Home Education Report - another nail in the coffin of freedom

Home EducationThe Badman Report on the Review of Elective Home Education in England is a travesty of report writing in that its conclusion appears to have been decided before pen touched paper, but worst of all, it is yet another attack on the basic freedoms that we have taken for granted for so long, in England. It complies with some unwritten government rule, that anything outside of its control, must be brought within. Badman has failed to understand that it is the collapse of the family unit and the failure of Social Services that has resulted in a number of horrific child abuse cases, not the fact that many children are educated outside of what many describe as a failing education system.

However, this report does have a future. It should be used, in academia, as an example of how not to write a report. To give an analogy.

If someone asked you to write a report on a bridge that they wanted pulled down, you could use the Badman report as an example of how to write it. You would say that it was not built using the latest materials, did not conform to metric measurements, the ballast varied from side to side and different bricks were used as the construction progressed. You asked modern bridge building experts for their opinion who said that its strength was difficult to judge because of its construction and no modern assessment system could be used on it, so it should be pulled down. Anyway, it was ugly. Even though almost no bridges of this construction had ever failed unlike those modern bridges which suffered from concrete cancer, and those that had been made of box section steel before the problems of internal corrosion had been understood. You would then bring in UN and EU regulations to bolster your case for destruction and selectively use any other regulations that you could find. The fact that this is an excellent bridge, built stronger than its modern examples, and was likely to last longer than them, is immaterial. It has to go and the report must say so. But back to the report.
The Badman Report

The report Terms of Reference start by saying that safety is of prime concern of the Department, before saying that there are no plans to to change the right of parents to Home Educate. 

"The Department is committed to ensuring that systems for keeping children safe, and ensuring that they receive a suitable education, are as robust as possible. An independent review of home education is part of this continuing commitment. Parents have a well established right to educate their children at home and Government respects that right. There are no plans to change that position."

So from the outset, this report is about the safety of children, which is a totally different subject to that of Home education. This is the major flaw of the report in that these two should be separate considerations, and despite Badman's efforts are mostly unrelated subjects. Unfortunately the old Education Department has now become the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), so this confusion is now ingrained in this Department that no longer just considers education. This flaw is highlighted in the Terms of Reference.

Terms of reference

The review of home education will investigate:

       ■■ The barriers to local authorities and other public agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for safeguarding home educated children and advise on improvements to ensure that the five Every Child Matters outcomes are being met for home educated children;
       ■■ The extent to which claims of home education could be used as a ‘cover' for child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude and advise on measures to prevent this;
       ■■ Whether local authorities are providing the right type, level and balance of support to home educating families to ensure they are undertaking their duties to provide a suitable full time education to their children;
       ■■ Whether any changes to the current regime for monitoring the standard of home education are needed to support the work of parents, local authorities and other partners in ensuring all children achieve the Every Child Matters outcomes.

Major Problems with the report

Apart from "situating the appreciation" the report appears to have a number of other major flaws.

 

1. Muddling of Safety and Home Education

This confusion is brought out in Chapter 8 "Safeguarding". Badman's introductory remarks in this Chapter are that many parents "have expressed anger and outrage that it was suggested that elective home education could be used as a cover for abuse. They have not been slow to point out that the most dangerous and damaging abuse of children is often before statutory school age or where children have been withdrawn from school or are already known to children's social care." He then disregards this point saying "I understand the argument but do not accept it in its entirety in that attendance at school brings other eyes to bear, and does provide opportunity for the child to disclose to a trusted adult. "

It is clear from chapter 8, that the whole purpose of the report is to ensure that the government can prove that it has tried to "safeguard" children. The report emphasises that "attendance at school brings other eyes to bear" (para 8.4). The Children's act of 2004 places this responsibility on schools. Badman feels that informal Home Education groups are incompatible with this requirement and are just not acceptable (8.5). The NSPCC has a history of antagonism towards Home Education, which has been fiercely debated elsewhere, and for which the NSPCC has recently apologised. Badman also raises the concerns of the National Children's Bureau and the National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE)Social Workers were also concerned, despite almost no evidence of any abuse of children in the Home Education environment.

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's (HMCI) submission is used to hammer the point home that safeguarding, not Education, is the main concern of this report. HMCI "makes it clear that irrespective of the number of cases, change in regulation is necessary, furthermore that there is an unacceptable variation in the practice of local authorities and Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB):

"Our experience from inspections of children's services and evaluations of serious case reviews is that there is variation across the country in how proactively local safeguarding children boards ensure these children are safeguarded. Some local child protection procedures address this robustly while others do not. Current DCSF guidelines for local authorities on elective home education place insufficient emphasis on safeguarding the welfare of children. In a small number of cases, our evaluation of serious case reviews has identified that a lack of oversight of children receiving home education contributed to a serious incident or the death of a child. Schools have an important responsibility to monitor children's safety and welfare but this safety net is missing for children educated at home. In addition, children who are educated at home may have less access to trusted adults who they can turn to if they are concerned about their home circumstances."


