Flagged up by Home Ed Forums:
Skewed reporting abounds today. From The Independent (I think not):
"Children educated at home are twice as likely to be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the rest of the population, the head of a government inquiry into home education said yesterday."
Where is the evidence for this?
"The review recommended that all parents who wished to educate their children at home should have to register with their local authority. Council officials will be given powers to refuse registration if they believe that any child is at risk."
How would mere refusal of home education registration remedy matters? Surely children who are at risk deserve more protection than simply to be sent off to school? Surely children who are actually being abused should be removed from their families? Oh no, my mistake.
"In addition, all parents wanting to educate their children at home will have to draw up a 12-month plan outlining what they will teach their child."
This has nothing to do with child protection. Overall state control of education is a separate issue and one that requires serious consideration and debate.
"If officials believe the child is not receiving an adequate education, councils will be able to issue an order requiring the child to be sent back to school."
I repeat, if the state rather than the parent becomes the ultimate arbiter of suitability of education, then this is a separate issue that requires serious consideration and debate.
"Graham Badman, the former director of Kent County Council's children's services, headed the review. He said the ratio of home-educated children who were known to social services was "approximately double" that of the population at large."
Where is the evidence for this?
"At present, 20,000 parents who educate their child at home have voluntarily registered with councils."
That's 20,000 parents who are likely to be regretting their decision to co-operate with local authorities. Just say NO.
