The above is a quotation from my daughter. As I have perhaps mentioned, she is very involved with the Ed Balls leadership campaign, spending a lot of time at the headquarters in Victoria and also travelling to various events. At least it gives her a chance to meet a bunch of Z list politicos like Oona King and so on. I said recently that nobody with whom she knocks about in the Labour Party knew she was home educated, but that changed the other night. Somebody in the office was talking about the letter of support which a home educated child had had published in the Guardian and my daughter admitted that she was in fact the Santaevita who had written it. What was interesting was that she said everybody seemed very enthusiastic about the idea of home education, but that there was general agreement that it should be monitored. This is the same consensus which has in the past emerged from her discussions with students and lecturers at college. Absolutely nobody is against home education, but everybody wants an eye kept on it to make sure that the children are actually being educated. It was when telling me about this, that Simone said that home educators, 'just don't get it'. I think that she might be right.
I don't want to start a discussion about whether regular monitoring is or is not a good idea. I want rather to consider the extent to which home educators might be a little out of touch with popular opinion on this subject. Although some people have been a little sniffy about my educating my own child, nobody ever seems to have doubted that the thing could be done. I have an idea that this might be a pretty general thing, although I am quite prepared to hear that some parents have encountered hostility and opposition. Once I have started talking to people though about home education, everybody has been shocked and amazed to discover that there are no checks or regular inspections of home education. The fact that the whole system for monitoring is completely voluntary and if you don't feel like taking part you can simply refuse, strikes everybody as quite mad. I am not talking about teachers or social workers here, but shop assistants, police officers, passers by and parents of school children.
Now I don't know if this is the experience of others. Certainly my daughter has found the same thing, particularly over the last year or so. Everybody is quite accepting of home education; but nobody thinks it wise that there is no system for monitoring and inspection. This is in stark contrast to home educating parents themselves, an awful lot of whom have their faces set like flint against any sort of compulsory interference in what they are doing with their children.
It is always a bit tricky when a group of individuals pursuing some outlandish hobby or lifestyle find themselves coming into conflict with what the rest of the world think. This is the case whether the lifestyle is nudism, pistol shooting, fox hunting, smoking crack or home educating. Once you are a member of the group, you start to see the group's view of the world and begin to disregard what normal people think of your chosen activity. If you spend long enough associating with other members of the group, then the lifestyle ceases to seem outlandish and becomes quite the norm for you and those with whom you talk. After a while, you can't even see anything strange about killing foxes or walking about without any trousers; it's just what you and your friends do! Anybody who objects to what you are doing must be a fascist/communist/statist.
In a way, I can see how this works. By the time my daughter was ten or twelve, not sending her to school was such an entrenched part of our life that it seemed quite normal. It wasn't, of course. Let's face it, not sending your kid to school like everybody else is a bloody peculiar way to carry on! In other words, I was becoming something of an outsider from normal, everyday society, but was not always aware of it. Walking round town on a school day with a child in tow while everybody else's kids are at school, makes one automatically a bit of an oddity. Now choosing to do this, turn myself into a minority in effect, is my own affair, I answer to nobody for my choices and if others don't like it then they can go to the Devil. I have sometimes thought though that it was a bit much to make my child a member of a minority in this way. She, after all, did not have any say in the matter; it was just how she grew up.
Because of how I earn my living, working with families with children at school, I was always able to see both sides here. On the one hand the feeling that my chosen way of life was quite normal and on the other the awareness that I was pursuing a pretty weird course of action. I have an idea that some home educating parents might not be able to do this. I see this when I am commenting in the online versions of some newspapers which have run a piece on home education. One often gets ordinary people saying a few words and then some really aggressive home educator will come on and tell her to keep quiet about things she knows nothing about. This is frequently the signal for a bunch of home educators to swamp the comments with pro HE stuff. The only thing is, a lot of these comments sound barking mad to the average citizen. The ordinary people stop posting and then the home educating parents are left to make more and more extravagant comments. I know for a fact that some people have said that all the home educators on in these places seem really weird. It is not a good advertisement for the stability and sound mental health of home educators!
