn't possibly manage, to leave this decision to parents, with the state, as now, only stepping in at a later stage when it is very clear that there is good reason for concern.
1.6 Mr. Badman's proposal that the state rubber-stamp all educational provision in this country also has huge constitutional implications as well. Should all educational provision be state-mandated? The answer is clearly no for the foundation stone of a democracy is thereby undermined. A democracy relies for its legitimacy upon the existence of an informed, articulate and free-thinking populace which is capable of holding the state to reasonable account. If children are are only to be taught that which the state permits, the foundation for this democracy is undermined, and the government reduces its legitimacy.
1.7 On the issue of proportionality of the proposals , it is far from clear that there is a real problem that needs to be solved here with regard to the HE community. Poorly informed, subjective judgements, the desire to cover their backs and to make their jobs easier means that LAs have talked up the problems of the education of HE children with these assertions.
Indeed we have recently heard from one LA which constituted a statistical outlier in terms of having a high proportion of children at risk one way or the other that:
"The high percentage of children arose from all the data we have ever had and therefore that includes people that (sic) are now adults. This could have included involvements for other members of the family, referrals where the outcome was no further action, etc."
and when asked for numbers of HE children who do not appear to be receiving a suitable education (5), LAs routinely include families who's educational provision does not fit the school model and yet which is actually suitable, as well as families they have not been able to visit.
It is very clear that significant problems in this area have not been demonstrated in any reliable way whatsoever, and this includes Mr Badman's latest call for evidence which will contain the same problems writ even larger.
One blogger (6) comments on this latest data collection:
"According to Badman, 0.4% of home educating children have child protection plans, meaning that 99.6% are not unsafe. Does such a small proportion as this make a multimillion pound intervention proportionate or desirable, especially as it’s only point two on one percentage point lower than for all children in the 74 local authorities?"
Without there being a clearly established need for them in terms of protecting children's rights, the Badman proposals will nonetheless vitiate the rights of the parents to home educate since parents will no longer be able to determine the nature of a suitable education. They will create a situation where parents are to be judged upon something (ie: their child's educational attainment) over which they have no control, firstly because they cannot any more freely decide upon the nature of suitable provision, and secondly because they cannot do the impossible and open the brains of their children to pour knowledge into it. Judging someone for something over which they have no control is a quick way to render a person either very, very angry and litigious or utterly hopeless, a position of learned helplessness which will be hugely damaging for families. In both these situations, it is clear that the state, rather than solving the problem of abuse, is in fact perpetrating it.
1.8 The Badman proposal to monitor will also destroy another foundation of democracy: that families may be able to freely decide upon and work towards their own ambitions. The freedom to HE law springs almost as a side effect of the way legislation has been written in order to reflect the fact that the autonomy of the individual and the family unit is respected. If you destroy the autonomy of HEors to decide their ambitions for themselves and the freedom to decide upon the nature of a suitable education, you would thereby destroy the foundation stone of democracy and yet the implementation of Badman's proposals to monitor would do just that. The reason for this is that under s13A and s175 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, state employees have, in the course of their other duties to promote educational attainment and the safety and welfare, including the five ambitions of the ECM and to do this with individual families.
When the first guidance on the duty to Identify Children Missing an Education was written, home educators were explicitly excluded from its reach, which meant that HEors wouldn't routinely be subject to inspection and therefore for having their ambitions determined for them. Under Badman's recommendation to monitor, this would change. With its implementation, all families will now come into contact with state employees, and the symbolic as well as functional aspect of the law which represented the freedom for a person and family to determine their own ambitions will go. We will all have to dance to the state's tune, and woe betide anyone who doesn't. The state will have become well and truly the parent of first resort, and we will hold it responsible when it makes a balls of it.
In the previous consultation on light touch changes in 2007, Lord Adonis, after consulting with his legal department, clearly appreciated the difficulties that monitoring and inspection of home educators represents, (7) both in their practical application and in their implications for the law and the constitution. It is essential that the government revisit his remarks so that they be reminded that the problems listed above must be taken seriously by them.
At a time when many educationalists are realising the value of parental involvement in education, the authority of home educating parents will be severely undermined and the education of children will doubtlessly suffer, and indeed has done so already in some HE households where parents are already preparing for registration with LAs whose inspectors are known to prefer a schooling style of home education.
1.9 Local authorities should also be aware that they face a practical difficulty with the funding of the Review's proposals. There will not be enough money in most LAs to do this job universally, and yet given all the new powers that LAs will have delivered to them, they will be held to more, not less account. They are likely to find themselves with even fewer excuses when faced with a Serious Case Review.
(1) Education Act 1996 s7
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960056_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb3-l1g7
(2). UNCRC: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#
(3) Poll results on views of home educated children re local authority inspection: http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html
(4) DCSF's full response to the Home Education Review
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/content.cfm?landing=diana_johnson_announces_new_support_package_for_home_educating_families&type=1
(5) Figures on LAs concerns over educational provision, from FOIs:
http://tinyurl.com/mq25xg
(5) Lord Adonis on the wisdom of legislation as it is currently constructed:
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/lord-adonis-on-fourfold-foundation.html
(6) Staffordshire.
http://maire-staffordshire.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-damned-statistics.html
(7) Figures on LAs concerns over educational provision, from FOIs:
http://tinyurl.com/mq25xg
1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?
Agree
Disagree *
Not sure
No Response
Comments: The short answer is "no".
1.1 No, because in a huge majority of home educating families, there is no conflict between these rights. Setting out to screen the entire population of home educators on the basis that a few families fail to balance these rights would actually result in the infringement of far more rights of the child than these proposals would protect. (See section 1.3 for further details.)
