You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, February 09 2012

Parents condemn plans for councils to 'police' home education

Comments  | 
Read all comments on this story.

Graham Badmanby political editor Paul Francis

Parents have criticised plans to allow councils to enter their homes and question children over their home education.

The plan forms part of a wide-ranging shake-up in the way parents who choose to teach their children at home are monitored.

There are about 750 children in Kent who are currently educated at home.

The shake-up follows a review conducted by Kent County Council's former children's services director Graham Badman.

His report also recommends that there should be a compulsory registration scheme and that councils should have the power to order under-16s to school if there are concerns about their safety or quality of education.

The proposals - which have been accepted by the Government - have prompted a backlash among parent groups.

Alexander Roarke, a Kent-based trustee of the charity Education Otherwise, said: "We reject the disproportionate and unreasonable recommendations set out in this report for compulsory registration and invasive monitoring.

"Someone from the local authority is now allowed to enter my home, take my children and interview them without me being present...that is a power that only the police have."

Until now, local authorities have had no statutory powers to monitor those educated at home - but have been required to ensure all children receive a suitable education.

According to Mr Badman's report, parents and guardians "must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired outcomes for the child over the following twelve months".

He said parents would be judged against their education plans.

The review was triggered by concerns that some children educated at home could be at risk of abuse.

Wednesday, June 24 2009

image of print a storyPrint Article

Buy a KM PictureBuy a KM Picture

Share |

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (25)

Comments closed

  • Tracy wrote:

    Home education

    My children were not safe in school, my son was assaulted by a teacher and bullied by teachers in a different school on top of the bullying that he received from pupils, he was told it was his fault as he should of stood up to them, he is autistic and not capable of doing that.
    How is he safe in school, how dare they suggest he is at risk at home where he feels safe and has learned so much. Are families who use school going to be checked up on during the holidays 'just in case' I think not. It's ridiculous. I am so insulted.

    26 Jun 2009 3:25 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Jaki Parsons wrote:

    Home Education and Social Services

    Much has been made of Home Educating Parents being more likely to be known to Social Services as if this is such a terrible thing.

    There are probably three main reasons for this.

    A high proportion of children who are taught at home already have additional needs that have not been met in the standard school system. To access extra services such as speach therapy, occupational therapy etc then you need to go through a social worker in most counties.

    Some LEA's, as a matter of routine, report all families who home educate to Social Services as if there may be something fundamentally wrong in removing a child from a failing school.

    Some families actually work directly with Social Services in a fostering or adoption capacity. Or in caring for school excluded pupils - rather ironically!

    Three very innocent explanations of being known to Social Services and home educating.

    Regards

    26 Jun 2009 1:18 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Li wrote:

    Home Education and Badman Review

    Please note - no home educator is suggesting that genuine welfare concerns are not followed through. However, there is already substantive legislation in place for children to be seen and checked upon regardless of whether the child is educated indirectly in school (state/private/independent) or educated direct by the parents. Children can be seen. If the Badman Review is really about abuse and child protection then why didn't he point Children's Services in the direction of existing welfare/CP law and point out that they just need retraining to understand NewLabour legalese? Maybe because it never was about abuse but rather to do with totalitarian control.
    They got rid of GPs being able to build up a relationship with all families, many children don't have access to consistent dental care and so on - it is communities and the people in them that care enough to make a call if they have a concern over child protection regardless of where that child is being educated or living.

    25 Jun 2009 6:56 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Thomas wrote:

    save home education

    Many people choose to educate their children at home because they believe that school is not the best place for children. Home educated children are on average two years ahead of schooled children, by school reckoning.

    Now the educational establishment is jealous and suspicious so it wants to interfere with those families too. It doesn't care that most children at school are bored, and that many them are frightened. School children aren't asked if they would prefer to be educated outside school. (This is because schools don't take children seriously. Perhaps also because they receive £5,000 of taxpayers' money per year per child.)

    Who is going to protect home educated children from the state employees who want to interfere with their lives and their happiness, against their wishes and the wishes of their parents?