2. Parents rights and children's rights

Whilst Badman says that "Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside of a schooling system." (para 1.5) he then invokes the higher authorities of the UN and the EU (para 3.9) to say that "respect is only due to convictions on the part of the parents which do not conflict with the fundamental right of the child to education" and that "the fundamental right of the child to education ... calls for regulation by the State". Thus the parents are being pushed into the background. To reinforce this view, Badman quotes the UNCRC, ECHR & ECJ suggesting that international law requires the upholding of some sort of ill defined rights of the child through regulation and legal enforcement. Thus he comes to his first recommendation that there be a compulsory national registration scheme and that a plan be developed with local authorities and local schools for annual registration review.

3.  Home education in England is amorphous

Badman notes that home educators "argue their case from almost as many standpoints as there are children in elective home education - indeed to attempt to categorise the views of home educators or regard them as an homogenous group would simply be wrong." He then develops this concern of a lack of coherence to argue for a curriculum (para 3.11) "... such is the demand and complexity of 21st Century society and employment that further thought should be given to what constitutes an appropriate curriculum within the context of elective home education." This leads to recommendation 2 that suitable and efficient education is to be defined. Despite the interviews with Home Educators, he seems to have fallen into the trap that if you don't understand something, make it conform to something that you do understand even though so many Home Educated children are high achievers.


4. Use of experts

Badman struggled to understand the views of the Home Educating community so went to other "experts" for their views including aetheist and, for balance presumably, the Church of England. eg "The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) in its response to the call for evidence, was quite clear in its opposition to the whole basis of elective home education as currently defined:" To Home Educators, their response was well known and just went to show the gulf that exists between the "professionals" and the Home Eds.

"The NASUWT maintains the existence of a right to home educate is anomalous with the clear emphasis in Government policy of ensuring that all children and young people can benefit from educational provision where teaching and learning is led by qualified teachers in well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings."
"The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) does not go as far in its argument but raises fears about ensuring a system that does not harm children. The British Humanist Association raised concerns in their submission to the review as follows:
"some of those who choose to educate their children at home for religious reasons may not be providing schooling that is adequate, either according to the Every Child Matters agenda or the principles of Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child".

And the Education Division of the Church of England states its concern:

"that children and young people not in formal education are missing the benefits and challenges of learning in community with their peers. Children who do not go to school may not experience the social and cultural diversity encountered there; they will not learn how to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life; they may never meet people with different faith and value systems. All such encounters, even the difficult or painful ones are enriching."

 

Home Education parents must be fed up with answering this type of criticism which suggests that those making the comments have yet to meet any home schooled children. If they did, they would be surprised at the "social and cultural diversity" to which they are exposed.

 

5. Number of organisations involved

Reading through the report you would be forgiven for feeling that any Home Educator will, in future, have a mass of organisations queuing at the door to inspect, cajole, discuss or otherwise interfere, such as:

  • Children's Workforce Development Council

  • National safeguarding delivery Unit

  • Local Authorities eg the Director of Children's Services and Lead Member for Children and Young People

  • Department of Children, Schools and Families

  • Ofsted

  • National Children's Bureau

  • National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE)

  • Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB)

  • Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (HMCI)

 

and many others. I hope that they will coordinate themselves so that they can all visit on the same day so that they don't disturb the children's education too much.

6. State education

The report completely fails to point out that whilst there are some excellent schools in the state system there are a large number of failing schools that are turning out very poorly educated or disturbed children which is why some parents opted for Home Education in the first place. There is an underlying assumption in the report that state education is professional and therefore good, whilst Home Education is amateur and therefore bad. This is a serious shortcoming in the report as it is a very false assumption.

 

7. Comparison with other countries

Badman states (para 11.1) "that International comparison suggests that of all countries with highly developed education systems, England is the most liberal in its approach to elective home education. Legislation from the 1930s banning elective home education still persists in Germany 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." But completely fails to include any comparison with the USA, where there is both a long history of Home Education and a large number of students. Could this be because comparison with the USA would be too uncomfortable? The state schools are suffering from the same problems as English schools with similar results, whereas the Home Education section is producing many fine well balanced children. Badman doesn't seem to sense the irony in comparing Hitler's outlawing of Home Education, with some of his own comments.

