(D) Badman and the Select Committee
The CSF Select Committee published the submissions to its inquiry into the Badman Review this week.
I've had a read of quite a few of them, trying to pick off the ones I recognise as associated with the government side, plus the one home educator who appears to be on their side.
So far I've discovered that DCSF thinks that:
Home education is the education of children in and around the house by their parents or those appointed by the parents. It can be seen as a temporary or permanent alternative to the education which is provided by the state or by private schooling.
and Ofsted thinks that:
Current guidance states that parents may employ other people to educate their children and that parents are responsible for 'ensuring that those whom they engage are suitable to have access to children'. Registration would not of itself prevent those who have a conviction for offences against children, including parents, step-parents or privately-employed home tutors, from home educating children. Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks should be a requirement of registration.
and the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) thinks that:
Schools retain a responsibility for pupils and we agree that where parents remove children from school to home education, the school should in the first instance respond to this responsibility, and be required to inform the local authority of the change in status of the pupil from a school roll registration to home educated.
The first is obviously misguided, given that much of the education is not in and around the house, but it might explain why they're concerned about socialisation and the fact that the children might not be seen by others.
The Ofsted one is scary, because it implies that all home educators should have a CRB check. Obviously this could be expanded to state that anyone who comes into contact with children between 8:30am and 4pm should have a CRB check, seeing as parents of schoolchildren, don't need one. Obviously it's something about those particular hours that are dangerous.
The ADCS is unaware of current law, given that schools are already required to inform the LA when a child is deregistered. No wonder there are the bad cases of abuse that hit the news when the people in charge don't even know the laws pertaining to their job. Why bother giving them any new ones if they can't use what they've got properly?
To liven it up a bit, there's a real gem in the submission from Paula Rothermel, who has done research on home education.
At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link.
Fascinating. So if you're a home educating mother, he thinks you're mentally ill.
The vast majority of submissions can be summarised as saying to the government "Fuck off, you obviously have no clue if you accept this pile of shit as valid evidence and are not qualified to be creating legislation covering home education". Some of the contributions are from professionals who contributed to the review as well.
Prof. James Conroy, who was the only person with experience of home education on Badman's expert group said
However, more significant that the recommendations are the grounds upon which they have been established. In my 30 odd years of professional life in education I have rarely encountered a process, the entirety of which was so slap dash, panic driven, and nakedly and naively populist.
The Home Education Research Association, listed as a consultee by Badman, said
HERA strongly believes that the conduct of the Review and the Report itself are riddled with serious and far-reaching flaws that invalidate the Report Recommendations and any DCSF action taken upon them, including the 11 June 2009 Consultation that the DCSF launched simultaneously with the Report.
Alison Sauer, from the Sauer Consultancy Limited, was concerned with the accuracy of Badman's meeting notes:
1. The review misquotes or selectively quotes evidence received.
1.1. Meeting notes taken by the review team during my meetings with Mr Badman do not agree with my notes of the same meetings.
[...]
1.1.3. Upon receipt of the inaccurate DCSF meeting notes I contacted a number of other people listed in the "Annex B" of the report as having been giving evidence and found that my case was by no means unique. This indicates that the inaccuracies in meeting notes of my meetings with Mr Badman were neither unique nor exceptional, undermining the evidence basis of both report and recommendations
A retired social worker notes that
Graham Badman is not an expert in child protection. His review contains too many platitudes about 'safeguarding' children that are actually meaningless. He conflates objections to non-state education with safeguarding issues and uses vague concerns about child abuse as a way of undermining the concept of home education. It is totally inappropriate to suggest that registration of home educated children is necessary to 'safeguard' them.
Even the Church of England put the boot in with:
32 Having read the Review, we still stand by the final paragraph of our response:
32.1 "We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children in a home-educating this should be a matter for Children's Services."
For balance, such as it is, this is the contribution of the one home educator who agreed with DCSF. However, he also once said
"Third rate hack freelancers, into which category I am obliged to place myself, have a deplorable habit of misrepresenting themselves to both editors and also the public at large. It's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article. However if you were to be a reader of True Detective, then you would a few years ago have found me describing myself as a former detective from Scotland Yard! And don't even ask what I claimed to be when writing for The Lady..... Why, I even change gender for women's magazines. I know, I'm utterly shameless, but what can I do? I have to pay the bills like everybody else. Or maybe I should go on benefits?"
He also writes articles for national newspapers.
So, if there's any justice, left at Westminster, the Select Committee should produce a fairly scathing response to the DCSF proposals and hopefully get them to drop legislation. However, given the response of Ed Balls to their rejection of his candidate for Child CatcherCommissioner, they'd probably just be pissing in the wind anyway.
Home education in England has been changed forever by the events of this year. As a group we've always kept our heads down and got on with life. Now we've been disturbed, we're more likely to be politically active, and indeed, I think we've all learned a lot about how Parliament works and how to use it to our advantage. Lots of media contacts have been made as well, and we seem to have some degree of sympathy for our position. The Conservative Party seem to be coming down on our side against the review and its proposals, so there could be a fight to get legislation through Parliament. It's going to be an interesting few months before Balls&Co get their P45s.
