Sunday, January 28, 2007
Last Call for Carnival of Unschooling Voices
Posts on the subject of deschooling for the February edition of the Carnival of Unschooling Voices to be there by February 1st. Quick...Ann?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Leave Them Kids Alone
From ARCH
"As you know, we’ve been working hard on the use of children’s fingerprints in school. Increasing numbers of schools are installing systems that use fingerprints as identifiers in the
school library or canteen and also for registration purposes.
We are at last making some real progress, and there are indications that the Information Commissioner may even seek amendment to the Data Protection Act.
We must keep up the pressure now. Greg Mulholland MP has tabled an Early Day Motion 686 which you can see here.
Please, please would you mind contacting your MP as soon as possible, asking him/her to sign this EDM. The more signatures it receives, the better the chance that we can get this worrying
practice stopped, or at least tightly regulated. You can email your MP easily through this site.
It doesn’t matter if your child is not at school: it’s the whole principle of using biometrics for low-level purposes that is at stake here. If we simply let it carry on in schools, there is a
real risk that these systems could become routine in other situations – the local library? The leisure centre? "
Pippa and I have been working closely with Leave Those Kids Alone – see their website for more information about the campaign."
= = = = = = =
This is what I wrote (via Write to Them):
I am writing to ask if you would consider signing the Early Day Motion recently tabled by Greg Mulholland at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32367&SESSION=885.
I share his concerns about the growing practice of the collection and storing of biometric details of children in schools where information such as photographs and fingerprints are stored on unregulated data collection systems and potentially insecure school computer networks where they could potentially be misused.
I also understand that collecting such data from children under 12 without parental consent directly contravenes the Data Protection Act.
I would ask you to call on the Government to conduct a full and open consultation with stake holders, including parents and children, on this issue as part of the review of guidance to be undertaken by the DfES.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
"As you know, we’ve been working hard on the use of children’s fingerprints in school. Increasing numbers of schools are installing systems that use fingerprints as identifiers in the
school library or canteen and also for registration purposes.
We are at last making some real progress, and there are indications that the Information Commissioner may even seek amendment to the Data Protection Act.
We must keep up the pressure now. Greg Mulholland MP has tabled an Early Day Motion 686 which you can see here.
Please, please would you mind contacting your MP as soon as possible, asking him/her to sign this EDM. The more signatures it receives, the better the chance that we can get this worrying
practice stopped, or at least tightly regulated. You can email your MP easily through this site.
It doesn’t matter if your child is not at school: it’s the whole principle of using biometrics for low-level purposes that is at stake here. If we simply let it carry on in schools, there is a
real risk that these systems could become routine in other situations – the local library? The leisure centre? "
Pippa and I have been working closely with Leave Those Kids Alone – see their website for more information about the campaign."
= = = = = = =
This is what I wrote (via Write to Them):
I am writing to ask if you would consider signing the Early Day Motion recently tabled by Greg Mulholland at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32367&SESSION=885.
I share his concerns about the growing practice of the collection and storing of biometric details of children in schools where information such as photographs and fingerprints are stored on unregulated data collection systems and potentially insecure school computer networks where they could potentially be misused.
I also understand that collecting such data from children under 12 without parental consent directly contravenes the Data Protection Act.
I would ask you to call on the Government to conduct a full and open consultation with stake holders, including parents and children, on this issue as part of the review of guidance to be undertaken by the DfES.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thursday, January 25, 2007
In the Case of a Flu Pandemic
We are told, of course, that it will happen and plans have been drawn up in order that the nation should survive it. I have to say that it seemed from the documents here that the state will be remarkably reluctant to close schools, for even if advised to do so by the medics, and the DfES passes on this advice to the schools, the DfES intends to leave it up to the board of governors to actually decide when to shut the gates.
Yeah right: in this situation, I really want my children to be left in the hands of someone with, in all probability, almost no medical expertise whatsoever, but who may well be rather concerned to please the higher-ups, who in turn will be rather concerned, given that they seem to think the following:
"If schools close, is there a duty to provide alternative education?
Local authorities have a duty to provide education for children of compulsory school age who are out of school. Schools would remain open to staff, who could set and mark work, but getting it to and from pupils is an issue that will have to be addressed. We are looking into whether and how DfES can advise or assist local authorities, and will provide more guidance later this year. "
Hmm. Well of course, one way out of this dilemma for them, (which could presumably land them in court for failing to provide most of the schooling population with an appropriate education) would be to say that the parent is responsible for provision of education under these circumstances, and that therefore the child is effectively home educated.
Yeah, that would seem to solve the problem, though maybe not, if they decide to go ahead and make themselves liable for monitoring all home educators, for you can be damn sure that given that home educators already resent LA officers on their doorsteps, they won't be in much of a mind to let anyone in, come the year of a flu epidemic.
Yeah right: in this situation, I really want my children to be left in the hands of someone with, in all probability, almost no medical expertise whatsoever, but who may well be rather concerned to please the higher-ups, who in turn will be rather concerned, given that they seem to think the following:
"If schools close, is there a duty to provide alternative education?
Local authorities have a duty to provide education for children of compulsory school age who are out of school. Schools would remain open to staff, who could set and mark work, but getting it to and from pupils is an issue that will have to be addressed. We are looking into whether and how DfES can advise or assist local authorities, and will provide more guidance later this year. "
Hmm. Well of course, one way out of this dilemma for them, (which could presumably land them in court for failing to provide most of the schooling population with an appropriate education) would be to say that the parent is responsible for provision of education under these circumstances, and that therefore the child is effectively home educated.
Yeah, that would seem to solve the problem, though maybe not, if they decide to go ahead and make themselves liable for monitoring all home educators, for you can be damn sure that given that home educators already resent LA officers on their doorsteps, they won't be in much of a mind to let anyone in, come the year of a flu epidemic.
Campaign Workshops
From Fiona N, who amongst many others is doing stirling campaign work on the DfES's "light touch changes to monitoring of Home Educators", we hear that:
"Annette Taberner (chair of Sheffield HE Network) and I, Fiona Nicholson, are running a pilot workshop in Sheffield on Sunday 28th January 2007, from 11-3 at Heeley Institute S2 3DT.
Phil Hicks the Chair of the Education Otherwise Government Policy Group will also be there, along with an experienced local journalist who has worked for government media departments in Leeds and who will be explaining how to work with the media and get them on your side. There will also be a social worker explaining the impact of Every Child Matters agenda at local level. This social worker is a local home educating parent.
Creche facilities available.
FORWARD NOTICE:
There will be other EO regional workshops along similar lines in the Tyne and Wear area and in the vicinity of Bromley in Kent.
All three workshops will have at least one member of the EO Government Policy Group to present a brief (ish ) overview of the situation and to answer questions from the floor.
Also:
To volunteer or communicate your views to the EO Government Policy Group please use the email governmentpolicy@education-otherwise.org"
"Annette Taberner (chair of Sheffield HE Network) and I, Fiona Nicholson, are running a pilot workshop in Sheffield on Sunday 28th January 2007, from 11-3 at Heeley Institute S2 3DT.
Phil Hicks the Chair of the Education Otherwise Government Policy Group will also be there, along with an experienced local journalist who has worked for government media departments in Leeds and who will be explaining how to work with the media and get them on your side. There will also be a social worker explaining the impact of Every Child Matters agenda at local level. This social worker is a local home educating parent.
Creche facilities available.
FORWARD NOTICE:
There will be other EO regional workshops along similar lines in the Tyne and Wear area and in the vicinity of Bromley in Kent.
All three workshops will have at least one member of the EO Government Policy Group to present a brief (ish ) overview of the situation and to answer questions from the floor.
Also:
To volunteer or communicate your views to the EO Government Policy Group please use the email governmentpolicy@education-otherwise.org"
Not Knowing What They Don't Know
There are times when I am quite astonished at the level of sophistication of the conversation Dd (4) and I have together. Yesterday, for example, on a car journey back from seeing friends, we discussed the pros and cons of white lying, which we defined as lying with good intention. She saw the pros and provided all the cons, in other words she had the subject completely. I would have been quite pleased with myself had I had such a conversation with a teen or even an adult.
Five minutes later Ds and I were talking about an older friend of his who we hadn't seen for a few months.
"He has changed so much", Ds remarked.
"Yes, he isn't a boy, anymore." I added.
Dd, from the back seat "Wha? He's a girl?"
You see, the thing is, even though I know her so well, I still don't know what she doesn't know, but at least she isn't now going round thinking Jaspar's a girl. How many more of these sorts of mistakes go by unnoticed in a school classroom, I wonder.
Five minutes later Ds and I were talking about an older friend of his who we hadn't seen for a few months.
"He has changed so much", Ds remarked.
"Yes, he isn't a boy, anymore." I added.
Dd, from the back seat "Wha? He's a girl?"
You see, the thing is, even though I know her so well, I still don't know what she doesn't know, but at least she isn't now going round thinking Jaspar's a girl. How many more of these sorts of mistakes go by unnoticed in a school classroom, I wonder.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
More Ruth Kelly Letters
...from home educators. This time in the Northern Echo and The Western Daily Press.
Education Otherwise Briefing Paper for Home Educators
From the EO Government Policy Group a superb Briefing Paper for home educators.
If you wish to make any comments, please mail governmentpolicy@education-otherwise.org
If you wish to make any comments, please mail governmentpolicy@education-otherwise.org
NFER Research Gets a Fail
If you want to be impressed with the depths of inadequacy of the research underpinning the delayed prospective consultation on "light touch changes to the monitoring of Home Education" you could do worse than to go here and consider, for example, Question 8.
"What factors get in the way of accessing support?
(Please select a factor from each dropdown box, starting with the biggest factor)
-- biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 2nd biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 3rd biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 4th biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 5th biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)".
A charitable way of looking at the question is that the people at the NFER simply don't know what they are talking about. They have no real idea of the issues facing HEors, for if they did, they would know that most HEors don't have any problem accessing huge amounts of support from the HE network and that they don't expect any help from anywhere else, least of all an LA.
A less charitable way of looking at the question is to see it as a trap, for if we were to answer the question as if we have problems accessing support from local authorities, (as if we imagined we were going to get any in the first place - ha! ), then presumably a researcher could interpret this as meaning that HEors have problems accessing any sort of support at all.
So I left question 8 blank and told them what I thought of the ambiguity in question 8 in their final comments box.
But really, whether it be incompetence or deliberate deviousness, research such as this should not be allowed to inform public bodies or to influence their actions, for it does not access the truth of matter.
"What factors get in the way of accessing support?
(Please select a factor from each dropdown box, starting with the biggest factor)
-- biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 2nd biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 3rd biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 4th biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)
-- 5th biggest factor -- Poor communications, Lack of clarity of roles, Negative attitudes, Lack of resources, Lack of understanding, Other (please specify)".
