Wednesday 31 March 2010

A plot to destroy home education?

I am among the most cynical of men, particularly where politics and politicians are concerned. I always assume that the reasons which we as the public are given for this or that action are not the true reasons, or at least not the whole story. One would think that I would jump at the chance to detect the hallmark of some sinister conspiracy in the introduction of regulations for home education and yet I just can't see it.

I have been looking round the Dare to Know blog over the last day or so and I have to say that some of the individuals who are to be found there are considerably more extreme than most of those who comment here. One famous mother, whose email name is to be seen everywhere, expressed the view that there was a determination to suppress home education and those trying to do so did not care if lives were lost in the process! This seemed to me to be so absolutely barking mad that I had to re-read the thing slowly and see whether or not she meant this seriously. As far as I could make out, she did. Others commenting there apparently shared this belief that the aim of any new legislations was to force home educated children to attend school, no matter what the cost to their lives.

The first thing that strikes one about this sort of belief is, 'What is the motive for such a move?' Why would anybody wish to put an end to home education, especially to the extent that they would not mind children losing their lives in the process? This simply does not make any sense to me. After all, home educating parents and children do not pose any threat to the government. The worst they are likely to do is turn out ill educated and semi-literate teenagers and as God He knows, there are plenty of them leaving school as it is! The few thousand home educated youths are the merest drop in the ocean. I have seen the suggestion that these home educated children are radical free thinkers whom the establishment fears, but that does not quite ring true either. Again, there are plenty of weird teenagers about with crackpot ideas; there always have been. I doubt that a few more each year is likely to alarm the government.

What remains then? The rumour has been spread that Graham Badman is doing all this to drum up business for BECTA, an IT company in which he is involved. If that were the case though, you would hardly think that he would be able to enlist the British government in aiding him to make a few bob on the side. A more plausible hidden reason for the attempt to regulate home education is that the government got the wind up in 2008 when Scarlett Keely and Khyra Ishaq, both home educated children, were killed. It was felt that this sort of thing could turn into a bit of a scandal and that it would be best for the DfCSF to look as though they were on the case. This is entirely possible, but I can't think that it is the whole story. There is also the fear among some local authorities that some time in the future, they will get formerly home educated children pursuing them as adults and trying to sue them because they did not receive proper educations from their parents. This is not an unrealistic fear. We have seen adults attempting legal action for bullying which they endured as children, I can quite see that somebody whose education was supposedly monitored by the local authority might come back in ten or twenty years and say, 'Why didn't you keep a closer eye on my parents; my life has been ruined by my lack of GCSEs!'

One feels though that applying Occam's Razor to the situation brings one to the conclusion that the simplest and most likely explanation which covers all the facts is probably the correct one. That is that there is a certain amount of uneasiness felt about children who are at home and perhaps not seen as regularly as most school children. It took quite some while to establish universal education for children in this country and I suspect that some both in local authorities and the government are worried that this idea might be slipping a little and that people might be getting the idea that they need simply not send their children to school and there is an end to the matter. I don't for a moment think that most home educating parents are like this, but I am pretty sure that there are some. I think that there is a desire to nip this sort of thinking in the bud before it becomes too widespread.

I would be curious to hear of any other sensible explanation for the introduction of regulation into home education. An explanation beyond the obvious one of concern for children.

16 comments:

  1. That Gordon Brown & Ed Balls see home education as an implicit criticism of their 'world class' education system? Balls has, after all treated home educating parents in the way he would treat political opponents, rather than as a group of citizens making a legitimate choice about their children's education. The tightening up of regulation started only after Ed Balls was in post.

    An alternative explanation would be that the UK government is being leaned on by the UN or the European commission, or both, regarding UNCRC or ECHR, if either body sees home education as unacceptable. There is a great deal of money to be made from standardised service provision (inside or outside school) and it is in the interests of a lot of large companies to ensure that standardisation takes place.

    And Badman? Interesting that the DCSF appears to be using him as a hit man for controversial projects; Haringey safeguarding, EHE regulation, closure of schools in Gloucestershire. I don't think he's behind government policy, but the govt. might be behind him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The rumour has been spread that Graham Badman is doing all this to drum up business for BECTA, an IT company in which he is involved. If that were the case though, you would hardly think that he would be able to enlist the British government in aiding him to make a few bob on the side.

    Graham Badman has enlisted the DCSF with BECTA he also has used The DCSF name to get support for his company when BECTA sees LA'S over how his company may help them.Badman can see hope for extra work with home educated children!

