Douglas Carswell MP: Hands off home education!

Hands off home education!

This morning, the education select committee took evidence from people with a background in home education. Given that a number of local mums and dads in Clacton have decided they'd prefer to home educate, rather than take what is on offer from officials, I've a keen interest in this subject.

The Badman Review on home education (quango alert) called for a system of registration and inspection (entirely predictable).

The reason? Child protection, some say. I thought that the whole point about recent failures to protect children was that the children were on registers.

Perhaps government is worried about standards? It's concern about poor standards that drives many mums and dads to become home educators in the first place.

Surely, if government has failed to provide kids with the schooling they deserve, it's a bit of cheek for those same officials to then knock on people's front doors and start to demand inspection and audit?

Why should people like Ed Balls decide what is best for other people's kids?

It is not local mums and dads who should answer to education officials. But officials who should be made to answer to local parents. My own Essex county council has, rather brilliantly, started to give out home education grants - reflecting the fact that it's local parents money.

It is extraordinary that the state no longer seems to trust most mums and dads with their own children. The relentless drive to infantilse us continues.

Posted on 14 October 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

More to the point, why should the UK Parliament decide what is best for English kids, when devolution is devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI?

http://englishconservatives.org/

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:16 by English Conservatives

Thank you. Like every parent in the land, I am responsible for my child's education under law. I take that responsibility seriously. The State can offer to educate my child. If I refuse that offer, I ought not be bullied by Mr Balls, or labelled a potential child abuser for providing an education tailored to my child's needs in a safe, loving enviroment.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:22 by C Neeson

The relentless drive will continue until the socialists are kicked out.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:27 by Robert Eve

It's refreshing to see come common sense coming from an MP, however, you do nothing here but pose questions. Well, I have some questions of my own.

What are you going to DO to make sure that this proposed legislation is torpedoed? If you can not stop this legislation from being voted in, what are you going to do to ensure that the Tory government immediately reverses it? Are you going to press the shadow education secretary and the shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to make statements confirming that the Tories will remove this illiberal legislation should it pass? What are you going to do to stop the consultation on 'suitable education' which is going to be used as a pretext to set a state curriculum for Home Educators?

Legislation like this delegitimises government and damages our democracy. I am sure you are aware of the growing animus towards parliament coming from Home Educators. These ill feelings are not misplaced. What we want to know from you is what you are going to DO to stop all of this.

We know what is wrong with it. We agree with you. What we want to see from you are ACTIONS designed to stop this before it is too late.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:27 by Janice Overton

I sit on both sides of this fence ~ I'm a home educator who is also a school governor, and sits on the LEA school's forum.
There are mums and dads who cannot be trusted with their own children, and we've seen the tragic results in the Baby P case and others. There are other parents whose life style makes them unsuitable parents. Very few of these are home educators. Labour's insistence on control has broken the hearts of teachers and put back child development in this country, they now seek to extend their net to include more children, and as usual they target the law abiding.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:32 by Disorganised1

I was less than impressed with the reasoning of some MPs present at the Select Committee meeting today. Mr Chaytor seemed unable to comprehend anything beyond his 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' mantra when considering the likely responses from HE families to a regime of registration & monitoring. I also found Mr Traves viewpoint sickening self-serving. In response to a question about why further regulation and powers for LAs were required he said: "We do need to know where children are and we do need the power to require people to let us know. If something happens to a child... we are held directly to account. We have seen recently what happens recently to directors of children' services when things go seriously wrong - it is not only sacking, it is public humiliation and it is a very serious matter.' Very serious for whom? It is clear that Mr Traves is fully aware of the consequences for child protection professionals when children are harmed, but they ask us to relinquish fundamental liberties to enable them safeguard their reputations. It would be nice if more of our politicians would actually grasp the nettle and discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the debate.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:35 by Louise Thorn

Thank heavens, I was starting to despair of ever finding an MP who understood that there is simply no justification for state interference in HE, either on educational or welfare grounds. The law as it stands is quite sufficient to handle the rare cases of neglect or abuse, and the rest of us should be left to continue carrying out our Section 7 duty in peace!

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:41 by Heidi Dewet

More power to your arm Douglas. Your blog is brilliant but can we expect these same sentiments to be made known in the Commons?

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:41 by Simon

The point is Douglas old chap, what are you and your merry band of Tories going to DO about all this sort of stuff once you get into power? Will you tell the PC educationalist brigade to get stuffed and leave parents alone who want to home educate, or will you cave in to the Sir Humphreys who will threaten dire consequences if you don't 'act'?

