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 10

Three of us went to meet with our MP yesterday: we're in the process of compiling and agreeing an accurate report of the meeting before we can post it here and elsewhere. I think some good ideas and plans came out of it, but am looking forward to receiving wider feedback on what was said.

Meanwhile, back to scrutinising the Badman report [opens pdf]. We've nearly finished now! Not much further to go...

Section 10 is about:

Issues Out of Scope of this Inquiry and the need for further research.

10.1 is the infamous:

Inevitably during the course of an inquiry, matters arise that require answers, yet either no answer is easily forthcoming, or in searching for it, one becomes aware that the evidence does not exist. In particular I am concerned by two issues. First, what constitutes ‘autonomous’ learning. Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes thought the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential. Case law offers some insight:

“...in our judgment “education” demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, childminding.”

- about which I commented on the day of the report's publication.

Also, I remember reading since then that Badman's attribution of this quote to the Harrison and Harrison v Stevenson case of 1982 is incorrect, and that he very selectively quoted from the summing up of the actual case (Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust, 1985?) I'd appreciate a link to the full summing up of both of those cases, if anyone has one, because I seem to think that in its entirety, it is not unsupportive of autonomous learning.

In fact, I agree that "'education' demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, childminding." Such a course does not describe the kind of autonomous home education provision that I practice and have seen in other families. Quite the contrary: parents and other facilitators are lovingly attentive and key decisions affecting the children are thought through with due gravitas.

So the small sample of case law provided by Mr Badman actually offers no insight into autonomous learning, which is a shocking result of all of the combined efforts of home educators and other experts to educate him on the subject. He has obviously had to work quite hard to find something that might call the method into question whilst being determined to quote nothing that might shine a more favourable light on the issue - surely a sign of insecurity on his part.

And of course, as I said on June 11th, the recommendations in the report - particularly the first - would render the practice of autonomous learning in home education all but impossible, so further research into its efficacy would be pointless. We either hold back on the first recommendation (better still: ditch it completely) and run research into autonomous learning in due course if so desired, or we enact that first recommendation and say goodbye to autonomy in education in England. Trying to do both will not be viable.

10.2 My second issue in part relates to the first. I am not convinced by the existing research studies on the outcomes for home educated children both in this country and elsewhere. Although some (but not all) studies have found that home educated children outperform schooled children on a range of indicators, the results may be attributable to parental characteristics (e.g. better educated parents with higher incomes). Some of the studies were also based on small samples and therefore the ability to generalise is limited. Some were based on self selecting, and therefore biased, samples. The diverse characteristics of home educated children make it difficult to generalise about their academic performance.

But how many of us actually educate our children with only their academic performance in mind? I don't think anyone would make the argument that we home educate to enhance performance: we're raising our beloved children, not training athletes for the Olymics. Personally, if forced to make a choice I'd rather my children be mentally healthy than academically successful. In the event, they're both, but the national measures of success (public tests and examinations) mean very little to us here. Perhaps the worry of this attitude becoming prevalent is what's worrying the government, though it seems unlikely.

10.3 Furthermore, little is known about the collective outcomes for home educated children in terms of their qualifications and employment. Evidence offered to this inquiry on the proportion of home educated young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) was inconclusive. Again I believe further research is necessary that seeks information on progression to further and higher education and employment.

And again, let's do the research, then start talking about changing the status quo, if it's necessary to do so. I bet the vast majority of electively home educated adults are in paid employment. This whole report constantly seeks to put the cart before the horse!

10.4 I suspect that should the recommendations in this report be accepted, these matters will demand and receive further attention.

Has he thought this through? Because it makes no sense.

Ohh, Mr Badman. Get back to your ladder!

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.

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 8

Part 8 of the Badman report [opens pdf] is about safeguarding, according to its title. I will reserve my judgment as to whether that is really what it's about.

I've just read the whole section through again and my overall feeling, as a conscientious and (if Tom's business is anything to go by) successful home educator, is that I am under attack. I'll take it point by point, but there is throughout absolutely no sign of any intrinsic trust in parents' abilities to know or do or decide anything regarding their children. Everything must be checked and tested and measured. Nothing must be taken at face value. Everyone must be assumed to be a liar until what they say can be proved true beyond reasonable doubt. Parental judgment is ignored, or automatically treated as suspect.