    Parents love their children, provide for them and know them better than all the bureaucrats in the world.

    Families have a right to privacy and a right to educational autonomy. This report shows how the government wants to take these liberties away. This is wrong. Our civil liberties aren't 'optional extras'; they are our greatest assets.

    No one should trust a government that doesn't trust its own people.

    If the report's recommendations were implemented the effects on our national culture, civil society and educational diversity would be damaging.

    And many families will decide, at great cost to themselves, to leave the country and find somewhere where they can live according to their own values.

    25 Jun 2009 5:59 PM

    Report Abuse

  • jenny wrote:

    Badman review

    You cannot make one law for one group of people, without including everyone else. If this is allowed to be made law,It will not be long before they want to enter EVERYONE'S homes. This is an invasion of privacy and shows the controlling nature of the government.
    I think the government rather hate the fact that home educators bring up children who can think for themselves as opposed to being taught what to think. This will not be tolerated. There is abuse in the schools all the time, and what is happening about that.

    25 Jun 2009 5:19 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Philip wrote:

    Badman was rewarded!

    Badman has been rewarded! He now has a nice comfy boardroom chair at BECTA (a government Quango for retired inspectors). An 'independent review' it was not, with serious omissions such as an Apology from the NSPCC which clearly made a mistake to link social service errors with Home Education (and error not given any space in the Badman review). Badman and Balls are in collusion to ignore Parent choices at all costs. Unbelievable bias against Home Education in all it's forms. How can you trust this Politician with your Children now?

    25 Jun 2009 4:39 PM

    Report Abuse

  • tania wrote:

    home education

    judging by the first two comments it should also be compulsary for ALL families to be inspected -that includes the under 5's.

    The same line can be taken regarding terrorism but would the second poster agree that all Moselms should open thier homes? The current law and current guidelins on the law were adequate and review just 2 years ago.
    The law firmly puts education as the duty of a parent NOT professionals. The parents of children in failing schools or parents of children who are miserable in school are not fulfilling that duty.
    The law also describes what is 'suitable'.
    If there is reason to suspect abuse there are plenty of laws and guidance for local authorities for ALL children that included home educated children, the under 5's and those children who are at school and , may I add, those children who are left all summer long at home with their parents during the holiday.
    The LEA in law has a right to ask about the suitability of the education if and only if there are concerns.
    If there are no concerns , once aparent has been asked by the LEA to provide information (written or visit) about what provision they have the the LEA have no more right of entry to home educators homes than any other home.
    There were no findings in the report of abuse and the statement that a greater proportion of home educated children are known to sociall services is not backed up by actual figures. try and get that information about how many children there are who are home educated and have been or known to social services and the freedom of information Act section 36 is used as an excuse to stop the DCSF from divulging.
    Could it be that this piece of emotive statement is actually a statistical lie?
    Do we know if these known to social services case are because there are many children with special educational needs whose needs are not being met at school hence they are being home educated? These children are of course known to social services.
    Is it that another section of the home education community have had a dreadful time at school , possibly with bullying and are known because in the process of trying to sort out the problem, the education welfare officer has previously been involved?
    Or is it a outright lie?
    my own local authority has told me there are NO cases in Dorset.
    Could it be that the government bends the truth in order to push through policy as it wishes?
    This issue does not just effect home educators-there are serious implications for all families.
    If one agrees that state intervention in family life is acceptable I suggest looking at either communist Russia or nazi Germany from this past 100 years.
    What has the governemnt hidden from the public recently and what has it lied about?
    Home educators are not hiding children of mass mis-instruction and we are not misusing tax payers money!!

    25 Jun 2009 3:15 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Maria wrote:

    Response to Martin

    As a home educating parent, any of my neighbors are 'free' to report any suspected abuse, as are any Scout leaders, swimming coaches, drama teachers, sports coaches, language teachers, church groups and other home educators that my children come in contact with on a weekly basis.

    Not to mention friends, relatives, interested onlookers, doctors, A&E, dentists and the local shop keepers who often asks after us when we turn up looking for the next piece for our science experiments.