(updated 8th Nov)
I've had a read of quite a few of them, trying to pick off the ones I recognise as associated with the government side, plus the one home educator who appears to be on their side.
So far I've discovered that DCSF thinks that:
Home education is the education of children in and around the house by their parents or those appointed by the parents. It can be seen as a temporary or permanent alternative to the education which is provided by the state or by private schooling.
and Ofsted thinks that:
Current guidance states that parents may employ other people to educate their children and that parents are responsible for 'ensuring that those whom they engage are suitable to have access to children'. Registration would not of itself prevent those who have a conviction for offences against children, including parents, step-parents or privately-employed home tutors, from home educating children. Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks should be a requirement of registration.
and the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) thinks that:
Schools retain a responsibility for pupils and we agree that where parents remove children from school to home education, the school should in the first instance respond to this responsibility, and be required to inform the local authority of the change in status of the pupil from a school roll registration to home educated.
The first is obviously misguided, given that much of the education is not in and around the house, but it might explain why they're concerned about socialisation and the fact that the children might not be seen by others.
The Ofsted one is scary, because it implies that all home educators should have a CRB check. Obviously this could be expanded to state that anyone who comes into contact with children between 8:30am and 4pm should have a CRB check, seeing as parents of schoolchildren, don't need one. Obviously it's something about those particular hours that are dangerous.
The ADCS is unaware of current law, given that schools are already required to inform the LA when a child is deregistered. No wonder there are the bad cases of abuse that hit the news when the people in charge don't even know the laws pertaining to their job. Why bother giving them any new ones if they can't use what they've got properly?
To liven it up a bit, there's a real gem in the submission from Paula Rothermel, who has done research on home education.
At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link.
Fascinating. So if you're a home educating mother, he thinks you're mentally ill.
The vast majority of submissions can be summarised as saying to the government "Fuck off, you obviously have no clue if you accept this pile of shit as valid evidence and are not qualified to be creating legislation covering home education". Some of the contributions are from professionals who contributed to the review as well.
Prof. James Conroy, who was the only person with experience of home education on Badman's expert group said
However, more significant that the recommendations are the grounds upon which they have been established. In my 30 odd years of professional life in education I have rarely encountered a process, the entirety of which was so slap dash, panic driven, and nakedly and naively populist.
The Home Education Research Association, listed as a consultee by Badman, said
HERA strongly believes that the conduct of the Review and the Report itself are riddled with serious and far-reaching flaws that invalidate the Report Recommendations and any DCSF action taken upon them, including the 11 June 2009 Consultation that the DCSF launched simultaneously with the Report.
Alison Sauer, from the Sauer Consultancy Limited, was concerned with the accuracy of Badman's meeting notes:
1. The review misquotes or selectively quotes evidence received.
1.1. Meeting notes taken by the review team during my meetings with Mr Badman do not agree with my notes of the same meetings.
[...]
1.1.3. Upon receipt of the inaccurate DCSF meeting notes I contacted a number of other people listed in the "Annex B" of the report as having been giving evidence and found that my case was by no means unique. This indicates that the inaccuracies in meeting notes of my meetings with Mr Badman were neither unique nor exceptional, undermining the evidence basis of both report and recommendations
A retired social worker notes that
Graham Badman is not an expert in child protection. His review contains too many platitudes about 'safeguarding' children that are actually meaningless. He conflates objections to non-state education with safeguarding issues and uses vague concerns about child abuse as a way of undermining the concept of home education. It is totally inappropriate to suggest that registration of home educated children is necessary to 'safeguard' them.
Even the Church of England put the boot in with:
32 Having read the Review, we still stand by the final paragraph of our response:
32.1 "We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children in a home-educating this should be a matter for Children's Services."
For balance, such as it is, this is the contribution of the one home educator who agreed with DCSF. However, he also once said
"Third rate hack freelancers, into which category I am obliged to place myself, have a deplorable habit of misrepresenting themselves to both editors and also the public at large. It's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article. However if you were to be a reader of True Detective, then you would a few years ago have found me describing myself as a former detective from Scotland Yard! And don't even ask what I claimed to be when writing for The Lady..... Why, I even change gender for women's magazines. I know, I'm utterly shameless, but what can I do? I have to pay the bills like everybody else. Or maybe I should go on benefits?"
He also writes articles for national newspapers.
So, if there's any justice, left at Westminster, the Select Committee should produce a fairly scathing response to the DCSF proposals and hopefully get them to drop legislation. However, given the response of Ed Balls to their rejection of his candidate for Child CatcherCommissioner, they'd probably just be pissing in the wind anyway.
Home education in England has been changed forever by the events of this year. As a group we've always kept our heads down and got on with life. Now we've been disturbed, we're more likely to be politically active, and indeed, I think we've all learned a lot about how Parliament works and how to use it to our advantage. Lots of media contacts have been made as well, and we seem to have some degree of sympathy for our position. The Conservative Party seem to be coming down on our side against the review and its proposals, so there could be a fight to get legislation through Parliament. It's going to be an interesting few months before Balls&Co get their P45s.
(updated 8th Nov)