A charitable way of looking at the question is that the people at the NFER simply don't know what they are talking about. They have no real idea of the issues facing HEors, for if they did, they would know that most HEors don't have any problem accessing huge amounts of support from the HE network and that they don't expect any help from anywhere else, least of all an LA.
A less charitable way of looking at the question is to see it as a trap, for if we were to answer the question as if we have problems accessing support from local authorities, (as if we imagined we were going to get any in the first place - ha! ), then presumably a researcher could interpret this as meaning that HEors have problems accessing any sort of support at all.
So I left question 8 blank and told them what I thought of the ambiguity in question 8 in their final comments box.
But really, whether it be incompetence or deliberate deviousness, research such as this should not be allowed to inform public bodies or to influence their actions, for it does not access the truth of matter.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Consultation Delayed
It isn't our imagination then: we hear today from the DfES that the proposed consulation on "light touch changes to the monitoring of home educators" has been slightly delayed due to input from stakeholders.
So keep up the work, the real stakeholders in this situation: the more letters to the DfES the better. Fire bullet points below at will.
So keep up the work, the real stakeholders in this situation: the more letters to the DfES the better. Fire bullet points below at will.
Regulatory Impact Assessment
We imagine the DfES must be undertaking something like a Regulatory Impact Assessment. It might be worth their while to take the points here and here into account.
When Will Educrats Learn?
From the TES, a story of how a teacher, someone fully invested in the schooling system, had to grow in knowledge and understanding when her own child started to suffer from fear of school. Whilst this teacher had been faced with children who had behaved in similar ways before, it was only when her own child became depressed that she began to see that forcing a child back into school is likely to be pointless, profoundly damaging and far from the best possible alternative. Let us hope that other teachers and educrats can learn from her story of revelation before yet more children are forced to suffer.
The second page of the story below:
"When School is too Scary (cont).
The child psychologist said my son didn't have mental health issues, which was a huge relief - but that meant his absence had to be seen as truancy.
The ESW service agreed he wasn't misbehaving, but genuinely frightened.
However, the absence of medical evidence meant legal action. Tension rose still further at home as I wondered how on earth we could cope with court as well as a distraught 12-year-old weeping on the window sill.
This carried on through Year 7 and into Year 8. We continued to request meetings. I spoke to the head of the ESW service and the local authority education officer, who sent us back to the GP. He referred my son to the mental health team again, only to be told they wouldn't see him because they'd already assessed him as outside their remit.
The one bright spot was my son's eagerness to learn. Once we stopped mentioning school, he'd happily spend days reading and working through textbooks and worksheets. His school sent some work but I knew providing what amounted to distance learning just wasn't possible for a mainstream school in the long term.
Something had to change. We'd had all the help that was on offer but it hadn't worked. We all agreed there was nothing more that anyone could do. I desperately wanted my son back - my funny, clever, sardonic son who had been replaced by this self-loathing, miserable young man.
So we took school out of the equation to concentrate on learning. I'd been working in schools for the best part of a decade so the freedom allowed by home education seemed shocking at first. No set subjects. No national curriculum. The only thing we had to prove was that we were providing a full-time and appropriate education.
We are lucky that we've been able to take this route and that it has provided a solution for us. A child who is keen to learn and an adult who has the time to facilitate it are the only essentials and we are fortunate enough to have both.
We've had to make sacrifices to do it, but family life is back on an even keel now and I have my son back. That's the most important thing. "
The second page of the story below:
"When School is too Scary (cont).
The child psychologist said my son didn't have mental health issues, which was a huge relief - but that meant his absence had to be seen as truancy.
The ESW service agreed he wasn't misbehaving, but genuinely frightened.
However, the absence of medical evidence meant legal action. Tension rose still further at home as I wondered how on earth we could cope with court as well as a distraught 12-year-old weeping on the window sill.
This carried on through Year 7 and into Year 8. We continued to request meetings. I spoke to the head of the ESW service and the local authority education officer, who sent us back to the GP. He referred my son to the mental health team again, only to be told they wouldn't see him because they'd already assessed him as outside their remit.
The one bright spot was my son's eagerness to learn. Once we stopped mentioning school, he'd happily spend days reading and working through textbooks and worksheets. His school sent some work but I knew providing what amounted to distance learning just wasn't possible for a mainstream school in the long term.
Something had to change. We'd had all the help that was on offer but it hadn't worked. We all agreed there was nothing more that anyone could do. I desperately wanted my son back - my funny, clever, sardonic son who had been replaced by this self-loathing, miserable young man.
So we took school out of the equation to concentrate on learning. I'd been working in schools for the best part of a decade so the freedom allowed by home education seemed shocking at first. No set subjects. No national curriculum. The only thing we had to prove was that we were providing a full-time and appropriate education.
We are lucky that we've been able to take this route and that it has provided a solution for us. A child who is keen to learn and an adult who has the time to facilitate it are the only essentials and we are fortunate enough to have both.
We've had to make sacrifices to do it, but family life is back on an even keel now and I have my son back. That's the most important thing. "
Monday, January 22, 2007
Not Directly About Home Education Legislation!
I haven't linked to him in a while, but that isn't to say that I don't continue to give thanks for Norm, this time on the matter of John Gray and his view of the Enlightenment. And just to note: my best theory is that my feelings of gratitude aren't a matter of faith either.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Autonomous Education Rocks!
Gill describes the way in which autonomous education works for children who have not got on with the schooling system.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Bullet Point Arguments
...against the suggestion that the monitoring of Home Educators should be increased.
What we should be saying to LAs and the DfES:
(DfES address for letters: Elaine.HASTE@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
or: Elective Home Education Department, DfES, Mowden Hall, Darlington DL3 9BG.)
