So what is it really all about?
Way back in the mists of time, or so it seems, when the DCSF commissioned review of home education had only just started, panel member and friend of Graham Badman, Stephen Heppel said that the abuse/welfare issue was a red herring. I think we need to revisit that observation.
Much anger is being directed at the recommendations for compulsory home visits and seeing children alone but what if these are also red herrings? Suggestions so outrageous and legally problematic that they act as lightning conductors, deflecting our attention onto policies that the DCSF really has no interest in pursuing anyway?
Look instead at the fundamental issue of conditional licensing. As Paul Atreides says in Dune the movie, “He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing”. Whatever the DCSF say once your LA has the power to grant or deny you permission to home educate they WILL have the power to tell you how to do it. Badman didn’t come right out and say it but Recommendation 2 really does give the game away.
That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.
This is I believe what they are REALLY after. The current consultation on licensing and the threatened one on the definition of “full-time” are only laying the groundwork for the introduction of a National Curriculum for home educated children and the utter elimination of Autonomous Education.
Carlotta Said on October 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 am quote
re curriculum for HEors, I agree. Even if this isn’t their stated intention, it will end up being this way, with the attitude of many current LAs, and with the high chance of mission creep.
emma Said on October 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 am quote
The facebook group submission to the select committee spent about 1000 words on recommendation 2 and what a horribly bad idea it is. So there’s a chance the committee will at least have come across the idea that there’s a submerged agenda in that direction.
Julia Said on October 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm quote
Hi,
we have just started home educating our son Thomas, who is 5yrs, after a recent school trip alcohol incident, which I decided to take action upon by reporting to the local radio and then taking my son out of the local state primary school.
We have to I believe show how we are providing a far better education for our children, who will grow up without the threat of bullying, watered down educating,and constant demands being put on them by the educating system, which keeps changing its ideas on how a child should learn & what they should learn.
We have to show them how each child has a different pace of learning and its a human right to have this choice. A class of 35 children, well some are going to always be left behind unfortunately, this is not right either..
Julia
Richard Fry Said on October 17th, 2009 at 1:50 am quote
I completely agree with your point.
Overall, the proposals would (as you know) give the LA the right to prohibit a parent from home educating.
(As someone who spends a lot of time dealing with contracts) it seems obvious to me that, with that right, comes the possibility for the LA to exert whatever control they like over curriculum etc - the LA would have the ultimate power in the relationship.
Whether or not there is currently a conspiracy or desire to impose the National Curriculum, I don’t know. Although I agree that Recommendation 2 looks ominous…