"Campaign" style responses

I honestly wonder whether or not some home educators are suffering from multiple personality disorder! That is the charitable view; the alternative would be deliberate deception. This reflection has been prompted by the latest accusations being made against the Department for Children, Schools and Families; that they are linking Education Otherwise to the British National Party. It certainly seems an implausible hypothesis. Let's see what the fuss is about.

Following the publication of the Badman Report and the outcry which followed, the DCSF opened a consultation on the subject of Home Education – registration and monitoring proposals. This ran until October 19th and 5211 responses were received. 2222 of these were from home educating parents and 436 from children who were being taught at home. The great majority of these responses were opposed to the proposed new regulations. There were also some responses from organisations, but the largest group was made up of "others", that is to say anonymous or people who did not say whether they were home educators. It is this large group which has caused the recent fuss. About them, the DCSF said;

"A further 2,390 replies fell into the “other” category including anonymous responses, those who did not specify a respondent type; and “campaign” type responses which were received after groups including the Christian Institute, Education Otherwise and the British National Party lobbied their members to reply to the consultation via their own websites"

Well I know perfectly well that the Christian Institute did encourage people to send in responses to the consultation. They suggested the sort of things people should say. For example;

"Under new proposals a government official could enter your home, and question your child about what you teach them - and all without you being present. At the moment, this is being proposed for home-schooling families. But which families will be next? Children do not belong to the state. Even if you don’t home school, tell the Government to keep families free."

Eerily similar to the letter which I quoted recently from the Market Drayton Advertiser! There is no doubt at all that the Christian Institute was behind some of the "other" responses. The BNP site said much the same thing and certainly encouraged members to respond to the consultation along the same lines. What about Education Otherwise? I think that anybody who watched the Education Otherwise and HE-UK lists carefully at that time, as did I, would find it hard to deny that a co-ordinated effort was being made to flood the DCSF with responses to this consultation. People gave each other ideas of the line to take, they posted the number of responses which had been reached; there is not the slightest doubt that a campaign was under way.

A natural result of all this was that many of the "other" responses were very similar; same phrases and expressions, same concerns, even the same sentences in some. The DCSF smelt a rat and thought it worth pointing out that this had been happening. Plus of course, staff there also visit the EO, HE-UK and BRAG lists. They already knew what was going on.

The peculiar thing is that even though the game was clearly up and it was obvious that the DCSF had twigged, many home educators indignantly denied that a campaign had been conducted at all! This extraordinary denial is still going on. I can't decide if these people, most of whom belong to the HE lists and who knew very well about the campaign being run, have genuinely forgotten what they were up to or if they are simply cold blooded liars. These can surely be the only two explanations. Freedom of Information requests have been made by individuals who were themselves involved in the campaign and have apparently forgotten about it. They are now claiming that the DCSF have maligned Education Otherwise by mentioning them in the same breath as the British National Party. I don't see this at all. The only similarity is that both co-ordinated campaigns to get people to respond to the consultation, I don't think that the DCSF were suggesting for a moment that EO have any other similarities with a neo-Nazi group.

There is something quite weird about this business, an Alice in Wonderland quality. People spend four months fighting a campaign and then erase it from their memory. It is so completely erased, that they then argue up hill and down dale that no such campaign ever took place! Decidedly odd.

The DCSF letter about home educated children with special needs

The irritation with the DCSF about the letter which they sent to local authorities is still rumbling on. The main concern seems to be, as far as I can make out, that they state plainly that if a child with a statement is not seen once a year at the annual review, then a School Attendance Order should be issued. This is what they say in Paragraph 12 of the letter;

"If local authorities are denied access to the child and are unable to see the provision that is being made they cannot fulfil their duty of ensuring that the provision is suitable for the child and meets his or her SEN and should issue a school attendance order."

It is suspected that by offering this advice, the DCSF are in a sense jumping the gun a bit on the new law and setting a dangerous precedent as far as those parents whose children do not have statements are concerned. In other words, today they are advising this about kids with special needs, tomorrow they'll be saying that any child not seen once a year should be the subject of a School Attendance Order. This is nonsense.

