Making It Up

as we go along

political stuff

Transcript of interview with MP Robert Halfon, chair of education select committee on BBC radio 4 today show 16th November

by 2 Comments

Today program available for next couple of weeks here

First part here

Interviewer: All right then, Cllr Watts, thank you. Let’s talk to Robert Halfon MP, chair of the education select committee, morning to you.

RH: Good morning, hello there.

I: You’ve started an inquiry haven’t you, into home schooling, so I imagine you don’t want to come to any firm conclusions but listening to what you’ve just listened to does that make sense to you?

RH: It certainly does. I welcome the LGA report, I mean let me make it clear, obviously many parents are home educating their children and doing a wonderful job but what I think needs to happen is first of all there should be a national register, there should be data collected by the Department for Education so not only do we know for sure how many children are being home educated we can look at their attainment and progress. We know that something like er 40 children are excluded every day in our classrooms, 100s of children are informally excluded, what is known as off rolling, we don’t know what happens to those children, whether they’re getting a good education. And I think that there should be, and we’ll look at this in our enquiry, some form of inspection as to how these children are being educated whether or not they are linked to a school, whether or not it’s the local authority. We have to remember Ofsted goes into schools though for academies you’ve got Ofsted and the regional school commissioners yet we don’t know the attainment levels of children who are educated at home. So we need accountability we need transparency we need the data, we need proper inspection regime to make sure that these children are getting the best learning they should have.

I: I suppose in the past if the numbers were relatively small it was one of those problems that we could put sort of down the list but if we are really talking about hundreds of thousands it really does matter.

RH: Well the growth of home education has gone up hugely in recent years, and as the LGA said they identify over 280,000 but it could be over 1 million pupils and we need to make sure that every single one of them is getting the best education they could possibly have and that is why the national register could not come soon enough.

I: do you think, sorry to interrupt you, I was just wondering whether you think there should be also an effort to persuade people not to do it, because obviously it is a right and no one is suggesting that it shouldn’t be a right and in certain circumstances it is obviously the right thing to do for a child but in general should the government be saying to parents hang on a sec, you should really think more carefully before you do this

RH I absolutely believe that it is the right of the parents if the parents want to home educate their children they should be able to do so, but there should be the data, they should be inspected, perhaps they should be linked with a school my own personal preference is that children do go to school because it’s not just about the education but also the support networks, the socialisation that they get, and all the other benefits that they get, and of course it’s up to each individual parent but children must be inspected, there must be a register and the dept for education must gather the data to find out how these children are doing in terms of their education

I: and if people want to take part in your enquiry or be aware of it as it’s happening what should they do.

RH: Just go to the department er the house of commons website we’ve had many hundreds of submissions already and we’re very welcome to receive some more.

***

Here’s the link to the education committee inquiry on home education

The description is this:

The inquiry will seek to understand the extent to which current arrangements provide sufficient support for home educated children to access efficient, full-time and suitable education, and establish what further measures may be necessary in order to facilitate this.

It will also explore the impact of COVID-19 on home education, and any particular needs arising from the pandemic that need to be addressed.

The interviewer appears to be well off the mark in assuming that Robert Halfon doesn’t want to come to firm conclusions. It appears to me that he already has an incredibly entrenched position.

This is not a reasoned, balanced, informed position. Robert Halfon has already come to a conclusion about what should happen, and given that he keeps going on about needing the data, it seems utterly ironic that his conclusion is based on fabricated data. Simply decided that education must be formal and 18 hours a week, as LGA appear to have done, does not mean there are actually 1 million home educated children. Who gets to say that education has to be formal? How do we define formal?

Going to have to leave it there for a while, but I will be back intermittently with more thoughts on this.

Existing children and the third child tax credit cut off.

by 6 Comments

ranty head

I keep reading articles about how tax credits won’t apply to third or subsequent children born after a particular date (April 2017).

It follows this part of George Osborne’s emergency budget speech.

Families who have a third or subsequent child after April 2017 will not receive additional Tax Credit or UC support for this child.

The idea is that parents should be planning to only have children when they can afford to support them.

What people seem to be missing though, is that this applies to families who already *have* 3 or more children, *if* they are not currently on tax credits and start a new claim after April 2017. It will also apply if you are on tax credits now, but come off for 6 months. So if you get a better job, then lose it, or if your self employment income fluctuates above the cut off point for a year, you’re going to be caught by this too.

