Harrison and Harrison v Stevenson (1982) QB (DC) 729/81
From the Elective Home Education Guidelines 2006:
"A clearer interpretation of the meaning of some terminology used in the 1944 Education Act (repealed by the 1996 Act), was gained in the case of Harrison & Harrison v Stephenson (appeal to Worcester Crown Court 1981). The term 'suitable education' was defined as one which enabled the children ‘to achieve their full potential’, and was such as ‘to prepare the children for life in modern civilised society’. The term 'efficient' was defined as achieving ‘that which it sets out to achieve’."From the Badman Review 2009:
Case law offers some insight:
“...in our judgement “education” demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, child-minding.”
See EO Website for further information.
How this is interpreted by LAs.
eg: Leicestershire LA Policy (2017):Case law (Harrison v. Stevenson) also states that a suitable education – for a child capable of learning such
skills – should instil in them the ability to read, write and cope with arithmetical
problems. In other words, an education that does not include English and Maths
cannot be considered suitable.
Showing posts with label Harrison & Harrison v. Stevenson Case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harrison & Harrison v. Stevenson Case. Show all posts
Friday, December 17, 2010
Monday, June 15, 2009
Issues Outside the Scope of this Enquiry. HE Review
From the Badman Review:
10. Issues Out of Scope of this Inquiry and the need for further research
10.1 Inevitably during the course of an inquiry, matters arise that require answers, yet either no answer is easily forthcoming, or in searching for it, one becomes aware that the evidence does not exist. In particular I am concerned by two issues.
First, what constitutes ‘autonomous’ learning. Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes thought the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential.
Case law offers some insight: (23)
“...in our judgment “education” demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, child- minding.” (23)
10.2 My second issue in part relates to the first. I am not convinced by the existing research studies on the outcomes for home educated children both in this country and elsewhere. Although some (but not all) studies have found that home educated children outperform schooled children on a range of indicators, the results may be attributable to parental characteristics (e.g. better educated parents with higher incomes). Some of the studies were also based on small samples and therefore the ability to generalise is limited. Some were based on self selecting, and therefore biased, samples. The diverse characteristics of home educated children make it difficult to generalise about their academic performance.
10.3 Furthermore, little is known about the collective outcomes for home educated children in terms of their qualifications and employment. Evidence offered to this inquiry on the proportion of home educated young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) was inconclusive. Again I believe further research is necessary that seeks information on progression to further and higher education and employment.
10.4 I suspect that should the recommendations in this report be accepted, these matters will demand and receive further attention.
(23) Harrison and Harrison v Stevenson (1982) QB (DC) 729/81
10. Issues Out of Scope of this Inquiry and the need for further research
10.1 Inevitably during the course of an inquiry, matters arise that require answers, yet either no answer is easily forthcoming, or in searching for it, one becomes aware that the evidence does not exist. In particular I am concerned by two issues.
First, what constitutes ‘autonomous’ learning. Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes thought the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential.
Case law offers some insight: (23)
“...in our judgment “education” demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, child- minding.” (23)
10.2 My second issue in part relates to the first. I am not convinced by the existing research studies on the outcomes for home educated children both in this country and elsewhere. Although some (but not all) studies have found that home educated children outperform schooled children on a range of indicators, the results may be attributable to parental characteristics (e.g. better educated parents with higher incomes). Some of the studies were also based on small samples and therefore the ability to generalise is limited. Some were based on self selecting, and therefore biased, samples. The diverse characteristics of home educated children make it difficult to generalise about their academic performance.
10.3 Furthermore, little is known about the collective outcomes for home educated children in terms of their qualifications and employment. Evidence offered to this inquiry on the proportion of home educated young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) was inconclusive. Again I believe further research is necessary that seeks information on progression to further and higher education and employment.
10.4 I suspect that should the recommendations in this report be accepted, these matters will demand and receive further attention.
(23) Harrison and Harrison v Stevenson (1982) QB (DC) 729/81
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)