I have to say, I was shocked by Badman's report and recommendations. They really couldn't have been much worse, unless he had advocated outlawing home education. All in good time. As regular readers will be aware, I do not recognise the legitimacy of this review - it was founded on false allegations, spin and predetermined outcomes. Badman himself said as much when he asserted the status quo would not remain.
The child protection angle has been milked for all it is worth, both to divert attention from incompetent children's services (locally and nationally) and also to garner a significant amount of ill-informed public and media backing (although they have not received as much support as they would have without the expenses furore). I did not, however, expect it to be quite so blatant in its statist, totalitarian demands.
It is only to be expected that certain prodnoses are now eagerly making their way out of the woodwork: education welfare officers who could barely choke back their anger last week when dealing with well-informed home educators who rejected their stasi-like advances are now bullishly demanding home visits, so buoyed are they by Badman's recommendations. People such as Philip Parkin, General Secretary of Voice, the union for education professionals, who had this to say:
"I also believe that inspections by the local education authority should be compulsory, and parents should have to present the child and his or her work.
"There are many home educators who do an excellent job, but parents who are using the label of ’home education’ to disguise absence of any form of structured education are those who give cause for concern.
"I am concerned about preventing abuses of the system where children slip through the net and end up not being educated at home or at school. Home education must not be misused as a cover for no education."
Well, coming from someone who will, in due course, be labelled as one of those parents who causes Philip concern, it may or may not surprise him to know that sometimes there is no "work" to present, and nothing more nor less than a full and active life being lived and learned from - something that nevertheless fits the bill as far as a suitable, efficient education is concerned but which would defy the very notion of inspection by a local education authority.
Sometimes there is work, but the child will exercise his or her choice not to present it. Sometimes a parent will choose not to present their child's work - and believe it or not, Philip, provided the child is receiving a suitable and efficient education, such refusals are wholly legitimate. This is because it is the parent, and not the local education authority or Philip Parkin, who is responsible for ensuring the suitable and efficient full time education of the child. Where they choose to delegate this responsibility to people such as you, the public servant, then that is where compulsory inspections are right and proper. And my view on this is not going to change, whether or not the legislation does. That is my moral stance.
Yes, local authorities have a duty to "make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children residing in their area who are not receiving a suitable education". And yes, it is correct that if the authorities don’t know where the children are, then they cannot establish if they are being educated suitably. I understand that local authorities might be concerned about their performance. So putting my dusty LA performance manager's hat on for a moment (happily discarded some time ago now) here are my recommendations to them:
- Plan: Understand that the phrase "so far as it is possible to do so" is there for a reason, accept it, and use it to allocate your resources appropriately rather than allowing emotive "what if?" hypotheses to distract from the very real issues.
- Get the basics right: Understand your very real duties and powers under existing legislation and guidance. Discharge and/or use them efficiently and effectively.
- Act: All of the high profile children who lost their lives were vulnerable and already well
known to authorities, irrespective of eduational status. Those authorities still failed to act.
- Reflect: Are the most vulnerable children protected (see 3)? Are the vast majority of children (in school and otherwise) receiving a suitable education? Now: how might others be reached?
- Improve: Learn, learn, learn. Internally and externally, from failures and successes. Be pragmatic and transparent. Return to 1.
There was also this particularly odious Guardian article which further bolstered the link between home education and child abuse (yes, that "red herring"):
"The plans, contained in an independent report which was immediately backed by ministers, were ordered to address concerns that home education has been used as a cover for child abuse. Graham Badman, the child protection expert who led the review, said they had found strong evidence that child protection concerns are more common among home-educating families, and that there could be as many as 80,000 children whose parents have opted them out of schooling."
Whilst there might be strong evidence that child protection concerns are more common among home-educating families, that's almost certainly because government officials are simply obsessed with controlling that which sits outside of their ever-expanding jurisdiction. They cannot help using often spurious risk factors as justification for completely unnecessary pre-emptive action, all whilst ignoring the very real dangers unfolding (or unfolded) in front of them.
The article goes on to quote omniscient edugod John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and
College Leaders. Well informed, completely unbiased, and obviously unthreatened by parents who reject his worldview, he has this to say:
"A good academic foundation is important, but
children also need to learn how to build relationships, manage conflict
and work well with people with different views and backgrounds.
Children who are home-educated inevitably have less of an opportunity
to develop these skills, even if they are involved in extracurricular
activities.
"In some situations, where a child has special needs or health issues, home schooling
may be the best option. For the vast majority of children, being in a
school with their peers gives them the best opportunity to develop into
well-rounded adults."
