Not on the bus

Now I know why my mum suggested a day trip to France in the summer of 1981! It was (in those days at least) a remarkably successful way of avoiding a royal wedding. The parallels with 1981 are hard to miss - here we are in the depths of a grim economic time with cuts aplenty and anger on the streets. So up they pop, "Look at the pretty dress! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/ bunch of old-school Eton bastards doing over the poorest and most vulnerable again..."

But leaving aside the anger at the ridiculous pomp and forelock tugging, yesterday I found myself pondering the royal life as I sat on the bus to work. I was content, a bit melancholy for one reason and another, but basically content on the bus. Outside there were some late teens/early twenties larking about on the play equipment in the park - at ease with each other. Students on the bus were listening to music and reading their notes. A couple were discussing some complicated arrangement of bank accounts and overdrafts that might see them through to the end of the year. An old woman was pushing a trolley along the pavement with cat food poking out the top. No one wanted me for anything. I was in my home town feeling safe, feeling I belonged, feeling free. And I wondered then if any person born into the royal family can ever have that feeling? I tried to imagine a life where you have never known what it is to be just another person - to never have that invisibility. I wondered how it would be to never get on the bus, pay your fair, sit there and watch the world go by.

I know there are a lot of other things that being royal takes away - like worrying how you might pay the gas bill or wondering if the landlord might decide to sell your flat. No material suffering in such a life. But emotionally? What does it do to a child to be born into such a bizarre life? It's a curse, I reckon. The life of a caged animal. The life of a symbol, a stuffed suit or a face under a hat. No choice and no voice. No opportunity to be a part of society beyond the tiny elite. No chance to get on the bus.

The perils of advice

One of the most exciting things about home education is the feeling of liberation from a dictated path. You really can make your own choices about, not just how your family approaches learning, but how you approach day to day life. I think that can feel quite intoxicating, especially if you are withdrawing your child from school. From observation of others, I think that feeling can be amplified still further if you are withdrawing your child after a long, miserable and frustrating time trying to get the system to meet his/her needs. But what is exciting can also be daunting and doubts and fears are also the lot of the new home educator. That’s when it can be invaluable to have others around with whom to talk. But these interactions can have pitfalls that I’ve come to recognise over the years we’ve been home educating.

If you decide to home educate, you are taking a step down a path - walking away from a whole raft of people who will tell you (and your child) what to do and how to do it. You won’t have a book sent home in a book bag and your child will no longer be part of a class or a year group working to a plan. That is swept away at a stroke. The decisions are yours – the mistakes are yours. The happy days are yours and the miserable days are yours. So it’s not surprising that most of us crave interaction with others in the same boat. We want to know what others do. But what I have come to realise is that no amount of talking to others can (or should) replace considered decisions about what is right for us – for our own children. Other people’s enthusiasm, be it for an expensive curriculum or a child-led lifestyle, is not a sales pitch unless we choose to respond to it in that way. If we do, and we don’t like what we buy, then we have only ourselves to blame. That sounds harsh. But I’ve seen people burn their fingers here and there in home education (had a minor singe or two myself!) and it’s often because they clutched up (too readily) what others were saying and doing and assumed that it would surely work for them too. If home education has one huge advantage over mass schooling it’s that it enables us to help our children find paths that are right for them as individuals. Yes we can exchange valuable information and experiences but we need to always have our own children’s needs at the heart of what we do.

‘Doing nothing’ Autonomous home education and what it isn’t

Blowing off the dust I wander blearily back into this blog... It’s been a long time since I’ve blogged and I had started to think that I wouldn’t feel the urge to blog again, but here I am. Life is pretty different to how it was seven years ago when we first started home ed – but also very much the same in some respects.

Recently I have felt a little despairing about autonomous home education – not for us as a family, for us it continues to be what suits. We continue to take a ‘child-led’ approach, though one child is now a teen. We value autonomy and space and living to our own schedule. What has been making me a bit peeved of late is the sense that what we do is so often misunderstood and misrepresented – even within the world of home ed. I don’t want to go into details about our lives because I think that’s an invasion of other family members’ privacy these days. But I do feel the need to share some of what I’ve worked out over the years we’ve been home educating.