    Surely there would be enough interested members of MY community without sending someone into my home.

    Perhaps if the wider community actually understood that the vast majority of Home Educators are not locked away behind closed doors then they would be more trusting.

    Most of us are out there living larger than life trying to glean the most out this big wide world as possible.

    If the systems in place (like Social Services) are failing the community, then perhaps that might be a better place to start, rather than punishing/restricting/regulating the majority for the sake of the small UNPROVEN minority.

    And let us not forget that year after year, kids slip through all kinds of cracks that ARE supposed to be monitored. Let us pour resources into fixing problems rather than creating new ones.

    25 Jun 2009 12:12 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Jam wrote:

    School attendance orders

    Councils already have the power to force under sixteens back into school if they can prove that a suitable education isn't taking place.

    25 Jun 2009 9:40 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Jan Connolly wrote:

    Badman review

    Home educating parents are already inspected. The difference in this report is that the government want to make it law that home schooled children must be allowed to be interviewed on their own by an inspector. Even the police are not allowed to interview a child on their own even if the child has committed a crime. At present when a child is taken out of school by the parent a welfare worker visits and gives the child a telephone number they can phone if they have any issues they wish to discuss. When a LEA inspector visits it is the choice of the parent and child if the child talks to the inspector.Either way the inspector gets to look at the child's work and at the home environment. Many childrne come out of school because they have been bullied or suffered because of a learning difficulty or they are too bright and are bored in school, the school system has abused them and seriously failed them. The last thing they or the parents need is that state that allowed them to be abused in school and would not help, to invade their homes. This review could lead on to even pre-school children being inspected.

    25 Jun 2009 8:27 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Sally lloyd wrote:

    Inspection

    Rights to inspect work places are one thing ... The home is another. School inspections are warranted by the necessity of proving to parents that their delegated legal responsibility to provide education is being fulfilled. People are often ignorant that they are actually still responsible by law. They think schools are! As 1 in 6 children leave school unable to read, write and compute, schools are failing the children and the parents but the parents are responsible for not providing efficient and suitable education, by law. They don't get prosecuted because the government would get a lot of flack! Meanwhile the children's rights (under UK law and the UNCRC) are being pushed aside.
    This action (access to homes and children unsupervised and home ed plans and tests) is disproportionate and unnecessary. There is no link found between home ed and abuse. Indeed, statistcally children are much less likely to suffer abuse when home educated (revering especially to rates of bullying and injury in schools, assaults by teachers, other staff and other children.). Social services have been found to ignore calls from schools where they are dealing with children under 7 who have been excluded for inapropriate sexual behaviour, according to BBC news yesterday.
    Home educated children are known to health visitors who pass them to the school nurse at 5 years old. At very least they are known to gps and extended family members. Often they are known to large networks of home ed families. They are far from hidden!
    Draconian measures for monitoring were found unnecessary in the 2007 review of law pertaining to home ed. The law was found adequate. Guidance was to be given to standardize local authority monitoring. However, the NSPCC voiced concerns in the Independant (which were subsequently withdrawn) and this review was commissioned. These measures would be unnecessary if LAs had gained reputations for support rather than bending and breaking the law. Many of the recommendations in the review are good ones, and if actioned properly would make unnecessary the need to undermine the civil right to privacyand an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
    Under 5s are statistically far more at risk than school aged children.
    Shall we extend the right to enter, inspect and privately interview children in all your homes? Don't hold your breath. That's the point of the review. It uses populist agenda (abuse) to erode civil liberties to set a precedent to allow further erosions.
    It's that famous quote "they came for the gypsies and I said nothing because I wasn't a gypsy. They came for the Jews ..." etc. It ends "they came for me and there was no one left to speak out.".
    The comparative work badman uses to set precedent includes german laws brought in by Hitler to outlaw home ed to ensure no child missed Hitler youth indoctrination. Just because a law exists elsewhere doesn't automatically set a moral precedent for an immoral act.

