I notice that the Twitter feed’s out of date – I do still tweet, so not sure why the website’s three weeks out of date. And comments are off. Odd. I shall have to poke Kevin for some kind of tech support.

What was the last thing I blogged? Ah, yes, I remember. It was political, wasn’t it? I was very political, then. That was all Before the Election, though. Everything has changed since then. The world feels different. I did sort of predict that it would, but the starkness of the difference has still taken my breath away.

The new government simply does not care about home educators. It’s not interested in us. And nothing could make me happier. They do not mind that they don’t know what my children are learning – they’re reasonably content that the evidence suggests they’re probably learning quite a lot. They do not need to control the minutiae of what we do on a day-to-day basis. They do not feel the need to protect my children from me, just in case I secretly hate them. They know that that’s very unlikely, and in any case, that all the existing mechanisms for protecting children from nasty parents are pretty much good enough as they are. They are not obsessed with power and control. They are, largely, obsessed with trying to make the books balance, and it’s a sufficiently challenging task that they are unlikely to give me and mine more than a second glance for some years to come.

After 18 months of anger and fear and outright paranoia, the change was quite a shock. It took me a while to settle into it. But settle into it I did. A couple of weeks ago, Ofsted produced a report that they were researching before Christmas, into home education. It was all the same yada-yada-yada as we’ve heard before – no-one is monitoring these people, anything could be happening, blah, blah, blah. It was precisely what we were all dreading, last year, when we first got wind of it. Except the wind has changed, and when I read the summary (didn’t bother to read the whole thing, it wasn’t important enough), I didn’t get angry. I laughed. I smirked as I marvelled at how far out of touch Ofsted had suddenly become. It was precisely the report that the last government wanted them to write – the government which couldn’t bear to leave us alone to get on with it, that wanted to pin down every possible deviation from the state-sanctioned norm, and legislate it out of existence. But this government didn’t want it.

I suspect that they weren’t supposed to publish it at all. A few weeks before, the Department for Education had told all the quangos and gravy trains to stop producing this stuff, until they worked out what the priorities were. But Ofsted had put a lot of time and effort into producing a report which helped to justify their existence, at a time when they’re quite afraid for that existence. And besides, these people could be doing anything – someone should be checking up on them! In any case, the response from the government has resembled the sound of tumble-weed blowing through the deserted town. So much so, this week, Diana Johnson felt the need to poke them, from her new spot on the opposition benches, to try and goad them into continuing the witch-hunt that she was so very keen on. She didn’t get very far. The response amounts to “Yeah, yeah, home educators, we’ll look at it later. Much later.”

It won’t be forever. Sooner or later, someone with the power to do something about it will say, “What do you mean, we don’t know how many there are?” and the whole silly roller-coaster will start again. But that day isn’t likely to come for a very long time – until they’ve got the books to balance, at the very least!

Of course, it’s not really over. Ed Balls has stated, today, that he has every intention of being re-elected, and entirely recreating the Bill in the new Parliament, and there is a belief abroad that Something Must Be Done about home education, even amongst the politicians who have fought on our behalf against the proposals that have been killed off, tonight. This battle will have to be fought again. But I’m optimistic – even if Labour do get back in, the world will be a very different place on May 7th. Their majority, if they have one, will be tiny, and they won’t have a chance of railroading such controversial legislation through again. In addition, there is NO MONEY. Have you heard? We have no money. All the money’s gone. There is likely to be very little stomach in the other two parties for the spending of millions on a problem which has never been proven to exist. On the theoretical possibility of a problem which could one day arise, maybe.

But tonight, there is reason to celebrate, because, Ding Dong, the Wicked Bill is Dead!

“RE: A fair tax system for all

Thank you for your email regarding a new tax system.

I have made representations on your behalf to the Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I will contact you when I receive a response”

It’s very good of Louise to do this on our behalf, as we really can’t  say we are in favour of an unfair tax system; that just doesn’t sound right. The fact that we’ve never contacted Louise about an unfair tax system makes her response a little strange, though.

Maybe, based on the meeting we had with her a few months back, where we talked about our strong desire for her to stop the legislation on unfair treatment of home educating families, she has surmised that we are against all forms of unfairness?

It looks very likely that our beloved MP’s filing system has gone a bit potty, which is not something you really want when you are 8 weeks out from an [supposed] election date.

Whilst it might be true that we are against unfairness, tax systems or not, I would much rather she made representations on our behalf about home education, rather than tax, at this time. I’m quite willing for her to make these representations to the Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP instead of Ed Balls, though. You never know, we might get a better response than we have in the past.

