*headdesk*. There’s a freedom of information request in already to get to the bottom of this one, and the education select committee have requested questions for Mr Gove be tweeted at them with the hashtag #askGove I’ve sent one in asking for clarification, and I’ve seen others on similar themes. Do feel free to aim them at Graham Stuart though, the more the merrier.

But let’s take a detailed look at the letter.

I don�t think any specific statute has been identified as yet, but Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education has made it clear that he intends to introduce a requirement whereby home educated children will be linked to a school and their academic achievement will contribute to the schools results. Rightly or wrongly I believe that will mean an assessment based on exam results.

Yes, well. Let’s table that one until we get an answer from Mr Gove. But we’ll keep watching. We are always watching you.

I do agree with you that children�s needs can and should be met in different ways. But it is also important that appropriate measures are in place to ensure proper safeguarding. Sadly nobody actually knows the full extent of home education, but we do know that many more than the 823 children of which we are aware, are educated outside of traditional settings. Clearly there are many very sincere families that make considered decisions in the best interests of their children and that is to be welcomed. However, I am concerned that all children are given opportunity through education. Kent County Council will have to adhere to policy as laid down by Government but I can assure you that we fundamentally believe in a mixed economy of education provision of which home education is a contributor. The issue though has to be ensuring that an individual child�s needs are appropriately met and the child is adequately safeguarded. May I remind you that for many children from not just in Kent, that they are safest when they are at school.

Aargh!

It is the parent’s responsibility to ensure suitable (not just adequate!) education. It’s very lovely to think that this Kent cc employee is so caring about all children, but it’s completely irrelevant. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, parents are supposed to be trusted. And home education is *not* a safeguarding issue. Research done by home educators during the Badman report saga clearly showed that the risk to home educated children is half that for children in school. We won’t even mention the children who suffer from bullying and abuse in school, because obviously they are still safer there. (Oh, I did mention it. Ah well.)

The emphasis on educational attainment being measured through exam success does not in my opinion properly reflect the skills and abilities of all our children. Kent has had a policy of encouraging a vocational curriculum for those where such skills are more appropriate and we will continue with that.

That’s nice. It would be even nicer if it had a policy of supporting the choices of the children concerned regardless, but I guess that would be too much to ask for.

I am not and nor is KCC anti home education, we are increasing three fold the resources that we commit to supporting home educated children, but a major part of that is that we do need to know where all these children are and then ensure that they receive an appropriate education that meets their needs and helps to prepare them for adulthood.

No, no and thrice no. This is not the council’s role, there are no legal requirements that state this, the law requires a suitable education, not an appropriate education and it’s all the parent’s responsibility. Gah. Why is this so difficult for LAs to understand?

I am quite sure that any visit to yourself would demonstrate clearly the benefits of home education. It is the one to two thousand children who are outside of traditional settings and unknown to the authorities that concern me.

I love this. I call it the divide and conquer quote. Don’t worry, it isn’t home educators like *you* that we’re worried about. It’s all the other ones.

When will LAs learn to stay within the law – it’s really quite clear. When will they accept that the education and safeguarding of children is primarily a parental responsibility? When will they stop casting these aspersions of hidden abuse against families who are going about their lawful business, just getting on with their lives?

Home education is not a safeguarding issue. I am not neglecting or abusing my children, and I’d thank a variety of council employees around the country if they’d stop assuming I am.

I’d really rather not claim benefits. I’m pretty sure over the years I haven’t claimed half of what I was entitled to (in legislative terms) – mainly because I didn’t feel I needed it at the time. Perhaps I should have done, I don’t know. Although HMRC are happy to go back years in claiming tax from individuals, it’s usually only months they’ll backdate benefits, so what’s done is done.

But what I don’t like atm is this drift towards thinking that ppl in need of benefits are somehow unworthy. This is seen in the attitudes perpetuated towards disabilities benefits claimants by the media and the government. I’m sure some of it is down to ignorance, but I can’t help feeling that for some of the politicians involved, it’s wilful ignorance.

A quote this week from Ian Duncan Smith, architect of the Welfare Reform Bill that gave rise to the Spartacus report in response.

Asked if the cap was really a distraction from the changes to disability benefits, ESA and housing benefits, from which people were suffering, he said: “But they’re not suffering. The point about this is that what makes you suffer is the state that plunges you into dependency on the state. It does two things, it means bigger bills for taxpayers and it means your life and your children’s lives will be blighted by being dependent on me, the secretary of state, to give you the money to live”

Ppl aren’t suffering. Mr Duncan Smith, that is disingenuous in the extreme. Ppl are suffering extremes of anguish, looking into a future that holds little support or care for those who need it most. Ppl are suffering from assessments done by uncaring individuals just ticking boxes on a form, and getting it horribly wrong far too often.

Parents are suffering wondering how they are going to fund the extras their children need if DLA is removed from them, and it looks very much as if in many cases it will be.

If you want to read individual stories, the Where’s The Benefit blog is eloquent in its response to many of these issues. Oh, and there’s a personal description of suffering from Sue Marsh (suey2y) on her blog – but I suppose that doesn’t count anyway, as if she’d just shut up and let the government done what it knows is best for her, she wouldn’t be in hospital right now, exhausted from campaigning for the rights of disabled ppl.