The result of all of this lack of trust will be to undermine every parent's confidence in themselves and their relationships with their children. Of course children will subconsciously detect this lack of confidence and reflect it back to their parents. The damage to normal, previously healthy and contented family life will be immense. This unavoidable outcome is so blindingly obvious that we have to assume it's deliberate. It is a huge attack by the government on the family. If you want some ideas as to why it might be in our government's interest to do this, you need to look no further than this essay from Harding University, Arkansas: Strong Family,Weak Economy? Family Loyalty as an Impediment to Economic Development [opens pdf], which in its conclusion quotes in turn from Francis Fukuyama's Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (added to my reading list today!):

. . . the impact of family values on economic life poses a complex and contradictory picture: it is possible for families in some societies to be too strong to permit the formation of modern economic organizations, while on others they can be too weak to perform their basic task of socialization.

The trouble is that our present government shamelessly indulges its fear of strong families, to the extent that they are quite definitely rendered 'too weak to perform their basic task of socialization' and continues to do so, despite mounting evidence of dangerous counter indications against which it insulates itself and decrees that the rest of us must bear 'for the greater good'. (I also wrote about 'State vs Family' in this post back in 2007.)

So. To the report [opens pdf].

8.1 Of all the matters considered during the course of this inquiry the question of safeguarding electively home educated children has prompted the most vociferous response. 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.

Quite. And yet these points are not further addressed in the report. Instead, they're completely ignored.



More, in my opinion, could and should have been said in the report about the first two sentences there. The 'two fundamental questions' posed would go nowhere near addressing the issues raised therein even if they were answered satisfactorily, which they are not.

Point 8.3:

8.3 It would be wrong to assume that home educators do not take the question of child safety, their own and others, very seriously. Some home educators who contributed to this review argued for periodic spot checks by authorities. The view was also expressed that attendance at school was no guarantee of a child’s safety, as other tragic cases have indicated.

gives rise to point 8.4:

8.4 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. Furthermore the 2004 Children Act, with its emphasis upon five outcomes for children including their safety not just their achievement, places new responsibilities upon schools to work with other agencies in a preventative way.

- and there we have it:

"..attendance at school brings other eyes to bear, and does provide opportunity for the child to disclose to a trusted adult," - implying, of course, that home education does neither of those things. Parents, other relatives, neighbours, people who the children does not see in a professional context, are not 'trusted adults'. Home education does not 'bring other eyes to bear'. But this implication is a blatant lie because most children do trust their parents, having no reason not to. And most home education brings many other 'eyes to bear'. The policy that determines how we are dealt with by the state is to be changed, then, on the basis of completely false assumptions.

And the 2004 Children Act may well 'with its emphasis upon five outcomes for children including their safety not just their achievement, [place] new responsibilities upon schools to work with other agencies in a preventative way,' but this should have nothing to do with people who decline the option of school.

The next point is breathtakingly arrogant and stupendously illogical:

8.5 Some home educators have access to support and guidance from their organisations on recognising and dealing with child protection and many in conversation stressed to me the importance of their informal networks and knowledge of their own community. I am not persuaded that, although laudable, this is sufficient. Apart from which, on the basis of local authority responses to my questionnaire, there are many children likely to be unknown to the authorities or engaged in such networks. The process of registration recommended earlier should address this issue.

"I am not persuaded that, although laudable, this is sufficient," is the kind of phrase that brings out the John Cleese in me. Not sufficient?? To what lengths, then, are we supposed to go to demonstrate that we're not abusing our children? A daily parade before the Local Safeguarding Children Board? Come on, children, have you finished your breakfast? Hurry up, we're 56th in line for today's parade. Stand by your beds! Shine your shoes! Quick... march!

It's ridiculous. Surely, the reasonable measure of any blanket safeguarding procedure should be: to what extent does it impact on normal family life? - which should then be balanced against the statistical basis of abuse - which, as the NSPCC itself admitted, does not exist.