1.2 Further, implementation of the registration and monitoring proposals would also be a disproportionate use of the law (see section 1.7) and a waste of money (see section 1.9). It would damage families by intruding on their privacy and by removing their autonomy. It would mean that the law at s7 of the Education Act 1996 (1) would be applied inconsistently, so that home educators would be required to reach a higher standard in law than schooling families (see section 1.4) . It would over-ride principles of good practice and intent as laid out in the Children's Plan, whereby the government requires that agencies work in partnership with parents (see section 2.4) and it would damage the unwritten constitution (see section 1.8) and premises upon which education law in England has been constructed (sections 1.5 and 1.6 below).
1.3 With regard to the issue of children's rights, Graham Badman made the case for intruding upon all families on the basis of a child's right to be heard. He wrote at paragraph 3.3:
"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice:
“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
However, in setting out to strike a balance between the above rights, (which in practice it would fail to do - a point to which we shall return later), his review's proposals will in fact override hugely significant UNCRC-mandated (2) rights of the child, and in the process will actually make it more difficult for parents to offer a suitable education.
- The enactment of a universal monitoring scheme involving uninvited intrusion into the home and inspection of the child and his work when there is no reason to suspect that there is a problem and yet with the vague implication that his family may be abusive will violate a child's rights under Article 16 of the UNCRC which states that "No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Given that police and social workers have to argue for rights of entry to homes and have to apply for a warrant to do so in individual cases where there is a reasonable appearance of need, legal precedent suggests that the law recognises that scrutinizing an entire population on the basis that a few members of it will have committed a crime, would represent arbitary interference and thereby an infringement of Article 16.
- The proposal to monitor and inspect HE children will not respect the UNCRC-mandated right of the child to be heard. Article 12: " States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. " Polls (3) demonstrate that the majority of HE children do not want to see LA personnel. Given that they do not want to meet with a virtual stranger who has the power of judgment over their entire life, and who could put a stop to their way of life and who would offer nothing of value that they couldn't access without this assessment, the child's view does not seem irrational and therefore he should have the right to have this opinion heard and respected.
- The proposal to allow state officials to interview the child alone without any further application to establish proper need would not allow for the UNCRC-mandated right of the child to remain unseparated from his parents. Article 9: "States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence." It is not clear from the proposals in the Home Education Review how the judgement to see the child alone by the official will be subject to any sort of judicial review process. Instead it looks as if officials are just given the de facto right to use this power as they please, without any necessary due cause, and without being subject to any judicial process such as the requirement to seek a warrant or other form of legal permission.
- The proposal to meet with the child in the process of monitoring his education will violate the child's right to freedom of association as inscribed in Article 15: . "States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Please note the AND here. It is necessary that the law is proven to be necessary in the interests here for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Given that families where there is absolutely no reason to suspect problems will be intruded upon and inspected, children will be forced without due cause, to associate with people they have not freely chosen to associate with and Article 15 will therefore have been violated.
- The proposal to monitor and inspect will, in the majority of cases, override Article 3 of the UNCRC "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." Given that all the above rights of the child will have been violated, and given that there will be no observable benefit to the child to see an LA inspector, his best interests cannot possibly be said to have been served by this intrusion. Consideration must also be given to the fact that state-mandated education and state interference have failed a large number of home educated children, in which case, it seems extremely unlikely that the best interests of these children will be served by having to submit to it all over again.
- Article 5 of the UNCRC: "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents...to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. " Parents will not be able to give appropriate direction in assisting their child to maintain their rights, because the state will forcibly prevent them from doing so when all the above rights are violated by the state.
1.4 Mr Badman's proposals don't just represent a problem for UNCRC-related law. There would be conflicts with current English law too. In English law at s7 of the Education Act 1996 (1), parents are required
"....to cause the child to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
There is some ambiguity here. Is a child's right to an education all about the parents offering a seemingly suitable education or a genuinely suitable one, a genuinely suitable one being that which means that a suitable education is actually attained?Given that there are no proposals to subject schooling families to a judgement as to whether they provide a genuinely suitable education, it appears that in this context a "child's right to receive a suitable education" must mean that this right is all about appearances, since the societal norms dictate that by sending their children to school, schooling parents appear to be making suitable provision, whether or not a suitable education is actually attained.
This would make epistemic sense too, since parents may offer an apparently suitable education, and yet their child may resolutely refuse to accept it. Since every act of learning is learner initiated and parents thankfully cannot open up the brains of their progeny and pour knowledge into it as you would pour water into a bucket, it would be wrong for the law to hold parents to account for something over which they have no control.
However, we must accept that a judgement on the apparent suitability of provision is a poor judgement for anything useful since actual educational attainment is often very poorly correlated to apparent suitability of provision. Many children at my own private school were delivered of an education that was routinely described as excellent, and yet they failed educationally, often utterly and miserably. On the other hand, we know of someone who, as a child, was allowed to truant routinely, wandering the bomb sites of Coventry, completely neglected by his parents and who went on to become a university professor of ecology, since his boyhood wanderings resulted in an obsessive interest in the ecology of bomb-sites, then the local woodlands and beyond. Aged 19, he presented himself to a university department with no qualifications to his name, begging them to take him on as an undergraduate. He ended the day accepting the offer of a lectureship.
Between provision and attainment, there is a far greater gap than many people are prepared to countenance, and yet Mr Badman proposes that the state is capable of making the difficult and subjective judgement about suitability of provision.
We should also accept that actually no-one can be sure what "suitable" education provision should really look like, not only for every individual, with all their different quirks and requirements, but also in this age of information. It is quite conceivable, for example, that a child who watches TV all day will end up with a wider range of knowledge than a child who has sat in a classroom all day. We do not really know of what we speak, and yet Mr Badman is asking a bureaucrat who barely knows the child to make this monumentally important and yet hugely tricky call.
Many LA inspectors do not understand that provision that does not fit the schooling model can in fact be highly suitable in that a suitable education is actually attained. Autonomous education can look to the uninitiated or to the rigidly prejudiced, to resemble neglect, (it is not, and differs substantially yet often subtly) and yet it has proved efficacious over and over again. In our area, it has supplied a steady stream of motivated, skilled adults, many of whom had been or would have been woefully failed by standard schooling techniques.