Support provided to families who make a new claim to Universal Credit after this date will also be limited to two children.

And we will make similar changes in Housing Benefit too.

Now, I understand this idea of changing people’s behaviour in terms of family planning. (I’m not saying that I agree or disagree, but I see how the principle is supposed to work.) What I don’t understand is what people who suddenly start needing help – redundancy? death of a spouse? sickness? – are supposed to do with their existing children? Anyone?

I’ve also read articles saying this acts as a disincentive for existing large families to get off tax credits in the first place. Which sounds like a backwards policy. And it appears the official opposition is completely on board with it all. (Harriet Harman quoted in the Mirror.)

Now, Child Tax Credits is the element of the Tax credit system that can be paid to someone outside work. It’s also paid to those in low paid work – and how come all the ire is directed at those in receipt of wage top ups, and not the employers paying the low wages in the first place? We’ve had these top ups to family income under a variety of names since they were first introduced by Ted Heath in 1971. That’s over 40 years of supplements for something that was intended to be a temporary measure. Not looking terribly temporary is it?

I’m not offering any alternative solutions here. Regular readers will know that I’m a proponent of basic income as an alternative to mini tweaks to welfare reform, but really what I think is important right now is that people look at the facts instead of the hype. And the fact behind these headlines is that this is going to affect families who already have 3 or more children. What do people expect them to do?

Supporting the #LBBill

by Leave a Comment

I’ve just sent the following letter to my MP. If you feel you can support the campaign, please consider doing similarly. The information you need is here and you can use the WriteToThem website.

***

I don’t know whether you’ve ever heard of Connor Sparrowhawk, also known as Laughing Boy. He had autism and epilepsy, and while held in an NHS assessment centre for people with learning difficulties for 107 days, he drowned in the bath.

This is something that simply shouldn’t happen to someone with his diagnosis in a caring environment. It has a particular resonance for me, I have an ASD diagnosis myself, and my sister, who had epilepsy, drowned in her bath. She was independent, and while bathing unsupported was her decision, it wasn’t Connor’s. (I have written previously on this: you can read it here. )

Accordingly I support the #JusticeforLB campign and I’d like you to support a Private Members Bill drafted by the campaign. Supporters of the campaign have come together to draft a Bill which would promote and protect disabled people’s right to live in the community with choices equal to others and the support they need. It has become known as ‘LB Bill’ in Connor’s memory.

You might like to know that the Bill is on its second draft and has had feedback from hundreds of disabled people, family members and allies. The Bill has mass support, as you can see on the campaign website. It builds on existing legislation, including the Care Act 2014.

Please support this Bill and encourage your colleagues to do the same. I don’t know whether you are already committed to sponsoring a bill in the Private Members Bill ballot, if not, please consider this one. If you could reply (email address is included) to let me know your position that would be great. It takes two minutes to pledge your support and you can do that here:

***

I know I have readers with vulnerable children who will be considering their future in the care system. I know I have readers who care deeply about social justice. If for any reason my words have moved you, please lend your support to this campaign. Either write to your MP or tweet them, or share this post or the campaign blog.

Thank you.

Welfare reform: the moral and practical case for basic income.

by 4 Comments

basic income seriesIn the run up to this general election, there’s been a lot of time spent debating welfare, welfare reform, spending and so on.

The received wisdom is that benefits need to be cut/ capped/ people must work, either for their benefits (workfare) or in paid apprenticeships. So we have sanctions, where if you don’t comply with whatever hoops are set before you, your benefits are withheld.

This is just plain wrong.

We may deprive murderers of their freedom. We don’t deprive them of their food. We feed them, and clothe them and shelter them, whereas our current system of welfare withdraws all of those things.

I hope that the people who design this system are really ignorant of the effect that they are having. I hope that somehow they fool themselves into thinking that people have backup systems, safety nets, friends, family who will provide.

Sadly, that isn’t always the case. The welfare state is supposed to provide social security, to give people the shelter, the food, to cover the basic needs of day to day life. And when it is withdrawn, sanctioned, people suffer.

Practically, I believe that a welfare system based on punishment is counterproductive as well. I read a fascinating article last week in the Harvard Magazine on the Science of Scarcity. I’d urge you to pop through and read it for yourself but the quick take away is that poverty, anxiety, stress – they all go to affect people more than you could possibly expect,

scarcity steals mental capacity wherever it occurs—from the hungry, to the lonely, to the time-strapped, to the poor.

Steals mental capacity. So when you punish people and make them scared, you make them less able to make good decisions and work their way out of the situation.

I suspect anyone who has really been scared, poor, hungry, desperate knows this. Again, I really hope that the people making the policies and decisions that put people in these situations don’t. That they aren’t doing this on purpose.

So what it we, as a society, approached this a different way? What if, instead of making survival conditional on behaviour, we insisted on it being a right? What if we all received a basic income?

No workfare, no made up jobs. Power in the hands of employees to walk away from bad situations, exploitative zero hour contracts (is that a terminology redefinition along the lines of affordable housing?). A society where careers have an income, women have independence, students can afford to study. It sounds like a pretty good starting place to me.

So despite other faults in the Green’s manifesto/ policy aims, that’s the way I’m turning in this general election. I know I’m not the only one. If you want more reasons, there’s 10 on watching you grow. You can read more about the Green Party position on basic income via BIEN.

I’ve written more on basic income before. Please feel free to read:

The one on inequality, basic income and anger

Basic income is something for nothing, why does anyone deserve that?

Could the basic income actually save us money?

#TellNicky Children's education shouldn't be a battlefield

by 10 Comments

a b c 1 2 3 chalkboard

This weekend, Education secretary, Nicky Morgan announced a ‘war on illiteracy and innumeracy’

According to the BBC, this means that

All children in England will be expected to know up to their 12 times table when they leave primary school, the government has announced.

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said pupils aged 11 should also know correct punctuation, spelling and grammar.

The Times carries a bit more detail just before the paywall (£)

EVERY 11-year-old in England will have to pass a test on the 12 times table and write a coherent short story under plans to prevent any children from leaving primary school without being able to read and count properly.

Schools with less than 100% pass rate 2 years running will face all sorts of interventions, right up to being academised. Existing academies could be forced to accept new sponsors.

And here I think we get to the purpose of this policy.

This isn’t about education, achievement, or children. This certainly isn’t about working with teachers. This is about wresting control of schools from local government, and privatising education provision by the back door. The government would have you believe that academies are the only route to better performing schools, and they trumpet the fact on their website.

Across all state-funded schools, the proportion of pupils who achieved at least 5 good GCSEs (including in English and maths) rose by 0.6 percentage points. In sponsored academies, the increase was 3.1 percentage points.

This claim makes me nervous though. It’s not comparing like with like. Academies are mainly converted from low achieving schools, and therefore have much more room for improvement. I’m not the only one to have noticed that – a similar claim regarding primaries has been analysed by the local schools network and reported in TES.

But its comparison is between the relatively small number of sponsored academies – which by definition are starting from a low base – and more than 13,000 maintained primaries, including thousands with good test results.

Because it is much harder to achieve large increases in test results in a school where scores are already high, the comparison is likely to be heavily skewed in favour of the sponsored academies.

So, we’ve got strict tests on basic skills in numeracy and literacy, with schools mandated to achieve 100% passrate, or they face being turned into academies.

Gee, how could parents, teachers, and children possibly complain about that?

What about the children with special needs? Those with dyslexia, who might find writing a coherent story or reading a novel (what standard of novel? What classes as a novel in government speak anyway?) difficult? Or those with short term memory problems, who may find committing tables to memory via rote methods next to impossible? I’m not sure what learning your tables by rote is supposed to achieve anyway, I certainly never achieved it, and I’m pretty good at basic maths. (And advanced maths for that matter, I have a Certificate in Maths, degree level study from the OU.) I’m also excellent at logic, and I’m intrigued as to how the recall on this is going to be tested – I’m faster at mental arithmetic and can produce the answer to times tables questions faster than many people who do claim to know them by rote.

What is learning your tables supposed to achieve? Surely understanding and manipulating numbers is a far more useful skill?

I really don’t understand why the government is attacking schools in this manner. Putting teachers into a state of constant stress that they won’t have a job dependent on someone else’s results is hardly humane. And I speak as a home educator, someone whose children are outside of this system. And do you know what, with this kind of behaviour towards the education system, I’ve a feeling there will be plenty more people joining me.