Perhaps it would be well for home educating parents to remember that they have in fact chosen to pursue a lifestyle that most people see as odd. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's a free country. However, when practically everybody around you thinks that you are doing something strange which involves children, then you have to be prepared for many people to speak out on behalf of the children concerned and to suggest that somebody should keep watch upon their interests. Fighting tooth and nail to avoid allowing anybody into one's home does look a little fishy to many people. After all, most of us have all sorts of people in and out of our homes all the time. I can quite see why this particular aspect of the home education scene would raise a few eyebrows, as indeed it does. I am talking now of how it looks to others; I myself understand very well why parents would be reluctant to allow local authority officers into their homes. I simply have the feeling that for over 99% of the population this aspect of HE , the perceived secrecy, is something which seems like a bit of a warning flag. This is worth bearing in mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'Absolutely nobody is against home education'
ReplyDeleteMmm...not sure about that. I've been reading the TES online lately and whenever it comes up there, the teachers are hugely rude and stupid about HE. Mainly, it's those predicatable prejudices about poor little kids 'kept at home' by their nutty parents who 'actually think they can get teach all the subjects to GCSE level' (without specialist training) and how will they survive in the real world without the socialisation which school given them. {sigh}
I get the impression that MOST teachers are against the whole idea of HE, not just in favour of stricter monitoring.
Mrs Anon
'Fighting tooth and nail to avoid allowing anybody into one's home does look a little fishy to many people.'
ReplyDeleteTo ignorant, uninformed people, it does. I have a friend who is a consultant clinical psychologist. I once suggested HE to her and all Hell broke loose. LOL! She's been my friend for years and has often complimented us on how our teens are turning out, but it seems she'd been hiding an incredible amount of hostility towards HE. In particular, she supported the Badman proposal of automatic right of entry into HE family homes.
However, once I'd explained the principles involved, as they seemed to me, she gradually changed her opinions. She did still believe, like Mill and you, that some sort of monitoring was necessary. Fair enough, but the whole business of demanding entry into people's homes with no cause to believe anything was actually wrong was something she eventually backed down from.
'After all, most of us have all sorts of people in and out of our homes all the time.'
Oh, our house is like Euston Station most days, with teens in the house, their friends, people from church, band members and all sorts. But the point is that we'd invited them all.
Even official people who want to chat about my dd's disability or the finances connected to that, don't feel they have a right to be here. They ask if they can come. And we could easily say no. We could meet them elsewhere if we wanted. Or not meet them at all.
The issue of monitoring HE is separate. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea. Sometimes not. I'm not convinced of the overall benefits, but it would depend on the system which was being proposed.
Mrs Anon
'I simply have the feeling that for over 99% of the population this aspect of HE , the perceived secrecy, is something which seems like a bit of a warning flag. This is worth bearing in mind.'
ReplyDeleteIt depends on your point of view. I was happy, for eg, to have my midwive pop over and later the health visitor for a chat about my babies/preschoolers and how things were going. They can be a life-line to a new mum, espcially if you've just moved to a new area and have no family support.
But imagine my surprise when an American friend, just having moved here, refused to allow the HV entry to her home when she first called round. My friend, let's call her Ann, was furious that the British state considered her such a risk to her children that she required to be interviewed about her parenting and her premises inspected!
Now Ann was a wonderful parent of 4 children, a loving mother, intelligent and respectable, who kept a clean house and whose kids were happy and clean and thriving. She had nothing to hide. (I was a common visitor to her home.) But she simply could not understand the sytem which had evolved here which was designed to help mothers of young children. Coming from the USA, she saw it as insulting, intrusive and unnecessary.
This is how such things are NOW viewed in the HE community. Perhaps if the system had evolved to be more benign and helpful, as the midwifery and HV visit system is/was (instead of hostile, confrontional, threatening, ignorant) perhaps more HE'ers would be happy to invite that sort of informal monitoring? I don't know.
Anyway, 3 posts this early is a record for me. I'd better stop.
Mrs Anon
'the teachers are hugely rude and stupid about HE.'
ReplyDeleteSorry Mrs Anon, I should of course have said 'nobody but teachers'. I rather assumed that we would all know this. After all they are hardly unbiassed observers.
Webb says- the teachers are hugely rude and stupid about HE.'
ReplyDeleteSorry Mrs Anon, I should of course have said 'nobody but teachers'. I rather assumed that we would all know this. After all they are hardly unbiassed observers.
We all so know that a number of LA staff are also hugely rude and stupid about HE! along with a number of other groups of people some social Worker are as well.
