I have just seen the draft Bill that you presented on behalf of Lord Soley and wanted to pass on some comments.
I should preface this by saying that I have met you before at receptions for educational organisations in Parliament and have always found you to be friendly, insightful and open. I’m sure that your intentions in submitting this Bill are absolutely honourable. I understand that your background as a teacher and with the National Children’s Bureau will have informed your perspective. That, of course, does not mean that the ideas represented in the Bill are beyond criticism.
In response, I would ask you to consider the following points:
1. The historic function of monitoring in this country has always been intended to provide parents with insight into how well the state is doing, not the other way round. You are now proposing to turn that convention on its head. You may say that all schools are inspected; let me explain why. The Education Act is very clear that parents carry legal responsibility for the education of their children, and that they may discharge that duty by attendance at school or otherwise. Most opt for the former and, as parents are unable to be present while their children are being educated at school, OFSTED provides them with feedback on how well the school is fulfilling its part of the bargain. Naturally, there is no need for such a reporting mechanism when the parent is present while the child is being educated, as with elective home education. Extending inspection to parents in this case (without evidence or even a strong suspicion of wrong-doing) undermines the fundamental right to privacy.
2. Your Bill threatens the general presumption of competence that is vested in every parent in the country as of right. All parents are deemed capable of looking after their children and are not subject to state inspection until it becomes clear that they need help. Your Bill is also discriminatory in that it removes that presumption of competence from only one section of society, with no logical explanation provided. For instance, parents are trusted to look after their children up to age four; why aren’t they included? Is it because their children are not in full time education? What difference does that make to their emotional health? As regards education, what evidence do you have to support mandatory inspection of every home educating family in the country? I suspect that you simply don’t trust families to function effectively outside of the purview of the state.
3. Your Bill is a threat to diversity. The courts are very clear about the absolute imperative of parents being free to shape the education of their children in ways that the state may not like. As Baroness Hale, The Deputy President of the Supreme Court, has said: The totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights. The child is not the mere creature of the State. Families are the foundation of society and the state exists to support them in their diversity. I contend that your Bill will encourage the state to define home education in ways that reduces diversity; for instance, by insisting that children achieve a set level of literacy and numeracy by a particular age, or record evidence of their learning in the form of workbooks; both examples taken from your draft Bill and very much school-orientated in nature. Really, what is the point of home education if it is not to do it differently to school?
4. Your Bill stigmatises us. Annual inspection will definitely have the effect of making people feel that they need permission or a certificate of approval to do something that is already their right in law. Home education is co-equal in law to school. We are competent. We are different. Why do you need to inspect us? The assumption has to be that you think we are up to no good, or are not competent. Certainly, the sheer number of investigations that home educators are already subject to would seem to support that; proportionately, we are nine times more likely to be accused of educational failings than teachers. However, we are between three and seven times less likely (LA dependent) to be found guilty of such a charge. I attach evidence to back up this claim based on feedback from almost every local authority in England.
5. Your Bill is hopelessly over-reactive and drives up costs that would much better be deployed elsewhere. The state has ample powers to investigate allegations of emotional or educational neglect, but consistently neglects to use them properly (or at all). The Victoria Climbie case is one of the most unfortunate examples, with the state being excoriated for repeatedly failing to use its powers. Unfortunately, and through blind incompetence for which it has apologised, the NSPCC has created the impression that home education has been a factor in a number of recent serious case reviews. In fact, it has now acknowledged that home education was not a factor in any of them. In error, it blamed home education for the death of children who were too young to be at school and for others who were at school before being withdrawn and subjected to no education at all. Given the overwhelming and continuing lack of evidence of abuse or under-education, I strongly recommend that you seek to channel resources towards known and significant problems such as child prostitution and schools rated inadequate.
Finally, can I remind you that state education in the UK is an opt-in service. Those of us who did not opt in have done no wrong. We are not invisible and we are not incompetent. I believe that the reason why we are less likely than teachers to be found wanting when investigated is because we have taken a decision to spend time with our own children, shaping a truly personalised education in the company with other like-minded families and adapting our strategies as we go. To think that you want to subject us to an inspection and line up teachers to advise us on how to proceed is both ridiculous and terrifying.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this.
Yours faithfully
Sean McDougall
---------------------------------
Historically monitoring was to provide parents with insight to keep the state accountable, not the other way around! All parents carry legal responsibility for the education of their children (The Education Act); for those that discharge this duty to a school, OFSTED provides essential feedback to ensure the schools meet their obligation. Such a reporting mechanism is redundant when the parent is present (unless you want to start thinking of the state as the ultimate parent of our children). Where there is evidence/strong suspicion of wrong, social services and laws already exist to intervene (even if they lack the resources – which would be further stretched with such unfocused legislation). It would, in fact, legislate a presumption of incompetence in parents and a presumption of competence in the government (the seeds of totalitarianism): potentially giving them greater rights over ones children even when there is no legitimate concern for harm or safety.