I have often heard, in home ed circles, autonomous education characterised as ‘doing nothing.’ Sometimes this is by those who are critical of the concept or those who don’t understand it and don’t want to. At other times I have heard people despairing about engaging with their older children or teens who have been advised by others to ‘say they’re doing autonomous education’. And it’s about then I want to wallop my head on a brick wall.

Autonomous education is not ‘doing nothing’. It doesn’t mean that we (the parents) couldn’t care less if our children grow up literate or numerate or able to function in wider society. It isn’t that we want to give our children a childhood devoid of challenge or progress or goals and ourselves an ‘easy’ life. Equally, it isn’t something to grab as a label if you are trying but failing to do parent-led education or school. It is not a waste or a doss or an excuse. For us, for my family, autonomous home education is engaged, active and busy and all about learning in its widest sense.

So I’m not at all sure if I want any label that relates to how we home educate. Because it makes no sense to claim an identity that’s so poorly understood and so often misapplied. And who’s to say I get the power to define? Perhaps it’s better to just get on with it and not worry about the labels?

So, here’s the core of the whole thing, for me. People are individuals. People love to learn. People crave self-determination. People have a right to support when young to help them access knowledge and to make sure they have the basic tools needed to function in society and respect others’ freedoms. People should be as happy as they can be because we only get one life. That’s it. That’s the ethos behind why I home ed. Call me what you like (within reason!)

Edinburgh trip

We just spent a few days in Edinburgh. We stayed at a Travelodge for £26 a night and got advance train tickets, so the trip was rather a bargain. Edinburgh is fantastic. We went three years ago and this time we did some of the same stuff - tour of the Vaults (this time with silly ghost hunting equipment!) and yummy vege burger dinners - and some new things - excellent guided tour of the Scottish Parliament building and eating in Edinburgh's oldest vege restaurant.

The breakfasts at the Travelodge don't really compare with the same deal at a Premier Travel Inn. We found that we were always in need of something - milk, bread, knives etc! But the room was really nice and we all enjoyed evenings in bed watching the big tv on the wall or reading our books.

The Scottish Parliament was probably the highlight of the trip for me. The building is really beautiful and we got a free tour from a very sweet, enthusiastic young man. The cafeteria was great and we all sat around eating baked potatoes and avoiding the hideous rain. It rained pretty much non-stop for the whole trip and it was *cold*! When it wasn't raining it was snowing.

We all got lost (in various combinations!) in Jenners department store. I spent an enjoyable ten minutes browsing round the bathroom department imaging what towels I'd buy if I had an unlimited budget!

People bought books and yarn and other stuff. I read a Patrick Gale book I'd borrowed from my mum. I am always completely absorbed and full of admiration when reading one of his books. This one was excellent. I like the way he sometimes writes himself a lovely man into the work - a farmer this time!

We returned to a museum we'd liked before and which featured in a book we've read since our last trip there. There was an exhibition that was very much to my taste - Treasured. It had various beautiful objects, from insects in amber to exquisite glass models of undersea creatures.

The journey home was rather loopy. We weren't due to leave until 1pm but we decided to go to the station early as heavy snow had fallen across Scotland. Most of it had melted in Edinburgh but we rightly surmised that the trains would be affected. At first we thought we were looking at a bus to Newcastle! Eeek! But then we were advised to get a train heading for Birmingham using the west coast line. We changed trains at Carlisle and got a fast train to London. The whole business probably only added a couple of hours to our journey time but was a bit worrying. We were never entirely sure our tickets would continue to be accepted as we headed further south by a strange route. But it was fine. We didn't have reserved seats (of course) so we were sometimes a bit squashed up - but I've had far worse journeys!

I really love to get away. We live a rather relentless schedule as a family and getting away just changes the pace entirely.

Leo is ten!

Nearly three years ago we did a blog post on our old blog in honour of P's tenth birthday. It's hard to believe that it's time to do the same for L. But it is!

Here he is aged nine months. A lovely, happy chap!

