One of the recommendations in Graham Badman's report which irritated home educating parents was that when their children were deregistered from school to be home educated, then the school would be expected to send the local authority a record of their child's achievement and also their expected future achievement. It was felt that the schools might give an unrealistic assessment of the child and thus put the parents into the position of fulfilling unrealistic goals for their children's development.
This was a quite understandable fear. As those foolish enough to send their children to school will know, schools habitually lie their heads off about the ability of pupils. A child who can barely string two words together in French will be described as, 'One of our most able linguists'. One will be told that 'Jimmy has a good understanding of all the major world faiths' or that 'Mary has the makings of a first rate historian'. Of course parents usually know that these statements are completely untrue and make allowance for this. The fact that everybody knows that they are complete falsehoods is simply a fact of life for parents whose children attend school. The fear was that if such reports had been sent to the local authority, then their officers would actually have expected the children to behave like able linguists or first rate historians. An alarming thought indeed!
Still, everybody lies. Parents too lie their heads off about the children in their care. They claim that their own children are more artistic, more sensitive, articulate, compassionate, musical or what have you than the kids next door. This, after all, is human nature. You would hardly expect to take a parent's word for her child's ability and talents. I have been prompted to reflect upon this by a spate of parents posting on some of the Internet lists, parents who are determined to provide their local authorities with any information about their child's progress or academic work. Their attitude seems to be, 'I have told the local authority that Jimmy is receiving a suitable education and that should be good enough for them'. As I remarked above, everybody lies. Why on earth should the local authority take the parents word for this?
I remember when we came to the attention of the local authority and they began asking questions about my daughter's work. Now of course, I could have told them to mind their own business and take my word for it that she was being educated, but why would I do that? Life is very short and I wouldn't really want to be engaged in a battle with my local authority. It was far easier for all concerned simply to let them know what was going on and invite them to come and see for themselves. After all, their concerns were pretty much the same as mine; they wanted to be sure that an eight year old girl was being educated. Leaving aside the precise legal duties involved, it seemed a reasonable enough wish on the part of local authority officers from the education department. I accordingly sent them copies of my daughter's work and allowed them to visit for an hour or so once a year. I could see no reason not to do so.
Everybody lies. We lie about our income and our own achievements. We lie about what our children are capable of. We lie about our relationships and our beliefs. Why should we suddenly feel that we should tell the truth when the local authority is asking what our children are up to? the answer is that we probably wouldn't. If at the age of twelve our son were still unable to read and write properly, we would probably lie about it and tell the local authority that he had just finished The Forsythe Saga. If he spent all day on the computer, we would lie about that too and invent a flourishing social life and sporting activities for him. This is human nature; of course the local authority wants to see for themselves!
As I get older, I wish for an easier and less troublesome life. There are many occasions when I could stand on my rights and behave like a barrack-room lawyer, but then my life will become one long struggle. I really can't see why parents would want to deny the local authority access to their children and give them some idea of what they were up to. The only thing which would make this worthwhile would be if there was a real reason for not wanting the local authority to see one's home or speak to one's children. otherwise, the easiest and most straightforward course for all concerned would be to welcome them in once a year.( And yes, I am perfectly well aware that the case is quite different for children with elective mutism, Asperger's and so on. I am talking of children without special educational needs.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But if everyone lies, wouldn't children lie about what they know? I know for a fact that my son knows what 7x6 is, for instance. He's answered the question correctly several times on a computer game he plays whilst I've been watching. But the other day, when his father asked him, he lied and gave the wrong answer. What's the point of the LA coming and asking questions if everyone lies?
ReplyDeletePeople lie if asked direct questions which they wish to evade. If you spend an hour talking to a person and looking at what they have been doing, or glancing round their home, you can generally draw some accurate conclusions. As Nietzsche said, 'Even when the mouth lies, the direction in which it points will often tell the truth'.
ReplyDeleteThis article says it all really. You lie so you assume that everyone else will lie but, strange as it may seem to you, some people don't want home visits because they find it very difficult or impossible to lie. If someone who finds it difficult to lie believes that their approach is the best approach for their child but also believes that the LA would disagree with them, why would they want to risk a home visit? The danger in their eyes is that their child's education will be harmed as direct result of LA interference because they can't lie.
