HomeSchooler.org.uk

Here is a summary of the main arguments to use when writing to MPs about the Children, Schools and Families Bill. These points will obviously need fleshing out and probably only a couple rather than all the arguments need to be used.

Dear David Lepper,

We are writing to express our deep concern over the recommendations of the Badman Review of Elective Home Education. These proposals have led to a government consultation on a draconian new regime of registration and inspection of home educating families.

The proposals represent a fundamental shift in the legal position of home education. As the law stands today, all parents bear responsibility for ensuring that their children receive an education suitable to their age, aptitude and ability. This may be achieved either through attendance at school, or otherwise. The proposals made by the DCSF would make the choice to educate otherwise dependent on annual registration, inspection and approval by the local authority.

Among our many concerns about Graham Badman's proposals is the threat to diversity that such a system poses. We believe that it is an indication of a healthy democracy for there to be a range of educational choices available to children and young people. Home educating families often work hard to ensure that each child's education is tailored to their own unique needs.

We know, from previous experiences in education, that large, bureaucratic systems of monitoring and assessment damage the autonomy of teachers and learners, and in doing so, kill off creativity and innovation. Just as the government is beginning to recognise the value of truly personalised education, it is proposing to stifle the many successful examples of this in home educating families by introducing a top-down assessment process.

Our own approach to our children's education is based upon a deep belief in the importance of intrinsic motivation and children's natural desire to learn. We see our role as primarily that of facilitators, assisting our children in their learning journeys.

Dear Sir,

We would be very grateful if you would sign the Early Day Motion (1) on Home Education put forward by Mark Field.

The recent Home Education Review's recommendations (2) which falsely associates home education with a high risk of child abuse, (the figures are extremely poorly calculated, appear to include unnecessary referrals and families with Special Educational Needs) would, if acted upon, not conform to the principles of good regulation as prescribed by the Better Regulation Executive (3). The recommendations would pose particular problems with the principles of proportionality, consistency and targeting.

On proportionality and targeting, the review's recommendations suggest that the state appropriate huge powers to itself which are not warranted given the evidence, would divert attention and resources away from genuinely needy families with the worthless yet expensive scrutiny of otherwise thriving families, and would cause completely unnecessary stress and the invasion of privacy of these families.

The Council will have to find a considerable sum of money to fund Mr Badman's proposals, money which could be used much more constructively to deal with families who are known to be experiencing problems.
The measures in place are already proportionate to the minimal risk to children.

On the issue of consistency, parents who elect to home educate should not be treated like criminals and exposed to more surveillance and interference by the state than parents who school their children are obliged to suffer. They should also not be held to far higher standards than schooling parents. For example, there are few consequences to a schooling parent if their child is shown to be failing to reach expected educational goals, whereas for a home educating family the consequences could be devastating in that the child may be forceably sent to school against their wishes.

Meeting with Des Turner, Labour MP for Brighton, Kemptown

Saturday 20th June

I went along with all my key points on a small card – so as not to miss anything. Not that I needed to refer to it – I knew why I was there! But did say at the end that I wanted to check that I had covered everything I wanted to. Mr Turner was just about aware of Graham Badman's Review, but only because others in our local group had visited him yesterday. There were 4 people before me, who were each given between 5-10 minutes, before being ushered out. Mr Turner was courteous, but did try to end the conversation several times and I caught him "watching the clock". I was not about to go before I got ALL of my points across and the meeting ended up being almost half an hour.

I did put on "smart" clothes and tried not to be contentious, or militant whilst being forthright!

The issues that I flagged:

• I reject the ALL recommendations made in the Badman Review, in its entirety
• The Review was ill-conceived, ill-informed personal opinion, based on assumption and badly researched facts. Full of "I believe"

• Why is the government conducting yet another review on elective home education? Doesn't it have better things to spend its time and money on?
• The home educators are being used as scapegoats for the government's inadequacy in tackling child abuse

• The Review was not conducted by an "independent" person. A professor of education is by definition not "independent"

• The reference to Germany in the Review is an insult. Do this government really want to use that as a measure of good practice!?

