Before we receive the news, I just thought I'd remind you of what various people connected with this review have had to say over the past few months. It's not happy reading:

Baroness Delyth Morgan: junior DCSF minister and apparent meglomaniac with no sense of priority:

"... there are concerns that some children are not receiving the education they need. And in some extreme cases, home education could be used as a cover for abuse."

"...having young people living outside of the system is a waste of their potential."

"We want children to develop and have exciting opportunities to participate in television and other forms of entertainment... While they are doing that, we have a duty to ensure that children are safeguarded appropriately, and that the regulations we have make sure this happens."

Diana Sutton: head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC, government funded service provider and consultee:

“We welcome the Government’s decision to review the guidance on home education. We believe the existing legislation and guidance on elective home education is outdated."

Vijay Patel: child protection policy adviser and master of misrepresentation and spin:

"Some people use home education to hide. Look at the Victoria Climbié case.”

Graham Badman: home education review and Baby Peter case investigation lead, advocate of predetermined outcomes and the "whatever it takes" school of thought:

"The status quo [is] not an acceptable option."

"There will be times when (professionals) have to grasp the nettle, using professional judgment, in the knowledge that they may be proved to be mistaken. Better that than the harm that the child will have to experience instead..."  

"I believe the most important lesson arising from this case is that professionals charged with ensuring child safety must be deeply sceptical of any explanations, justifications or excuses they may hear in connection with the apparent maltreatment of children..." 

"If they have any doubt about the cause of physical injuries or what appears to be maltreatment, they should act swiftly and decisively."

Stephen Heppell: review panel member, government funded service provider, and expert at circumvention:

"I also think, as you all do, that the abuse issue is a red herring. I've seen nothing to suggest that abuse in schooled families is any less, or more, that abuse in EHE familes as a percentage. So perhaps we could put that aside, with the understandable anger it attracted? I've certainly made no such accusation myself..."

"As you know, policy is often triggered by anecdotal trivia - but then hopefully shaped by more informed judgements..."

"Ali - you suggest that: "citing examples of parents whose children are patently 'at risk' is not an EHE issue, it is a child protection issue. There are adequate mechanisms in place to deal with cases where children are known to be vulnerable"... and i wish that was true Ali, but it patently isn't..."

Sarah McCarthy Fry, previously junior DCSF Minister (offering a spectacularly puny justification of ministerial powers to dictate the curriculum):

"They will only use powers with regard to the curriculum in exceptional circumstances - for example, intervening to ensure Shakespeare remains a core part of what our children learn."

Ed Balls, Children's Secretary and thwarted Chancellor (using the oldest chestnut in the world, ironically at the conference on 21st century schools):

Claimed he wouldn't home educate because he would be worried about socialisation.

Beverley Hughes, previously Children's Minister and do-gooder (demonstrating doublethink regarding family learning):

"Of course, what happens in families is rightly a private matter. But at the same time, all families – at some time or other – need support... So it’s right that - where needed - government, public services and the voluntary sector step in to support parents, children and young people... And one of the most important areas in which we can offer this kind of support is in family learning... But the fact remains that a child only spends about 15 per cent of his or her time in the classroom... So if we’re to make more progress, it follows that we have to support what goes on in the other 85% of the time, in the home and in the community."

(and on support elsewhere):

"Not ‘take it or leave it’ support – but support with conditions attached – non-negotiable, something for something."

Dawn "eugenics" Primorolo prior to her new role as Children's Minister:

Advocated "temporary sterilisation" programme for young women to cut teenage pregnancy rates. 

Diana Johnson, new DCSF Minister, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding - of much of the home education debate, really:

"The Government are committed to building a world-class education system for our children. That system must be built on the highest standards of teaching, real choice for parents and pupils, and rigorous accountability. Home education is a vital part of that system...

"On the review, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is wrong to say that home education has been consistently under scrutiny since 2004...

"The underpinning principles behind the criteria for the review are therefore not sinister. They are sensible and simple. They are intended to ensure that everybody involved in home education—local government, central Government and parents—is clear about their responsibilities and that there are clear lines of accountability."

Andy Winton, chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education - although who would have guessed from his oh-so-objective comments?:

"School is a good safety net to protect children. They have access to adults who can detect behaviour and are with children who make them realise what is normal social behaviour. If parents are home-educating, that safety net is not there. We don't think home education is a route to abuse – the majority of it is brilliant – but we think there is an additional risk."'

Jacqui Newvell, a principal officer of the children's charity the National Children's Bureau, automatically pitting parental rights against children's rights:

"We need to put children's interests at the heart of this [home education] and embed a children's rights agenda instead of a parents' rights agenda. This is a very, very sensitive issue.."

And to round off, some responses from parents who don't see any threat to their civil liberties (until their own unique ways of parenting fail to fall within local authority "acceptable guidelines" of course):

"They can have us on as many registers as they like with as many safe and well checks as they like; my boys are perfectly well looked after and at any time they were checked, they would be happy, well fed, bright, clean(ish!) and loved."

"I'd rather everyone had stringent checks so they can keep a closer eye on children like poor Baby Peter, I've got nothing to hide."
 
"Perhaps more scrutiny on peoples lifestyle/environment when bringing a child in to the world wouldn't go amiss."

"If anything, we need more scrutiny in place regarding kids.. the way I see it, anyone who brings a child up in a satisfactory manner has nothing to hide and I would happily allow anyone to make checks on me if need be."

"No - anyone who has guardianship of kids is a potential child abuser."

"Fact is, if we sincerely DO want to prevent more deaths and the 'boring' child neglect cases we HAVE to put up with more intervention from the authorities."

"I'd be happy to have someone round all the time if it meant no more child abuse or at least a reduction (if we can save one child...)"

"I think the authorities need to be more interfering."

Egads. We could have quite a time ahead. Gill offers her predictions for later on today here.

This was my prediction in April:

On reflection what I think we will see are recommendations for:

• Compulsory registration
• Promotion of voluntary uptake of online "support"(Heppell special)
• Promotion of voluntary uptake of organised/centrally managed community/peer "support" (possibly through established HE organisation/s)
• Some form of monitoring through the above for welfare and vague educational suitability
  
• "Well child checks" for those who don't engage in "support"
• National HE committee to represent all home educators as per EO recommendations

If these pass through, then standardised minimum educational standards (which, let's face it, are unspoken assumptions for most people who are unfamiliar with the diversity of individual learning styles and preferences) will eventually follow, probably at the request of whomever is tasked with providing "support", as they will be unable to monitor consistently without them.

As with other people, I can sense a wider agenda unfolding here. I do not want to start on this slippery slope. I have always fought hard for what I believe in. I am preparing to JUST SAY NO.

Excellent and detailed comment on yesterday's debate in parliament as referenced above: