Here we are at the end of the week; I’ve found the process of writing these myth posts to be incredibly useful in clarifying my thoughts on the consultation into home education, as well as the wider issues of state intervention in relation to children and parenting.  Thanks for the comments and all the emails; they’ve been great to read, mull over and add into the mix.

 In summary, I made the following points:

1. In a democratic society that values freedom, the state cannot and should not be under the illusion that it is desirable or possible to protect all children from all risk without grossly impinging on families’ civil liberties and causing significant actual harm to all children and their parents in the process.
2. The blurring of boundaries between education, welfare and health does not and has not better safeguarded children; “joined up services” clearly erode personal and professional responsibilities and boundaries; effective functioning of such a system requires a level of standardisation that naturally takes precedence over meeting the highly individual needs and requirements of unique children.
   
3. Regardless of educational philosophy, home education – that is education other than in a full-time school environment – is more likely than school to meet the rigorous requirements of section 7 of the Education Act 1996. This legislation cannot be made more specific without imposing an external, arbitrary definition of suitability onto an individual’s learning needs, style and preferences, all of which quite clearly and rightly defy a universal definition of suitability.
   
4. The learning and skills required for a fulfilling 21st century life and successful contribution to a post-industrial, knowledge-based economy can only be realised through the concept of highly personalised learning, as intimated by section 7. Regardless of the technology used in the process, if schools continue to deliver a standardised, exam-oriented, curriculum-based teaching package in an authoritarian, institutional environment, children and by default the UK economy, will be inadequate to the demands of the 21st century.

In each case, it is clear that the majority of parents are inordinately better placed than the state to secure and protect the education, health, safety and wellbeing of their children. They, not the state, are more able to adequately recognise and meet the unique needs of these individuals. They, not the state, begin from a position of unconditional love and personal responsibility.   

Regardless of whether the intentions of the state are benevolent, imposing a universal, regulatory system that shadows every intimate aspect of an individual’s personal life in order to keep them safe, healthy and educated - according to an arbitrary definition or assessment, and whether or not they want it - does not work. In fact, such a system causes more damage than does the risk it mitigates, both in terms of the physical and mental abuse it inflicts on all children and their parents, and the long-term dependence and vulnerability it engenders.

Despite increases in spending, increases in legislation and regulation,  a new focus on joined up services, and government rhetoric about 21st century schools, children are still failed by the state in the most basic ways every day.

Children who are known to be abused are overlooked or ignored. The likely outcomes for children who leave state care are truly appalling. Children and parents who deviate from the joined up state system’s increasingly narrow definition of “normal” are labelled as potential abusers, diagnosed with behavioural disorders, highlighted as requiring intervention or otherwise marginalised and discriminated against.  Thousands of children continue to be bullied every day. One in six children leaves school unable to read and write. The current state education system is failing to suitably provide for the children within it and is thus jeopardising the future of our economy.

If the government cannot get these things right for the small minority of the most vulnerable children, let alone the clear majority in mainstream education, then perhaps the answer does not lie with yet more government spending, more legislation and regulation, more joining up of services, and more meaningless rhetoric.

Perhaps it lies in rethinking roles and responsibilities.

Return parental responsibility back to parents. Offer high quality, individualised, empowering support to families with no strings attached. Understand what 21st century education really looks like and make it happen in schools. Get the basics right in safeguarding children. Don't enforce a one-size-fits-all, draconian approach to all families regardless. Rather, interpret and apply existing legislation carefully and correctly, continually improve internal quality standards, accept that occasional human errors are inevitable and learn from them – and, most importantly, accept that complete child protection is an impossibility.

Yes?