• The recommendations contained in the Review, were they to become law would be an invasion of civil liberties and privacy, which would impact on every family in the land

• There is no correlation between home education and child abuse
• Children in the state system are abused – cited the recent "Little Ted's" case

Sir Gus O'Donnell
Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Dear Sir Gus O'Donnell

Conduct of the Review of Elective Home Education

The Department for Children, Schools and Families recently published its Review of Elective Home Education in England. The Review, which was conducted by Graham Badman, appears to be in breach of both the Nolan Committee's ‘The Seven Principles of Public Life’ and the Civil Service Code. Clearly, these are serious allegations and, if correct, undermine the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the Review and its conclusions.

The Review selectively quotes from submissions it received, including a fairly lengthy extract from the Education Division of the Church of England that expresses their concerns about home education. However, the Review does not quote the Church’s overall conclusion:... more...

Dear Mr Gove,

I am writing to express to you my concerns over the Badman review of Home Education and the subsequent consultation.

I am sure you have received many other messages detailing the bias, prejudice, poor level of argument, smearing, spin, ill-researched and apparently pre-determined findings of the report, the findings which follow neither from the evidence of the report nor from its brief ('I find no evidence that HE is used as a cover for abuse, but let's pretend I did and legislate accordingly', as it were) lack of independence from the State not only of Badman but of his entire "expert" panel and so on. If there is any way the report can be discredited and the consultation halted because of the poor conduct and poor quality of the review, please let the Home Education community know what we should to do to help!

There are three aspects which I regard as the crux of the report, aspects which should be complete deal breakers for conservatives (and, I hope, Conservatives):

- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for HEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.

- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.

- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees.

"Dear Kate,

Graham Badman’s review of Elective Home Education in England

In February we wrote to you regarding the Review of Home Education being conducted by Mr Badman on behalf of the government. His recommendations have now been published and we wish to seek your support in opposing the changes to current practice being proposed, for the following reasons:

Firstly, we are deeply shocked by the lack of any meaningful critical analysis in the report. Conclusions drawn and recommendations made bear little or no relation to arguments presented and the arguments presented are themselves not supported by any evidence whatsoever. ( I work in Higher Education and quite frankly if a student – even at undergraduate level - presented work this sloppy for assessment I would fail them). On principle we believe it is wrong that a report so thoroughly lacking in intellectual rigour should have any influence on policy and are terrified for the wider implications for all policy decisions on any matter if this standard of reporting is allowed to carry any weight. The Secretary of State, Ed Balls, in his response, asserts that the review carries strong arguments but in fact little argument is supported by evidence in the review.

We would have welcomed a well argued, evidence based review, as this would have enabled an engagement. Instead there is assertion, but little analysis and evidence – for instance, the review simply says ‘I believe …’ 16 times. To begin the review with an Issiah Berlin quote which suggests we all have to compromise on our values can be interpreted as Badman throwing down the gauntlet to Elective Home Education (EHE) families at the outset. No alternative interpretations of the flimsy facts presented are ever considered or argued against. The examples of lack of rigour are too numerous to elucidate fully here but are apparent with even a casual reading of the document. However it is important to flag up the way in which drawing conclusions without evidence is a dangerous thing.

For example, evidence on abuse by home educators – a key argument used to justify most of the recommendations is absent from the review report. Somewhat surprisingly given the review’s terms of reference there is no analysis of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving home educators. Indeed, there are no robust figures or trends presented (even at an aggregated level), instead there is a vague reference to ‘local authority evidence and case studies’. Thus it is impossible to tell whether the concerns about possible child abuse are based in fact or merely imagined. Moreover quotation’s from the NSPCC are used to back up these vague assertions and opinions, yet in email correspondence with us, the NSPCC have failed to provide evidence to back up their concerns that Elective Home Education could be used as a cover for abuse, despite 2.3 million calls to ChildLine a year (for which they receive 30 million pounds from government). They have also admitted that they know nothing about Home Education (in line with most of the review panel) and have had to, at the insistence of the Climbie Foundation, retract statements linking the Victoria Climbie case to Elective Home Education. These statements were particularly resented by the EHE community given that the NSPCC was one of the very agencies that failed Victoria Climbie and who then proceeded to falsify their computer records in order to conceal this, and it is not unreasonable to question the motivation of this organisation in joining forces with Baroness Morgan in calling for this review in the first place. Moreover, the desire of the NSPCC to raise a further 50 million pounds further calls their impartiality (both in calling for the review and in giving evidence to it) into question.

The review rightly points out that the number of parents opting for EHE is unknown. Yet it also claims that ‘the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to their home educating population’ (section 8:12). But given that the size of the Elective Home Education population is unknown, it is impossible to calculate the proportion, unless these councils have made up a base for the calculation; in effect the statement is meaningless. Moreover it is our experience that electing to educate your child at home is used by LA’s as a prima facie reason to involve social services. We personally have had a worrying, though completely trivial, visit from our social services solely because we electively home educate. When we mentioned this to a senior member of staff at the Royal Marsden Hospital they were horrified because they had been repeatedly begging the very same social services department to intervene on behalf of a child that they had very grave concerns about. (This is real evidence of how it is government policy that is putting vulnerable children at risk by wasting precious resources on monitoring people who take their responsibilities very seriously indeed.) It therefore follows that the numbers of Elective Home Education families known to social services will be disproportionately high, because EHE families are already discriminated against.

The lack of evidence and analysis is compounded by the absence of expertise amongst the review panel. In the absence of evidence, some degree of confidence in the review’s judgements might rest on the expertise of those involved. They could perhaps be forgiven for simply making assertions if they had expertise or relevant professional knowledge of the subject matter. Unfortunately this is not the case. No home educating parent was on the review team. This does not accord with a Government that wishes to listen to the public and empower them.

The sloppiness of the review, the speed and tone of the Secretary of State’s response (simultaneous with publication) and the way in which the review itself was carried out (it was originally supposed to be a consultation but when EHE families pointed out that the allocated timeframe breached the Consultation Code of Practice the terminology was hastily changed to a review, there was considerable discrepancy between the time allowed for, and the extent of evidence gathered from LA’s as opposed to EHE families) does not suggest an impartial process and leads us to suppose that Mr. Balls and Mr. Badman had predetermined outcomes they wanted to achieve before the review process even began. Indeed, in Recommendation 7 Mr. Badman talks of ‘bringing forward proposals’ - a choice of language that suggests such proposals already exist. Moreover, this unsettling suspicion is backed up by our personal experience of a meeting with LA officials, on the 30th of January, before the review had taken place, in which the SEN manager’s comments indicated that LA’s were already assuming they would be pursuing some of these recommendations.

However, the poor quality of the report and the irregularities in the review process are not the most worrying aspect this affair. It is the recommendations themselves which are most concerning. They endanger civil liberties and family life in such a fundamental way that it is imperative that legislation is not rushed through in the way in which Mr. Badman calls for. He calls for the implementation of Recommendations 1, 7, 23 and 24 within 3 months - and these are some of the most dangerous and extreme of the recommendations made. For example LA’s would have the power to withhold registration (and therefore either force children back to school or send their parents to prison using truancy legislation) where they deem the parents to be unsuitable educators for a number of reasons including: “anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education”. Such a broad statement surely gives LA’s unlimited powers to make value judgements about who is or is not a suitable parent to home educate.

This is just one example but hopefully gives you a sense of the tone and sensibility of this report. The powers of entry given to LAs, and the duty to interview children without their parents present would logically have to be extended to all pre school children, and school educated children in holiday periods, if the logic of Mr. Badman is to be followed. Clearly Britain would no longer be respecting and upholding the right to a private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) in such circumstances.

I am aware of the time constraints upon you and do not wish to make this letter overly long, but do urge you to look at the report http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=6080 and the response of Mr. Balls http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=6081 . We hope to be able to secure a meeting with you at an upcoming surgery to discuss the matter further.

We would also be grateful if you would draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the very serious concerns raised by the conduct of this review and the recommendations made by it. We would also like you to make a Freedom of Information request on our behalf for all the submissions made to this review to be made public. We have found that the few submissions, that have been made public, as well as to the other recent reviews before, all clearly demonstrate an ignorance about Elective Home Education and its place in society.

Graham Badman declares that nowhere in British legislation is Home education outlined as a right. What he fails to recognize is that rather than a right, it is a freedom (rights only exist to protect freedoms). Recently the British pubic fully understood that the Gurkhas have fought and died for all Britons to live in a free country. The government would do well to remember that it is their duty to protect those freedoms too.

Yours sincerely,"

Dear Gregory Campbell,

I wish to seek your support in opposing the reforms to current practice
proposed by Graham Badman in his “Report to the Secretary of State on
the Review of Elective Home Education in England”. The recommendations
were based on his review of the situation in England, but will be
applied in full in Northern Ireland, without further study or
consultation.

The Badman Report into Home Education was published on the 11th June
2009. It was commissioned amid wild allegations of a link between
home-education and child abuse, so a balanced and fair report was never
expected. The report itself makes alarming reading, and has been
accepted in full by the Government. Amongst its recommendations are
some which are deeply worrying for anyone who cares about our right to
family life, civil liberties or our children's best interests.

- The right to inspect the premises of education... which we fear may
mean the right of entry into our homes without suspicion of wrong-doing
- The right to interview our children without adult support - again
without suspicion of abuse or risk to them
Compulsory registration for all home-educators, which can be withdrawn,
and therefore is more like a license/permission. A very broad range of
reasons for the issuing of 'SAO's or School Attendance Orders is given.
It is feared that these powers will translate into a loss of the
parent's right to dictate the form of education their children receive.
Slurs against autonomous education, a well-established and recognised
educational philosophy, which is described as 'little better than
child-minding'.
- Requirement for a 12 month plan, against which 'progress' will be
measured (this is anathema to autonomous educators since they follow
the child's interests and cannot predict in advance what those might
be). Even for structured home-educators this sets a standard higher
than state-schools are held to - children who do not progress are not
forced out of school into home education!
- Further allegations of a high incidence of child-abuse in
home-educating families, without any evidence. To date NO examples of
'hidden' (not known by Social Services to be at risk) abused home
educated children have been given. All the recent, tragic,
high-profile cases have concerned children who were well-known to be at
risk, the authorities had adequate powers to protect these children
under current law.

These issues affect ALL parents, not just home-educators. If these
recommendations become law then the state effectively becomes the first
choice guardian of our children, when they should be the last resort.

Logically there is no distinction between assuming that children are
unsafe with their parents in school-hours, and assuming they are unsafe
during holidays, at night or before they reach compulsory school age.
Parents should not have to prove that they are not abusers.

This is important enough to turn many of us into single-issue voters.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Reprinted from Roger's letter with permission. First shared on the Badman Review Action Group Yahoo List:

The presumption of innocence has collapsed and we are now required in all sorts of ways to prove to the state that we are behaving in ways they require. The Badman report this week on home education is one such case. Home Educators, a peaceable, law-abiding group have been smeared by a government department (Ed Balls' DCSF) prior to the release of a predetermined report that treats innocent parents as criminals. It assumes guilt unless parents allow inspectors into their homes and, grotesquely, permit them then to remove their children for 'questioning.'

The assumption (based on the totally unsubstantiated smear that Home Educators are 'potential abusers') is that in the exercise of our democratic rights we must submit to state control and concede our ancient civil liberties. It is us today. Tomorrow it will be the family of any carer who looks after a young or vulnerable member. You have an under 5/aged parent/sick brother for whom you are caring? How can we, the omniscient state know that you are not abusing them? We must enter your homes, even if there is not the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing, and inspect. Indeed, your wrongdoing is precisely that you have not conformed to our statist conception of what is right and good. You are guilty because you wish to be different. You are guilty because you wish to be free.
This is the ID card mindset. We are becoming conscripts of an obsessive, paranoid state.

You will need to be a member of the AHEd Yahoo Group to view this file.