Sunday 23 January 2011

An historical retrospective

The thesis put forward by many home educating parents is that it is parents who are primarily responsible for their children and not the state. They regard any intrusion by the state into family life as unwarranted and something which should only happen if there is clear evidence of neglect or abuse by parents.

This is not of course a new point of view. Before the introduction of compulsory education in the nineteenth century, a government enquiry was set up which looked into the idea. They decided that it would be a bad thing. The Newcastle Report into the State of Popular Education in England was published in 1861. The authors said;

'Any universal compulsory system appears to us neither attainable nor
desirable. An attempt to replace an independent system of education by
a compulsory system, managed by the government, would be met by
objections, both religious and political...'

One of the main objections which the enquiry encountered was that government had no business to poke their noses into family life. It was for parents to arrange for their children's education, not the state. Plus ca change....

I think it reasonable to say that this attitude, that the state should keep out of family life, is still going strong and was a major line of argument against the recommendations of the Badman Report in 2009. It is interesting to reflect that precisely the same line has in the past been used to prevent the police investigating allegations of marital rape and domestic abuse of women. For centuries, the legal position was plain. The law should not concern itself with what went on in the marital home. The relationship between man and wife was sacred and the state should not attempt to regulate how marriages ran or look into what went on in the homes of married couples. We no longer follow this principle of course and for very good reason. There is often an imbalance of power within a marriage; the man may be stronger and more aggressive, the home might be in his name, he usually has more money than his wife. Some women will therefore put up with an abusive partner and even if the police are called will refuse to make a statement. That is why the police will now proceed on cases of domestic violence even if the wife does not wish to press charges. It is also why in 1991, it was ruled that a wife can refuse to consent to sex with her husband.

Those now arguing that the state should not involve itself in the relationship between parents and children remind me a lot of the sort of people who were dead against the police being able to intervene in marital disputes. Witness the anger when it is suggested that hitting children should be outlawed. Some parents insist that they have a perfect right to hit their kids; the same argument used in favour of wife-beating. This is more common in the USA, but there are still plenty of parents here who feel that the government should not legislate about this and that hitting children is a private, family matter.

The parallels between the two cases are compelling and disturbing. The emphasis used to be placed upon a husband's 'rights'. Today, we hear talk of a parent's 'rights' in precisely the same way. It was once acceptable for a husband to slap his wife around a bit in order to discipline her; many people claim that this is something that is acceptable for a parent to do to a child.
I think that in the future, we may look back on this current period and see it as being the time when the rights of children began to be recognised seriously by society, just as the rights of women have similarly been recognised in recent decades. I cannot help but notice that when home educating parents talk about rights in connection with the practice, they almost invariably refer to their own 'rights'. We hear all the time from such people of a parent's 'right' to home educate. As I say, this sounds ominously like the old and discredited concept of a husband's 'rights' over his wife.

14 comments:

  1. Most people arguing against the state interfering between parents and children would not argue against the state interfering if there was evidence that a child was being seriously harmed. In your wife beating example, no one was wanting to visit homes to check if there was any violence going on. No one was advocating checking on whether the family life was arranged in a way that suited wife and husband. they were only concerned that where there was evidence of a wife being beaten or raped, the law could take action.

    The law can - and does take action where a child is being harmed. I've not seen anyone say that it shouldn't. The issue of prosecuting and criminalising parents for smacking comes down to whether it is more damaging to the child to go down this route.

    This is all very different from not believing that the state should interfere in a families education choices for example.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am struggling to understand why you keep bringing this up? I see that you feel like using one example to illustrate the point you are making about another. But when I tried to do the same with the nazis and our right to HE, you shot me down and pointed out that these things were similar but different.
    This too is a case of similar but difference. Violence is VERY different to choosing to home educate. Police choosing to step in where violence is evident is the right thing to do. LAs choosing to step in because they dont agree with homeschooling or its methods is just an interference.
    I dont see how this is the same at all. That is not to say I dont understand LAs need to find out about HEers, you know from my previous comments that I do understand this. But this is a far cry from them trying to legislate the specifics of homeschooling, this is not something that is right and fair.

    I think the only ones who can really understand homeschoolers, or begin to think about what is best for them, is homeschoolers themselves (though other HEers oppose this view). And this is why I am not totally against possible guidelines produced by homeschoolers. Unless imput from HEers is sought and listened too, it is mostly certain that any legislation will be flawed, unworkable or unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ' But when I tried to do the same with the nazis and our right to HE, you shot me down '

    Ah C, I'm sure that I didn't do anything so militaristic and agressive as shooting you down! I seem to recollect mentioning Godwin's law, but that was about it. As to why I keep bringing this up, I suppose because I am alarmed at the extent to which I see parents talking of their 'rights'. I never had any 'rights' at all over my child; only duties towards her. I have noticed that when people start thinking in terms of rights over another person, as with both parents and husbands and wives, it often leads to a feeling of power. This can sometimes be expressed in unacceptable ways. Duties on the other hand do not seem to make people feel this way quite so much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I never had any 'rights' at all over my child; only duties towards her."

    But why do you want to hand over those duties to the state? Don't you think you can do a better job of carrying out that duty than the state?

    "Duties on the other hand do not seem to make people feel this way quite so much."

    They don't make me feel powerful, they make me feel protective of my children.

    I would like to see you answer the first anonymous' point about the law not requiring monitoring of marriages to be sure abuse is not taking place. It seems an excellent comparison. Wife beating, child abuse and failing to provide a suitable education are all against the law and in all cases, it is assumed not to be happening unless something gives the authorities reasonable cause to suspect this. Why is education so much more important than the other two that it requires regular visits to the home to check that the law is not being broken? We don't expect the police to visit homes regularly to check for stolen goods, why should should the usual 'innocent until proven guilty' and the requirement of 'reasonable cause to suspect' be reversed for education provision?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We don't expect the police to visit homes regularly to check for stolen goods, why should should the usual 'innocent until proven guilty' and the requirement of 'reasonable cause to suspect' be reversed for education provision?'