But the difficulty in making subjective judgements about the quality of provision of a suitable education is by no means the end of the problems Mr Badman's proposals to monitor home educators present for English law. From recommendation 7 of his Review:
"That parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means to demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of intent lodged at the time of registration."
it is clear that Mr Badman interprets a parent's duty to offer a suitable education to mean that a suitable education must be both offered and attained and thereby that home educating parents are actually to be held to a far higher account than schooling parents, being judged not merely on appearance of suitability of provision, but upon demonstration of educational attainment.
This would clearly mean that s7 of the 1996 Education Act (1) would be applied to home educating parents in a different way to schooling parents. HEing parents will be held to far higher account, since if schooling parents were also to be held to account for educational attainment of their children, there would be no end of prosecutions of parents for their children's educational failure, given that so many school children leave school functionally illiterate and innumerate.
It seems that if the review's proposals were to be enacted, s7 would simply have be applied inequitably and yet consistent application of the law is one of the tenets of good legislation. In order to solve this problem of consistent enactment of the law following implementation of the proposals, either every parent in the land should be held to similar account (ie: be shown to be offering their child a genuinely suitable education which results in educational attainment), or when local authorities begin the process of judging HEors' educational attainment, home educators will have to resort to anti-discrimination legislation in order to rectify the inconsistent application of s7, or we will all have to accept that s7 is only about the "appearance" of suitable educational provision and LAs will no longer have to assess the educational attainment of the HE child, and should therefore accept a written philosophy of intent from the HE parent.
1.5 Further on the issue of suitable education, (whether provision or attainment), we need to ask who's task it should be to determine the nature of the appearance of suitable educational provision. Should it be the state, in the form of some nameless bureaucrat who doesn't know the child from Adam, or should it be the parents, who have intimate knowledge of the child's learning style?
We hear in the DCSF's recent full response (4) to the Home Education Review that the government intends to hold a further review upon the nature of suitable education:
"The response also outlines that more work will be done to clarify what is ‘suitable and effective’ home education to support new guidance to local authorities on supporting and monitoring home educators. This will emphasise how local authorities can work with home educating parents to make sure that the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, can be met in the home environment where appropriate. The guidance will take account of findings from the Lamb Inquiry, to be published later this year."
The DCSF must understand that if they determine the nature of a "suitable" and "effective" home education, the state will have taken over the reins for ensuring educational provision and attainment. Parents could no longer be held responsible for educational failure when they deliver that which the state determines, and the state will be held responsible for educational provision and attainment by families everywhere, in every educational setting.
The law must not be allowed to create a situation whereby a parent is held to task for something over which he has no control since it would be analogous to a general telling his men what to do, and then holding them responsible when they act upon his orders and yet his tactics fail. The general must be held responsible, and parents will go to court to prove that this is how the lines of responsibility are working.
In the real world, it would be far better to acknowledge that the judgement of educational provision and attainment is something that will forever be fraught with difficulty. We can never be certain of what we speak and an obsession with quantifying levels of attainment in the mind of another, as evidenced in school exams and league tables, is about the most pointless task that we currently undertake as a nation. Many of us have exam results that in no way reflected our educational attainment and do not accurately reflect our abilities to function. We hear how year in year out, results from public exams are improving, and yet at the same time, how we now live in a broken society where the youth of today are increasingly feral and irresponsible. The disconnect between so-called educational attainment and the reality of how well people live their lives seems all too obvious.
It would seem wise therefore, to restrict judgements in this area to judgements about the nature of provision. It would also seem wise, given that parents are in a better position to know, and given that the state would otherwise be taking on a task it couldn't possibly manage, to leave this decision to parents, with the state, as now, only stepping in at a later stage when it is very clear that there is good reason for concern.
1.6 Mr. Badman's proposal that the state rubber-stamp all educational provision in this country also has huge constitutional implications as well. Should all educational provision be state-mandated? The answer is clearly no for the foundation stone of a democracy is thereby undermined. A democracy relies for its legitimacy upon the existence of an informed, articulate and free-thinking populace which is capable of holding the state to reasonable account. If children are are only to be taught that which the state permits, the foundation for this democracy is undermined, and the government reduces its legitimacy.
1.7 On the issue of proportionality of the proposals , it is far from clear that there is a real problem that needs to be solved here with regard to the HE community. Poorly informed, subjective judgements, the desire to cover their backs and to make their jobs easier means that LAs have talked up the problems of the education of HE children with these assertions.
Indeed we have recently heard from one LA which constituted a statistical outlier in terms of having a high proportion of children at risk one way or the other that:
"The high percentage of children arose from all the data we have ever had and therefore that includes people that (sic) are now adults. This could have included involvements for other members of the family, referrals where the outcome was no further action, etc."
and when asked for numbers of HE children who do not appear to be receiving a suitable education (5), LAs routinely include families who's educational provision does not fit the school model and yet which is actually suitable, as well as families they have not been able to visit.
It is very clear that significant problems in this area have not been demonstrated in any reliable way whatsoever, and this includes Mr Badman's latest call for evidence which will contain the same problems writ even larger.
One blogger (6) comments on this latest data collection:
"According to Badman, 0.4% of home educating children have child protection plans, meaning that 99.6% are not unsafe. Does such a small proportion as this make a multimillion pound intervention proportionate or desirable, especially as it’s only point two on one percentage point lower than for all children in the 74 local authorities?"
Without there being a clearly established need for them in terms of protecting children's rights, the Badman proposals will nonetheless vitiate the rights of the parents to home educate since parents will no longer be able to determine the nature of a suitable education. They will create a situation where parents are to be judged upon something (ie: their child's educational attainment) over which they have no control, firstly because they cannot any more freely decide upon the nature of suitable provision, and secondly because they cannot do the impossible and open the brains of their children to pour knowledge into it. Judging someone for something over which they have no control is a quick way to render a person either very, very angry and litigious or utterly hopeless, a position of learned helplessness which will be hugely damaging for families. In both these situations, it is clear that the state, rather than solving the problem of abuse, is in fact perpetrating it.
