A treat for readers!

I thought that readers might like to read what Myra Robinson, a local authority officer in the north of England, has to say about home education. I was on a television programme with her a few years ago and formed quite a favourable impression, but of course readers must judge for themselves.

http://myrarobinson.info/home-education/education-is-not-compulsory

More about changing the law on home education

I feel a little sorry for the Welsh home educator who commented here yesterday, saying what a pleasure it was to find a place where home education could be discussed without the quarrelsome and ill -mannered antics of those on some of the home education lists and forums. No sooner had she said this, than some of the more aggressive types zoomed in and showed her that this blog was not a safe space after all! It would be interesting, incidentally, to know how many of those commenting here are, like her, Welsh and so likely to be affected by the laws being proposed by the Welsh Assembly. Anyway, back to the desirability or otherwise of changing the law.


When the Children Schools and Families Bill was about to be passed a couple of years ago, with its provision for the compulsory registration of home education, the assertion was made that such registration and monitoring would harm home educated children. The same suggestion is now being made about the proposed measures in Wales. Commenting here yesterday, somebody claimed that this sort of thing was bad because:



less confident home-educators, who are, nevertheless, doing a better job than schools, may be harmed, along with their children.



This is the sort of thing home educators often say whenever anybody wants to change the law.  I was myself mentioned in the blog Dare to Know, as somebody who would have 'blood on his hands'  if the parts of the CSF Bill relating to home education were to be passed! Statements like this are a bit true, but wholly misleading. For example, I might say that black people are lazy. Well, this is true as far as it goes; after all there are lazy black people. It is misleading though, because of course not all black people are lazy. So suggesting that home educated children will be harmed by this or that new regulation or law may be true, but misleading because not all children will be harmed. Some may be harmed, but others will benefit. So in a sense, both the local authorities and the more militant home educators are both right. The LAs say that registration and monitoring will benefit some home educated children and home educators say that some children will be harmed. This is what it is like in the real world; nothing is black and white and whatever you do, there will be bad consequences for somebody!

Let us draw a comparison with the introduction of compulsory seat belts some years ago. If at the time, I had campaigned against the proposed legislation by claiming that children would be killed and injured as a direct result of this law, I would have appeared to be a bit of a crank. Still, that is probably what has happened. Because drivers feel safer when they and their passengers are wearing seatbelts, they tend to drive faster. This is bad news for pedestrians in built up areas and is likely to end in more pedestrian casualties than when the cars were travelling more slowly. This of course has led to campaigns to reduce the speed limit in certain places. However, those actually in cars are far less likely to be killed and injured when they are wearing seatbelts, so on balance it was a good idea. This is because lots of children travel in cars and there are fewer on bicycles or foot; the net result is fewer children being injured in road accidents.

Introducing a law to regulate home education would be very similar to this situation. Some children would suffer harm, but others would benefit. In order to work out if it is a good plan or not, we have to consider a number of factors. For example, some home educated children are already suffering harm, although others are benefiting enormously from being home educated. A new law would change the balance, with perhaps more children benefiting and fewer suffering harm. Or perhaps it would be the other way round!

Simply stating that home educated children would suffer harm if new legislation were to be passed is utterly meaningless. Of course some will suffer harm, just as some are already suffering. What we must do, and it is not at all an easy proposition, is discover the relative proportions of the increase or decrease in those likely to suffer harm and those who will probably benefit. Then we must somehow calculate the proportions of those being benefited and harmed under the current arrangements. We also need to define just what we mean by 'harm' and 'benefit'.

None of this is straightforward and many of the suggested benefits and much of the supposed harm is pretty vague and intangible. In a sense, there is no fundamental difference between the views of home educating parents and those of most local authorities. Both sides know that some home educated children benefit from the education they receive. Both know also that some children are harmed by being withdrawn from school and educated at home. The debate hinges around the exact proportions involved and this is where the crux of the matter lies.

There is no such thing as a perfect human system or institution. Always, there are victims and winners. This is true of home education, just as it is with schools. I do not see this as grounds for doing nothing and declaring that no change should ever be undertaken. I can see ways that I think that schools could be improved and I can also see scope for new ways of organising home education. My suspicion is that those who oppose any change in the field of education are probably the sort of reactionaries who just do not like new ideas and new ways of doing things. I can understand this; the older I get, the less fond I am of change myself! However, there is a powerful reason for changing the law and this is that the present legal situation is not at all clear. This ambiguity leads to conflict, because sometimes local authorities overstep the mark because they genuinely believe that they have powers which they do not possess. If the precise duties of both parents and local authorities were to be set out in plain language, then I think it likely that there would be less antagonism and confrontation as a consequence, because everybody would know where they stood.

