Yesterday I posted a humorous piece about the fact that I am often being told that I have no place in the debate on home education because I am no longer a home educator; the reason for this being that my daughter is now seventeen and attending a Further Education College. Somebody commented with the surprising news that those who make this objection are not really saying this at all. They are rather complaining that I am 'attempting to limit the freedoms of current and future home educators', instead of trying to maintain these freedoms or offering help to other home educators. Apparently, by not understanding this convoluted metaphor, I am 'displaying my ignorance'! Well it sounds a bit odd to me. Why can't these people just say what they mean? Why not say, 'You are attempting to limit the freedoms of home educators', rather than 'You are no longer a home educator'? Still, let us assume that this is true and see where such a claim might lead us.
The first thing to say at once is that although I am pretty nifty with words, I doubt if there exist in the English language adjectives powerful enough adequately to convey the depth of my indifference to the 'freedoms of home educators', if by these are meant the freedoms of those adults responsible for furnishing children with an education. Those supposed freedoms are right down there with 'parents' rights'. I have no interest in them whatsoever and never have had. My only concern as far as home education goes lies in the right of children to receive an education. Nothing else really matters to me in this debate. So anybody hoping to engage me on the topic of 'home educators' freedoms' or 'parents' rights' might as well spare their breath.
Let me set out the perspective from which I have always worked and then explain why I feel that my aim is actually precisely congruent with that of all other home educators. (And for that matter every local authority officer and civil servant at the Department for Education). I educated my own child. I did so because I felt that I could provide her with a better education than that on offer at the local maintained schools. For this reason, I would have fought hard against any attempt to make her go to school. She was entitled to the best education available and was receiving it. This had nothing whatsoever to do with my 'freedom as a home educator'. She had a right to an education and was getting it. If I had not been able to provide an education at least as good as that on offer at a nearby school, then her right would have been to go to school. This seems to me to be quite clear. My freedom to educate her would not have entered the question. She was entitled to the best education available.
Because parents have a legal duty to cause their children to receive an education, a right is created for the child to receive an education. Duties create rights and rights create duties. In this case the duty creates a right for the child, but no corresponding right for the parent is created. Talk of the 'freedoms of home educators' is absurd.
The current system is not perfect; no human invention can ever be that. Some children are not receiving a good education. This is the case with those at school and it is also the case with children being educated at home. If we change the law or revise the 2007 guidelines for local authorities, there will still be some children who are not receiving a decent education. There is nothing we can do about this; it is in the nature of the Universe. I assume that everybody concerned with home education in whatever capacity is acting with good will. I assume this of the local authority officers, the autonomous home educators who despise me for a Quisling and also of people like Graham Badman. I take it for granted that they all hope that as many children as possible will receive a good education. I believe that the home educators who oppose any change in the status quo want this and I also assume that the people at the Department for Education want the same thing. I certainly want this very strongly. In other words, all parties acknowledge the right of children to receive a good education. Everybody also knows that some children are not getting an education. This is what I meant earlier when I said that my aims were congruent with those of other home educators.
As things stand, some home educated children are receiving a good education while others are not. If we change things, then some home educated children will begin to receive a better education than they had been doing. Of course at the same time, the education of some other children will be compromised and their education will be worse than it was before. We cannot fully foresee the consequences of any action or inaction. All parties want the greatest number of children to be receiving an education; they have different ideas on how to go about achieving this end.
I have been accused of wishing to erode the 'freedoms of home educators'. As I think that I have made clear, this simply does not enter my thinking for a moment. As things stand, the current system with regard to home education is letting down a number of children. I think that there is scope for improvement; I do not believe that the system we now have is the best that can be possibly devised by men and women. It has arisen accidentally and owes more to Edwardian court cases than it does to any rational consideration of the situation in the twenty first century. I would like to see a new arrangement, one which would more robustly secure for children their right to a good education.
We are all of us working towards the same aim. I feel that the measures which I support would maximise the numbers of home educated children who received a good education. Those who oppose any change feel the same thing. Local authorities believe that their own policies will also tend towards this end. I feel just as strongly as others about this subject; the only difference being perhaps that I am able to behave in a fairly good natured way over it. Those who claim that I am attempting to limit the freedoms of home educators are quite wrong; I simply do not care about these so-called freedoms. I care about the right of children to an education and have in the past worked hard to secure this right, both for my own child and the children of others. I shall continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Portraying this current debate as some Manichaean struggle between the forces of darkness on the one hand and a noble and heroical band of parents fighting for their ancient liberties on the other, is too silly for words. Everybody wants the greatest possible number of children to receive an education; we differ only in how this may be achieved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 'freedom' referred to by home educating parents was in relation to them causing their child to have a suitable education that differed from that advocated by the then DCSF. There was a distinct possibility that a parent not following the national curriculum would find themselves at odds with LA officers, for no good reason.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to parental rights, although I agree with you that parents do not have 'rights' in regard to education, it is important that people given a duty are also given scope to exercise their judgement in how they discharge that duty.