1.8 The Badman proposal to monitor will also destroy another foundation of democracy: that families may be able to freely decide upon and work towards their own ambitions. The freedom to HE law springs almost as a side effect of the way legislation has been written in order to reflect the fact that the autonomy of the individual and the family unit is respected. If you destroy the autonomy of HEors to decide their ambitions for themselves and the freedom to decide upon the nature of a suitable education, you would thereby destroy the foundation stone of democracy and yet the implementation of Badman's proposals to monitor would do just that. The reason for this is that under s13A and s175 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, state employees have, in the course of their other duties to promote educational attainment and the safety and welfare, including the five ambitions of the ECM and to do this with individual families.
When the first guidance on the duty to Identify Children Missing an Education was written, home educators were explicitly excluded from its reach, which meant that HEors wouldn't routinely be subject to inspection and therefore for having their ambitions determined for them. Under Badman's recommendation to monitor, this would change. With its implementation, all families will now come into contact with state employees, and the symbolic as well as functional aspect of the law which represented the freedom for a person and family to determine their own ambitions will go. We will all have to dance to the state's tune, and woe betide anyone who doesn't. The state will have become well and truly the parent of first resort, and we will hold it responsible when it makes a balls of it.
In the previous consultation on light touch changes in 2007, Lord Adonis, after consulting with his legal department, clearly appreciated the difficulties that monitoring and inspection of home educators represents, (7) both in their practical application and in their implications for the law and the constitution. It is essential that the government revisit his remarks so that they be reminded that the problems listed above must be taken seriously by them.
At a time when many educationalists are realising the value of parental involvement in education, the authority of home educating parents will be severely undermined and the education of children will doubtlessly suffer, and indeed has done so already in some HE households where parents are already preparing for registration with LAs whose inspectors are known to prefer a schooling style of home education.
1.9 Local authorities should also be aware that they face a practical difficulty with the funding of the Review's proposals. There will not be enough money in most LAs to do this job universally, and yet given all the new powers that LAs will have delivered to them, they will be held to more, not less account. They are likely to find themselves with even fewer excuses when faced with a Serious Case Review.
(1) Education Act 1996 s7
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960056_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb3-l1g7
(2). UNCRC: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#
(3) Poll results on views of home educated children re local authority inspection: http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html
(4) DCSF's full response to the Home Education Review
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/content.cfm?landing=diana_johnson_announces_new_support_package_for_home_educating_families&type=1
(5) Figures on LAs concerns over educational provision, from FOIs:
http://tinyurl.com/mq25xg
(5) Lord Adonis on the wisdom of legislation as it is currently constructed:
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/lord-adonis-on-fourfold-foundation.html
(6) Staffordshire.
http://maire-staffordshire.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-damned-statistics.html
(7) Figures on LAs concerns over educational provision, from FOIs:
http://tinyurl.com/mq25xg
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Badman's Recommendations infringe UNCRC Mandated Rights of Child
Just in case this is helpful to anyone yet to fill in their consult responses, a quick run-down of how the Badman recommendations will infringe children's rights:
The implementation of the recommendations in the Home Education Review to register and monitor the educational provision and attainment of the home educated child would infringe a number of UNCRC-mandated rights (1) of the child:
1. UNCRC: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#
2. Poll results: http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html
The implementation of the recommendations in the Home Education Review to register and monitor the educational provision and attainment of the home educated child would infringe a number of UNCRC-mandated rights (1) of the child:
- The enactment of a universal monitoring scheme involving uninvited intrusion into the home and inspection of the child and his work when there is no reason to suspect that there is a problem and yet with the vague implication that his family may be abusive will violate a child's rights under Article 16 of the UNCRC which states that "No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Given that police and social workers have to argue for rights of entry to homes and have to apply for a warrant to do so in individual cases where there is a reasonable appearance of need, legal precedent suggests that the law recognises that scrutinizing an entire population on the basis that a few members of it will have committed a crime, would represent arbitary interference and thereby an infringement of Article 16.
- The proposal to monitor and inspect HE children will not respect the UNCRC-mandated right of the child to be heard. Article 12: " States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. " Polls (2) demonstrate that the majority of HE children do not want to see LA personnel. Given that they do not want to meet with a virtual stranger who has the power of judgment over their entire life, and who could put a stop to their way of life and who would offer nothing of value that they couldn't access without this assessment, the child's view does not seem irrational and therefore he should have the right to have this opinion heard and respected.
- The proposal to allow state officials to interview the child alone without any further application to establish proper need would not allow for the UNCRC-mandated right of the child to remain unseparated from his parents. Article 9: "States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence." It is not clear from the proposals in the Home Education Review how the judgement to see the child alone by the official will be subject to any sort of judicial review process. Instead it looks as if officials are just given the de facto right to use this power as they please, without any necessary due cause, and without being subject to any judicial process such as the requirement to seek a warrant or other form of legal permission.
- The proposal to meet with the child in the process of monitoring his education will violate the child's right to freedom of association as inscribed in Article 15: . "States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Please note the AND here. It is necessary that the law is proven to be necessary in the interests here for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Given that families where there is absolutely no reason to suspect problems will be intruded upon and inspected, children will be forced without due cause, to associate with people they have not freely chosen to associate with and Article 15 will therefore have been violated.
- The proposal to monitor and inspect will, in the majority of cases, override Article 3 of the UNCRC "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." Given that all the above rights of the child will have been violated, and given that there will be no observable benefit to the child to see an LA inspector, his best interests cannot possibly be said to have been served by this intrusion. Consideration must also be given to the fact that state-mandated education and state interference have failed a large number of home educated children, in which case, it seems extremely unlikely that the best interests of these children will be served by having to submit to it all over again.