We also know that Ed Balls and a number of Labour M.P's are against HE as well.
The public may want HE monitored but not when you tell them how much it may cost! i have done this with a friend she wanted it monitored but did not want the council t ohave to use funds that it really could spend on her child at school!
Whats your daughter going to do when Ed Balls loses his leadership attempt? any one who was helping Balls will be seen as tainted goods!
They are NO plans by the con/Lib/Gove government to bring in news laws for home education Webb! your barking up the wrong tree! you lost along with Balls/Badman why dont we hear anything from Badman? i think he is still sulking after losing to HE LOL how did it all go so wrong Badman it was supposed to be a done deal and then along come the HE parents/children who stoped me! never mind Badman old Webb wil lhold your hand and carry on the fight LOL
ReplyDelete"The fact that the whole system for monitoring is completely voluntary and if you don't feel like taking part you can simply refuse, strikes everybody as quite mad."
ReplyDeleteHow can we simply refuse monitoring? We can refuse home visits but we still have to provide evidence or risk an SAO. Monitoring is not synonymous with home inspections.
LAs have a straightforward argument for annual enquiries. An education must be suitable for age, ability and aptitude and, after a year, these are likely to have changed. It's highly unlikely that a court would go against an LA that thought annual informal enquiries were necessary against a parent who disagreed. Other people have already covered the requirement for a home inspection.
'How can we simply refuse monitoring?'
ReplyDeleteStep 1.
Download an educational philosophy from the HE-UK site. Adapt it using your own child's name. the end result should read something like this;
Our approach to John's education is in the main opportunity-based,
child-led and very flexible. It is impossible to provide a timetable or to
specify in advance which activities we shall be undertaking.
We work to keep a good balance between child-led, informal learning
and a more directed approach. In general, it is our aim to facilitate
learning through John's interests rather than artificially contrived
situations to reach pre-determined outcomes. We are always vigilant for
any gaps which should arise in our provision and ready, willing and able
to make the necessary adjustments to fill them.
Step 2.
Take photographs of your kid at museums and participating in sporting activities.
Step 3.
Keep a diary, detailing all the educational activities you are undertaking. It does not matter if these are true or not, nobody will check up
Step 4.
Forward all this to your local authority, accompanied by printed out extracts of the 2007 Guidelines issued by the Department for Education. Explain that you are opposed to visits because you believe in autonomous education.
Hey presto! You have refused monitoring. The good thing about this system is that you don't even have to provide your child with an education at all and nobody will ever be any the wiser. Neat, eh?
It's highly unlikely that a court would go against an LA that thought annual informal enquiries were necessary against a parent who disagreed. Other people have already covered the requirement for a home inspection.
ReplyDeleteA court could well go against an LA who thought this as it would depend on how the LA had behaved! some LA's try to force a parent to have a home visit the parent turns this down and then well only provide evidence in a written format the LA reject this and issue SAO but will not test it in court becuase they know they have behaved in a high handed way!
"Hey presto! You have refused monitoring. The good thing about this system is that you don't even have to provide your child with an education at all and nobody will ever be any the wiser. Neat, eh?"
ReplyDeleteSo unlike most other areas of government and society, home educating parents are assumed to be lying? I send in my tax return every year. The inland revenue believes what I write. I feed and cloth my children. SS believe that I do this. But education is a special case and must be examined in close detail, with automatic assumption of lying requiring close questioning of the child to ensure they really have visited the museum listed in 'evidence'. Woe betide anyone with a child with a poor memory or one who was distracted that day and didn't take much in because this if 'proof' that the child was not taken to that museum and the parent just grubbed around on the floor outside the museum in order to find a ticket.
'So unlike most other areas of government and society, home educating parents are assumed to be lying? I send in my tax return every year. The inland revenue believes what I write.'
ReplyDeleteYou asked how you could avoid monitoring and I told you! I did not say that you were not providing a suitable education for your children, simply that it is possible to avoid monitoring.
'But education is a special case and must be examined in close detail, with automatic assumption of lying requiring close questioning of the child to ensure they really have visited the museum listed in 'evidence'.'
I didn't say anything of the sort! I simply point out that the current system does not ensure that children are being educated.