Maybe it's the pregnancy heartburn, maybe it's the fact my spacebar isn't working when I use my right thumb, or maybe it's the fact that I have really had it with these bloody authoritarians who just do not get that their way is not The Way, but I have this to say: Oh do piss off, John.
When you have schools across the country that are desperately emulating some of the most yawningly common features of home education, such as:
- a homely environment
- daily interaction with the surrounding community
- small group collaboration
- creative play
- child-led learning
- child-led decision making
- multi-generational interaction
and those schools are claiming this (or worse, mere semantics) as innovative practice, then, John, you can forgive my impatience with your bizarre analysis of home education, summed up in two of the most mistaken paragraphs I have read since - well, since the parent comments I mentioned in this post here. There have been many more of those today, all along the lines of "I don't know what the fuss is about", "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear", "They can inspect ME any time, MY children are happy and well-looked after", "If it saves one child..."
It's the same old tosh that sheeple bleat out when someone dares to criticise compulsory ID cards, for example - based on these sorts of naive beliefs:
- The state is always benevolent and is there to serve the people
- Proposed loss of a little liberty will be "for the greater good"
- Loss of a little liberty will never lead to a total loss of liberty
- Even a total loss of (someone else's) liberty is worth it to save a hypothetical minority
- Because individual is complying with current requirements, individual will always be deemed compliant (and therefore safe)
These news articles merely preceded the Badman report itself, and its now-infamous recommendations. Whilst I have been banging on about this for a while now, it has never been more clear to me than it is today that this document represents a serious assault on the freedom of all families, whether they currently recognise this or not. This is not a home education issue, it is a fundamental civil liberties issue. Dressing it up as the mark of a civilised nation, as Badman does, is simply propoganda.
The recommendations, if accepted, essentially change the nature of the relationship between child, parent and state as it is currently enshrined in law. Please go and read Blogdial in full if you have not already done so, as what he has written is really excellent.
Remove home education from the equation: it's irrelevant. What Badman is proposing places primary responsibility for education (and welfare) on the state, rather than the parent. It assumes that the home is an inherently unsafe or unhealthy place for the child to be. It tramples over family freedom in its haste to bestow additional "rights" on children that only an anonymous third party can adequately minister to. It destroys the very possibility of autonomy in learning. It operates from a position of requiring proof of parental innocence rather than reasonable suspicion of guilt. It universally uses the coercive and interventionist tools of compulsory registration, entry to the home, inspection according to external standards, and power to see the child without the parent present.
By implication this applies to anyone who has their child at home with them: particularly parents with under 5s, but also those with school-aged children who are at home in the evenings, over the weekends, and throughout the summer holidays. Think on: the possibility of parental inspection, with or without your presence, based on the very human whim of a local authority officer.
Is that okay with you? Despite those officers being instructed by the author of this review to doubt your every word, to put their fears of error aside, and to act swiftly if they have even the slightest doubt? Because it's better for an innocent child to be removed into care than for one to be abused. Even yours. [Update: this is paraphrasing exactly what Badman said following the serious case review into Baby Peter's death. See here for full details].
Are you still comfortable with the recommendations of this home education review? Despite the system being riddled with people like this or this, undoubtedly CRB checked, who rape, abuse, and photograph children for their own vile purposes? When we already know, unsurprisingly, that they are statistically far more likely to do this to our children than you or I?
Maybe you are. Maybe you know that your child is happy and well looked after. But the thing is, so do I. I just don't trust someone else, whose values I may or may not agree with, to adequately assess whether I am meeting her unique needs.
Happily, there is support out there - one just needs to venture further than Netmums and the BBC it seems. Others have demonstrated an excellent understanding of the real political hot potatoes arising from Badman's attempt at Mein Kampf. UKIP's response is here. Ian Parker-Joseph of the Libertarian Party told me on Twitter today: "LPUK will oppose changes to HE. Parents must be free to educate children as they see fit, they are yours not the States." This Telegraph article and the comments are truly heartening. There is a further Telegraph blog post here. Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance responds here. Melangerie blogs about this here. Please pass any other links on: it might be prudent to start a thread collecting them here?
So - is Badman deranged, or taking mind altering substances or what? Because when I returned to read this, at the beginning of his report:
"As the Children's Plan makes clear, it is 'parents not the government that bring up children' and there is nothing in this report which sets out to contradict or modify this contention."
I really had to laugh (in a somewhat wild-eyed, woman-in-the-attic manner). Simply saying it doesn't make it so - even if it is in the Children's Plan. So just say NO.
More tomorrow...
H/T Home Ed Forums and Young Mr Brown for the heads up on a couple of links