By his second birthday he was well into two of his first passions - frogs and The Singing Kettle. That birthday he got frogs from nearly everyone and he was thrilled. He also had a selection of little kettles.

Here he is aged three. The bits of paper were claws and scales. We spent a lot of our time helping with costume.

Eating his fourth birthday cake. He was dressed as Batman and we all sang the Batman theme instead of the traditional song.

On the beach in the Isles of Scilly - aged five.

Here he is is at six - reading an Edge Chronicles book.

Seven years old and being The Doctor.

Drawing and writing and always creating. Here he is doing it age eight.

Nine.

Ten years old with birthday bag and leather notebook bound for him by P.

Happy Birthday to our lovely boy!

Last ditch letter to MP

We sent this to our MP today. There's still time to write to MPs before the Third Reading of the CSF Bill on 23rd Feb. Hope someone might find this useful/inspiring when composing their own letter - sorry it's so long!

Dear David,

Thank you for sending the DCSF response to the Parliamentary Petition you presented on behalf of your constituents in December, and for your letter dated 9th February.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken about the process of the Bill; there have been no successful amendments to Schedule 1 or to any other parts of the Bill which affect home educators. The effect on our lives would still be just as we described in our previous correspondence.

For the DCSF simply to repeat their assertion that the proposed monitoring would be "light touch" and that guidance would provide for it to be "proportionate and focused on support and encouragement for home educating families" does not alter the wording of the Bill, which contains no such guarantees.

It is very poor legislative practice for laws to be passed which rely so heavily on guidance for their implementation. Once the law is passed, there is no need for the guidance to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. There is nothing in the proposed Bill that protects home educating families from local authorities or future national governments who may choose to implement the provisions in a much more draconian and intrusive way than the DCSF's pronouncements would suggest.

It was pointed out to the Public Bill Committee in a submission from Canadian home educator Kelly Green, that Graham Badman's review of the legal position in other countries was highly selective. There is evidence from North America that the degree of regulation of home education in different jurisdictions makes no difference to the outcomes for home educated children. Ms Green's short submission can be seen at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/childsch/memo/ucm2602.htm

The DCSF response to the Parliamentary Petition is simply the latest in a series of misleading statments made by DCSF representatives over the last year. We attach a short document outlining some of the others we have identified, and would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to read it.

You will be asked to vote again on the Children, Schools and Families Bill at its Third Reading on February 23rd. Following a truncated Committee stage, the Bill is almost unchanged. The Committee did make time to discuss a large number of amendments to Schedule 1 and other amendments regarding home education at its final session on February 4th. Although the session ran out of time before most of the amendments could be voted on, the debate was very interesting, and we would urge you to read the transcript. You can find it at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/childsch/100204/pm/100204s05.htm

In particular, the contribution of Caroline Flint MP (beginning at Col. 493 in the Hansard record) was thoughtful and striking.

Ms Flint described the Government's proposals as "bureaucratic and overburdening to families and local authorities".

Having listened to her constituents and other home educating families who made submissions to the Public Bill Committee, she expressed her concern that the information required of parents would be excessive; that the provisions of the Bill would be applied inconsistently across the country; and that the Bill, as currently worded, could leave the government open to legal challenge.

She concluded by calling on the Government to step back from the proposals in the Bill:

"There must be a way forward that can bring the relevant communities together, whether they are parents, local government or the Department. I hope that we can find a way forward, because I am concerned that we will otherwise end up with something that cannot be delivered on the ground and that will create division when people
should be coming together, and I am sure that that is not what this Committee or the House want to achieve"

During the whole debate, no MP other than Diana Johnson made a substantive speech in support of the provisions outlined in Schedule 1.

There is one last opportunity for the House of Commons to remove these ill-considered proposals from the Bill. Amendments 63, 64 and 66 would remove Clauses 26 and 27, and Schedule 1, giving everyone an opportunity to step back and consider the best way forward. As Caroline Flint said, "for a number of different reasons, there has been a breakdown in confidence and trust on the issue." The first step in rebuilding trust with the home educating community would be for these amendments to be carried at the Third Reading.

