One of the perennial complaints on some of the home educating lists and forums is the extent to which many people are uninformed as to the correct legal position surrounding home education. I am absolutely baffled by all this. Recently, people commenting here made the same point; that some parents might send their kids to school simply because they thought that they were legally obliged to do so. This is all such a lot of nonsense.
Of course government, both local and national, try to bluff people into thinking that the law is different from what it actually is in all sorts of different ways. Nobody could deny this for a moment. Almost invariably though, this is done because those misrepresenting the law are trying to protect some vulnerable group of people. Let us look at a specific example, which is very similar to the situation with home education. My wife has a horse which I ride from time to time. Everybody who rides a horse on the public roads wears a riding hat. There are no exceptions to this and it is generally supposed that this is the law, just as motor cyclists are obliged to wear crash helmets. I always thought that this was the law until last week. Everybody at riding schools says that it is the law and no stable will allow you to take out a horse on the road without your wearing a riding hat. My wife has been riding for many years and has always insisted that this is a legal requirement. We argued recently when I went out on her horse, because I didn't wear a hat in the forest and would not put one on even when we reached the road. When I took the trouble to look into it, I discovered that this law only applies to children under fourteen. In other words, nearly every rider in the country is being misled by old wives tales, government leaflets and advice from their local authority into believing that they must wear a riding hat when on the public highway! It's just like all those parents who are told that they must send their children to school; what a scandal!
Two things strike one about this. First, it is in general a good thing that riders wear protective headgear. I am glad that the government and local authorities are misleading them about this and that there is an old wives tale which insists that one must wear a hat. It is certainly a good thing that all riders do so. Secondly of course, that I have laboured under this delusion for so many years is nobody's fault but my own. There was nothing to stop me looking into this years ago and that I have behaved like a gullible sheep is nobody else's responsibility. This is precisely the same situation with home education. In general, it is good that parents believe the old wives tale that they must send their children to school. I don't at all blame local authorities for propagating this misleading idea on their websites and hope that they will continue to do so. If parents did not believe it to be so, many would neither send their children to school nor educate them at home. It would be a bad thing. Just as in the case of me and my own following the herd without looking into the matter; there is nothing to stop any of those parents from researching home education and finding out that it is perfectly legal. It only takes a few minutes on the Internet to discover the facts.
We all of us believe things about the law which are not true. This is usually because we are too lazy to look into the business and prefer to rely upon other people's ignorant and ill-informed opinions. That's fine; I do it all the time myself. There is no point complaining about this though and objecting that this or that council website has information on it which is inconsistent with the true legal position. The onus is on individuals to delve deeper into the question themselves and find out the truth. Would I really be justified now in launching a campaign to get our local authority to change all their advice to riders and try to make them explain that there is no legal duty for riders to wear hats? Why would I do something so mischievous? I am glad that people believe this, it protects them. I almost regret having drawn attention to this, because I dare say that some of those fighting with Suffolk and Birmingham over their advice on home education, will now extend their campaign and insist that these councils also change what their are currently telling riders!
I am not sure I agree with this. I only knew about home education because I knew people who did it when I was younger. I had to invest heaps of energy trying to find out how to contact EO which was eventually found in an independant schools book (I was trying to get sent to an independant school before I decided I wanted HE. It was not available for me to see easily and I didn't know what the law was surrounding HE.
ReplyDeleteI dont think people are lazy. After all how can someone look into the law if they dont know that it isn't law? People really don't know they have an option and unless you google home education you won't find out about it, or rarely, you will stumble inadvertantly on it.
All the time we face questions like, "is that legal?" "can you do that?" and other such things. People aren't asking this because they are lazy, or deliberately ignorant - they simply don't know there is anything in law that gives them this option.
'People aren't asking this because they are lazy, or deliberately ignorant - they simply don't know there is anything in law that gives them this option.'
ReplyDeleteAh C, have you not heard the old maxim, 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'? Actually, there is a presumption under the law that we all know every law. If I am interested in something, whether it is educating my child, riding or anything else; the onus is upon me to find out about it. Perhaps I was a little harsh, maybe other people are not as lazy as me. I always work on the assumption that if I don't know something, then this is my fault and I should have taken the trouble to find out. There is so much information in the world and it is up to us to take the bits we want and feel that we shall need.
Simon said... Ah C, have you not heard the old maxim, 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'? Actually, there is a presumption under the law that we all know every law. If I am interested in something, whether it is educating my child, riding or anything else; the onus is upon me to find out about it.
ReplyDeleteYou are right of course, people are expected to know the law. But I ask again. How does one question the law when they don't know there is an option. If I'd never heard of HE, or alternative education, or anything like that how would I know to look into it to see if there was a different option.