Why everything in the home education garden is lovely…

I am not a great fan of the schools in this country. I think that there is a lot wrong with them and there is plenty of scope for improvement. Come to think of it, the same is true of hospitals, policing, the administration of local authorities, the government in Westminster and the European Union. The regulations and laws governing all the things which I mention above could do with overhauling; either by tightening up, relaxing, scrapping or bringing in a raft of new legislation. This is the case with practically any human enterprise of which one might think; there is always room for improvement. Well, with one notable exception of course; that exception being the law relating to home education. According to many home educators, this is absolutely perfect and any sort of change would inevitably cause harm to vulnerable children. Although the legal situation surrounding home education in England and Wales has arisen in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion, by happy chance it is the best arrangement that could possibly have been devised by human ingenuity.

When one looks at the awful jumble of the 1996 Education Act, as amended by sections 436A and 437, the 2004 Children Act, the Education (Pupil registration)(England) Regulations 2006 and all the case law from Bevan and Shears 1911 onward; one realises what a mess the law relating to home education in this country is. No wonder there is confusion about the various responsibilities of local authorities and their role, the rights of children and a host of other things. The situation is a nightmare. Never the less, whenever any attempt is made to tidy up this tangle, even by something as minor as a slight change in the pupil registrations regulations, there is an outcry from the more militant home educators. The battle cry is always the same, that the law is fine as it is and any change would be for the worse. Nobody, either parents, local authorities or central government really believes this. Indeed, it would be remarkable if this were to be the case, that all these various statutes and the case law interpreting them should miraculously have given rise to the best possible arrangement for the benefit of children being educated at home by their parents.

In the next week or so, I shall be exploring the motives of both home educators and local authorities and seeing if it is possible to work out what people really want; as opposed to what they are claiming in public. This is a fascinating topic and one which is, I am sure, dear to the hearts of many readers.

The real reasons for the opposition to the Welsh proposals for the registration and monitoring of home education

The Welsh Assembly hope to introduce a scheme to register and monitor home educators and their children, to ensure that an education is actually being delivered. Most ordinary people see nothing wrong with this, but a small number of militant home educators are fighting the proposals ferociously. Many of these are the same people who fought against the attempt to change the law in England in 2009 and 2010. There are not many of them, perhaps a couple of hundred at most, but they are very vociferous.

One of the things that I would like to know about these people is whether or not they really believe what they say. Let me explain. Although there are some home educating parents who are grateful for the help of their local authority, I am guessing that the vast majority just want to be left alone. This is the case with the whole spectrum of home educators; ranging from radical unschoolers at one end to the fanatically structured at the other. It is obvious why this should be the case. If you practice autonomous education, then the very act of examining and asking probing questions about the education could have the effect of altering its style or direction. If on the other hand, like me, you are an extremely structured educator, then you are just as likely to be unwelcoming to inspection. This is because those investigating the education that you are providing will not understand what you are up to and the hour or so spent in a visit will just disrupt the smooth running of the day’s work. This is why I did not register with either of the local authorities where we lived while I was educating my child; there would have been no point.

So far, so good. Up to this point I am in complete accord with all the other parents who do not wish to be registered or monitored. Where I perhaps differ is that I have not the least doubt that a regimen of national monitoring of this sort would have an effect, a generally beneficial effect, upon home education. To understand why I think this, it is necessary to look at the supposed beliefs of those home educators who are opposed to the proposals currently under consideration in Wales.

Militant home educators are a tricksy bunch. They will say anything at all in support of their cause if they think that it will play well with those who know nothing about home education. For example, during the Badman business, the focus was upon ‘rights’. There was much talk of the ‘rights’ of parents and, to a lesser extent, those of the children themselves. You will not hear much about this during the present campaign, because it has rightly been gauged that popular opinion is in favour of monitoring and talk of ‘rights’ will not sway most parents whose children are at school. Instead, the emphasis is on the cost of registration and monitoring and the pointlessness of it.

The thing that I am unable to figure out is whether or not the home educators opposed to the idea of monitoring really believe that it would have no effect or only a bad effect upon home education? I somehow doubt that do. At the moment, one withdraws a child from school or fails to send her and there is an end to the matter. Parents can avoid meeting with or speaking to local authority officers and fob them off for years at a time with copied ‘philosophies’ or threats of legal action. Some of the children of such parents are probably being educated; others are probably not. Does anybody really doubt that if they knew that they would be expected to give some account of the education that their children were receiving, then many of those parents would put their shoulders to the wheel and provide some structured teaching and get their children to read, write, study history and do sums? I would say that this is a racing certainty. Of course, most autonomous educators do believe this; but unlike me, they think that it would be a bad thing if this were to happen.