*There are perfectly adequate procedures already in place to allow Local Authorities pick up on families who are not educating their children to their age, ability and aptitude. It is currently the case that LAs are able to make enquiries of home educating families in order to ascertain that on balance of probabilities an education is taking place. In the situation that it would appear to a reasonable person that it is not, the LA already have a right to pursue the situation further. Such a balance is finely wrought and should not be tampered with lightly, for it allows for the protection of children who are being educationally neglected, and yet it also allows for families, who are doing very well and acting perfectly within the law, to be left alone. This situation may not be as easy as the Local Authority would like, but they will find, see below, that insisting on a duty to monitor all home educating families will actually make their working lives a lot harder.
What we should be saying to LAs and the DfES:
(DfES address for letters: Elaine.HASTE@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
or: Elective Home Education Department, DfES, Mowden Hall, Darlington DL3 9BG.)
*There are perfectly adequate procedures already in place to allow Local Authorities pick up on families who are not educating their children to their age, ability and aptitude. It is currently the case that LAs are able to make enquiries of home educating families in order to ascertain that on balance of probabilities an education is taking place. In the situation that it would appear to a reasonable person that it is not, the LA already have a right to pursue the situation further. Such a balance is finely wrought and should not be tampered with lightly, for it allows for the protection of children who are being educationally neglected, and yet it also allows for families, who are doing very well and acting perfectly within the law, to be left alone. This situation may not be as easy as the Local Authority would like, but they will find, see below, that insisting on a duty to monitor all home educating families will actually make their working lives a lot harder.
*It will be very difficult to monitor us because huge numbers of Home Educating families don't want to be monitored. They will resist intrusion into their lives and homes when they know they are doing nothing wrong, and that your presence will be disruptive for the education of their children, so you will be making yourselves very vulnerable to increased workload, being unable to carry out the work and significantly increased costs.
*If you create a duty to monitor us, you will be held liable when you don't do it.
*Parents will go for you when you try to impose state standards. Many home educated children have been already woefully failed by the state and even the private schooling system. Many HE parents, have learned the hard way that age is not a reliable way to determine aptitude or achievement. These kinds of parents will not be pressed to conform to state standards just to please the LA official when it is not in the best educational interests of their child. If they are pressed to do this, they will sue you for forcing them to provide an education that is not appropriate to the ability and aptitude of their child.
*If we are to be monitored, we will demand funding in order that we may meet with your demands.
*The home educating families who are failing their children are the insignificant statistical outliers. These families are (it seems to us) almost all already known to LAs and are already receiving the kind of "support" you would be offering after you create a duty to monitor all HEors.
* Far from missing out on the very few families who are failing, it is already the case that the HE community is acutely aware that LAs interfere with families who would otherwise be functioning very well. It is frequently the case that LAs think that an HE family is having a problem when they simply aren't. Increasing the degree to which all families are subjected to state scrutiny will doubtless increase the numbers of false positives, will generate an huge amount of expense and unnecessary work, and will probably prevent the accused families from getting on with educating their children as best they can. When the LA are responsible for causing, rather than finding a problem, the family will hold the state to account. This kind of case will also doubtless cause increased dissatisfaction with your services amongst HEing communities, and we will be communicating our dissatisfactions far and wide, to include the media and our MPs.
*It is an abiding problem of either state or a more patrician form of educational provision that those who make such provision are almost exclusively those who have succeeded within the educational system that they propose. All those who failed radically are not given a voice as to how their needs could best be met. This strikes us as a terrible tragedy, for the one-size-fits-all provision that is consequently offered fails to be meet such children's needs and does not allow them to realise their potential. Many home educators have experienced how both state and private schooling fails to meet the educational needs of their children and most of these will have devised better strategies to cope with their children's needs. Children who left school anxious, self-harming and depressed have flourished in the less stressful environment of home- based education and have gone on to live happy and productive lives. It is, in fact, the home educating community who are the experts in educating children with needs such as these.
Being the experts in this field, home educators are also best placed to offer criticism and support to the few home educators who are struggling. The DfES does not need to create further duties for LAs which will undermine the positive elements of civil society and the growth of personal responsibility which are modeled in the Home Education community. Further, the DfES must be aware that in intruding upon the lives of children who are not happy to be dealing with judgmental strangers is likely to be very counter-productive for their education, and all to no observable benefit in terms of educational outcomes.
*The methodology used by the two reports which have been used to justify the DFES's current consultation proposal - namely the NFER (link not working at present) and Ivatts, is highly questionable. The sample sizes in the first study are tiny, and the people consulted in both studies were either only those who were prepared to give the answers the studies sought, or whose responses were not represented in the reports. In addition, the previous DfES consultation in 2005, upon which the present proposed consultation is based, was very biased in favour of LA reports and did not weigh evidence from home educators fairly.
*The currently proposed consultation on "light touch changes to monitoring" of Home Educators appears to us to be flawed and does not conform to the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice with regard to how consultations should be conducted. It seems, for example, that home educators are being consulted at a very late stage in the proceedings, that decisions have already been made as to what action will be taken and that these have been based upon a very biased set of assumptions and presentations from LAs and flawed studies, see above. Home Educators are, afterall, the key stakeholders in this matter, and yet we feel that it is LAs who are being treated as such. Overall, we feel we have been put in the position of having to assert our right to respond to the wrong questions set by the wrong people, based on assumptions that are often erroneous, ill-informed and discriminatory. We therefore do not feel that this consultation meets the Audit Commission's definition, of "a process of dialogue that leads to a decision..... an ongoing exchange of views and information, rather than a one-off event." We also feel that many key stakeholders, such as Travellers, as well as those home educators not accessing email and internet-based information, will not be able to be represented in the consultation process.