All of this is complicated because if I am not proactive enough to look up education law, am I then failing my child? I would say no because I cant do differently because I dont know differently. But maybe you would say yes I am a rubbish parent for not knowing my rights?
In society, school is the expected, 'normal' route and parents dont know to question whether there is anything different available to them. And I still dont see this as their fault.
'In society, school is the expected, 'normal' route and parents dont know to question whether there is anything different available to them. And I still dont see this as their fault.'
ReplyDeleteAs in the example I gave, wearing a riding hat is the normal thing to do and anybody refusing to do so is regarded as being a crank who is breaking the law. There are many similar situations; sending you kids to school is just one of these. Perhaps I was wrong to say that i saw it as my 'fault' that I did not know the law. Perhaps 'responsibility' would be a better word. Nevertheless, whether riding, educating our children or building a home extension; it is up to us to check out the law for ourselves. Relying upon council websites and what our neighbours say about things will often lead us up the garden path!
Ok, I concede your point. Yes it would be my fault I didnt know.
ReplyDeleteHowever, how can I know if I dont know I have this option? For years you didnt know the law regarding riding hats, What prompted you to find out the law? Something would have to cause you to research the law and for most people there is no real need or reason to do differently.
Even those whose children may be struggling in school would hear about help organisations like parent partnership etc more than they'd hear "oh have you heard about home education?"
I think there are 2 different issues here- most parents chose school because it is the visible, popular norm and matches their own past experience and cultural expectations. Yes, home education exists and it is possible to find out about it, but particlarly whilst we are living in a society that expects both parents to return to work at some stage, it isn't likely to be a consideration for many.
ReplyDeleteThe issues of LA websites and so on is slightly different. Although part of me feels "well, they would say that" - when it comes to policies which imply that home visits are, for example, the only option, I do think that LAs have a duty to get their policies legally accurate, even though I don't think we can expect them to actually advertise HE as a choice on their "registration for school" type forms. On the other hand all home educators know that LAs would like more control over HE, because the law is liberal in their eyes and therefore difficult to manage, so I do think that we shouldn't be continually surprised by inaccuracies, or even outraged by them. There is always a need for good local positive pressure to make LAs get it right - but nationwide campaigns towards any one LA may not only be ineffective but also increase pressure from the LAs on central Govt to get more powers..
In addition to the points that have been made above I also think society propogates very effectively the idea that in order to learn something academically, one must go to a person who has formal training proved by some kind of certification from a university etc. The idea that anyone without such training should even think about attempting to 'teach' a child is more or less considered strange or outright preposterous. In addition to 'is that legal' I often get asked if I am a teacher or do I have some other formal training involving education. When I say no, the reactions range from incredulity, to pity (for my children), to in some cases almost anger - rarely curiousity. It suprises me how often I come across parents who I consider more educationally, socially and economically advantaged than myself who express doubt about their ability to HE even if a situation entailed that they had to. Some of these people have children who are not being served well by the school system, but they nevertheless invest huge effort in keeping their unhappy child there.
ReplyDeleteI think the authorities, teachers and society have very effectively dis-empowered parents. The idea is that if you are a decent parent you will hunt around for the best school possible. The idea of doing it themselves would not occur to most people. Why would it? They would not in most cases consider that option (were they even to think of it) to be the best they could do for their children (and of course it wouldn't be for everyone, but that's a slightly different point) they're more likely to think HE would be doing their child a disservice.
That is why I disagree when you say it is laziness on a parents' part if they do not bother to check the law about whether school is compulsory or not. Societal pressure is very strong. IMO it would be lazy if one thought 'I wonder whether I actually have to send little Jimmy to school' but then never bothered to research it, but it is not laziness if the option of not sending little J to school does not even occur to one; does not even enter one's mind as a possibility, legitimate or otherwise, in the first place.
I do agree though, that perhaps LAs shouldn't necessarily advertise HE as an option due to the wrong people jumping on the bandwagon so to speak.
Samantha wrote... I do agree though, that perhaps LAs shouldn't necessarily advertise HE as an option due to the wrong people jumping on the bandwagon so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very good point too. Whilst HE should be a valid option to everyone who needs and wants it, I have seen some families start HE when its clear that what they really need is parenting support.
If it become public knowledge that HE is an option, everyone who cant be bothered to get up in the morning, who doesnt want to deal with teachers, who hasnt read with their child, and who would rather have their child at home as a mini-helper, will be jumping on the bandwagon.