And yet here they are again, the NSPCC, in the very next point (8.6):

..there is nothing in the current guidance or framework that would prevent children from being abused by people who may claim to be home educators.

Well, duh. There is nothing in any future guidance or framework, no matter how draconian, that would prevent children from being abused by people who may claim to be home educators, short of banning home education. But for that to work, you'd have to ban schooling too. And parenting. And children, which would put the NSPCC out of business once and for all, at least.

And I just want to highlight, from point 8.8 that NASWE says:

EHE is not in itself a safeguarding issue.. ()

If it's not (and they're right, it's not) then any changes to government policy can't be made on the assumption that it is!

And why, in 8.9, was it necessary to use the words:

irrespective of the number of cases [?]

Answer: because there are hardly any cases!

From the same point, in the words of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector:

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.

How many cases? Two? Three? And how exactly did the "lack of oversight" contribute to the incidents? And is it fair that because of them our children, our homes, our whole lives are to come under regular official inspection? I don't think so. I think the safeguarding issue is an excuse to clamp down on us and force us to comply with their agenda [opens ECM pdf].

She goes further:

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.

But... parents have an important responsibility to monitor children’s safety and welfare, so this safety net is not missing for children educated at home, is it? I can't understand why the responsibility of parents is ignored in favour of that of schools. It makes no sense.

Point 8.10 reports Ofsted as saying:

Some authorities expressed the view that securing adequate safeguarding would be easier if they had a clear right of access to family homes in the course of monitoring the suitability of home education.

Yes, and no doubt it would be even easier to 'secure adequate safeguarding' (whatever that really means) if we all lived under 24hr CCTV surveillance in our homes, but would that be reasonable? There's no attempt to balance the supposed need for home inspections and 1:1 interviews with children with the effect these will have on the children themselves, their education, their wellbeing, their feeling of safety and on their family life.

Here's another nonsensical sentence from Ofsted:

Children who are educated at home but are not known to the local authority may be more likely to be at risk.

At risk of what, and why? There's no justification given and no further explanation.

Next, those two questions are finally revisited:

8.12 To return to the two questions posed earlier. First, on the basis of local authority evidence and case studies presented, even acknowledging the variation between authorities, the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population. Secondly, despite the small number of serious case reviews where home education was a feature, the consideration of these reviews and the data outlined above, suggests that those engaged in the support and monitoring of home education should be alert to the potential additional risk to children. So saying is not to suggest that there is a causal or determining relationship, but simply an indication of the need for appropriately trained and knowledgeable personnel.

"..the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population." [My emphasis, this time.] So what about the other local authorities? Is it disproportionately low in those? And if so, wouldn't the two cancel one another out, statistically? And there's another explanation for this which isn't mentioned in the report: some local authorities refer all home educating children known to them to children’s social care as a matter of course, or even just the ones whose parents utilise their right to decline the 'offer' of a home visit. There doesn't necessarily have to be a child protection issue for a child to be known to a children’s social care department.

This is likely to be very problematic to us:



- particularly the part that says:

anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education.

Because if it's not clearly defined then it really could be anything, subject to the opinion of the official in question, however prejudiced he or she may be. Here's a list of possibilities, by no means exhaustive:

• Single parent family
• Special Educational Needs
• No working wage coming into house
• One or both parents working, therefore not sufficiently available to home educate
• Something deemed inappropriate about the house
• Use of alternative medicine
• Lack of vaccinations
• A disagreement about educational philosophy between the LA and the parent

... and so on.

The next one hammers the nail in:



- And have you seen the NICE draft guidance for 'When to suspect child maltreatment'? "Inappropriate, or too small clothing." "Parents or carers fail to administer essential prescribed medication for their child." "Excessive clinginess." "Child fails to seek or accept appropriate comfort or affection from an appropriate person when significantly distressed." "Anger or frustration expressed as, for example, temper tantrum in a school-aged child or frequently flying into a rage at the least provocation." "Inconsolable crying." "Child adopting a care-taking role for parents or siblings." "A very young child showing excessive comforting behaviours when witnessing parental distress." "Extreme passivity, resistance or refusal." And so on.