ReplyDeleteWhat danger are we talking about here? School Attendance Orders are hardly ever issued; local authorities have very limted and strictly circumscribed powers. I am puzzled as to the nature of the "risks" and "dangers" of which you speak. The risk of somebody disagreeing with your educational methods? This happens all the time. The danger of disapproval? This too often happens to grown-ups.
ReplyDeleteIf they have no powers or never use them and nothing will change as a result of a visit, what's the point in visiting?
ReplyDeleteOne might as well ask, what is the point of being so bloody minded? Their interests are the same as ours; the education of children. Sharing information in this way reassures them that a child is being educated and can do no possible harm to either the child or her parents.
ReplyDeleteWhy bloody minded? It would only be bloody minded if I agreed with you and believed that visits are not harmful and they have no power over us. I asked the question of you because you seem to believe they have no effect and no power. If you believe this, why would you think they should waste tax payers money on visits that will make no difference apart from giving an official peace of mind? Should tax payers be concerned for the peace of mind of officials?
ReplyDeleteIf their interests were the same as ours and they had a good understanding of different educational approaches and have no powers I might agree with you. You may be able to completely ignore LA staff opinions of you and your educational choices and may fully believe that they have no powers over you but others do not. They do have powers and every human is biased and people working within a system are likely to be biased towards that system and the methods used within that system.
Why would we want to have our life style and educational choices judged by someone whose system and methods we have rejected? How likely is it that an LA official will be able to lay their biases aside when making their judgements? As Sarah Fitz-Claridge says:
"Having a home visit (or any kind of face-to-face meeting) with a person standing in judgement over your whole life-style can be destructive of autonomous education, for it would be a very unusual child who did not experience a narrowing of choices, and very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety – and therefore from a loss of spontaneous motivation – at the very prospect of such a judgement.
Also, LEA officials are likely to have a less than perfect understanding of what we are trying to do and why, and they may be simply unable to open their minds to ideas about education that strike at the very heart of everything they have been working for. As home educators, we are, in the logic of the thing, implicitly criticising their life's work. It takes a very special LEA official not to find home educators disturbing. "
http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/Evidence.html
Maybe you are one of these unusual parents who do not become anxious before a visit and maybe your child is also unusual and would have been unaffected if you had followed an autonomous approach to home education. However, as you didn't and your approach was probably exactly what an LA visitor would recognise as education as it was so like what they would have seen in school, we will never know.
Simon says-Still, everybody lies. Parents too lie their heads off about the children in their care.
ReplyDeleteSo do you agree that LA officers/staff will tell lies to?
And Graham Badman does he Lie what about Uncle Ed Balls/DCSF do they lie to?
I cannot for the life of me see why I would have become anxious before a visit by the local authority! When somebody says, ' very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety' what they actually mean is that many parents wind their children up and make them anxious about such visits. This is commonly done by telling the child that she might be forced back to school or that social services might take her away from her family. This sort of thing is routinely seen on some of the loopier Internet lists.
ReplyDeleteAs for somebody judging my lifestyle and educational methods, again, I am at a loss to see why this would worry anybody other than the most fragile and neurotic. People are constanly passing judgement upon us every day. They judge us because our children are dressed differently, because of the newspaper we read, how we speak, what television programmes we watch. My bank judges me by the amount in my account, people here judge me by what I say; the list is endless. If it were somehow the case that we could live our lives without incurring any judgement from others for any reason, then there might be something in this fear of having one's lifestyle judged. It is not possible and the local authority are just one more example of this.
You seem to think that visits are 'harmful' and that there are 'risks' and 'dangers' involved. I have no idea what you mean by this; could you explain?
Simon, you say:
ReplyDelete'Leaving aside the precise legal duties involved, it seemed a reasonable enough wish on the part of local authority officers from the education department.'
Leave aside the precise legal duties ? Why?
This is exactly what the argument over the CSF bill has been about- the local authorities still currently have no legal duties unless they have reason to believe that a suitable education is NOT being provided. Many of the LAs currently act as though they have a duty and hence corresponding right to visit and or receive written reports from ALL families . To compound matters, many of the LAs also ignore more of the 2007 guidelines and expect to see 'school at home' with timetables and curriculum. Enough Local Authorities have shown that they cannot be trusted to keep to current guidelines and therefore any national schemes to change their legal duties will be met with great and valid opposition.
I will remind people of what the guidelines currently say ...continued...
EHE guidlines 2007 section 2.7 says
ReplyDelete'Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.'