My guess is you talk big in opposition, but will fold faster than Superman on laundry day when in government.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:55 by Jim

As I explained to the select committee this morning, I live in Essex and in order for my home educated child to sit GCSEs, I had to make an arrangement with an independent school in London. This cost me £120 per subject, or £1000 in total. Essex are not really that helpful. I know, because I asked the local authority for help with this and they said that it was not their policy.

Posted on 14 October 2009 18:06 by Simon Webb

Whilst I have nothing against home education, one needs to have some sort of check to make sure it isn't used as an excuse for kids who just don't want to go to school or for parents who just don't care about their children. - What checks are there, anyone?

Posted on 14 October 2009 18:13 by Pete

Thanks, Douglas. Your comments (and your performance in the House yesterday afternoon while I was waiting to lobby my MP) almost make me think of voting Conservative. Please talk to your cross-party colleagues. Children are the responsibility, duty and joy of their parents. The vast majority of parents are not acting in opposition to their children's good and the children do not need the state to act. Concentrate the state's meagre resources on the small minority of families who need help.

The children who have died were all known to authorities who did not act to protect them. Do not add home-educated children to the haystack and obscure the real problems.

Posted on 14 October 2009 18:30 by Shena Deuchars

Thanks Douglas, Nice to find an MP that appears to be actually listening to us. However listening is one thing, doing is another. What can you do to help us keep our historic right and parental right?

To the above lady who mentioned babyP, he was not home edded, he was known by all the relevant authorities. It was not home ed that let him down, it was the authorities.

Even H E kids who are not on the register are known by Doctors, Hospitals, Scouts and other groups, I am sure if one of those had concerns they would contact the authorities in question.

Why fix something when it isn't broken? Its other agencies that need fixing not ours...

Khat

Posted on 14 October 2009 19:00 by Khat Lee

@Pete "What checks are there, anyone?"
If there is reason to believe that a child is not receiving an education, the LA can ask the parents for information. If they aren't satisfied by the reply, they can issue a School Attendance Order. And naturally the same remedies for suspected abuse are available for HE children as for any other.

The key is that there should be reason to suspect a problem before the authorities act. You wouldn't accept your house being searched annually "just to make sure it isn't being used" to store stolen property, would you? The principle of presumption of innocence must apply to home educating parents as to any other citizen.

Besides - believe you me, if parents "just don't care about their children", the last thing they're likely to do is keep them home all day instead of making use of the free childcare offered by state schooling!

Posted on 14 October 2009 19:03 by Heidi Dewet

Thank you so much for your support and understanding. We really want what's best for our children that's why we have removed them from school.
My son is autistic and terrified of anything to do with the education system following his experience at school. As a parent I will do anything to protect him from this intrusion as would many other parents in the same boat!

Posted on 14 October 2009 20:07 by yvonnefrost

You're talking about nice, good parents. But what if bad parents said they were home educating and then just let their kids roam the streets?

Especially if they knew there was money in it.

(This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. It seems to me a genuine dilemma.)

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:03 by John Page

I believe Home Education is illegal in Germany under a hangover from the prewar (I hesitate to use the F word) regime. Can anyone confirm this? If correct it would be a fine example of how statists wish to interfere in what is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:19 by TimC

Many of us saw this coming (as you did, no doubt) with the ISA regulations.

The same is happening in the US, of course.

Watch this video - starting at around 03:58 mins:

http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-uk-criminal-to-look-after-other.html

That's where we're headed.

Why? Can it have anything to do with the Big Brother databases that the US and the EU are building?

It has nothing to do with 'care'. It has everything to do with control.

The losers will be families, as the state increasingly puts itself between children and adults/parents as the only 'safe' option.

If this sounds a tad sinister to somem - it is. Take a stroll through history; evidence of this kind of thing is everywhere. Trouble is, now they have the technology to accelerate the program.

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:37 by http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com

"You're talking about nice, good parents. But what if bad parents said they were home educating and then just let their kids roam the streets?"

So the state should police the 99.6% of good HE parents, whilst children genuinely at risk of abuse languish at the bottom of some over-stretched social worker's to-do list? Hmm, now let's see. Is that really a good way to spend your hard-earned tax money?

Bad HE parents (a TINY MINORITY...NB) will go under the radar or else get referred by the community.

My experience of the situation is that HEors are some of the most over-referred people in Britain today. They get referred to SS depts left, right and centre, usually because some neighbour or distant relative doesn't realise that HE is a legal option. At one HE group we attend, my family is the only one which hasn't at one time or another been utterly spuriously referred to social services.

Registering and monitoring all of us is NOT a top priority. Staffing social work departments properly IS.

Oh, and I too would like to add my thanks to Douglas.

For anyone else who doesn't understand why it is so important not to make the work of the state way too easy, I would recommend Bishop Hill's latest blog post on the subject.

