RIP: Freedom

I blogged about the NICE consultation on 'when to suspect child maltreatment' back in January, when it was underway. It was open to stakeholders only, of which Education Otherwise was one. The resulting guidelines [opens pdf] were finally published on Monday of this week. They are every bit as devastating for our freedom to make lifestyle choices as the consultation threatened they would be.

These are guidelines for health practitioners to follow whenever they are presented with a sick or injured child, "providing..

.. a summary of the clinical features associated with maltreatment (alerting features) that may be observed when a child presents to healthcare professionals. Its purpose is to raise awareness and help healthcare professionals who are not specialists in child protection to identify children who may be being maltreated.

So far, so reasonable - just in case a 'health care professional' can't recognise a suspicious set of bruises and/or cigarette burns, starvation symptoms or a child in fear and trembling at the sight of its parents. You might think.

Of course, the things I just listed would need attending to in the proper way and I think it's a good idea that government (or one of its quangos, whatever..) provides guidance to explain the correct procedure in such eventualities. It's only common sense, you might think.

But this is not what these guidelines are actually about. Of course not. Nothing could be so simple and straightforward in 21st Century England, could it? 'Healthcare practitioners' in this day and age apparently need to be looking for far more than a suspicious set of bruises and/or cigarette burns, starvation symptoms or a child in fear and trembling at the sight of its parents. They must now be the lifestyle police, trained and measured by their ability to, for example:

Consider child maltreatment if there is an unusual pattern of presentation to and contact with healthcare providers, or there are frequent presentations or reports of injuries.

So your child had better not be frequently ill, or injured. You know, when I was a child - thirty odd years or so ago now (halcyon days) - there were some children whose health was just never good. No reason, per se: it just happened that way, life being naturally a bit messy and all, but the thing was that nobody raised an eyebrow. Such variations were just accepted. Some people had a lot of time off school. Some were often at the doctors, others never went. I don't think either was a problem: certainly not cause for official concern. And injuries? Well, children are children, aren't they? Most of them like to take risks and play rough at some time or another and when I was young we were allowed to, which did us no end of good.

And yes, there probably were, from time to time,

unusual pattern[s] of presentation to and contact with healthcare providers, or .. frequent presentations or reports of injuries,

- but so what? In those days, it was called "living", and most families quite cheerfully indulged in it with impunity.

Not so any more: "Unusual pattern[s] of presentation" etc, blah blah, are just the tip of the iceberg.

For home educators, this will leap, blaring, off the screen:

5.8 Inappropriately explained poor school attendance

Consider child maltreatment if a child has poor school attendance that the parents or carers know about that has no justification on health, including mental health, grounds and formally approved home education is not being provided.
[My emphasis.]

So, just in case that's not quite clear... if you take your child for any kind of medical attention and you are exercising your current legal right to home educate him or her without being registered and 'formally approved' by your local authority, you will now be suspected of mistreating your child!

This needs to be urgently revised and at least made to reflect the current legal situation, because it will bring in de facto compulsory registration without any need for the Badman report [opens pdf] or the Select Committee inquiry announced this week.

Besides that, these NICE guidelines [opens pdf] go on to instruct practitioners to:

Consider neglect if a child’s clothing or footwear is consistently inappropriate (for example, for the weather or the child’s size).

Oh, but:

Instances of inadequate clothing that have a suitable explanation (for example, a sudden change in the weather, slippers worn because they were closest to hand when leaving the house in a rush) would not be alerting features for possible neglect.

I wonder whether the parent-or-carer has to provide documented proof of leaving the house in a rush, before the aforementioned slippers are deemed to be appropriate footwear?

Honestly. My two year-old goes to the supermarket with us to sit in a trolley seat in slippers quite regularly, just because she prefers them to her proper shoes. Who could possibly be offended by this? What harm could it possibly do, to her or to anyone else? How could it possibly suggest that we're mistreating her? On the contrary, it demonstrates that we take her preferences seriously, and allow her to have some control over her own life, what she wears and what she does. Hmm. Therein lies the problem?

• child seen at times of the day when it is unlikely that they would have had an opportunity to become dirty or smelly (for example, an early morning visit)

But in the case of home educators, we're sometimes out doing activities until bedtime. I know late morning or lunchtime baths are a regular occurrence around here. Until now, there was no law that said a bath had to take place in the early evening, before bed. Are health visitors going to be checking the clock, then checking a child's fingernails on home visits? It beggars belief. Since when was a dirty child a mistreated child anyway? In my experience, the ones who are spotlessly clean all the time are perhaps the ones to be more worried about.