- Article 5 of the UNCRC: "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents...to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. " Parents will not be able to give appropriate direction in assisting their child to maintain their rights, because the state will forcibly prevent them from doing so when all the above rights are violated by the state.
1. UNCRC: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#
2. Poll results: http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html
Children Please Respond Too.
Message received from lists:
Please would all home educating children respond to the public consultation on Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals.
The government keep asserting that the Badman recommendations are about the rights of the child to be heard and to receive a suitable education.
This is a chance for all EHE children to let the government HEAR them and to let them know they find their EHE suitable and do not like Badman's recommendations.
And of course if parents and extended family have not responded yet..... hurry up :-)
The consultation closes on Monday 19th October and can be found here.
Please would all home educating children respond to the public consultation on Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals.
The government keep asserting that the Badman recommendations are about the rights of the child to be heard and to receive a suitable education.
This is a chance for all EHE children to let the government HEAR them and to let them know they find their EHE suitable and do not like Badman's recommendations.
And of course if parents and extended family have not responded yet..... hurry up :-)
The consultation closes on Monday 19th October and can be found here.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Only 3 Days To Go
...to get those consultation responses in.
Closing Date: Monday 19 October 2009!!!!!
Mr Badman reported in the Select Committee hearing that he knows the names of the tiny minority of home educators who object to his report. Given that I personally know at least 100 families who object to his proposals, and only 3 of these went to the lobby, and given that there were over 450 people there, I was impressed. He must know a lot of names!
Let's see if his memory for names is almost world-beating! Let's see just how many consultation responses we can lodge objecting to his proposals. At the moment there are well over 2,100 from different people, and quite a few from different organisations representing numerous people. Many of these responses object strongly to most, if not all, of his proposals.
Perhaps Badman is consulting an expert in mnemonics or perhaps he is exaggerating his abilities, or could it be, just could it be that he wants to underplay the size, severity and utter reasonableness of our objections to his proposals?
-----
My updated response and links to other responses here. It is perfectly acceptable (if not preferable) to write a much smaller response than mine!
Closing Date: Monday 19 October 2009!!!!!
Mr Badman reported in the Select Committee hearing that he knows the names of the tiny minority of home educators who object to his report. Given that I personally know at least 100 families who object to his proposals, and only 3 of these went to the lobby, and given that there were over 450 people there, I was impressed. He must know a lot of names!
Let's see if his memory for names is almost world-beating! Let's see just how many consultation responses we can lodge objecting to his proposals. At the moment there are well over 2,100 from different people, and quite a few from different organisations representing numerous people. Many of these responses object strongly to most, if not all, of his proposals.
Perhaps Badman is consulting an expert in mnemonics or perhaps he is exaggerating his abilities, or could it be, just could it be that he wants to underplay the size, severity and utter reasonableness of our objections to his proposals?
-----
My updated response and links to other responses here. It is perfectly acceptable (if not preferable) to write a much smaller response than mine!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Who's Responsible?
From the Select Committee hearing today, and reported by the Beeb:
Peter Traves, from the Association of Directors of Children's Services:
"We have seen recently what happens recently to directors of children' services when things go seriously wrong - it is not only sacking, it is public humiliation and it is a very serious matter.
"I'm held to account for children's welfare, and I think not to know there are children living and being educated in my area is actually unreasonable if I'm being held to that account."
Aside from thinking "AWWWW, diddums", one also can't help wondering if this IS the the real reason for the whole shebang. It would make sense somehow, but it certainly isn't a good enough reason. The state must not be allowed to over-ride the principles of freedom and the right to privacy just to make someone's job *seem* just a little bit easier, as the police and social workers know all too well.
Another reason why this reason is insufficient is that the registration and monitoring of HEors will not prevent Directors of Children's services being hauled up in front of a Serious Case Review panel, since registration and monitoring will not be a reliable way of detecting abuse. Screening the 99.6% of healthy families will in fact create a load of statistical noise, there will be loads of spurious referrals, further over-burdening already over-stretched social workers, and in the process, some of the important stuff will be missed. Directors of Children's services will then be even more on the line for failing in their duties when they apparently had even more powers than the police to invade the homes of every home educator in the land.
And the final reasons, should you need yet more, is that we are coming dangerously close to a situation where parents will no longer be allowed to be parents, for in the course of their other duties, all state-sponsored personnel, are in the course of their other duties, required to ensure that educational standards are met, and are meant to ensure that children are working towards the five ambitions as enshrined in the Children Act 2004. This essentially means that parents everywhere will now be compelled to ensure that their children work towards these ambitions and to strive for state-mandated standards. By insisting that all HE children are seen, we symbolically for all families everywhere, but in reality for HEors, fundamentally change the way that parents can parent in this country. Families, parents and children alike, will no longer be able to freely choose their ambitions, and we must therefore accept that by this token, the state takes over in loco parentis in one of the most all subsuming sorts of ways, ie: in deciding the whole direction of a child's life.
We must avoid this consequence and return to basic principals, whereby the state only intervenes in cases of clear parental failure, for otherwise, we kiss goodbye to the possibility of responsible parenting by parents.
Renegade has more on this, along with links.
Douglas Carswell and Graham Stuart
...do understand. Here's CSF Select Committee member, Douglas Carswell's blog post on the subject. I'd also recommend signing up to another Committee member's Twitter feed, as Graham Stuart's recent comment on home education and the Review is truly heartening.
