Not At School Today

Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England: by Graham Badman

The Government has published its findings of the Home Education Review that was carried out back in January. The justification for the Review was a concern that Home Schooling was being used as a cover for child abuse, and was supported by children’s charities (although the NSPCC subsequently apologised for any offence caused).

So, did the review find any evidence for this allegation? No. As Peter Traves, the Director of children’s services for Staffordshire states on Radio 4’s Today programme: “Graham [Badman] is very clear that there is no evidence that Home Education is used as a cover for child abuse.” And as Ed Balls, the Secretary of State, recognises, “I am reassured that your review found no evidence that home education is being used to cover up forced marriage, servitude or child trafficking.”

Which of course is good news, and what Home Educators were obviously expecting. So, is there any evidence that supports the compulsory registration and monitoring of all Home Schooling families under the allegation of child abuse? No.

But, luckily for the Government, this doesn’t seem to have stopped Mr Badman from recommending all kinds of wonderful and wacky ways for the State to make sure that it gets its hands on our children. I’m going to try and summarise his 84 page report, but please, if you have any interest in Home Education, read it for yourself to fully appreciate the horrors within!

THE GOOD
Actually, a large part of the Home Education Review was about calling LEAs to task for their woefully inadequate “support” of home educating families, and a lack of understanding about home education in general. Recommendations (R.) 5, 6, 9, 26 and 27 all call for proper training and accountability for LEAs and dissemination of good practice across the board. R.13 calls for LEAs to be subject to Ofsted type inspections to ensure that they are offering good support and provision for Home Educating families.

Graham Badman also says “it seems to me perverse to articulate concern about thousands of young people yet cut them off from services that would be rightfully theirs if they attended school… there was almost universal support for free access to the public examination system. I believe this to be fair and arguably a natural extension of the state’s desire to secure appropriate outcomes for young people.” (5.7). He suggests in R.10, 11, 12 and 28 really quite good ways that home educators could be supported. Aside from free examinations, he recommends (among other things) access to school libraries and sports facilities, low cost music tuition, post-14 vocational opportunities and ICT facilities.

THE BAD
Graham Badman, in his first Recommendation, says “that the DCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively home educated.” This should be renewed annually, with home visits once a year, and a statement of educational approach for the next 12 months provided by the parents.

Now, even this I would not protest against too much. I think that knowing how many people home educate would show how common it is, and would go some way to fighting misconceptions and promoting the educational choice that parents have. I think we are very fortunate to have so much freedom (at the moment) in this country, and if registration and a statement of intent means that we would have access to all the benefits listed by Mr Badman above, then that would be a fair balance.

However, we have yet to come to…

THE UGLY
Unfortunately, Graham Badman also goes on to make the following recommendations.

1. That the DCSF review what constitutes a ‘suitable’ and ‘efficient’ education, and issues guidelines for a defined curriculum for home educating children and parents to follow (R.2).

Response: The wish to have nothing to do with a prescribed national curriculum, but rather the option to build your own based on your philosophies, beliefs and your child’s individual interest, is one reason that many home educators would cite for the path they have chosen. Any imposed guidelines would be completely anathema to the whole reason for home educating in the first place.

2. That local authority officers should have the right of access to the home, and the right to speak to every child alone if appropriate, or at least without their parents present (R.7).

Response: This is an unbelievable infringement on the rights of parents and children. I absolutely would not subject my children to such an interview if they were not happy or comfortable with it. Are the parents of school children going to have to let officers into their homes at weekends and school holidays to make sure that there is no abuse taking place?

3. That parents and children be made to prove (“exhibit”) their attainment and progress (R.7 again).

Response: The whole point, again, for many people choosing home education is to remove the unnecessary stress and general pointlessness of an endless stream of exams. And now the Government wants to enforce tests on children not even in their charge to prove what they are learning. The failure and scrapping of SATs has clearly taught them nothing.

4. That the DCSF prevent schools and local authorities from advising families about their home education options as a solution to behavioural or educational issues. (R.15)

Response: Mr Badman does not want home education to be the first resort of parents whose children are truanting or have other problems at school. He wants those issues to try and be resolved first – fair enough. But to actually go as far as to say that schools and LEAs be PREVENTED from informing families about their legal rights and options to home education speaks absolute volumes about his general negative stance on the subject.

5. That LEAs have the authority to refuse or rescind the right of home education to those that they deem unsuitable. (R.24)

Response: In some, much publicized, cases, an abusive family should not be allowed to home educate. But then, these families should not be allowed any kind of care of their children at all. I think the only justification for refusal of the right to home educate would be if the children were in a position to be placed into care anyway. Otherwise there is too much shaky ground, especially with regards to all the misconceptions and misunderstandings that local authorities are guilty of in the first place.

All in all, the review places home education in a very negative light, with sour comments from Graham Badman and others throughout.

“I have met some extraordinarily accomplished young people who have prospered as a consequence of elective home education of whom their parents are justly proud, but I am not persuaded that I could argue this to be a universal picture, any more than the same argument could be applied to the schooling system, but the same checks and balances do not apply.” (1.2)

In Section 1.5 Badman addresses this apparent contradiction between “the rights of the parent and the rights of the child”, saying there has to be a balance between the two. What does this MEAN? For goodness sakes, there is no part of me, and the vast majority of parents I am sure, that does not want what is best for our children and will strive with everything we have to ensure this is achieved. The thing is, that I as their parent know what is best, rather than some indifferent outside official.

The whole bias of the report is shown in Section 4. This is titled “Elective Home Education in Context – the Views of Home Educators and Others”. The reality is that only two views of those who home educate are quoted, taking up 6 lines in total, and one of those is only used as an example of an extremist view to be dismissed immediately. There is then an entire page devoted to the views of organisations who believe that people shouldn’t be allowed to home educate at all. It is briefly mentioned that Education Otherwise have offered some detailed proposals, but their recommendations are neither seen nor heard about again.

Another wonderful Badman quote: “While home education may sometimes be considered to be a better option for some children than mainstream education…” (6.4)

And from Ofsted: “Children who are educated at home but are not known to the local authority may be more likely to be at risk.” (8.10)

And then we reach Section 10: Issues for further investigation. According to Badman, autonomous learning needs to be looked at and subject to its own review. He also does not believe the evidence that homeschooled children outperform their peers, and says that there is no way of knowing how well home educated children do later on in life, in higher education or careers. Both these areas also need looking into.

Why? With what possible reason, other than to find ways and excuses to restrict people’s right to home educate even further?

And finally… Badman calls for the Government to respond to sections 1, 7, 23 and 24 immediately. The most contentious ones, designed to infringe and curtail our current legal rights, are the recommendations highlighted as most important. Brilliant.

WHAT CAN WE DO?
Hopefully there will be many ways to fight these proposals (not least in fingers crossed for a general election!). You can respond to the report here, and also have a look at various Home Education campaigns which have information on how to get further involved. Also, you might like to read other blogs whose writers are often eloquant and always passionate about the subject - for instance Dare to Know, Reflections in the Greenhouse, Firebird’s blog and Making it up, to name a few.

Bring it on!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS