Who's the parent? - The Great Educational Balls up - Part 3

This blog is an archive only version, the content has been moved to http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/2009/07/the-great-educational-balls-up-series-overview/

Please visit the new site for the latest content and comments or to post a comment.

Alternative title: Nanny knows best

I have mentioned previously that the evidence base for Badman’s recommendations is missing. So what is the driving force behind the proposed legislation? There has been pressure from some LEAs on the government to give them extra powers so the can ensure all children meet the 5 Every Child Matters objectives (I have muttered a bit about ECM here but will post a more detailed analysis another time if I can get through the despair that thinking about it induces). The trouble is this is based on a false assumption, that they have a responsibility to ensure every child meets these aims. Actually they have a responsibility that their services should address these broad goals.

An example of this comes from Birmingham City Council’s response to the Badman review (issued under a Freedom of Information Request here). This is their response to the question “Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.

c) Enjoy and achieve

Answer: No

It is astonishing that the EHE regulations and guidance were published in direct contradiction of the governments otherwise relentless drive to improve standards of education, training and entry to employment. In short parents are left free to devise any model of education they deem fit to prepare their child for life in their community.

Erm… yes, because that’s what the law says! Instantly we are into an assumption here that parents are fools who don’t know how to look after their children. Without the local authority checking who knows what might happen. Parents might make decisions about their children, and obviously they can’t be trusted to do this.

There is very little that empowers a local authority to act where they suspect a child is receiving a minimal, or dysfunctional education at home.

No, there is plenty of power there. The trouble is if you want to act ultra vires (as suggested above) then you can’t. Because the law will only allow action based on what is set down in, well, the law. Damn nuisance the law, when you’re a local authority who knows what’s best for everyone.

It is quite amazing that we have no measurable standards for local authorities to use to define �efficient full time education�. suitable to age, ability and aptitude�.

Once again, we do. But they are broadly drawn. Have they ever considered there is good reason for them to be broadly drawn? (I may come back to that in a later post)

The current guidelines are contradictory and confusing, such as � "where parents do not want any involvement with the local authority, the LA should not automatically assume that there is a problem which needs investigating. Instead, the LA should take a risk based approach, taking into consideration the individual and community�s circumstances�.

Dear reader, is that confusing? I think what it’s saying is that you should not automatically assume that residents of our fair land should be treated with suspicion just because they don’t want involvement with a public authority on an issue where they feel said public authority has nothing to offer them.

It is more straightforward to deal with the crisis situations, but much more difficult in the many cases where the LA has concerns, but the evidence is �a lack of evidence�, ie little or no information about the educational plans, no evidence of real teaching and learning, and no way of assessing progress being made by the child.

Back to the old issue of “but we can’t assess things that we have no remit to assess”. Is there just a hint of looking at the issue through school-tinted spectacle as well?

Home schooling parents in this LA rarely produce plans, and the guidance suggests they are not essential. Given the minimal requirements placed on home schooling families, the reasonable concerns of the LA may well conflict with parents who may have different aims and priorities for their children.

So, this local authority either haven’t heard of autonomous education and child-led education, don’t understand it, or don’t believe it works (despite research evidence supporting its efficacy). They do have plans – they plan to follow the lead of their children. I know its a very different concept to school based education, or school at home, but LAs have been dealing with elective home education for years, if they wont get to grips with a diversity of approaches then what hope is there? How can we possible expect these people to monitor/inspect home educators? As for the last sentence, I think that’s very telling. The LAs concerns are “reasonable” with the implication that the parents “different aims and priorities” are not. Ponder who’s the parent. A quick aside, I note we slipped into “home schooling” and away from “home educating” for a moment here. Could that be because they want to measure against the way things are done in school? Or maybe it was just a slip. I believe it is Professor Roland Meighan who compared those with a school background trying to assess home education as being like a basketball expert trying to judge a game of tennis….

Why are home educating parents not required to provide even their plans and intentions?

Because the legal duty falls on a parent to provide a suitable education for their child. I am also not required to provide my plans and intentions with regard to feeding and clothing my child. This country has lived on a basic measure of trust in parents to bring up their own children, with society (often via government) intervening only when there are problems. Yes, some children may get “missed” if they are not being watched by “someone” but do we think moving to a position of automatic distrust of all parents is a positive move? Not to mention the number of times we see children who are known to virtually every local government department being continually and systematically abused.

And why are EO parents set as a unique grouping who are not held accountable for the decisions they are making for the educational outcomes of their children?

We aren’t. Parents who send their children to schools that fail them are not held accountable for that decision, the schools are blamed. What I think they mean is why aren’t home educating families subject to the same testing, inspection and standards as schools? Well its simple really. The purpose of all the monitoring of schools is that we as parents, the ones responsible for raising our children, need to be able to make an informed decision as to whether it is safe to send our children to a given school and whether we think our legal and moral duty to provide our children with an education will be fulfilled through sending them there. It is also so government can assess whether it is getting value for money, and to avoid getting itself sued. If the parent makes direct provision then none of this applies.

The absence of clear answers in this guidance leaves many parents able to neglect their children�s education. Further it leaves the LA powerless to safeguard a number of children whose education is being prevented or neglected.

I’d really like to know the basis for this statement. Is it based on the fact that they don’t know about every child? Or is it based on them not being able to apply school rules to home ed? Or are children in their area really not receiving an education? If the latter, then they should take action. They already have the powers.

Essentially what we are seeing is home education viewed as something abhorrent, which perverts the ability of the state to ensure that its standards and values are adhered to by every citizen. We can’t have parents making decisions for their children (or with their children as is more normally the case) without the state checking and approving those decisions. Otherwise we might end up with people thinking contrary to the government’s position.

Besides, the peasants will make all kinds of mistakes, because they are not looking out for the Every Child Matters outcomes. Shall we look at how effective government is at looking after children then?