    25 Jun 2009 1:37 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Karen wrote:

    Misunderstandings

    There seems to be some misunderstanding about home education and about child abuse. Firstly schools are not very good at detecting possible abuse or neglect, there is insufficient training for their staff and insufficient time in the school day for children to be properly seen and for problems to be really taken note of. Also there is abuse happening within the school environment such as bullying, which they are very poor at detecting. Secondly there are very many different approaches to education, the UK school system follows a curriculum based approach with every child being taught the same information at generally the same time. Many home educators follow an autonomous approach, which is much more child-centred and effective as research has proven. As most local authority staff have little understanding of educational approaches that differ from the bog standard one in UK schools, how on earth could they assess whether the progress of an autonomously educated child was suitable? And I wonder how non home-educating families would feel if they were expected to allow local authority staff open access to their homes and the opportunity to speak with their child without the parent present? And all this when there is no suggestion that the child has been harmed? Sounds very much as if the Badman recommendations are simply sidestepping the real problems in the failing educational system and within the stressed and understaffed social services. It seems very worrying that a failing government now wish to waste huge resources on a sector of the community which is functioning very well already and where there is no real evidence that children are at any greater risk than children who are in school. Why not spend the money on the failing educational system we have or the failing social services teams where vacancies are on average 14%? Its not about whether home educating families have anything to hide, its more a case of it being glaringly obvious that this is not where the problems are - we are being duped yet again by this government.

    25 Jun 2009 12:12 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Tessa Protheroe wrote:

    Councils to police home education

    Local authorities already have powers to monitor - parents can have a visit or submit a report. The authorities can issue a School Attendance Order if the educational provision is not satisfactory. They can involve social services if abuse is suspected.
    A yearly statement of desired educational outcomes is not compatible with the flexibility of child-led learning.
    Home education is very different to schooling. Those judging our provision should have awareness of this.

    24 Jun 2009 11:22 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Roger Machin wrote:

    An Attack on the Successful

    Local Authorities already have significant powers to intervene when they suspect abuse. Badman's report is NOT about protecting children. It is a bare faced attack on home education, a successful alternative to government sanctioned schooling. The state has belatedly realised that instead of buying into their vision of continually improving standards, many parents are using their eyes and taking care of their own children with enormous success. It terrifies them. And as for professional input from the LA: most Local Authority officials are cut from the same cloth as Badman and Ed Balls. They don't understand home education and they see it as a threat. They don't want to help. They want to shoehorn home educating families into a failing and outmoded system of learning.

    24 Jun 2009 9:08 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Rachel wrote:

    Has something been overlooked?

    I am an early years teacher, I think the review has missed one vital point, what about the thirteen weeks a year that school children are not seen, shouldnt all children be checked regularly during the holidays as well as all under fives not in nursery pre school if children educated at home/not seen regularly are at such perceived risk.

    24 Jun 2009 9:06 PM

    Report Abuse

  • tania wrote:

    home education

    judging by the first two comments it should also be compulsary for ALL families to be inspected -that includes the under 5's.

    The same line can be taken regarding terrorism but would the second poster agree that all Moselms should open thier homes? The current law and current guidelins on the law were adequate and review just 2 years ago.
    The law firmly puts education as the duty of a parent NOT professionals. The parents of children in failing schools or parents of children who are miserable in school are not fulfilling that duty.
    The law also describes what is 'suitable'.
    If there is reason to suspect abuse there are plenty of laws and guidance for local authorities for ALL children that included home educated children, the under 5's and those children who are at school and , may I add, those children who are left all summer long at home with their parents during the holiday.
    The LEA in law has a right to ask about the suitability of the education if and only if there are concerns.
    If there are no concerns , once aparent has been asked by the LEA to provide information (written or visit) about what provision they have the the LEA have no more right of entry to home educators homes than any other home.
    There were no findings in the report of abuse and the statement that a greater proportion of home educated children are known to sociall services is not backed up by actual figures. try and get that information about how many children there are who are home educated and have been or known to social services and the freedom of information Act section 36 is used as an excuse to stop the DCSF from divulging.
    Could it be that this piece of emotive statement is actually a statistical lie?
    Do we know if these known to social services case are because there are many children with special educational needs whose needs are not being met at school hence they are being home educated? These children are of course known to social services.
    Is it that another section of the home education community have had a dreadful time at school , possibly with bullying and are known because in the process of trying to sort out the problem, the education welfare officer has previously been involved?
    Or is it a outright lie?
    my own local authority has told me there are NO cases in Dorset.
    Could it be that the government bends the truth in order to push through policy as it wishes?
    This issue does not just effect home educators-there are serious implications for all families.
    If one agrees that state intervention in family life is acceptable I suggest looking at either communist Russia or nazi Germany from this past 100 years.
    What has the governemnt hidden from the public recently and what has it lied about?
    Home educators are not hiding children of mass mis-instruction and we are not misusing tax payers money!!