You know, most of us pay tax. It isn’t the government’s money, it’s ours. And it annoys me hugely that I get so little say in what it is spent on. I would far rather support disabled ppl to have some independence than I would buy the queen a yacht. All power to her for staying the course so well, but no, I don’t want to chip in. How about taking the hat round to all the companies who are avoiding tax burdens in this country instead? And maybe with the rest of the change, we could shelve this idea to trim 20% off the budget for disabilities benefits that are already creaking at the seams.

Please, if you feel the slightest bit interested in anything I’ve said above, feel free to blog or tweet about it yourself. Do the research. Read the spartacusreport. Put yourself in the shoes (or chairs) of those who are being so unfairly maligned. I don’t think any of these ppl asked to be disabled, and few of them are living it up on our cash. In our advanced, enlightened society, surely care for those who need us is the only moral way to behave?

There was no groundswell of support from mainstream parenting bloggers. No lightbulb moment of realisation that this is a bad thing that we *all* need to take a stand against.

And gradually, I realised why. The ppl joining in with the blogging, the commenting and the tweeting were mainly ppl with experience and understanding of disability issues. I had jumped in too deep and not explained the starting point of the problem. So here I am, starting again.

DLA or Disability living allowance is a non means tested, in work benefit awarded to ppl to assist with the higher cost of living due to their illness or disability. It has two parts, a mobility and a care component, and the care comes in three tiers. For a few ppl it is awarded for life, for many it is subject to frequent reassessment, and can be withdrawn at any point, causing ppl to have to go through a lengthy and unpleasant appeals process.

For many parents with disabled children it is a lifeline. They use it to pay for therapies and equipment that they can’t get from the NHS, for the aids that their children need to have a reasonable life, for, well, practically everything. It is not a benefit that is given out easily – the adult claim form pdf is 55 pages long. And once you’ve filled that out there could well be medical assessments as well.

Does this sound like a benefit that ppl apply for on the off chance? No, it doesn’t. And in fact, the often quoted rate of fraud for it is only 0.5%

Despite this, the government has decided the DLA budget needs to be cut by 20%. They opened a consultation on the reforms – that didn’t run for as long as their own code of conduct says it needs to run for, and then they put the legislation before parliament two days before the consultation ended. Meaning that the responses from many ppl were obviously not taken into account.

At this point, ppl with disabilities swung into action. Gathering themselves via social media they networked, sent in Freedom of Information requests, obtained the responses to the consultation and produced their own report on the whole debacle. This is the spartacus report I’ve been blogging and tweeting about.

Disabled ppl agree that DLA and the system around it needs reform. They don’t agree that it needs wholesale replacement with a completely new benefit, that doesn’t have all the tiers that current DLA has, that has reassessment at the heart of it, that looks disturbingly like a way to save money at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society.

And the thing to remember about disability is that it can happen to any of us, at any time. So while you could be sat there thinking that none of this applies to you, tomorrow, it could.

Can you imagine it?

Basically, what is going on is a government that caters to the rich (mainly by not bothering to collect tax from them) is attacking the most vulnerable. Ppl who rely on DLA (disability living allowance) are not “benefit scrounging scum” as the media would have it. They are ppl with illnesses, with disabilities. They are ppl who would love to work, but can’t as no government so far has done anything to really support flexible working policies, and no employer wants to take the risk. And if they do manage to earn a little, it endangers the benefits they rely on when they can’t work. They are ppl with children with problems, and nowhere to turn.

DLA is not an abused benefit. The rate of fraud is incredibly low – not surprising when you find out how difficult it is to claim. The difficulty, and perceived humiliation, of filling in a DLA form puts off families who could be entitled to it, and that in turn shuts off their access to other benefits they are entitled to. Is this really the world we want?

If, god forbid, you woke up tomorrow to a world in which you, your partner, or your child were suddenly disabled (it can happen – car accident, illness, disaster) you would expect that our enlightened society would support you, wouldn’t you? You could well be in for a nasty shock. You might find that charities in this Big Society are your only support, and they are getting less money from their supporters, who are similarly squeezed by the financial environment. And you might find that the welfare state you thought you had supported when you didn’t need it has been diminished beyond a hope of recovery, by a government that is happy to break rules, ignore the public and attack those least able to defend themselves.

If any of this sounds like something you don’t want to support, there are actions you can take. Tell your MP that you think it’s disgraceful that this consultation was shorter than the required period. That it’s disgusting that legislation was laid before parliament *before* the consultation ends. That it’s awful that the media is being allowed to go on about benefit fraud that barely happens (and certainly doesn’t cost the country anything like the tax deals that are made day in day out by HMRC with huge companies).

Read the Spartacus Report and blog it. Tweet links to it using the hashtag #SpartacusReport. Ask the blogging networks you’re in (I’m looking at you @MumsNetBloggers and you @NetMums to feature it). Share it on Facebook, but above all else, make a noise.

Because today the governement is coming for the disabled. And if we don’t speak out for them, who will be left to speak out for us?

Oh no, it’s not the first time.

No, it’s not me personally. It’s worse than that in a way. It’s yet another invidious slight against the home education community. This time at the hands of the TES (times educational supplement) who have as their cover story the article Collateral Damage. Neglect and abuse under the cover of home education (Bizarrely that isn’t it’s title online. Unless of course I’ve linked the wrong one, and I should have linked to From the Editor – Parental rights, and the wrongs of the wicked few Not one but two articles slating home educators in one week!)

We should be used to this. At one point during the Badman review the NSPCC were quoted in the Independent referring to Victoria Climbie as home educated. She wasn’t. The foundation set up in her name responded to say as much. (There was no apology. Which is why you’ll rarely find a good word about the NSPCC on here.) But you may say, what of Khyra Ishaq? Wasn’t that poor little girl starved to death under the cover of home education? No. She was not. She was withdrawn from school it is true, but concerns were raised with the local authorities by the school promptly and according to school procedures. It was the local authorities who failed her – who did nothing to get proper access to her and keep an eye on her wellbeing, later claiming that home education regulations meant they couldn’t.

Poppycock. Balderdash. Home educators are *just* as subject to child protection procedures as the rest of the population. We can (and do) turn away educational officers who have no right to demand we produce a scheme of work or barge in to our houses. But we know perfectly well that social workers are a different kettle of fish altogether. And that neglect and abuse are overriding concerns, and that social workers have a right of access if that is the case. If the social worker doesn’t do something about it, to put it plainly, that is not my fault.

And I do not deserve to be tarred with this brush, repeatedly, at leisure, because of it.

Many of you have met me. Home educators have met me, and my children, at days out, at camps, at parties, at groups. But bloggers have met me and some of my children too. I’ve brought them to Build a bear workshop parties, taken Smallest all over the place to events, dragged them to Butlins, had Smallest with me at two cybermummy days and two Mad Blog award dinners. Does this strike you as the action of an abusive and neglectful parent? Or more likely the behaviour of an attached and loving parent?

Which is usually the point that someone says oh, but it isn’t you. Not home educators like you. It’s the other ones. Let me give it to you straight – if you insult home educators, you insult me. If you insinuate home educators are abusing children, you are accusing me. Replace the term home educators with something you identify with and see how you feel about it.

This isn’t about education. This is about control. The editor’s article above starts “Ask teachers what they think of home education and most will respond with a raised eyebrow or a snort of derision. It’s akin to asking most doctors what they think of homeopathy, or anyone with a science degree their opinion of Prince Charles. It is the confident sneer a professional bestows on misguided amateurs.”

Actually, I’ve spoken to a lot of teachers about home education. I know quite a lot of teachers who home educate themselves. I’ve yet to be sneered at by any of them, and I don’t think it’s because they are being polite. And I’ve never had anyone describe me as a misguided amateur before, when it comes to my children I am the only professional. (Well, OK, dp too, but poetic licence folks.) I am the only person who has been there through ever single one of their development stages, who knows how they learn, what they like, what they dislike. Who knows what drives them and what demotivates, how to tempt and how to entertain. I taught them walking and talking, and yes, when Small lagged behind in speech I did indeed bring in a specialist. I’m not arrogant, I know that if my child has a particular special need that there are ppl better equipped to deal with it. I just don’t think mainstream education qualifies in that way.

So yes, tonight I’m ranting. Tonight I’m really rather cross. Tonight I’d like to know what other community would stand for this kind of treatment. Because quite frankly, I’m fed up.

Leaving aside the issue of how a quick visit once a month could possibly work, or where the money would be found to pay for all these officials and their time, I’d like to address this point:

It is childish to prioritise your own desire to not spend an hour a month, over the need to ensure kids aren’t being abused

My desire not to spend an hour a month.

I’m sorry, but I’m rofling here. This has nothing to do with me trying to avoid spending an hour a month doing something for my children. I’m a home educating mother. I don’t work outside the home. When the kids aren’t with me (as they are most of the time) they are mainly with their dad. How many hours a month do I spend on my children? Nearly all of them.

Oh, I admit, this morning I went out without them for nearly 2 hours. I went all the way into town and ran 3km for charity. Then I raced home to the kids. I do run most days now – that’s up to 30 minutes a day that I’m not with them, and Big does things like swimming club and guides when I’m not right there either. But overall, I spend my time on and with my children.

And do you know what? Most of the time I like it. We like it. Yes, sometimes we don’t get along. It can be a little claustrophobic, we live, we work, we learn, we play all together. But we do lots of stuff out and about – we are a pretty familiar sight out in the community, especially as we stand out rather with me being babywearing mama as well. (You’d be amazed how many ppl stop me to ask about it, especially as smallest is so happy, smiley and talkative from her perch behind my shoulder.) In the spring we’ll be out even more as we’ll be spending lots of time up at our new allotment.

So, of all the things you could accuse me of, accusing me of not being prepared to take the time for my kids might just be the most ridiculous. Thanks for the giggle.

I must admit I am not convinced by proportional representation, amongst other things I cannot quite see how it could be achieved without breaking the link between MPs and the localities they represent. At the moment, we vote for people, not parties.

However, both Labour (Blaenau Gwent, Erith and Thamesmead) and the Conservatives (South West Norfolk) seem determined to impose candidates on centrally managed lists on constituencies. This means that often we end up being “represented” by zombies – walking dead who can be relied to always follow the central party line as they stagger through the lobbies.

I think we need to decide what it is to be, either:

1. We have full blown proportional representation where the parties have a list of candidates and seats are allocated on the basis of the parties percentage of overall votes cast. MPs would be lobby fodder with no further duty to make any pretence of representing a particular area so we could reduce their number hugely.
2. For example, if we set a minimum percentage threshold for parties to earn a seat at, say, 10%, based on votes cast at the 2005 general election, we might have:

   Labour 35 MPs
   Conservatives 32 MPs
   Liberal Democrats 22 MPs

   There would be NO member representing the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein etc, nor would they ever be likely to be. Even if the threshold were set at 1% only UKIP (2.2%), the SNP (1.5%) and the Greens (1%) would gain any seats at all. However this is sliced and diced, I think we would end up worse off than we are now, but at least we could save the money we are wasting on all the zombies.

3. We stick with MPs representing geographical constituencies , but change the rules so that MPs have to demonstrate strong and long term ties to the areas they represent, for example, they should have grown up there, been born there, or have lived there for a large number of years. This would end the practice of parachuting in brown-nosers (Ed Balls), SW1 cocktail party schmoozers and their friends and family (Georgia Gould) and apparatchiks (Natascha Engel).

The latter is the alternative I favour, I think it would contribute much more to real diversity of representation than PR lists ever could. I want to be represented by a person, not by a party.

Votes At 16

Last time it was votes at 18, now it is votes at 16. Susan Nash of the NUS says “Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats support a reform to the voting age, recognising this change would inspire and empower thousands of young people who are currently shut out of the political system.” Sorry Susan, but I think it is more likely that they think that younger people are more likely to vote for their parties and that the change will work to their benefit.

They don’t intend to lower the age of majority, they just want to exploit young people for their own ends. Otherwise, they would be campaigning to simultaneously lower to 16:

1. the age for driving all classes of vehicles.
2. the age for buying and drinking alcohol and tobacco.
3. the age at which binding legal contracts can be entered into, credit cards etc.
4. the age at which convicted criminals go to adult jails.

If you are an adult, you are an adult. You should get all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, not just the right to vote.

I think what we really need is a new legal status, which acknowledges that young people from the age of probably around 12 are not really children any more, but are not yet adults.

We need to ensure that young people are protected from exploitation by the unscrupulous, credit card companies, alcohol manufacturers and politicians, but that as they grow to full majority at, say, eighteen they need progressively growing freedoms and control over their lives as well as growing responsibility and accountability for their own actions.

Some of the responses need reading several times over before you really get what’s behind them. I wouldn’t advise that you do this if you have any problems with high blood pressure though.

Take the ofsted response for example. Set aside for a moment the question of why precisely ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) feels the needs to get involved at all here – in my mind it’s nothing to do with them, parents are responsible for children’s education, and ofsted is only responsible for checking out institutions that deliver education on behalf of children.

Nevertheless, they have stuck their oar in. The bit that I’ve had to read and reread and then finally have explained to me slowly is this:

Current guidance states that parents may employ other people to educate their children and that parents are responsible for ‘ensuring that those whom they engage are suitable to have access to children’. Registration would not of itself prevent those who have a conviction for offences against children, including parents, step-parents or privately-employed home tutors, from home educating children. Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks should be a requirement of registration.

I thought that this meant that parents would have to ensure that ppl tutoring their children were CRB checked. That’s bad enough when you are talking about group ‘lessons’ where parents are usually still there with their children anyway. Do private tutors engaged by parents of schooled children need to be checked? But if you read it carefully, it can’t mean that. What it actually means is that Ofsted think that all parents and step-parents should be CRB checked as a condition of being registered getting a license to home educate.

I don’t think I’ve ever put this on my blog before. But WTF?

No.

A thousand times no.

And if you’re going down this path, surely you have to CRB check all parents. Remember that children are left alone with their parents for years before mandatory educational age. So when it says as a condition of registration it ought to say as a condition of registration of birth. At which point, if the parents are unsuitable you can have that nice little newborn away from them promptly before they get any bad habits and you’ll easily hit all your adoption targets.

Got a better explanation for what it means? Put it in the usual place.

I think it means community. Community that grows up around families, where they offer help and support to each other. Not the state interfering and handing down rules, guidelines and initiatives, not quangos pontificating, not TV experts advising politicians on laws to make.

It doesn’t surprise me that someone has started up the Parent’s Liberation Movement. I hope it’s more than just a joke.

I notice that a couple of groups have already spoken out against the initiative, including the (National) Family and Parenting Initiative. Not surprising, a small amount of research tells us:

This was an early creation of the then new Labour government in 1999. It was established as an independent charity, with financial backing from the government and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, to support parents in bringing up their children, to promote the wellbeing of families, and to make society more family-friendly.

So an organisation set up and funded by the government thinks that a parenting group should do as it’s told. Really. I think we’ve had enough of that.

Yes, of course parents need support. But we need support from each other. We need to be able to look after each other’s children without being criminalised. We need to be able to choose educational paths for our children without LA interference or having to submit to licensing arrangements.

We need to recognise the difference between community and state.

Homeschool v home education.

Different images aren’t they? To me anyway, although mainstream media and politicians in this country for some reason do not seem to see this. Setting aside the implied discourtesy in using a term not in use by the ppl concerned, is this because they don’t want to accept the distinction between school and education?

How about registration v licensing?

Registration implies entering something on a register. It doesn’t imply much in the way of permission or conditions. Licensing is a whole different ball game. It’s getting that permission, satisfying those conditions.

What was proposed by Graham Badman and accepted by the government was a licensing scheme for home education. Not a registration system. Not a simple list of names, though even that would be discriminatory given that they aren’t registering under school age children, or children at private school. Instead, they are talking about submitting plans that need to be approved, a process that has to be repeated on a yearly basis.

Does that sound like a simple register?

It’s a license. A license to do what you are legally obliged to do anyway, a requirement that the state approve the education you are planning to provide your child. Which changes the balance of power and the responsibilities involved.