What this will mean in practice is that if an official feels like revoking registration and thereby ordering a child into school for whatever reason, he can. The home education community will be decimated, arbitrarily.

Yes, it's an attack. So how can we defend ourselves against it?

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 7

Part 7 of the Badman report [opens pdf] is about Special Educational Needs and, although my older son Tom was diagnosed, aged about 9, with severe dyslexia, he's managed to overcome his problems since being deregistered from school soon afterwards so successfully that I've never really thought of myself as being the parent of any children with SEN. If they'd been in school, I'd probably have been seeking diagnoses of dyslexia and Asperger's for two of my other children respectively, but their issues are so relatively mild, and home education so easily adaptable, that I find there's no need for official diagnoses now.

So I've never been on the home education special needs list, or - beyond reading some excellent posts in more general groups and on blogs - had any specific knowledge about how families who deal with more problematic cases fare, though that's not actually 100% true: I've helped to support some local home educating families with serious SEN over the years, and noticed that they do tend to be unfairly treated by local authorities, compared to other home educators.

This is my position on starting to look at section 7 of the report.

7.1 .. Many parents whose children have needs as diverse as dyslexia and autism, withdrew their child often in despair that their needs were not being adequately met in school. In such instances, it is often a case of ‘home education by default’ rather than ‘elective home education’

This describes our situation back in 1998 quite well although it turned out to be such a good - albeit forced - decision, that we're definitely elective home educators now. I suspect this is quite a common process: once the shackles of school are shaken off for whatever reason, families find they could never contemplate a return and subsequent children are then electively home educated throughout.

7.2 ... Many point to the need for greater sensitivity in intervention, indeed some are fearful that the act of monitoring would in itself be damaging to the child.

I sympathise with this position, and think it probably also holds true for many children without SEN. I'd like to see some research on the issue, and would have thought that any serious educationalist would have given it more consideration in such a crucial report.

Recommendations 17 and 18, arising from points 7.4 and 7.5:



therefore give rise to particular concern.

Actually, they're quite shocking aren't they? He goes straight from paying lip service to the idea that monitoring might be damaging to SEN children, to therefore recommending a whole lot more of it, without even bothering to include any linking attempts at justification in between! Badman the sadist, or just carelessness? Either one is pretty, well.. bad, isn't it?

Recommendation 19:

That the statutory review of statements of SEN in accord with Recommendation 18 above be considered as fulfilling the function of mandatory annual review of elective home education recommended previously.

really ought to go without saying and the fact that he feels the need to spell it out like that tells us that he really does know how pedantic and unforgiving some local authority officers can be. And yet he's still keen to hand them so much power over our children's lives.

The 20th:

When a child or young person without a statement of special educational needs has been in receipt of School Action Plus support, local authorities and other agencies should give due consideration to whether that support should continue once the child is educated at home – irrespective of whether or not such consideration requires a new commissioning of service.

- might be welcome to some parents of children with SEN, I don't know.

Section 7.6 is prompting me to read the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and Disability Information [opens pdf], which straight away sums up the position I felt to be in 12 years ago with Tom's school when it says:

As the system stands it often creates ‘warrior parents’ at odds with the school and feeling they have to fight for what should be their children’s by right; conflict in place of trust.

They really don't need us to tell them why we don't want to use their schools, do they?

In the same inquiry, comments made regarding better and more communication with parents could equally well be applied to the expectation parents should have of local authorities when they elect to home educate,

- says Mr Badman in his point 7.6, though the idea of parents having any expectations of local authorities when they elect to home educate is a strange one to me.

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 6

I've just read the latest post on Renegade Parent, in which Lisa highlights a long but crucial comment by Colleen on one of her previous posts, which I'd missed. I think many of us have heard, or read, or know of similar accounts and situations of social workers coming to assess a situation and taking over, assuming the parent to be weak and unprotected/unconnected. In most - if not all - of the cases of which I'm personally aware, there was absolutely no real cause for concern and the initial referral was usually made by either vindictive or well meaning but paranoid relatives or neighbours. People who think it's wrong that a child's preference to not have her hair/teeth brushed three times a day should be taken seriously. People who think all children should be in school between 9am and 3pm, in the bath by 6pm and in bed by eight. People who think children should never fall, never accidentally tear their clothes while playing and never shout or cry. People who think that if a child can't read, write and manipulate numbers in the conventional sense by the age of six, her education is being neglected. People who think that children (and their parents, if needs be) must be made to conform with society's norms and expectations. People who don't value happiness or freedom and who probably don't know the meanings of those words and if they did, would treat them with suspicion and resentment.

These people do exist in their millions but so do the other kind, thankfully: the ones who would see a child running for a hug or being carried home in the evening by a loving parent, and just know everything was ok. Most of us, I think, instinctively know when a child is ok and when it really intrinsically isn't. Of all the thousands of children I've come across throughout my life, though some undoubtedly had problems at some time or other - who doesn't? - I never met one who I thought should be forcibly removed from his parents. Perhaps I've been lucky in the people I've known, but I think that kind of extreme abuse/neglect is extremely rare.

But I'm not supposed to be writing about that or, as I'd like to go on, in awe of Colleen and the incredible strength and wisdom she found to deal with that which confronted her. I'm supposed, though I'm growing very weary of it now, to be working through the Badman report [opens pdf]. So here we are, at part 6:



The end of point 6.3 contains yet another of Mr Badman's now famous convoluted sentences, including one of his 16(?) uses of the term "I believe":

But because of the importance to local authorities of knowing the number of children and young people within the elective home education cohort, to assist in their commissioning of school places and to their understanding of why children were withdrawn from school, I believe it is important to report such information to the Children’s Trust, together with data concerning their use of current statutory orders, whether to supervise education or direct attendance at school.

So we're to be registered in order to help local authorities commission school places and to help them to understand why we don't want to use the schools? For real? As reasons for unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into our lives, they don't stack up to much, do they? In my day when a school had too many children it hired an extra teacher and craned another prefabricated classroom into the playground. Too few and it laid a teacher off and maybe left a classroom empty or used it for something else, the spare space always being appreciated. It did not start interrogating innocent members of the local community.

And why does anyone need to know why we don't want to use the schools? We just prefer not to delegate our parenting and our children prefer not to attend, end of story. It's not complicated or difficult to work out or understand. It doesn't require an army of academics to write treatises on the subject, or for headteachers and officials to wring their hands in anguish. Some families like to use the schools and some don't. Knowing all about who we are and where we are and exactly what we're doing every minute of the day won't change that. They should take, as my teenagers would doubtless advise, a chill pill.

Point 6.4 betrays more of the same kind of anxiety:

6.4 While home education may sometimes be considered to be a better option for some children than mainstream education, parents should never be placed under pressure by schools to remove their children from school under threat of permanent exclusion or prosecution. I have heard evidence to this effect. The first priority of schools should always be to discuss with parents what support can be provided to keep their child in school and to ensure they behave well and attend regularly.

I have heard evidence to that effect too: in fact, it kind of happened in my family when the local school ran out of tactics to enforce my younger son's [Yes, it's his birthday again. 19 today!] compliance with its regime and turned to me in desperation, asking why I didn't home educate him also, since his brother was already at home? The answer was because he wanted to stay and try to win the power struggle, that he hates giving up or giving in and that he was inclined to view the idea of deregistration as a kind of defeat, even at the age of nine. I had some sympathy, in fact, for the school in that situation because its options for creativity and flexibility were so limited by government edicts. Anyway, the threat was implicit in their question: if we didn't deregister Ali would have to be suspended or expelled. We deregistered, and lived happily ever after.

Deregistration, for whatever reason, is often the saving of a child and her family. The pressure is off. There is time to work out what's really going on, and what the child really needs. Mr Badman unconsciously says it all in his: "ensure they behave well and attend regularly." Finding ways of enforcing compliance with the system should never be the main priority in times of such difficulties, otherwise all the talk of children's rights and children's needs is exposed as being nothing but lies. Mr Badman puts the needs of the system above the needs of the child here - indeed, to the expense of them. In so doing he gives away his real motive.