The guidelines clarify what monitoring duties the LA actually has-Section 2.7-2.8 of the EHE guidelines state :
'Under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, The most obvious course of action if the local authority has information that makes it appear that parents are NOT providing a suitable education, would be to ask parents for further information about the education they are providing. Such a request is not the same as a notice under section 437(1), and is not necessarily a precursor for formal procedures. Some parents may welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision that they are making for the child’s education during a home visit but parents are not legally required to give the local authority access to their home. They may choose to meet a local authority representative at a mutually convenient and neutral location instead, with or without the child being present, or choose not to meet at all. Where a parent elects not to allow access to their home or their child, this does not of itself constitute a ground for concern about the
education provision being made. Where local authorities are not able to visit homes, they
should, in the vast majority of cases, be able to discuss and evaluate the parents’ educational
provision by alternative means. If they choose not to meet, parents may be asked to provide
evidence that they are providing a suitable education. If a local authority asks parents for
information they are under no duty to comply although it would be sensible for them to do
so.10 Parents might prefer, for example, to write a report, provide samples of work, have their educational provision endorsed by a third party (such as an independent home tutor) or
provide evidence in some other appropriate form. Parents should be given the opportunity to address any specific concerns that the authority has. The child should also be given the opportunity, but not required, to attend any meeting that may be arranged or invited to express his or her views in some other way.
The guidelines go on to describe what is currently NOT required of families where there are concerns about the suitability of the education being provided.
3.13 Parents are required to provide an efficient, full-time education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. There is currently no legal definition of “full-time”. Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year, but this measurement of “contact time” is not relevant to elective home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal “school hours”. The type of educational activity can be varied and flexible. Home educating
parents are not required to:
teach the National Curriculum
provide a broad and balanced education
have a timetable
have premises equipped to any particular standard
set hours during which education will take place
have any specific qualifications
make detailed plans in advance
observe school hours, days or terms
give formal lessons
mark work done by their child
formally assess progress or set development objectives
reproduce school type peer group socialisation
match school-based, age-specific standards.
However, local authorities should offer advice and support to parents on these matters if
requested.
The criteria is one to one contact of a varied and flexible nature with an active and involved parent. This is sufficient to consider the education is suitable. If they did have educational concerns then I could choose to address these concerns by way of a written statement and plan. I would not have to accept a visit. In the absence of any concerns there is no more reason for me to have any more interaction with my LA than I would have with a GP....continued
Simon, you say:
ReplyDelete'I accordingly sent them copies of my daughter's work and allowed them to visit for an hour or so once a year. I could see no reason not to do so.'
So you are saying that you wanted to volunteer this information not that Essex LA had reason to believe you were not providing a suitable education? Or does Essex treat all home educating parents as though they were not providing a suitable education until they prove that they are and therefore requests that all families they know about prove this on a routine basis? If it is the latter, then there is reason for registered families to object and reason for families to prefer to remain unknown to this LA. I suspect that in Essex , the LA is well aware that they can ask for visits or written plans but they know they have no legal right to enforce this and do not waste time and resources trying to enforce this as policy.
I was under the impression that there were enough families in Essex where there were some concerns that a suitable education was being provided and also enough families who welcome some educational input from Essex .Therefore extending their time and resources to ALL families would mean that there was less time and resources for the families that needed them. Indeed I could contend that Essex were failing in their duties to the families who either need or want input by wasting resources on families who do not need nor want input and that you were complicit in this.
My LA,South Somerset, follows the 2007 guidelines and accordingly, as they had no reasons to believe I was providing an inadequate education , they put a 'tick' in the EHE box to denote place of education, without a visit nor a written philosophy and plan. Indeed the initial contact page they sent me which asks for basic information is not a legal requirement and accordingly last month they deleted our details . They have my name and my daughters name, age and address and that is all they are legally required to have so they can 'tick' the box which denotes 'place of education'....continued...
You also say:
ReplyDelete'I really can't see why parents would want to deny the local authority access to their children and give them some idea of what they were up to. The only thing which would make this worthwhile would be if there was a real reason for not wanting the local authority to see one's home or speak to one's children.'
