|
Today's top 10 posters
Per Ipsum: Daily Readings
Rosary Apostolate
Frappr Map
Daily Trivia Quiz
Ignis Ardens Blog
 These Plans are Deeply Sinister
| Pilgrimage of Grace |
|
Poor Old Grumpy
Group: Members
Posts: 6054
Member No.: 93
Joined: 26-January 07
|
Torygraphhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...us-to-say.html#By Philip Johnston
19th October, 2009If home-schooling is good for our children it is for us to say Government plans to regulate home-schooling must be rebuffed, says Philip Johnston | QUOTE | I attended a talk the other day given by a police chief under what are called Chatham House rules, which means I cannot identify him but can provide a flavour of what he said. He was candid about the difficulties he and his force faces. They are caused less by criminals than they are by the Government. Rules, inspections, targets, benchmarks, forms – all the things that ministers deny are suffocating public services in this country he confirmed were making the lives of his officers a misery. Last week, Sir Terry Leahy, the boss of Tesco, made a similar point: the regulatory constraints placed upon teachers are damaging the education of our children.
The next day, a report said the same was happening in the NHS, where targets and a one-size-fits-all, Whitehall-imposed strategic approach to patient care was causing more harm than good. On Friday, a study of primary schools suggested that testing and inspection regimes were dragging down standards of reading and spelling.
How much more evidence does the Government need before the penny drops: that excessive interference from the centre is causing irreparable damage to our society? The Left, of course, would disagree; they believe in the efficacy of a benign state – and there are, of course, many things that government has to do. But taking control of our lives should not be one of them, though it has long been a Left‑wing objective.
In his book The Socialist Case, first published in 1937, Douglas Jay coined a now notorious observation that was once taken as gospel: "In the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves."
Although Jay often protested that he did not believe that civil servants know best, his phrase nevertheless captured an attitude of mind that the political Left has never shaken off; indeed, now that they can no longer run large chunks of industry, the alternative of taking control of our lives appeals to them more now than ever.
Yet anyone who wishes to opt out of this madness finds it almost impossible to do so. We are about to see the next stage in the onward march of the clipboard state into every aspect of our lives.
Today, the consultation period ends on government plans to impose new restrictions on the thousands of parents who educate their children at home. It is a consultation in name only, because the Government has already decided what it wants to do. Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, has accepted the recommendations of a review carried out by a former council chief called Graham Badman.
He concluded that since parents are clearly not to be trusted with the education of their children, they will have to register with the local authority, be subjected to inspection visits by Ofsted and submit a statement of how they intend to educate their child.
Let us remember that many of these parents have taken their children out of school to escape the damaging impact of precisely this sort of bureaucratic meddling, which has destroyed their faith in the ability of the state system to deliver a high-quality education.
Now it is to be foisted upon them in their own homes. Just as adults wishing to volunteer to help children in a range of activities are to have their suitability to do so decided by a state agency, parents themselves will soon need to satisfy a government functionary that they know how to bring up their own children.
These plans are deeply sinister. For the first time, local councils will have the power to enter family homes and question young children without the presence of their parents – something even the police are not allowed to do unless the parent is the suspect.
Even though the consultation ends today, the Government has made clear it intends to proceed to implement the plans under the now-familiar Orwellian maxim that brooks no criticism: Every Child Matters.
Yes, every child does matter; but they are not the state's children, even if it has an interest in their upbringing and education, and must properly keep a wary eye on possible abuse (though this used to be done even more usefully by other adults).
There is no evidence that children educated at home are more likely to be assaulted or left feeling isolated or lacking in confidence; quite the opposite, in many cases. Most children who are home-schooled are better taught and have a wider education than those in the classroom subject to the dead hand of the regime that has let down so many pupils and left so many teachers demoralised. When the state system has failed, why would anyone try to replicate it? In any case, many home-educated children do go to a conventional school at some point, usually at 16. But the point is that it should be for families to decide, not some local authority bureaucrat.
The idea that a compulsory registration scheme and all the other busybody paraphernalia that has caused such damage elsewhere in the public sector should now be visited upon people in their own homes is a step too far. The pied pipers of Whitehall are after our children and must be resisted. |
|
|
|
| Clare |
|
Mother Flump
Group: Admin
Posts: 13166
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-March 06
|
The Guardian, of all places: | QUOTE | Ridiculous rules for home schools
My six-year-old daughter is educated by me, at home. Are we about to become the state's latest scapegoats?
Annabel Wynne guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 November 2009 14.00 GMT
Today, I received a copy of a letter that my local MP sent to the education secretary, Ed Balls. This letter was prompted by my concerns about the Badman report, a review into home-education which was submitted in June and immediately accepted by Balls. The government may implement these recommendations by including them in the Queen's speech on 18 November.
My six-year-old daughter is educated by me, at home. I am not a home-education evangelist and neither do I have any problem with the concept of school, but I do know that home education works for us. Badman's recommendations would change what home education means to us – a positive and successful part of our family life – into an ongoing battle with the state. It would be compulsory for me to register with the local authority and a criminal offence for me not to. I would also have to apply to my local authority for approval which may, or may not, be granted. Even if granted, I would have to go through this process on an annual basis and, at any point the LEA could refuse my application and force my child into school. In terms of fostering an educational environment which feels secure for the child, it is hard to think how the government could be less helpful.