At the moment it’s the parents’ decision. Which is how it should be. So just say no to licensing, and call it what it is, whenever and wherever you mention it. Not registration at all.

After a suitable pause, I brought up the topic of home education there, hoping that I might be able to spur some support for the petition or consultation. I was disappointed, but not surprised to get all the standard cliches trotted out, included the ones which said things like “I don’t worry about Jax and Tim, after all, they are bright and well educated and I’m sure that their children are being well tutored, but what about the others….”

Ah yes, the mythical others. The ones whose children spend their days climbing haybales (does anyone else remember that newspaper article? Can’t find the picture now though ) or watching television, or playing on playstations, or throwing stones at passing cars. The ones who live in council estates, whose parents can’t read or write themselves, whose children are only withdrawn to get around exclusions or truancy prosecutions.

It’s hard to know where to start to dismember these allegations. After all, Tim and I are bright, we are well educated, there are many books in our house, and horror of horrors, I’m not really all that autonomous where basic skills are concerned. Which is why we have our sessions with workbooks, spelling lists, handwriting practise and so on.

But I still haven’t registered with the local authority, even though I’m absolutely sure that we would be fine. Because I am not required to, and I don’t see what it’s got to do with the local authority that I am exercising my legal right to educate my children at home.

Right atm, I’m not fighting for my way of life. My way of life isn’t under threat. I can’t quite imagine the LA officer who would have any qualms about my bright, chatty, cheerful children, who are obviously healthy and fit, who can read and write (well, after a fashion!), who have computer access, Brownies, swimming, Beavers, friends who are schooled, and friends who are home educated, who have a piano in the hallway, a lovely house and garden and two present parents. (I daresay there are LA officials who might have qualms, but I doubt very much they’d get very far with us.)

I’m fighting for the mythical others, because they are the ones under threat, and I believe in their right to home educate too. Their right to choose the method of their children’s education. Their right to home educate as a single parent on a council estate, as parents without degrees or whatever, just their right as parents.

That’s what this is about now, and down the line. If we don’t all fight for everyone’s rights, then we should be ashamed of ourselves, and we would deserve to lose this fight. And lose we would.

We only stand a chance if we all stand up for everyone – if the AE stands up for the structured home educator. If the religious home educator stands up for the atheist, and the atheist for the evangelical. If more than anyone, the registered structured home educator respects the wishes of those who are not registered to remain that way. I know that amongst my friends, both blog and irl, ppl in that last category are fighting just as hard, if not harder, than everyone else.

So let’s remember, all for one, and one for all. United we stand, diverse we remain.

My response follows. I was submission 2042, my understanding is that the usual type of number responding to these things is around 300. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get ten times that number? Please, pass it on to your friends, your relatives, your home ed groups and get ppl stuck in and answering.

Consultation Questions

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?

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: It is not the right of parents to home educate, it is the responsibility of parents to provide an education suitable to age ability and aptitude either by attendance at school or otherwise. In some cases it appears to me that that responsibility can only be fully discharged by home educating.

2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Not unless you are going to start registering all sorts of cultural minorities. We are doing nothing illegal, we do not need to be headcounted. Mandatory registration (or more accurately annual licensing according to these proposals) is being suggested for local authorities convenience, it adds nothing to the home education experience for the families involved except more hassle. Those who wish to can come forward voluntarily as they do now.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Do not agree with registration.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Do not agree with registration.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Do not agree with registration.

6 a) 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?

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: No, this is just allowing for time for LAs to hassle families.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: In many cases, particularly where SEN are concerned, schools do not have realistic views of children’s abilities. If these were passed to LAs this would give many problems to parents already in a difficult position.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: The current statutory framework is sufficient to need, what is required is training for LA officials to understand their rights and responsibilities.

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Surely children for whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be in the home environment, so the question is moot?

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

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: Stop beating around the bush, you are talking about visiting ppl’s homes. I see no need for this to occur, again, the powers that already exist are sufficient and do not require invasive home visits.

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?

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: I do not see why the local authority requires powers greater than that of the police investigating a crime. No crime is being alleged here, but a legal route to educate children.

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.

* Agree
* Disagree
* Not sure
* No Response

Comments: The current system of enquiries is sufficient to need. This suggested timetable does not take into account deschooling, settling in time or anything else. I’d also like to know where the funding is supposed to be coming from to pay for all these extra visits for all these children who are currently not known about or visited at all. And the properly trained and experienced personnel with detailed knowledge of how home education differs from school education for that matter.

Dear Mr Balls

I will not give up this fight. These are my children, not yours, not the state’s. I will choose with them what they learn, and we will not follow any curriculum determined by remote politicians in Westminster, even though we may appear to follow curriculum here already. The point is that we choose how and when, and I will not allow you to test or grade my children or my teaching. That is my business and my responsibility, not yours.

I will not submit to your licensing arrangements, nor will your inspectors interview my children alone. Even if they were criminals they would have representation and rights, and you seem determined to trample on those rights without any cause or justification.

I will not accept the manipulation of figures you are trying to use to justify your invasion of my family’s privacy, and I will not back down or run away. I will continue to spread the word, blow bubbles, support my friends and pester politicians, committees and journalists, making life as difficult for you as I can.

I have never voted labour, and you have guaranteed I never will. I am even considering becoming a conservative activist to ensure that you do not get back in at the next election, and trust me, I’ve never considered that before.