Diverting the debate to various states in America or other countries, such as New Zealand is very neatly done, but does not alter the fact that compulsory registration and monitoring would have a great effect on home education either in England or in Wales. One of those effects would be that more parents would be undertaking structured work with their children; that is to say actually teaching them. I think that this would be a good thing and so, I suspect, would almost all non-home educators. The militant home educators who are opposing any such move tend to be autonomous educators who think that for parents to feel obliged to teach their children regularly would be a bad thing. Because this sounds pretty mad to most people whose children attend school, they find it necessary to dissemble and claim instead that they are worried about the waste of money that such a scheme would entail. This is not an honest way to carry on. I think that it would be interesting to hear what those who do not approve of the idea of registration and monitoring think the actual results would be. Do they, like me, think that the natural consequence would be more parents teaching their children in a  structured way? If so, is this at the heart of their opposition?

Why the Welsh proposals make logical and legal sense

I shall probably regret doing this, but I think that the time has come to consider the proposed legislation in Wales which would require parents to register home educated children and allow their education to be monitored. I fully appreciate the opposition of some to the idea, but even so, the people fighting against the idea of registration and monitoring are almost certainly wrong and labouring under a fundamental misapprehension. The misapprehension is the very same one which gripped many of those who also campaigned against Graham Badman and his ideas.

The law makes certain assumptions about ordinary people. It assumes, for instance, that the default setting of normal citizens is not to be stealing, murdering or torturing their children to death. This means that unless evidence emerges, the police will not come knocking on your door to check that you have not harmed your child or are storing stolen goods on the premises. We have a general duty to avoid doing these things and so it is taken for granted that unless there is reason to think otherwise, we are not doing them. Society could hardly function if the police and authorities were constantly fretting that we were breaking the law in some way; it has to be assumed that we are not. This general assumption has been mistakenly thought by many home educators to include the fact that we are causing our children to receive a suitable education. In other words, if the police are not checking our homes regularly for stolen goods, why should the local authority check our children regularly to ensure that we are educating them? It is an ingenious idea, but unfortunately it is quite wrong-headed and confused.

We all have a general duty to avoid breaking the law. This largely consists of refraining from doing things. We must restrain ourselves if we feel like stealing, we must avoid starving or mistreating our children. In the case of children, the law takes it as given that parents voluntarily undertake to ensure the wellbeing of their children. Unless evidence of cruelty or neglect comes to light, we believe that parents look after their children and protect them from harm.

We have been talking so far of various assumptions made about citizens by the law; that they will not rob, rape or murder, that they will look after their children and so on. There are however additional and positive duties which are from time to time laid upon us. These are things which the law does not just expect us to refrain from doing as a matter of course, such as stealing or mistreating our children, but activities in which we must participate. These are things that we are compelled to do; not merely refrain from doing. One of these is jury service. If I am summoned for jury service, society is calling upon me to do something, to fulfil a duty. Because this is something thrust upon us, some of us will try to evade this duty. We will pretend to be deaf or have various commitments which prevent us undertaking this active duty. This happens with all duties which are pushed on us without our volunteering for them; some will try to get out of them. Another case is if a constable calls for our assistance while making an arrest. We have a legal duty to go to his aid. Some will not want to and try to evade this duty. From time to time, prosecutions result from this reluctance to undertake such duties.

Now the law might assume that in general people will avoid evildoing and obey the law by not going out of their way to commit crimes, but this is not at all the case with duties which are pressed upon them. In these cases it makes perfect sense to assume that some people called upon to perform a duty will try to get out of it. They have not freely chosen to undertake the duty; why should they do so? I am sure we all know the efforts that some people go to avoid jury service! In this case, enquiries may be routinely made into the reasons people claim to have for not accomplishing whatever the duty requires of them. We know that some people will wriggle out of undertaking a duty and since this is a very small section of the population, it is quite in order to look into the case closely, to make sure that not too many of us are evading our duty.

The situation which I have described above with respect to duties which some people will try and evade is precisely what is happening with the duty to cause our children to receive an education. The law may very well, and indeed does, take it for granted that we are not starving or torturing our children; it does not and should not assume that everybody is cheerfully undertaking the extra legal duty laid down by statute to provide the child with an education. Just as with any other duty imposed upon us, there will be those who seek to shirk it. This is simply human nature and it would be odd if this were not to happen. Because of this, it makes perfect sense to check that the duty is in fact being performed; that is to say that the parents are providing their children with a suitable education.