The statement of special educational needs is a legal document which sets out a child's requirements. It names a school and also details such things as, for example, speech and language therapy. Every year, the statement must be reviewed. This is a statutory duty which the local authority has. Now if the statement names a particular school and a range of provision which a child requires, then it is the responsibility of the local authority to see that the child has these things. If the child is removed from school, then the local authority has a duty to see that the child is still getting those things as long as the statement remains in force; that is to say that the child is in receipt of as good an education and the same range of services as would have been the case if he was still at school. They are still in that sense responsible for the child. If the family won't let anybody see the child or visit the educational setting, then obviously the local authority will not be able to decide that the provision in the statement is being made for the child. In such a case, they must assume that they remain responsible for providing the education and services set out in the statement. The correct course of action is for them to return the child to the school named in Part 4. This has always been the case; it is not some sinister new plot by the DCSF! It certainly has nothing to do with the new Children, Schools and Families Bill.

This is the case legally and one can also see why the local authority would issue an SAO in those circumstances. They have a duty to see that this child is getting those services and if he isn't, then they are legally at fault. If for no other reason than covering their own backs, it would make sense for them to be a sure of this. I also think that there is a case to be made ethically for them to see the child in the educational setting and assure themselves that the education and services being received by the child is as set out in the statement. Failing to do this would mean an abdication by the local authorities of their responsibilities, both statutory and moral. I am certainly aware myself of cases where the local authority has not seen a child with a statement during the annual review and neither have they issued an SAO as a result. The DCSF are simply reminding them of their existing duty and telling them what they should do under these circumstances.

All this has absolutely nothing at all to do with possible annual visits to the educational setting of home educated children without special educational needs, as suggested in the Children, Schools and Families Bill. The only similarity between the two cases is that both the annual review of the statement and the proposed monitoring visits in the new law are both taking place once a year.

It is beginning to look as though some home educating parents of children without special educational needs have seized upon this letter as some sort of bargaining chip or weapon to use against the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Specifically they seem to be seeing it as a way to help prevent the introduction of the new act. This is unfortunate. Children with special needs can be horribly vulnerable, far more so than most children of comparable age. It is debateable whether or not local authorities should have the right to see regularly all home educated children. The general duty for parents to provide children with a suitable, full-time education is so vague that it would be hard for most parents to be proved not to be doing so. With children who have a statement, the case is far more detailed and specific. Rather than the wooly definition set out in cases such as Bevan v Sheers, there are explicit instructions about where a child with a statement should be educated and what extra provision should be made for her. Since the duty for providing these things devolves legally upon the local authority, it is not at all unreasonable that they should seek to establish that the terms of the statement are actually being adhered to.

The DCSF writes to local authorities.....

The Department for Children, Schools and Families has written to local authorities updating them on the situation regarding home educated children with special educational needs. This is being done in light of the Badman Review and the proposed new legislation. Most of us would see this as a fairly good idea; keeping the LAs posted and reminding them of the new duties which will possibly devolve upon them with the passage of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. Most of us, but not a number of home educators. The response of one mother posting on a list sums up their reaction, "OMG, how dare they!" Another cries, "Completely outrageous!"

So what do the DCSF actually say which provokes such anger? Well, to begin with they want to make sure that children withdrawn from school do not lose the specialist services which they are getting, just because they are going to be taught at home;


"In some cases it may be that parents on their own would not be able to make suitable
provision for their children but could do so with some support from the local authority. Under
section 319 of the Education Act 1996 local authorities have the power, after consulting the child’s
parent, to make special education provision otherwise than at school, including in the child’s home.
The Government expects local authorities to consider whether such provision could help home
educating parents to make suitable provision when decisions are being taken concerning the
suitability of home provision for children with SEN. Where local authorities make such provision for
a home educated child with an SEN statement then the provision can be recorded on the statement
(SEN Code of Practice, paragraph 8.96)."


This is, I think, a timely reminder. Many parents have found that services have a habit of stopping once they deregister their child and it is good that the DCSF is aware of this. There is also talk of funding children to take GCSEs if they wish and also having access to some school facilities;

"We are also planning to allow local authorities to access DSG funding where they do not
provide significant financial support but permit young people to access some school services and
fund them to take their GCSEs if they opt to enter as private candidates. We would count each such
pupil as 0.1 for DSG funding purposes, and review towards the end of the next spending review
period whether this is an appropriate level. We plan to make this change for the 2011-12 DSG
period."

Apart from that, the DCSF remind the local authorities that if the child has a statement then there must be an annual review. If it is impossible to establish that the child's needs are properly provided for in the course of the review, then a School Attendance Order should be issued.

We must of course bear in mind that some children with special educational needs are among the most vulnerable of individuals. Some suffer from global developmental delay, for example and are pretty well helpless; unable to speak, understand much, take care of themselves in even the most rudimentary fashion or express any needs or wishes at all. I really cannot see that when such a child has a statement, that it would be unreasonable when reviewing it for the child herself to be seen and her situation assessed. Some parents, despite the fact that they love and cherish their child, are actually not capable of looking after them and providing for their education single-handed.

So bland and anodyne is this document, that it is hard to see why anybody should take exception to it. As far as I can see, the main objection seems to be that the DCSF are preparing in advance for the implementation of a new law, rather than leaving it until the last moment. This would be a bad thing, because?

One is inescapably driven to the conclusion that the people who are kicking up a fuss about this letter are doing so purely and simply because it is something which looks new. In fact all the duties to which the DCSF draw the attention of local authorities are existing duties. They are alerting them to things which may change in the next few months. It is very depressing to think that some people are so opposed to change that they would start shouting about something like this as a matter of principle. It seems that anything which comes from the DCSF or mentions new legislation automatically causes fury and opposition from a certain section of the home educating community! Even more intriguing is the fact that none of the vociferous people on the lists who are complaining about this letter, actually seem to have children with special educational needs! There is a frantic effort to find anybody who actually knows about the law on special needs, just so that complaints may be made that the DCSF is overstepping the mark.

I have said before and I will say again, that this attitude, that of opposing everything suggested as a matter of principle, is likely to backfire badly. If home educators continue to refuse to deal with them, the DCSF will simply find other partners. I cannot see how this would be of any benefit at all to home educating parents. Even the new piece of research being suggested is likely to be boycotted by some parents. The effect of all this will be that the DCSF may decide that there is little point in even attempting to ascertain the views and opinions of home educators.

Submissions to the select committee

I have been looking through the submissions made to the DCSF select committee recently and very interesting reading they make too. On a personal note, they do tend rather to confirm my suspicion as to why I alone of home educating parents was called to give evidence to the committee. Readers will no doubt recollect that the suggestion was widely made that this was some sort of fix, evidence of a sinister conspiracy at the heart of the consultation process. It was, as I said all along, nothing of the sort. I mean just look at some of this stuff. Tania Berlow, well known to habitues of the HE-UK list, sent in an astonishing ten thousand words, craftily split up into three separate documents. Did she really imagine that anybody would actually read all that? The average civil servant has the attention span of a grasshopper; his eyes begin to glaze over after reading a couple of hundred words at most! Which is precisely why I cunningly limited my own submission to a mere three hundred words. No wonder they invited me; I was probably the only person whose submission was read in its entirety!

There are a number of interesting points about the submissions. One, which I have touched upon above, is the sheer number of words churned out by many of those sending memoranda to the committee. The Staffords between them managed five and a half thousand, somebody called Sariter Goacher sent in a single handed effort of five thousand. Even Jeremy Yallop, who opposed me in the TES debate, could not slim his opinions down to fewer than three and a half thousand words; more than ten times as many as my own submission.