You will not destroy my right nor interfere with my responsibility to raise my children as I see fit, and I will work to ensure that all of my children, even the one not yet born gets to live and learn outside of your surveillance and database state.

We’ve had the government’s full response to the Graham Badman review.

We’ve had the announcement of a forthcoming review into the definition of suitable education for home educated children.

We’ve seen Graham Badman’s latest attempt at proving that home educated children are more at risk than those in school (download link).

All on a Friday. Odd time to be releasing this type of thing. They probably hoped that no one would notice, except of course for this annoying minority of EHE who keep rattling on about civil liberties. And don’t get me wrong, this is about civil liberties, and I’m going to go on rattling on about it.

Let’s take a look at that first response.

Wherever a child is educated, local authorities (LAs) need to be assured that each child is safe, well and receiving a full time education, suitable to their needs and abilities. The safety and well-being of all children is of the utmost importance and 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.

Um, no. That’s not the LAs responsibility. That’s the parents’ responsibility and it is only up to the state to get involved if everything else failed. And I also refer you to my previous post, as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible. Given that LAs can’t educate the children in their institutions according to the guidelines above, and manifestly do not keep all those children safe, I think that they should concentrate on getting that part of their house on order, and stop trying to add all home educated children to a massive haystack which will actually have the effect of making all children slightly less safe.

And as for the idea of a review into the definition of a suitable education, what precisely are they going to review? I’d love for this country to have a debate about education, what it means, what it is and what it’s for, but I can’t see it happening, really. This looks to me like another stab at taking responsibility away from parents, who are the right ppl to decide what is right for their children. If your kids are in private school, don’t worry, I’m sure you’re next on the target list.

But I’m not about to run away from this, or any other battle over my children. They are my children. I carried them, I birthed them, I fed them, we have clothed, fed, loved and educated them and we will continue to do that. If we were to neglect them, then fair enough, there are systems in place that should protect (but all too often, sadly don’t) but choosing to home educate them according to our beliefs and philosophies, while obviously very scary to the government, is not cause for concern on grounds of either neglect or abuse.

This is where we live. This is how we live. This is my line in the sand, my family, and you will not affect them adversely any longer.

So please, just stop it now. You’re boring us.

From Home Education Forums

The Children, Schools and Families Committee will be taking formal oral evidence as follows:

Monday 12 October 2009 at 4.45pm
Wilson Room, Portcullis House

Witnesses:

Graham Badman CBE;
Ms Diana R Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, and
Penny Jones, Independent Schools and School Organisation, DCSF.

The purpose of this session is to examine the evidence base for and recommendations of the DCSF commissioned review of elective home education in England.

Wednesday 14 October 2009 at 9.30am
Wilson Room, Portcullis House

Witnesses: (At 9.30am)
Jane Lowe, Trustee, Home Education Advisory Service;
Fiona Nicholson, Trustee /Chair Government Policy Group, Education Otherwise;
Simon Webb, home educating parent;
David Wright, home educating parent, and
Carole Rutherford, co-founder, Autism in Mind

(At 10.30am)
Colin Green, Chair, Families, Communities and Young People Policy Committee, Association of Directors of Children’s Services;
Ellie Evans, Head of Children Missing Education team, West Sussex County Council;
Sir Paul Ennals, Chief Executive, National Children’s Bureau, and
Phillip Noyes, Director of Public Policy, NSPCC

No Paula Rothermel. No one from AHEd, or AEUK. The two home educating parents are both men, which doesn’t strike me as desperately representative of the demographic of home educators as a whole?

If you feel like dropping a complaint in (and I really feel you should) the email address is csfcom@parliament.uk

The Members of the Committee are:

Mr Barry Sheerman (Chairman), Labour, Huddersfield
Annette Brooke, Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North
Mr Douglas Carswell, Conservative, Harwich
Mr David Chaytor, Labour, Bury North
Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West
Paul Holmes, Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield
Fiona Mactaggart, Labour, Slough
Mr Andrew Pelling, Independent, Croydon Central
Mr Andy Slaughter, Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush
Helen Southworth, Labour, Warrington South
Mr Graham Stuart, Conservative, Beverley & Holderness
Mr Edward Timpson, Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich
Derek Twigg, Labour, Halton
Lynda Waltho , Labour, Stourbridge

so if any of them are your MP, suggest that it would be a good idea to stick a flea in their ear too.

Please spread far and wide.

Is it even applicable in those circumstances, or do we really want as safe as possible? What would as safe as possible look like?

It would look like a world where no child could ever be left alone with anyone, especially not parents, as most child abuse takes place in the home. Where no adult could ever be trusted, regardless of who or what they were. Perhaps we’d have to live in communal accommodation, or have the children live apart from their families, something like the kibbutz model springs to mind. Wonder if they have lower rates of child neglect or abuse there?

This isn’t something we’re set up for as a species, or not any longer anyway. We are meant to live more communally than we do, I think, but not actually in each other’s pockets.

So, if we can’t go back to living in long halls, would mass screening achieve this level of safety? Mass screening how often? Yearly? Monthly? Weekly? Daily? It would have to start from birth as most serious abuse cases where the children die involve children under mandatory education age so you couldn’t wait for school to protect them. What form would it have to take? An individual interview and a full body check? After all, it’s easy to hide bruises under clothes, or even chocolate.

But what would the negative effects be on children? They’d learn that no one could be trusted, especially their parents. They wouldn’t learn to form proper relationships, they wouldn’t learn how to judge risks as every aspect of their lives would be controlled externally. They’d have no concept of personal privacy, which seems to me to be a form of abuse in itself. What kind of world would we have as they grew up? Not a world I’d want to live in.

