My response to the commons select committee report.

Written ten mins after skim reading it.


I'm actually really happy with the report. It criticizes Badman's evidence base and, because of the unsafety of the evidence, the report backs off from the really problematic parts of the proposals - interviewing the child alone, access to family house, being measured on a detailed curriculum plan. It says clearly that the DCSF need to think out how any legislation will impact on SEN children before bringing it forward and it also says that the registration=licensing proposals are crazy. It says none of it is workable without properly costed and carried out LA staff training. It says a lot about autonomous HE. Mostly that they don't understand it - I think there is a clear acknowledgment that the report writers feel a tad out of their depth - but also that the DCSF should blooming well have done that research properly before bringing forward legislation that affects AE.

So now Graham Stuart and our other allies take that lot to conservative HQ, and they draft 2562 amendments to the proposed education bill - just the HE related bits, before they even start in on the rest of the bill - and if anyone says "steady on old chap, why not just let it go through?", Graham Stuart says "well, have you not seen the hiiiiighly critical select committee report on the Badman review? We can't just leave it be, you know, we have a responsibility" "good point, good point" they say. "pass the port".

And with the 2562 proposed amendments, the bill can't just go through, it will get stuck either in a committee somewhere or in the Lords and there's no way it can get included in the wash up - I mean, sorry Ed, but no way Jose in the light of such a critical select committee finding for part of the bill.

And then - oopsie - it'll run out of time as the general election is announced, and there's no way a conservative government is going to want to proceed with Ed Balls's fag ends, they'll want their own bright shiny new education legislations.

So yes, the battle goes on, but this should be enough to prevent the Balls nightmare going through (unless we get another labour government - not that I've met anyone anywhere in the last 6 months inclined to vote for them, so God knows who their constituency would be) and then once the conservatives arrive, well, they know about us, they are broadly sympathetic to us, and we make sure that we are right in there talking to michael gove and his chums from the get go. We no longer need to persuade balls and co of the problems of registration and defining suitable education, we have no hope of persuading them and it doesn't matter. We just need to be poised and ready to explain the issues clearly to Gove and co once they are elected.

The select committee enquiry had three purposes from our point of view. 1. to buy us time; 2. to bring HE to the attention of as many MPs as possible so they wouldn't nod through legislation concerning us in ignorance; 3. to place on public record the shoddiness of the Badman process, and the culpability of both Badman and the DCSF in that. How many times does the report say "this data was not in the Badman report, but HEers have acquired it through FOI requests..." Egg meet face.

We have a positive result on all three counts. We should be ready for a very merry Christmas.

select committee report

Email I just got:


"The Children, Schools and Families Committee publishes its Second Report (HC 39-I and -II) at 00.01 am on Wednesday 16 December 2009: The Review of Elective Home Education.

Hard copies of the Report and evidence will be posted to witnesses on Tuesday 15 December 2009. Electronic embargoed copies can be supplied to Government departments, media and witnesses and will be available from 12.00 noon on Tuesday 15 December 2009. These should be requested in advance by emailing csfcom@parliament.uk.

Embargoed hard copies of the Report will be placed in the Press Gallery, House of Commons, by 12.00 noon on Tuesday 15 December. All media enquiries should be addressed to Rebecca Jones, on 020 7219 5693/07917 488549, (jonesbl@parliament.uk).

The report can also be ordered from The Stationery Office (tel: 0845 702 3474) or from the Parliamentary Bookshop (020 7219 3890), or can be viewed on the Committees' website from 00.01 am on Wednesday 16 December 2009."

What might autonomous education look like?

The most important thing is finding a style that suits both parents and children. Some people buy a curriculum "in a box". Some people use workbooks. Some people follow the national curriculum. And I think those things are fine as long as the child is up for it - and it can be very reassuring for the parents to see obvious "educational product" on a regular basis.

But it doesn't have to be like that!

Some families would say that their main educational activities are those they undertake in various HE groups and other group activities.

Some families don't do anything that looks like a schoolroom at all.


Everything happens through play in our house, with parents trying to run with what the children are interested in anyway, following their lead, maybe offering alternatives or next steps, maybe just washing the paint brushes when requested.

People thinking of trying out an autonomous approach could just spend a few days or weeks where the only "education" they undertake is to try to answer all of the children's questions, or help them find answers. Or they could stand back and observe what the children are wanting to do left to their own devices, and see if they can recognise the educational value of it. Or see what the children are doing and help as desired.

The interests shift over time - maybe it's all crafty things one week, or it's all about cooking, or the children are desperate to go to the local city farm 4 times a week for a month or who knows what else - some children often like to concentrate on one activity to the exclusion of pretty much everything else.

Our neighbour said the other day "you're going to sainsburys AGAIN???" with an incredulous smile, but we had a little chat about the sorts of things that can happen in sainsburys at appropriate level for my children - and I think he began to grasp the concept of the world being a classroom.

Depending on a child's age and stage, there are all sorts of literacy things in making lists and finding items, maths in counting items or doing a running total of the shop, or doing times tables with those massive multipacks of crisps, the social skills of explaining to the store staff why there is a heap of multipacks of crisps all over aisle 8 which you are in the process of reshelving [ahem]. Or for children at a suitable age and stage, they can make the list themselves, with a budget, and take responsibility for the whole thing. Or it might be a conversation about why this packet of tuna not the other sort, or why you're buying the veges that are in season, or why the whole place is full of pumpkins this week, or whatever it is - there can be conversations about your values and about politics and geography and history and who knows what all else.

I am praying that Brave Sir Ralph will save our bacon with his conservative chums but, if he doesn't, I might just invite the LEA numpty to come and do his compulsory annual interview and welfare check in the supermarket. And I'll buy him a packet of jammy dodgers if he's civilized about the whole thing.

orwellian double speak

Can I suggest that in ALL our dealings with the PTB, the media etc, we refer not to "proposals for registration" but to "proposals for annual licensing (which the DCSF for some odd reason are calling registration)".

"registration" sounds fine to your average Joe. It just sounds like a list of who's HEdding. Who could object to that? Says Joe. [yes, I would even object to a list, but it gets quickly into a teasy weasy argument about the relationship between the State and the individual and we've lost Joe]

But "licensing", having to ask permission every year, at the whim of some numpty in the LA - yes, Joe is going to see the problem with that even if he reads the Independent. :-D

Balls and the DCSF are Owellian-doublespeaking us. We have to refuse to accept that.

Letter to a sympathetic friend

Dear xxx,

There have been cases of child abuse involving HE families, but they are very very few and far between. "There has never been a case of HE abuse" is a bad line to go down.

Of course there will be abuse among the HE population, although the stats coming out now (google AHEd lies, damned lies and statistics - I think that'd give you the links - HEers have done hundreds of FOI requests to get the actual comparative figures) indicate that the rate is very much lower than in the general population.

But the point of principle to hold onto is:

the current law as relates to child abuse is FIT FOR PURPOSE. Children's Services have the legal powers they need. The fact that they so abjectly fail to use their existing powers with good judgement in cases like Kyra Ishaq is not a good reason to give them more power - quite the opposite. Let them stop acting ulta vires before anyone considers widening the remit of the LA children's services.

PLUS

of course

Even if 25% of HE families were under investigation by children's services for suspected abuse, that would still not be grounds for demanding access to the home and to the child alone for the other 75% of HE families. Otherwise we lose the principle that the State does not interfere in private life without probable cause.

More than happy to keep discussing any of these issues :-)

Emma

home educated, not hidden

Walking along with old college friends today in a part of town miiiiiles away from where I live.

Random man in sainsbury's uniform walks by.

"Hello Emma!"

"Hello Tim! How are you?"

"fine. How are you all?"

My college friend "what is this, do you live in Eastenders?".

"No. This is what happens when you home educate. You are on first name terms with the check out staff at the local supermarket. Home educated; not hidden."

Get your responses in, everyone!

Thank you for responding to Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals.

If you have requested an acknowledgement we will send one to you as soon as your response has been processed.

Your response identifier is 1808.