Select Committee Seating Plan 14th October
numbering the chairs from the left:
1. Blank
2. Blank
3. Mr Douglas Carswell MP Harwich Conservative (only for
first part)
4. Mr Graham Stuart MP Beverley & Holderness Conservative
5. Mr Edward Timpson MP Crewe and Nantwich Conservative
6. Mrs Annette Brooke MP Mid Dorset and Poole North Liberal Democrats
7. Mr Paul Holmes MP Chesterfield Liberal Democrats
8. Mr Barry Sheerman MP (Chairman) Huddersfield Labour
9. Official
10. Mr David Chaytor MP Bury North Labour
11. Helen Southworth MP Warrington South Labour
12. Lynda Waltho MP Stourbridge Labour
13. Blank
14. Blank
Committee members not present:
Mr Andrew Pelling MP Croydon Central Independent
Mr Andy Slaughter MP Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush Labour
Derek Twigg MP Halton Labour
Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP Gateshead East and Washington West Labour
Fiona Mactaggart MP Slough Labour
1. Blank
2. Blank
3. Mr Douglas Carswell MP Harwich Conservative (only for
first part)
4. Mr Graham Stuart MP Beverley & Holderness Conservative
5. Mr Edward Timpson MP Crewe and Nantwich Conservative
6. Mrs Annette Brooke MP Mid Dorset and Poole North Liberal Democrats
7. Mr Paul Holmes MP Chesterfield Liberal Democrats
8. Mr Barry Sheerman MP (Chairman) Huddersfield Labour
9. Official
10. Mr David Chaytor MP Bury North Labour
11. Helen Southworth MP Warrington South Labour
12. Lynda Waltho MP Stourbridge Labour
13. Blank
14. Blank
Committee members not present:
Mr Andrew Pelling MP Croydon Central Independent
Mr Andy Slaughter MP Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush Labour
Derek Twigg MP Halton Labour
Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP Gateshead East and Washington West Labour
Fiona Mactaggart MP Slough Labour
Elaine's Response
1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: I believe this is a highly dangerous and suspect attempt at a power grab, placing the state between children and parents. Home education is not a right conferred from on high as some sort of special privilege to the citizenry. It is an inherent, natural and necessary freedom. The law as it stands is perfectly adequate and both protects the rights of a child and allows intervention where a parent is failing in their duties. What it does not allow for is the state as parent of first choice and that is right and proper. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: There is no need for a register. It implies that home educators are a group that are suspect and need careful watching as if we're more criminal than any other parent. It is not simply a register either. It is an annual license to home educate. There is no reason for a register other than to increase the already overbearing paternalism of local authorities. The DCSF have not listened to home educators remonstrations about the abuse of power and the ultra vires activities of LAs and they have done this repeatedly. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: As above. There is no need for a register of law abiding people. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?
Agree
XDisagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: Another attempt to criminalise law abiding people. In the DCSF's dystopian future all parents will be criminals. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: Another attempt to criminalise law abiding people. In the DCSF's dystopian future all parents will be criminals. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: This is a blatant attempt to give LAs time to talk. (for talk see bully ) home educators out of their decision. Home education is equal in law to that of school. I was around when this was discussed before and the many good reasons why a delay was a very bad idea. I've been home educating for 16 years. YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO HOME EDUCATORS! IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU DID! I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: School is not home education. Home education is very very different from school. What happens in schools has no relevance to home education. It's rather like trying to make home made sour dough bread using instructions for mass manufacturing white sliced loaves in a factory. There is also the well know problem of schools overstating childrens abilities, especially children with special educational needs. Perhaps you should really be looking at why schools are overstating abilities. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: The law as it stands is perfectly adequate and fit for purpose. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?
Agree
XDisagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: If a child is safe to be left with the parents then it is safe for them to remain/be home educated. The law as it stands allows for action if there are any genuine safeguarding concerns. There are also procedures in place if there are serious educational concerns. Those procedures allow for action providing there is proper evidence for those concerns. It is not alright to try and sidestep due process for convenience. This is a proposal that seeks to legitimise local authority officials' personal prejudices. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: For premises you mean homes don't you? An invasion of the home without just cause and a legal warrant is an illegal act and should remain so. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: A paedophile or bullies charter if ever there was one. Currently only if there are very seriouse and very immediate concerns for a child's safety a senior social worker can make a decision to interview a child out of the presence of a parent/guardian. This is a very serious decision to make and is only made in the most extreme circumstances and for good reason. The Police do not have this sort of power either. This is the most outrageous proposal. I cannot think what the implications of this would be for a free and civil society. This is extremely disproportionate and a proposal I can only think was born out of pure prejudice rather than from any empirical evidence. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: I believe in the presumption of innocence. There is no reason for forced access to homes, forced inspections of those homes and their occupants and forced interviewing of children . Especially from officials who have no understanding of education outside of the school system and no idea how home education works in practice. Four weeks is a ridiculously short period of time in home education terms. Home education is not school and it takes many months to adjust from one system to another. This proposal highlights the total lack of knowledge of home education. The law as it stands and the systems in place are perfectly adequate and fit for purpose. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: I believe this is a highly dangerous and suspect attempt at a power grab, placing the state between children and parents. Home education is not a right conferred from on high as some sort of special privilege to the citizenry. It is an inherent, natural and necessary freedom. The law as it stands is perfectly adequate and both protects the rights of a child and allows intervention where a parent is failing in their duties. What it does not allow for is the state as parent of first choice and that is right and proper. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: There is no need for a register. It implies that home educators are a group that are suspect and need careful watching as if we're more criminal than any other parent. It is not simply a register either. It is an annual license to home educate. There is no reason for a register other than to increase the already overbearing paternalism of local authorities. The DCSF have not listened to home educators remonstrations about the abuse of power and the ultra vires activities of LAs and they have done this repeatedly. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
3 Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: As above. There is no need for a register of law abiding people. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?