We believe there is widespread agreement, even among Labour MPs, that Schedule 1 is now an obstacle to the Government's stated objective of working in cooperation with home educating parents, in the best interests of children.

We urge you to represent our views on this once again to ministers, in the hope that they will agree to accept the amendments. If the government refuses to be swayed, even by the arguments of its own loyal backbenchers, we would urge you to vote for the amendments when they come before the House.

Consent and the Ticky Boxy World

It’s been a long time since we posted anything on this blog and, I suspect, that will be the case from here on in. Having older children, who spend a fair amount of their time online, makes it just too weird to be blogging our day to day lives. But, with today’s second reading of the bill in parliament, I had a vague spark of the anger that has got me blogging before.

The truth is that I’m worn out with the whole business of the government’s intention to start licensing our lives. Most of the time I just heave a sigh and shrug. They can’t bear to have us all out here just living our lives. Not with *children* who we (without any proper qualifications to do so, you understand) claim to be *educating*. What if we aren’t doing it properly? Surely we must be counted and checked and monitored – on and on and on and on, I suspect. Because that way they can make sure we are doing it properly...

Well, we’re not, of course, doing it properly. I know about properly. Properly would involve us (the adults) making plans all about what they (the children) will learn and then teaching it to them and testing them to make sure they were listening. Any spare time not devoted to paragraphs or fractions should probably be spent telling them not to get pregnant/get anyone else pregnant, abuse substances, carry knives or run up debts on credit cards.( That people insist on doing these stupid and feckless things is obviously down to the fact that no-one ever gave them in a lesson about the consequences.) Of course, even if we did it all as properly as properly then it would still be a substandard education because the children aren’t properly socialised. No, they suffer from the lack of the normal social environment of an over-heated room packed with twenty nine other souls who were born in the same academic year. So we are, I think, doomed when it comes to a passable level on the Scale of Normality.

There’s no way the Ticky Boxy World will let any of us pass without something that needs to be addressed and improved upon. No doubt, we will all be encouraged to live every moment in a *reflective* way, questioning how we could do it all better next time. So that when the Ticky Boxy Lady comes round again we can move up a level on her Ticky Boxy Sheet and enjoy a sense of *achievement.* Or, alternatively, they might just decide that we’re all failing and need to be put in special measures, which will probably mean School Attendance Orders aplenty.

They will arrive in our lives, I suspect, from Ticky Boxy World, and gasp in horror at the chaos of it all. The child who has reams of writing scattered around the house, all illustrated with mythical creatures and not a sheet of it marked! And, where is the child? In the garden playing with fire... The other one is out at a fundraiser down at the local anarchist club – talking to adults we have not met, vetted or barred. And, no, you won’t be reading her essay because, actually, it’s not really very useful to her if you do...

You see, the thing is, that out there in Ticky Boxy World, the people never do like it, you know. The Ticky Boxy Ladies and Men that come and inspect, they’re never welcome. No-one quite knows what to do about it, of course. Everyone is very used to a structure where no-one is asked if they consent. Not the children sitting on the mat doing their Jolly Phonics, not the bored teenagers doing as little as possible, not the teachers sitting in long meetings about strategies and approaches, not the head teachers burning the midnight oil before the Ticky Boxy People arrive. Being asked if this is what you want, if this is useful for you, if you can even agree to this as part of a deal – that doesn’t really happen much out there. You are in the Ticky Boxy Structure and you do as you are told.

And yet we have pottered merrily on – picking and choosing and not worrying too much. That is what they don’t like. I’m pretty sure of it. However they dress it up with concerns over this or that. It doesn’t wash with me. The truth is that they can’t let us be. It just doesn’t fit. Having sold their souls to the Devil of Inspection they cannot let anyone escape. But I think they might find that people used to living by common consent will not be as easily awed by the Ticky Boxy Lady. I hope not.

Another letter to our MP

Dear David,

As we are sure you are aware, the Children, Schools and Families Bill received its first reading in the Commons last week. The Bill contains several of the most disturbing elements of the Badman Review recommendations.

We were dismayed to find that even before the results of the recent public consultation have been published, the government proposes to implement a licensing system for home education. More than 5000 people responded to the consultation. Among them were many home educating families, concerned at this rush to legislation that redefines the legal position of something so central to their lives.