"You asked how you could avoid monitoring and I told you! I did not say that you were not providing a suitable education for your children, simply that it is possible to avoid monitoring."
ReplyDeleteBut if you don't think this is common, why would you think home inspections are necessary?
"I didn't say anything of the sort! I simply point out that the current system does not ensure that children are being educated."
If the written evidence is not sufficient to show the child is being educated, the LA can ask for more information. The only reason it might not ensure that children are being educated is if you believe the parents are lying. If you don't assume they are lying it should be entirely possible to prove education using written evidence without a home inspection.
Webb says-You asked how you could avoid monitoring and I told you! I did not say that you were not providing a suitable education for your children, simply that it is possible to avoid monitoring.
ReplyDeleteyou could do this with the tax returns you could make out you earn far less! the tax office accept what people send in unless evidence says other wise! you cant keep going around checking everthing its just not possible Webb.
I feel something happend to you when you where younger to make you mistrust people so much? where you abused by some one who was supposed to be looking after you? it may help you to talk about this?
"So unlike most other areas of government and society, home educating parents are assumed to be lying?"
ReplyDeleteWell I guess if they have received loads of very similar looking "declarations" and found a source (that appears to be what many of the declarations have been based on), that includes handy tips on "looking good" that many have duplicated...then there is some room for understanding why there are "trust issues".
I'm self employed. So I get whacked with additional sanctions when I make my tax declaration, get far more of a beady eye and always have to pay the highest tier of any means tested payments (like for state sponsored events or facilities) on the basis that "the self employed LIE so they must be treated like they are rich, even when they are just a poor unloved teacher".
This came about because of "trust issues” cos the self employed DID quite blatantly lie and cheat on the declarations and didn't have the gumption to keep the source of all the info of how to do it secret.
So now I have to live with paying more for everything and getting a light shone in my face at the end of the tax year cos those jammy bleeders that went before me were so damn blatant in their sticking of two fingers up at the state that self employed has become a synonym for "lying gitface - treat as suspect until it proves its innocence, and then assume it just had a good lawyer or accountant and "got away with it", cos it is still a lying gitface, it is self empoyed, has to be, common sense innit"
'Well I guess if they have received loads of very similar looking "declarations" and found a source (that appears to be what many of the declarations have been based on), '
ReplyDeleteOne local authority has a collection of educational philosophies, all based upon the template from one HE site. The photographs sent in all look as though they have been taken following the same instructions as well.
werid Sarah says This came about because of "trust issues”
ReplyDeletethey are trust issues with LA council staff by home educating parents!
Werid Sarah says- now I have to live with paying more for everything and getting a light shone in my face at the end of the tax year
you dont have to have light shone in your face here in England Sarah just send in your tax returns the Tax officer only looks into cases where there is evidence of people doing wrong!
did something happen to you as well to make you not trust people? it can not be healthy to live like this!
'I send in my tax return every year. The inland revenue believes what I write.'
ReplyDeleteYou would think that the Inland revenue could quietly disband themselves and also sack everybody in HM Tax Inspectorate as well. Surely they could just put an honesty box in every High Street and let us calculate how much we owed. Think of the savings on administering the PAYE system as well!
Webb says-You would think that the Inland revenue could quietly disband themselves and also sack everybody in HM Tax Inspectorate as well. Surely they could just put an honesty box in every High Street and let us calculate how much we owed. Think of the savings on administering the PAYE system as well!
ReplyDeleteThe tax office does not check every return in fine detail it only starts looking into some one if there is evidence of wrong doing or big change in income or some one tips them off.it comes down to trust and you Webb do not trust people unless they have been checked? but what happens the day after the check? your world is where every one mistrust each other are you like that with your daughter? if she said im going out 2nite to see a friend would you belive her? or woudl you need to check just in case she was not telling the truth?
"You would think that the Inland revenue could quietly disband themselves and also sack everybody in HM Tax Inspectorate as well."
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point?
"One local authority has a collection of educational philosophies, all based upon the template from one HE site. The photographs sent in all look as though they have been taken following the same instructions as well."
ReplyDeleteThen they should ask for more information until they are satisfied. A court has even said that in some cases the LA is justified in insisting on a home visit so maybe, in some cases, this type of behaviour could result in just this kind of insistence and be supported in court if it got that far. This still doesn't explain why you think every home educator should be visited.
