I have posted this today and copied it to all the people listed at the bottom. It is a long read but I had to say it all.
Somewhere in
Rhondda Cynon Taff
Ed Balls
Secretary of State for Children
54 High Street
Normanton
WF6 2AQ
15th June 2009
Dear Mr Balls,
We write with regard to the recent review of Elective Home Education (EHE) in England and the proposed similar review in Wales.
We are currently home educating our two youngest children age 10 and 7. The eldest spent two years in school; the youngest has never attended school. We also have three other grown children from previous relationships who attended school, college and university. We apologise for not providing our names and address but given the subject of this letter, we’re sure you understand our reluctance to do so.
We have read with dismay, the recent review by Graham Badman and the subsequent replies by yourself and Baroness Delyth Morgan. We would like to express our viewpoints on this issue.
1.The review was conducted in a very odd way. First it was announced as a consultation but then, when pointed out that it did not comply with the regulations, it was swiftly renamed as a review. This indicates that it was ill-thought out and hurriedly put together which begs the question why? Mr Badman, himself, had already publicly hinted at the outcome before the report was completed. Baroness Delyth Morgan had also implied that, “home education could be used as a cover for abuse”. She had no evidence for this but of course, the media picked this libellous statement up and the resulting headlines made all home educating parents look like they were trying to hide something from the outset.
2.There were no experts on the panel who had a deep knowledge of home education. This indicates a total lack of concern for the process of assimilating useful information and shows that the end recommendations were a foregone conclusion. More disturbingly there was not one home educating parent on the panel, which completely negates Mr Badman’s recommendation that “home educators should be engaged in the process”.
3.The report was also couched in a peculiar manner. Mr Badman proclaimed, “I believe” sixteen times, whereas, in an unbiased, independent review, the author’s views should not be expressed; his standpoint should be neutral. If you remove Mr Badman’s personal opinions, then the report is bereft of very few verifiable facts.
4.The report provided not one shred of evidence of child abuse by home educators, yet much of its content was based on the premise that home educators ‘might’ abuse their children.:
“The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right regulatory regime within a framework of legislation that protects the rights of all children, even if in transaction such regulation is only necessary to protect a minority.”
The problem here is that no ‘minority’ of abused children was evident in Mr Badman’s investigations. He has made an assumption of guilt ‘just in case’. The whole report is based on one man’s opinion rather than verifiable facts and evidence. We have seen references to Khyra Ishaq being home educated in many newspapers. This was not the case as we understand it. She had been de-registered a few weeks before her tragic death but was already known to Social Services and was certainly not being home educated. Why hadn’t her former teachers noticed anything wrong? As this review is partly based on the premise that home educated children are less likely to come to the attention of Social Services purely because they do not attend school, this case illustrates that that particular safety net does not work.
5.The review stresses the importance of finding ‘balance’ between parents’ rights and the rights of the child. This is stated as though the two are mutually exclusive. Graham Badman fails to acknowledge that, in almost every case, the parent is exercising their right to protect the rights of their child. The assertion that balance needs to be sought implies that the rights of child and rights of parents are at opposite ends of some imaginary scale.
The Education Act 1996 (previously section 36 of the Education Act 1944) clearly states:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
a.to his age, ability and aptitude, and
to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
Therefore, the law states it as a parental responsibility, not as ‘rights’.We are within our ‘rights’ to insist that we hold responsibility for our children’s education, not the Government and not the LA.
6.Mr Badman states:
“The degree of individualism exhibited may well be a strength but it militates against securing representative opinion and has led to factions within the elective home education community that actually distort the strength of philosophical commitment, achievement and need.
No, our diversity IS a strength. Representative opinion is not necessary. The only ‘philosophical commitment’ is between parents and their children. You will never get a group of home educating parents to agree on a philosophy – diversity of opinion, method, personalities, children, upbringing, experience, perceptions, outlook, attitude and a whole myriad of other qualities which are held dear by the free-thinking individual cannot be moulded into a cohesive whole. It may not be the way the Government operates. It may not be the way Mr Badman thinks we should operate but it is the way we operate.
7.Mr Badman’s report is often contradictory:
“For example by the age of eight, I think they should be autonomous learners, able to read.”