Children’s Rights Ignored By Select Committee - HEYC Press Release

A Youth Council Has Found That The Views Of Home Educated Children Have Been Ignored, By A Government Proposing New Laws Supposedly ‘Supporting’ Home Educated Children’s Rights.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9 Oct. 2009 – PDF version

Contact: Chloe Watson
Phone: 07870 104 216
Email: press@heyc.org.uk

The Home Educated Youth Council today discovered that absolutely no home educated children have been invited to give oral evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee(1), who are holding an inquiry into a report on elective home education published earlier this year(2), after challenges to the report’s integrity. In fact, the majority of the parties called as witnesses are non-home educating adults whom either work for government or local authorities.

The only people invited who speak for home education in any way are Jane Lowe, trustee of the Home Education Advisory Service, Fiona Nicholson, trustee of Education Otherwise, and Simon Webb and David Wright. The rest of the participants are composed of people from government and NGOs who have no real engagement with home education, such as the NSPCC.

The Home Educated Youth Council (HEYC) is an organisation created and run by children, to support the rights of home educated children and young people, and to provide an independent voice for those children educated at home. HEYC sent a written submission to the select committee, and also requested to give oral evidence to the inquiry, citing their rights under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(3), which states that:

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

When Chloe Watson, Chair of HEYC, called the committee to inquire as to why no home educated children had been invited to give evidence, she was told that the committee chose who should give oral evidence by selecting those they felt would answer the questions they wanted to pose best.

HEYC would like to know why the committee has chosen to ask questions that can not be answered by home educated children, especially since one of the criticisms of the report the Select Committee is investigating, is that it contravenes children’s rights. HEYC is also confused as to how the committee would know who would answer a question best, if they are not predisposed to hear a certain answer, and do not already know what the answer will be.

“If the committee already has answers in mind, as was implied to me, it surely can’t be impartial, and I don’t see how the outcomes of a partial inquiry can have any credibility.” says Miss Watson.

The report that this inquiry stems from claims to redress the balance between the rights of parents to educate as they wish, and the rights of children to receive a good education. However, the views of home educated children overwhelmingly support the status-quo(4), and disagree with the report’s intrusive proposals, leading HEYC to question whether the report, or the inquiry into it, truly does support the rights of children after all.

HEYC believes that in the current climate of suspicion at the government’s behaviour among home educators and the wider population – with a report full of misleading quotes and shaky evidence, written by an author whose independence is questionable(5), a disproportionate response to un-proven risks, erosion of civil liberties throughout society, and current guidance on home education mysteriously disappearing from the DCSF website – such behavior will only reduce the confidence adults and children alike have in the government.

HEYC calls for the government to make moves to regain that confidence, and begin to take account of the views of children in the home educating community.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with HEYC personnel, please contact press@heyc.org.uk, or call Chloe Watson on 07870 104 216
NOTES FOR EDITORS

* 1) The Children Schools and Families Committee Oral Evidence Sessions – http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/csf/meetings.cfm
* 2) The Report to the Secretary of State on Elective Home Education – http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-610_Home-ed.PDF
* 3) UNCRC Article 12 – http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art12
* 4) Results of the public questionnaire used to gather evidence for the report – http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/14635/response/41721/attach/html/3/Responses%20to%20the%20Consultation%20-%20Statistics%20-%20Annex%20A.doc.html
* 5) Letter to Local Authorities by Graham Badman, author of the report, requesting supplementary evidence after publishing the report, to use as evidence in the inquiry – http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/publications/documents/laeelectivehomeeducation/

select committe witnesses next week

sent to the select committee email address



Dear Sir/Madam,

Please would you reconsider the choice of Simon Webb as a witness to the commons select committee? Simon Webb is well known in online home educating circles and, it is fair to say, would not be a good choice for representing any sort of collective (or widely accepted) view. There is widespread shock and distress that he has been selected to speak for home education, given the views he expressed in the Independent earlier this year: here
A more unfortunate choice could hardly have been made.


I am also terribly concerned that so few of the widely representative and well informed HE groups appear on the list - how can there be no representatives from AHEd (the South of the Border sister group to Schoolhouse, who were key in making representations to the Scottish parliament when home education came under review there in recent years) or the Facebook "Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home Educators" group, which currently has over 2300 members? Please reconsider.

the consultation questions

Draft answers. Feel free to extract bits you like for your own response. Criticism welcome.

Question 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?

No. This rhetoric of balancing parents’ rights to home educate with children’s rights to be safe and to receive an education is false. There are no opposing rights to be balanced. Parents have no right to cause their children to receive an education – they have a legal duty to ensure their children receive an education, and the State has the duty to provide facilities such as schools where invited, and to intervene where there is reason to suppose that parents are failing in their duty.

The recommendations involve a fundamental shift in the relationship between the State and the family, together with routine intrusive surveillance of innocent families in order to attempt to address a statistically undefined problem. There is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the recommendations will prevent or detect harm, but certainty that they will cause harm through the monitoring process and through the inevitable false positive identifications of abuse.

Under the recommendations, LA staffers will have right of entry to home educating families’ homes, together with the right to detain (forcibly interview) parents and children separately without probable cause. Even the police do not have these powers!

LAs already have the powers to intervene where there are education or welfare concerns; too often, they fail to use them with proper judgment. Indeed, as regards HE, LAs seem almost universally incapable of following the existing 2007 Elective Home Education guidelines. These are not safe hands in which to put increased powers.

Home Educated children OVERWHELMINGLY reject the proposals: http://www.ukhome-educators.co.uk/Survey/childsurvey0609.htm

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

No.
The proposed requirement annually to seek permission from the LA to home educate by 'registering' (NB it is not a register but a licence that you are proposing) removes responsibility for providing children with an education ‘at school or otherwise’ from the parents, instead placing that duty in the hands of LA staff, who will delegate it to parents who they deem suitable (Recommendation 23).

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

No. There should be no register.

The proposals make home educators vulnerable to LA prejudice about different educational and lifestyle philosophies.

The requirement that parents complete plans and submit to visits within weeks of beginning to home educate will be an intimidating and discriminatory barrier to entry; many families take some time to establish the educational philosophy and style which will suit them. Further, the well-documented necessity for a ‘deschooling’ period after removing a child from school is not accommodated.

The requirement to provide detailed plans of what our children will be learning in the next year, plans against which our children’s attainment will be measured at the end of the year, is inimical to the well established and effective practice among home educators of child-centred, personalised, responsive, informal learning. Since Autonomous home education – a venerable and effective educational style – follows the interests of the children, long term planning (as required by the registration proposals) is either counter productive or impossible.

Home educators whose patterns are more formal, following curricula and regularly producing ‘educational product’, are also unhappy at the lack of flexibility and responsiveness permitted by such a requirement.

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

No. THere should be no register.

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

No. There should be no register.

(hint: when designing questionnaires, it is best to avoid asking questions which assume a particular answer was given to a preceding question)

Question 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?

No. Schools are provided with taxpayers' money as a resource for parents to use if this is the most convenient and appropriate way to cause their children to receive an education. If parents choose not to avail themselves of the state-provided service, that is their business.

The 20-day notice period would provide school staff and LA staffers with the opportunity to place undue pressure on parents to keep their children on the school roll, pressure which they have no business placing on the parents. The current arrangements for deregistration recognise the responsibility of the parent in causing the child to receive an education at school or otherwise; this proposal changes the balance of power so that the approved and default setting is school and parents must apply for permission to educate their children themselves.

It is unclear whether a child deeply unhappy at school would be forced to endure a further 20 days of it, or whether caring parents removing their children from a traumatic situation would be vulnerable to truancy prosecution. Either of these is a completely unnecessary punitive measure.


The 20-day notice period would also be a discriminatory barrier to entry.

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

No. The school should provide the PARENTS, who are now going to be providing the education, with the data. Quite apart from the potential for schools to provide false or misleading information (a common complaint among those beginning to home educate children with SEN), it is the parents, meeting their duty to educate their child, who should be provided with all school records, not the State.

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

No. The current laws are adequate if LAs act within them. The DCSF should instead transform the 2007 Guidelines into statutory guidance.

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

No. I think that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should be in close contact with Children's Services, where social workers are properly trained to deal with such concerns, and there is an established legal framework within which they should act.

The place of education is irrelevant. If there is reason to believe that a child is not safe at home with their parents then they should not be left in the unsupervised care of their parents for any hours a day - the place of education is a complete red herring.

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

No. State employees should not have right of entry to private homes without probable cause. This proposal fundamentally shifts the relationship between the State and the home, and between the State and the family.


