We live in a representative democracy. This means that we elect people democratically, whose job is then to represent us in the legislature. This is not direct democracy; we do not gather in the market place to vote on whether we should build a new fire station or dig another well. Having elected our representatives, they look after our interests for us until the next election. Very rarely, we are given the chance to offer an opinion directly on something which our representatives propose to do. I remember voting on one such occasion in 1975 and again last week. We do not make a habit of these referenda, because ultimately they harm the democratic process.
I have watched with fascination the events surrounding the amendment of the Pupils Registration Regulations. Let us just remind ourselves about this. A pupil deregistered by his parents would have been left on the school roll for twenty days. This would have had no practical effect upon home education whatsoever. Nevertheless, a small number of diehard reactionaries, people opposed to any change at all in any law relating to anything remotely connected to home education, were against this minor change in the regulations.
I say a small minority; this is understating the case dramatically. Home educated children are perhaps 1% of the general population. Of this 1%, an estimated one hundred an fifty thousand home educated children, I doubt if the parents of more than a few hundred objected to this change in the regulations. Opposition was coordinated through one or two Internet lists. Let us assume that a third of those belonging to the list which made the most fuss, actually contacted MPs and so on. That would be around five hundred people. I don't believe for a moment it was that many, but let's go with that figure for a moment. Home educators are less than 1% of the population and a fraction of 1% of them opposed the new regulation. That is to say a fraction of 1% of the original 1% have managed to derail a piece of legislation. There is no suggestion that any home educators but the members of these lists were involved here. In other words, maybe 99.6 % of home educators have said nothing on the subject.
Once again, an elected government is caving in cravenly to the demands of a small and democratically unrepresentative, special interest group. It is disgraceful.
We do not back off from making new laws about gun ownership because 0.3% of gun owners complain. Nor do we revise the law on burglary because thieves are not happy with it. What we see happening with home education is a vociferous minority believing, quite rightly, that if they shout loudly enough they can stop anybody looking too closely at what they are doing and trying to find ways of protecting the rights of the children involved. In other words, make enough fuss and they will be able to get anybody with concerns to back off.
I think they changed their mind because of the Ibiza loophole. It drives a coach and horses through the truancy rules.
ReplyDelete'Dave H said...
ReplyDeleteI think they changed their mind because of the Ibiza loophole. It drives a coach and horses through the truancy rules.'
Which was itself devised on an Internet list and deliberately put forward to sabotage the change in the regulations. This was not done because any of the home educating parents on the list were at all bothered about school pupils taking holidays during term time, but as a cynical and carefully calculated ploy.
It was an interesting exercise and since theoreticially it may not have affected home educators at all, even more fascinating that it was sunk. Two thoughts come to me - even some
ReplyDelete"influential" HEers think this hasn't gone away for good, and the second thing is the announcement that Nick Gibb is going to look at all the complaints against LAs. Since some of the LAs involved (eg Sheffield) have actually already been supported by Nick Gibb in the original complaint, I am not sure what is different now. In addition (and perhaps I am just a born worrier) - if the Govt realise the unworkable nature of the law as far as LAs see it, won't there be more attempts to change the law? - and in which direction??
Much is being made of Graham Stuart having forced an admission from Gibb, but actually all that was said was what Gibb had already said in a letter which I published here; they are going to look at this again. This could mean a nineteen day period, rather than a twenty day one.
ReplyDeleteDave says -think they changed their mind because of the Ibiza loophole. It drives a coach and horses through the truancy rules. He also could not see what the rush was to bring in this idea of the 20 day rule.
ReplyDeleteyes you are right about this our M.P Mr Hinds is worried about parents using the Ibiza loophole to escape any truancy laws.
Webb says-This was not done because any of the home educating parents on the list were at all bothered about school pupils taking holidays during term time, but as a cynical and carefully calculated ploy.
yup your quite right and it worked we at the very least slowed it down and may have put a hole in the boat of N Gibb! you got ask why the Education department failed to see the Ibiza loophole? it took a bunch of home educators to spot it LOL
Aargh! long post swallowed by Blogger. The short version is:
ReplyDeleteGS's new clause merely postpones the rule until LAs are given guidance on how they should behave (and preferably make policies and procedures in line with the law).