Posted on 14 October 2009 22:09 by Roxy Featherstone

TimC, yes, it's true.

Posted on 14 October 2009 22:11 by Amnesia

John Page: the current law places an obligation on local authorities to intervene when cases like the one you describe come to their notice.

This current approach of investigation/intervention only when there is some evidence of a problem is certainly preferable to Badman's proposals, which treat home educators as wrongdoers by default.

Posted on 14 October 2009 22:38 by Jeremy

Great blog. Couldn't agree more. Thank you.

Posted on 14 October 2009 22:56 by Helen White

Peter Traves, from the Association of Directors of Children's Services said in the Select Committee meeting today:

"We have seen recently what happens recently to directors of children' services when things go seriously wrong - it is not only sacking, it is public humiliation and it is a very serious matter.

"I'm held to account for children's welfare, and I think not to know there are children living and being educated in my area is actually unreasonable if I'm being held to that account."

Aside from thinking "AWWWW, dedums", one also can't help wondering if this IS the the real reason for the whole shebang. It would make sense somehow, but it certainly isn't a good enough reason. The state must not be allowed to over-ride the principles of freedom and the right to privacy just to make someone's job *seem* just a little bit easier, as the police and social workers know all too well.

Another reason why this reason is insufficient is that the registration and monitoring of HEors will not prevent Directors of Children's services being hauled up in front of a Serious Case Review panel, since registration and monitoring will not be a reliable way of detecting abuse. Screening the 99.6% of healthy families will in fact create a load of statistical noise, there will be loads of spurious referrals, further over-burdening already over-stretched social workers, and in the process, some of the important stuff will be missed. Directors of Children's services will then be even more on the line for failing in their duties when they apparently had even more powers than the police to invade the homes of every home educator in the land.

And the final reason, should you need another, is that we are coming dangerously close to a situation where parents will no longer be allowed to be parents, for in the course of their other duties, all state-sponsored personnel are meant to ensure that children are working towards the five ambitions as enshrined in the Children Act 2004. This essentially means that parents everywhere will now be compelled to ensure that their children work towards these ambitions. By insisting that all HE children are seen, we symbolically for all families everywhere, but in reality for HEors, fundamentally change the way that parents can parent in this country. Families, parents and children alike, will no longer be able to freely choose their ambitions, and we must therefore accept that by this token, the state takes over in loco parentis in one of the most all subsuming sorts of ways, ie: in deciding the whole direction of a child's life.

We must avoid this consequence and return to basic principals, whereby the state only intervenes in cases of clear parental failure, for otherwise, we kiss goodbye to the possibility of responsible parenting by parents.

Posted on 14 October 2009 23:11 by Carlotta

"You're talking about nice, good parents. But what if bad parents said they were home educating and then just let their kids roam the streets?

Especially if they knew there was money in it.

(This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. It seems to me a genuine dilemma.)"

Excuse me! what money is involved exactly? I have been home educating my two children for three years now, and have not received a penny for it, because there is none. The Essex case is a first and probably a last. Home educators have to pay for all the costs of home education, we do not even receive discounted music lessons like schooled children. Furthermore if we wish our children to take exams we have to pay for them to sit them in schools and the cost can run into thousands. We educate our children at great financial sacrifice but it is so much more rewarding than having some spare cash to splash on the latest techno gizmo's. We live a frugal life but a rich one.

Posted on 14 October 2009 23:40 by Amanda W

I home educate 8 of my 9 children. I think I am doing a pretty good job of it, considering my eldest wrote a book at just 14 and has won 2 writing competitions.I originally started, not for standards, but the apalling lack of morals in schools.
I am deeply concerned about the idea of questioning children alone. Only criminals have this happen at present.

Posted on 15 October 2009 00:19 by jenny

Especially if they knew there was money in it

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:03 by John Page

I would like to just ask you, what money in it?

As a home educator I do not get any money from any source to help pay for my sons education! This has to be found by myself. We also have to pay exam fee's etc. When you take on the responsibility of your childs education, you also take on the responsibilty of financing it.

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:19 by TimC

Yes Tim, it is illegal in Germany thanks to Hitler. Winston Churchill however allowed it.

Posted on 15 October 2009 06:08 by khat lee

A friend of mine, an retired teacher coaches in Maths and has a number of pupils who are being home educated and come to her because the parents don't have the necessary expertise in this area. She feels that all these children are far more advanced than they would be in their equivalent year at school, as well as being far more mature in their general behaviour.
Her view is that it is because parents care about their children that they are prepared to spend the time and money in educating them at home.

Posted on 15 October 2009 08:40 by Brian E.