My main reason for telling my LA that I felt a visit was unnecessary was so that they could save their resources for the families that need it. Seeing as there are no resources they can actually offer me at this point, I would much prefer that the minority of families where there may be some educational concerns, were given resources in the form of time spent with our fantastic visiting officer. Much as both of us would enjoy a chat over a cup of coffee, we both realise that it is a waste of resources. In short I felt no need to receive any form of acceptance or approval and knew I would not receive any benefit either. I did not see this as a 'worthwhile' endeavour as it took exactly 2 minutes.
My second reason was to support my LA in following the 2007 guidelines as they are one of the few who actually seem to understand them. This is why my LA has a reputation of a good relationship with home educators. This 'good relationship' is also a goal of the 2007 guidelines. South Somerset can input some financial support the HE groups, organise a once a year residential trip and help pay for some GCSE's because they are not wasting their allocated funding on families over whom there are no concerns. If I want access to the resources, I would have to ask to be put on the EHE register but I am still under no obligation to accept any LA monitoring role.
My third reason was my knowledge that many of the Las do not follow these guidelines and whom
in the absence of any concerns that the provision is unsuitable, harass those families who decline any LA involvement. These LAs are also frequently the ones who try and visit all families and then imply or impose varying degrees of 'school at home' before they consider the education to be suitable. Any parent who lives in these LA areas would have 'real reason' for not wanting an LA officer in their home. If in the absence of law and guidelines it becomes 'the norm' to accept annual visits, it becomes harder for the people who live in areas where they do have real reason not to want the LA involvement to stand up for their rights in current law and guidelines. I did find this a worthwhile endeavour and discussed it at length on the phone with South Somerset before telling them of my decision not to stay on their register.
As it stands there are enough reasons for people to celebrate the defeat of Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill , particularly those who live in areas which have proven themselves to act outside of their current powers. …..... continued
However, due to the current political climate or 'zeitgeist' , there is reason to try and implement some kind of plan which will work for the future of home education and will cause the least amount of harm before someone imposes a regime that will cause untold damage .My opinion is that a nationwide change of attitude is needed .
ReplyDeleteI feel a good place to start is by making the 2007 guidelines statutory and removing a couple of ambiguous paragraphs. It may be worthwhile to see how much of the critique written by Ahed is still relevant and working from there (http://ahed.pbworks.com/EHE-Guidelines-Consultation-July-2007?SearchFor=2007+guidelines&sp=1*. )
Combine this with support packages to all home educators BEFORE asking those home educators who are already known to their local authority, to voluntarily agree with a minimal monitoring schemes which may include a one off initial visit in a venue of choice with or with out the children and from then on an annual written plan. In reality this is exactly what already happens in good practice LAs where families often do agree to a minimal monitoring role but where families such as my own are not harassed if we do not volunteer ourselves to be monitored.
To be convinced of the attitude change I would want to see at least 2-3 years of good practice on a nationwide basis with feedback mechanisms in place for ascertaining performance , the input of all the HE groups and the removal of institutional bias before accepting any new guidelines which included giving any government body this minimal monitoring role.
I would hazard a guess that if the above policies were implemented, most people, even those currently choosing to remain as far away as possible from EHE department of the LA , would not object to a working relationship which include at least one initial visit in a place of choice, with or without children present, and thereafter annual written follow ups. As I have already stated many times, those families who disagree in principle with any form of compulsory government monitoring would also be able to keep to their principles as it may not be relevant to discuss an element of compulsory notification if the vast majority of families would be happy to have this working relationship with the LA.
I would like to reiterate that whilst I would prefer the 2007 guidelines and support packages for all EHE families to be made statutory (a few tweaks not withstanding), I do not want the government to impose a monitoring duty upon home educators.
However, what I want and what I think may happen are two different things. I do think that some form of statutory monitoring will be inevitable and therefore wish to see definite changes take place before this happens. My opinion is that making the vast majority unafraid of the consequences of minimal monitoring and giving them a reason to see some benefit would negate the need for compulsory registration.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I cannot for the life of me see why I would have become anxious before a visit by the local authority!"
Your inability to see why you would become anxious about a visit is irrelevant, we are not all the same. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that everyone else is going to feel the same. Unless you are suggesting that anyone who says they become anxious before visits is lying? Or are you lying about not feeling anxious?
Simon wrote,
"When somebody says, ' very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety' what they actually mean is that many parents wind their children up and make them anxious about such visits. This is commonly done by telling the child that she might be forced back to school or that social services might take her away from her family."