GS introduced the clause after doing research into the EHEers claims about what LAs are doing. There is no outcry from EHEers that they want to be able to put their children back into school within a month. There may be a problem with people to whom the LA or school has misrepresented the nature of EHE (to off-roll the child). This problem requires the DfE to get its house in order, not to impose regulations that address a symptom.
I do not see this as undermining democracy - it's not as if there were many people wanting this change and a few people stopped it. The government identified a problem and came up with a (not-very-good) solution. Vigilant members of the public drew the attention of an MP to its shortcomings. He decided they had a good case and made representation to the minister. A new clause affecting the implementation of the change was accepted by the minister.
Now we need to watch out for the new guidelines that DfE are going to issue to LAs.
I'm still completely nonplussed by your model of democracy, Simon.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting that once a government is elected we have a duty to let them get on with it regardless until the next election when we have the opportunity to vote for another lot?
That's not democracy being undermined, that's democracy working beautifully.
ReplyDelete~Home educators inform the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education as to their views. (All had the opportunity to do this, including yourself.)
~ GS makes up his mind on the issues, given all the evidence at his disposal and then
~ GS puts the argument to Nick Gibb who ended up agreeing with him. That's how our democracy works.
Simon said: "Which was itself devised on an Internet list and deliberately put forward to sabotage the change in the regulations."
ReplyDeleteNot true. I first used that in an email to my MP back in July 2009. I might even have included it in a submission to the CSF Select Committee later that year.
If they perceive a problem with parents changing their minds after deregistration then they should fix it by making sure that parents know what to expect before deregistering so they go into it fully aware of what to expect. If the problem is with off-rolling then they need to sort out the schools that are encouraging it.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"We live in a representative democracy. This means that we elect people democratically, whose job is then to represent us in the legislature. This is not direct democracy; we do not gather in the market place to vote on whether we should build a new fire station or dig another well. Having elected our representatives, they look after our interests for us until the next election."
But part of the democratic process in the UK involves debate and refinement of laws/ideas in the House (in theory anyway, the whips tend to limit this aspect, especially when the Government has a large majority). What's wrong with MPs gaining information about the issues from those directly involved in order to inform their debate? MPs cannot be expected to be all knowing, of course they need information from people outside Parliament.
ho ho maybe these issues should be decided by referendum by the entire population- otherwise how else would any governent make decision without the input of the special interest groups?
ReplyDeleteWhat alternative did you see working Simon?
"ho ho maybe these issues should be decided by referendum by the entire population- otherwise how else would any governent make decision without the input of the special interest groups?"
ReplyDeleteSo you do think MPs are all knowing Gods? Why then do you think they bother with public consultations, etc? Why do they consult special interest groups (unless they happen to think a change is uncontroversial)? Obviously the Government views things differently to you.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"What we see happening with home education is a vociferous minority believing, quite rightly, that if they shout loudly enough they can stop anybody looking too closely at what they are doing and trying to find ways of protecting the rights of the children involved."
So do you think all children should be medically examined annually for sexual abuse? I mean, this is a way to protect the rights of children, so presumable you think it would be a good idea? If not, why not?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I say a small minority; this is understating the case dramatically. Home educated children are perhaps 1% of the general population. Of this 1%, an estimated one hundred an fifty thousand home educated children, I doubt if the parents of more than a few hundred objected to this change in the regulations."
How many children and families could potentially benefit from this change compared to the number that could be adversely affected(and there's no guarantee it would benefit to those that need help)? Everyone that de-registers could potentially be adversely affected by this change if LAs put even more pressure than they already do on parents to change their minds during the 20 day window. Only a tiny minority out of the minority that de-register can potentially benefit; those that were tricked into de-registering. We are back to the more harm than good argument. If there are alternative ways to solve this small problem that avoids risk of harm to uninvolved families (the majority of those who de-register), wouldn't it be a better solution?
As you say, we are talking about a tiny number of children (those tricked into de-registering). Probably fewer than the minority you claim argued against the change. If adjudicating panels can force schools to accept children that were wrongly denied a school place, why could the same panels not do the same for children whose family has been tricked into de-registering? Then they wouldn't need to slap a 20 day limit on the issue giving parents more time to realise what has happened and take steps to appeal - there would be more opportunity for the wrong to be righted.