*It is the case that many HE communities have invested considerable energy building satisfactory relationships with Local Authority personnel, working with them to achieve a satisfactory balance with due respect for the privacy of families who are doing nothing other than educating their children appropriately and who are acting within the law. If compulsory universal monitoring is introduced, we will be back in the trenches once again.
*Occasional home visits are highly unlikely to pick up accurate evidence of abuse. Instead Social Services departments must continue to rely upon the old method of informal community reporting. This does work. Being unknown to SS dep'ts is not usually the problem for abused children, by far the greater problem for social services departments being to know what to do about suspected cases of abuse. The state must abandon the idea that it can police every family for abuse. The only way this could be done would be to fix cc cameras in all the rooms in everyone's houses and out in the garden as well. Checking huge numbers of HEors for the few who may be being abusive (we contend that these are very, very few) will be a waste of public money and is very likely to lead to a number of false positives, which will get heard about through the HE grapevine and which will act to your discredit. Why enlarge the size of the haystack, since this will only make the needle harder to find?
*What about the right to family privacy as enshrined in European Human Rights Law, Article 8? The child, with no duties being asked of him, will surely have a right to family privacy. If a child doesn't want to meet with the LA, are you going to ask the parents to force that child to do so? What level of force are you going to ask a parent to apply? What about the commitment to listen to and respect the wishes of children, as enshrined in the Every Child Matters agenda and in Article 12 of UNCRC? If a child doesn't want to meet with state officials, will it be in the spirit of the ECM to force the child to meet with them? It is sadly the case that many children suffer terribly in schools. The stress they experience is all too frequently neglected. Many home educating parents are not prepared to stand by and see the physical and mental health of their children suffer. These kinds of parents will not be happy to see their children suffer once again with LA monitoring and an imposition of a school-at-home education.
*Is it that the DfES propose to ignore Article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR which states that "In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions"?
*Home educators neither want nor need your support. Instead their communities offer a prime example of successful civil society. We take responsibility for ourselves. We help each other in innumerable ways, we offer criticism of each other, we police ourselves, we help each other grow. Far from hassling such a community, thereby impeding our growth and independence, the state should step back and breathe a huge sigh of relief, for here is a perfect example of they way in which society should be going. Our children are offered personalised learning, which if you didn't interfere with it, would not cost the taxpayer a thing. They are finding and developing their interests and aptitudes, without wasting huge swathes of time learning stuff that will never be of use to them again. They socialize with people of all ages. They live and learn in the real wide world beyond the school gates.
Friday, January 19, 2007
On the Wider Significance of Proposed Changes to Home Education Law
(Have reposted this piece from a few days ago with a few alterations, as the old version doesn't appear to be taking corrections. Hope it makes the thought experiment about "statementing" a bit clearer.)
I admit this blog has got even more narrowly focused over these past few months - almost nothing but obsessing about possible future legislative changes to home education in England. But the thing is - any passing reader who isn't HEing, some of the proposed changes to home education law will have major ramifications and implications for the whole of education law in this country.
In the likely case that you didn't know, passing non-HE reader, the state is proposing to up the degree to which home educators are monitored. In order to do this the DfES will undoubtedly have to decide upon and impose a widely applicable set of standards for education, thereby in effect dictating the content of it. The state will therefore be responsible for both the form and the content of the education that all parents must provide to their children.
So how will this affect parents with children in schools? What it will mean is that whilst parents will still be responsible for the "provision" of education, eg: in the act of delegating the responsibility to a school, they will no longer responsible for freely deciding upon the "form and content" of education, since these will have been decided by the state.
What this, in turn, will mean is that if a child in school is failed by the form and content of an education, the parent will be able sue the state for compelling him to provide an inappropriate education.
It seems possible, and I want to run it by some sort of thought experiment, that the DfES may try to avoid the problem of being held responsible for oftentimes inappropriate form and content of education, by creating the following situation and using the following argument: "Well this standard only applies to children without special educational needs. You can get out of jail if you decide to get your child statemented, in our new special way. In other words, you pay for an assessment, and the ed psych will give you a special curriculum to follow....and let's face it, this could exempt most of the schooling population, because most children could be defined as having an SEN if you try hard enough!" But actually going down this new special SEN route doesn't provide the "get of jail free" card that the DfES might suggest since even in the situation that the state does not then prescribe a new curriculum, it will still be deciding the form of education for our children, in that they are deciding that we MUST statement our children if we don't want to apply their educational standards. Yep, they will still be dictating the form of education and they will be doing this in a way that may well be deeply deleterious to many children.
By which I mean that psychiatrists know full well the dangers of applying a label to anyone, in that the label often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. eg: if you tell a child they can't sit still because they have ADHD, what is the point of them trying to do it? They have a perfect excuse not to. Or to take another example, many HE children don't learn to read until they are eight, nine or even older. They are rarely diagnosed dyslexic, and because they are not sitting in a classroom full of children doing other things, they usually catch up within a year of starting to read. No need to apply a label, thereby making it far less likely that the child will ever get there. Just let him learn when he is ready...NO problem. He will be fit to live in the 21st century, but will have got there in his own time and with no negative consequences to himself or anyone else.
