Parents' anger at home education recommendations grows

Sarah Orme - 25 June 2009

As a home educator and loving parent, I can fully understand the government's concern to protect children and I share this concern.  However, there must be an understanding that some ways in which the government might attempt to protect children may actually result in suffering for children, especially when they attempt blanket interventions in families where no problems are apparent.  This is also an appalling waste of money when other chidren, known to be at risk, are not protected due to lack of resources, as seen in the recent high profile cases in the media.

Also, the report draws a distinction and implies that there is an inherent contradiction between the rights of parents and the rights of children.  In the case of every home educating parent I have ever met,  the rights and best interests of their children are put above their own on a daily  and hourly basis.  These parents sacrifice much to give their children the best and give up what many parents would consider to be their own "rights" in the process.  This is called "love".  Love is that choice by which we lay our own preferences and "rights" aside in order to benefit another.

I consider the right of children to a meaningful family life is being put under threat in our culture where children spend ever longer from an increasingly young age away from their families and those who love them most.  Being cared for in a large group by paid professionals, no matter how well-trained and CRB checked, cannot substitute for the love of parents.  Obviously a strong relationship within the family needs to be supplemented by good relationships with other adults and  children of all ages, in order to have a full involvement in the world.  This is the ideal arrangement from which home educated chidren benefit and it is wonderful to see their happiness and confidence to interact with anyone from the age of 0 to 100.

Another benefit of home education is that the child receives a tailor made education, which is delivered at the ideal pace for their progress and interests. I believe that the 1 in 6 who leave school without mastering basic literacy and numeracy skills are in many cases the sad result of falling behind the pace of the group at an early age.   My own daughter had really struggled in maths for this reason whilst in primary school.  She is now making excellent progress at home.

This report is characterised by leading and limiting questions in the review process, opinion rather than evidence and biased and selective use of submissions. It was started with a smear concerning an alleged connection between home education and child abuse but has found no evidence for a link.  Nevertheless, invasive inspections are planned for home educating families.  Stating that families who home educate must submit to their homes being entered and their children interviewed on their own by an LA worker, without any reason for concern being given, is unacceptable.  I am also, as a parent, deeply concerned about the sort of person who will apply for this type of inspection role.  

Many children who are home educated, including one of my own, have been removed from school due to their special needs and their inability to thrive and survive in the school system.  For these children, home education is a place of refuge.  The questioning of children alone, with the inspector having the power to deny the right to home educate for "any reason" will be frightening for children, who may feel that they have to "perform" in order to continue being educated at home.  My special needs daughter describes going back to school as "my worst nightmare" and she is intimidated about being questioned on her learning.  When discussing the proposed new law with them, I have had to tell them that they will need to meet the inspector and show what they have learnt.   \(Obviously I have tried to paint this in a positive light to them!)  When children have made the choice to be home educated, I believe their choice should be respected and their privacy should not be invaded without good reason.

LAs already have the right to issue a school attendance order if parents do not satisfy them that a suitable and efficient education is being provided.  Children's services can already be called in if there is reason to suspect abuse.  With the introduction of the ContactPoint database, all children will be known about, including all of those who are home educated.  The current system can work well if the LAs use their powers correctly and are properly trained and funded.  Some LAs are excellent and work closely with home educators, but others have lost the trust of home educators because they have acted in a heavy-handed manner, do not have sufficient understanding of the varying, effective methods of home education or have exceeded their powers.  It would be much better to use limited resources to help those known to be at risk rather than wasting money carrying out discriminatory and overly intrusive inspections on a group, which there are no reasons to suspect.

There are a few positive aspects to the report.  We welcome the provision of examination centres and free examination entry as well as reduced rate music tuition.  However, there is little mention in the report of funding these options.  I also believe that better access to flexi-schooling could be of benefit to many children.  

I do not object to registering to home educate.  However, I do object to having to "ask permission" by having to register again every year.  Would  you not think it ridiculous to have to re-apply for your school every year?  Education otherwise has an equal basis in law to school education and should be treated in the same manner.

Thank you again for taking the concerns of home educating parents seriously

Tania Berlow - 25 June 2009

 I answer my own rhetorical question.

 Taken straight from the Laming Report. There 11 million children in the uk and are just over 600,000 children known to social services in the  uk

Tania Berlow - 25 June 2009

ditto all of the above and while we are at it how about looking at language. home eduction liason visitors rather than inspectors or advisors .This would imply a more equitable relationship .