    This seems so obvious to me that I have not in the past bothered to explain. I can see that I shall have to do so. My legal duty in the case of stolen property is a negative one; I must refrain from having it in my house. Since bringing stolen property into my home would require a positive action on my part, the law assumes that, in the absence of additional evidence, I am not handling stolen goods. The case with home education is quite different.

    In this case, a positive duty is laid upon me by law to do something. It is the same principle which leads to inspections of shops and factories. A duty is laid down that these places must have firstaid kits, wash basins, fire extinguishers and so on. Checks are made to ensure that this duty is being performed. In the case of a child's education, the parent does not choose to educate her child; she is compelled by law to do so. Most fulfill the duty by sending the child to school. Some of those who do not do this are fulfilling the duty in other ways; some are not doing so.

    One cannot readily check that somebody is refraining from taking an action, but in the case of a positive duty like educating a child, one can check. One cannot assume that people are taking any action as a matter of principle, whether it is hiding stolen good in their home or educating a child. It is usually the best policy to assume in the absence of evidence that people are not undertaking actions, rather than taking it for granted that they are. We thus assume that people are neither hiding stolen property nor educating their children. One requires no further action, the other does require action.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The duty of the LA to take action is also negative. They only need take action if they have sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities that an education is not being provided. A reasonable person would not assume that a person is lying without a good reason to suspect it. The automatic suspicion that a parent is lying about their provision seems the only justification for compulsory home visits.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The law requires that I fill in my tax return accurately and not claim items purchased for personal use as a business expense. Yet in the 15 years I've been completing these forms, giving my evidence in writing (just figures, not invoices), they have not once disbelieved me and required a home visit to make sure the heater claimed as a business expense is in the office and not my bedroom. I did have to give further information for one of their random spot checks one year. Again the evidence was given by post. If this had given them cause to suspect I was lying I'm sure a visit would have followed.

    This mirrors the current home education position legally. Yes, we are required to provide an education to our children, and they can ask for information. If they have reason to suspect the parent is lying they can request more information or a home visit.

    In the case of R v Surrey Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Tweedie (1963), Lord Parker said that a home visit should not be insisted on as the only method via which the LA satisfies themselves that an education is being provided generally, but that it may be the only appropriate method in some cases. In that particular case the mother was disabled and the judge decided the LA were right to insist on a visit. I suspect a judge would reach the same decision if an LA could show why they believed the parents were lying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'The automatic suspicion that a parent is lying about their provision seems the only justification for compulsory home visits.'

    One might as well say that when checks are made that hotels are keeping their kitchens in good order, this is done because there is an assumption that the managers are liars. Or that when a shop is checked to see that that they have a fire extinguisher, the suspicion is that the shopkeeper is lying. People often seek to evade duties; it makes sense to check from time to time that they are not attempting to do so. Once again, home educators are hoping to be treated as a special case and I cannot see why. When the law lays a duty upon a group of people, some will not fulfil that duty. That is why it is usual for checks to be made. Everybody else seems to accept that this should be so. I have never heard factory owners complain that the authorities are treating them like liars for sending an inspector to visit regularly. Most people send their children to school and so fulfil their duty regarding education in that way. A handful do not and so occasionally checks are made to see whether they really are carrying out this duty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We are already treated as a special case. We are asked to show that we are providing a suitable education yet parents who send their children to school are not. Many send their children to failing schools or schools that do not provide an education suitable to the age, ability and SEN of their child. How many of these parents have been taken to court for failing to provide a suitable education? When they start making the same demands of all parents I might agree with you, but until then...

    ReplyDelete
  10. "One might as well say that when checks are made that hotels are keeping their kitchens in good order, this is done because there is an assumption that the managers are liars."

    I can't really see the point of this game because we can both find plenty of examples on both sides:

    In 15 years of business:
    I am legally required to submit accurate accounts. This has been checked once, by mail.

    We are legally required to have electrical appliances PAT tested. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to display certain information on our business premises. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to have fire extinguishers. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to maintain work equipment in an efficient state and in good repair. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to ensure the health safety and welfare at work of their employees, including the minimising of stress-related illness or injury. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to pay the minimum wage. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to have an annual gas safety certificate. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to take out certain business insurances. This has never been checked.

    We are legally required to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to ensure their employees receive immediate attention if they are injured or taken ill at work. This has never been checked.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Those now arguing that the state should not involve itself in the relationship between parents and children remind me a lot of the sort of people who were dead against the police being able to intervene in marital disputes. Witness the anger when it is suggested that hitting children should be outlawed."

    Come on Simon, you know well that many of those making arguments against the interference of LAs in families who home educate are people who take their duty to educate their children seriously, and people who respect the consent and autonomy of their children. We're talking about people who desire not to coerce children in any way never mind advocate hitting them. This analogy using domestic abuse is completely irrelevant.

    Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'you know well that many of those making arguments against the interference of LAs in families who home educate are people who take their duty to educate their children seriously,'

    Of course I know this. This does not mean that all the arguments used in favour of the practice are sound.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'We are legally required to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to ensure their employees receive immediate attention if they are injured or taken ill at work. This has never been checked.'

    I am guessing that your business does not involve children. Playgroups, nurseries, fostering agencies and schools all have much more frequent and rigorous checking. This is because we set a great value on children in this society. Any enterprise involving children or even a single child is bound to bring more scrutiny than one which is manufacturing boots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It involves families, so yes, children are involved.

    ReplyDelete