Agree
XDisagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: Another attempt to criminalise law abiding people. In the DCSF's dystopian future all parents will be criminals. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: Another attempt to criminalise law abiding people. In the DCSF's dystopian future all parents will be criminals. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: This is a blatant attempt to give LAs time to talk. (for talk see bully ) home educators out of their decision. Home education is equal in law to that of school. I was around when this was discussed before and the many good reasons why a delay was a very bad idea. I've been home educating for 16 years. YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO HOME EDUCATORS! IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU DID! I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
6 b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: School is not home education. Home education is very very different from school. What happens in schools has no relevance to home education. It's rather like trying to make home made sour dough bread using instructions for mass manufacturing white sliced loaves in a factory. There is also the well know problem of schools overstating childrens abilities, especially children with special educational needs. Perhaps you should really be looking at why schools are overstating abilities. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: The law as it stands is perfectly adequate and fit for purpose. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?
Agree
XDisagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: If a child is safe to be left with the parents then it is safe for them to remain/be home educated. The law as it stands allows for action if there are any genuine safeguarding concerns. There are also procedures in place if there are serious educational concerns. Those procedures allow for action providing there is proper evidence for those concerns. It is not alright to try and sidestep due process for convenience. This is a proposal that seeks to legitimise local authority officials' personal prejudices. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: For premises you mean homes don't you? An invasion of the home without just cause and a legal warrant is an illegal act and should remain so. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: A paedophile or bullies charter if ever there was one. Currently only if there are very seriouse and very immediate concerns for a child's safety a senior social worker can make a decision to interview a child out of the presence of a parent/guardian. This is a very serious decision to make and is only made in the most extreme circumstances and for good reason. The Police do not have this sort of power either. This is the most outrageous proposal. I cannot think what the implications of this would be for a free and civil society. This is extremely disproportionate and a proposal I can only think was born out of pure prejudice rather than from any empirical evidence. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
--------------------------
11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.
Agree
X Disagree
Not sure
No Response
Comments: I believe in the presumption of innocence. There is no reason for forced access to homes, forced inspections of those homes and their occupants and forced interviewing of children . Especially from officials who have no understanding of education outside of the school system and no idea how home education works in practice. Four weeks is a ridiculously short period of time in home education terms. Home education is not school and it takes many months to adjust from one system to another. This proposal highlights the total lack of knowledge of home education. The law as it stands and the systems in place are perfectly adequate and fit for purpose. I intend to fight these proposals at every available opportunity. I have had enough of attempts to grind home educators down with attack after unwarranted attack on our community.
Quick Answers to Some of the Questions
...from the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee here.
These are my answers, the ones I was shouting at the screen.
1. In response to the minister's question about whether the panel thought a simple registration process, no other strings attached, was a good idea in order that missing children could more easily be found, the short answer is "no, it is not a sensible suggestion".
The longer answer is that the authorities will not know from just a list of names which children are really there and which children aren't, so unless you have a huge process of inspection and monitoring, you would be none the wiser. This monitoring of all these children will involve inspecting the 99.6% of well-functioning families, at massive expence to the tax payer, whilst children who are known to be at risk, languish at the bottom end of a social workers to-do list.
2. The answer to the minister's question about if home educators' standards are so good, why are they so resistent to testing and to being compared with school children is that home education is often so vastly different from school, that it would be like comparing apples and pears. You simply couldn't do it productively. What you could look at is the adults who are produced at the end of it all. Who are happier, more balanced, feel more in control of their lives, doing more productive work, pick your criteria.
There is a detailed response to the Badman Report, including some reaction to Monday's Select Commitee hearing here.
These are my answers, the ones I was shouting at the screen.
1. In response to the minister's question about whether the panel thought a simple registration process, no other strings attached, was a good idea in order that missing children could more easily be found, the short answer is "no, it is not a sensible suggestion".
The longer answer is that the authorities will not know from just a list of names which children are really there and which children aren't, so unless you have a huge process of inspection and monitoring, you would be none the wiser. This monitoring of all these children will involve inspecting the 99.6% of well-functioning families, at massive expence to the tax payer, whilst children who are known to be at risk, languish at the bottom end of a social workers to-do list.
2. The answer to the minister's question about if home educators' standards are so good, why are they so resistent to testing and to being compared with school children is that home education is often so vastly different from school, that it would be like comparing apples and pears. You simply couldn't do it productively. What you could look at is the adults who are produced at the end of it all. Who are happier, more balanced, feel more in control of their lives, doing more productive work, pick your criteria.
There is a detailed response to the Badman Report, including some reaction to Monday's Select Commitee hearing here.
Watch the Select Committee Live Today...Wednesday
...here, from 09.30 am.
And while you're waiting, I'd recommend this post by the Bishop, some photos of the mass lobby here and another home educator's video footage.
There's also news that despite Mr Badman's protestations that his new, extremely hastily gathered statistics are "clean" and have passed muster with a DCSF statistician, an independent statistician disagrees with this assessment and has sent his critique of the figures, such as that on NEETs, to the Select Committee.
For a brief resume of at least some of the problems with his figures, see here.
And while you're waiting, I'd recommend this post by the Bishop, some photos of the mass lobby here and another home educator's video footage.
There's also news that despite Mr Badman's protestations that his new, extremely hastily gathered statistics are "clean" and have passed muster with a DCSF statistician, an independent statistician disagrees with this assessment and has sent his critique of the figures, such as that on NEETs, to the Select Committee.
For a brief resume of at least some of the problems with his figures, see here.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Publicity about Home Educators' Lobby of Parliament
....from 5 mins here and again here from 15 minutes, featuring Lord Lucas. You Tube link here.
Approximately 450 home educators turned up carrying posters stating that "a suitable education is one that suits the child, not the state."
Well said and well done, you lot.
There's more on the lobby from the Mid Devon Gazette.
Approximately 450 home educators turned up carrying posters stating that "a suitable education is one that suits the child, not the state."
Well said and well done, you lot.
There's more on the lobby from the Mid Devon Gazette.
Badman Stymies Himself
Right, which is it, Mr Badman? Are you or are you not interested in listening to the views of children?
