My argument to him is now going to be: look what this will actually mean. It will mean that children, some of whom have profound problems of one sort or another with school, who may well be simply terrified of it and who would NOT be well served by being forced to go back to it, but who ARE extremely well served by being educated out of school, will spend their whole lives worrying about the subjective judgement of a complete stranger, since this could simply devastate their lives.
Home education is an entire way of life for these children. Being forced back into school on someone's probably poorly informed judgement about what constitutes a suitable education would destroy their entire lives and ruin the balance and trust that a family regularly achieves by home educating their children.
No other children are held to such regular and all-encompassing account.
There is a received but extremely poorly informed idea that school refusal is an irrational phobia that must be overcome and that this is best achieved by forcing children back to school. Yet outcomes for these children are not good. (Hersov and Berg). We don't force adults back into a work place where they are unhappy and/or unsuccessful and which doesn't suit them. Why should we persist with this approach with children when experience in the HE community demonstrates the success of home education as a means of achieving a successful outcome?
Children who were living extremely successful lives will find that those lives are entirely conditional, entirely unsafe. This will be devastating and home educating parents will not accept it and will do their utmost to resist it.
It MUST NOT HAPPEN.
Meanwhile, Lord Lucas who will be speaking on the bill in the Queen's Speech debate tomorrow, will be saying much the same thing, if for other extremely pressing reasons.
And for a general critique of the failure of Every Child Matters to deliver anything significant by way of safeguarding and success for children, go here.
14 comments:
It is also worth stressing the effect that it will have on parents who do educate their children in school. Currently they know they can take them out and educate them in a way that is entirely sensitive to the needs of the child and family as a whole - without school type regulation - and this makes it possible to negotiate with every one in a relaxed way. If HE is made into something that is not much different to school, there will be no genuine freedom of choice in education - parents will feel their backs are against the wall; and any problem will be all the harder to resolve as the situation will feel and indeed be desperate.
There has to be choice - real freedom to choose - for any of the education system to be functional.
D
Well put anonoymous.
Also sadly I have to say that the gov. do indeed force people back into the workplace into jobs that are unsuitable or dangerous for a person's mental or physical health.We have experienced this first hand, there is no sympathy to your needs or wants, but the attitude that if you refuse a job for any reason whatever, you are a slacker.I could also go on for quite some time about the new 'employment and support allowance', which is replacing incapacity benefits and putting job centre staff in the front of the medical profession in deciding that a person is fit for work.It makes my blood boil. Already there are people in no way able to hold down a full time job loosing their benefits and slipping into dire poverty. If they can do this to one vunerable section of our society, they can do it to another. Glad to hear there are some sensible MPs still out there, will be waiting eagerly to hear how it goes for you tomorrow Carlotta.
They dont listen to us M.P's they dont care about us or our children.You ever see them at election time! Most M.Ps send they children to private school so are not interested in home education not enough votes in it! it no good looking to them to help they to busy grabing what ever they can get for free from us the tax payer! such as the duck house or claiming for house and not living they!
Anon is right those M.P could not care less about us they look down on us! we pay they wages yet they treat us like dirt! it just a complte waste of your time and i bet he has a good laugh when you gone!
Hi Anons.
I do believe that some MPs are principled people, and indeed I have met a few of these in my time: MPs who genuinely believe that it is worth seeking good solutions that actually help rather than hinder people.
I have hopes that my MP is one of these, but we shall see.
I do hope he listens to you. I cannot imagine the chaos that would ensue should the bill go through.
hi Carlotta
nearly all of the M.Ps in both main party vote along party lines and very few would go against they party! you get about half a dozen M.Ps in labour party who will vote against goverment but its not enough!
They dont care about us we just rubbish to be got rid of! to be ignored to be taking for fools we pay they wages yet they just dont care about us and hate even haveing to meet us the voter you only ever see them at election time! makeing out they care where you been i said to him not seen you for over 4 years!
i know where he been on hoilday some where nice on my taxes! spending more on a bottle of wine than we can on our food bill they spend 50 pound on bottle of wine! its a joke but on us!
A little off this topic, but:
Did anyone else hear BBC R4 "You and Yours" yesterday? Winifred Robinson was discussing the cuts LAs will need to make in future years, and I think she asked for emails of ideas from listeners as to where cuts could be made with least pain to the public. These emails are to be discussed in a future program.
She said cuts in services which "the LA is not legally obliged to provide", but I was thinking it might be an opportunity to raise the profile of home ed legislation which, of course, will add costs to the burden of services LAs are legally obliged to provide.
I can't find any reference to this on the "You and Yours" webpage though.
Thank you Anon. That seems like a useful avenue and will try to pursue it.
The government and local authorities have constantly and consistently stated that the best place for a child to be educated is at school. This would mean, by their logic, that education other than at school is merely second best, and therefore potentially harmful to the child's welfare.
Does this not mean that LAs could, if they were so inclined, reject all applications to home ed on this basis and effectively outlaw HE altogether?
Nick
Just to add, the temptation to "outlaw" or restrict HE registration in order to save money will surely be great as the LAs feel the squeeze on their budgets. They could impose a specific limit on the numbers "allowed" to HE, based on the money they have available, and reject all others on any number of spurious grounds.
Nick
Nick,
I can see most of what you are saying, however outlawing HE will cost them money not save it. It is far more expensive to pay for a child's state education.
D
Yes but their 'reasoning' is that those children, despite costing them more now, will go on to get GCSEs and earn lots of lovely tax later on. A long term investment, as it were.
I can feel my blood boiling again.
We really are just tax producing cattle.
I may spotaneously combust!
D
Yes you are right, it would cost them more overall to send the children back to school, but I believe (although I may be wrong here) that the money for school places come from central government whereas HE monitoring will come out of the local budgets.
Nick
Post a Comment