Then:
“What constitutes ‘autonomous’ learning[?] Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes through the pursuit of personal interest[?] Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction[?]“
How can he say “I think” that children should be ‘autonomous, reading learners by the age of 8 (where did he get the arbitrary age of 8 from anyway?) and then admit to not knowing what autonomous learning is? We can tell you exactly what it is: it is a method of learning agreed upon by the parent and child; not something defined by a bureaucrat in an office. Incidentally, we also think that Mr Badman needs to learn, autonomously of course, how to use questions marks.
An education does not need pace, rigour and direction. These are assertions by Mr Badman, which imply that if these qualities cannot be applied, then the education may be deemed to be unsuitable. All children learn at their own pace. Sometimes they learn quickly; at other times they learn slowly. Some subjects spark their interest and they may spend months on that one thing before moving onto the next. This does not mean that their education is unbalanced or lacking in direction. By the time these children reach adulthood, all this odd, unbalanced gathering of information, skills and experiences somehow coalesces into a broad and balanced education which engenders a life-long love of learning. No one has any right to interfere, monitor, dictate or even observe this unique and individual personal process, apart from the child and his or her parents/guardians.
Mr Badman’s other assertions that children should be at a certain stage by a certain age are also complete nonsense. Some children read at 3 while others don’t learn to read until much later. A child will read when it is able and wants to. It doesn’t matter… in a life-long learning situation, it makes no difference. Our son learned at 4 at school; our daughter learned at 6, almost by herself after her mother realised that trying to ‘teach’ her at age 4/5 was counterproductive because she was not enjoying it. As soon as our daughter found something she wanted to read, she learned with alacrity – because she enjoyed it. An unhappy child will not, and cannot learn with any degree of efficiency.
8.The review recommends ‘compulsory registration’ with the LA. This is a ridiculous requirement. LAs have already proved that they are not able to run their own schools or prevent truancy from those schools. Why do you think they would be any better at maintaining a register of home educators? The subsequent consultation asks if ‘non registrations should be made a criminal offence?’ This would be an Orwellian condition and a gross infringement of civil liberties. It also smacks of discrimination. More of which, in due course. In the meantime, we have the launch of the obnoxious and poisonous ContactPoint in England, which provides determined paedophiles details of children ‘on a plate’. So, if ContactPoint is so efficient and effective, why would you need an additional database/register when you are going to red-flag all home educated children anyway? Perhaps it is because of those of us ‘flying below the radar?’ We have never understood this. There is a record of every child born in the UK as we are required to register our children at birth. Are you unable to access those records?
9.The review recommends that the parent should ‘provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.’ This is almost laughable. Firstly it shows that Mr Badman, despite his claims to the contrary, has no idea how an autonomous, child-led education actually happens. The whole point of it is that it is largely unplanned because it follows the interests and self-directed goals of the child. It is flexible, organic and changes constantly. Secondly, yes, schools have to adhere to some such plan because they are accountable to the parents of the children they are providing a service to; the consumer, as it were. Parents in a free society are not accountable to anyone in regards to the education which they deem appropriate for their child.
10.And this is the biscuit-taker:
That designated local authority officers should:
– have the right of access to the home;
This is the recommendation which has outraged us all. Police, Customs Officers and the like have to have warrants in order to enter our homes. Why should LA employees have this right? Do we have the right to enter your private office any time we wish?
have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.
In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.
This is the most unbelievable one of the lot. Given the abuse that has taken place by those placed in authority; clergy, care workers in children’s homes, nursery staff, teachers, social workers among many, many others, why on earth is any caring, responsible parent going to allow a stranger unrestricted access to their child? CRB checks notwithstanding. Not only that, children have odd ways of expressing themselves sometimes, and there is a high likelihood that if asked a leading question the child will say something that will trigger a full scale enquiry and subsequent distress for all concerned. This is frightening beyond measure.
11.It follows, from the previous point, that the logical progression of this attack on the freedom of home educators and their children, is going to be mandatory inspection of all pre-school aged babies, toddlers and children, who do not attend nursery because their mothers prefer to look after them rather than handing them over to someone else. Then, of course, all children, schooled or not, spend evenings, weekends and school holidays at home, alone with their parents, so then they will also need inspecting in case abuse or neglect is taking place. Because, Mr Balls, if you do not follow through with these measures, then it becomes obvious to all that your proposed legislation over home educators is wholly discriminatory and based on an unfounded ‘guilty by implication’ assumption.
The State is presuming ownership over our children; to know better than we do how to bring them up and how to educate them. The right for a parent to choose to educate their child through school or otherwise is enshrined in law. The State also presumes to be ‘protecting children’s rights, as though parents are trying to erode those rights.
We understand that our children are going to be asked if they want to be home educated. So is anyone going to ask children in school if they actually want to be there? Again, if not, then it means that discrimination against one sector of society is taking place.
12. You and Graham Badman say you want to improve relations and cooperation between parents and LAs. Well, surely you realise this is not the way to do it? You are forcing legislation upon us (and ultimately upon the British citizen) that we do not want. You are trying to bring a way of life, which produces outstanding young adults, into line with a system which only produces, at best, mediocrity and at worse, dysfunctional adults, crippled by bullying, over-testing, stress and the inability to enjoy life without resorting to drugs and/or alcohol. Not to mention the vast numbers of young people who leave school unable to read, write or string a coherent sentence together without the use of expletives. The high-achievers only do so despite of their education not because of it.
You are effectively ensuring that fewer home educators cooperate with their LA, rather than more. You are alienating parents with veiled allusions to non-existent abuse and showing your distrust for our ability to take care of and educate our own children.
13.We, personally, have an excellent relationship with our LA, Rhondda Cynon Taff. They have never contacted us or bothered us in any way. Long may it continue. If, for some reason, we needed support, information or advice, we wouldn’t hesitate to contact them for the very reason that they have followed a non-interfering policy. We also have a good relationship with the headmistress of our local Primary school. Again, we would have no hesitation in asking if we needed advice with our children’s education. As an aside, our son’s ex teacher has always congratulated us on our decision to home-educate; she thinks he has a wonderful life and is impressed with his standard of reading and general abilities. But you’re not willing to take our word for it, are you? You want evidence… even though Mr Badman was unable to produce his evidence as to why this invasion of privacy is necessary. You would rather presume we are lying or have something to hide because we are determined to fight for our family’s freedom from the tyranny you are attempting to impose on us.
14.We would be happy to comply with our LA making general enquiries into our educational philosophy. We would cheerfully provide a detailed report of previous and ongoing activities, experiences and achievements. We would even be happy to allow our children to have an annual check-up at the local GP’s surgery. That seems to cover your concerns over both education and welfare. We think that’s all you really need to know; more than enough, in fact.
15.To use one of Graham Badman’s favourite expressions, we believe that the Government and LAs should focus their efforts on correcting the problems currently faced by schools, and fix them, before turning their attention on a sector of the population that is well-functioning and doing very well, thank you, without intervention.
16.If the Government and LAs really want to offer support to home educators, then why not start by making that support available immediately? How about free access to to examination centres? How about offering the use of places for home educators and children to meet up? How about laying on a few more educational workshops similar to those offered by the National Museum of Wales? Perhaps if we saw that happen first, we might be more likely to trust your proposals.
We could go on further with this but only wish to add the following quote from a well-respected blogger on home education:
“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”
Yours sincerely
Two happily home educating parents.
The Badman review: http://tinyurl.com/mxcdul
Ed Ball’s response: http://tinyurl.com/l7yx4y
The consultation: http://tinyurl.com/kt2rv5
The blog: http://www.renegadeparent.net/
c.c.
Peter Hain
Secretary of State for Wales
Wales Office
Gwydyr House
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NP
Michael Gove
Shadow Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA.
Huw Irranca-Davies
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Cheryl Gillan
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Janice Gregory AM
44a Penybont Road
Pencoed
CF35 5RA
Rt Hon Rhodri Morgan
First Minister for Wales.
Welsh Assembly Government
5th Floor
Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
Jane Hutt AM
Minister for Children Education Lifelong Learning and Skills
Welsh Assembly Government
5th Floor, Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
Cllr. Russell Roberts
Leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council
66 Beechwood Drive
Tonyrefail
Porth
CF39 8JL
Cllr. Annette Davies
Cabinet Member for Children & Equality
34 North Road
Ferndale
Rhondda
CF43 4PS
Cllr. Eudine Hanagan
Cabinet Member for Education Skills & Lifelong Learning
67 Tylcha Ganol
Tonyrefail
CF39 8BY
Cllr. Roger K. Turner
10 Red Roofs Close
Brynna Road
Pencoed
CF35 6HP
The Daily Telegraph
111 Buckingham Palace Road
London
SW1W 0DT