Educational provision can be ascertained through written correspondence; the explicit purpose of these compulsory visits would be to check for abuse. Proposed annual safe-and-well checks for all home educated children is disproportionate to the perceived problem and will be ineffective.

The danger of false positives is large, particularly in families with unconventional lifestyles (for example, Attachment Parenting, living according to Alfie Kohn’s Unconditional Parenting method, or Unschooling and similar philosophies of consensual family living), and in families where children have additional needs of various kinds (families with a selectively mute child, or one on the autistic spectrum, say, may have chosen not to seek diagnosis; to a hostile stranger their behaviour may well appear suspicious).

An abused child is highly unlikely to confide in a complete stranger on a short annual visit. For many abused children, their suffering goes unnoticed at school for years, despite familiar adults seeing them regularly. Before moving towards legislation which treats a minority group as particularly dangerous to children and which infringes their civil liberties in a fundamental way, it would behove the DCSF to produce evidence that their proposed regime of surveillance would uncover such abuse. Someone who has been horribly abusing their child since birth is hardly going to pause to register them as home educated. Someone who deregisters their child from school under suspicious circumstances should be referred to Social Services by the school.

Question 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?

No. If there are safeguarding concerns about a child, then social workers should be involved.

The Badman recommendations threaten to work AGAINST rather than FOR safeguarding. They will massively divert limited resources from where they are needed – the resources to finance the costly registration and monitoring procedures would have to come from LA Children’s Services budgets, which are often already struggling to cope with the at risk children in their areas. The proposed annual safe-and-well visits would be highly unlikely to detect abuse, but would certainly risk throwing up false positives, with the attendant trauma for the families affected. The visits would also cause stress and anxiety for families, by the intrusion of an authority figure searching for abuse into their safe haven (this would be particularly acute for children who have been taken out of school because of bullying – especially bullying by teachers – and also for those with special needs or school phobia, but has been raised as a concern by other home educated children as well).

Police do not have the right to detain (forcibly interview) without probable cause, and the power should not be given to LA staffers. This proposal fundamentally shifts the relationship between the State and the home, and between the State and the family.

Children learning informally would have their learning restricted (and thus damaged) by being forced to ‘exhibit’ to LA staffers (who, at present, are almost all ex-teachers or ex-OFSTED inspectors, and thus are heavily invested in school-style learning). Production of educational artefacts and the child ‘exhibiting’ to LA staffers would also depend on the interests and activities of the child, and their willingness to share their achievements with judgemental and potentially hostile strangers. Producing material for assessment always interferes with learning, as every trained teacher has learned in their training!

The plan to interview individual children to measure their attainment is inconsistent with the treatment of children in the population at large: in school settings, the provision is inspected rather than the attainment of individual children. Neither are schooled children taken aside by state officials and asked if they wouldn't rather be home educated.

The proposed compulsory visits will themselves be damaging to children – not only those with special needs, but any children who would prefer not to be scrutinised alone by strangers with the power to force them to attend school. It is often easy for those in the child protection industry to forget how much harm they do simply by investigating and invading the lives of innocent families.

These invasive powers will not be applied to the families of schooled children or to pre-schoolers, despite abuse being statistically much more common in these groups. The proposals are thus discriminatory.

Question 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.

No. Police do not have the right to detain (forcibly interview) without probable cause, and the power should not be given to LA staffers. This proposal fundamentally shifts the relationship between the State and the home, and between the State and the family.

It is also inconsistent and disproportionate: state schools do not endure annual inspections, despite being answerable to the taxpayer.

here we go - the consultation

I think I want to work in a critique of the background...

1. Background and Context
1.1
The Review of Home Education in England published on 11 June (click here) took evidence from a large number of home educators, many local authorities and other groups who work with home educating families. The terms of reference recognised that parents have a well established right to educate their children at home and that the government respects that right, and has no plans to change that position. They also set out the Department's commitment to ensuring that systems for keeping children safe and receiving a suitable education, are as robust as possible. They recognised that where local authorities have concerns about the safety and welfare, or education, of a home educated child, effective systems must be in place to deal with those concerns.

Those systems are already in place. Before changing the law, you need to clearly lay out what the existing systems are and why they are inadequate (hint: they are not)

1.2
The review's recommendations set out specific proposals for improving the capacity of local authorities and other public services to support home educators. The government, in its initial response (click here), is considering carefully the best way to implement them: a significant amount of further development work will be needed with local authorities, home educators and other organisations. We will publish a full response to the review's recommendations by the end of September.

You should not be consulting on the recommendations before you have responded to them fully - how do you know that this consultation is asking the right questions?

1.3
The review found no evidence that home education was used to cover forced marriage, servitude, or trafficking other than in isolated cases. However, the reviewer was provided with evidence showing that the number of home educated children known to Children's Social Services in some LAs was disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population. There are well established procedures for supporting children known to a local authority where there are safeguarding concerns. However, the review notes that without knowledge of, or access to, a child, such powers are meaningless. HMCI, in her response to the call for evidence, noted that ‘schools have an important responsibility to monitor children's safety and welfare but this safety net is missing for children educated at home.'

the statistical basis for "disproportionately high" has been blown out of the water. All that remains is the vague fear that there may be unknown numbers of entirely hidden children not known to anyone outside their family. Where is the evidence that school attendance is an effective safety net? Where is the evidence that the proposed powers will be proportionate and effective?

1.4

For these reasons the government has decided to take immediate steps to reduce the risk that home education can be used as a cover for child abuse or neglect. The response to the review records our commitment to tighten up safeguarding procedures by:
Establishing a register of home educated children in each local authority;
Giving local authorities discretion to prohibit children from being home educated in circumstances where there are safeguarding concerns;
Introducing tougher monitoring arrangements which will require local authorities to interview home educated children and visit the premises where home education is taking place to ensure that a suitable and efficient education is being provided and the children are safe and well.

you are conflating educational provision with welfare. This is reprehensible.

keeping the pressure up

rebecca.godar@adcs.org.uk

Dear Ms Godar,

I was interested to read this quote:

'However, the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) regards the introduction of more stringent measures as invaluable. Badman's proposals, it argues, will allow local authorities to help ensure home educated children get the same opportunities as those that attend school, which include being safe and achieving academically.' in CYPNow (http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/941902)

Are you claiming that the opportunities children get at school include being safe and achieving academically? Are you aware that 450,000 children are bullied in schools every week, at least 16 children in the UK commit suicide every year as a result of school bullying, 1 in 6 children leave school every year unable to read, write or add up (http://ahed.pbworks.com/Anomaly-Figures), and the government's own benchmark is for '30% of pupils getting 5 good GCSEs including English and Maths' (Ed Balls here: http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/820977?msgid=16729623 at 13:18:42) - hardly what one can trumpet as 'achieving academically'.

Home Educated children outperform schooled children statistically on both academic and well being measures. Please do your research before trotting out the usual smears.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Balls on Mumsnet

"LouThorn and others. I know that many of you feel very strongly about the Badman Review and are passionate about Home Education. My job is to support home educators and that's what I am going to do including by responding to Graham Badman's call for extra support for home educators, especially where a child has SEN. But it is also my job to do everything I can to make sure children are safe, including from abuse or neglect. And that includes home educated children too. There have been high profile cases of 'home educated' children who have been very badly neglected. Graham makes clear that this is a small minority, though disproportionately larger among home educated children. Every child has a right to have a happy and safe childhood."

Can we use this somehow?


http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/820977?msgid=16729623

Unfooding

I'm very much enjoying some posts here at muddy bare feet about relaxing food controls. Such an exciting path.

I was delighted to jump in a taxi home from the supermarket today and find ourselves in the company of a friendly driver we've seen a few times before. I gave him a stamped postcard to send to his MP and he made very approving noises about jumping off the conveyor belt of automatically sending children to school at 4.

every cloud has a silver lining

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5924342/BBC-may-screen-education-programmes-if-swine-flu-shuts-schools.html this could be fun for HEers! Or it could be for those who have a TV, but unfortunately we can't own one because of being opposed to paying the Biased Broadcasting Corporation levy.

grist to the mill

I'm actually somewhat pleased that the dcsf have gone loop-de-loo and are apparently refusing all FOI requests related to the review. This is not going to look good to the select committee at. all. :-D

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Children, Schools and Families Committee
Select Committee have announced an

Inquiry into the DCSF-commissioned review of elective home education

Leave a comment if you want me to tell you what's in the email - it's one of those "don't pass this on" official ones and I am anxious to do things by the book :-)

know your enemy - dealing with the LA

http://www.hupfield.com/matt/index.php

This is spine chilling. But also really good - that the EHEers in the case kept their cool, kept records, and acted lawfully throughout. Unlike the LA staffers. Gasp, shock, horror.