Simon wrote
ReplyDelete"We do not back off from making new laws about gun ownership because 0.3% of gun owners complain. Nor do we revise the law on burglary because thieves are not happy with it."
What's that got to do with home eduation? Are you seriously suggesting that home education is somehow similar to gun ownership, or home educating parents to burglars?
Reading on:
"What we see happening with home education is a vociferous minority believing, quite rightly, that if they shout loudly enough they can stop anybody looking too closely at what they are doing and trying to find ways of protecting the rights of the children involved."
Ah. You appear to believe that the people who objected to the 20-day rule, did so because they are not giving their children the education which is their right, and they wish to conceal this from the Local Authorities.
"Ah. You appear to believe that the people who objected to the 20-day rule, did so because they are not giving their children the education which is their right, and they wish to conceal this from the Local Authorities."
ReplyDeleteYes, that does appear to be his reasoning. And this from someone who claims to deplore sloppy thinking...
'Ah. You appear to believe that the people who objected to the 20-day rule, did so because they are not giving their children the education which is their right, and they wish to conceal this from the Local Authorities.'
ReplyDeleteNothing of the sort. I have no information about what sort of education, if any, these people are providing for their children and I should not wish to speculate about it. I believe their opposition is because they are reactionaries who are opposed to changes in the law on principle.
'"We do not back off from making new laws about gun ownership because 0.3% of gun owners complain. Nor do we revise the law on burglary because thieves are not happy with it."
ReplyDeleteWhat's that got to do with home eduation? Are you seriously suggesting that home education is somehow similar to gun ownership, or home educating parents to burglars?'
No, I am suggesting that home educators are a tiny, special interest group about whom our legislators from time to time try and pass laws.
"No, I am suggesting that home educators are a tiny, special interest group about whom our legislators from time to time try and pass laws. "
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed how much time and effort is involved in passing laws related to home education? MPs always say they wish their constituents would engage more with the process, and I believe that home educators as a group are more likely to do so. We are prepared to stand up and argue our case, unlike many other groups. We certainly took up a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time for the CSF Bill.
I think we made significant progress yesterday, with the acknowledgement that some LAs are operating a dodgy manner. Many misgivings in the HE community are based on not trusting LAs and wanting to restrict their powers for fear of them being abused, so it appears that central government may be ready to look at fixing the cause of this.
Webb: "No, I am suggesting that home educators are a tiny, special interest group"
ReplyDeleteah, just like the Tollpuddle Martyrs, yes Webb, lets round up all of the deviant misfit crank home educators and expel them all to Australia. Then the world will be pleasant again and Webb be bereft of anyone to invent lies about and besmirch, maybe?
And this from a bigoted person that deludes himself about having written an 'academic' work.
Dave M
"No, I am suggesting that home educators are a tiny, special interest group about whom our legislators from time to time try and pass laws. "
ReplyDeleteThat's the first time I've seen burglars described as a special interest group.
"I have no information about what sort of education, if any, these people are providing for their children and I should not wish to speculate about it."
And yet you seem to be speculating that "these people" have something to hide, and that their children are in need of protection by the Local Authorities.
I realise that Blogger ate all the comments the other day, but just wanted to reiterate:
ReplyDeleteI think this demonstrates democracy working beautifully.
I agree. The debate and refinement of ideas and legislation is part of democracy and MPs need information in order to debate. They are not all knowing Gods, so they rely on other people, both in and outside the government/civil service to give them the information that enables debate.
ReplyDeleteI'll also repeat my suggestion that the problem of forced de-registration could be tackled with use of the appeal panel used for incorrect refusal of school place decisions. This panel can force a school to give a place to a pupil even if the class is officially full if the school has wrongly (according to set rules) failed to offer a place to a child. If parent's could appeal to this panel when they realise the school has lied to them in order to force them to give up their child's school place, there would be no need for a 20 day time limit, giving more opportunity for wrongs to be righted. Can anyone see a problem with this approach?
ReplyDelete