As I suspected, the number of anti-Badman submissions had been inflated by various means. The Staffords and Tania Berlow sent in five submissions; that's five from just two home educating families. I noticed other husband and wife teams who had sent in separate pieces under different names in order to suggest that opposition to the Badman Report was greater than is actually the case. There were also a few parents and children both sending in separate memoranda. When you add to that the submissions from people who were opposed to the recommendations of the Badman Report but were not actually home educators (some were parents who were planning to home educate, others were academics ), MPs and somebody called Kelly Green who does not even live in this country, then the actual number of home educating families opposing Badman's recommendations in this way to the select committee is slim indeed.

A couple of other points that I noticed. Firstly, no fewer than eight "doctors". Not doctors of the sort who carry a stethoscope and measure your blood pressure, you understand, but academic types. I deplore this tendency for people to describe themselves as Dr. Smith in this way! It has crept up on us over the years; forty years ago nobody but a medical man would have dreamt of using the title "doctor". Ah well, autre temps, autre mores . Another thing that catches the eye immediately is the fact that 99% of the people who wrote to the select committee appear to be educated and white. Only a couple of names which look as though they have their origin in the Indian subcontinent, a few Jews, a group of Muslims and that's pretty well it on the minority front. I mention this, because some people objected to my inclusion in the list of witnesses specifically on the grounds that I was white, male and probably middle class. Looks as though I was not alone in this.

I have been looking closely at Paula Rothermel's submission, mainly because of the Munchausen's thing that was attributed to my influence. I have to say that there is something a little fishy about this submission. Dr. Rothermel, (another "doctor"!), had two meetings with Badman. At the second one she claims that he was dismissive of her research. She says;

"I consider the review to be seriously flawed. It should be a matter of concern to the Select Committee that the person commissioned to carry out the review could so easily be influenced by a lay person hostile to my work. I question the rigour applied to the Review."

Now how on earth did she know that it was a lay person who had influenced Graham Badman in this way? And how did she know that he had been easily influenced? How did she know that he hadn't been asking about her research to other people in the field? This is odd and it becomes even odder when I look at an email sent to me by Dr. Rothermel in May, shortly after she had met Graham Badman. She said then that the people who had been "bitching" about her work to him were other academics who were always denigrating her work. Could it be that she has told the select committee that he was "easily influenced" by a "lay person" in order to try and put him in a bad light?

I am also curious about this Munchausen's business. In her memorandum she says that the first thing Graham Badman asked her about was the possibility that home educating mothers suffered from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy. Since she was in regular communication with Mike Fortune-Wood all through the time of the review, I am rather surprised that this strange suggestion did not surface earlier. After all, every time there was any talk of any sort of abuse, home educators leapt at once to crush the idea. How is it possible that Graham Badman was saying weird stuff like this in the early Spring and nobody has talked about it before? Very odd. At the very least I should have expected Mike Fortune-Wood to spread it round the HE-UK list. After all, it is a pretty odd suggestion and could have shown Graham Badman in a poor light had it been publicised. It would certainly have indicated that her was not impartial. But no, had these submissions not been made public, I suspect that we would never have heard about this.

I am still trawling through the other submissions to see what comes up. I have to say that the DCSF one is interesting, although some of their claims need to be checked carefully. I cannot resist closing with a quotation from somebody called Ruth Grey. She opens her submission with the line;

"I reject the Badman report and its recommendations in their entirety."

I love this! It puts me irresistibly in mind of the words of the ceremony of baptism, where one says; "I reject the Devil and all his works"!

The select committee, again.