 

It is strange that Badman completely fails to mention "The Condition of Education 2009" report by the National Center for Education Statistics, in the USA. As Albert Mohler says, when reviewing the report:

"When parents were asked why they chose to homeschool their children, 36 percent cited a desire to provide children specifically religious or moral instruction.  After that, 21 percent of parents pointed to concerns about the environment of schools, 17 percent cited dissatisfaction with educational quality in the schools, and 14 percent cited "other reasons."  Among those "other reasons" was a concern for more family time together. Higher numbers of parents with college educations and greater family incomes are now homeschooling.  This trend points to the fact that homeschooling is increasingly the option of first choice for many parents.  This pattern is also revealed in increasing numbers of college students, primarily young women, who indicate that they desire a college education so that they will be better equipped in years ahead to be homeschooling parents."

 

Maybe Badman would do well to read an earlier report by NCES to see a more even balanced discussion on Home Education, one that he could have followed in his report:

 

"The results of the 2003 NHES survey reveal that the weighted estimate of the number of students being homeschooled in the United States in the spring of 2003 was 1,096,000, a figure which represents a 29 percent increase from the estimated 850,000 students who were being homeschooled in the spring of 1999 (table 1). In addition, the estimated homeschooling rate-the percentage of the student population being homeschooled-rose from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.2 percent in 2003. In this latest survey, parents were asked whether any of a set of reasons for homeschooling applied to them. Parents were then asked which one of the applicable reasons they considered to be their most important reason for homeschooling-31 percent of homeschooled children had parents who cited concern about the environment of other schools, such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure, as the most important reason for homeschooling and 30 percent had parents who said the most important reason was to provide religious or moral instruction (table 4). While these were the two most common responses, another 16 percent of homeschooled students had parents who said dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools was their most important reason for homeschooling."



8. Authoritarian approach

The report recommends many changes by imposing regulation, measurements of achievement, mandatory visits and right of entry to homes, a mandatory curriculum, and far greater control including the mandatory registration through that statist database "Contact Point". These recommendations will put a very large burden on both the authorities and the Home Educators with the likely result that the Local Authorities will try and force children into school, to alleviate this burden, and many parents will just give up trying to continue to home school.

 

CONCLUSION


Although there might be some sensible recommendations contained within the Badman report, its obvious bias, poor assumptions and lack of any useful input from Home Educators make it at best, worthless and at worst, dangerous. If the government wanted a report that allows it to shut down one of the remaining freedoms open to us, that of the freedom to educate our children the way we feel is best, then this report fulfils that remit.

 

Hat tip The Genius Academy. 

Posted on 14 Jun, 2009 by alfred

Filed under Education


« Prev item • Next item »

Comments


It was an extremely annoying read, not least because when speaking to Mr Badman directly, he did appear to listen to arguments about the unwritten constitution, about the relationship between person and state, about the real meaning of children's rights.

And yet, he doesn't even bother to refute these sorts of argument in his report, which makes it look as if he never really spoke to HE groups at all.

The DCSF will have to address these issues however. The LAs greatly increase their liability if they adopt these recs. Plus, the cost! The ed budget is meant to save some £650 million in April...presumably before the Badman recs. How much will it cost to chase up on 1000s of perfectly well functioning families who have been making huge savings for the ed budget up till now, what with the number of SEN children who will need statementing should ed standards be introduced, and who will then cost the state a bomb.
  Carlotta // 15 Jun, 2009 / 07:47:56
--------------------------

Carlotta, Having now read a bit more around the subject, it is quite clear to me that the Westminster Government is running to a very clear agenda, that the only time that children can be properly protected is when under full state control, whatever the cost. Home Education is an anathema to this statist, soft-Stalenist view point.
  alfred // 15 Jun, 2009 / 17:42:34
--------------------------

Hi Alfred! Thank you! I'm a home edder of a Asperger boy who was thoroughly let down by the so called 'perfect' system, hence me removing him. I feel that this report is misinformed and judgemental and totally rubbish!! As you said their system is crap! I met with Badman (appropriate name if ever I heard one as is Balls if you ask me!) and he obviously didn't listen to anything we said. I'm still working on the principle that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Let them sort out their own house, before they start picking on mine!!! Thank you again!!!!
  Sheila // 17 Jun, 2009 / 04:43:50
--------------------------

Well said Alfred.
I worry the money will be found because the agenda of state control is worth every penny to the govt. Dress it up as child protection to get the public on side.
  alison // 17 Jun, 2009 / 10:00:29
--------------------------

Alfred that is an excellent piece of work, may I post it on the badmanreviewactiongroup please?
Linda
  Linda Sinclair // 17 Jun, 2009 / 11:56:20
--------------------------

Linda, Please feel free to copy anything that is on this blog that I have written. Hopefully I have properly acknowledged anything that has been written by someone else. I am flattered that you should want to use anything here.