The Bill proposes that any home educated child who is not ‘registered’ with the local authority will be the subject of a School Attendance Order, should they be discovered. In such a situation, the Bill states that “an authority shall disregard any education being provided to the child as a home- educated child.”

Though the government has clearly decided to back away from the idea of creating a new criminal offence of failing to register, it is attempting to create a compulsory system by threatening to force home educated children into school if their parents do not comply.

Similarly, the Bill states that there will be no automatic right of entry to homes or to see children alone. However, the proposed new Section 19F(1)(e) would give local authorities the right to remove a child’s name from the home education register if it appears to them that:

“by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1)”

Our interpretation of this is that the system of monitoring will be determined by the local authority, and any objections raised by a home educating family could easily lead to their child’s removal from the register and a consequent School Attendance Order.

These sections in particular, especially combined with the proposed new section 19C (which allows for the issuing of regulations on various key aspects of the registration system) would have the effect of locking home educating families into a monitoring system, which can be amended without Parliamentary scrutiny by any future government.

We feel that our family’s decision to follow an alternative educational path has been defined from the outset of this process as a problem for the government to solve. This was clear to us from the moment the Terms of Reference for Graham Badman’s Review were published in January this year.
In spite of thousands of critical responses from home educating families both to the initial Review and the public consultation, this premise does not appear to have changed.

To us, this premise is mystifying. Our children’s education has, so far, been made up of largely unplanned, self-directed learning. As parents, we have seen this working. The children are curious, enthusiastic, engaged learners. They are learning to plan for themselves and to set their own goals. They are learning about the world and their place in it. They are happy.

We cannot see any benefit to them in an ever-escalating process of government intervention in their lives. After witnessing what has happened in state schools over the last twenty years, we cannot help but feel that any system of monitoring imposed on home educating families, no matter how “light touch” the government may claim it to be, will follow this same path of ever more control.

Please do all you can to represent our concerns in Parliament, including by voting for any amendments to the Bill which seek to delete Clauses 26 and 27 and Schedule 1.

Yours sincerely,

Dani Ahrens and Allie Rogers

Dani's consultation response

I answered Disagree to all the questions. These were my comments. My response identifier was 3200.

Deadline for responding to this consultation is 23.45 on Monday 19th October.

1. Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

The rights of children to receive a suitable education are not in contradiction to the "rights" of parents to home educate, so the two things cannot be balanced against each other.

Parents have a duty to educate their children, both morally and in law. Their only "right" is to determine the most appropriate way to carry out this duty, bearing in mind their intimate knowledge of the needs and preferences of their individual children.

This is at the heart of English education law. The duties of the parent are one of the four foundations referred to by Lord Bingham in the Ali case (Ali v Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14), who said:
“This fourfold foundation has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain inherent strengths. First, it recognises that the party with the keenest personal interest in securing the best available education for a child ordinarily is, or ought to be, the parent of the child.”

If a parent should fail to carry out their duty to provide their child with an education suitable to the child's age, aptitude and ability, and any special educational needs the child may have, then the local authority has a duty to take action.

The balance between the rights of children to a suitable education and the right of families to privacy is already struck in the most appropriate place. The law recognises that there may sometimes be a need for local authorities to act, but that this will only happen when parents fail in their duty.

The proposals outlined in the consultation document would severely unbalance the "fourfold foundation". Lord Adonis was advised in 2006 that such disruption would not necessarily bolster children’s rights to education. He wrote:
“I am advised that this [the fourfold foundation] is more effective in securing the right than would be a free-standing right to education in English law. Not only is it flexible enough to allow for various different arrangements for education (for example, education provided by LEAs, by the independent sector, by Academies or at home), but it also places clear and positive duties on the various parties (parents, local education authorities, Secretary of State and governing bodies) which are much more easily enforceable.”

I have seen no evidence that the proposals would "improve the quality of education" received by my children. On the contrary, the imposition of a considerable amount of bureaucracy and interference, by people who do not know the children personally or understand the educational approach we have chosen as a family, is very likely to damage their education.