    24 Jun 2009 8:53 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Linda Sinclair wrote:

    Home education

    >

    By 'full time education" I assume you mean school? If so, those parents have delegated their parental responsibilty to provide their child's education to someone else (a school) so naturally they would want carry out checks but if they provide the education themselves why would they check (themselves)

    24 Jun 2009 8:52 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Steve Mckie wrote:

    Reasonable, proportional, justified?

    These proposals are a response to a fear. We are making laws based on speculation & mistrust.

    They are not reasonable, because existing laws already cater for concerns of abuse and there are ample avenues for such concerns to be raised. To think that school is the only situation in which a child can be seen is ridiculous. The article also points out that the review recommends councils having the power to order a child to school - they already have this power.

    The proposals are not proportional because in there is NO evidence that home education is used to abuse, or that children are at any more risk of being abused whilst home educated. Even the reviewer, Badman, has stated that no evidence exists. It is only the FEAR that children could that exists.

    The proposals are not justified because they do not solve any welfare issues. Only 24 hour CCTV in all homes would solve the problems of parent related child-abuse.

    24 Jun 2009 8:51 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Alanna1 wrote:

    Innocent until proven guilty and not vice versa

    So what has happened to the basic right of every citizen in this country to be assumed innocent of a crime unless proven otherwise? Under these new proposals home educating parents and their children will be forcibly inspected, even if there is no evidence or cause to believe that abuse is taking place, simply because they have elected to teach their children directly themselves whilst balancing other parental responsibilities and as such, are not under the gaze of governmental authorities. Lets take that argument to it's next logical conclusion. Children of pre-nursery age are looked after full time by their parents, and are often taught the basics of ABCs, counting, drawing, reading, writing etc: They do not as yet come under the full time gaze of governmental authority. Who is to know that some of these children are not being abused? Should we then not also compel these families (with children aged 0-5) to be inspected, in order to exclude the possibility of such harm taking place?

    It's not about having nothing to hide, it's about not being PRESUMED I must have something to hide if I object to excessive authoritarian involvement in my family life. Or are we now saying that constantly being monitored by the government/local authorities is something we and our children MUST accept as part of life nowadays?



    24 Jun 2009 8:36 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Linda Sinclair wrote:

    Home educators

    >

    OK, so why wait until they go to school then? perhaps home inspections better start at birth, cos thats where its heading next, in fact, perhaps the government should inspect potential parents before they give birth, just in case....!

    24 Jun 2009 8:29 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Derry Hannam wrote:

    33 'failing schools' in Kent?

    It would appear that at the time that Badman retired (2008) there were 33 failing secondary schools in Kent judged by Balls' (DCFS minister) own criteria (the highest number for any English county).
    If this is the case are some of the 750 home educators in Kent refugees from the 'failing' schools that Badman was responsible for? If so it seems a bit rich to pursue them in their homes after you have failed them in your schools! Is this what the policy change is all about - to distract attention from the growing number of parents taking their children out of 'failing' schools - either to private schools if they can afford it or home education if they cannot.

