You just know that I am at a loose end when I start browsing through the Home Education UK site for want of anything better to do! I did not actually get very far, because on the very first page there was an enormous, glaring and fundamental mistake. No wonder people get muddled up about home education if they take their information from sites like this. It is claimed that;
Even though the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right
As my daughter would say, WTF? Where does the law in this country even mention a 'right to home educate', let alone describe it as a 'parental right'? What on earth is going on here, that one of the major websites on home education in this country can mislead people so shamelessly? Can anybody shed light upon this piece of misinformation? I mean, really!
To me the only right is that children should receive an education either by attendance at school or otherwise. The 'otherwise' covers home education, use of private tutors and any other method you can think of.
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck?
ReplyDeleteI thought you disliked swearing on your blog Simon.
Darren
Whats to shed light on?
ReplyDeleteA person made a mistake, it happens.
If LA's are to be allowed to do it and we home educators shouldnt make such a fuss (I believe that was the general gist of your posts this week), then why should a HEer not be allowed to make a mistake too.
Or are we just out to stir up some trouble on an otherwise pleasant sunny day?
The law lays the duty to provide a suitable education on parents, but it also gives them the right to choose how this is carried out - 'at school or otherwise'. How does this not give parents the right to home educate? If something isn't expressly banned by a law, don't we have the 'right' to do it?
ReplyDeleteOr is it your view that we only have the 'right' to do anything if it is defined particularly in law? So do you have the right to mow your lawn, ride a horse in your own field, hoover our carpet? Or do you not have these rights because they have not been defined in a law and given to you by those in authority?
ReplyDelete'What the fuck?
ReplyDeleteI thought you disliked swearing on your blog Simon.
Darren '
I don't object to swearing; I object to personal abuse.
'The law lays the duty to provide a suitable education on parents, but it also gives them the right to choose how this is carried out - 'at school or otherwise'.'
ReplyDeleteThis is not a right; it is a duty. These are different things.
"This is not a right; it is a duty. These are different things."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I said. The provision of a suitable education is a duty. The parent has the right to decide how they provide the suitable education.
'This is not a right; it is a duty. These are different things. '
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I hope you made this point clear to G Badman, since he didn't get it either.
What's so difficult to understand? We have a duty to ensure a suitable education is provided; we have a right to decide how this is done (i.e. state school, private school, home education, governess, boarding school, school in another country...).
ReplyDelete'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat's so difficult to understand? We have a duty to ensure a suitable education is provided; we have a right to decide how this is done (i.e. state school, private school, home education, governess, boarding school, school in another country...).'
It's because there's a difference between a right and a liberty. A right is something enshrined in law; a liberty is something you can do as a consequence of being a living human being. In order to exercise a duty, one has to have the liberty to exercise that duty.
Some parents, during the Badman review, argued that they had a 'right' to home educate. Badman, correctly pointed out that they didn't. But he then framed the whole debate in terms of 'rights', which, in English law, it isn't. It's a duty, and the liberty to exercise one's judgment in the execution of that duty is implicit.
The state has a duty to safeguard the child's legal right to an education - and that's where the problems start because the assumptions underpinning human rights legislation aren't the same ones that underpin UK law.
"A right is something enshrined in law; a liberty is something you can do as a consequence of being a living human being."
ReplyDeleteWho has decided that this is what a right is? Where does it say that we are bound to this interpretation of rights? I know Wikipedia is not the be all and end all, but it states:
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."
What evidence do you have to support your interpretation of 'rights' over this one?
Hang on a second, I thought parents got a big fine for their kids staying off school. But if home schooling is a parental right, then that makes no sense.
ReplyDelete'Hang on a second, I thought parents got a big fine for their kids staying off school. But if home schooling is a parental right, then that makes no sense.'
ReplyDeleteYou can be fined if your child is a registered pupil at a school and you fail to ensure that he attends regularly. You can however deregister the child and educate him at home.
"It's because there's a difference between a right and a liberty. A right is something enshrined in law; a liberty is something you can do as a consequence of being a living human being."
ReplyDeleteI'd rather they be viewed as rights. Liberties sound much easier for governments to remove than rights. Nothing you've said so far has convinced me that your definition of rights is the right one.