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 5

Part 5 of the Badman report [opens pdf] is about



Its first paragraph:

5.1 As outlined in the previous section, local authorities were much criticised by home educators in their responses to this review, for their perceived lack of understanding of the various methodologies and approaches within home education and their manner of engagement with the parent and/or child. On the other hand, local authorities often expressed considerable anxiety for the wellbeing and progress of some children and the failure of some parents to respond to what they regarded were quite legitimate requests for information about the suitability of education. They have expressed in response to questionnaire and in interview their dissatisfaction with the current legislative position and guidance, which many find unworkable. In particular, the absence of a more precise definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education militates against benchmarked attainment and being denied access to the place of education, and the opportunity to speak with the child, prevents them from fulfilling their current statutory duties referred to previously.

contains 158 words, 45 of which relate to responses from home educators, on whom the review is supposed to be based, and the remaining 113 words are devoted to the sentiments and concerns of local authorities. This is a ratio of 2½ to 1, which I think just about sums up the balance of the report as a whole. Extremely biased against us - almost laughably so.

He goes on unsurprisingly in point 5.2:

I have been greatly impressed in my visits and conversations with local authorities..

and sets out some instances of what he calls good practice - including Stafford, of all boroughs!

Point 5.4, containing recommendation 7 is one that causes home educators and their children the most consternation:



Indeed, there are so many problems with it that it's quite a task to think about listing them all. But list them we must:

1. Why should 'designated officers have the right of access to our homes', when we have committed no crime? Why should our private, personal, intimate retreats (and, more crucially, those of our children) be subjected to arbitrary invasion by strangers under threat of (we hear) forced removal of said children to full-time school attendance at best, or into the 'care' system at worst? What has this country come to?
2. The family home should be - always was - sacrosanct. For children, it has to feel like a safe place, but its routine inspection by local authority officials will feel like violation, not safeguarding. Yes, some children do live in fundamentally unsafe environments in which case families might benefit from help and support, but traditionally this business was firmly within the realm of social workers, who are trained and experienced in the delicate management of such issues.
3. Elective home education is not, on its own, sufficient reason to suspect child abuse or an unsafe home environment and it's a blatant lie to suggest it is.
4. To allow 'designated officers' the right of access to people's homes without good reason is to set a dangerous precedent, with implications for all families, home educating or not.
5. Allowing 'designated officers' the right to speak with each home educated child alone is another high risk manoeuvre, from the point of view of home educators. What if the 'designated officer' in question has secret motives, other than the ones stated? What if he upsets, or frightens the child, asks leading questions or misinterprets the child's answers? There are no guarantees that this will never happen, and for the government to allow such a right is a clearer statement than ever before that it has more trust in local authority officers - essentially strangers to a child - than it does in children's own parents.
6. "In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well." Actually, not. They'll be able to satisfy themselves that on that occasion the child appears to be safe and well. Again, there are no guarantees that any children will be safe and well all the time, whoever is taking care of them. I think most of us would therefore contend that these proposals aren't really about the safety and wellbeing of children, but about the blatant invasion of government into private family life.
7. "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," is such an obscurely-phrased suggestion that it certainly warrants closer inspection. My first thought on reading it was "Allow the child? Why would I ever prevent her from doing something she wanted to do?" Then on the second reading, I was struck by the incongruity of the words required to allow. Because surely, to allow something is to have the power to deny it - otherwise the whole concept of allowing is a nonsense. And then of course, the outrage. Our children are not performing monkeys. This proposal is for nothing less than testing to take place, the avoidance of such stress for our children being a key reason for many of us to elect to home educate!
8. Again, the word 'allow' signifies some sort of choice in the matter for the child, otherwise a different word would have been used, like 'compel'. So, if the child has the option to refuse, what would be the consequences of such refusal? This is something the child would need to know before he could make an informed choice and of course, if the alternative to agreeing to perform such a demonstration was a school or care order, then it wasn't really a choice at all and would therefore be a fundamentally dishonest procedure.