Is there enough abuse in society to justify mass screening? How much would that be? We sometimes hear the phrase “if it saves just one life” which in reality means it’s going to inconvenience a whole lot more, and the benefits will be hard to judge. It would save a whole lot more than just one life if we stopped everyone driving cars for example, but you don’t ever hear politicians campaigning on that one.

Child protection is a hot potato. It’s seen as a vote winner. Get a good strong headline about how you are going to make children safer and everyone will vote for you.

Except I think that this government has finally gone too far. The idea of the vetting and barring scheme has got a variety of ppl up in arms. Home educators are fighting back against the Badman home education review with picnics blowing bubbles and songs on Youtube. Signatories to the petition to stop reciprocal childcare counting as reward are rocketing up in number.

Don’t home educators believe in keeping children safe? Of course we do. But I think we believe in as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible, and our line in the sand is drawn in a different place to that of the government.

Recently however, the government decided that anyone undertaking childcare for reward, and that reward could be just reciprocal childcare, needs to be registered as a childminder. Which means being qualified in first aid, having your house inspected, having to keep records and having to follow the Early Years Foundation Stage. (I’m sure I’ve missed a few bits out there, but that’s the gist of it I think.) And as these two policewomen hadn’t done any of that, looking after each other’s children was breaking the law.

Funny how we don’t yet have to do that to actually have children, but rest assured, if the government could find a way to bring that law into being, they would. After all, they are trying to control pretty much ever other aspect of family life.

The two children involved are in nurseries now, and the women are considerably financially worse off. The taxpayer is going to be worse off too, as the women are applying for benefits to assist with the elevated costs. And the majority of ppl that I’ve spoken to about this think it’s ridiculous. I’m also betting there’s a lot of ppl reviewing their holiday childcare arrangements – situations where families take it in turns to look after friends children could fall foul of the same legislation if it’s on more than 14 days a year, and that’s quite easy to achieve.

So, is it reactionary to think that a mother ought to be able to choose a friend to look after her child? Is it dragging your heels to not want to have to go through an inspection system or teach to a curriculum that many early years experts think is utterly ridiculous and has no grounding in pedagogical research? Or has the government gone a step too far, in the same way that they have over the Badman home education review?

Because they have gone a step too far. The insinuations over a small number of cases where home education has been a factor in abuse and neglect are nothing more than insinuations, and even if there were a small number of cases, it is not proportionate or targeted to bring in an annual licensing system for all home educators in response to that.

Put it this way, approx 5 children drown in garden ponds each year. Does this mean we should ban them? Or inspect them for the correct safety measures and fine ppl, even those without children, if the ponds are not covered correctly in weight bearing meshes?

No, it doesn’t. Be far more sensible to ban cars tbh, as road accidents are well up there in the cause of death stakes, and we’d be able to breathe a lot better.

We can’t rule out every cause of accident and injury to our children. We can take sensible precautions, but the Badman review isn’t that, especially when it conflates welfare with education. Just the same as demanding two friends are registered and following a curriculum – that’s another conflation of welfare and education that shouldn’t have taken place.

I am not behind the times, nor am I alone in my defiance of these laws and proposals – it is the government that is hurrying too fast into an Orwellian future that we don’t need, didn’t ask for and don’t want. Time to take a step back, Ed Balls, and listen to the ppl who are telling you you’ve got it wrong.

I admit we’ve made some unusual choices in our life. It isn’t standard to home educate your children after all. And if you don’t home educate them, finding a montessori nursery and school for flexi schooling isn’t particularly standard either.

But since when did making unusual choices become so worthy of suspicion? AHEd’s examination of the stats released by FOI requests show that home educated children are not more at risk of child abuse or neglect, despite the repeated claims in the media to the contrary. We should be celebrating diversity, not driving for conformity throughout education and indeed life itself. Diversity, innovation, creativity, these are the things we need for life in this day and age of frequent technological change and development.

Am I just whimpering that the world doesn’t understand me, like some goth teenager?

No, I don’t really care whether the world understands me. I won’t hide myself or my children away, or apologise for my choices, but I will fight to defend them. Not that I’ve had to, tbh, round here. Saying that I home educate doesn’t raise eyebrows, or cause ppl to move away from my children. Several families have gone out of their way to arrange playdates in fact. I don’t think home education is viewed with much suspicion here at all, and where ppl have been taken in by media spin, it has taken very short conversations to put them right again.

Sometimes it worries me that so few home educators seem to be involved in the battles against Badman, but then again, how many of the population do anything about anything these days? There’s life to be lived, work to be done, children to be raised, houses to be run. We’ve other things to do with our time and energy, just day to day things. Many home educators are raising children with additional needs, that give another layer of complication to daily lives. Some of them are doing it alone, not all families have two parents. Some are raising and educating children while running businesses to support themselves.

So I don’t think it’s apathy, and I don’t think it’s agreement with the conclusions of the review. I think that you usually get a minority who act in political cases – look at the political party membership figures for example. Or check out how many ppl actually volunteer to do anything in addition to their usual lives, it’s a small number. It doesn’t indicate that the ppl who aren’t members, or don’t volunteer don’t agree with the parties or the volunteers, it simply means it isn’t their priority.

