![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Freedom for children to grow
Jan. 7th, 2010 09:30 pmI have today written to my MP using the words below to express my opposition to the proposals for home education contained in the Children Schools and Families Bill which has its second reading on Monday 11 January.
Freedom for Children to Grow
Education Otherwise on the proposals
Letter organised by Brighton home educators - please sign if you feel able
As you are aware the Children Schools and Families Bill has its second reading on 11 January. I believe the approach taken in the Bill to home education is oppressive and requires complete re-thinking. Although governments should protect children against abuse and can reasonably expect that home educated children attain basic literacy and numeracy and are prepared to take their part in society, they should accept that there is more than one way of achieving this.
(1) It introduces a licensing system under which permission will be required on an annual basis to home educate. The criteria will be prescribed by secondary legislation or left to the discretion of the LEA.
(2) It gives the LEA powers of access to the home and to speak to the child alone.
(3) It requires regular home visits and assessments.
(4) In the proposed legislation and related discussions there are phrases such as "harmful to the child's welfare" and "safeguarding concerns", without a requirement to produce evidence before an independent court or tribunal in case of dispute.
Parents educate their children at home for various reasons. They may be unhappy with the approach taken by schools, with its regimentation, inflexibility, lack of concern for the individual child and frequent testing, and wish to educate their children with more freedom and autonomy. Another is the fear that the culture within a particular school may lead their children into a life of apathy, antisocial behaviour or crime. A third is that their children are being bullied and the school is unable or unwilling to control it, and a fourth is that their children have special educational needs which are not being addressed within the school system. In the last three cases the fundamental issue is that the schools on offer are not providing an education suitable to the child's needs, and there is not an issue of balancing the rights of the child (to receive an appropriate education) against the rights of the parent.
Some LEAs are supportive and others not. Many parents have had experience of teachers and LEA staff who do not understand the existing legal framework and are unsympathetic to home education.
The problem with a discretionary licensing system is that LEAs may use it as a means to attempt to replicate school approaches, which for many home educated children are almost by definition not working. Some teachers and LEA officials find alternative approaches to school threatening and may simply want to use whatever powers they are given to make life difficult for home educating families. Children coming out of school, particularly where they have had a bad experience or there is bullying involved, may require a period of de-schooling before they regain their ability to make choices and their education really takes off again. Interviewing them and asking about programmes of work at this point is counterproductive.
It is not clear to me that the proposed power to interview the child alone has been considered properly. Abuse is properly the concern of social services and the police rather than the LEA, and interviewing in this context requires a great deal of sensitivity and training because of the devastating impact on children if mistakes are made either way. In particular there need to be safeguards and protocols, particularly with younger children, to prevent the interviewer either putting ideas into the child's mind or having appeared to do so in such a way as to provide a successful defence in an actual case of abuse.
Any child might reasonably ask or expect for an independent witness or friend to be present. In addition children on the autistic spectrum may exhibit behavioural patterns which look like the consequences of abuse when they are features of their condition. They may find being interviewed highly distressing without a trusted person present.
There also appears to be a concern that the education provided may be insufficiently like school and this is a way of catching the parents out. The saddest feature about this legislation is the lurking idea that parents cannot be trusted to exercise their judgement in matters of education and are potential abusers unless proved otherwise. Asking children to inform on their parents has always been seen as one of the more shameful aspects of totalitarian societies.
Mandated regular visits and assessments with prescribed agendas (rather than as and when appropriate) are intrusive on the vast majority of caring home educators, as well as using resources which would be better occupied in supporting parents rather than checking up on them.
Unless there is clear access by parents to an independent tribunal before powers are exercised, with a possibility of legal representation and cross examination of LEA officials under oath, there is a risk of gossip, prejudice and simple mistakes of fact masquerading as professional opinion.
