Original post can be found here.
Here we go:
"The independent review of home education - A number of people have emailed me or sent me messages about Graham Badman's independent review of home education, so I thought it might be useful to post some information on the review and what I think of it.
The review was in
no way independent - it was conducted by a government official with a particular interest in formal schooling and a disproportionate approach towards child protection.
"We published Graham Badman’s report on his review of home education on 11 June 2009 and our initial response the same day. I asked Graham Badman to carry out the review in the light of certain high profile cases and because local authorities and other organisations were consistently raising concerns with my Department about the current state of the law and policy in this area.
Which high profile cases? The ones in which home education was not a factor at all, or the ones in which home education was irrelevant to how the authorities dealt with (or did not deal with) families already known to them because of safeguarding concerns?
Are the concerns raised by local authorities and other organisations actually legitimate? Or might they have been raised in order to shift scrutiny away from the consistent and sustained failings of local authorities and other organisations? Or might it just be that local authorities and other organisations cannot accept reasonable limits on the comprehensive powers (and/or funding) they currently enjoy and continually seek more of, regardless?
"I thought it crucial that the review found the appropriate balance between two important principles, and I believe Graham Badman achieved this: giving parents the right to decide how and where their children should be educated; and ensuring that every child is safe and gets the education they need to help them fulfil their potential.
You are inventing principles for your own ends. Parents do not have a "right" at all.
They have a duty. And parents are, in the vast majority of cases, far better placed to discharge that duty than anybody else, particularly the state. There might be a tiny minority of cases in which home educating families do not adequately discharge that duty, but the proportion of parents who delegate that duty to schools which then woefully fail their children in this regard is far, far, greater. So if you have any understanding of finite resource allocation, use it.
"Home education is a well-established and important part of our education system. Both the review and our response reaffirmed our support for its continuation, while also stressing the importance of these principles being put into practice in every area of the country.
No. Home education is not "well-established". Home education is not part of "(y)our education system". It is a natural state of being that exists and indeed has always existed. Parents
opt out of that natural state of being
and into your education system, delegating their duty to schools in the process. The review and your response reaffirm your support for its continuation
on your terms, enacting principles
entirely of your own creation.
Your system is
your business.
"The review recommended that the home education framework should be strengthened significantly, and in two different respects: first, by acting to address the small but worrying minority of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were either not picked up at all or were not addressed with sufficient urgency. We are taking the review’s recommendations forward in this area by legislating at the first possible opportunity this year.
"Small but worrying minority" - further questionable rhetoric. Simply because something is worrying, does not mean that it requires further intervention. I find paedophile activity worrying. But do I think that all men should be locked up just in case? And all women, too, if the NSPCC's current agenda is anything to go by. If any concerns "were not addressed with sufficient urgency" then this is clearly a matter for internal review. It has nothing to do with the existing legislation and policy and everything to do with
service failure. Which, incidentally, will never be eradicated.
There is no excuse for ever "legislating at the first possible opportunity" and using this vile phrase only shows you for what you really are.
"Secondly, the review called for access to extra support for those home-educated children who need it, including the relatively high proportion of these children with special educational needs and others who require services they would otherwise receive through school. The review stressed the importance of ensuring that all children receive the kind of high quality education they need to succeed, with local authorities providing the right level of support to home educators to enable them to offer this to children. We made it clear in our initial response that we accepted these recommendations in principle and would set out in the autumn how we intend to take them forward.
Ahahahaha! Did you just say "services they would otherwise receive through school?" You really are quite the joker, Ed. Do you really think that the proportion of home educating parents with children who have SEN or other additional needs is so high because those children were receiving the necessary support through schools in the first place?
Do not use those children as justification for your own disgusting agenda of attempting to control something that works perfectly well without your unhelpful interference; indeed something that has flourished in part because of your unhelpful interference. Schools fail many children every day. If you want to offer support, then let it be just that - voluntarily accessed and with absolutely no strings (including a legislative agenda). Or is that too alien a concept for NuLabour?
"I believe that Graham Badman’s review is fair and balanced and I am confident that it sets out a path for keeping home-educated children safe and for strengthening the quality of education they receive, while respecting parents’ rights to choose to home educate, if they wish to do so. For these reasons I think the outcomes of the review are good news for children who are home-educated and for their parents."
Well, your acceptance of such an ill-informed review that offends the intellectual and academic sensibilities of every rational, intelligent human being who has the misfortune to actually read the wretched thing is proof if I ever needed it that you are in no way qualified to make any decisions about my child's life. And if you will not listen when I tell you the outcomes of the review are not good news for my child or me, whatever your opinion, then you are even more ignorant and pompous than I had previously imagined. Never mind, you'll be gone soon. And it won't be in a blaze of glory.
Just say NO to Ed Balls and the DCSF. Other people are.
UPDATE: Blogdial comments on the same load of nonsense, also written up in letter format by Ed Balls and passed onto a home educating constituent by his or her MP.