And home educators are getting review fatigue. This government has conducted several reviews into home education and associated areas in the last few years, including compiling the currently missing in action guidelines for local authorities on elective home education(pdf link). Sometimes it seems it isn’t worth fighting on.

I believe it has to be. Despite or because of the ever encroaching nanny state, I think it is time to draw a line in the sand and say no more.

I think that we don’t need more databases, we need trust and community to raise our children and things like reciprocal childcare should be, as it always has been, acceptable in society. I think it should be fine to give your friend’s children a lift home from school, or cubs, or brownies without needing to be on yet another database. I think families ought to have freedom of choice in how their children are educated, particularly before mandatory educational age, rather than the government imposing a nappy curriculum on every childcare institution.

Am I being controversial, a heretic or renegade even? I don’t think so. Please feel free to point out the error of my ways

And if you are suddenly overcome with the urge to act, then there is a petition against the review on the No 10 website, and a consultation to be answered over the next month. I will be blogging more fully about that sometime over the next week.

Since then, as a family we’ve just sort of drifted about Derbyshire/ Yorkshire as was most convenient at the time. Until earlier this year, when we moved to the east of England, near Tim’s brother.

Now, I’m always being told that southerners are more standoffish, and that northerners are open and friendly. Maybe this little town hasn’t quite worked out where it is then, as I have to say, it’s an awful lot friendlier than the last couple or three places we’ve lived. We’ve been here six months, give or take, and I now know more ppl to nod at on the street and exchange times of day with than I did in any of the last three places, including the one where we notched up nearly a decade. Just this week the not-brown-owl leader at Brownies said “saw you yomping down to the front, waved, but my husband was driving and I don’t think you saw us.” And another car had passed us earlier in the day waving frantically and it was the parent of another Brownie. (I know that probably doesn’t sound like much, but the only ppl we knew after 8 years in one house were the next door neighbours. And then they both moved.)

We’re building links here. Friendships. There’s one little girl that has come here a couple of times, and I’ve taken her swimming. Without her mother and without a CRB or ISA check. Oh, it’s OK, it’s just an informal arrangement between parents, and that won’t need checks anyway. It stems from trust, an essential part of human relationships, that stands to be irrevocably damaged by the government’s latest meddling.

If we stop relying on trust in these informal arrangements then we are going to lose the ability to trust, to make informed judgements, and build relationships and community. We won’t want to make friends with the other parents at swimming and let our children go off to other ppl’s houses without a bit of paper to prove that the other parents have never been caught doing anything dodgy, and we’ll have lost one more bit of ability to think for ourselves.

That isn’t what it’s supposed to be about. We are a social species, and we are supposed to rely on friends and family. And yes, sometimes we will get it wrong and ppl will get hurt – sometimes you fall out with ppl, very occasionally ppl will do very bad things. I don’t have a problem with vetting ppl in authority roles, such as teachers or doctors – mainly because we don’t get to choose them and build up that layer of trust. But I do have a problem with looking askance at everyone who offers a friendly helping hand.

The government is going too far. You cannot protect all children from all harm all of the time. As parents we know this. We do our best to minimise serious risks, we try to teach our children safety procedures. But we let them ride bikes, help them learn to cross roads, teach them to use sharp knives safely when cooking and step back gradually as they grow up. We use our judgement. Sometimes they’ll get hurt – sometimes they’ll learn from it and not do it again. I’m sure Big will wheel a bike somewhere again in a day or so, and this time she’ll try to keep her leg away from the pedals so she doesn’t end up with a painful scratch. One day Small will stop running through the house and battering himself on walls and door frames – he will eventually learn from experience.

And I’ll be there watching and helping, bandaging the worst hurts and offering encouragement to get back on the bike. I’ll deliver Small to Beavers tomorrow where tbh, it isn’t the thought that Brown Beaver is CRB checked that gives me confidence. It’s the conversation I had with her when I signed Small up, and the little exchanges that we have when I drop him off and pick him up, and the way I’ve seen her deal with the boys. Not the strength of a piece of paper which I haven’t even seen.

Nanny state, back off. We don’t need nannies. We need to be allowed to grow up.

Please see the attached letter from Graham Badman.

Graham would like to make local authorities aware of the forthcoming Select Committee hearing in early October which is likely to examine the evidence from the various sources which led to the 28 recommendations in his Home Education Review.

In the course of the review statistical evidence was collected from a sample of local authorities on vulnerable children who were home educated. This provided persuasive evidence for change.

However, it was a small sample and we would like to supplement this data in order to provide more statistically rigorous information to the Select Committee about safeguarding and educational issues that affect home educated children.

So there is a nod to the fact that the information used in the review and on the basis of which legislation is being prepared is not statistically rigorous enough to satisfy a select committee – methinks then that it shouldn’t be enough to satisfy a government to consider legislation.

And why does Graham Badman get to call for more evidence at this point? Surely if the review was well enough put together he should be able to go before the select committee and say that, there should be no need to scrabble around for further details to support it?

Someone is running scared.

Time to redouble our efforts methinks. Is your local group involved in putting together a submission to the select committee? If not, go on, you know you want to. You’d better get your skates on though, as unlike Graham Badman, home educators only have until 22 September to get their submissions in. Why does he get until 1st October? And why does he get to call for evidence through official channels, surely he had access to those while doing the review – we don’t get these shortcuts. Sigh.

ETA further blogposts on the same issue:

Dare to know: Graham Badman now requesting further evidence
Corvidae corner: a small announcement and a rant