I can assure you I said nothing of the sort when we had visits, that would be cruel and coercive. However, I did feel anxious and I'm reasonably sure my children picked up on that. I certainly changed my educational style even though I knew that it was bad for my children causing arguments and stress as a result.
Simon wrote,
"As for somebody judging my lifestyle and educational methods, again, I am at a loss to see why this would worry anybody other than the most fragile and neurotic. People are constanly passing judgement upon us every day."
I don't care what other people think of my lifestyle, I would hardly choose to home educate if that were an issue for me. However, it's a bit different when the person making the judgement can force me to change my lifestyle.
Simon wrote,
"You seem to think that visits are 'harmful' and that there are 'risks' and 'dangers' involved. I have no idea what you mean by this; could you explain?"
I'll repeat,
Sarah F-C wrote,
""Having a home visit (or any kind of face-to-face meeting) with a person standing in judgement over your whole life-style can be destructive of autonomous education, for it would be a very unusual child who did not experience a narrowing of choices, and very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety – and therefore from a loss of spontaneous motivation – at the very prospect of such a judgement."
Autonomous education is founded on free choice and self determination in education based on the theory that to do otherwise is harmful to a child's education (otherwise why choose this method). You may not consider a narrowing of choices, anxiety and loss of spontaneous motivation connected with education to be harmful to children, that's your prerogative. But why should you or others have the right to override my beliefs about what is harmful to my child? There is no evidence that autonomous education is harmful and plenty of evidence from schools and elsewhere to suggest that coercive education can be harmful (just look at the number of people who never open another book once they've escaped school and the victims of hot housing).
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I accordingly sent them copies of my daughter's work and allowed them to visit for an hour or so once a year. I could see no reason not to do so."
Would you feel the same if LA staff pushed autonomous education as the best way forward and put pressure on you to stop using the methods you preferred? Maybe asking for extra, three monthly visits until your methods were autonomous with interviews with your your daughter to ensure she really is making all of the choices for her education without interference from you or other adults?
Tania, you have way too much time on your hands! Haven't you got a sock drawer that needs sorting out or something? Essex didn't ask for the information which I sent them. When they became aware of us via a truancy patrol, they asked to visit. To make everything easier for all concerned, it seemed a good idea to send them a few facts and figures. The legal situation might indeed be that the local authority should assume that a suitable education is being provided unless there is evidence to think otherwise. This strikes me as unsatisfactory and I can well understand why there would be a desire to have a look just to be on the safe side. Besides, I like talking about my daughter and her achievements. I am just as happy talking about this to a local authority officer as I would be to the woman in the post office! I have never been secretive about my family life.
ReplyDeleteYou say, 'My main reason for telling my LA that I felt a visit was unnecessary was so that they could save their resources for the families that need it.' This is an excellent point. The best way for the local authority to decide this is by visiting the home and talking to the family. It is all but impossible to know which families need extra help if the only communication is by post.
"The legal situation might indeed be that the local authority should assume that a suitable education is being provided unless there is evidence to think otherwise. This strikes me as unsatisfactory and I can well understand why there would be a desire to have a look just to be on the safe side."
ReplyDeleteA judge agreed with you so there is case law that states that a local authority can make informal enquiries about our education provision. Home educators are not legally required to answer informal enquiries, but if we don't, or if we do not provide enough information to convince them, on the balance of probabilities (the level of evidence required in court), that we are providing a suitable education, the LA can decide that there is an appearance of failure to provide a suitable education and issue a SAO. Also a court will receive any evidence a parent produces, it will not have to be in any specified form and it will be sufficient so long as it shows that a suitable education is being given. Similarly an LEA has no power to require that information be given to it in a specified form or way.
Simon you not said about LA's telling lies? or are they the only group of people who always tell the truth?
ReplyDeleteJulie i see that Jan Lewis name is now up on the hants web page Jan has taken over from crazy old Steve Mellor(he was a very strange man) now Jan name is only now up because Peter complained about no contact details for her so that home educators could if they wish contact her!
ReplyDeletePeter will get to the bottom of what it is Jan Lewis does for home educators in this part of Hampshire! i keep you all posted!
"You say, 'My main reason for telling my LA that I felt a visit was unnecessary was so that they could save their resources for the families that need it.' This is an excellent point. The best way for the local authority to decide this is by visiting the home and talking to the family. It is all but impossible to know which families need extra help if the only communication is by post."