The ideas currently under discussion in Wales, amount to no more than this; that society will check that parents are fulfilling a duty which has been forced upon them. It is entirely possible that most of them are already doing so. Inevitably, there will be some who are not and the aim is to identify these and get them to realise that they must either provide an education for their children themselves or delegate the task to others.

Not quite a home educator

The essence of home education lies in regarding your own child as being too special and precious to be treated like all other children. This is not in itself a bad thing, of course. Just because every other kid in the class is the victim of an unprincipled bully, there is no reason at all why you should accept that your son should be one of them. In my own case, I saw that all the children in the neighbourhood were attending lousy schools where they were receiving an inferior education and did not see why my own daughter should follow suit. Of course, this attitude on the part of parents who choose to educate their children at home does not tend to endear them to other mothers and fathers! It makes us look a little snobbish, as though we think that we are better than they are or care more for our children.

Now choosing home education is one thing; that is to say ignoring the local school and just letting them get on with it while you tackle the job yourself. Just imagine though, sending your child to an ordinary state school and then applying to the Secretary of State for Education to force them to teach your own kid to an entirely different curriculum to everybody else! This is the peculiar thing attempted by the woman who runs this blog:



http://parentsguidetoeyfs.wordpress.com/category/eyfs-exemptions/



This person was unhappy with the Early Years Foundation Stage; the curriculum taught to all young children in the country. I have reservations about it myself, as I am sure will many readers. The remedy is of course, not to send your child to a state school if you disapprove that strongly. What Frances Laing did though was to send her child to school and then cut up rough because the kid was expected to learn and achieve what every other child at every state school in the country was expected to be doing.

I cannot help but think that in her heart, Frances is really a home educator. As you will see from her blog, her request for her child to be freed from the constraints of the Early Years Foundation Stage was turned down flat. You have to ask yourself though, feeling as she did about state schools; why on earth did she send her child to one in the first place? I wonder of any readers know anything about this woman, of whom I had never heard until yesterday? I am sure that she is really a home educator, albeit a frustrated one who is unable actually to teach her own child at home for whatever reason. At any rate she certainly seems to have that bloody-minded and awkward streak that is the infallible hallmark of the true home educator.

Another oddly misleading bio

We looked yesterday at the way that a well known home educator was able to write almost three hundred words about her experience of home education, without once mentioning that she was actually a home educator herself. I regarded this as something of an achievement and was surprised to see it surpassed by yet another high-profile home educator. Here is her bio from the blog she keeps:



I’m a novelist and poet living in a village perched on the edge of mountains, from where I run an independent press with the assistance of my son and daughter. Independence is a recurring motif in my thinking – I home educated my four highly independent children (now independent young people); did my PhD in feminist theology at a time when it was an emerging mode of thought ; run independent courses in creative writing with the highly independent poet, Pete Marshall, and have moved through major institutions, educational, spiritual and domestic, to work towards my independence.I have published books on home education and parenting, focussing on living with children in ways that respect their autonomy, as well as novels and poetry collections. I’m working on a novel that explores metamorphosis in the lives of three people – I’m Still Here – and a poetry collection that includes a long sequence about Cwmorthin – an abandoned slate mining village near my home. The sequence, ‘Ty Schrödinger’, will be part of the collection A Small Bird Burning. You can find out more about my books here.



I am sure that many readers will recognise the author from this description; she is of course none other than Jan Fortune-Wood, or just Jan Fortune as she wishes to be known since her divorce. What is missing from today’s picture, children? Well the fact that the writer has managed not to mention that she is a priest! This is really weird. She tells us that she is a novelist, that she has a PhD, as well as letting us know that she is a publisher. Why miss out the part about being an ordained priest?

Something else that I am puzzled by is that she claims to have ‘moved through major institutions, educational, spiritual and domestic’ . I think we may safely assume that the major spiritual institution through which she has moved must be a coded reference to the Anglican Church. What though was the major domestic institution? Is she talking here of her marriage? If so, it is a strange way of stating the case; I cannot personally imagine referring to my marriage as a ‘major domestic institution’! This is the trouble with Jan Fortune’s writing. It is OK when you read it with the eye of faith and do not enquire to deeply into the meaning of the words. Once you stop and try to figure out what she is actually saying though, you are lost.