    24 Jun 2009 8:24 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Jax wrote:

    nothing to hide

    Oh good, the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument. How far does this one go? Would you be prepared for the police to check your house for stolen property on the offchance, as you've done nothing wrong so you've nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

    I think not. The police must have a reason for wanting to enter a property, and LAs should also have a reason for it, otherwise they could go on, as they do now, accepting reports via email, or the phone, or by post, or meeting other than at home. Why this reliance on barging into my house?

    Home based education doesn't take place purely at home anyway.

    And the reason why schools are inspected is because they are accountable to parents - it is the parent's duty to ensure the child is offered an education suitable to age, ability and aptitude. Parents are not accountable in the same way as they are discharging their duty themselves. If a LA suspects a parent is not discharging their duty, they can require them to give evidence that they are, and serve a School Attendance Order, which the parents can challenge in court.

    All the powers needed already exist, this extension is an unwarranted intrusion into private family life. What next, checks to see whether you are providing enough fruit and veg to meet the 5 a day recommendations?

    24 Jun 2009 8:18 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Firebird wrote:

    Orwell must be turning in his grave

    Of course the report was accepted by the government, they commissioned it and I have no doubt at all, told Mr Badman exactly what he was required to recommend.

    As for what triggered the review, no it wasn't concerns about the risk of abuse, although that's the excuse they gave because it's so hard to argue against isn't it? No, it was and is about their concern at the massive growth of home education as a direct result of state schools being so BAD. Rather than address the problems (poor academic standards, bullying, failure to meet SEN statements, teaching to the test etc. etc.) the government is trying to put a stop to the solution.

    Maybe they think that if they make home education as difficult as possible and as much like school as possible we'll all give up?

    Badman's report is a study in half truths and quotes misused out of context. He even cherry-picked parts of the UNCRC to support his arguments, ignoring the bits that make his Authoritarian ambitions illegal.

    What Badman recommends policing is not simply home education but parenting. Under this government parents are considered unfit unless checked and approved by an ever growing list of 'professionals'. From conception to age 18 your children must be monitored and measured whatever you or they think about it.

    24 Jun 2009 2:35 PM

    Report Abuse

  • V.Pellant wrote:

    councils to police home education

    Surely if the standard of the home eduction is up to standard and everything is safe within the home the parents should welcome some proffesional input, if you have nothing to hide then you should be willing to open your home and your standards of education to be checked. Parents cannot have it all ways, they would expect their childs setting to be checked if they were in full time education.The childs safety and education should be paramount.

    24 Jun 2009 12:44 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    Home educators

    I have great sympathy with parents angry about these draconian powers but recognise the need for them. School is often the first place where problems with a child's home environment are noticed. Children who don't go to school must be inspected - or all kinds of terrible things may go on unseen. It's tough for responsible families but a price worth paying.

    Martin

    24 Jun 2009 12:24 PM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

P&O Ferries

If you want to enjoy a dining experience with a difference, why not enter this month's competition...

P&O Ferries

Safe Play

KM Group in conjunction with SSP is offering an infant school or nursery the opportunity to win a new safe playground surface...

SafePlay

More websites

KentJobs
Let us help you find the right job for you...

KentHomes
We can help you find your dream home...

KentMotors
Search for a new car today...

Kent Business
For all your local and national business news...

kmfm
The music you want, the news you need...

The Tunnel of Love

As heard on kmfm with Eurotunnel Le Shuttle...

Tunnel of Love

KM Vouchers

Amazing deals at your fingertips! Click here to search in your local area...

Vouchers

Pets' Corner

Decided you'd like a pet, or need a local vet for the pet you already have, then Pet's Corner can help...

Pets' Corner

Headline Travel

Headline Travel

Book your trip today

Wedding Day 

Wedding Day

Find everything you need to help plan your wedding here...

MakeADate

MakeADate

Find your perfect match today

Commercial Properties

Commercial Properties

Click here to view listings...

Call the Experts

Call the Experts

Everything you need to find business in Kent...

kmfm for Kent

kmfm for kent

Find your local kmfm site here...

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.