ReplyDeleteCan't families decide for themselves if they want to ask for extra help (and accept a visit if that is required to qualify for the help), or should 'help' be inflicted on people whether they want it or not, for their own good?
I took 2 hours this morning to write 2000 words while my daughter was doing 'Maths Whizz', reading and getting dressed but you are right, I was procrastinating- I have a house to paint back to magnolia (the preferred colour of all landlords).My sock drawer, thankfully is all in order.
ReplyDeleteTania - feel free to sort mine - one of the great questions of the universe - why do we always have 300+ odd socks?
ReplyDeleteMore seriously - does everyone lie? Hopefully not, but I admit that it probably is a very common trait and that no one, parents- home educating or otherwise, are immune. Neither are LAs or any other "officials", although in my experience the latter are often more inflicted by ignorance or other motives rather than deliberately setting out to mislead, but that is another story.
Getting back to the point Simon was trying to make... it is reasonable for LAs not to believe home educators when they say that they are providing a satisfactory education for their child? To be honest, were I an LA bod I would probably be highly frustrated by some home educators, but then I am not in that position (thankfully!), so the only thing that matters currently is that the LA have little choice in most circumstances to believe what the home educator says; and until there is a change in the legal position that is what they are stuck with.
What (as I am always trying to point out) would improve matters is if the whole set up was less of a sort of cat and mouse game; if home educators could have a relationship with the LA that they would both want to engage in and which would be benefical to both sides, and especially the children. I suppose though that it all comes down to money, money, money....
Interestingly I just read by chance a report which looked at home education amongst Gipsy and Travellers in Hants. Now these categories are often felt to be an almost hopeless group for "officials" to engage with, but the study (although very small scale) had one common theme- if there was some money/tuition to be had from the LA, these families seemed to want to jump at the opportunity. Although it is a precedent that the LA may well not want to set, it seemed to me that it would be not that expensive to make a vast difference to the education of this group of children. General home educators may not be so homogenious in their outlook (there are some who would apparently rather die for the cause than have anything to do with any authority representatives!) but a little more support and less condemnation would go a long way with many families.
Julie wrote,
ReplyDelete"Neither are LAs or any other "officials", although in my experience the latter are often more inflicted by ignorance or other motives rather than deliberately setting out to mislead, but that is another story."
There could be advantages for officials if they find fault with home educators; they are are more likely to kept their jobs. The danger (for them) if home educators pass their inspections with flying colours is that those on high will begin to wonder if the officials/inspections are needed. This seems to have happened in New Zealand where only about 5% of homeschooling inspections revealed problems that led to the homeschoolers exemption to attend school being revoked. The low proportion of problems led to them ended routine inspections of all home educators last year because they could not justify the cost. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe a similar number of home educators had their exemptions revoked as a result of being brought to the attention of the education department (by members of the public and other homeschoolers) during the years before routine inspections of all homeschoolers began.
"Getting back to the point Simon was trying to make... [is is] reasonable for LAs not to believe home educators when they say that they are providing a satisfactory education for their child? "
The majority of parents want the best for their children. Unless authorities have a particular reason to doubt this it is assumed to be the case. If a parent is capable of describing a suitable education, has shown that they gathered the necessary resources and shown how that education has been provided in practice so far, and they want the best for their child, why would they not provide their child with the described education? The assumption that home educating parents are lying about actually providing the described education to their child until they prove otherwise is a reversal of the usual assumption that parents have the best interest of their child at heart.
>>>>>>I cannot for the life of me see why I would have become anxious before a visit by the local authority!<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you.
Mrs Anon
Hey Simon, you have a blogging doppelganger in the US!
ReplyDeleteUnschooling: The Ultimate in Lazy Parenting
"I cannot for the life of me see why I would have become anxious before a visit by the local authority!"
ReplyDeleteCan you honestly say that none of the parents of disabled children that you help through your work with the charity ever become anxious before meetings with local authority personnel?
It's a point of principle, Simon. I can choose to let a BBC cameraman into the house and choose not to let an inspector in.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't need to lie about my son's achievements - there are things he's good at and things he's not so good at, but the way we approach education, it's not a problem because he's spending lots of time on the stuff in which he is interested and he'll have plenty of time later for the rest. That's the bit that I don't think the inspection regime has quite assimilated yet, and until they do, I'm not going to be particularly cooperative.