Currently, in UK law, how children are educated at home is nothing to do with local authorities, unless it appears that a parent is not fulfilling their duty toward the child. Making parents accountable to local authorities is unconstitutional and legally anomalous, since local authorities are also accountable to parents for the quality of service they provide. This is why the criterion for LA involvement in private life has always been only if it appears that there has been a breach of the law by the individual concerned.
'There was a distinct possibility that a parent not following the national curriculum would find themselves at odds with LA officers'
ReplyDeleteI specifically asked Graham Badman about this idea and he seemed amazed. I have never heard the National Curriculum mentioned in connection with the CSF Bill or the Badman review. Where do you get this idea?
'it is important that people given a duty are also given scope to exercise their judgement in how they discharge that duty.'
Extraordinary notion. My duty is to pay a certain percentage of my income to the Inland Revenue. I am given no scope to exercise my judgement in how I discharge this duty. I cannot really see why you think that special rules should apply to the legal duty to provide an education for a child.
'Making parents accountable to local authorities is unconstitutional '
Reference needed.
"'There was a distinct possibility that a parent not following the national curriculum would find themselves at odds with LA officers'
ReplyDeleteI specifically asked Graham Badman about this idea and he seemed amazed. I have never heard the National Curriculum mentioned in connection with the CSF Bill or the Badman review. Where do you get this idea?"
Because he recommended that the DCSF decide what constituted a 'suitable' education and because local authorities were asking for evidence that parents provided an education for a set number of hours a week, that they provide a broad, rich curriculum, and expressed the opinion, shared by GB, that children 'should' have developed certain skills by certain ages.
"'it is important that people given a duty are also given scope to exercise their judgement in how they discharge that duty.'
Extraordinary notion. My duty is to pay a certain percentage of my income to the Inland Revenue. I am given no scope to exercise my judgement in how I discharge this duty. I cannot really see why you think that special rules should apply to the legal duty to provide an education for a child."
You have clearly never had a conversation with a tax inspector about whether you are an employee or not, or how your income as an author can be spread. HMRC regulations are the product of a great deal of exercising of judgement on both sides over many years.
'Making parents accountable to local authorities is unconstitutional '
Reference needed.
What's actually needed is understanding. A local authority officer I once spoke to said the 1944 criteria for a suitable education had omitted the content of the curriculum from the Education Act because they had 'forgotten' to put it in. Presumably because they were too busy fighting the Jerries. Not because they felt it was up to the school/teacher/parent and nothing to with them.
Who are local authorities accountable to in respect of service provision, if not to the electorate?
Let me re-phrase that: "A local authority officer I once spoke to said the the committee who drew up the 1944 criteria for a suitable education had omitted the content of the curriculum from the Education Act because they had 'forgotten' to put it in. "
ReplyDelete'Who are local authorities accountable to in respect of service provision, if not to the electorate?'
ReplyDeleteIt is a two way system. Shopkeepers are the electorate and therefore hold the council to account. The council also hold them to account for the conditions in their shops. this is quite common where relations with the Local Authority are concerned.
'
that they provide a broad, rich curriculum, and expressed the opinion, shared by GB, that children 'should' have developed certain skills by certain ages.'
Nothing to do with the National Curriculum.
'You have clearly never had a conversation with a tax inspector about whether you are an employee or not, or how your income as an author can be spread. HMRC regulations are the product of a great deal of exercising of judgement on both sides over many years.'
Indeed I have had such conversations. the duty has remained intact though. Nobody is suggesting preventing parents from exercising their duty to procide an education; simply putting forward new ways of ensuring that it is undertaken. I have certainly suggested schemes for paying my taxes which have not been accepted by the IR!
'
"It is a two way system. Shopkeepers are the electorate and therefore hold the council to account. The council also hold them to account for the conditions in their shops. this is quite common where relations with the Local Authority are concerned."
ReplyDeleteThat's because shopkeepers are providing a service for which they charge members of the public. If a parent were teaching other people's children in exchange for payment, their service would and should be inspected.
"that they provide a broad, rich curriculum, and expressed the opinion, shared by GB, that children 'should' have developed certain skills by certain ages.'
Nothing to do with the National Curriculum."
I've heard a number of people working for LAs sound shocked at the discovery that home educated children don't have to follow the NC. If the idea that children 'should' have developed certain skills by certain ages isn't derived from the NC, what is it derived from? Certainly not from the experience of teachers during the past 150 years.