6.2 Supervision

Achieving a balance between an awareness of risk and allowing children freedom to learn by experience can be difficult. However, if parents or carers persistently fail to anticipate dangers and to take precautions to protect their child from harm it may constitute neglect.

Consider neglect if the explanation for an injury (for example, a burn, sunburn or an ingestion of a harmful substance) suggests a lack of appropriate supervision.

Two incidents in my family spring to mind. In the first, I made a cup of tea and had to leave it, quite well back on the kitchen surface while I dashed to attend to my new baby in the other room. Meanwhile my toddling child must have inexplicably reached up for tea (I didn't even know he could reach that far, let alone think him likely to) and pulled it onto himself, suffering 11% burns. 19 years ago, this was seen for the pure accident that it was, and I was treated with sympathy and understanding by doctors and nursing staff. Nobody ever suggested that I was anything other than a good mother, even though I was only just 21 at the time, and had two such young children very close together in age. In fact, I'd left the tea due to good mothering, in a sense, because I was dashing to pick up the baby before he got too upset. I couldn't really have foreseen the accident, but how would I be treated if it happened now? Quite differently I think.

As recently as five years ago, I took another toddler up to the bathroom while I went to use the loo, but she grew bored of waiting for me and wandered into her teenaged sister's room next door. The next thing I knew, she was screaming, with nail varnish in her eye, that she'd mistaken for mascara and decided to play with accordingly. I washed out the nail varnish and called 999: she was being checked by an eye specialist within 20 minutes and we were home again just over an hour later with a clean bill of health and no suspicions of 'maltreatment'. This would presumably not be the case under the new guidelines.

Accidents happen. They can't all be prevented, all of the time. A good parent-or-carer makes reasonable checks for safety and takes reasonsable precautions, but people have to live - go to the loo, attend to their other children, turn their backs sometimes, for whatever reason. Maybe even trust their child to go off and play at her own request, unsupervised. It's not good to have a parent-or-carer breathing down one's neck all the time. It is good to enable a reasonable amount of risk-taking and unsupervised play to facilitate the learning process and the child's general development. Is this still to be allowed? The guidelines make no mention of it.

6.3 Ensuring access to appropriate medical care or treatment

Consider neglect if parents or carers fail to administer essential prescribed treatment for their child.

So, this outlaws alternative health philosophies, pure and simple. It also removes the traditional parental authority to make decisions about their children's medical treatment, as does the rest of 6.3:

Consider neglect if parents or carers repeatedly fail to attend essential follow-up appointments that are necessary for their child’s health and wellbeing.
Consider neglect if parents or carers persistently fail to engage with relevant child health promotion programmes which include:

• immunisation
• health and development reviews
• screening.

Consider neglect if parents or carers have access to but persistently fail to obtain NHS treatment for their child’s dental caries (tooth decay).

Even tooth decay in milk teeth? In an older teenaged child's teeth? What if the child resists? Isn't the parent the last bastion in the defence of their child's autonomy? I've seen the health effects on very young children of surgical tooth removal, and it's not something I would unnecessarily put a child of mine through. Do I still have this choice? According to these guidelines, I don't.

I'm not even going to start on immunisation, except to say that this document renders it now de facto compulsory. I don't know if the relevant pressure and support groups are aware of this.

7.1 Emotional and behavioural states

Consider child maltreatment if a child or young person displays or is reported to display a marked change in behaviour or emotional state (see examples below) that is a departure from what would be expected for their age and developmental stage and is not explained by a known stressful situation that is not part of child maltreatment (for example, bereavement or parental separation) or medical cause. Examples include:

• recurrent nightmares containing similar themes
• extreme distress
• markedly oppositional behaviour
• withdrawal of communication
• becoming withdrawn.

Goodness me. One of my children is extremely emotional and imaginative and suffers from nightmares sometimes without any known cause: I think it's just genetic. Another is very choosy about who she speaks to and when and is quite likely, in her regal two year-oldness, to decide not to acknowledge someone's presence if and when the mood takes her. These would both be marked changes in behaviour, seen from certain perspectives, not explained by a known stressful situation that is not part of child maltreatment (for example, bereavement or parental separation) or medical cause. I do not maltreat my children - far from it. But, like Philip Pullman (whose excellent books I've just got into reading) et al., it seems that we parents are to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

There's more, far more, but this has taken enough of my time away from my own children today. You will go and read the rest of the document if you're interested, and formulate your own views of it. Meanwhile (assuming you agree with me) what can we do? If you're an EO member I'd urge you to lobby the management there to try to get this changed, as they're listed as stakeholders. If not (and I'm not) then it might not be a bad idea to just talk to people about it. I don't know if writing to complain about things actually helps, but a groundswell of public opinion might, and this affects all parents.

