I toyed with the idea of several pages of creative swearing to make up for most people removing such words from their submissions but decide in the end to submit something that would take a while for them to read. Process this consultation is a month will you? Ha!

1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

Disagree

First and foremost parents have a DUTY in law to ensure their children receive a suitable. It is only a right in so far as it is the natural right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Children do not in fact have the right to a suitable education in English law for the entirely pragmatic reason that it would leave the state open to legal action from every child who does not receive a suitable education in a state school! By own own standards (5 good GCSEs including English and Maths) you are currently failing over half of the children for whom your are providing an education.

This question attempts to create a totally artificial conflict between parents and their children. Even if such rights existed these recommendations would not strike any sort of balance.

This is all a pretty clear cut case of unwarranted state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. We have committed no crime, we are not even suspected of committing a crime and yet these proposals will treat us all as suspects who must prove their innocence, on an annual basis no less!

This is not only a fundamental violation of the most basic tenants of English law, it also violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which was made binding by the Human Rights Act of 1998.

You can’t even make the excuse that on average home educated children are at greater risk of not receiving a suitable education. Every shred of research on the subject shows the outcomes of home educated children to be superior to those sent to school Graham Badman’s NEET stats are laughable. 74 self-selected local authorities provided figures having been very clearly asked to help prop up Mr Badman’s case. Not only that, Badman asked only for the figures for what we can call ‘year 12′ when many home educated young people are STILL being home educated but under no obligation to tell Connexions what they are doing. Is anybody going to dare suggest that this was not a cynical and deliberate choice, designed to generate the worst possible figures? If that weren’t enough he then compared the EHE figures for these 74 LAs with the national figure despite having specifically asked for “the comparative information for all young people in this cohort”. I’m sure when the figures do become public we will find that the national figure was used because it was lower and provided a much more satisfyingly ’stark’ contrast. All this doesn’t even get into wether NEET figures are even a useful measure of outcomes. A young person taking a gap year and doing voluntary work is classified as NEET.

2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?

Disagree

A list of names serves no purpose at all unless it is going to be used and it is the uses which you propose that are the problem. What other legal activities will we be asked to register for next? We do not exist for the convenience of public employees, to be recorded and measured just because they want to know what we’re doing at any given moment. If there is no overriding need for government to collect this information then it simply is none of your business.

3 Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?

Disagree

I do not agree that there should be a register so the details are rather beside the point aren’t they? But since I’m here I’ll explain why the “initial statement of educational intent” is such a monumentally bad idea. The only educational intent that I have any intention of giving you or anyone is that I intend to fullfil my legal duties as specified in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996. I will do what is legally required of me, not I might add because it is legally required but because I am a parent and that is parent of my job.

I largely follow my child’s interests as well as taking advantage of what comes along and that makes any sort of 12 month plan rather pointless. I certainly couldn’t have told you that my daughter would have watched and been fascinated by Victorian Farm this year and that we would have followed up on this interest covering historic farming techniques, visiting a rural life centre, learning how to bottle fruit, spin wool, and a host of other activities. 12 months ago I didn’t even know that television program would be aired.

I will not set targets that my daughter might not want to meet. If she doesn’t want to do any maths for the next year that is not a problem, she’s a year ahead of school standards already, but I doubt a local authority inspector would see it that way. While we’re on the subject, since she’s only 5 there’s the recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. The government have rejected it’s conclusions out of hand but maybe I and other parents don’t. Maybe we agree that formal learning before the age of 6 is counter-productive so our statements of educational intent would say, no formal learning this year. No, the whole idea is madness, and with no evidence at all that we are not doing a good job it is all ridiculous to even ask.

4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?

Disagree

The design of this consultation doesn’t take into account the possibility that people might disagree with you. No, we should not be required to keep up to date information that is none of your business in the first place!

5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

Disagree

1984 was written as a warning, not an instruction manual.

6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

Disagree

To what purpose? If local authorities are to offer mediation services between schools and parents (not a bad idea) these should be provided to all when requested and should not require parents to threaten to home educate before anyone does anything. Too little too late.

6 b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data? 

Disagree

No, no, no. Schools LIE. This already happens. I know of a child who having been tested and found to be at year 1-2 level in maths while in school magically jumped up to year 4 level in the report produced after she’d been removed from school all of 6 weeks later! Schools will lie to make themselves look better, to cover their own failings and some will lie out of malice.

The past and future achievements of home educated children are the business of those children and their parents NOT the local authority.

7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

Disagree

The DCSF has already taken far too much power to itself. Our children do not belong to the DCSF and we do not need registering or monitoring to raise them. Local authorities already have sufficient powers to investigate and intervene if they have cause to believe that parents are failing in their section 7 duties. Sure, some complain that the job isn’t easy, well cry me a river! Who said that their jobs have to be easy? The jobs of social workers and the police aren’t easy but they are expected to deal with that because there has to be a balance between their powers and the rights of citizens to live their lives free of disproportionate interference.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

Disagree

If they are safe enough to be left with their parents out of school hours they are safe enough to be home educated. You can’t have it both ways. Imagine that you did refuse a family the right to home educate and then something happened to the child. You would have demonstrated that you knew there was a problem but didn’t do anything useful about it. If there are substantial safeguarding concerns you DO something about them, you do not just send the child to school and assume that school staff will magically solve the underlying problem. This kind of power would punish children who yes, might have a difficult home situation, but who are suffering dreadfully at school.

Article 5 of the UNCRC: “States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents…to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. ”

9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

Disagree

Article 16 of the UNCRC (which you are are so fond of attempting to use for your own purposes) states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Article 3 of the UNCRC “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

You are suggesting violating all of these and the age old idea that our homes are private, because that is what we are talking about, not a place of education, our HOMES.

10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

Disagree

No. If there is a safeguarding concern about any child existing procedures should be followed and the matter should be handed over to fully trained social workers. There is no need for additional powers.

Article 9: “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.”

There is NO justification for interviewing a child alone on educational grounds.

Article 15: . “States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

We’ve already heard from Mr Badman (oral evidence to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee) that local authority staff are to be trusted to decide if a child who refuses to be interviewed is doing so of their own free will or under parental influence. How exactly he imagines they will do this without forcing the child to speak to them thus violating their rights is a mystery.

11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis?  This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary. 

Disagree

I don’t agree with compulsory visits and interrogating of children against their will PERIOD. There is no point getting into a detailed discussion about how often you should get to do something that you should NOT be doing.

A minimum of three visits in the first year and you want everyone to believe that this will cost no more than £21m in the first year and £9.7m thereafter? On what planet?! We have yet to see an impact assessment to explain this unrealistically tiny figure and no wonder! Let’s just take the conservative figure of 30,000 additional children that local authorities don’t know about who would have to be processed in the first year. That’s 90,000 home visits with travel time and expenses. How many additional staff do you think will need to be hired? Oh, and let’s not forget the logistics, de-registration tends to come in spurts, September in particular will be a busy, busy month! You simply haven’t thought this through have you? Amazing, these recommendations manage to be immoral, unworkable and stupid all at the same time!

Last Modified: Sunday, October 18th, 2009 @ 19:26

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 18th, 2009 at 7:26 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.