HEdline

HEdline has written a letter to Councillor Vanessa Brown, Brighton & Hove Council Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children's and Young People's services.  We also sent copies to the Director of children's services for Brighton & Hove Council, to all the other councillors on the Children and Young People's Trust Board, and to Adam Trimingham of the Evening Argus.

The text of our letter is below.  We will post any replies we receive on this website.

Dear Councillor Mrs Brown,

We are writing to invite you to meet with a group of local home educators, to discuss our grave fears and concerns about the implications of the Badman review of Elective Home Education for our children’s privacy and their right to receive an education suited uniquely to them.

We expect you have seen the news stories which marked the release of the Review report and the launch of the current DCSF consultation on Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals.

If you have not done so already, we urge you to read the full Review report, which can be found at:

http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-610_Home-ed.PDF

We hope you will be as shocked as we were by the sweeping and unbalanced recommendations of the report, and the unprofessional way it has been drawn up.

Mr Badman presents no serious evidence that there is a problem with the welfare or safeguarding of home educated children as a group. In fact, in paragraph 8.14 of the report, he states:

“I can find no evidence that elective home education is a particular factor in the removal of children to forced marriage, servitude or trafficking or for inappropriate abusive activities.”

Having been specifically asked to investigate this matter, he presents no analysis of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving home educators. There are no robust figures or trends presented (even at an aggregated level). Instead there is a vague reference to ‘local authority evidence and case studies’.

On this flimsy basis, Mr. Badman proposes a radical change both to education law and to the relationship between families and the state.

Recommendation 7 of the review, for example, proposes to give officers of local authorities the power to insist on entry to the private homes of home educating families, and to question children alone.

These powers exceed those currently entrusted to child protection social workers in situations where they suspect a child is at risk of significant harm, and the powers of police officers in relation to children suspected of having committed a crime.

We think this proposal is completely disproportionate, and threatens not only our children’s right to a private and family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the right of every child and family in the country, entailing as it does a fundamental shift in the relationship between individual and state.

• Recommendation 1 (establishing a compulsory register of home educators), combined with Recommendation 23 (giving local authorities the right to refuse or revoke registration if there are unspecified ‘safeguarding concerns’) would in effect mean that parents must ask the local authority’s permission each year to educate their own children.

   

  This would undermine a key element of the “fourfold foundation” of English education law. As explained by Lord Bingham in the Ali case (Ali v Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14):

  
  

  “This fourfold foundation has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain inherent strengths. First, it recognises that the party with the keenest personal interest in securing the best available education for a child ordinarily is, or ought to be, the parent of the child. Depending on age, maturity and family background, the child may or not share that interest. But the parent has a statutory duty. Secondly, the regime recognises that for any child attending school it is that school through which the education provided by the state is in practice delivered. The relationship between school and pupil is close and personal: hence the restrictions on its interruption or termination. It is a relationship resembling, but for the want of consideration, a contractual relationship. But, thirdly, the regime recognises the need for a safety net or longstop to ensure that the education is not neglected of those who for any reason (whether 'illness, exclusion from school or otherwise) are not being educated at school in the ordinary way. It is plainly intended that every child of compulsory school age should receive appropriate education in one way if not another, and that responsibility rests in the last resort with the LEA.” (our emphasis)

  
  

  If local authorities are now to be given the primary duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education, in place of parents, this well established structure will be completely overturned.

  
  

• Recommendation 2 suggests that the DCSF should review the statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education. At the moment, the definition of “suitable” is set out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996:

   

  “7. Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age.

  The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

  (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

  (b) to any special educational needs he may have,

  either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

  
  

  For parents who take on the responsibility of fulfilling this duty in person, rather than delegating the education of their children to schools, this is a very clear and stringent definition. The education must suit the individual child. If parents (like schools) were required to deliver a one-size-fits-all “broad and balanced” curriculum, as Graham Badman seems to think desirable, this would be to the detriment of many thousands of children currently receiving a tailor-made education, designed to suit their unique aptitudes and abilities, and constantly adapting to their needs as they grow.

  
  

• Recommendation 1 is also very concerning for home educators whose educational philosophy is child-led or autonomous.

   

  This recommendation includes the proposal that:

  
  

  “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.”

  
  

  Autonomous learning has been shown to be a very efficient educational approach (see, for example, Paula Rothermel’s 2002 study of outcomes for home ecducated children in the UK, which can be found at http://www.dur.ac.uk/p.j.rothermel/Research/Researchpaper/BERAworkingpaper.htm).

  
  

  We recently recently carried out a small survey of home educators in the Brighton & Hove area (our report is enclosed) which found that autonomous and child-led approaches are the most commonly followed. This point is therefore a matter of great concern for us.

  
  

  At the heart of autonomous education is a commitment to facilitate learning that is freely chosen by the child, not externally imposed on them.

  
  

  For families following such an approach, a requirement to set out intended or desired outcomes for their children 12 months in advance would represent a devastating and unacceptable constraint.

  If you wish to find out more about autonomous education, we recommend ‘How Children Learn at Home’ by Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison of the Institute of Education (2007), which is available in Brighton & Hove libraries.

The recommendations of the Badman review, if implemented, would mean that local authorities will become legally liable for any failure to secure a suitable education for a child resident in the area. What until now has been a negative right of every child, i.e. not to be denied an education, will, under these proposals, become a positive right i.e. the right to receive a suitable education (as defined by the DCSF). Where in the past this crucial distinction has denied children and their parents the right to recourse when they feel their local authority has failed them, under the proposed changes all such children, whatever their place of education, will have a legal case against the local authority.

In addition to these important matters of legal principle, the recommendations of the Review will require a substantial commitment of time by local authority staff, in order to set up and administer the proposed register, and conduct frequent monitoring visits to the homes of home educating families.

Our survey indicated that there are at least 30 more families already home educating in Brighton &Hove than are known to the EOTAS team.

Ed Balls, in responding to the Review report, did not promise any additional resources for local authorities to help them meet these additional responsibilities. We would be interested in your thoughts on how the proposed changes would be staffed and funded.

Please be aware that there is a large and active home education community in Brighton & Hove. The majority of home educators are implacably opposed to the changes proposed in the review. Along with home educators all over the country, we will be doing whatever we can to prevent them from being implemented, and to protect our children’s right to an education which meets their individual needs

We hope you will consider these issues carefully when responding to the current DCSF consultation.

We would appreciate an opportunity to meet you and any of your colleagues or officers of the council, to discuss these issues.