    The government wants to try and make it harder to home educate to attempt to stop the flow of children from state schools it does not look good for any government after the amount of money that is spent on schools by tax payers for so many children to not be in school.The whole system is based on children going to a school.The problem for the DCSF is that parents can see with there children that these schools are not so good issues are not addressed in the right way such as bullying or children who are gifted or who are SEN .If a parent brings up a problem he/she is seen as the problem! so parents will home educate as in most cases there really do want the best for there children.its no good saying problems will not be addressed because we know this has been said before yet still parents are seen as the problem its very rare a schools is seen nas a problem by Balls or DCSF

    I think it is to late for DCSF the horse has bolted and its to late to shut door!
    The bill is dead in the lords and this government will lose next election and i dont think the torys are that intersted in home education to do anything about it. i got feeling Cameron will have to much else to do such as the deep cuts in government spending which will affect schools and LA's not that he tell them that until after he is in power!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "There is also the fear among some local authorities that some time in the future, they will get formerly home educated children pursuing them as adults and trying to sue them because they did not receive proper educations from their parents. This is not an unrealistic fear. We have seen adults attempting legal action for bullying which they endured as children, I can quite see that somebody whose education was supposedly monitored by the local authority might come back in ten or twenty years and say, 'Why didn't you keep a closer eye on my parents; my life has been ruined by my lack of GCSEs!'"

    If the LA had a duty to monitor they might have a legitimate claim. However, under current law, parents have responsibility for provision of a suitable education and LAs have no duty to monitor. This is why attempts to sue the LA by school children for similar reasons have failed (unless there was a clear lack in the duty of care). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/516092.stm as an example. Although many children fail to gain a suitable education at school, they cannot sue the LA because parents are responsible.

    But if the law changes, this may change too. If the LA has the final say on the suitability of the education in this country (at least for HE children if not others) and the law states that they should act if it is unsuitable, maybe children will be able to sue if they fail. This was the reason government lawyers advised government against this move a few years back (as far as I recall). Maybe something has changed since then and they feel safe from this type of legal case now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see Uncle Balls is on DCSF you tube it looks so false him trying to connect with young people! the man is a joke no mention about home education from him! not long to wait now for the labour party to lose election and to see balls out of a job back on the backbenchers if he holds on to his seat!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You might check Neil's comment, March 31, 2010 at 10:21 pm, on this page,http://www.home-education.biz/blog/education/open-letter-to-the-all-party-parliamentary-group-for-home-education for some reasons behind the current plans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am of the view that all Govts like legislating- anything which comes into view which is unregulated is always a concern; so since either the number of HE children has gone up or home education has become more high profile, and regulation is the natural consequence.

    The whole fear of litigation is also an issue - whatever the actual nicities of whether an LA can be held responsible for " failure" if they have no legal duty to monitor; LAs fear that they *might* be sued.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Julie - not clear what you mean - sued by whom for what?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I mean (and the LA seem to mean) that some ex home ed child will come along and say "you didn't check up on my education". Now I know all the arguments about the LA's not currently being responsible for the provision under current rules; but whatever the legal reality I think the LAs do genuinely have that fear...in fact years ago, our LA boss actually said that he saw his main role as protecting his authority from exactly that! (Hardly encouraging!!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's ironic isn't it? The thing they fear most is more likely to happen if they are given legal responsibility than if they aren't. Someone attempting to sue now has no chance or else school children where schools have failed to diagnose or have ignored a diagnosis of dyslexia and the child has failed to receive a suitable education as a result could be sued, but they can't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Giving evidence to the Children, Schools and Families select committee on the subject of home education in October 2009, Peter Traves of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, gave another reason for being concerned about the possible abuse of home educated children. He said:
    If something happens to a child in terms of any of those five outcomes,
    we are held directly to account. This is not some kind of button
    counting. We have seen recently what happens to directors of children's
    services when things go seriously wrong. It is not only a case of sacking;
    it is public humiliation. It is a very serious matter.
    (CSF select committee report 2009)
    This was presumably a reference to the treatment of Sharon Shoesmith, former Director of Children's Services for the London Borough of Haringey. Ms Shoesmith was peremptorily sacked following the case of Baby P, the little boy Killed in the most horrible circumstances. Of course, a toddler having his back broken and being tortured to death by sadistic maniacs is also a 'very serious matter', although not apparently in the same league as the public humiliation of a Director of Children's Services! In short, there is a fear by some professionals that they will lose their jobs and even their pensions if a home educated child comes to harm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's worrying that someone in that level of position and influence cannot see the difference between harm coming to a child for whom they have no responsibility to routinely monitor and have received no reports of concerns about them compared to children who have had many concerns reported and have usually had many visits from social workers who missed signs serious case reviews later decide should have been obvious causes for serious concern and action.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Attempting a clickable link.

    Neil's open letter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, I had read this rambling letter before. He does not really say anything about the motives of those involved; only that he considers compulsory schooling to be a bad thing. He is also wrong about the 1870 act. This did not make either school or education compusory. He is muddling this up with the 1880 act.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Did you read the comment the date and time for? It wasn't the original letter that I was pointing out to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Or even, did you read the comment I gave you the time and date for?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Right now it seems like Wordpress is the preferred blogging platform available right now.
    (from what I've read) Is that what you're using on your blog?


    My site; Cheap Louis Vuitton Bags

    ReplyDelete