Thank you Mr Carswell. I am grateful you get it.
I was increasingly concerned about what appears to be a scorched earth policy from the present Govt. "We don't have much time" quipped Barry and then it is made clear parents who exercise their right (and duty) to educate their children in a way that best suits that child-at home/in the community, are now guilty of abuse and not providing suitable education until an untrained/poorly trained stranger can march into our homes to prove otherwise.
I assume no Tory Government would dream of allowing this to happen?

Posted on 15 October 2009 09:13 by Shell

@TimC: Yes, home ed was made illegal in Germany under Hitler. He wanted (needed) to control the thoughts of the young people - just as Stalin did in Russia.

@John Page: If kids are roaming the streets, they can be stopped by police and questioned. If it is suspected that they are not receiving an education, the LA can step in, as described at 19:03 by Heidi Dewet. EHE young people are not roaming the streets; they are not illiterate and unable to work after the age of 16. The government believes that it controls what it counts and therefore it wants to count us to give the impression that it is doing something. Interfering with EHE will save *no* child from poverty, abuse or illiteracy. It may drive some families not to seek help when they need it for fear of the power of the state. The people of Britain need to make it clear - government is a very poor parent and should only become a parent in the last resort. Most families are good enough if they are allowed to make their own decisions.

Posted on 15 October 2009 10:05 by Shena Deuchars

Tim,

The German legislation is unchanged since the Nazi regime, though of course the authorities squirm around the fact that it isn't actually illegal. And the tactics German authorities have used have certainly been reminiscent of that era - one teenager was even forcibly detained as a psychiatric patient and then fostered out until her eighteenth birthday, at which point she simply walked out of the foster home and went back to her parents. Pretty hairy stuff.

But in this country, let us not forget the role of fake charities like the NSPCC, who are using every penny of the huge government funds they hoover up to...push the government's agenda.

Posted on 15 October 2009 10:18 by DSD

Perhaps the worry with home education is that we'll have a generation of morons who can't even spell, let alone re-read their work. "Infantilse"?

Posted on 15 October 2009 10:22 by HT

Excellent stuff as always, Douglas. There is no case for interfering with home education, and every case for allowing home-schooling parents to use the money the system already has for their kids to fund resource centres as Academies under Michael Gove's proposed reforms. That way, parents who pay for their children's education through taxes, may actually see some of that money reaching their kids. Can you get Gove to commit to that as part of his shift in power toward parents, without an excessive regulatory hurdle being put in their way?

Gove said at the Party Conference "Just imagine, within walking distance of your front door, a small school where the headteacher knows every child's name, with smaller class sizes, and personal support for your child, with higher standards and tougher discipline; the money currently wasted on red tape and management consultants instead invested in books and teachers." What better meets this definition than home education?

Sam Chapman, Lancashire County Councillor for Chorley South, www.samchapman.com

Posted on 15 October 2009 11:31 by Sam

"Perhaps the worry with home education is that we'll have a generation of morons who can't even spell, let alone re-read their work. "Infantilse"?"

I don't have a moment to track back through comments to find this slip of the fingers, but my guess, HT, is that it was probably written by an HEing parent, in which case, this person was almost certainly educated in school.

Posted on 15 October 2009 17:50 by Carlotta

"...generation of morons..."?

Studies show the majority of home schooled children perform at a superior level to others, if the governments own standardized tests are to be trusted (they aren't). The point is HE is not substandard to government run schooling, but better.

Also, why is it that silly little things like literacy rates have gone down as the implementation of mass forced schooling and government control has increased. Funny that.

Posted on 15 October 2009 18:34 by Tyler

Well, HT, even published and respected writers make errors. Are you saying that all schooled children are perfect spellers? I can tell you that 1 in 6 children leave school not being able to read, write or add up. Think about that. And give a thought to the 450,000 children who are bullied EVERY WEEK. Bothered about school children yet? You should be.

Posted on 15 October 2009 20:24 by Danae

Posted on 15 October 2009 21:47 by Louisa Herbs

Badman claims only a vociferous minority - and he knows who they all are - are opposed to his proposals. 3,911 signatures so far says he is wrong! Even if you don't HE please sign - otherwise your children may never even have the choice!
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/EHEreview/

__________________________

Based on figures for HEing families, ranging from 20,000 to 150,000, just under 4,000 signatures does rather support the theory of a vocal minority rather than quash it.

Posted on 26 October 2009 20:52 by Sarah Fontó

@Sarah Fontó
The estimates are of 20,000 to 80,000 EHE children - not families. The 150,000 estimate came from a journalist some years ago and has never been substantiated by anyone who knows about EHE. The 20,000 to 80,000 EHE children would be in 10,000 to 30,000 families. It is highly unlikely that a petition (and particularly an online one) would ever get a majority of signatures.

Posted on 1 November 2009 14:12 by Shena Deuchars