My greatest concern about Badman, though, is his suggestion throughout the report that being at home rather than with "professionals" means that the child is at a "greater risk of harm". He claims that home education is the perfect cover for child abuse, but provides no evidence to support this claim. The education officers who liaise with home-educators are trained teachers, not social workers, and so are not trained in the highly specialised field of child abuse. Under the new regulations though, they would have the legal right to enter my home and interview my child alone in a room to "check" for signs of abuse, not because of any good reason to suspect abuse is taking place, but simply because I have chosen to home educate. Will education officers also be going into schools and taking each child into a room by themselves to "check for signs of abuse"? No, because what the report implies is that if you send your child to a school, you are less likely to be a child abuser.
This report is a solution without a problem. As with so much legislation that the government has managed to get through parliament under the emotive banner of "child welfare", this proposed legislation peddles the idea that children can only be dealt with by professionals. More and more parents are choosing to home educate because the school system fails their children. There is widespread complaint among parents that children are tested too young and too often, teaching them only to pass tests so that civil servants can compile ultimately meaningless statistics. Only a fortnight ago a report was published by Robin Alexander and his team at Cambridge University which found that the primary school curriculum is too narrow and involves too much testing. Rather than taking on the challenge of addressing existing problems in a failing system run by overworked and pressured staff, Ed Balls is making a scapegoat of those who have chosen to work outside of that system, and blame them for noticing the government's educational failings. Of course, we all know that bad parents exist. But typically, the state tends to make the worst parent of all, and I don't need its kinds of lessons.
|
--------------------
S.A.G.“If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” - G.K. ChestertonAdd yourself to our Play the
Daily Trivia Quiz
|
|
|
| Clare |
|
Mother Flump
Group: Admin
Posts: 13166
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-March 06
|
| QUOTE | The Badman Review of Home Education: Policy-Based Evidence Making
Government Plans for Home Education
The Government has announced that the law on home education will be changed via the Safeguarding Bill to be announced in the Queen's Speech on November 18th. Government proposals to introduce a compulsory licensing scheme for home educators were put to a public consultation which closed on October 19 with over 5,000 responses.
Education Otherwise response to the Government consultation
The EO response to the Government consultation may be found here.
The Government justifies intervention on the basis that there is something wrong with home education and with home educators
In order to justify new legislation with respect to a compulsory licensing scheme and mandatory access to the child alone in the family home, Graham Badman and the Department of Children Schools and Families have made 3 attempts to collect evidence against home educators.
Following each onslaught, home educators are able to deconstruct the data and to demonstrate the lack of solid reliable evidence. However, the damage has already been done because the general reader is left with a blur of media headlines which give the impression that home educators are twice as likely to be defective.
Graham Badman has consistently dismissed home educators' repudiation of his Report as "a vociferous minority". It is possible that the Department will continue to maintain this view even after receiving 5,000+ consultation responses.
The Department actively shapes media perceptions whereby Graham Badman tends to be reported as having "proved" or "discovered" something about which home educators are "angry."
Graham Badman's three questionnaires
At the beginning of the year the Department for Children Schools and Families asked Graham Badman, a former Director of Children's Services in Kent, to investigate whether home education was being used as a cover for forced marriage. Home educators were able to demonstrate through exhaustive research that there was no link between forced marriage and home education.
The Badman Report was published in June 2009. The author acknowledged in passing that he had found no link between home education and forced marriage. Instead, Graham Badman said we should be concerned that home educated children were more likely to be known to social services and also that home education was a factor in a minority of Serious Case Reviews.
Home educators were taken aback by the new risk factors being put forward by Graham Badman during the press conference since these were not topics or areas covered by the Review questionnaire.
We then discovered the existence of a second hidden supplementary questionnaire which did not form part of the original Badman Review and was not published with the Badman Report.
Home educators set to work to unpack the statements being made against them, pointing to the many reasons why home educators might be known to social services including being in need of services, malicious referrals particularly by schools or neighbours, or simply by virtue of practising home education.
Moving the goalposts
It is all too easy to lose the plot in sifting through a mass of information, trying to understand the basis for Graham Badman's varied assertions about home educators, being only too well aware that the goalposts are probably being dug up and moved at this very moment.
In the month following publication of the Badman Report, the Select Committee for Children and Families launched an enquiry into the conduct of the Badman Review, prompting Graham Badman and the DCSF to make a third urgent call for evidence to back up the findings of the Review and to justify Government intervention in home education. The Department then sent a third set of questions to local authorities.
The present law is entirely sufficient but is inadequately understood and poorly implemented
As stated here and elsewhere, Education Otherwise's position is that the present law is entirely sufficient but is inadequately understood and badly implemented. We have also recommended that the 2007 Government Guidelines on Home Education be put on a statutory footing.
A link to the Government Guidelines may be found here.
