Ideally, I didn’t want to have to write this. I saw a FANTASTIC
blog post a year or so ago that explains why perfectly. Now
thegovernment has opened a consultation about bringing in a register,
can I find that post? Nope! So, I’m going to do my best to
explain in my own words. It won’t be as good as the previous one,
so if anyone happens to know the post I’m talking about, please add
the link into the comments below!
So, what is wrong with registration?
And I'm immediately, going to twist that around and ask, what is right with registration?
What [positive] thing is having a list of home educators going to achieve?
It's important for the government to know how many home educated children there are.
Why? The government knows all births and deaths of children. The government knows all children who are registered at a state school, and probably those who are registered at independent schools too. It's not difficult to calculate the number of children who are left.
But what if the children are not being educated properly? The LA has to check!
As opposed to all those children in schools who are not being educated properly? The ones coming out of school without GCSEs or other qualifications. The children with SEN or simply struggling because of the teacher or the environment and are being left behind? Or what about the academically advanced children, who are not being stretched, so are either sat at the back quietly being bored (because they're "good" children [like I was]) or are being disruptive because they are bored and so get into trouble? And the many, MANY adults who have left school and think they're "thick" and "can't learn" because of what they have faced at school, not realising that learning is life-long, and some people are not ready to be stuffed with facts at a young age, but mature later.
Incidentally, I'm not 'dissing' teachers - I have great respect for teachers, and think they do a fabulous job with the few resources they are given. It's schools, and the government's lack of support for them, that I dislike.
Anyway, the legal responsibility for educating children lies with parents, not the government. Section 7 of the Education Act states:
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 that he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
Which means, in real terms, if your child goes to school and comes out having learned nothing, it is the parents' fault for not changing schools/providing alternative education in order for it to be suitable. i.e. You cannot sue the school/government - it's not their fault.
But what if the children are not being educated properly?
IF there is evidence that the children are not being educated properly (allowing for differing styles of HE; not just "school at home"), then there is a process in place, and in that circumstance it would be right for someone who has concerns to report them the the Education Welfare Officers in your local LA. However, it is totally wrong to assume that just because a child is home educated, means that they are not receiving a good education.
But what if people are using HE as a cover for abuse? Or trafficking? Or radicalisation?
Let's take these one-by-one, though I'm going to go through that list backwards.
Radicalisation - Anecdotally, admittedly, but I haven't heard of a single HE kid being radicalised. The closest I've come, is from the papers about children using illegal schools - but that's NOT home ed. And even then, I'm not even sure I've heard any of those children actually being radicalised? All the ones I can think of from the papers, came from schools.
Trafficking - again, anecdotally, I've not even heard of this ever happening. The closest to trafficking I can think of, are those kids who have been removed from schools in order to become child-brides elsewhere in the world. These children were in school, so they were known to the authorities. It is the school's duty to inform the LA that a child has been removed from their school roll. The LA will then be in touch with the family and offer them support. Often, however, these girls are not deregistered, but mysteriously do not return to school after the summer holidays. This is not home education.
And Abuse - Did you know school children are statistically much more likely to be abused than home educated children? There are plenty of kids in schools whose bruises etc go unnoticed, or where their sudden change in personality is just put down to 'a phase'. School is not the fail-safe it is purported to be. Again, I'm not blaming the teachers, they don't have time to go to the loo themselves, let alone understand everything about a pupil's personal life, whilst trying to maintain control of a classroom of 30+ kids, and write report after report to show they're adding value...
But what about [Insert Name of Someone you've read in the Papers]? They were abused and died because of Home Education. A register would have protected them!
No, just no. Did you know that there has not been a Serious Case Review where Home Education has been identified as the cause/reason for the abuse? In fact, in EVERY SINGLE SCR the child is ALREADY KNOWN to the authorities! As I've said, children who were in school automatically get referred to the LA. The LA will then contact the family, so the family will be known. Being on a register, and being visited once a year won't make any difference. Even in the case where a boy hadn't previously been in school, his family were reported and nothing was done. The SCR claim that EHEOs didn't have the power to access the home - which is/was true - BUT Social Services do have that power when accompanied by a police officer; and in his case, it was definitely a Welfare Issue, not an Education Issue, so EHEOs should not have been involved in the first place!
Ok, ok. But you still haven't explained what's so bad about being on a register? It's only a list of names!