After all of that, this is a joke, surely..?

Such new powers will still depend upon, and be more effective, where there are good relationships and mutual trust, respect and open communication between the home educating family and the local authority.

.. when the relationship is to be made akin to that between the East Germans and their Stasi? The degree of Doublespeak is astounding.

And then of course, in point 5.8 and recommendation 12, we have the oft-predicted ICT/Becta factor:



So in due course, one can't help wondering, are we all going to be made to run only Becta-approved software in our homes, on Becta-approved machines? You might think this an unduly paranoid or cynical fear, but seen in the context of the rest of the document, I don't think it is.

Stress testing the Badman report: looking for weak points: Part 4

This series is turning out to be longer than I realised. The more I look, the more weak points I see in this report [opens pdf]. I think I'll rename the posts when I've finished for referencing purposes, so that each one shows which part it's about.

Continuing from yesterday then:

Well, for a report that

believe[s] it is important to try to capture the views of the many home educators who contributed to this review

- according to section 4.1, it spectacularly fails in that respect, doesn't it?

4.2 is vague beyond belief, saying nothing about number, detail or proportion:

4.2 In the main, home educators in their responses through questionnaire, email, letter and interview were fiercely defensive of their rights and actions. There were some who welcomed the visits of local authority officers and the support offered through drop-in centres, resources and materials and some argued for more regularised monitoring and intervention. However, there were those who wanted nothing from the local authority nor any contact with it.

And in 4.3, he deliberately chooses one quote from a response that seems designed to set public opinion even further against us.



And section 4.4 talks patronisingly about:

a heady mixture of pent up rage, frustration, resentment and a rejection of third party judgement.

Badman the psychoanalyst, hey? Still, it figures...

The point goes on to muse:

In seeking to understand such responses it is important to examine the reasons why elective home education was chosen by parents in the first place.

- and quotes from 'a study commissioned by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in 2007' which basically says reasons vary, but which Mr Badman interprets as placing..

further emphasis on parents disillusionment with schools and their inability to meet their child’s needs as they saw them.

In section 4.5, he adds the finishing flourishes to his picture of us as being a bunch of manically egotistical oddballs:

4.5 My own conversations with individuals and groups of home educating parents would confirm the above with the addition of a significant number who chose this route for ideological and philosophical reasons or simply because they believe they “can do it better”.

Failing to mention the vast majority of us who actually just want to - I don't know - parent our children (strange as that may seem) instead of delegating this to a school to do every day.

4.6 Whatever the reasons, I believe it is important for local authorities both to analyse and consider why an increasing number of parents are choosing elective home education both for the betterment of children services as a whole and the monitoring and support of electively home educated children.

This makes me think that it's the increasing numbers of elective home educators that are worrying to the powers-that-be. In fact, I believe someone's MP has said as much in an email response. We are starting to be seen as a threat to the system: an escape route that must be stopped. I think that's what this is about, and really nothing to do with concerns about children's safety or quality of education.

Points 4.7 and 4.8 go on to give a disproportionate amount of space to the submissions of various associations and bodies including one from the Church of England, about which Mieke has expertly blogged here. She highlights it as yet another example of selective quoting from the report, because actually the full Church of England submission later states that it is:

not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education.

A crucial and highly suspect omission, I think.

But it's a most curious thing that, having dismissed out of hand the detail of what most of us have said in response to his review-based questions, Mr Badman then, in point 4.9, attaches 'significance' to our collective complaints about EO's bombshell:

’Education Otherwise’, a home education group, in a detailed set of proposals, listed recommendations they would wish to see as a consequence of the review. However, this evidence apart, what I believe to be of significance was that the immediate response of many other home educators was to disown any such series of proposals and distance themselves from the arguments put forward.

So our many emails etc. did have some effect and were being read - they were just largely ignored when they didn't fit with the recommendations he wanted to make in this report.

I can't see the point of the 'representative body' he recommends after point 4.10, if his key recommendations about conditional temporary registration are enacted. Local authorities will have all the power and any pretence of sharing this with home educators will be just that: pretence.