Forcing parents to do this new kind of statement their children in order that they do not have to deliver the state-determined education will undoubtedly be deeply abusive for some families. In this regard, the state will again be responsible and probably will be held responsible for the damage it is doing to children in effectively insisting that they must be statemented in this way.
Further on the implications for all families on changes to HE law: forcing HE families to be subject to scrutiny by local authorities when it is not clear that they have done anything wrong, establishes a precedent for all families about the degree to which the state is allowed to invade their privacy. Most HE families will have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of the state and LAs will have no reason whatsoever to believe that these families are not providing an education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of their children. In the situation that there is a reasonable suspicion to think that an appropriate education is not being provided, the LA already have the power to make inquiries of that family. There is no need to change the law here for in insisting that LAs have a right to monitor the education that all HE families provide, the state is in effect over-writing the principle of the right to family privacy, as is enshrined in Article 8, of the ECHR.
It is also the case that many HE children simply do NOT want to see local authority representatives. They don't want a stranger in their homes deciding upon their whole way of life. Not surprising really; you can be sympathetic. For a start, these strangers will know next to nothing about the real educational needs of each child and yet for because an educrat has a clipboard and is supposed to be in the know, they are allowed to make huge decisions about the way a child lives. If, on the other hand, the state is to be as good as it's word and consult children, (as it claims it will in the Every Child Matters agenda, and as ARCH says, "gee thanks!"), they will find that most often they are neither wanted nor needed in the lives of children. If then the state decides to over-ride the wishes of HE children, how are parents everywhere supposed to take the state seriously when it professes to consult with children and take their views seriously?
HE parents also ask "In the case that my child doesn't want to meet with an educrat, how much force am I required to apply?". If the state insists we must produce our children for their inspection, and if this means we must physically and psychologically torment them, how are parents everywhere really to take the supposed spirit behind the government's Every Child Matters agenda seriously?
All in all, home education needs to remain free of the diktats of the state in order that the principle of parental responsibility for the provision of education remains untainted. It needs to remain free because a one-size prescription for education will not fit all. It needs to remain free of the state so that the principle of listening to what children want can be maintained and so that privacy of innocent families can be respected.
I admit this blog has got even more narrowly focused over these past few months - almost nothing but obsessing about possible future legislative changes to home education in England. But the thing is - any passing reader who isn't HEing, some of the proposed changes to home education law will have major ramifications and implications for the whole of education law in this country.
In the likely case that you didn't know, passing non-HE reader, the state is proposing to up the degree to which home educators are monitored. In order to do this the DfES will undoubtedly have to decide upon and impose a widely applicable set of standards for education, thereby in effect dictating the content of it. The state will therefore be responsible for both the form and the content of the education that all parents must provide to their children.
So how will this affect parents with children in schools? What it will mean is that whilst parents will still be responsible for the "provision" of education, eg: in the act of delegating the responsibility to a school, they will no longer responsible for freely deciding upon the "form and content" of education, since these will have been decided by the state.
What this, in turn, will mean is that if a child in school is failed by the form and content of an education, the parent will be able sue the state for compelling him to provide an inappropriate education.
It seems possible, and I want to run it by some sort of thought experiment, that the DfES may try to avoid the problem of being held responsible for oftentimes inappropriate form and content of education, by creating the following situation and using the following argument: "Well this standard only applies to children without special educational needs. You can get out of jail if you decide to get your child statemented, in our new special way. In other words, you pay for an assessment, and the ed psych will give you a special curriculum to follow....and let's face it, this could exempt most of the schooling population, because most children could be defined as having an SEN if you try hard enough!" But actually going down this new special SEN route doesn't provide the "get of jail free" card that the DfES might suggest since even in the situation that the state does not then prescribe a new curriculum, it will still be deciding the form of education for our children, in that they are deciding that we MUST statement our children if we don't want to apply their educational standards. Yep, they will still be dictating the form of education and they will be doing this in a way that may well be deeply deleterious to many children.
By which I mean that psychiatrists know full well the dangers of applying a label to anyone, in that the label often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. eg: if you tell a child they can't sit still because they have ADHD, what is the point of them trying to do it? They have a perfect excuse not to. Or to take another example, many HE children don't learn to read until they are eight, nine or even older. They are rarely diagnosed dyslexic, and because they are not sitting in a classroom full of children doing other things, they usually catch up within a year of starting to read. No need to apply a label, thereby making it far less likely that the child will ever get there. Just let him learn when he is ready...NO problem. He will be fit to live in the 21st century, but will have got there in his own time and with no negative consequences to himself or anyone else.
Forcing parents to do this new kind of statement their children in order that they do not have to deliver the state-determined education will undoubtedly be deeply abusive for some families. In this regard, the state will again be responsible and probably will be held responsible for the damage it is doing to children in effectively insisting that they must be statemented in this way.
Further on the implications for all families on changes to HE law: forcing HE families to be subject to scrutiny by local authorities when it is not clear that they have done anything wrong, establishes a precedent for all families about the degree to which the state is allowed to invade their privacy. Most HE families will have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of the state and LAs will have no reason whatsoever to believe that these families are not providing an education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of their children. In the situation that there is a reasonable suspicion to think that an appropriate education is not being provided, the LA already have the power to make inquiries of that family. There is no need to change the law here for in insisting that LAs have a right to monitor the education that all HE families provide, the state is in effect over-writing the principle of the right to family privacy, as is enshrined in Article 8, of the ECHR.