Until and IF this review makes it into law and guidance, these visitors are actually guests. They have no right to enter our homes unless home educators agree to this. UNess there are abuse concerns and then home educators are treated like the rest of uk parents.

also why will the DCSF not relase the actual figures from the report and say whther thse figures come form the few selected LA's or just the 60% who responded? If over half a million children are known to social services in the uk population of 11million \(Laming Enquiry) -then the assertion that MORE home educators are known to social services than the general population would mean that of the 20,000 registered families more than 4000 are known. is a real reason why the DCSF will not release the numbers from each LA when they have done so for the general population in the Laming Report?

are these known children mostly due to SEN? or withdrawals from failing schools?

Sarah Orme - 25 June 2009

Thank you, Charlotte, for this article.

Tania Berlow - 24 June 2009

I think that these objections are just the start.

The laws and guidance were very clear (excpet to some LEA's)  see Education Act 1996 s7  and Education Act 2002 s175.

The last review in 2007 which apparently cost £78,000 (foi request) was also very clear on the points of law.

The education act 2002 s174 (4) also states that lea's should  follow any guidance.

Then 'children missing education review came out .It was very specific that electively home educated children were NOT included in its recommendation nor in the law changes

So why this January 209 did  an insertion suddenly appear in the law  as  Education Act 2002 s436a

This s436a now tell councils they have a duty to locate ALL children not in school -which now includes electively home educated children

This bit of snuck in legislation changes everything and gives a validity to the Badman reviews premise.

But there are perfectly good laws and guidelines regarding  all chidlren when it comes to safeguarding.

why start to pick on home educated families?

Because now already in law , preceeding this review , the LEA must know who these families are  whereas any other child at school would be seen by a professional with a duty  who 'obviously' could spot any abuse or neglect going on .

so what is being said is that every child must been seen by someone connected to the DCSF-who has a professional duty regarding safeguarding

Doctors are not enough as some kids only see their doctor once a year , some less.

Havingnow  covered  safeguarding  for all school age children, might the next  by the DCSF be to do exactly the same for children under school age ?

After the last health visitor appontment  (which alson incidentally are not compulsary- yet) , there is no-one in a  in a position of authority with a duty to safeguarding who see the chld until school age.

.Backed up by Every Child Matters  All based on yet more EU and HUman rights rulings will all children under 5 have to be seen at elast once a year to make sure they are not being harmed by their parents and also to make sure that they are reciving their  given right to what Every Child Matters considers gold standard?

This is why the distinction in law  between educational concerns and welfare concerns will also become blurred - so that all home educated chilren will have a right to have a govenment official check that his parents are providing him with a safe home and one that is educationally suitable.  What abot those poor under 5's ??

The implications are enormous for ALL families.

It may look to some people   that we are a fringe extreme bunch of parents  but  any sort of fray into the 'community' of diverse home educatoprs wil show that this is erroneous.

This is not just a home education  issue .

The way that this review has been done has angered and alienated many  home-educating families  for specific reasons.

NO other family in the uk has  alaw that requires them to let someone in the door when there is no suspicion of wrong doing.

The review itself makes some allegations that seem to be impossible- how can the proportion of home educated children known to social services be proportionately higher than in the general population of schoool kids and the under 5's?

Even if that was taken from just the 20,000  registered families , how many would that be?

The report gives no reference statistics so we would know .Is that one in 500 families in the uk have current social services involvment due to safeguarding issues?  

Or does it mean any involvement such as children with disabilities who of course are known to social services?

It cannot mean that this figure was taken from the unknown missing estimated 60,000.

Incidentally how can this estimated 60,000 have come about?

Another thing that is becoming evident is that as concerned parents we will have no right to know the answer to these questions.

Any query to back up the statistics regarding this higher proportion of children known to social services and any query regarding where any of the information came form is being denied to the pubic under clauses in the Freedom of Information Act.

They have not been asked about specific cases, nor names - only about numbers

Anger does not adequately describe my feelings regarding this review .

HOw about afraid of my government

How about helpless to affect change and participate in te system that proportes to govern me

how about incensed that more than 30% of most peoples pay - that's 12 hoursa week of most peoples lives gpoes into maintaining this governement.

The changes will happen because we are not a big enough group nor  a visible enough group  to get public opinion .