Shooting from the hip

I'm really beyond composing carefully worded and nuanced letters.

So here's a 10 minute rant for the draft legislative programme people. It doesn't have in it everything it should, but I am coming to the conclusion that as long as I say SOME of the important things, other people will cover the other bits.




dlp@commonsleader.x.gsi.gov.uk


“improving monitoring arrangements for children educated at home;”

I am very concerned about this clause.

The current legal position is perfectly adequate to ensure that all children receive a suitable education (as defined in case law). If you want to improve matters in this area, then a good start would be to turn the 2007 elective Home Education Guidelines for LAs into statutory Guidance. The next step would be to support families in seeking legal redress against LA employees who act ultra vires.

I understand that there are “safeguarding concerns” over home educated children in general, a concern that they may be "hidden". The recommendations of the Badman review are absolutely not the answer to the concerns of the DCSF, since his review has been widely condemned as partial, disproportionate, ill-researched, and lacking in expertise. It quotes selectively and thus misleadingly from the CofE submission to the review, as well as from a home educator's submission. It misuses statistics (where it uses them at all), perhaps because the actual figures do not help him come to his prejudged conclusions. Badman's report was supposed to be concerned with welfare, but steps WAY outside his remit (and the remit on which he consulted), and outside his expertise, conflating welfare issues with educational issues. His conclusions and recommendations are aligned neither with his stated brief nor with his findings.

As soon as the Badman review was published, a consultation was opened. Ed Balls may have accepted the review, but the primary stakeholders, Home Educating families, most certainly have not. Nor have social workers (http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/heducation.htm). Consultations are supposed to be held when there is the chance of affecting the outcome. But Ed Balls has already accepted the Badman recommendations, and promises to respond in more detail in September, over half way through the consultation period. And now we see ‘monitoring arrangements’ in the draft legislation before the consultation (supposed to explore whether there should be any new legislation) has closed, let alone been reported on. Is this really how the legislative process is supposed to operate?

The proposed legislation is also uncosted, not having been subjected to an impact assessment (which should have taken place before the consultation opened, surely?).


What should the government be doing instead? Rather than concentrating its efforts on disproportionate, inconsistent and uncosted legislation whose consequence (intended or unintended) will be to control the perfectly valid educational and lifestyle choices of innocent families, and to shift the primary responsibility both for the education and welfare of children from parents to the state (brace yourselves for the law suits when state employees fail to educate children or keep them safe in schools), the government should concentrate on making sure that LA staff are fully aware of and act in accordance with current welfare and education legislation, both of which are perfectly adequate if properly applied.

Whatever draconian legislation you introduce will impact negatively on law-abiding families, and on the educational freedom they currently enjoy. The hypothetical vicious child abusers hiding their children from society from birth onwards are not going to be affected at all - a £1000 fine (or whatever) for failure to register as a home educator with the LA is hardly going to be the top priority for our hypothetical sweat-shop dad or get-her-on-the-game-young mum, is it?

Top Tip for Bureaucrats

Badman wants all HEers to be required to register so that child abusers will be found.

But the people who will register if required are the law abiding.

If I were abusing my children so horrifically that keeping them hidden at home rather than sending them off to school seemed like the best option, would I be losing sleep at night over the possible £1000 fine for failure to register them, and a possible S.A.O. for failing to provide a suitable education? Would I heck as like. I'd be more worried about the multiple life sentences awaiting me, surely.

I'm really failing to see how the registration proposal would be the slightest bit effective. Why would child abusers register their children? What would they have to lose, in the grand scheme of things, by failing to comply?

This is all in the context, of course, that the Badman report in its entirety would be best used to line a cat litter tray rather than to inform government policy.

Why I am optimistic

I believe that there is a governmental campaign afoot to completely change the relationship between the State and the Family, starting with home educators.

But I believe that they will fail.

I know that there is a great deal of doom and gloom around, and of course I am having my days of despair too, but here is what gives me hope:

When we can explain what is happening in terms which relate our plight to the lives of more conventional families, they are starting to wake up and get it. Slowly, but they really are (spot the brilliantly articulate non-HEer in that second link).

We have a power which Mr Macho Bully Boy Balls did not anticipate in his wildest dreams. That power is female. It is the power of the mama tiger seeing a threat to her cubs (Hear me ROOOOAAAAARRRRR) combined with the power more often seen in women than men, IME, to network and share ideas and actually get on with 45 things at once. How many ideas have you seen in the last month of ways to fight the proposed legislation? And maybe half of them are damp squibs, but there are just so many of us on the blogs and the boards and the lists and at the local HE meetings who are fired up with ideas and fury and goddammit with right against might.

It's not samizdat now it is teh internetz. We are connected. We are a many headed hydra. We are going to be a thorn in the side of the State. And if they do pass their evil legislation, we will, legally and politely, find ways of making it just too horrible for anyone to be prepared to do the HomeEducationStaziInspector job.

And, in a year's time, Ed Balls will be out of a job, and Graham Badman will still have to be Graham Badman every morning when he wakes up.

Petition template for marginals

Declaration: At the next general election I intend to vote for a candidate who opposes the DCSF’s proposed legislation relating to intrusive educational monitoring and welfare surveillance of Home Educators. This proposed legislation would:
- give Local Authority staff right of access to our homes without reason to suspect any wrong doing (even the police do not have this power!)
- give Local Authority staff the right to interview our children whether they are willing to be interviewed or not, without anyone supportive present, and without reason to suspect that any harm is being done to them (even social services do not have this power!)
- give Local Authority staff power of veto over who is allowed to register as a home educator, placing those who home educate in unconventional yet effective ways (Christian curriculum? Waldorf- or Steiner-inspired? Summerhill-inspired? Autonomous?) or in unconventional circumstances (Family on benefits? Single parent family? Wrong religion? Roma or travellers? Child with special needs? Parent with illness or disability?) at the mercy of what the LA staffer considers to be an appropriate approach and suitable family circumstances.

The proposed legislation is disproportionate, uncosted and inconsistent.

[insert pretty table with following columns:]

NAME
POSTCODE
HAVE YOU VOTED IN A UK GENERAL ELECTION BEFORE?
HAVE YOU VOTED LABOUR IN THE PAST?
SIGNATURE


You can signal your opposition by
- signing Early Day Motion 1785 if you are a sitting MP
- issuing a press statement
- writing to your party HQ to register your opposition to the proposed legislation.

Marginal constituencies

Place sitting Lab MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Oxford East Andrew Smith LD 963
Chester, City of Christine Russell CON 915
Finchley & Golders Green Rudi Vis CON 741
South Thanet Stephen Ladyman CON 664
Islington South & Finsbury Emily Thornberry LD 484
Dartford Howard Stoate CON 706
(Ochil & South Perthshire Gordon Banks SNP 688)
High Peak Tom Levitt CON 735
Stourbridge Lynda Waltho CON 407
(Edinburgh South Nigel Griffiths LD 405)
Hove Celia Barlow CON 420
Selby John Grogan CON 467
Stroud David Drew CON 350
Gillingham Paul Clark CON 254
Medway Robert Marshall-Andrews CON 213
Warwick & Leamington James Plaskitt CON 266
Battersea Martin Linton CON 163
Harlow Bill Rammell CON 97
Sittingbourne & Sheppey Derek Wyatt CON 79
Crawley Laura Moffatt CON 37


Place sitting LD MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority

Hereford Keetch, P.S. CON 962
Manchester, Withington Leech, J. LAB 667
Somerton & Frome Heath, D.W.St.J. CON 812
Eastleigh Huhne, C.M.P. CON 568
Rochdale Rowen, P.J. LAB 442
Taunton Browne, J.R. CON 573
Ceredigion Williams, M.F. PC 219
Westmorland & Lonsdale Farron, T.J. CON 267
Solihull Burt, L.J. CON 279
Romsey Gidley, S.J. CON 125






Place sitting CON MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority

Wrekin, The Pritchard, M.A. LAB 942
Harwich Carswell, J.D.W. LAB 920
Preseli Pembrokeshire Crabb, S. LAB 607
Gravesham Holloway, A.J.H. LAB 654
Wellingborough Bone, P.W. LAB 687
Hornchurch Brokenshire, J.P. LAB 480
Reading East Wilson, R. LAB 475
Hemel Hempstead Penning, M.A. LAB 499
Shipley Davies, P.A. LAB 422
Guildford Milton, A.F. LD 347
Clwyd West Jones, D.I. LAB 133
Croydon Central Pelling, A.J. LAB 75

Do you live in a marginal constituency????