Please note that there is an excellent discussion being carried out on Lord Lucas' blog.

http://lordlucas.blogspot.com/
  alfred // 17 Jun, 2009 / 17:15:27
--------------------------

I feel the Badman report ignores something very important when considering the safeguarding of children - it neglects to give the child the right NOT to be interfered with by strangers. You can say the parents should allow inspectors into the home, but the kids have a right to deny strangers access to them.

I also feel the government has not taken on board just how fiercely many home educators will fight this. I do not know a singe home schooling parent who would adhere to any of the proposed guidelines, even if they had to break the law in the process. They underestimate how strongly we care for our children, and I think they will find it an uphill battle if they try to take our rights away from us.
  Clover // 19 Jun, 2009 / 04:19:39
--------------------------

Great article!

Even more damningly, Badman's Review quotes what he wants from the Church of England's submission, but glaringly omits its conclusion!

This fact alone should give rise for serious concern about the "academic" quality of this so-called review...

Despite their reservations (happily quoted by Badman) the Church of England concludes:

"We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children in a home-educating this should be a matter for Children’s Services."

No surprise then that he should have left this out, as it's completely against his agenda, supporting as it does the status quo.

It's a bit more surprising that anyone should take the review seriously though, not to mention considering drafting legislation based on this pseudo-academic rubbish.

Let's just hope the government can be persuaded that the problem is tiny (and unproven) and that it would be disproportionate to invent a sledgehammer to crack a tiny and perhaps non-existent nut.

David
  David Landy // 30 Jun, 2009 / 20:21:27
--------------------------

I did ask the CofE if they were going to challenge the out of context quote, but they just suggested, to me, that they were used to being treated this way.
  alfred // 30 Jun, 2009 / 22:03:23
--------------------------

Some of the comments above suggest a dangerously naive viewpoint by some homeschool parents regarding what they will tolerate from overweening education officials. Unfortunately, there is too little appreciation of how far down the road to fascism Britain has gone. It should be patently clear that attempts by parents to stymie such officials will end in sorrow and very likely abduction by the state of homeschooled children. The hour is very late, if not too late.
  Brian Driscoll // 24 Jul, 2009 / 10:55:50
--------------------------

Thank you Alfred.

I found your site by google-ing 'home schooling uk' after realising what my daughter was being taught in Religious Education (not about different religions, which I would have nothing against, but about crucifiction, torture, the electric chair, hanging drawing and quartering, and about the Jamie Bulger case, including details of what those children did to Jamie.

I also feel that the 2 comments below (made by our host, Alfred, and by Brian Driscoll) are how things actually stand in uk today.

I had no idea of the true state of affairs in Uk until 2 months ago, when someone sent me a chance email saying how British soldiers were being filtered according to their answer as to whether they would be willing to fire on the British public if ordered to do so...

After reading that I decided to do some research, and can honestly say that I am still in a state of horrified shock as to what I am finding - it is 'unbelievable' except that it is now getting blaringly obvious to all of us that it IS the truth and it is happening under our very noses...

Although it is so late in the day, the best we can do (evidently) is to spread the word because the majority of the population still do not understand what is happening.

I have made a twitter account: ukpolitics2010
and would ask as many of you as possible to open twitter accounts if you do not have them yet and 'follow me' on UkPolitics2010 - I will then follow you. This way we can work together.

I'm also in the process of putting a website up: http://www.ukpolitics2010.c... - where I am going to put links to the videos, websites and documents that cover this subject (Brian Gerrish being one of the main contributors)
Copy of the comments from higher up on this page:

"Carlotta, Having now read a bit more around the subject, it is quite clear to me that the Westminster Government is running to a very clear agenda, that the only time that children can be properly protected is when under full state control, whatever the cost. Home Education is an anathema to this statist, soft-Stalenist view point."

and

"Some of the comments above suggest a dangerously naive viewpoint by some homeschool parents regarding what they will tolerate from overweening education officials. Unfortunately, there is too little appreciation of how far down the road to fascism Britain has gone. It should be patently clear that attempts by parents to stymie such officials will end in sorrow and very likely abduction by the state of homeschooled children. The hour is very late, if not too late."
  Miranda // 08 Feb, 2010 / 12:12:45
--------------------------

Leave comment