I am also opposed to the proposed additional review of the definition of ‘suitable education’. I do not think a further review would result in a better definition of a suitable education than the one contained in s7 of the Education Act 1996: “suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of the child, and any special educational needs he may have”.

This definition, and the additional interpretations provided by case law, have in common that they are centred on the needs of an individual child in the context of their whole life. They are tools that a reasonable person could use when making their personal or professional judgment in a particular case. They are not a list of tick boxes. This is a sensible and appropriate approach, when considering the learning needs of a large and diverse population of children.

As with the legal framework surrounding education as a whole, there is no problem with the definition of ‘suitable’, and no need to fix it.

2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?

I do not see why parents who make a minority choice about their children’s education should be obliged to register with the local authority.

I have made numerous choices about how I live my life, some of which put me in a minority in the UK. For example, I choose not to eat meat, and I choose not to own a car. Both of these choices have a direct impact on the daily lives of my children, just as the choice to educate them without using the school system does. But I am not obliged to put my name on a register of vegetarians or pedestrians – these things are accepted as valid, legal choices, and my freedom to make them is acknowledged, because they do not impinge on anyone else’s freedom to make their own dietary or transport choices.

As things stand, my valid, legal choice to educate my children outside the school system is treated similarly. I can see no evidence for the proposal to change this state of affairs.

3. Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?

I do not agree with registration.

The consultation document does not clearly state what information would be required. It says that:
“Regulations will specify the information that parents must provide which is likely to be child's name, date of birth, address, the same information for adults with parental responsibility; a statement of approach to education, and the location where education is conducted if not the home”.

It is not clear whether “a statement of approach to education” is the same thing as “an initial statement of educational intent forming the basis for subsequent educational monitoring arrangements”, mentioned earlier in the document, nor whether both of these are the same as the “clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months” recommended by Graham Badman.

Because of the way we have chosen to approach education in our family, it is impossible for us to provide an annual statement of intended outcomes for each child. We cannot and do not want to predict what our children will choose to learn in the coming year. That is up to them. We will not interfere with their motivation to learn what they need to learn, in an attempt to force their learning to coincide with a pre-determined plan.

My children have the freedom to direct their own education. Any plans or intentions regarding their education belong to them, not to their parents, and certainly not to the local authority. As facilitators of their education, we are accountable to the children, not the local authority.

Annual monitoring against a meaningless statement would add nothing to our children’s rich and varied education.

The fact that the list of information likely to be required includes “the location where education is conducted if not the home” is a clear indication to me that the authors of the document have no knowledge about home education. My children learn wherever they are. The location of their education is in their own minds. I will not comply with a system designed by people who think education is so narrow that it can be conducted in just one place.

4. Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?

I do not agree with registration.

The ‘register’, as described in the Badman report and in this consultation document, is not a register as this would be commonly understood, but is in fact a licensing scheme.

Educating my children at home is not dangerous, for them or anyone else. It does not cost society anything, and requires no specific support or services from the local authority. There is no need for the state to licence this activity. We should remain at liberty to choose to do it or not.

5. Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

I do not agree with registration.

In what way would it help children to criminalise their parents for something as ridiculous as failing to register as home educators?

6a. Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

Schools are under pressure to ensure attendance by all pupils on their roll. If children are on roll but actually being educated at home, the school’s attendance figures would be affected. They would therefore put pressure on parents and children who have decided to home educate, to attend school for an additional 4 weeks.

Many children who are withdrawn from school have suffered months or years of bullying or inadequate educational provision. To expect these children to continue attending school for 4 more weeks under such circumstances would be cruel.

Schools and local authorities would use this time to put pressure on parents to change their minds about choosing home education. There should be no presumption in the law that one form of education is preferable for all children. Why is there no proposal of a 20 day tryout period for children who start school, during which the truancy laws do not apply, and after which the child may return to home education without further bureaucracy?

6b. Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

The local authority has no responsibility for the education of home educated children, and therefore would have no need of achievement and future attainment data.

If this information is to be given to anybody, it should be the parents.