(As does this, especially if the Badman recommendations are enacted. We won't even be allowed to support our children's natural resistance to the school system. There will be no leeway for anyone, anywhere. Only total and unquestioning obedience.)

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 11

Part 11 of the Badman report [opens pdf] is the conclusion. It begins:

11.1 International comparison suggests that of all countries with highly developed education systems, England is the most liberal in its approach to elective home education.

Is this actually true? Or is it yet another example of Mr Badman's lack of understanding of the present situation in England? My perception, from being a member of national and local online groups for many years now, is that England's approach to elective home education is a postcode lottery. If you're lucky enough to live in the 'right' place, then it could possibly be said to be liberal. If you're less fortunate in your location, it can be extremely controlling. I've even known of such variations to occur within the same local authority, depending on a family's actual postcode, family status and other prejudices.

So, would the Badman recommendations do anything to correct this imbalance? Let's see..

Recommendation 1

That the DCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively home educated.
[Selected bullet points of this recommendation:]
■ Registration should be renewed annually.
■ At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.
■ Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to meet local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education and develop the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within eight weeks of first registration.

Recommendation 7

The DCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and statutory basis to ensure that in monitoring the efficiency and suitability of elective home education:
■ That designated local authority officers should:
– have the right of access to the home;
– have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is
particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a
trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.
In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.

Recommendation 23

That local authority adult services and other agencies be required to inform those charged with the monitoring and support of home education of any properly evidenced concerns that they have of parents’ or carers’ ability to provide a suitable education irrespective of whether or not they are known to children’s social care, on such grounds as
■ alcohol or drug abuse
■ incidents of domestic violence
■ previous offences against children
And in addition:
■ anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education
This requirement should be considered in the Government’s revision of Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance.

No. The same prejudices would apply, only moreso, and with the backing of whatever legal framework might be set up to try to legitimise it all. Those local education officers who refuse to understand or tolerate autonomous learning and/or who are of the opinion that parents who withdraw their children from school due to truancy or bullying are usually incapable of home educating successfully, or that single/poor/disabled/wage-earning/non wage-earning [substitute any other unfounded prejudice as appropriate] parents are usually incapable of home educating successfully, will have a field day. "Anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education"? Music to their ears. Badman is a gift to them.

On the other hand, I hope and suspect the opposite would probably also be true: that the officers who have in the past exercised fairness, knowledge and understanding will continue to do so. Such people do exist in the employ of some local authorities.

Liberal? Not always, and never for some. It's wrong that we should be placed even more at the mercy of such an unfair and unbalanced system.

Part 11 continues:

Legislation from the 1930s banning elective home education still persists in Germany...

- which I know for a fact made several home educators splutter, on first reading. Adolf Hitler was in power in 1930s Germany! His reasons for banning home education are plainly obvious and citing his leglislation for serious consideration adds nothing to the credibility of this report.

..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.” The majority of other countries also have processes for registration and the systematic monitoring of elective home education and require evidence of progress, often specifically in mathematics and reading.

11.2 The recommendations in this review do not go that far.

"that the 'person will be taught at least as regularly and as well as in registered school'? The Badman recommendations, if enacted, would ensure that home educated children were 'taught at least as regularly and as well' by government standards, which are often not the same as parents' standards - or indeed as children's themselves. These government standards are also, more often than not, not the same 'as in registered school'. The point is that many parents want more for their children's learning than "throwing popcorn at their heads and calling it eating" - a fabulous analogy I caught on one of the list digests this week. But the effects of Badman would nevertheless restrict all of our endeavours to just that.

I have sought to strike a balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child..

But parents do not have rights in the education of their children. They have, according to Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act, a:

Duty .. to secure education of children of compulsory school age.. [my emphasis]

As for children's rights, I'll be looking more closely at those in future posts.

Back to Badman:

..and offer, through registration and other recommendations, some assurance on the greater safety of a number of children.

But in fact it won't offer any such assurances and anyway, as I set out here, the measures are disproportionate and the means don't justify the ends.

