Sunday 16 September 2012
Do parents in this country have a right to educate their children at home?
The debate about the Welsh proposals to regulate home education have inevitably brought forth the usual talk of a parental ’right’ to home educate. This is so at odds with the actual state of affairs in England and Wales that I feel it is time once more to shoot down this absurd notion.
We have various rights in this country; for example the right to a fair trial. We are the passive recipients of this right no matter who or what we are. We can be clever or stupid, deaf or blind, confined to a wheelchair or mentally ill, foreign or British; we all have a right, guaranteed by law, to receive a fair trial. The same situation applies to children and education. They have a right, guaranteed under law, to a full-time education. This is irrespective of whether they are clever or stupid, disabled, foreign or anything else; it is a right they all enjoy between the ages of five and sixteen.
Rights are enjoyed by all, but this is not the case with duties. These often entail some activity on the part of those upon whom they are imposed. Take sitting as a juror. This is not a right but a duty. If a potential juror were to be unable to undertake the duty, then he would not be called upon to perform it. Suppose somebody called for jury service were to be deaf, blind, unable to speak and also suffering from a psychosis. Few of us would want such a person to sit in judgement upon us. A person of this sort would not be allowed to undertake the duty of jury service. This is because sitting on a jury is a duty and not a right. Because it entails an activity, it is quite reasonable to enquire whether or not the person concerned is capable of fulfilling the duty. Of course, being deaf, blind, unable to speak and being also mentally ill would not affect somebody’s right to a fair trial. This is the difference between a right and a duty.
Wherever there is a right, there are corresponding duties. In other words, if we have a right to a fair trial, then others have a duty to make sure that we get it. If I have a right to walk down the street, then that right must be protected and others have a duty not to impede me as I stroll down the high road. Rights and duties again, you see; two very different things.
Now if children in this country have a right to an efficient, full-time education, then others must have a duty to see that they get it. The people who have this duty are usually the parents. They have a duty, which means that they must take active steps to ensure that the child’s rights are granted to it. Some undertake this duty by registering the child at school, others prefer to provide the education themselves. They are fulfilling a duty by doing this, not exercising a right.
Since, just as in the case of the disabled juror at whom we looked above, undertaking the duty of providing the child with an education is an active thing, something which parents do, not something to which they are entitled, it is perfectly reasonable that society check that they are in fact capable of carrying out this duty. We would not wish to impose a duty upon somebody who was not up to the job, would we? So it is that society, in the form of local authorities, might wish to reassure themselves that parents are able to perform what is a very arduous duty. Providing a full-time education for a child should not be lightly undertaken and our common sense tells us that just as in the case of the juror who could not be expected to fulfil his duty during a trial, so too will there be parents who are not really up to the job of providing an education for their child. That there should be a presumption that all parents are able to fulfil their duty in this way, would be ridiculous. Many would clearly not be able to do so.
All that is being proposed in Wales is that society enquire a little into the extent to which individual parents are able personally to provide their children with an education, rather than fulfilling their duty towards their child by handing the job over to trained professionals. This has nothing at all to do with the ’rights’ of the parents; they have none in this case. It is concerned solely and simply with protecting the right of the child to a suitable education. In other words, the aim will be to ensure that those charged with the duty of causing the child to receive an education, that is to say the parents, are in fact discharging this duty.
Any debate about the Welsh proposals which makes any mention whatsoever of the ’rights’ of parents has already taken a wrong turn. The only debate about the matter should be whether or not it is being claimed that all parents are actually capable of undertaking this duty, that of educating their children themselves at home. If we agree that some are not, and most of us would concede this, then the question arises as to the extent to which society is entitled to make enquiries and take action to safeguard the rights of children.
Labels:
duties,
home education,
monitoring,
rights,
Wales,
Wesh Assembly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whilst I agree that parents have duty to provide an education, they currently have the right to decide how to fulfil that duty, either by sending their children to school or otherwise. This right has been written into successive education acts as discussed under your 'Statute and case law' article. It is clear from Hansard that parents were supposed to have this right to choose where and how education takes place, including education at home by parents.
ReplyDeleteAs to the need to check that the parent is fulfilling their duties. There are many examples of legally required duties that are not routinely monitored on a regular basis. For example, various laws specify how children of varying ages and sizes travel in cars, yet we are not required to have an annual inspection of how our children travel in our vehicles along with specification checks of the various car seats and bumper seats used. As with education, it's a case of the police taking action if they notice that the law does not appear to be being followed, either by noticing a problem on the road, or possibly through reports by concerned neighbours, friends or family. Likewise, parents commit a criminal offence if they neglect their child, but this again is not routinely monitored.
New Zealand brought in compulsory visits but found that the same number of problem cases were detected, relating either to education or other neglect or abuse. They found that, even without regular checks, problems were brought to their attention via other routes. This certainly appears to be the case in this country with regards to safeguarding concerns. In all of the serious case reviews I've read, the family were already known to authorities. The evidence suggests that attention needs to be applied to how services react when a potential problem is identified rather than to the detection of such cases, which doesn't appear to be a major issue.
the people you want to make enquirers LA officers are not trusted by many home educators and in many cases are part of the problem as to why they child is being home educated.LA officers Hate home education and want to wipe it out.you want the very same people who hate home education to monitor it?It never work as these LA officers/ councils could not organizer a bun fight at a bakery!
ReplyDelete'Whilst I agree that parents have duty to provide an education, they currently have the right to decide how to fulfil that duty, either by sending their children to school or otherwise.'
ReplyDeleteChoosing how to discharge a duty is not at all the same thing as exercising a right. As I point out above, performing a duty requires a certain ability on the part of the person, whereas rights are independent of the capacity of the person who benefits from them.
'There are many examples of legally required duties that are not routinely monitored on a regular basis. For example, various laws specify how children of varying ages and sizes travel in cars, yet we are not required to have an annual inspection of how our children travel in our vehicles along with specification checks of the various car seats and bumper seats used.'
The main difference being of course that journeys by car are an occasional and optional activity, whereas the right to an education lasts uninteruptedly for eleven years.
'New Zealand brought in compulsory visits but found that the same number of problem cases were detected, relating either to education or other neglect or abuse'
There is some debate as to how effective visits to home educating families were in New Zealand, but none at all about the need for home educators to be registered and known to the authorities.
'LA officers Hate home education and want to wipe it out.'
ReplyDeleteI have worked closely over the years with a number of local authorities. I have never encountered a local authority officer who wished to put a stop to home education. The aim is to monitor, not suppress it.
i know of at least 3 LA officers who hate home education and wish to use the excuse of monitoring home education to wipe it out on there patch.
Delete'I have worked closely over the years with a number of local authorities. I have never encountered a local authority officer who wished to put a stop to home education. The aim is to monitor, not suppress it.'
DeleteReally? I have met some. They seem to want to monitor it *so that* they can suppress it.
'There are many examples of legally required duties that are not routinely monitored on a regular basis. For example, various laws specify how children of varying ages and sizes travel in cars, yet we are not required to have an annual inspection of how our children travel in our vehicles along with specification checks of the various car seats and bumper seats used.'
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can make out, you seem to be saying this. There are perhaps sixty thousand parents of home educated children in this country. You are saying that we should assume that every one of those people is perfectly capable of delivering an efficient education to their children, of at least as high a quality as that which they would receive in a school. This is an unlikely proposition.
The reason that we pay more attention to this matter than we do to that of buckling a child into a safety seat is that it is fair to assume that any adult capable of driving a car is also capable of fitting and using a safety seat. It requires no great leap of the imagination to believe this and so we assume that it is being done. To assume that every parent in the country is able to provide as good an education as that delivered by schools is rather less likely. It is not a question of a few seconds spent securing a child into a safety seat once or twice a day, but rather years of very concentrated and highly skilled work. I think it makes sense to check that a parent is willing and able to do this.
I would think the risk of death would outweight the relative difference in time spend carrying out each activity, especially as a poor education can be remidied later. You suggest that it is assumed that any adult capable of driving a car is also capable of fitting a safety seat, yet two-thirds of car seats are incorrectly fitted.
DeleteApologies for the spelling errors!
Delete"As far as I can make out, you seem to be saying this. There are perhaps sixty thousand parents of home educated children in this country. You are saying that we should assume that every one of those people is perfectly capable of delivering an efficient education to their children, of at least as high a quality as that which they would receive in a school. This is an unlikely proposition."
DeleteI agree that this is unlikely, and school attendance orders are issued for exactly this reason. The current system allows for this, the state acting as parent of last resort when necessary, just as they do in cases of neglect. They discovered in New Zealand that annual visits to all homeschoolers did not find more failing homeschoolers than the previous system where reports from concerned members of the public resulted in targeted visits.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Choosing how to discharge a duty is not at all the same thing as exercising a right. As I point out above, performing a duty requires a certain ability on the part of the person, whereas rights are independent of the capacity of the person who benefits from them."
Not really. People have the right to freedom of movement. Except when they are declared incapable and are sectioned, for instance. Daniel Monk, senior lecturer in law at Birkbeck, states that parents have a duty to provide an education and a right to choose how to fulfil the duty.
Simon wrote,
"The main difference being of course that journeys by car are an occasional and optional activity, whereas the right to an education lasts uninteruptedly for eleven years."
Parents have a duty to maintain a child. This has been written into law since the Poor Relief Act 1598. Other legislation has established that a parent or other person, legally liable to maintain a child or young person, must provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, must take steps to procure it. Section 78(6) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 states:
"(a) a man shall be liable to maintain his wife and any children of whom he is the father;
(b) a woman shall be liable to maintain her husband and any children of whom she is the mother."
Again, this is not compulsorily monitored routinely.
Simon wrote,
"There is some debate as to how effective visits to home educating families were in New Zealand, but none at all about the need for home educators to be registered and known to the authorities."
Of what practical use is the simple holding of a list of names and addresses with regards to ensuring provision of a suitable education? And in any case, this is not what is being proposed in Wales.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"To assume that every parent in the country is able to provide as good an education as that delivered by schools is rather less likely. It is not a question of a few seconds spent securing a child into a safety seat once or twice a day, but rather years of very concentrated and highly skilled work. I think it makes sense to check that a parent is willing and able to do this."
Yet, amazingly, this appeared to be largely the case in New Zealand. Those that did have problems were brought to the attention of the authorities without the need to visit and monitor, just as abuse and neglect cases are notified to the authorities in the UK, and presumably also educational neglect - we have all heard about HE families being reported by neighbours and family.
Once a family has been brought to the local authorities attention they have sufficient powers to ensure a suitable education is being provided. The only concern is that cases are slipping through the net, but there is no evidence that this is the case here and New Zealand's experience supports the idea that this does not generally happen - community monitoring works. Far better that the money be spend on reacting appropriately to concerns when they are raised instead of increasing the size of the haystack.
'but there is no evidence that this is the case here and New Zealand's experience supports the idea that this does not generally happen - community monitoring works. Far better that the money be spend on reacting appropriately to concerns when they are raised instead of increasing the size of the haystack.'
ReplyDeleteYou would think that New Zealand would be planning to abandon the whole idea of applying for exemptions. This has not happened, because common snesne has prevailed. You say, or seem to be saying that that the educational outcomes for children in New Zealand who have been edcuated at home by their parents are comparable with those taught at school. I am surprised, but open minded, about this. Do you have any statistics?
The authorities decided to end routine monitoring specifically because they found that the same number of families who were failing to provide an equivalent education were discoverd both before and after monitoring was introduced. They stated that this figure was 5%.
DeleteOne reason for maintaining the register is so that parents can confirm they are still homeschooling and eligible for the education grant.