It is of course quite possible that I am simply a lazy person who has projected his own failings onto others! If so, I apologise. I always assume that the onus is upon me to ferret out information and I take it for granted that other people will probably be ill-informed or try to mislead me, whether intentionally or otherwise. Working from such a perspective means that any gaps in my knowledge about the law or anything else are a result of my own indolence. This may not necessarily be the way others think, of course.
ReplyDeleteSomeone said
ReplyDelete"If it become public knowledge that HE is an option, everyone who cant be bothered to get up in the morning, who doesnt want to deal with teachers, who hasnt read with their child, and who would rather have their child at home as a mini-helper, will be jumping on the bandwagon."
Well, I don't really see it like that; I just think that we shouldn't expect LAs to promote HE, any more than we would expect them to promote the local private schools. They "run" state schools, so it may be reasonable to promote their own establishments and so on, but they ought to get the facts correct when it comes to the webpages which deal with their obligations towards home educators.
Are you sure the authorities/government lie about helmet wearing for adults? I've searched and every time the helmet law is mentioned, they specify that either say children or under 14 are required to wear a helmet. I've not found one occasion where this has been fudged. For instance, the DirectGov web site states:
ReplyDelete"Horse riders
49
Safety equipment. Children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet which complies with the Regulations. It MUST be fastened securely. Other riders should also follow these requirements.".
' Other riders should also follow these requirements.".'
ReplyDeleteJust as with some of the advice about home education, such as advising that parents should follow a 'broad and balanced curriculum', the fact that a government website tells people that they 'should' do something, is thought by many to have the force of law. You will observe that it is said that children 'MUST' do this and other riders 'should'. It is not made clear that one is a legal requirement and the other merely a recommendation. Again, this is precisely similar to the advice about home education given on some local authority websites.
To give a common example. Some local authority websites tell parents that they 'should' notify the authority if they deregister a child from school. Some parents interpret this to mean that they 'must' do it; that it is a legal requirement. Whenever we are told that we 'should' or 'must' do something, it is generally worth checking up on the exact legal position. If we fail to do this, we have only ourselves to blame if we end up being bossed around by men and women from the council!
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"You will observe that it is said that children 'MUST' do this and other riders 'should'. It is not made clear that one is a legal requirement and the other merely a recommendation."
On the contrary, the advisory nature of the second phrase is made clear by this wording. The way the final sentence so closely follows a clear statement of the law that 'must' be followed emphasises the use of the word 'should' in the following sentence and the use of capitals helps ensure the difference is noticed.
Simon wrote,
"Some parents interpret this to mean that they 'must' do it; that it is a legal requirement. Whenever we are told that we 'should' or 'must' do something, it is generally worth checking up on the exact legal position."
In my experience 'must' means it's the law and 'should' means it isn't and I think this difference is easy to spot in the horse riding example. I doubt many people reading it would conclude that the law requires adults to wear hats. It's much less easy to spot where it doesn't follow a clear statement of the law as is often the case with HE information.
'On the contrary, the advisory nature of the second phrase is made clear by this wording. The way the final sentence so closely follows a clear statement of the law that 'must' be followed emphasises the use of the word 'should' in the following sentence and the use of capitals helps ensure the difference is noticed.'
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing here that you have not been following the complaints about local authority websites which fail to make the law on home edcuation clear to parents. It was in this context that I mentioned all this. I agree that the fault is entirely in those who misread such things and I suppose that you would say the same of parents who are similarly confused by the wording on things like home education. There is currently a lot of fuss going on about authorities such as Suffolk and Birmingham and I agree with you completely; it is for those reading such things to be a bit more careful in distinguishing between the councils' opinions and wishes and the actual law.
Well I wrote a message disagreeing with your last comment with reasons, but Blogger doesn't seem to like it. Blogger seems to be deleting more comments than it's letting through these days - it's becoming too much like hard work to respond!
ReplyDeleteBlogger is very particular about the security settings on your browser. It appears to require 3rd-party cookies to be enabled, for one thing. I find that with them disabled (a good security feature), I can type a comment and it promptly disappears without trace when I attempt to post it.
ReplyDeleteI don't change my settings though, and sometimes posts are fine, other times not.
ReplyDeleteMUST
ReplyDeleteThis word means that the definition is an absolute requirement.
MUST NOT
This phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition.
SHOULD
This word means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
SHOULD NOT
This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behaviour is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behaviour described with this label.
MAY
This word means that an item is truly optional.
Thanks anonymous at 2:37. That sounds right and explains my previously hazy dislike of the use of 'should' as LAs so often use it with regard to HE. It implies a value judgement being made when we make the opposite choice.
ReplyDelete