Some people who skimmed through the video of the session yesterday have told me that they thought at first that I didn't say anything at all! It is true that I spoke infrequently and then only in a sentence or two, but this was still too much for some people. One person commenting after watching, said that I was deliberately allowed to have the final word. More observant viewers will perhaps have noticed that Zena Hodgson and I both signalled our desire to speak and it was a toss-up which of us spoke last. Despite having said about a tenth as much as any other of the witnesses, what I did say was enough to enrage an old friend of mine, Firebird from Godalming. Her account of what was said may be found on the Home Education Forums site. Firebird ends her account with the words, "Simon sticks the knife in". This was in reference to my final words to the select committee. I find this such a peculiar thing to say that I thought I would set out what I actually said at the end and see if anybody disagrees with it;

"Parents might have responsibility for their children's education, but all the rights are with the child. The child has a right to a suitable education. If it's not getting that right, then I think that society has a stake in establishing whether the rights of the child are being respected in regard to the right to receive an education; in which case, parents will have to give way to society's legitimate interest in the case."

"Simon sticks the knife in"......... I am sure that not everybody will agree with me in what I said. That is inevitable. But to suggest that ending such a discussion with a mention of the rights of the child, as opposed to the rights of parents which were talked about earlier in the session, is somehow "sticking the knife in".....

Such an attitude tells me a good deal about the person who would make such a strange statement. It tells me nothing at all about whether or not I was right to bring the discussion to a close by reminding those present that it is the children who have the rights here, rather than the parents.

The select committee - another conspiracy?

Many autonomously educating parents seem to be furious that I have been called to give evidence at the House of Commons select committee hearing on October 14th. Inevitably, they feel that this is yet another conspiracy by the educational establishment to suppress their entire way of life! A Stitch-up is the demotic expression most popular among these people to describe what they see as happening. The more rational of us are inclined to apply Occam's Razor to the situation and assume that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. Here is what I think has happened.

The staff sifting through the submissions to the DCSF select committee are not themselves employed by the DCSF. The select committee is completely independent and is as likely to criticise the government as applaud it. The clerical staff sorting out the submissions have probably been told that many home educators are angry about the Badman Report and that the composition of the witnesses called should perhaps reflect that. So among the five people called in the first session on the morning of October 14th, we see Fiona Nicholson from Education Otherwise, Jane Lowe from the Home Education Advisory Service and Zena Hodgson from the Home Education Centre in Somerset. All these organisations have responded unfavourably to Graham Badman's recommendations. To balance this, the staff probably thought that they should give a space to somebody who is not opposed to the recommendations.

Another reason that my submission might have caught the eye and been chosen for further attention is that it was very short. I sent a single sheet of A4 paper, with half a dozen points, each of no more than one or two sentences. I used a crisp,14 point typeface and double spacing. Others have apparently written thousands of words. In my experience, nobody in these circumstances usually reads past the first page and so my submission was bound to stand out. As a matter of interest, did any of the people who have been complaining about not being called to give evidence stop to think of this? In other words, was I the only one who sent in a single A4 sheet double spaced and making only five brief points? if so, then that is the most likely explanation as to why mine caught the eye and I was chosen to give evidence. As scripture says, when dealing with people such as civil servants one should be as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove! (Well, the Bible does not actually specify civil servants in that passage, but you take my point. You have to box clever with them)

Perhaps if the people who are now moaning about me had given the same amount of thought as I did, as to the correct way of approaching matters such as a House of Commons select committee or a DCSF enquiry, then they might have got a little further and actually had their own views taken into account. That I did so and have had my opinions considered by both Graham Badman and the select committee is evidence not of some sinister conspiracy, but rather of the fact that most civil servants and government employees would rather deal with a short, easily digestible summary, as opposed to closely packed pages of print totalling several thousand words. I do not make the rules, nor do I control human nature. I just work according to what I know of both and hope for the best.

Incidentally, quite a few people coming on to this Blog lately seem to be disgusted or shocked at what they find here. The following day they come back again and are offended all over again! They remind me of a prudish old woman who deliberately goes for a walk in a red-light district, purely for the pleasurable thrill of being horrified at what she sees. May I suggest that those who genuinely find my views distasteful, simply stay away? I am not exactly dragging people in here from off the streets. Or should I attach a warning on the first page; "Sensitive home educators may find material here which will criticise autonomous education"? I would be glad of constructive suggestions for how to deal with this vexing problem.