The final point in Mr Badman's conclusion says:

11.3 I recognise that much of what is proposed can be implemented and achieved through advice and changes in guidance in due course. However I believe certain recommendations require immediate action. To that end, I urge the DCSF to respond to recommendations 1, 7, 23 and 24 as summarised in the next chapter, at the next available opportunity.

1, 7 and 23 - the most devastating and unhelpful recommendations of the lot.

I'm planning to look more closely at all of the recommendations in my next post.

Visiting our MP

Three of us went to see our MP on Friday (Chris McCafferty, Lab, Calder Valley). Here's our report of the meeting:

We began by looking at the report. We said it was badly written and subjective and Chris said that reports were always subjective. We said that its recommendations had gone to consultation, but that key changes 'to improving the monitoring of home education' had already been detailed for inclusion in the recently announced Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children bill, which we thought might overlap with the consultation.

But Chris said that bills usually took about two years to become acts of parliament and that she strongly suspected this bill would not make the Queen's Speech in November. She explained that there was a General Election due in May 2010, which meant that Parliament would have to be dissolved in March 2010. This left a shortened parliamentary term of 5 months for this bill, if it was even mentioned in the Queen's Speech, to become law. She further explained that bills are increasingly subjected to ever more detailed pre-legislative scrutiny and that most give rise to a Green Paper, which itself needs to be debated at length.

She went on to comment that the consultation period for 'Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals' (11th June to 19th October 2009) was unusually short and that steps should be taken to have this period lengthened.

Going back to the report, Chris said that Recommendation 7, particularly about access to the home, struck her as being a significant change in the context of traditional practice. We commented that currently the Police, NSPCC etc needed to have specific reasons for concern to force an entry, and Chris said this was presumably why the next recommendation (8) detailed that 3 weeks' notice must be given. We said that 3 weeks' notice was nearly as bad as being doorstepped. Chris said that Recommendation 7 in particular was one that would need to be debated at length in parliament, probably by committee, and "fleshed out" until it became something more acceptable.

Chris then asked us whether there was anything we liked about the Badman report? When we didn't reply, she referred to Recommendation 4: "That the local authority should establish a Consultative Forum for home educating parents to secure their views and representative opinion. Such a body could be constituted as a sub-group of the Children’s Trust with a role in supporting the development of the Children’s Trust, and the intentions of the local authority with regard to elective home education," and asked whether we would be in favour of that. After some hesitation, we said that if it was an idea on its own then it might not be too bad, but in the context of the rest of the report, which also contained recommendations to come into our houses, dictate our curriculums and interview our children alone - radical reforms for which there was no evidential basis - the answer was definitely no.

She said that the ideal outcome of this whole process of change would be a solution that home educators were happy with, which also satisfied the need of government to be seen to be doing something about safeguarding. She repeatedly expressed the view that the government's motivation was just that, and nothing more sinister - in fact, she specifically stated that the government did not wish to curtail our educational choices and that flexibility was increasingly the focus in education nowadays, with "some of the really silly stuff" being currently phased out in schools.

We further expressed our dismay about the recommendation to interview our children alone, and Chris said that amendments definitely needed to be added to that point, with perhaps symptoms such as behavioural issues being apparent before such an interview could be requested by officials. She said that all of this would come up in the pre-legislative scrutiny.

We explained that we're also concerned about the effect of the report and future changes on the practice of autonomous learning, and that we would like to see this becoming an officially accepted learning method because there was a lot of research to support it. Chris agreed and asked how good our local authority's treatment of home educators had been. We said we thought it was OK, and she recommended meeting with them to establish a rapport for the purposes of working together to give input to the development of any new legislation.

We then asked about the procedure for getting a consultation period lengthened. Chris said this was a very common occurrence and that she would ask for an extension and that we should also, by asking via the consultation website. She made the point that the existing consultation period spanned the parliamentary summer recess and the traditional family holiday period and that these were good reasons to have it extended. She again expressed the view that the period of time allocated for this consultation was far too short and that it should be extended to December, which would be after the Queen's Speech and therefore might be enough to prevent any legislative changes before the General Election.

Towards the end of the meeting, Chris stated that she would be unwilling to sign Mark Field's Early Day Motion, because she didn't like the negative wording "..calls on the Government to focus on its own ability to fulfil the Every Child Matters objectives rather than undermine the independence and integrity of home educators by enforcing the Badman recommendations." The presence of Ann Winterton's name on the list of signatories was also off-putting to her. We asked whether she would be willing to draft her own motion then, and she said she would consider doing so.