You seem to be serious in your intent to do so. You justify intruding upon the lives of tens of thousands of otherwise seemingly well-functioning families on the pretext that children have the right, under the UNCRC, to be heard, even though it is not clear that this is the sort of situation to which the UNCRC article refers, and even though it is not clear exactly who the UNCRC mean by a "party".
From your report, at section 3.3:
Yet you must know by now that a huge proportion of home educated children do not want anything whatsoever to do with LA inspectors.
This view is not irrational. Why should such children want to see someone who they don't know from Adam, who has an all-consuming power of judgement over the most intimate aspects of their lives, who has the power to alter their lives significantly for the worse, and who is highly unlikely to offer them anything that they cannot access more easily elsewhere? Given that such a rational judgement should be given due weight, Mr Badman, we assume that you will not insist that LA inspectors visit such children.
If you really are serious about your desire to take the voice of the child seriously, you can't just then ignore it. You cannot just insist that such a child must see an inspector, for that way, far from upholding the UN-mandated rights of the child, you will be infringing them; far from preventing abuse, you will be perpetuating it.
The irony here is that home educated children are probably some of the most listened-to children in the entire world. The huge, HUGE majority of them are in the place of education that they have actually chosen themselves. Put that as an honest question to school children and see if you can come up with anything like a majority.
And don't try the "we don't know if these children are giving honest answers" line. If you want to get a feel for the genuine force with which home educated children will argue this point, I am sure we could arrange for you to meet with them en-masse. You might have to set aside quite a bit of time for this though. They feel strongly about this. I got a full half-hour ear-bashing on the subject from my seven year old only this morning. Her arguments whilst protracted, were extremely rigorous and powerfully felt. She says, "It is MY life. I get to decide what I want to do with it, not someone else, let alone someone I don't know. If I am interested in something, I will learn it. Mum, you just blabbed on and on about something to do with carbon and the Middle East." (ed, why was that I wonder?) "I wasn't interested, and besides duh, I do already KNOW all about plants and carbon and Israel and all that. Right now, I am interested in explaining why it is better to learn when you are interested in what you are learning and why I really don't want ANYONE else telling me what to learn."
Of course, you could also talk to HEYC, who might also be able to put your mind to rest on this issue.
You seem to be serious in your intent to do so. You justify intruding upon the lives of tens of thousands of otherwise seemingly well-functioning families on the pretext that children have the right, under the UNCRC, to be heard, even though it is not clear that this is the sort of situation to which the UNCRC article refers, and even though it is not clear exactly who the UNCRC mean by a "party".
From your report, at section 3.3:
"3.3 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice:
“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
Yet you must know by now that a huge proportion of home educated children do not want anything whatsoever to do with LA inspectors.
This view is not irrational. Why should such children want to see someone who they don't know from Adam, who has an all-consuming power of judgement over the most intimate aspects of their lives, who has the power to alter their lives significantly for the worse, and who is highly unlikely to offer them anything that they cannot access more easily elsewhere? Given that such a rational judgement should be given due weight, Mr Badman, we assume that you will not insist that LA inspectors visit such children.
If you really are serious about your desire to take the voice of the child seriously, you can't just then ignore it. You cannot just insist that such a child must see an inspector, for that way, far from upholding the UN-mandated rights of the child, you will be infringing them; far from preventing abuse, you will be perpetuating it.
The irony here is that home educated children are probably some of the most listened-to children in the entire world. The huge, HUGE majority of them are in the place of education that they have actually chosen themselves. Put that as an honest question to school children and see if you can come up with anything like a majority.
And don't try the "we don't know if these children are giving honest answers" line. If you want to get a feel for the genuine force with which home educated children will argue this point, I am sure we could arrange for you to meet with them en-masse. You might have to set aside quite a bit of time for this though. They feel strongly about this. I got a full half-hour ear-bashing on the subject from my seven year old only this morning. Her arguments whilst protracted, were extremely rigorous and powerfully felt. She says, "It is MY life. I get to decide what I want to do with it, not someone else, let alone someone I don't know. If I am interested in something, I will learn it. Mum, you just blabbed on and on about something to do with carbon and the Middle East." (ed, why was that I wonder?) "I wasn't interested, and besides duh, I do already KNOW all about plants and carbon and Israel and all that. Right now, I am interested in explaining why it is better to learn when you are interested in what you are learning and why I really don't want ANYONE else telling me what to learn."
Of course, you could also talk to HEYC, who might also be able to put your mind to rest on this issue.
"Other problems with the proposals emanating from the Badman report into Home Education include the issue of the damaging nature of the actions proposed, eg: the fact that familial privacy and autonomy to determine the nature of a suitable education will be severely compromised.
There is also the issue that in purporting to defend children's rights, the state by implementing these proposals, would actually be obliterating children's rights, (rights to privacy, freedom of association, rights to have their voice heard), since the fact is that the large majority of HE children have said "no" to this intrusive control of their lives.
We will have to consider the high likelihood that in defending their children's rights to have their voice respected, a previously hugely responsible section of society will become alienated, and resistant to state ministrations.
There are also resource implications, since there would doubtless be a load of false positives generated by sending insufficiently trained staff in to see children. Back-covering would overload already overstretched social work departments who could do with all that money that is being wasted by inspecting tens of thousands of perfectly well-functioning families.
Further, if legislation is written so as to hold parents responsible for failing to provide a suitable education, the state would then also have to hold schooling parents responsible too, otherwise s7 of the 1996 Education Act would otherwise be inconsistently applied. Of course, consistent application of law is a hall-mark of good legislation.
We must also consider that the state in determining the nature of a suitable education would thereby undermine its legitimacy as a democratic institution, since the democratic process requires that there be a free-thinking, freely educated and critical populace who are capable of holding its elected rulers to account.
All in all, despite it appearing to impact only upon a small section of the community, this issue has far wider implications, deserves to be debated in the widest possible arena, and be fully subjected to the voting process."