The Badman issue could make the difference between a sitting MP losing or retaining his/her seat at the next election. I believe we need to tell them so.



1. Do you live in a marginal constituency?

a) The marginal Labour constituencies, with majorities of less than 1000 are:

Oxford East; Chester, City of; Finchley & Golders Green; South Thanet ; Islington South & Finsbury; Dartford; High Peak, Stourbridge; Hove; Selby ; Stroud; Gillingham; Medway ; Warwick & Leamington; Battersea; Harlow; Sittingbourne & Sheppey; Crawley.


The further along the list you go, the more vulnerable the MP (the MP for Crawley has a majority of only 37!!!)

I can post a list of marginal lib dem and conservative MPs if wanted, but I personally think the labour ones near the end of the list above are the ones to focus on for now.

I have a word document with full details of the majorities. Post a comment if you want me to send it to you.


b) I have made a petition document. I will post it in a minute, and you can leave a comment if you want me to email you the Word document. If you like my wording go straight ahead and use it. If not, change at will, of course. NB note that noone is being asked to reveal what they voted in 2005, just whether they’ve voted labour in the past. Also that noone is signing up to vote in a particular way next time, just signalling their intentions at this point.


c) Are you prepared to coordinate the local petition? If not, please think of an efficient type who might be able to!





2. What the petition organiser could do:

a) Add your address at the bottom of the petition as the place to send signed copies to.

b) send the petition around the local HE lists and get copies of it to all the local HE meet ups in the next week or so.

c) get as many HEers as possible not only to sign it but also to take copies, or get you to forward the Word document by email so that they can ask friends, family and colleagues in the constituency to sign it. If you have a big number to aim at, then get them to take the petition along to all their clubs, societies, and other regular places they go, to get as many people to sign as possible – mums and dads, Akela, the vicar, the man at the Sainsbury’s checkout – everyone.

d) email the national lists to ask if anyone has friends or relations in these marginal constituencies. Get them to print off a copy of the petition and force said friends and relations to sign it and return to you.

e) here comes the maths part. If the signatory has not voted before, then a guaranteed vote away from the sitting MP is – 1 from their majority. If the signatory has voted before and has voted Labour before, then a vote away counts – 2 from their majority (minus one for them and plus one for the person in second place last time, who you may well be planning to vote for if they make the right supportive noises). If someone has voted before but has never voted labour then their signature will be nice and supportive, but won’t make any difference to the sitting MP and won’t scare them. If it’s manageable (I’d say Gillingham onwards in the list above), try to get enough signatures that the petition sheets themselves say “if you do not support us in this, you are going to guarantee to lose 155 votes in the next election. Your current majority is 154”. You don’t need to rub it in. They’ll do the maths themselves.

f) once you have the majority-killing signatures, or as many as you think you can get, photocopy all the petition sheets. Keep the originals. Send the copies to: the MP, the local constituency office of whoever was 2nd last time, the DCSF, and maybe the local and national papers. When you get near to that stage, I am happy to help draft a press release and a covering letter. I’m happy to do it and then you can alter it, if the idea of writing it from scratch is scary. Just post a comment somewhere on my blog to ask for help.


Oh, and please spread the word about this plan! Linkage much appreciated.

another route - commons select committee on children schools and families

sent to csfcom@parliament.uk

I was interested to read in the Independent today that Barry Sheerman "said it was important not to have a knee-jerk reaction following a case like Baby P. Mr Sheerman told MPs: "There is sometimes a danger that all the resources, after a tragic death, are rushed into child protection and can actually starve the resources for the support of families and good quality social work." "

Is the committee aware that just such a knee-jerk reaction appears to be under way with regard to Elective Home Education?

Graham Badman's report, welcomed by Ed Balls, has been greeted with shock and fury by the Home Educating community. The report itself is enormously problematic - selective and misleading quotation, failure to represent or reflect the views of Home Educators, acknowledgement that there is no evidence that Home Education is used as a cover for child abuse, and then putting forward a series of proposals which are already under consultation that not only call for the imposition of an intrusive monitoring regime, but also (unjustifiably) conflate the question of educational provision with the question of safeguarding.

The process of the report, consultation and proposed legislation falls short of the standards the electorate expects. How can a plan to "improve monitoring of Home Education" be in a white paper when the public consultation about whether such monitoring should be introduced - NB you can't 'improve' something before you've introduced it - is still under way? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be 'improved', then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?

The proposed legislation stems from a concern that HEed children are more at risk of abuse than those who attend school. It is hardly surprising that Badman did not publish the relevant figures since they seem to show that the converse is the case... here

Given the lack of figures supporting the central premise of the Badman review, the proposed legislation as outlined in the consultation here

and already predetermined outcome at least to some extent, as evidenced by the draft improving schools and safeguarding children bill here

I consider the government's policy and proposed legislation on this matter to be disproportionate - compulsory safe-and-well checks and vastly increased powers to LA staff to approve (or not) the educational provision of families where the responsibility for the education of a child has, until now, rested with the parents.

I am also concerned about the lack of an impact assessment of this area of proposed legislation: here

If LA staff are to be given powers of intrusion into private homes without probable cause, and the power to demand interviews alone with children without probable cause (neither of these are powers which either the police or Social Services have), then what will be the costs of the new regime? Staff training in different forms of elective home education (continuation of the current situation, where the LA staff are usually retired teachers or OFSTED inspectors would obviously not be acceptable - those assessing EHE provision would have to be expert practitioners themselves)? Staff training in recognising abuse on a single annual meeting with uncooperative and unwelcoming children (you might be interested in this extensive survey of Home Educated children's opinions - would that Mr Badman had listened to them so carefully - here )? Increased budgets for training, recruiting and retaining social workers to cope with the flood of false positives referred by anxious LA education workers? Proper training for the LA staff in communicating with children with complex special needs of many different kinds?

Can any price be put on the cost in anxiety for the Home Educating parents and children? Our families are frightened that our - perfectly valid - ways of living and educating our children are about to be the hostage of LA staff who, in a perfect world would be rational and reasonable and open minded. But we do not live in a perfect world, and LA staff already fail to follow the law as it stands - we do not trust them with more power. Our children are frightened that some person from the council will have the power to come and see what they have been doing and judge it wanting, send them back to the school which failed them and where they failed, where they were bullied, perhaps, and were certainly failing to achieve the five outcomes.

If it would be helpful for the committee to hear from home educating families, I would be delighted to help set that up, or travel to London myself to make a representation to the committee. The proposed legislation is wrong headed on so many counts, and the DCSF are showing themselves committed to a course which possibly breaks various codes of conduct (for consultation and for drafting legislation) and completely fails to listen to the concerns of stakeholders.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

hear the children

survey of HE children.

It will be interesting to see whether the DCSF, to whom this has been sent, disregard this entirely and steamroller on.

And all that My Children Aren't Hidden Stuff?

Thank you, Leo, for the wake up in comments. It's sort of comforting to be able to say look look look my children are not hidden, and to be able to think of ways that one might demonstrate that to LA jobsworths if push came to shove.

But after this morning's underhand government bastardliness, I am not going to put the energy into lengthy self-justification. My children are not hidden, Mr Balls. Your proposals are disproportionate. Oh, and I think you are a devious, smearing, disrespectful, nasty stalinist who, I pray, will have his Portillo moment within the year. The end.


[and yes, I deleted an extremely rude word or two before posting]

Back in the Saddle Again

Letter sent to


enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk

dlp@commonsleader.x.gsi.gov.uk

and to my MP

and to Michael Gove c/o


Dear Whoever,

I am astonished to read the draft "improving schools and safeguarding children bill": here

The surprising clause is:

"improving monitoring arrangements for children educated at home".