Delete"The amounts are: $743 for the first child, $632 for the second, $521 for the third, and $372 for each one after that. They pay half these amounts into your bank account in June and again in December. There are no accounting or curriculum requirements of any kind apart from signing the declaration."
http://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/an-outline-of-how-home-education-works-in-new-zealand/
'The authorities decided to end routine monitoring specifically because they found that the same number of families who were failing to provide an equivalent education were discoverd both before and after monitoring was introduced. They stated that this figure was 5%.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I know this. I was wondering about the qualifications taken by home edcauted children there, as they compare with those at school.
This was based on the monitoring of education provision while the children were being educated, not after, just as has been suggested for Wales. They found that 95% of homeschooling families were providing an education equivalent to that provided in schools. The 5% that were not providing an equivalent education were discovered without wasting money on the routine monitoring of all home educators.
Delete'One reason for maintaining the register is so that parents can confirm they are still homeschooling and eligible for the education grant.
ReplyDelete"The amounts are: $743 for the first child, $632 for the second, $521 for the third, and $372 for each one after that. They pay half these amounts into your bank account in June and again in December. There are no accounting or curriculum requirements of any kind apart from signing the declaration'
You do know about the application for exemption, that you must agree to teach the child to a level at least as good as that at school? Is this the sort of thing that you would like to see in this country? What I am driving at is this; are you holding the New Zealand system up as something which you think we should copy here? If so, I might be inclined to agree with you that it has a lot of good points.
Not at all. You asked why they maintained the register - I gave you a reason.
Delete'Not at all. You asked why they maintained the register - I gave you a reason. '
ReplyDeleteI don't recollect doing so, but in any case this is not really the reason for the register. If that were the case, then it would not be necessary to ask parents for their plans about education, socialisation and such like. If you have actually seen an application for exemption, you will know that there is a good deal more involved than just signing your name to get the annual allowance!
There is a lot to be said for the New Zealand system; for instance the compulsory registration, necessity to provide a plan of the proposed education and so on. Also the twice yearly declaration that the education is continuing according to plan and the need to notify the authorities of any change of address. I think that something of this sort might very well meet the case in this country.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I don't recollect doing so, but in any case this is not really the reason for the register."
You wrote earlier,
"You would think that New Zealand would be planning to abandon the whole idea of applying for exemptions."
Simon wrote,
" If you have actually seen an application for exemption, you will know that there is a good deal more involved than just signing your name to get the annual allowance!"
This is just the initial application, many examples of which can be found on the internet. They look similar to the examples of educational philosophies used in this country, examples of which are also available on the internet - something you have criticised in the past. I'm surprised you are happy to support the extension of something you have found wanting in the past - the provision of evidence in writing alone. After the initial application, it is just a case of signing a declaration that you are continuing to homeschool, as you mention yourself.
' I'm surprised you are happy to support the extension of something you have found wanting in the past - the provision of evidence in writing alone. '
ReplyDeleteI think that this deserves a post to itself, which I shall make in the next day or two. The important difference in providing written evidence alone in New Zealand is that permission to home educate can be and is refused.
And here an SAO can be issued, which effectively ends the automatic permission to home educate granted by the Education Acts.
DeleteParent are legally required to maintain a child or young person, must provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him. Why does education required more intensive monitoring by the state than these basics of life? How do they justify treating them so differently?
ReplyDelete'Parent are legally required to maintain a child or young person, must provide adequate food .... Why does education required more intensive monitoring by the state than these basics of life? How do they justify treating them so differently?'
ReplyDeleteYou mean why doesn't the state check the weight of babies and children regularly, at least once a year or so, in order to identify those who are failing to thrive, often through inadequate intake of food? The answer is that this does happen, via Health Visitors and school nurses. Children who are not dressed appropriately fro cold weather and so on are often picked up by schools. These things are already in place.
As you know though, people can and do opt out of that regular monitoring.