Finally, we asked her who we should contact at the Local Authority and she named an official, who she said she would be meeting with about something else the next day and would let him know we'd be in touch.

I wish we'd had chance to talk with her about Satutory Instruments, which of course are subjected to a lot less parliamentary scrutiny, though I hear other home educators in the area are planning to meet with her so the question will hopefully be asked.

I also gave her a letter, as follows:

Dear Ms McCafferty,

Re: Elective Home Education: The Badman Report

Thanks for agreeing to meet with us today about Elective Home Education and the Badman report today. I last wrote to you about Elective Home Education (EHE) in February of this year and, prior to that, we exchanged correspondence in 2008 about the implications for lone parent EHErs of the Government’s welfare reforms. You were kind enough to sign an Early Day Motion for us then: I wonder if you would do so again regarding the current issue of the Badman Report?

When the report was published last month, it exceeded all of our worst fears. Here are some of the recommendations about which we’re the most anxious, and the reasons why:

Recommendation 1

That the DCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively home educated.
[Selected bullet points of this recommendation:]
■ Registration should be renewed annually.
■ At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.
■ Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to meet local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education and develop the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within eight weeks of first registration.

We feel that this change will be disproportionate, costly and will end our current freedom to provide our children with the education that we, as parents, feel they need.

Recommendation 2

That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.

This is the first official suggestion that home education should be ‘broad and balanced’, as in schools. Many of us have found that our children learn best when they’re free to focus on subjects of particular interest to them. This enables them to develop specialist skills, as in the case of my older son Tom, who is now running his own successful business as a result of this freedom. Forcing a ‘broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated’ curriculum on EHErs for no good reason (the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act do not require it) will effectively homogenise EHE provision and prevent such beneficial differences in approach.

Recommendation 7

The DCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and statutory basis to ensure that in monitoring the efficiency and suitability of elective home education:
■ That designated local authority officers should:
– have the right of access to the home;
– have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is
particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a
trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.
In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.

Many of us see this as unwarranted intrusion, unacceptably damaging to our children and to family life. The safeguarding element is disproportionate: statistics show that EHErs are less than half as likely to abuse their children as are other parents.

■ That parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means to demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of intent lodged at the time of registration.

Many of us home educate primarily to avoid putting such pressure on our children, due to the well known damaging effects of such policies and are dismayed that our carefully considered parental decisions are to be overridden in this way. We also feel the above point represents an unfounded mistrust in our honesty and integrity and will, frankly, be an unnecessarily distressing experience for many of our children.

Recommendation 23

That local authority adult services and other agencies be required to inform those charged with the monitoring and support of home education of any properly evidenced concerns that they have of parents’ or carers’ ability to provide a suitable education irrespective of whether or not they are known to children’s social care, on such grounds as
■ alcohol or drug abuse
■ incidents of domestic violence
■ previous offences against children
And in addition:
■ anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education
This requirement should be considered in the Government’s revision of Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance.

Many parents with long past histories of mental health issues, for example, are extremely worried about this recommendation. The “anything else” point is of concern to us all, because it suggests that we can be forced to place our children to school for the most arbitrary reasons.

And finally:

Recommendation 28

That the DCSF and the Local Government Association determine within three months how to provide to local authorities sufficient resources to secure the recommendations in this report.

EHErs have been reluctant, in the past, to demand our rightful share of the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) funding, because we thought the money would come with too many strings attached and that its sacrifice was therefore worthwhile in order to retain our freedom in education. However the above recommendations, if implemented, would completely transform this position to one in which we would have nothing to lose by pursuing the funding. If Graham Badman is right in his report to say that there might be 80,000 EHEing children, and AWPU levels stand at up to £5000 per child per year, this would therefore have a cost implication of up to £250 million per year.

In a letter to Graham Badman responding to the report Ed Balls said:



and:



so we are unable to take comfort in the hope that the most damaging of Mr Badman’s recommendations might not be enacted. The consultation questions ask for our agreement to the changes, but over 2000 responses were made from EHErs to the review questions and summarily ignored, so we have little faith in the process of consultation now to help us retain our freedoms.


In the light of this, I would much appreciate your signing of Mark Field’s EDM 1785 and your conveyance of our concerns to DCSF, as well as any advice you are able to offer us during our meeting today.

Yours etc.

I also wish I had more information about the damage done to children by official monitoring. A friend lent me this book, which we thought might contain something, but other than that we're stumped. Any ideas, anyone?