'If the idea that children 'should' have developed certain skills by certain ages isn't derived from the NC, what is it derived from? Certainly not from the experience of teachers during the past 150 years.'
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea that children should be able to read before starting secondary school predates the introduction of the National Curriculum!
There isn't any 'should' about it. It might be highly desirable that children are able to read before starting secondary school, and indeed learning to read was of course one of the reasons the education system was set up in the first place. But plenty of children have not been able to read before secondary school age and debate has raged as to why this is the case since long before secondary schools came into being.
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole point of a parent being given a duty to cause a child to have a 'suitable' education; one suitable to the individual child, not one where the non-average child has to accept that a unsuitable education is just in the nature of the Universe.
Do you not include 'home educated children' within the group 'home educators'? When I say "'You are attempting to limit the freedoms of home educators", I mean you are attempting to limit the freedom for our family, both adults and children, to find and use the most suitable form of education for our children. We have found that autonomous education is the best method for finding and providing a suitable education for our children. Your preference for inspections and plans for the next year would limit our ability to provide this education to our children. We would not be free to provide them with an education that is suitable for their age, ability and aptitudes.
ReplyDeleteCurrently parents are responsible for providing a suitable education. If LAs gain the power to prevent the provision of a suitable education they lay themselves open to being sued by children like mine when they grow up and recognise that their education became unsuitable once the LA became involved. Until now attempts to sue LAs for lack of provision of a suitable education have failed (even for children in school) because the onus is on parents to provide it. But if LAs gain positive powers (as opposed to the current negative power to intervene if a suitable education is not provided) to control the form of education children receive, they must also share the blame when it goes wrong.
I'm re-using a comment here too as it seems relevant. A reply to your suggestion that the term 'home educators' does not include children:
ReplyDeleteI have always included children within the term home educators! We go to home educator camps, not home educators and their children camps, we go to home educator's meetings where the most important individuals are the children, when we meet or talk about fellow home educators or home educators meetings within our family we mean the whole of the other family, not just the parents (fancy going to play with any home educators tomorrow?). When we discuss 'home educators' day to day we probably mean the children more than the adults. I've no idea where you strange idea that only parents can be home educators stems from but it certainly doesn't chime with my experiences with 100s of home educators.
'Do you not include 'home educated children' within the group 'home educators'?'
ReplyDeleteI have in the past seen the expression 'home educators' used to refer to the parents and 'home educated' used to apply to the children. Can any of those commenting direct us to examples of the use of the term 'home educators' to mean children? Whenever one sees the phrase on the HE lists, it invariably refers to parents rather than children.
Certainly, in the context used yesterday, the expression 'home educaotrs' was meant to refer to parents. the person commenting said;
ReplyDelete'It's usually just a shorthand expression of exasperation and a wish for you to go away and stop interfering in other people's freedoms to educate in the most suitable way for their child (incidentally a requirement in law). The other people you mention are not attempting to limit the freedoms of current and future home educators'
As you will see, a contrast is being drawn between those edcuating and the the child who is being educated. It was in this context, the usually accepted one, that I use the term 'home educator in this post.
I don't intend to get caught up in one of those mad, Alice in Wonderland type exchanges when people use words and expressions in a way quite contrary to their comman usage. I shall limit myself to two examples. Ross Mountney, an autonomous educator who wrote 'Laerning without school' and is active in a home educating magazine, says in her book, page 45;
ReplyDelete'Home educators are exercising a choice that is open to all parents'
It is plain that she regards home educators as being the adults. Jane Lowe of HEAS says in 'The Home Education Handbook', page 22;
'The home educator has a significant advantage over school'
In all the references to 'home educators' which I have seen, the phrase is applied to parents. Perhaps we could be given a few examples of its being applied to children?
"In all the references to 'home educators' which I have seen, the phrase is applied to parents. Perhaps we could be given a few examples of its being applied to children?"
ReplyDeleteI'm just judging by the way I and my friends use the term. I think it's one of those terms where context changes meaning. The form of education chosen by a family must make a difference too. When I made the comment you quote above I suppose I meant all home educators, even those who give their children no control over their education. However, when I talk about my own family and other autonomously educating families I must, by default, include the children in that term as they are in control of their own education.
So when I say you are attempting to limit the freedoms of home educators, I suppose I primarily mean the freedoms of autonomous home educators and, because they are in control, this must include children's freedoms. You are probably not attempting to limit the freedom of completely parent-led educators as their form of education would not be harmed or prevented by forward planning so maybe I should not have made the distinction in the comment you quote.
The point I've been trying to make is that you are attempting to limit my children's freedom to control their education and it would also prevent me from fulfilling my duty to provide them with a suitable education.