Can people remember to be polite about others commenting here? I don't much mind anybody being rude to me, but when other are being described as 'Weird Sarah', I think it's a bit much. If this happens again, I shall start moderating.
ReplyDelete'This still doesn't explain why you think every home educator should be visited.'
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that this is what I think. There are many thousands of children in this country who are not registered pupils of schools. See the Ofsted survey on Children Missing from Eucation for more about this. I assume that many of these children are being educated at home. I also assume that many are not. The trick is to identify those who are actually being educated and then deal with the rest one way or another. It might well be necessary to visit homes in order to do this.
"I assume that many of these children are being educated at home. I also assume that many are not. The trick is to identify those who are actually being educated and then deal with the rest one way or another. It might well be necessary to visit homes in order to do this."
ReplyDeleteWhy not write and ask? If they are educating at home, informal enquiries will follow, the LA can decide if it believes the evidence and either ask for more or request a visit if it's necessary. If they are not home educating, other paths will be followed.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"'This still doesn't explain why you think every home educator should be visited.'
I'm not sure that this is what I think. "
Have you changed your mind since your wrote the following to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee?
As a home educator I agree fully with the Recommendations of the Badman Review, particularly with regard to LEAs having new powers to monitor and inspect families who do not send their children to school. Without such regular inspections it seems very likely to me, based upon my own experience, that many children would not receive a suitable education at home.
'Have you changed your mind since your wrote the following to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee?'
ReplyDeleteNo I have not changed my mind at all. As I said above many thousands of children are not registered pupils at schools. Many of those will be educated at home, while others will not. In order to sort out the one group from the other, it will probably be necessary to visit the homes and talk to people face to face.
"I assume that many of these children are being educated at home. I also assume that many are not. The trick is to identify those who are actually being educated and then deal with the rest one way or another. It might well be necessary to visit homes in order to do this."
ReplyDeleteSeems an expensive way to find out. It must be very expensive for a LA officer to cold call people who might not even be in when a letter will probably sort out most of these cases.
It may be me, but i cannot see any contradiction at all between what I wrote above;
ReplyDelete'There are many thousands of children in this country who are not registered pupils of schools. See the Ofsted survey on Children Missing from Eucation for more about this. I assume that many of these children are being educated at home. I also assume that many are not. The trick is to identify those who are actually being educated and then deal with the rest one way or another. It might well be necessary to visit homes in order to do this.'
and what i said to the select committee;
' I agree fully with the Recommendations of the Badman Review, particularly with regard to LEAs having new powers to monitor and inspect families who do not send their children to school. Without such regular inspections it seems very likely to me, based upon my own experience, that many children would not receive a suitable education at home.'
Of course some of the children who are not at school are not being educated. It is necessary to identify these and do something about them.
But the select committee and the Badman review were looking at home education, not children missing education. They are different things entirely and the solutions would be different. Home educated children are not children missing from education. If someone claims to be home educating, informal enquiries can be used to confirm provision.
ReplyDeleteSeems an expensive way to find out. It must be very expensive for a LA officer to cold call people who might not even be in when a letter will probably sort out most of these cases.
ReplyDeleteit would be very expensive and i dont think councils have money to waste so i cant see any of this taking place can you? nor do i think the public would be to keen on home educating children taking money away from councils which could be used on state schools. its just one of Webbs pipe dreams that this will happen! i belive George osbourne will be leting all departments in govenment know what big cuts backs to expect! a lot of council staff will be out of work!
pay will be froze for many civil servants/council staff along with teachers! Labour have left UK in very bad way!
ReplyDeleteHey Webb Waterloo road on the BBC is runing a story about home education the 2 children have a week to see if they like the state school! the father is against the childre nbeing at school but the mother wants them to go! this show is watched by millions of people why is the BBC showing this now? you know anthing about this webb?
ReplyDeleteMore from Mills.
ReplyDeleteThe object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
If people think autonomous education is harmful, they must first prove that this is the case. Otherwise they risk causing harm to the very children they claim to be protecting.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"What was interesting was that she said everybody seemed very enthusiastic about the idea of home education, but that there was general agreement that it should be monitored. This is the same consensus which has in the past emerged from her discussions with students and lecturers at college."
John Stuart Mills also covers this in his book, On Liberty, http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/on_lib.html.
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.