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 9

Trying to decide on a posting schedule for this blog, I realised I haven't quite finished my detailed look at the Badman report [opens pdf], so I'll finish that over the next few days and then write a brief summary of its weak points, reluctant as I am to add to Mr Badman's many problems. I see there's also a detailed breakdown of the review on this blog - well worth a read.

To the report [opens pdf] then:

Section 9 is about funding:

9.1 Irrespective of any estimate of the number of children currently electively home educated, it is the case that should they return to school, they would immediately draw down the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) value for a child of their age within that locality. At present no such funding attaches to them on becoming electively home educated. Local authorities meet their own costs and the cost of services provided are met from within their own resources – which in part accounts for the disparity of support provision.

9.2 I do not believe this to be fair or just. Yes, they (sometimes) and their parents have chosen to leave the schooling system but they remain in education and the state has a responsibility to use its best endeavours to promote their safety and achievement. To implement the registration scheme and meet the other requirements of this report, will undoubtedly require further resources. However, recognising that these resources are part of a complex arrangement between local authorities and the DCSF, I recommend:

Recomendation 28

That the DCSF and the Local Government Association determine within three months how to provide to local authorities sufficient resources to secure the recommendations in this report.

- and I find it amusing that he talks about the AWPU being allocated "To implement the registration scheme and meet the other requirements of this report.." and not actually to educating the child. Typical!

The reason we've always had for not demanding the AWPU for our children (currently about £5000 a year?) is that we knew that the money would come with strings attached - exactly the strings set out in this report. Also, those of us who didn't have wage-earning partners could live on Income Support while we home educated, so we didn't really need the AWPU money. Neither situation (a single wage or income solely derived from benefits) was ideal for home educators, but the general consensus was that forfeiting the AWPU was a price worth paying for our freedom.

Now it seems, if Badman has his way, that we're to lose the freedom to home educate free from official interference - and in many cases our income (due to welfare reform) - and still not receive the AWPU! I think we should therefore review this stance urgently - if the Badman recommendations are implemented. Receipt of the AWPU - let's say, to the equivalent value of the average received by schools per child according to age, to allow for admin costs - would enable those of us who feel in the future forced to put our children into school because of financial impossibilities, to continue home educating. If the government wants us to jump through educational hoops, it must pay us to do so just as it pays the schools, and be thankful we're not demanding a full teacher's salary.

"The number .. known to children’s social care in some LAs is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population."

We're a bit too ill here for detailed blogging, and the various campaigns, groups and action plans against Badman are moving so fast that it's difficult to keep up when you're a bit below par, but even I couldn't help feasting my eyes on THIS sterling work, particularly in the context of my previous post:

Abuse in Elective Home Education (EHE)

- which summarises that the abuse rate in the home educating community is less than half - that's less than half - the national rate for all children. No wonder Mr Badman chose his words so carefully (see title above) in his report [opens pdf]: this shows that the argument for a need for extra official safeguarding of home educating children is absolutely bogus.

Still, we now live in an elected dictatorship, according to someone's MP with whom they went to talk about this, so any protests along the inconvenient lines of things like truth will probably be ineffective (according to him). This I can believe. I am planning to visit my MP with some other local HErs, but am not particularly optimistic about the outcome. We'll be asking her to sign one of the Early Day Motions on the issue and to raise our objections with the DCSF relevant ministers, but it seems from its replies that the DCSF is sticking to its guns, unsurprisingly, and blithely ignoring the crucial points people are tirelessly making to them. As an elected dictatorship would.

However they are, we assume, being replaced by the Conservatives within the next 10 months or so and their position is encouraging. Home educators, contrary to popular belief, tend to be traditional Labour voters, but Badman and Balls have put paid to that now. Come to think of it that's a bit of a blow for Labour, if there really are 80,000 home educating children and each one of those has a few caring - and voting - adult friends and relations.

There has been some talk on the lists about the majority of home educating families who are usually politically inactive. It's suspected that many of them don't know anything about the Badman report [opens pdf], despite talk of it on local groups and forums. But if our local area is anything to go by, awareness is definitely growing and people are shocked and frightened about the planned changes because of the negative impact they'll have on their children's lives. They're asking: where can we look online to find out what's happening? I've been giving directions to Carlotta's blog: she provides a great running commentary, amongst many other things.

Personally I want to keep concentrating on analysis and research as much as possible. I've got a list of material to cover here, when I've finished nursing sick children, recovering myself and meeting a 'proper job' deadline - and I do intend to make mention of Badman in that.