DeleteNone of this is compulsory. You yourself avoided contact with health visitors, for instance. The school nurses in this area weigh children in reception and year 6, but again, this is not compulsory. There are no compulsory home visits to check on the quality of 'lodgings'. So how do they justify treating education so differently from the basics of life?
Delete'There are no compulsory home visits to check on the quality of 'lodgings'. So how do they justify treating education so differently from the basics of life?'
ReplyDeleteAh, if I understand you correctly you are saying that there should not be compulsory home visits to establish that a suitable edcuation is being delivered to a child? Is this actually being suggested? Even Nottingham, who are being very pushy lately, have not said this.
It's currently being suggested in Wales and has been suggested in England in the past. I am asking, whenever and wherever it has been suggested, how do they justify treating education so differently from the basics of life in your view?
Delete'It's currently being suggested in Wales and has been suggested in England in the past. I am asking, whenever and wherever it has been suggested, how do they justify treating education so differently from the basics of life in your view?'
ReplyDeleteYou mean that you have no objection to the principle of registration adn so on, but draw the line at compulsory home visits? I can understand that.
No, I see little point in registration, since simply maintaining a list of names and addresses seems a pointless waste of money that could be more usefully spent elsewhere. You will have to have to be a little more specific about the, 'and so on', part of your question before I could comment on that.
Delete'No, I see little point in registration, since simply maintaining a list of names and addresses seems a pointless waste of money that could be more usefully spent elsewhere.'
ReplyDeleteYour opposition then is purely on the grounds of cost? Presumably if the matter could be achieved for next to nothing, you would not mind about compulsory registration. I must confess, I thought your objections ran a little deeper than the merely financial. The 'an so on' was intended to cover such things as the monitoring of home education.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Your opposition then is purely on the grounds of cost? Presumably if the matter could be achieved for next to nothing, you would not mind about compulsory registration."
It could never be achieved for next to nothing and the money should be spent where it will actually help someone. Compiling a list of names and addresses that will not be used for any purpose is a waste someone's time and of taxpayer's money. It's pointless.
"The 'an so on' was intended to cover such things as the monitoring of home education."
Then we return to the original question - how do they justify treating education so differently from the basics of life, in your view?
Evidence suggests (New Zealand, Serious Case Reviews) that community monitoring works efficiently. So spending money on lists and monitoring is at best a waste of time, and at worst will cause harm. The money must come from somewhere - some other service will suffer as a direct result of using taxpayer's money for this instead of something useful, such as responding appropriately and promptly to information received.
If monitoring includes a requirement to check for signs of abuse, we then meet the dangerous problem of false positives and increasing the size of the haystack, as highlighted by Eileen Munro, reader in social policy at the LSE (http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&ID=76133).
Do you have any evidence to support the efficiency of monitoring?
'The money must come from somewhere - some other service will suffer as a direct result of using taxpayer's money for this '
ReplyDeleteSo your objection to such schemes as this is, as I thought, purely on financial grounds of cost and efficiency?
I've read many case reviews. I want the money to be spend on saving similar children - children already known to be at risk by the authorities. I want children to be saved instead of home educators listed and visited. I want children to be saved instead of adding false positives to the haystack making the at risk children more difficult to find. If that counts as, 'purely on financial grounds of cost and efficiency', then yes.
DeleteResources will always be limited so it is essential that they are targeted where they are most needed and are most effective. The vast majority of families that feature in case reviews are already known to social services. We don't need to find more children who may, possibly, be at risk (along with lots of false positives), we need to save the children we know are at risk.
The fact that so few children are killed or seriously harmed without being brought to the attention of the authorities first shows that community monitoring works. If we then say to the community, we are checking all home educators regularly, I suspect fewer people will bother to report concerns that an annual visitor is unlikely to notice. So it's even possible that more harm will be caused by monitoring. We have no evidence that monitoring will achieve anything positive. Quite the reverse. We have evidence from New Zealand and America that monitoring makes no difference.
So can we assume you have no evidence to support the efficiency of monitoring?
Delete