It is also the case that many HE children simply do NOT want to see local authority representatives. They don't want a stranger in their homes deciding upon their whole way of life. Not surprising really; you can be sympathetic. For a start, these strangers will know next to nothing about the real educational needs of each child and yet for because an educrat has a clipboard and is supposed to be in the know, they are allowed to make huge decisions about the way a child lives. If, on the other hand, the state is to be as good as it's word and consult children, (as it claims it will in the Every Child Matters agenda, and as ARCH says, "gee thanks!"), they will find that most often they are neither wanted nor needed in the lives of children. If then the state decides to over-ride the wishes of HE children, how are parents everywhere supposed to take the state seriously when it professes to consult with children and take their views seriously?
HE parents also ask "In the case that my child doesn't want to meet with an educrat, how much force am I required to apply?". If the state insists we must produce our children for their inspection, and if this means we must physically and psychologically torment them, how are parents everywhere really to take the supposed spirit behind the government's Every Child Matters agenda seriously?
All in all, home education needs to remain free of the diktats of the state in order that the principle of parental responsibility for the provision of education remains untainted. It needs to remain free because a one-size prescription for education will not fit all. It needs to remain free of the state so that the principle of listening to what children want can be maintained and so that privacy of innocent families can be respected.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Worst Case Scenarios
Ok, brace ourselves. Let's think about it. Is it possible that the DfES could somehow manage to introduce a neat balance of legislation and guidance which would give them a right to monitor education and progress (without a duty to do so, since that would make them liable when they don't monitor and they wouldn't want that); which would give them the right (though not the duty, for the same reasons, to see the child); which would give them the right to dictate standards and outcomes of education, without becoming responisible for form and content, and without effectively abrogating parental responsibility and then appropriating responsibility upon themselves to provide an education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child?
OK, sock it to me. How could they write this stuff? It would be very helpful to know, not so that we give them any ideas, you understand. Just to show the DfES that they cannot defy reality and get away with it.
We will do our utmost to reveal the implications of any of the above attempts. We will go to newspapers. We will blog on general education blogs. We will use the judiciary if we have to.
OK, sock it to me. How could they write this stuff? It would be very helpful to know, not so that we give them any ideas, you understand. Just to show the DfES that they cannot defy reality and get away with it.
We will do our utmost to reveal the implications of any of the above attempts. We will go to newspapers. We will blog on general education blogs. We will use the judiciary if we have to.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
On the Significance of Home Education Law for All Families
I admit this blog has got even more narrowly focused over these past few months - almost nothing but obsessing about possible future legislative changes to home education in England and Wales. But the thing is - any passing reader who isn't HEing, some of the proposed changes to home education law will have major ramifications and implications for the whole of education law in these countries.
In the likely case that you didn't know, passing non-HE reader, the state is proposing to up the degree to which home educators are monitored. In order to do this the DfES will undoubtedly have to decide upon and impose a widely applicable set of standards for education, thereby in effect dictating the content of it. The state will therefore be responsible for both the form and the content of the education that all parents must provide to their children.
So how will this affect parents with children in schools? What it will mean is that whilst parents will still be responsible for the "provision" of education, eg: in the act of delegating the responsibility to a school, they will no longer responsible for freely deciding upon the "form and content" of education, since these will have been decided by the state.
What this, in turn, will mean is that if a child in school is failed by the form and content of an education, the parent will be able sue the state for compelling him to provide an inappropriate education.
It seems possible, and I want to run it by some sort of thought experiment, that the DfES may try to avoid the problem of being held responsible for oftentimes inappropriate form and content of education, by creating the following situation and using the following argument: "Well this standard only applies to children without special educational needs. You can get out of jail if you decide to get your child statemented, in our new special way. In other words, you pay for an assessment, and the ed psych will give you a special curriculum to follow....and let's face it, this could exempt most of the schooling population, because most children could be defined as having an SEN if you try hard enough!" But actually going down this new special SEN route doesn't provide the "get of jail free" card that the DfES might suggest since even in the situation that the state does not then prescribe a new curriculum, it will still be deciding the form of education for our children, in that they are deciding that we MUST statement our children if we don't want to apply their educational standards. Yep, they will still be dictating the form of education and they will be doing this in a way that may well be deeply deleterious to many children.
By which I mean that psychiatrists know full well the dangers of applying a label to anyone, in that the label often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. eg: if you tell a child they can't sit still because they have ADHD, what is the point of them trying to do it? They have a perfect excuse not to. Or to take another example, many HE children don't learn to read until they are eight, nine or even older. They are rarely diagnosed dyslexic, and because they are not sitting in a classroom full of children doing other things, they usually catch up within a year of starting to read. No need to apply a label, thereby making it far less likely that the child will ever get there. Just let him learn when he is ready...NO problem. He will be fit to live in the 21st century, but will have got there in his own time and with no negative consequences to himself or anyone else.
Forcing parents to do this new kind of statement their children in order that they do not have to deliver the state-determined education will undoubtedly be deeply abusive for some families. In this regard, the state will again be responsible and probably will be held responsible for the damage it is doing to children in effectively insisting that they must be statemented in this way.
Further on the implications for all families on changes to HE law: forcing HE families to be subject to scrutiny by local authorities when it is not clear that they have done anything wrong, establishes a precedent for all families about the degree to which the state is allowed to invade their privacy. Most HE families will have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of the state and LAs will have no reason whatsoever to believe that these families are not providing an education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of their children. In the situation that there is a reasonable suspicion to think that an appropriate education is not being provided, the LA already have the power to make inquiries of that family. There is no need to change the law here for in insisting that LAs have a right to monitor the education that all HE families provide, the state is in effect over-writing the principle of the right to family privacy, as is enshrined in Article 8, of the ECHR.
It is also the case that many HE children simply do NOT want to see local authority representatives. They don't want a stranger in their homes deciding upon their whole way of life. Not surprising really; you can be sympathetic. For a start, these strangers will know next to nothing about the real educational needs of each child and yet for because an educrat has a clipboard and is supposed to be in the know, they are allowed to make huge decisions about the way a child lives. If, on the other hand, the state is to be as good as it's word and consult children, (as it claims it will in the Every Child Matters agenda, and as ARCH says, "gee thanks!"), they will find that most often they are neither wanted nor needed in the lives of children. If then the state decides to over-ride the wishes of HE children, how are parents everywhere supposed to take the state seriously when it professes to consult with children and take their views seriously?
HE parents also ask "In the case that my child doesn't want to meet with an educrat, how much force am I required to apply?". If the state insists we must produce our children for their inspection, and if this means we must physically and psychologically torment them, how are parents everywhere really to take the supposed spirit behind the government's Every Child Matters agenda seriously?
All in all, home education needs to remain free of the diktats of the state in order that the principle of parental responsibility for the provision of education remains untainted. It needs to remain free because a one-size prescription for education will not fit all. It needs to remain free of the state so that the principle of listening to what children want can be maintained and so that privacy of innocent families can be respected.
In the likely case that you didn't know, passing non-HE reader, the state is proposing to up the degree to which home educators are monitored. In order to do this the DfES will undoubtedly have to decide upon and impose a widely applicable set of standards for education, thereby in effect dictating the content of it. The state will therefore be responsible for both the form and the content of the education that all parents must provide to their children.
So how will this affect parents with children in schools? What it will mean is that whilst parents will still be responsible for the "provision" of education, eg: in the act of delegating the responsibility to a school, they will no longer responsible for freely deciding upon the "form and content" of education, since these will have been decided by the state.
What this, in turn, will mean is that if a child in school is failed by the form and content of an education, the parent will be able sue the state for compelling him to provide an inappropriate education.
It seems possible, and I want to run it by some sort of thought experiment, that the DfES may try to avoid the problem of being held responsible for oftentimes inappropriate form and content of education, by creating the following situation and using the following argument: "Well this standard only applies to children without special educational needs. You can get out of jail if you decide to get your child statemented, in our new special way. In other words, you pay for an assessment, and the ed psych will give you a special curriculum to follow....and let's face it, this could exempt most of the schooling population, because most children could be defined as having an SEN if you try hard enough!" But actually going down this new special SEN route doesn't provide the "get of jail free" card that the DfES might suggest since even in the situation that the state does not then prescribe a new curriculum, it will still be deciding the form of education for our children, in that they are deciding that we MUST statement our children if we don't want to apply their educational standards. Yep, they will still be dictating the form of education and they will be doing this in a way that may well be deeply deleterious to many children.
By which I mean that psychiatrists know full well the dangers of applying a label to anyone, in that the label often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. eg: if you tell a child they can't sit still because they have ADHD, what is the point of them trying to do it? They have a perfect excuse not to. Or to take another example, many HE children don't learn to read until they are eight, nine or even older. They are rarely diagnosed dyslexic, and because they are not sitting in a classroom full of children doing other things, they usually catch up within a year of starting to read. No need to apply a label, thereby making it far less likely that the child will ever get there. Just let him learn when he is ready...NO problem. He will be fit to live in the 21st century, but will have got there in his own time and with no negative consequences to himself or anyone else.
Forcing parents to do this new kind of statement their children in order that they do not have to deliver the state-determined education will undoubtedly be deeply abusive for some families. In this regard, the state will again be responsible and probably will be held responsible for the damage it is doing to children in effectively insisting that they must be statemented in this way.
Further on the implications for all families on changes to HE law: forcing HE families to be subject to scrutiny by local authorities when it is not clear that they have done anything wrong, establishes a precedent for all families about the degree to which the state is allowed to invade their privacy. Most HE families will have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of the state and LAs will have no reason whatsoever to believe that these families are not providing an education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of their children. In the situation that there is a reasonable suspicion to think that an appropriate education is not being provided, the LA already have the power to make inquiries of that family. There is no need to change the law here for in insisting that LAs have a right to monitor the education that all HE families provide, the state is in effect over-writing the principle of the right to family privacy, as is enshrined in Article 8, of the ECHR.
It is also the case that many HE children simply do NOT want to see local authority representatives. They don't want a stranger in their homes deciding upon their whole way of life. Not surprising really; you can be sympathetic. For a start, these strangers will know next to nothing about the real educational needs of each child and yet for because an educrat has a clipboard and is supposed to be in the know, they are allowed to make huge decisions about the way a child lives. If, on the other hand, the state is to be as good as it's word and consult children, (as it claims it will in the Every Child Matters agenda, and as ARCH says, "gee thanks!"), they will find that most often they are neither wanted nor needed in the lives of children. If then the state decides to over-ride the wishes of HE children, how are parents everywhere supposed to take the state seriously when it professes to consult with children and take their views seriously?
HE parents also ask "In the case that my child doesn't want to meet with an educrat, how much force am I required to apply?". If the state insists we must produce our children for their inspection, and if this means we must physically and psychologically torment them, how are parents everywhere really to take the supposed spirit behind the government's Every Child Matters agenda seriously?
All in all, home education needs to remain free of the diktats of the state in order that the principle of parental responsibility for the provision of education remains untainted. It needs to remain free because a one-size prescription for education will not fit all. It needs to remain free of the state so that the principle of listening to what children want can be maintained and so that privacy of innocent families can be respected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)