A register is never just a list of names. If it were, it would be a waste of time and money for the government and local authorities trying to achieve it. A list, by itself, wouldn't make any difference to any of the concerns you have mentioned, as once someone has been added would they stay on that list forever? What if the child goes to school at some point? Or does the list need to be maintained? How would it be maintained? Is it enough to trust schools to tell the LA when I child enrolls? Or do HErs need to be contacted every-so-often, to check they're still home educating? And if they are checked on regularly, this will easily morph into monitoring.
And what's wrong with monitoring?
Read the links above, if you haven't already.
In short, how will a person, who has no training in education or pedagogy, who has no understanding of home education nor different education styles, understand from a brief visit whether the education being provided is suitable to the child's age, ability or aptitude? Given that home educators do not need to follow the National Curriculum (nor should they have to - imagine HE as the ultimate private school), and the new guidance says that outcomes do matter, you can only truly judge home education at the end point, by which time there is no need for EHEOs to be involved. Any attempt to intervene earlier, is scope creep towards enforcing specific curricula and eroding the rights of the child for having an education tailored specifically for them as an individual.
So, am I right in thinking that if a child has never been to school, they are not "known" to the LA? What if something changes - suppose a parent becomes an alcoholic, or starts a relationship with an abuser? Children should not be invisible and need to be protected!
Home Educated kids are not invisible. They are registered at birth, at doctors, dentists, opticians. Many have passports. Many do "extra-curricular" activities. In fact, if I even go into the supermarket, my girls will be asked "No school today?" because they are around during the day, and not in school uniform. Even Graham Stuart MP said, when he was Chair of the Education Select Committee, that Home Educated children are "peculiarly visible". And everyone who HEs knows he's not wrong.
And what if a child is just kept under the stairs?
Then they are will receive a letter by owl and be accepted into Hogwarts, where their lives will be changed for the better, and they will save the world from He Who Shall Not Be Named.
Seriously, though. If a child was being kept under the stairs, they are not being home educated, they are being abused. Despite what the new guidance thinks, education and welfare are totally separate. If you suspect a child is suffering from abuse, then you should absolutely step in; report to social services, and do your damnedest to save that child. This is not a home education issue - this is being a decent person issue.
But, but, but...
What magically happens when a child turns 5? Given how vulnerable babies, by their very nature, are; why are people trusted to bring babies up without interference? Yes, some areas have a good Health Visitor service, but this seems to be a post-code lottery, and even then it's only a 6month check, maybe a 12month check, and maybe a 2or3 year check. Many people only see the health visitor immediately after birth, and that's it.
What about schooled children? Given that they need checking upon everyday they are at school, why are they trusted back to their parents during school holidays? 6+ weeks is a long time to be left over the summer! And I've already mentioned that schooled children are statistically more likely to be abused than HE children.
I cannot claim credit for coming up with this analogy, and I hope I can do it justice - food.
As parents, we are entrusted to feed our children. We all know what healthy food is, and we know that if we aren't able to cook and prepare healthy food ourselves, it is important for us to source healthy food for our kids. Similarly, we know that 'healthy' may mean something different for our individual children - maybe they are allergic to specific foods; maybe they have SEN and will only eat certain things. And we all know that it's ok to eat something 'less healthy' every now and again. Certain conditions excepting, a doughnut or chips will not kill you; they're only problems if that's all you eat.
How would you feel if your name was put on a register of people who fed their own children? To ensure you continue to feed your children, they will be in touch regularly. They used to accept a signed letter, where you stated that you continue to feed your kids without problem, but due to new guidance that's no longer enough. Occasionally they come round to your house, and check your kitchen cupboards, looking for unhealthy foods. They'll look at your kids to check that they look healthy - maybe use BMI as an indicator of health, as that's used in schools. They may even chat to your kids, and ask them what their favourite foods are, and what they eat regularly. Because it is important to listen to children's voices, they'll also ask the children what they think of you're cooking, and whether they'd prefer their food to be cooked by someone else. And what if they happened to arrive on a day before you normally go shopping, so your fridge/cupboard is empty, or you have no fresh fruit/veg left in the house? Or maybe you don't own any cookbooks, preferring to find recipes online? Or maybe you don't own a dining table? Or have not enough, or too many, knives and other cooking equipment? And why do you think you can do better than a trained chef or cook?
I'm not going to labour the point (though I could go on) but I hope that you agree that this would be unnecessarily intrusive, and actually wouldn't solve any of the issues that they were claiming it would.
I've now run out of steam, so I'm going to stop there.
I hope this explains some of the issues that home educators have with being put on a register (and I haven't even mentioned that compulsory registers are used for criminals) and isn't too long-winded.