Please would you investigate this URGENTLY? The DCSF is currently engaged in a consultation process about the law relating to Elective Home Education, a consultation which does not end until October: here




How, then, can legislation relating to this consultation be in progress? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be improved, then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?

Should the process not be that the consultation takes place, then a report on that consultation is written (I understand that it is expected to be completed in January 2010) and THEN a legislative programme can be planned if appropriate. The phrase "stitch up" comes to mind.

You doubtless know this already, but I would remind you that Elective Home Education has been the subject of consultation after consultation in the last five years. The recent bout is the worst yet: a consultation announced in January which swiftly turned into a "review" once it was pointed out to the DCSF that the code of practice was being broken; a so-called "independent" review undertaken by the anything-but-independent Graham Badman; and, worst of all, a smear campaign in which educational practice and government concerns about safeguarding have been conflated with no justification beyond political expediency.

I protest against this draft legislation in the strongest terms. Please tell me what the procedure is for halting this presumptive draft legislation until the proper consulting process has taken place (and for ever, if the findings of the consultation are that no change to the law is needed).

Yours sincerely,

Our "Hidden" children

I am wondering, seriously, whether we might be able to offer community testimonials as proof to the LAs, in the worst-case Badman-prevails scenario, that our children are not hidden, but are instead highly visible in the community and, therefore, that safe-and-well checks are disproportionate (ah yes, word of the month).

I do not usually blog about my family. But I think it is worth experimenting with ways of illustrating how seen we are, without compromising privacy. Perhaps I will keep this up for a week.






A friend visited this morning with her 18 month old, but they couldn't stay long because they had to go for a haircut. So I got my offspring out of the cupboard [joke] and we went too, with a bag of junk to drop off at the charity shop.

The children played "catch" all along the pavements to get to the shops. Cue indulgent smiles from passers by.

It was a big, busy, child friendly salon (a training salon with very cheap prices and friendly staff), and it was fascinating to explore everything in the salon, and see people having their hair washed, and people with curlers in, and people with their heads covered in kitchen foil (what's that all about?!), and children having haircuts. A big contrast to our usual post-bath-cheapskate parental trimming (and yes, that's how my haur gets cut too - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander).

We watched closely while our small friend had a hair cut and then we said goodbye (because we were keen to go and do other things rather than watching my friend have her hair cut) and went to the charity shop where we gave them a bag of stuff and bought a bag of new stuff (for minimal £££age). The lady in the shop welcomed us most warmly and asked how we'd been because she hadn't seen us for a while, and pointed out various items of merchandise in which we might be interested.

Then I walked home with my dangerously "hidden" offspring, now safely locked back in the cupboard [joke] till the next occasion.

a friend in politics

I just spoke with a friend who has many years' experience in government circles (and wishes to remain completely anonymous, of course).

This friend says that lobbying is definitely the way forward as far as the EHE consultation is concerned. And that we need to focus mostly on PROPORTIONALITY. We need to keep asking: How many EHEers have been shown to be child abusers? Are the government's plans a sledgehammer to crack a nut? (to which the answer is yes...). we have to put the onus on the politicians and DCSF to demonstrate that the intrusion into private family life is proportionate to the problem.

If we focus only on the point of principle - that we shouldn't be interfered with - the friend thinks we will LOSE. The friend thinks that we may have to suggest something to say "yes, school children are seen by lots of people outside their families and that is a place where obvious obvious abuse might be spotted. Despite our children not being at school, we are prepared to demonstrate that they have points of contact outside the family". Don't shoot the messenger, and don't take it as gospel, this was just the advice of one person - that maybe a letter from Akela, or maybe a note saying that we are regulars at church X and child is in the sunday school class, or that we have season tickets at this attraction and go once a month and here are some pictures showing us there with the staff or SOMETHING which shows that we aren't hiding our children in cupboards.

And I said "don't we lose the presumption of innocence here?" and the friend said that 'safeguarding' is such a hot topic that although we have to keep saying, and keep saying loudly, that our children are no more at risk than anyone else's, and that we are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the State considers itself responsible for safeguarding all children, and has already given itself the powers and the responsibility for that, and so it wants to be assured that ours are getting their slice of the safeguarding pie.

So. PROPORTIONALITY as the tactical focus, with the principle unswervingly behind it. And keep badgering our MPs.

more material for Michael Gove

Dear Emma,

Thank you for your email to Michael Gove regarding Home education and
the Badman report. He is away visiting schools at the moment, but he has
asked me to forward you this reply.

Parental choice is a driving principle of Conservative education policy.
I can assure you that this includes the choice to educate your children
at home, and that a future Conservative government would fully respect
your rights in this area.

We want children to enjoy the highest possible level of protection, and
recognise there need to be safeguards. But we do not want to grant
Government intrusive or unnecessarily authoritarian powers.

We will aim to keep this balance at the forefront of our thinking as we
develop policy in this area.

Thank you again for taking the time to email.

Yours
Jamie Martin


Office of Michael Gove MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
0207 219 4829
martinja@parliament.uk

Thank you for this. Please would you pass my response on to Michael Gove? I'm sure that as this issue hots up, he's receiving all kinds of representations (and my goodness me, there are opportunities to distance yourselves from the Ed Balls approach every five minutes at the moment!), so I'll be brief.

When the Conservatives are developing policy in this area, please bear in mind:

HE children are NOT hidden. They need no more safeguarding than any other child - in fact, perhaps less, since many HE children spend a considerable amount of time out and about during the school day - learning in the community rather than in a classroom - they are conspicuously visible and, not being in school when most children are, are subjected to much more watchful (and kindly) scrutiny by the general public. Social services and LA education departments absolutely do not need extra powers - they need to learn to use competently the ones they have. Please remember that this whole thing stems from a smear campaign, using government funded "charities" such as the NSPCC to invent a fake concern (over which they apologised in an obscure specialist magazine, although the smears had been all over the national press), and then an "expert" labour crony to cobble together the (just embarrassingly badly researched and argued) report.

If you want to demonstrate your concern for HEed children, you could take a stance along the lines of "trusting communities: respecting family life" (if slogans appeal). We are the experts on our children. We are the experts on their education. We are the experts on their welfare needs. If there is reason to believe that we are not caring parents, determined to give our children the best chances in life, then there are already procedures in place to investigate and prosecute us.

"trusting communities: respecting family life" in HE terms could go along with undoing the centralisation and standardisation of state schools, devolving decisions about curricula and budgets back to governing bodies, parents, teachers and the children themselves. The whole thing could be an unclasping of the NuLabour centralising grasp on our children's educations. If communities want grammar schools, let 'em have them... (or is that a bridge too far?!)





There can be no "balance" about whether families are presumed innocent or not. Either agents of the state are not permitted to detain (=interview) civilians or enter their houses without probable cause or they are. If they are, we live in a police state.

As far as NuLabour are concerned, making the unconventional decision that our children will be happier, better socialised and better educated with us, their parents, ourselves explicitly shouldering our legal responsibility for their welfare and education, seems to be "probable cause" for concern that we are, or might be, abusing our children. Please distance yourselves from this - I find it hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't want to.


I am sure you are swamped by offers of this kind, but if it would be helpful for me to come to London to meet with you and discuss how the Conservatives might be able to protect the wellbeing, diversity and richness of the HE community by leaving us alone as far as possible (very cheap...) I would be delighted to travel up from Little Wittering.

Yours sincerely,

Send a message to Dawn Primarola

http://community.cypnow.co.uk/forums/p/1272/3337.aspx#3337

she's taking questions. What a golden opportunity!

Dawn: Please urgently investigate the flawed Badman report into Elective Home Education.

It is hard even to know where to begin with its faults: The report itself goes way beyond its brief, and the recommendations bear no logical relationship to the report findings (there is no evidence that EHE is used as a cover for child abuse, but let's legislate as though it were...). The report is poorly researched - the author clearly has NO understanding of educational philosophies and approaches beyond the conventional, and what he does not understand he has disregarded. The report uses selective misquoting in spinning a particular viewpoint (please compare the CofE quotation in the report with their full submission to the review - I suspect more than a few CofE representatives are not best pleased by the way their views have been misrepresented). It is not evidence-based (hardly can be, given that the phrase "I believe..." 16 times!), is prejudiced, does not represent the responses to the review, and was partially pre-judged, since Badman said publically before he had finished gathering information that the status quo could not remain. It is hardly independent, authored as it is by a chair of BECTA and previuos head of Kent Children's Services, and almost every member of his "expert" panel is also government employed in one way or another. Not even a token HEer among them... (quite how they were regarded as "expert" I do not know).

The recommendations of the report are massively problematic. To mention only the largest problems:

- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for EHEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.

- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.

- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury if they were in charge of granting or withholding registration. To have the final decision about whether an education provided is within the law or not resting with the courts, as now, grants us a level of protection from the ex-school teachers and ex-OFSTED inspectors who tend to populate LA education departments. There is no reason why they would be able to recognise or appreciate an education which doesn't look like school-at-home, and they absolutely must not be given power over those of us who choose to educate in unconventional, but perfectly reasonable, ways.

Underpinning all of this is the potential overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I understand that all of this stems from a level of hysteria about child protection. Please, as you formulate policy, keep reciting the mantra that we are innocent until proven guilty, or should be. And that HEed children are MASSIVELY more likely to be known to social services (twice as likely, as Badman says, although he remains curiously silent about the reasons...) than the general population - often because of having a SN and therefore having a case worker, or because of malicious referrals by the LA (standard procedure on learning of a HEing family in some areas - and they wonder why we don't voluntarily engage with them!), by neighbours who do not understand that HE is legal etc etc. There are already responsibilities within the community to report child protection concerns.

Given all this, why on EARTH did Mr Balls accept the report and immediately open a consultation? I suggest that you put pressure on him to withdraw his acceptance of the report and to urgently reconsider the labour party's priorities. Do you really believe that the State should be parent of first rather than last resort? Please talk to your department lawyers about how the proposals fundamentally reconfigure the relationship between the state and the family, and ask yourselves whether going down the route of 1930s Germany (as proudly trumpeted in Badman's report as a precedent!!!) is really something for which your party wishes to be remembered.

Dear Mr Gove

Dear Mr Gove,

I am writing to express to you my concerns over the Badman review of Home Education and the subsequent consultation.

I am sure you have received many other messages detailing the bias, prejudice, poor level of argument, smearing, spin, ill-researched and apparently pre-determined findings of the report, the findings which follow neither from the evidence of the report nor from its brief ('I find no evidence that HE is used as a cover for abuse, but let's pretend I did and legislate accordingly', as it were) lack of independence from the State not only of Badman but of his entire "expert" panel and so on. If there is any way the report can be discredited and the consultation halted because of the poor conduct and poor quality of the review, please let the Home Education community know what we should to do to help!


There are three aspects which I regard as the crux of the report, aspects which should be complete deal breakers for conservatives (and, I hope, Conservatives):


- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for EHEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.

- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.

- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury if they were in charge of granting or withholding registration. This is a very bad idea because of what I think of as the "numpty" factor. To have the final decision about whether an education provided is within the law or not resting with the courts, as now, grants us a level of protection from the ex-school teachers and ex-OFSTED inspectors who tend to populate LA education departments. There is no reason why they would be able to recognise or appreciate an education which doesn't look like school-at-home, and they absolutely must not be given power over those of us who choose to educate in unconventional ways.

Underpinning all of this is the potential overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I understand that all of this stems from a level of hysteria about child protection. Please, as you formulate policy, keep reciting the mantra that we are innocent until proven guilty, or should be. And that HEed children are MASSIVELY more likely to be known to social services (twice as likely, as Badman says, although he remains curiously silent about the reasons...) than the general population - often because of having a SN and therefore having a case worker, or because of malicious referrals by the LA (standard procedure on learning of a HEing family in some areas - and they wonder why we don't voluntarily engage with them!), by neighbours who do not understand that HE is legal etc etc. There are already responsibilities within the community to report child protection concerns.

HEers might be prepared to accept making it compulsory to inform the LA of one's intention to HE (very different from registration!) but the rest is and should be in a free country, frankly, unacceptable.

I hope this is helpful to you. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it soon.

Yours sincerely,

The worst things about the badman recommendations

...apart from the report being prejudiced, ill researched, ill informed, poorly argued, way outside its brief and all the rest.

- suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) or enter private homes without probable cause. Massive. Surely should be an immediate deal breaker.

- suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury.



Underpinning both is the overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

These seem to me to be massive enough that all the rest - the smears, the lack of appreciation of Autonomous HE, the spinning, the complete disregard for the views of HEers - is just the cherry on the iced bun.

Letter to Mr Balls

Review of Elective Home Education

I am writing to express my concern about the reforms to current practice proposed by Graham Badman in his “Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England” and about your acceptance of the report.


The report is flawed on many levels. It is not evidence based or impartial. It in no way reflects the views of the home educators who responded to the review. It is not based on expert opinion – Mr Badman has no personal experience at all of home educating and has either failed to read, or has failed to understand, the academic literature on the subject. It lacks moral rigour also – appointing a previous head of Kent Childrens’ Services and current chair of the government-funded BECTA hardly inspires one with trust in its claimed independence. Since Badman publicly stated that the status quo could not remain long before the review was completed, the findings were partially pre-judged. The on-line questionnaire used to gather home educators and others’ views was badly designed involving leading and poorly constructed questions. The LA questionnaire had ten times as many questions as that for the general public.

The review was explicitly set up to find out whether Home Education can be used as a cover for child abuse. It is curious, then, that the report does not offer any analysis of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving home educators. The claim that ‘the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to their home educating population’ gives the impression of skeletons rattling in cupboards. Badman fails, however, to mention the common but ultra vires practice in some LAs of routinely referring HEing families to Social Services as soon as they come to the LA’s attention, the prevalence of referrals by neighbours concerned to see children not in school but not understanding that Home Education is legal, and the number of HE families where there are SN of one kind or another (and this certainly IS disproportionately high with relation to the total number of HEers, reflecting the woefully inadequate SEN provision offered within many schools), and therefore, automatically, a case worker within children’s services. There is no reason to suspect that any of these Home Educating families known to Social Services have given a single social worker a moment’s pause for concern about safeguarding, without Badman producing evidence. For Badman to produce no evidence, but to spin it this way is surely dangerously close to defamation?

The recommendations do not follow either from the clearly stated remit of the review or from the evidence (such as it is) presented within the review. The review says that many LAs are not performing adequately, but then recommends they have more powers. Without an analysis of why they are failing it would seem inappropriate to give them more powers; this would simply create problems and maladministration claims for the future. The review does not find evidence that Home Education is being used as a cover for child abuse, but proceeds to recommend the urgent provision of laws which intrude on the private lives of innocent families in order, supposedly, to protect against child abuse.

The review recognises the diversity of home educators, but fails to take this in to account in its ‘one size fits all’ recommendations. Those families who practice “autonomous home education”, following the interests of the child rather than a parentally-imposed curriculum or plan, are particularly vulnerable under the proposals, which demand that LAs should see plans for the year ahead. I cannot plan what my children will be interested in in 5 minutes, let alone in 6 months! But I can guarantee that, following their own interests and facilitated by their parents, they will be learning effectively and efficiently, in line with their ages, ability, aptitude and any SEN they may have, as per the existing Home Education legislation. The freedom to pursue such an effective child-led education will be a hostage to the prejudices of the LA employees under the proposed new legislation.

The most outrageous of the recommendations is that LA employees should have the power to insist on interviewing HEed children alone, with the caveat that they could be with a trusted adult (not the parent) if their SEN or communication difficulties deemed that appropriate. In a recent poll, 77% of Home Educated children said they did not want to meet with LA personnel. http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html Are their preferences to be completely disregarded? Who deems the SEN or communication difficulties of a child to be sufficiently severe that a trusted adult be permitted to be present? Are we really expected to accept the proposal that LA staff should have unsupervised access to our children when there are no grounds for welfare concerns? Badman has advocated extending powers to LA staff which not even the police or social services have – the power to interview children alone when there are no grounds for suspicion.