I’m all for addressing the concerns of this article and of the many parents forced to home educate without support (or desire), especially when this is forced because a school does not believe it has the resources to accommodate them. But befuddled thinking and an imprecise bill founded on an Orwellian premise is not the solution! It is pejorative to parents generally; a serious threat to free thought and diversity where differing ideals – even if innocuous – will be subjugated to the will of the state or the prejudices of the OFSTED inspector.
I fear even our lawmakers (and journalists) have forgotten history, and worse may continue to ignore those who voice its portents.
James Edwards
---------------------------------
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2017/12/06/home-education-3/
7/12/2017
Dear Lord Soley,
I am thankful to you and to God for your service to our country and its citizens. I commend and share the concerns of this Bill for the many parents forced to home educate without support (or desire, especially when this is forced because a school does not believe it has the resources to accommodate them) and for children mistreated under the auspice of home education. Much of the debate in the 2nd Reading was honourable (excluding the ‘almost hysterical’ language and misgivings of one member); the sense of Lord Lucas’ comments are also not excusive to libertarians and a pray you further allow his council.
Nevertheless I believe the current governmental failure towards this vulnerable subset is, not significantly, but wholly due to failed implementation of the existing laws and not a lacuna in legislation or the protections it affords. Moreover, as well intentioned as this Bill is, its foundations are totalitarian in nature and a total departure from the current values instilled in our laws giving the benefit of doubt to the individual and the family. Saying that we don’t have existing laws to prevent the harm and mistreatment of children is preposterous, and that the government cannot know the number of children not employed in state education, farcical. We monitor births and deaths (and emigration) and everything in-between involves the sort of maths I’m teaching my 5-year old. Taking the example of Wales this is certainly possible and so this facet provides no supporting evidence for your bill. Also I have not encountered those in support of this bill demonstrating how current laws are deficient in closing down illegal unregistered schools; Ofsted can and has prosecuted numerous illegal schools so grounds here also for the bill are dismissed.
Historically monitoring was to provide parents with insight to keep the state accountable, not the other way around! All parents already carry legal responsibility for the care and education of their children (The Education Act); for those that discharge this duty to a school, OFSTED provides essential feedback to ensure the schools meet their obligation to the parent(s) and child. Such a reporting mechanism is redundant when the parent is present (unless you want to start thinking of the state as the ultimate parent of our children). Where there is evidence/strong suspicion of wrong, social services and laws already exist to intervene (even if they lack the resources – which would be further stretched with such unfocused legislation). It would, in fact, legislate a presumption of incompetence in parents and a presumption of competence in the government (the seeds of totalitarianism): potentially usurping ultimate rights over ones children even when there is no legitimate concern for harm or safety.
Please Lord Soley, this imprecise bill founded on an Orwellian premise is not the solution. It is pejorative to parents generally; a serious threat to free thought and diversity where differing ideals – even if innocuous – will be subjugated to the will of the state or the prejudices of the OFSTED inspector. How will the government be held accountable when it has (not to all intents but to all purposes) usurped the rights of a father and mother to raise their family with values that may oppose that of the government? You are giving a green card to every Lord and Politician that follows you; are you genuinely that nonchalant to trust yourselves (and those that wield authority beyond the bounds of their understanding or informedness) this much?
I fear even our lawmakers (and journalists) have forgotten history, and worse may continue to ignore those who voice its portents. Not OFSTED nor any political entity should be the bedrock of a society. “The family is the basis of society. As the family is, so is the society” – Ashley Montagu
If I have misunderstood and misread the Bill I would value any insight or comments. I also appreciate that when a Bill such as this is misunderstood by the press (BBC) it can create stigma for those opposed to something purported as an unadulterated good. But be not in doubt that it is adulterated – by mandating that the government encroach on the freedoms and diversities of families.
Without “radical and extensive amendment” this bill in time is likely to do much much more harm to our society than good. I cannot see how anyone who knows a jot of history could support it unless their motives are insincere. Thank you for your concern and efforts but please heed the warnings of those you have mentioned consider the ramifications of legislating a snoopers charter upon a certain demographic when the solution to your concerns is already within the powers of the state.
Yours, a concerned parent aware of the harm misappropriated power from the family has inflicted in many past (even well-meaning) societies.
James Edwards
Romford
No comments:
Post a Comment