The existence of disabilities or special needs should not automatically be seen as raising concerns about a child's welfare. There is a risk of parents being under pressure to deliver what schools could not, particularly where a child has significant disabilities or special needs and will never attain outcomes desired for children in general. Where a LEA is unable or unwilling to make adequate provision for a child with special needs, or even to provide a safe space free from bullying, a parent may reasonably come to the view that the education they can provide, even if not optimal, is a better choice than having a child come home traumatised each day (or even worse, committing suicide)
Freedom for Children to Grow
Education Otherwise on the proposals
Letter organised by Brighton home educators - please sign if you feel able
As you are aware the Children Schools and Families Bill has its second reading on 11 January. I believe the approach taken in the Bill to home education is oppressive and requires complete re-thinking. Although governments should protect children against abuse and can reasonably expect that home educated children attain basic literacy and numeracy and are prepared to take their part in society, they should accept that there is more than one way of achieving this.
(1) It introduces a licensing system under which permission will be required on an annual basis to home educate. The criteria will be prescribed by secondary legislation or left to the discretion of the LEA.
(2) It gives the LEA powers of access to the home and to speak to the child alone.
(3) It requires regular home visits and assessments.
(4) In the proposed legislation and related discussions there are phrases such as "harmful to the child's welfare" and "safeguarding concerns", without a requirement to produce evidence before an independent court or tribunal in case of dispute.
Parents educate their children at home for various reasons. They may be unhappy with the approach taken by schools, with its regimentation, inflexibility, lack of concern for the individual child and frequent testing, and wish to educate their children with more freedom and autonomy. Another is the fear that the culture within a particular school may lead their children into a life of apathy, antisocial behaviour or crime. A third is that their children are being bullied and the school is unable or unwilling to control it, and a fourth is that their children have special educational needs which are not being addressed within the school system. In the last three cases the fundamental issue is that the schools on offer are not providing an education suitable to the child's needs, and there is not an issue of balancing the rights of the child (to receive an appropriate education) against the rights of the parent.
Some LEAs are supportive and others not. Many parents have had experience of teachers and LEA staff who do not understand the existing legal framework and are unsympathetic to home education.
The problem with a discretionary licensing system is that LEAs may use it as a means to attempt to replicate school approaches, which for many home educated children are almost by definition not working. Some teachers and LEA officials find alternative approaches to school threatening and may simply want to use whatever powers they are given to make life difficult for home educating families. Children coming out of school, particularly where they have had a bad experience or there is bullying involved, may require a period of de-schooling before they regain their ability to make choices and their education really takes off again. Interviewing them and asking about programmes of work at this point is counterproductive.
It is not clear to me that the proposed power to interview the child alone has been considered properly. Abuse is properly the concern of social services and the police rather than the LEA, and interviewing in this context requires a great deal of sensitivity and training because of the devastating impact on children if mistakes are made either way. In particular there need to be safeguards and protocols, particularly with younger children, to prevent the interviewer either putting ideas into the child's mind or having appeared to do so in such a way as to provide a successful defence in an actual case of abuse.
Any child might reasonably ask or expect for an independent witness or friend to be present. In addition children on the autistic spectrum may exhibit behavioural patterns which look like the consequences of abuse when they are features of their condition. They may find being interviewed highly distressing without a trusted person present.
There also appears to be a concern that the education provided may be insufficiently like school and this is a way of catching the parents out. The saddest feature about this legislation is the lurking idea that parents cannot be trusted to exercise their judgement in matters of education and are potential abusers unless proved otherwise. Asking children to inform on their parents has always been seen as one of the more shameful aspects of totalitarian societies.
Mandated regular visits and assessments with prescribed agendas (rather than as and when appropriate) are intrusive on the vast majority of caring home educators, as well as using resources which would be better occupied in supporting parents rather than checking up on them.
Unless there is clear access by parents to an independent tribunal before powers are exercised, with a possibility of legal representation and cross examination of LEA officials under oath, there is a risk of gossip, prejudice and simple mistakes of fact masquerading as professional opinion.
The existence of disabilities or special needs should not automatically be seen as raising concerns about a child's welfare. There is a risk of parents being under pressure to deliver what schools could not, particularly where a child has significant disabilities or special needs and will never attain outcomes desired for children in general. Where a LEA is unable or unwilling to make adequate provision for a child with special needs, or even to provide a safe space free from bullying, a parent may reasonably come to the view that the education they can provide, even if not optimal, is a better choice than having a child come home traumatised each day (or even worse, committing suicide)