Oral evidence to the Select Committee: NEETs and Prevalence of Child Protection Plans
A few days before the Select Committee hearing, Graham Badman returned to the fray and announced that home educators were more likely to be NEETs, Not in Employment Education or Training and that home educated children were disproportionately represented amongst those children with a Child Protection Plan.
There are a number of points to understand about the NEETs statistics. Firstly, Graham Badman asked for information from Connexions, who are perhaps the very last people likely to know about outcomes and destinations for home educated young people.
The problem with Connexions
Connexions does not routinely speak to home educating families and many home educators refuse to deal or to continue to deal with Connexions because of concerns about data protection and confidentiality. In addition families who do have contact with Connexions receive a very mixed service because Connexions staff are not trained in home education policy and practice and do not understand alternative pathways to further and higher education.
Secondly, it is not understood that home education is full time education. If a young person in home education is 16 years old on or after September 1st and is not in college, is not in employment and is not studying for formal qualifications (all of which are the case with the present writer's son) then this young person is still in full time efficient education suitable to age ability aptitude and special needs.
Education is not and could not be defined differently beyond the present compulsory education age and thanks to the sustained efforts of home educators education will not be defined differently pre and post 16 when the participation age is raised.
Home educators challenged Graham Badman about Connexions in April
As far back as April, Graham Badman presented anecdotal evidence about NEETs from Connexions to a group of home educators in Kent and the validity of the data collection method received robust challenge from home educators. It is disappointing but not altogether surprising that this methodological error has now been repeated on a national scale.
"Call for Evidence" asked for the number of all children previously subject to Child Protection Plan, not just in the current year
In terms of Child Protection Plans, Graham Badman told the Select Committee that by May he had discovered a total of 41 Child Protection Plans in a small number of local authorities. In fact, the questionnaire asked a far broader and more misleading question which included all children who had previously been subject to a Child Protection Plan and all children who had previously been on the Child Protection Register.
It has since come to light that in September, 3 months after the Report was published, Graham Badman has apparently identified a further 10 Child Protection Plans for home educated children throughout the country.
As Graham Badman and the Department are wont to say, we don't know what we don't know. A self-selecting minority of local authorities are repeatedly giving different versions of the same information to Graham Badman. Authorities who have not responded to questions about Child Protection Plans or who have returned a figure of zero are not taken into account.
Education Otherwise Research: a tiny minority of local authorities including Kent have very high numbers of Child Protection Plans
Education Otherwise is conducting its own research into this area and is presently analysing raw data received from over a hundred local authorities, which represents over two thirds of the total. Setting aside the small number of local authorities who are unable or unwilling to provide the information, EO has found only 2 local authorities where home educated young people are currently subject to a Child Protection Plan.
Early evidence suggests that a very small minority of local authorities have a very high number of Child Protection Plans in place for all children in their area and that this is also reflected in the high incidence of Child Protection Plans in the home education population. Graham Badman's former area of Kent would seem to be a prime example.
The huge local variations in Section 47 Enquiries and Child Protection Plans would benefit from much closer analysis although it might not produce soundbites to justify regulation and monitoring of home education.
Smoke is used to prove fire
It doesn't matter that each separate allegation or concern can be unpicked because by then it is too late; once more, smoke has been used to prove fire and a montage of evidence has been hastily assembled to justify Departmental policy.
Select Committee Witnesses not persuaded of evidence for change to the law
Giving oral evidence to the Select Committee on October 14th, Sir Paul Ennals stated that we need to be satisfied that change is proportionate and that he had not been persuaded that a new criminal offence was required since the legal framework on school attendance orders is already in place.
Another witness, Phillip Noyes of the NSPCC said that when he looked at the Badman Report he was "surprised at some of the lack of detail around how the relationship between the home educators and the local authority works now". Peter Traves said that "the problem would be if we rushed from this to legislation that was based solely around concerns about safeguarding."
We should like to reiterate Education Otherwise's position which is that the present law is entirely sufficient but is inadequately understood. We have also recommended that the 2007 Government Guidelines on Home Education be put on a statutory footing.
Education Otherwise Research
For the past 3 months we have been conducting our own research into policy and practice in all local authorities and we are presently analysing raw data from over a hundred authorities.
In contrast to the Badman Review, we have asked the same questions of all local authorities and we will not presume to extrapolate or draw sweeping conclusions until all the information has been received and undergone a rigorous checking process.
In further contrast to the Badman Review, we are comparing like with like, in that we have requested information from each authority about all children in the area as well as information about home educated children.
A regrettable feature of the Badman Review has been to compare partial uncorrected information about home educated children from a minority of local authorities with national data covering a different time span. It is clearly not acceptable to rush to legislation on the basis of this scrambled slipshod research.
9 Months of Policy Based Evidence Making
Home educators have been subjected to 9 months of policy based evidence making which has seriously damaged trust in the political process. Members of Parliament have received countless communications and representations from home educators, culminating in over 400 home educators visiting their MP on October 13th and followed by Education Otherwise parliamentary event on October 20th.
... |
--------------------
S.A.G.“If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” - G.K. ChestertonAdd yourself to ourPlay the
Daily Trivia Quiz
|
|
|
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
| |
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