In fact, the opinions of the school about the future attainment of a child who is no longer being educated by them are largely irrelevant when the child and her parents have the freedom to achieve and attain whatever they want, and are no longer restricted by a narrow curriculum and a standardised testing regime.

7. Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

I do not agree with the registration and monitoring of home education.

8. Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

It is not possible to make a prima facie statement about this. Each case needs to be considered individually.

If a child has a child protection plan and the parents want to deregister, and if *in that case* the social workers involved with the child think that would be a bad thing to do, they already have powers to prevent it. They could apply for an Education Supervision Order, which removes parental responsibility for education and gives it to the local authority.

For some children, home education can significantly improve stressful and damaging situations, and lead to a more harmonious family lifestyle. Bullying at school is a significant safeguarding concern. For many home educated children, being withdrawn from school has vastly improved their safety and well-being.

I would not suggest that in all cases where children are under stress, home education is going to be the right course of action for a particular child or family. Likewise, it should not be presumed that school education is always the best thing for an individual child.


9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

In the last seven days, my children have been educated in many different places, including (but not limited to) a swimming pool, two different libraries, a community garden, our living room, the function room of a pub, a community centre, two different youth centres, two parks, a playbase used for out of school activities, an optician's surgery, several different buses, our kitchen, the Houses of Parliament, two trains, their own bedrooms, beside a garden pond, a second hand bookshop, a houseboat, and a museum.

Next week, we will visit a similar number of different places and they will continue to find learning opportunities everywhere they go.

What exactly do you mean by "the premises where home education is taking place"?

If you think local authorities have the time and money to visit all the places home educated children learn, you are sadly mistaken.

10. Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

There is no benefit to our children in being required to demonstrate what they have learned. We reject a model of education that expects children to regurgitate facts on demand. This is the main reason why we have chosen home education and not school.

A short conversation once a year is not going to reveal anything to the local authority officer about either the education or well-being of home educated children. It is, however, likely to result in a significant number of ‘false positives’ where, through misunderstanding or prejudice, officers conclude that there is cause for concern and further action, when in fact there is no problem in the family. This real risk to the well-being of children does not appear to have been considered at all.

11. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

My home is not the ‘premises’ of an educational institution. It is not a workplace. It is a family home.

Educating our children is part and parcel of our everyday family life. It is not open to inspection by state officials.

As a council taxpayer and an active citizen, I am appalled at the waste of public money involved in arranging frequent home visits to thousands of happy, well-functioning families, when children’s services are overstretched and unable to provide adequate support to families with urgent and serious needs.

Honouring our children

“It seems timely on the 20th anniversary of the UN convention that we seek to examine whether or not this sector of the community actually honours children as expressed in the UN convention.”

Graham Badman
Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence, To be published as HC 999-i
House of Commons
Minutes of evidence taken before the Children, Schools and Families Committee
Elective Home Education
Monday 12 October 2009

Which “sector of the community” do you imagine Graham Badman is referring to here? Yes, it’s us – home educators. Something about us, about what we do or perhaps about who we are, means that we should be “examined” to see if we “honour our children”.

This hurts more than just as a passing insult. This hurts on behalf of all the children failed, so badly failed, by our government. A government signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

No, I will not be taking lessons in honouring children’s rights from this government.

"Article 22 (Refugee children): Children have the right to special protection and help if they are refugees (if they have been forced to leave their home and live in another country), as well as all the rights in this Convention."

It seems that this government interprets “special protection and help” to mean a special low rate of benefits, a ban on their families earning money and years on end waiting to find out if they really are safe or will be deported back to danger. That’s if those children don’t find themselves imprisoned.

I wonder if Graham Badman, with his concern for children, ever questions his priorities? Rather than worrying about the details of what my children (well loved, well fed, intellectually stimulated, free children) know,

“I cannot conceive of a situation where, for example, a child of middle secondary years does not know something about oriental history, given the world as it is now; does not know something about carbon sequestration, if they are interested in science; and does not know something about the nature of the economy.” (Graham Badman, evidence to Select Committee, as above)

he might look at what should be done for children in genuine need and whose rights under the UN Convention are far from “actually honoured”.