This is the statement of opposition currently doing the rounds. I endorse every word of it:


It is NOT acceptable for the state to have ultimate control of the education of our children

It is NOT acceptable for the state to make ultra vires judgements about the welfare of our children and then act in loco parentis

It is NOT acceptable for the state to operate on a presumption of guilt

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand access to our homes without reasonable suspicion that an actual offence has been or is about to be committed

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand access to our children without reasonable suspicion that an actual offence has been or is about to be committed

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand unsupervised access to our children

These are all contained within the recommendations of Badman's review document, which you have accepted in full as "proportionate and reasonable".



I have a vision for the future. It involves an immediate and unequivocal withdrawal of your support for the review and a cancellation of the consultation process which, presumably will lead to legislation (although it is hard to see why you are consulting us, yet again, given that Badman so signally failed to listen to us earlier this year, given that we have been consulted on EHE-related legislation repeatedly in the last 5 years and you know perfectly well that public opinion does not support your legislative agenda, and given that you have already given your public support to Badman’s heinous recommendations and will presumably do your level best to put them into action, however well argued and sensible the consultation responses are). It then involves you publicly stating that you will not tolerate LA staff acting in an ultra vires manner towards Home Educators, and that you will look urgently at the practices within Children’s Services which have led to children known to be at risk – Baby P, Kyra Ishaq, Eunice Spry’s foster children and Victoria Climbie, to name but a few – being so abjectly failed by those who had a duty of care for them.

The final part of my dream involves you treating the EHE community with the respect we deserve. Rather than saying that the only proposals in Badman’s report which are problematic are those which involve providing services, please remember how much money we save you every year by not taking up the school places to which our children are entitled. Just a fraction of that money would provide access to exam centres, free swimming lessons and the like, for those HEers who choose to avail themselves of those opportunities. Insist on the LA EHE staff being those with sympathy for and understanding of the area – retired Home Educators rather than ex-teachers, for goodness’ sake.

Statistically, EHE children out perform their schooled counterparts on every measure (and if you haven’t read any of Paula Rothermel’s research then it is about time you did). We are a beacon of excellence. Why are you alienating us (and losing Labour thousands of votes into the bargain) when you should be sending researchers to find out from us what it is that we are doing so successfully, so that you can do something to address the pitiful literacy figures and the pitiful GCSE results that your schools achieve every year?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

A long letter to my MP...

Review of Elective Home Education

I am writing to seek your support in opposing the reforms to current practice proposed by Graham Badman in his “Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England” for the following reasons:

1. Although the Secretary of State says it contains strong arguments, the review is not evidence based, instead consisting largely of unfounded assertions (the phrase ‘I believe …’ appears 16 times…). It lacks impartiality (hardly surprising, given that it was carried out by a previous head of Kent Childrens’ Services and current chair of the government-funded BECTA) and is in no way a fair reflection of the views and information presented to the review panel by the home educating community.

2. The review was explicitly set up to find out whether Home Education can be used as a cover for child abuse. It is curious, then, that the report does not offer any analysis of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving home educators. The claim that ‘the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to their home educating population’ gives the impression of skeletons rattling in cupboards. Badman fails, however, to mention the common but ultra vires practice in some LAs of routinely referring HEing families to Social Services as soon as they come to the LA’s attention, the prevalence of referrals by neighbours concerned to see children not in school but not understanding that Home Education is legal, and the number of HE families where there are SN of one kind or another (and this certainly IS disproportionately high with relation to the total number of HEers, reflecting the woefully inadequate SEN provision offered within many schools), and therefore, automatically, a case worker within children’s services. There is no reason to suspect that any of the Home Educating families known to Social Services have given a single social worker a moment’s pause for concern about safeguarding, without Badman producing evidence. For Badman to produce no evidence, but to spin it this way is surely dangerously close to defamation?

3. The recommendations do not follow either from the clearly stated remit of the review or from the evidence (such as it is) presented within the review. The review says that many LAs are not performing adequately, but then recommends they have more powers. Without an analysis of why they are failing it would seem inappropriate to give them more powers; this would simply create problems and maladministration claims for the future. The review does not find evidence that Home Education is being used as a cover for child abuse, but proceeds to recommend the urgent provision of laws which intrude on the private lives of innocent families in order, supposedly, to protect against child abuse.

4. The review recognises the diversity of home educators, but fails to take this in to account in its ‘one size fits all’ recommendations. Those families who practice “autonomous home education”, following the interests of the child rather than a parentally-imposed curriculum or plan, are particularly vulnerable under the proposals, which demand that LAs should see plans for the year ahead. I cannot plan what my children will be interested in in 5 minutes, let alone in 6 months! But I can guarantee that, following their own interests and facilitated by their parents, they will be learning effectively and efficiently, in line with their ages, ability, aptitude and any SEN they may have, as per the existing Home Education legislation. The freedom to pursue such an effective child-led education will be a hostage to the prejudices of the LA employees under the proposed new legislation.

5. Indeed, the recommendations call for LA staff to have the power to approve or deny a family’s HE provision, with no right of appeal. Where presently an LA, if they believe a family is not providing a suitable education, can take the family to court, the onus is on the LA to make their case. Those who educate in unconventional but valid ways – a traditional Christian education, maybe, or Steiner-, Summerhill- or Montessori-inspired methods – will no longer have the protection of the courts but will be subject to the whim of the employee prejudices within a particular LA. Those whose family demographic does not seem to the LA to be suitable for HEing can also be prevented from doing so, and who knows what grounds a particular LA employee might have for refusing permission – but again, we become subject to the whim of an LA employee.

6. The most outrageous of the recommendations is that LA employees should have the power to insist on interviewing HEed children alone, with the caveat that they could be with a trusted adult (not the parent) if their SEN or communication difficulties deemed that appropriate. In a recent poll, 77% of Home Educated children said they did not want to meet with LA personnel. http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html Are their preferences to be completely disregarded? Who deems the SEN or communication difficulties of a child to be sufficiently severe that a trusted adult be permitted to be present? Are we really expected to accept the proposal that LA staff should have unsupervised access to our children when there are no grounds for welfare concerns? If there ARE grounds for welfare concerns, then they should be referring the family to Social Services, who already have the legal powers (and appropriate training) to interview children. Here, Badman has advocated extending powers to LA staff which not even the police or social services have – the power to interview children alone when there are no grounds for suspicion.

7. You should be aware that this review and the consultation, which went live on the internet the same day the review was published, has turned many Home Educators and their families into single issue voters. If the Liberal Democrats were able to publicly pledge to oppose any ensuing legislation and to revoke it in the next parliament, then you would guarantee many Lib Dem votes in marginal constituencies. (Estimates of the number of HEed children vary wildly; 80,000 is fairly conservative. That is a lot of parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, and we are politically active in this defence of our civil liberties.)

The review was poorly conducted – for example:

• It was announced as a consultation on the consultation website but, when it was pointed out that it was not compliant with the Consultation Code of Practice, it suddenly became a review;
• The review outcome was partially pre-judged in advance, Graham Badman, author of the review, publicly said as much when he asserted the status quo could not remain long before the review was completed; and
• The on-line questionnaire used to gather home educators and others’ views was badly designed involving leading and poorly constructed questions. The LA questionnaire had ten times as many questions as that for the general public.


The review report can be found at:

http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/8318-DCSF-HomeEdReviewBMK.PDF


Now I have to ask for your help, not only in putting pressure on the party leaders to publically reject this flawed review and any legislation ensuing from it, but also to ask whether you think there might be grounds here for some sort of legal challenge to the review and subsequent consultation through the courts?



This is the statement of opposition currently doing the rounds. I endorse every word of it:

This morally corrupt government has already caused too much damage with its ever-expanding, power-seeking, controlling agenda. For the government to target our children in this way is the beginning of the end unless we just say NO:

It is NOT acceptable for the state to have ultimate control of the education of our children

It is NOT acceptable for the state to make ultra vires judgements about the welfare of our children and then act in loco parentis

It is NOT acceptable for the state to operate on a presumption of guilt

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand access to our homes without reasonable suspicion that an actual offence has been or is about to be committed

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand access to our children without reasonable suspicion that an actual offence has been or is about to be committed

It is NOT acceptable for the state to demand unsupervised access to our children

These are all contained within the recommendations of Badman's review document. The government has accepted them in full as "proportionate and reasonable".




If you require more information or details of sources, or if it would be helpful for you to meet me at one of the regular HE meet ups in the city or (perhaps with other Home Educators) at your constituency surgery, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely