I’m working on a full critique of the Badman report but that’s going to take a long time so here’s a little rant at his conclusions.

11.1 International comparison suggests that of all countries with highly developed education systems, England is the most liberal in its approach to elective home education.

I can’t help feeling that ‘liberal’ is being used like a dirty word here, that being liberal is in Badman’s world something to be stamped out.

Legislation from the 1930s banning elective home education still persists in Germany

Because good old Adolf had a point didn’t he? Are you sure you meant to say that out loud? People might get ideas.

and most European countries require registration, whereas New Zealand demands that the “person will be taught at least as regularly and as well as in registered school.”24 The majority of other countries also have processes for registration and the systematic monitoring of elective home education and require evidence of progress, often specifically in mathematics and reading.

No mention of the USA or Canada I see, or of Australia?

11.2 The recommendations in this review do not go that far.

As far as what? An outright ban? The Hilter Youth?

I have sought to strike a balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child,

NO YOU HAVEN’T you lying sack of excrement! You have ignored the rights of the child and seek to override the duties of parents and replaced both with the absolute power of the state.

and offer, through registration and other recommendations, some assurance on the greater safety of a number of children.

What does that mean? Greater than what? What number? Meaningless drivel!

11.3 I recognise that much of what is proposed can be implemented and achieved through advice and changes in guidance in due course.

So anything remotely useful can be left to advice and guidance which local authorities will be at liberty to ignore and what you want written into law before this government gets kicked out of office is:

However I believe certain recommendations require immediate action. To that end, I urge the DCSF to respond to recommendations 1, 7, 23 and 24 as summarised in the next chapter, at the next available opportunity.

Compulsory ‘registration’ for which we should perhaps substitute ‘licensing’, to be renewed annually, compulsory home visits (not just compulsory that parents and children accept them but compulsory that local authorities carry them out), compulsory production of an educational philosophy and annual plan with outcomes and get this, schools as well as local authorities are to ‘advise’ on these plans. A right of access to our homes for the purpose of monitoring educational provision, a right to interview our children alone for the purpose of checking for abuse. That our children be ‘allowed’ to prove they’ve met the targets set out in the annual plan, one has to wonder what will happen if they decline the opportunity? That LAs be given the power to refuse PERMISSION to home educate on any grounds they like at any time.

After writing this I read the following blog Down With Skool and I think Counting Cats has hit the nail on the head. Balls and his ilk want to make Autonomous Education illegal because it produces free thinkers.

Last Modified: Saturday, September 26th, 2009 @ 21:14

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm and is filed under Firebird, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.