skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I was pleased to observe that Mike Fortune-Wood revamped the home page of his site, Home Education UK, yesterday, in response to some of my criticisms here. This is encouraging, but more needs to be done! I cannot help noticing that Lord Brougham is still featured prominently. The quotation by him on the home page suggests that Lord Brougham did not approve of compulsory education and was in some way a supporter of home education. This is preposterous. I drew attention to the fact that he actually attempted to introduce a public education act in 1837 which would have paved the way for universal schooling. It would, if passed, have been similar to the 1870, Forster Act. Lord Brougham said at the time:
‘ some legislative effort must at length be made to remove from this country the opprobrium of having done less for the education of the people than any of the more civilized nations on earth’
He later became an even more fierce advocate of the importance of schooling; particularly for the working classes. In 1858, he said;
‘There is an absolute necessity for changing, in important respects, the method of educating female children, not only in the humbler but the better part of the working classes. They must be taught things which are of use to them in after life. A good system of rewards, the judicious application of prizes, the due encouragement to successful teachers of common things, and a steady determination in the patrons of such schools to enforce the most useful teaching in the first instance’
Enforcing 'useful teaching' in schools? This does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of home education in general, let alone autonomous learning, and I hope that Mike Fortune-Wood will now seen the light and remove all reference to Lord Brougham from the site.
Next week, we shall examine a few of the people whom this site claims were home educated, starting with Frank Whittle; inventor of the jet engine; who began school at the age of five and left at the same statutory age as everybody else. Until then, readers might like to consider for themselves the extent to which the Wright brothers might properly be considered to have been home educated.
The Department for Education have released a statement which sheds more light upon their decision to put a stop to flexi-schooling. As readers probably know, it reflects very badly on schools when they suspend pupils, either permanently or temporarily. As a result, some schools are quite cunning about concealing the evidence when they find that they cannot deal with the conduct of certain pupils. I have written before about Firfield school in Newcastle and the creative approach that they took to this problem. The parents of persistent truants were presented with letters to sign, saying that they were deregistering their children and undertaking to educate them at home. The alternative offered was prosecution. Truancy figures for Firfield plummeted! This practice, known to schools as 'offrolling' was pretty common a few years ago and still comes to light from time to time.
Another trick used is to avoid having it look as though your school cannot cope with unruly pupils by arranging for them to spend a few days working at home. This counts not as exclusion, which would mean a black mark for your school’s records, but instead is dealt with by blandly marking down Code B; the kids are being educated ‘off site’. This gets the disruptive children out of the classroom and indeed off the school premises altogether, without the embarrassment of having to exclude them. A win-win situation indeed! There are signs that this racket has been on the increase in recent years. In light of this, the DfE’s statement is interesting:
On 1 November 2012, the Government published revised school attendance advice for consultation. The consultation ended on 13 December 2012 and the revised advice was published on 21 February 2013. During the consultation, some respondents were concerned that some schools were using the school attendance "B" code inappropriately. The Government listened to those concerns and has clarified that it is inappropriate for schools to deal with difficulties with in-school behaviour by sending pupils home with work to do for a few days, and treating the pupil as being in approved education off-site.
Forty eight hours after the revised guidance was published, the Department for Education changed their website, so that it now stated that flexi-schooling was not a legal option. I think that combined with the actions of those promoting flexi-schooling as part of a commercial enterprise, this just about put the tin lid on the practice.
I found this little piece, by a home educating parent in Wales, revealing and also profoundly depressing;
http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/decision-home-school-children-190100651.html
Let’s check out those possible reasons for home educating! There’s bullying, special needs, religion, illness and philosophical considerations. Hmmm, what’s missing from this list of motives to home educate? Can anybody tell me? Oh yes, that’s right; to give your child a good education does not seem to be here.
This article says tells us something about home education in this country. It is hard to imagine a piece like this being written by an American home educator which left out education as a motive for home education.
I have in the past advanced the hypothesis that many home education organisations in this country cause more trouble than they are worth. Today, I want to look at the first such organisation that any parents researching home education in this country are likely to stumble across. Google ‘home education’ and the first non-commercial hit to come up is Home Education UK. Since most parents considering home education will probably begin by finding out about it on the internet; this site is likely to be the first source of information which they encounter.
There is something slightly terrifying about the Home Education UK website. It is a mixture of lies, half truths and very misleading statements. That it would be the first place that a prospective home educator might find ‘information’ goes a good way towards explaining why relations between a lot of new home educators and their local authorities are so poisonous. I will limit myself today to looking at just the first page of this site. Every page of the thing cries out for analysis, but I really don’t have the time to do a thorough job. Here is the first page that any new parent, hoping to home educate, will come across:
http://www.home-education.org.uk/
The first paragraph makes it clear that it is the law of the UK that is being referred to as far as home education is concerned. The second paragraph makes a statement which is, to all intents and purposes, a deliberate falsehood;
‘the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right’
The law actually says of course that parents must cause their children to receive a suitable, full-time education. This is not ‘expressing the right to home educate as a parental right’ at all; it is laying a duty upon parents. Those who cannot be bothered to look up the actual wording of the law are therefore at once deceived into seeing home education in terms of rights and not duties. I hope that readers will see what an untruthful statement this is and how it is calculated to mislead parents from the very beginning?
Another untruthful statement is made alongside this, that:
‘In law the right to an education is unique in that it is an obligatory right, it is a right that may neither be denied or refused’
This is not true. Young children who are not deemed to have Gillick Competence’, have the right to medical treatment; a right which is exercised on their behalf by either their parents of the courts. A child of five has the right to education and medical treatment; neither of which may in general be declined.
The next paragraph makes the suggestion that there are 60,000 home educated children in this country. Since we know that only 20,000 children are known to local authorities, this would mean that there are twice as many children who are unknown. This is unlikely and no grounds are given for believing such a thing.
The final paragraph is a quotation from Lord Brougham, who was Lord Chancellor in this country in 1834. He speaks disparagingly of compulsory education. Why we would care to read the views of a man who presided over the courts of this country at a time when gay sex carried the death penalty and the law allowed men to beat and rape their wives, is something of a mystery! Perhaps his opposition to compulsory education washes away such minor points. It is worth noting in any case that in 1837, this same man introduced a bill to establish schools for ordinary children in this country and felt by that time that universal schooling was the best thing in the world.
Two more points strike one about this opening page of the first site that anybody researching home education on the internet will come across. The first is the bizarre colours; with yellow text on brown and maroon backgrounds. It puts one in mind of David Icke! The second is that this site is subsidised by no fewer than seventeen commercial companies.
Any parent who knows nothing about home education and visits the Home Education UK site will be fed a series of falsehoods and half truths of such a nature as to set them at once upon the wrong path. Those who swallow the initial lie that the law in this country describes home education as a ‘parental right’ will already be working from a distorted perspective and everything else on this site will serve only to deepen their confusion.
I was accused yesterday of not expressing my views openly and it is to be hoped that the title of this post clears that up. As I said a couple of days ago, I was talking to a local authority officer who was irritated about the suggestion being made by some home educators that there was something racist about the attempts to get more Gypsy and Roma children into school. She asked me if I could see the difference between this and the line that the big home education groups took about Victoria Climbie a few years ago. I could not and when I asked about the subject here, nobody could give a plain answer. Let me explain why this is at best dreadful hypocrisy and at worst out and out racism.
Let us begin with what is practically an article of faith at the large home education support organisations and that is that just because a child is not at school, that does not mean that she is not receiving an education. I am sure that we have all read of the outraged cries from home educating parents when their children get mixed in with those who are ‘missing from education’. Surely, parents should be innocent until proven guilty? We ought to assume that parents and carers are providing children with a suitable education, unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. So far, so good; nothing controversial here, I fancy.
With some groups in society; these assumptions are reversed. As readers know, there was a huge fuss when organisations such as the NSPCC said that Victoria Climbie was home educated. Education Otherwise, Home Education UK and so on all went mad and asserted that this was not the case. Why were they so sure that this child was not being home educated? We will allow Mike Fortune-Wood of Home Education UK to explain. His is the standard explanation for believing that Victoria Climbie was not a home educated child. Be prepared though for a shock:
http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-victoria-climbie.pdf
Have we all read it? We know that the child was not receiving an education because;
‘the reason that Victoria was not attending school was that there was a failure to provide sufficient school places in her locality. Both the LEA and Social Services knew of her existence and her lack of education’
How do we know that she was lacking an education? Because of course, she was not at school! Incidentally, it is not true that she could not get a school place; her carer did not apply for one. Now we know that Mike Fortune-Wood, Education Otherwise and other groups are all in favour of children not attending school. We know that they believe passionately that the fact that a child is not in school does not mean that the child is lacking an education. Except perhaps, as in this case, when we are talking about working class, black foreigners.
Perhaps I am wrong? Let us imagine that we are talking now of a white, Welsh family. Does anybody think for a moment that Mike Fortune-Wood or Education Otherwise would say something along the lines of, ‘The local authority knew that this child was lacking an education because she was not at school’? Hard to believe, no? The only conclusion which I can reach is that either these organisations are guilty of massive hypocrisy about this or that they have one set of assumptions for white, British families and a completely different set for black foreigners. These two cases are not, of course, mutually exclusive!
The suggestion was advanced here yesterday that Victoria Climbie was not being home educated because her main carer did not say that she was. What this means is that a woman whose first language is Senoufo and second language is French, should be judged because she might not be familiar with an English expression such as ‘home education’. Sounds as though those special rules for foreigners are coming into play again!
There is a widely held assumption among many British home educators that a child, particularly a young child, should be able to receive an informal education at home. In some countries, schooling and formal education do not start until the age of seven or eight. Victoria Climbie was eight. The idea that a child of this age should be regarded as ‘lacking an education’, as Mike Fortune-Wood puts it, simply because she is not at school is not one that I feel is commonly held among British home educators. Out of interest, how many readers feel that an eight year-old who is not at school should be treated as ‘lacking an education’? What, nobody? Here’s an easier question then. How many of you think that the children of black foreigners should be assumed to be lacking an education if they are not at school? Ah, that’s better! Nice to see that so many of you are in agreement with Mike Fortune-Wood and Education Otherwise about this.
I asked yesterday whether readers thought that members of minority cultures in this country should be assumed, unless there is firm evidence to the contrary, to be providing a suitable, full-time education for the children in their care. I rather think that the general feeling is that we should make this assumption. I was asked;
‘What is it that you believe qualifies you to sit in judgement on an individuals belief and/or lifestyle choices?’
This is all very interesting. Readers will remember the fury that was caused during the Badman enquiry, when it was suggested that Victoria Climbie had been home educated. The unanimous verdict among many of the more vociferous home educating parents was that she had most certainly not been home educated. I don’t think that it is me who is sitting in judgement here upon ‘an individual’s beliefs and/ or lifestyle choices’! The same judgement was made against the mother of Khyra Ishaq; that the child had not really been home educated at all. Several people lately have expressed irritation about the fact that looking at the Department for Education’s pages on elective home education will lead you to an account of Khyra Ishaq’s experiences. Outrageous! What does this cases have to do with home education?.
This then was the question that I was recently asked by somebody who works in the field. We are invited to believe that an adequate education may be provided for a child, simply by the parents or carers pursuing their normal lifestyle and letting the child follow her own interests. Some call this autonomous education or unschooling. These types though seem to have quite a different set of rules for members of other cultures. It was specifically alleged by home educators that in the case of Victoria Climbie, that there was no ‘evidence’ of home education; that is to say books, teaching and so on. Why should there have been? If the absence of such things in the lives of white, middle class home educators is unremarkable, why should we expect to see such evidence in the case of a working class, black carer? In other words, in what sense was Victoria Climbie not being home educated by her aunt? On what grounds did other home educating parents make this judgement upon her? True, once she picked up with an unsuitable boyfriend, things very quickly went wrong for the child; but what about the months before that happened? Why is it asserted so warmly that this child was not being home educated during that period?
In the case of Khyra Ishaq, the judgement that she was not being home educated seems even harsher when made by other home educating parents against her mother. In this case, the child’s mother had withdrawn her from school after announcing that she was to be educated at home. She had purchased various workbooks, paper, pens and other educational material and showed every sign of being prepared to teach the child at home. Ah yes, cry home educators gleefully, but the mother had not complied with Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England)Regulations 2006, which state clearly that such notice of the intention to home educate must be given in writing. Because Khyra Ishaq’s mother neglected this minor regulation, she was not technically a home educator. Imagine if a parent contacted the EO or HE-UK lists and asked about this. Does anybody really think that parents there would disown her and tell her that she was not a real home educator, simply because of her ignorance of those regulations?
Here is the main point. Many home educators in this country seem on the one hand to insist that their children are being furnished with a perfectly good education just by being with their parents or carers and taking part in ordinary, everyday activities. In the case of the two black carers mentioned above though, the suggestion is made that such a lifestyle does not and could not constitute home education at all. This is puzzling and I was unable to explain why this should be to the local authority officer with whom I was discussing this matter. Should there be stricter rules for defining education for black carers or members of minority communities? If not, why is there such aggressive insistence that Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq were not being home educated? I am sure that readers will be able to explain this strange situation in a clear and satisfactory fashion.
I was talking the other day to a local authority officer who works with children who are not attending school. She asked me a question which left me a little foxed, so I thought that I would ask readers here to offer their views. As most home educators probably know, the Department for Education, in addition to closing down the practice of flexi-schooling, are targeting the children of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma; with a view to ensuring that they spend more time in school. There is a bit about this here:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/traveller%20cons%20doc%20dec12.pdf
Now as we know, some home educating parents feel strongly that a child can receive a perfectly good education just from being part of a family and participating in ordinary, everyday activities. We looked recently at Iris Harrison and her children. This was the lifestyle that they pursued; really just doing what they felt like doing and so educating themselves. Some days playing the violin; on others tinkering with an old car and so on. Some autonomous educators believe that this is the best type of education, where a child is free to choose his or her own curriculum and learn only about those things in which there is an intrinsic interest.
The question I was asked was this. Would this sort of education be regarded by many home educating parents in this country as being a suitable one for members of minority cultures such as the GTR community? Would it be acceptable just to leave it to these children and their parents to worry, or not, themselves about what might constitute a suitable, full-time education?
There was a supplementary question, depending upon the answer to this first point, but we might return to this later.
