Something is starting to bother me – and over the past week or two some of the pieces have come together. Here they are for you:

• My fairy tale, which demonstrated how ill-suited the state is for the role of parent, and the disastrous consequences we are now seeing as a result of it using education for the purposes of citizen-moulding and surveillance (which elective home educators are so far able to circumvent)

“No-one is clear of their roles and responsibilities. All feel powerless and under attack!”

• Firebird and Jo questioning the government’s direction of travel: if legislation in relation to home education changes to allow mandatory inspection, monitoring or assessment, who is next? Stay at home parents of children who are not yet of school age? Parents of independently educated children? 
  

“We fit the same category as people who legally don't use state approved provision just like stay at home mums....  I seriously worry that, as we are a minority group, they can get this through with us and set a precedent for the right to see the child without intelligence specific to the family. That would make it far easier to get this through for under fives in the future.” Jo, here

“From various things I've read I'm convinced that they already have the under 5s firmly in their sights and will quickly move on to them the moment they've dealt with us. They're even using the same man to do the hatchet jobs, HE Review and Baby P investigation, a coincidence? I think not. So it's much better that the parents of under 5s are warned NOW of what is certainly coming.“ Firebird, here

• Laura’s comments in relation to what is actually happening on the ground in Manchester now, which only reinforces Firebird and Jo’s concerns. It seems that services are already picking off the most vulnerable; this truly is non-negotiable support in action.

“According to the Surestart Magazine, 96% of all 3 & 4 year olds make use of their NEG entitlements, which basically means 96% of 3 & 4 year olds attend some sort of pre-school setting or 3rd party care, such as a childminder. That's how "mainstream" it is - you are generally treated with suspicion if you don't take up your NEG entitlement. Do not underestimate the pressures new mothers are under, to return to work ASAP and to send their babies into daycare. This pressure intensifies once the child reaches 2 or 3 years, when government funding is available in the form of NEG. It all depends on a household's postcode, as some entitlements kick in at 2, others at 3, some for 15 hours a week, others for 30 hours a week...

"If you believe the National Curriculum is all-reaching, you have yet to read the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). The EYFS is a LEGALLY binding document. So unlike the National Curriculum, everyone... except the legal guardians such as parents, are legally obliged to follow the EYFS. I reckon it's only a matter of time when all parents will be obliged to follow the EYFS at home. Furthermore, it is applicable to all children in England, from the moment the newborn leaves the mother's womb to the child's 5th birthday. Now that's what I call "all-reaching"...

"I refuse point-blank to send my babies and toddlers to "school". I see absolutely no benefit in sending my children into ANY institution before the age of 4 years old. Unfortunately, with all this pre-school funding, it is generally accepted around here, that we are suppose to send our children to "school" at 3 years old. In parts of Manchester, fully funded whole days (that is, 9am-3.15pm) are available (in some parts from the age of 2 years old) and you are generally expected to take up this "entitlement" if you live within the catchment areas of such schools. Refusing to take up your "entitlement" appears to set off a "red flag". Before you know it, "outreach" workers are knocking on your door, offering "support" and "advice" and "further information" and even offering to accompany you and your toddler to their first day at pre-school...

"Forget individualism - that's long gone around here. Your family is part of the herd. You are NOT to stray away from that herd - ever. Dare to do so, and you'll be slapped with a "hard to reach" label together with its consequences... A more recent definition [of hard to reach] is as in this report."

• Blank Xavier’s incisive comments about the societal contracts we rightly have in place to govern behaviour, and the government’s own contravention of them:

“As far as I can see, Labour view "more Government" as the solution to every problem. That of course in the end leads to total Government. In my view, there is one simple rule which governs all behaviour; that all contracts must be voluntary and well-informed and that the only exception is that of self-defence, for oneself or others. (By contract here I mean not merely legal contracts, but all interactions with others). You cannot coerce others to act against their wishes and you cannot deceive others to act against what would be their wishes...

"Labour appear to be using the self-defence clause to justify the Government controlling and inspecting the upbringing of every child. This is completely unjustified. When you have *specific cause* to believe there is a *specific problem*, then you can act. If you act without cause, or with a cause entirely out of proportion to your action, then you are simply imposing compulsory contracts.

"Indeed, since the Government is doing this, we - you and I - are able to invoke the self-defence clause. We have to impose compulsory contracts on the Government to defend ourselves from it.”

• Gill’s examination of the home education review panel members, which kicked off today with Professor Melhuish, who for several years has been a Principal Investigator on the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) and Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland (EPPNI) projects based in England and Northern Ireland, which are following 4,000 children from 3-7 years of age. Key findings of those projects (thanks for this info, Gill) included such gems as:
  

Impact of attending a pre-school
-Pre-school experience, compared to none, enhances all-round development in children.
-Duration of attendance (in months) is important; an earlier start (under age 3 years) is related to better intellectual development.
-Full time attendance led to no better gains for children than part-time provision.
-Disadvantaged children benefit significantly from good quality pre-school experiences, especially where they are with a mixture of children from different social backgrounds.
- Overall disadvantaged children tend to attend pre-school for shorter periods of time than those from more advantaged groups (around 4-6 months less).

 Effects of quality and specific ‘practices’ in pre-school
-High quality pre-schooling is related to better intellectual and social/behavioural development for children.
-Quality indicators include warm interactive relationships with children, having a trained teacher as manager and a good proportion of trained teachers on the staff.
-Where settings view educational and social development as complementary and equal in importance, children make better all round progress.
-Effective pedagogy includes interaction traditionally associated with the term “teaching”, the provision of instructive learning environments and ‘sustained shared thinking’ to extend children’s learning.

• And finally, the media revelation that Ed Balls, the education secretary, “ran” Labour’s smear unit. A whistleblower claims that:

“The education secretary is running a destabilising “shadow operation” inside Downing Street to clear his path for the party leadership if Labour loses the next election. The insider said: “There is now an operation within an operation at No 10 and it answers to Ed Balls.”"

So there we have it.

What is, in my opinion, an illegitimate review into a perfectly legal and reasonable civil liberty, based on spurious allegations, contradiction and a predetermined outcome of “change to the status quo”, and fuelled by the questionable posturing of possible providers, who are charitable organisations in name but nevertheless already receive significant financial support from the government.

A change to the status quo, that, if enshrined in law, will set a legal precedent with the potential to severely erode to privacy of every family with children from birth onwards, through intervention that might include mandatory inspection, monitoring or assessment of every child outside of state provision, according to a government’s definition of satisfactory education or welfare. 

The unwaveringly superior moral compass of the government, that, despite cock up after cock up and the resulting societal chaos that has already ensued, is still driving policy and legislation in the direction of parenting not only our children, but us too, an infatilised public, for our own good.

And the person angling for the helm is none other than Ed Balls, a man who thinks it is acceptable for the government to have ultimate control of textbooks studied in state schools and the content of public examinations; a man who believes that children are best socialised through our state schools; a man who is happy to instruct teachers to better understand and use their existing powers to manage, but unwilling to recommend the same course of action to professionals in relation to children outside of the state system.

A man who, according to his spokesperson, has not been involved in using government meetings to further his own agenda, but has in fact spent all his time “trying to do his best for children and young people.”

So that’s okay, then, is it? Suggestions, anyone?