But if I don’t, then I’m standing by and letting liars and bullies have the last word about what happened to the poor child, and I’m letting them tar me with their slanderous, defamatory brush, and I’m letting them abuse her memory almost as badly as her body was abused in life. Insult added to injury, when injury was horriffic enough.

You need to know that Khyra Ishaq was not home educated. Many news articles have implied that she was, over the last nine months or so, though I am relieved to note that most of them have dropped that angle, when it became apparent that she wasn’t. The BBC, however, are still touting the line of the Labour machine, that she was home educated, that there was nothing the authorities could do, that the only thing that could have saved her was the introduction of the faltering legislation that has this week been signed off by the Commons, and moved on to the Lords.

Guess what, folks? It isn’t true. So much of it isn’t true, it’s difficult to know where to start, but let’s start with “Was Khyra home educated?”

When a child is registered to a school, and the parents wish to end that arrangement, there is a set procedure. It is laid down in law, it is neither difficult nor complicated, but it is necessary. The parents must write to the school, stating clearly that the child is to be taken off the roll, since s/he will, from that point forward, be recieving their education at home.

It has to be a letter. It doesn’t have to be recorded delivery, though some would recommend that it should be, as protection from accusations of truancy amid claims that letter did not arrive. It just has to be a letter, and it has to be sent to the school.

On receipt of the letter, the head has a legal responsibility to notify the local authority. What the LA choose to do with the information does vary from area to area, but generally speaking, parents are likely to hear from them within a few weeks, with a request for some reassurance that education is taking place.

As far as I can gather, from the various things I have read, including this FOI request, that letter was not sent. But guess what? The local authority didn’t know their own legal procedures, and deregistered her anyway. The school, at one point, had a telephone conversation in which the parents told them of their intention to home educate, but that does not make for a deregistration. The local authority, later, recieved a letter of deregistration, but the local authority CAN’T deregister a child – only the school can. They all muddled their own procedures, and behaved as if she were home educated, but she was not.

For months and months, Khyra was, or should have been, on the roll of her school, but was not attending. She hadn’t gone anywhere, they knew where she was. Teaching staff went to her house to try and see her, but failed. The school, who were actually very worried about her, reported her to social services, who by all accounts, went to the house once, got no answer, and never tried again. The neighbours knew that odd things were going on, including leaving Khyra outside in winter in her underwear, but did not see fit to play the merry hell with social services that really should have been played.

That child was let down – not so much by the school, though some training issues appear to have arisen there, too, but certainly by social services, by her community, and most importantly, BY HER PARENTS.

Guess what, folks? It was her mother, and her mother’s boyfriend, who killed her. Nobody else. It was them. They did it. Nobody stopped them, and plenty of people could have at least tried, but ultimately, their contribution would not have been required if those two people had fulfilled their legal and moral obligation to feed her. To FEED HER, for crying out loud! The blame lies with them.

Where the blame does not lie, is with me. Khyra had a whole community around her, and that community failed to save her. Her father failed to save her. I, however, am not a part of that community. I did not know Khyra. I wasn’t there. There was nothing I could do. It is not my fault.

The thing is, even if Khyra HAD been home educated, and it’s perfectly possible, given a slightly more robust investigation of the procedure by her parents, and even if Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill had been enacted into law, SHE WOULD STILL HAVE DIED. Schedule 1 allows for two days a year spent with the family – less, by the time travelling time, report writing, and so on, are factored in – and Khyra was starved in five months. Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill is about giving local authorities carte blanche to arbitrarily reject the provision that home educators are making for their children’s learning, on the basis of a wide range of equally spurious reasons. It is about taking responsibility for the education of children away from parents, and handing it to bureaucracies. It is about, incidentally, setting the legal precedent for YOU, oh school-using friends who think this doesn’t affect you, to be unable to choose the school that is right for your child, that fits your belief system, or even that accepts your cheques.

Being enrolled at school did not save Khyra. Being a long-term truant certainly didn’t save her, since no-one quite noticed. Serving up the education of my children on a platter, in the wake of an unjustified, unsubstantiated, just plain incorrect moral panic over children being “seen” certainly wouldn’t have saved her. It won’t save anyone.

Well, on the domestic front, we’ve just been pottering about. Seeing friends, learning about World War II (Daisy’s very interested, we talked about evacuees, this morning), visiting museums and galleries and whatnot, grabbing opportunities to get into the soft play cheaply, going to Gymbobs and Rainbows… you know, just stuff. Daisy’s in a very Resistant to Formal Education place, but I figure she’s five, she’d (hopefully) be spending most of her time playing even if she was in school, at this age, and the Formal Ed stuff is only to make me feel better, anyway. All the real learning around here goes on when I’m not looking.

On the political front – well, the government have published their education Bill, on the back of this week’s Queen’s Speech, and it represents an unmitigated catastrophe for home education. To summarize:-

• It demands that local authorities maintain a register of home educated children, then lists a comprehensive selection of ways to refuse to put people’s names on it. The Bill lays no duty on the parents to notify the authority that they are home educating (if, for example, their children have never been to school and they are therefore unknown to them), but if they discover you, they can hold it against you (that bit is here). It specifically says that whether or not the education being provided is suitable, should not be considered. The important thing is that you didn’t tell us.
• Similarly, it demands a detailed twelve month plan of how you plan to educate your child at home, to be submitted to the authority and accepted by them. If you deviate from the plan, then you will be judged, not on what you actually taught the child, but on the fact it was different to what you were permitted to teach them. Never mind if you quickly realised that your particular child needed something different – you will be punished for claiming the slightest degree of autonomy, for not taking your rightful place beneath our boots.
• If you have already been refused a place on the register, or had your registration revoked, then that in itself can be used as a reason to deny a reapplication. Once you’re off, you’re off for good.
• One of the reasons allowed for, for denying a child a place on the home education register, is “if the authority consider that it would be harmful to the child’s welfare for the child to become a home-educated child, or[...] to continue to be a home-educated child”. The subjectivity of this question is vast. Since there are local authority officials who believe that all home education is bad, and all children should be in school, then they could make this declaration about anyone. That single clause, there, has the potential to entirely outlaw all home education in England, irrespective of how good it might be. It’s almost enough to make you throw in the towel, isn’t it? For good measure, there are also officials who will see welfare issues for home educating disabled parents, unemployed parents, parents educated to a lower level than they would like, black parents, asian parents, gay parents, religious parents, etc, etc, etc…
• Ed Balls has stated in the House, this week, that there is no compulsory interview alone with the child, but he neglects to mention that the Bill specifically allows for authorities to deny registration if you object. So, I guess he means there’s no criminal come-back, but you don’t get to home educate.
• They have included the line about the child’s “wishes and feelings” about being home educated, both as an excuse to get them alone and ask, and as a BLATANT removal from parents the right to make unpopular decisions on their children’s behalf. How many children would rather not have to go to school every day?! I don’t see the DCSF enshrining THEIR right to over-ride their parents decision in law, do you?

All in all, it’s a very nasty piece of work. The thing I object to most, is the vindictiveness. It’s the idea that the education the child receives is of no importance, because we will use that child to punish you for not conforming to our absurdly convoluted and pointless bureaucracy. Home educators kicked up a fuss, and the Secretary of State appears to have responded by saying “I’ll teach you to argue with me”. Who was it who called him a bully? That’s exactly what violent partners do. They hit you round the head until you’ll agree with anything to make them stop.

Democracy is collapsing around our ears, people. I’m begging you – get up and do something to stop it.

I’m sorry, I’m bored now. I feel like I have spent forever trying to explain to anyone who will listen, and to a great many people who would rather not listen, that Badman is wrong, that his statistical basis lies somewhere between fabrication and fiction, that his proposals undermine the role of parents and families, that he flies in the face of the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty, and so on, and so on, and so on. I’m bored. It doesn’t seem to matter how many people people respond to the reviews, or submit evidence to the Select Committee, or reply to the consultations. With every opportunity to shout at the government, even more people seem to be motivated to do so, and none of it makes any difference. They don’t listen, and they breeze on in their own sweet way.

Ah well. In case anyone is casually interested, this is my submission to the current DCSF consultation into registration and monitoring of home education. The executive summary would be that I’m against it. All of it.

Question 1: Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?

Disagree.

This consultation, and the Badman Review before it, appear to be under the impression that parents and their children both have opposing sets of rights, which are somehow in tension with one another. This is plainly untrue. Parents do not have rights, they have duties and responsibilities, most of which are specifically to protect the rights of their children. Parents do not home educate in spite of a child’s right to education. In most cases, they do so specifically because they found that the child’s right to education was not being fulfilled through attendance at school. In such circumstances, it is the parent’s legal duty to take steps to rectify the deficiency, and provide an education, since the parent remains ultimately responsible, in law, for ensuring that education is provided. There appears to be a belief in the DCSF that the child’s right is to go to school – this is not the case. How education is provided is a decision for the parent to make, based on his or her knowledge of the child, of the available options, and of the needs of the family as a whole.

The DCSF needs to stop talking about home education as if it represents a form of second class educational provision. It is a valid legal choice, which should not incur discrimination and prejudice from government departments and agencies, any more than the decisions to attend church, or to avoid eating meat, should incur government discrimination. The apparent bias against the parents as educators implies a belief that parents cannot, or can only rarely, educate a child suitably themselves. The most important knowledge for a person to have, in order to educate a child, is knowledge of the child – not theoretical knowledge of education. Parents have this knowledge in the most depth, and have the greatest personal investment in the success of the education. They are, therefore, the best placed to educate their own children. Certainly, the research done in the US and Canada suggests that home educated children achieve consistently superior results, when compared to their schooled counterparts – though the research in question did not appear in Mr Badman’s literature review, giving the impression that he did not wish to find favourable reports of home education.

The only people who are consistently claiming that home educated children are not, generally, receiving a suitable education, are Local Authorities, but recent investigation by Home Education campaigners suggests that, in many cases, LAs are making judgements about suitability based largely on prejudice and presumption, that they frequently find it difficult to conceive of a form of education that does not resemble the school model, and that (crucially) their alleged concerns are rarely backed up by the legal recourse available to them – the number of School Attendance Orders being issued is much, much smaller than the number of concerns that LAs told Mr Badman that they had, and one can only assume that this is because the LA staff know that they would not stand up in court. The children are receiving a suitable education, just one that the school-experienced educationalists do not approve of.

The proposals generally would limit the ability of parents to offer an education that was truly suitable to an individual child’s age, ability and aptitude, and reduce them to providing a version of the state’s one-size-fits-all education model, with the added hazards of excessive bureaucracy (which should never have a place in the family home) and the constant threat of registration being revoked for non-compliance.

The state does not own children. Parents are parents, not state-sanctioned childminders. The state should never attempt to place itself between loving, committed parenting, and the child.

Question 2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?

Disagree.

The apparent desire to allow Local Authorities to keep tabs on the educational setting of all children, not just those for whom it is providing the education, is a significant step. To date, LAs have been responsible for a) the provision of state schools for every child whose parents wish to utilise such a service; and b) pursuing any report that comes to them, that a particular child is not receiving a suitable education at all. Through these two functions, they are able to assist parents in fulfilling their legal duty to provide an education, by offering an educational service, and they are able ensure that parents who are discovered to be breaking this law are brought to justice. They have not been, and should never be, directly responsible for the education of all the children within the boundary of their authority. That role belongs to parents, who are legally responsible for providing an education, “either by regular attendance at school, or otherwise”.

In a democracy, parents, along with any other citizen, must be assumed to be complying with the law, unless there is clear evidence to suggest that they are not. To keep a register of those parents who choose, quite legally, to educate their children themselves, is akin to maintaining a register of vegetarians, in case some of them are criminally neglecting their offspring through the deprivation of protein. Home education is a legal choice, sometimes based on personal beliefs and philosophies, and it is clear discrimination for that choice to incur the intrusion into a family’s life, through the compulsory use of personal information in a database. The insulting implication is that home educators are so likely to be breaking the law, that they need to be watched.

Every database which holds information on a person increases the risk of that information escaping into the wrong hands, resulting in individuals being targetted for identity theft, child grooming, and any of a range of other offences. It is impossible for government, indeed, for anyone, to guarantee the integrity of data held in a database. The only way to guarantee its safety, is not to gather it. As a result, a register of home educators, with no obvious purpose, offers an increase in risk to home educators, with no benefit to them.

A compulsory registration scheme merely adds to the bureaucratic workload of home educating parents, detracting from the time and energy they might otherwise have spent educating their children. Registration offers no advantages to the registered, and registration alone (without arrangements for monitoring, etc) achieves nothing at all, except to add to the number of places from which ones personal details can be stolen.

Most home educators currently consider registration with the Local Authority to be avoided if at all possible. This is not because they have anything to hide, in the vast majority of cases. It is merely because registration offers no benefits at all, and inconvenience, bureaucracy, stress and intrusion into family life, that is entirely unwarranted.

In the unlikely event that the case for registration can be proven, it should be noted that a child’s educational setting is already listed in ContactPoint. There seems to be no merit in an additional, separate register of home educators – if such a list is truly necessary, the pre-existing ContactPoint should be the source.

3. Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?

Disagree.

I have made clear in my response to Question 2, that I consider registration to be intrusive, unnecessary, insulting, and risk-laden.

In addition to these general concerns, I also object to the requirement to provide “a statement of approach to education, and the location where education is conducted if not the home”. Home education is a family function. Just because education is a function most commonly delegated to institutions, is not a reason to expect families to submit to a level of bureaucracy most commonly found in such institutions. It is not clear how much detail would be required from these two statements, or what their purpose would be. However, it is clear that as a first-stage requirement, or even prerequisite to home education, they would be unreasonably daunting to many parents.

Many home educated children are deregistered from school at a time of crisis. Mr Badman, and many of the Local Authorities, are inclined to imply that during a crisis is the very worst time to make the decision to home educate. However, it is not a decision that families take lightly, and in many cases, it is only taken when the family reaches a level of desperation that leaves them unable to see another option. Expecting parents to produce a document adequately outlining what education they are going to provide, in such circumstances as these, is unreasonable, and unrealistic. Even in a home educating family that is enjoying calm, happy, productive times, it is not necessarily possible to predict with any detail what topics will be covered, or what children will learn. Home education is not like school. The level of structure and advanced planning involved varies enormously between families, and even in the most structured of families, a plan or curriculum can be changed completely at short notice, in order to better meet needs of the child concerned. In families who follow a more thoroughly child-led approach, predicting where the child might lead would be little more than an act of clairvoyance. This does not mean that child is not receiving a suitable education. It merely means that the details of that education cannot be easily predicted in advance.

The requirement to give details of the “location where education is conducted” is bizarre, irrelevant, and a betrayal of the school-focussed perspective of the DCSF. Home education is not like school. It does not involve arriving at a venue, spending six hours there, and then leaving to go home. It happens wherever the child happens to be, at any time of the day or night that suits the family as a whole, and the child in particular. It includes clubs and activities, trips out, car journeys, visits to friends and family, and presence at any number of locations and venues. The question would be entirely without meaning to many home educators. If, as I suspect, it is actually intended to mean, “Let us inspect your house,” then I refer to my answer to Question 2. It is discriminatory to demand to inspect the homes of home educators, just because they are home educators. The desire to do so betrays both an assumption that adequate resources are unlikely to be available, and an assumption a government inspector will be able to make value judgements about the quality of a child’s education, either by looking to see if books or a computer are in evidence, or by evaluating when the carpet was last hoovered. In either case, such an inspection proves nothing about education, but is hugely disruptive and intrusive to the family concerned.

Being daunted by the bureaucratic requirements of the registration regime should in no way be considered to indicate unsuitability of a parent to home educate. The skills required to suitably educate ones own child are vastly different to the skills required to jump through government hoops through form-filling. Staff at schools and in Local Authorities are, in part, employed for their ability to negotiate such hoops (though schools regularly complain about the paperwork overwhelming the educational role). Bureaucracy has no place in family life, and should have no part in a parent’s decision to educate their child.

Question 4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?

Disagree.

As I have made clear, I do not agree with the proposed register, and therefore cannot possibly agree to a requirement for parents to maintain the data held within it. The comparison between the registration system described here, and the types used for prisoners on probation, for example, is distasteful, and insulting to law-abiding home educators. I have been avoiding making sensationalist comparisons with how Jews were registered and tracked in Nazi Germany, for fear of seeming to belittle the events of that time. However, the comparison increasingly presents itself, and I am having difficulty in ignoring it.

Q5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?

Disagree.

Since the information which the consultation suggests would be required from home educators is so badly defined, so completely at odds with how home education functions, and so discriminatory and insulting to home educators, to criminalise the failure of parents to contribute that information would cross the line from discrimination into persecution. Parents are not responsible to the state for the lawful decisions they make regarding their family life, and neither should they be so.

If the government were to decide to criminalise home educators who did not comply, they would necessarily have to point out the requirement to all parents, presumably at the point of application for a child’s first school place. This could have the effect of introducing home education as a possibility to a wide range of people who would not have otherwise considered the idea. I suspect that such a thing would represent an unintended consequence, and be the very opposite of the original goal of the legislation.

6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?

Disagree.

This question is simply not adequately explained, which makes it very difficult to answer comprehensively. It is not clear, either here, or in the Badman report, whether the child would be expected to attend during this 20 day period. It is not clear whether the school and/or Local Authority would spend the 20 days attempting to pressurise the family into cancelling their deregistration. It is not clear how a 20 day cooling off period, in which a child was not attending, would affect a school’s attendance targets. It is not clear whether parents with no intention to home educate would be able to use this “cooling off period” to take their children on holiday during term-time, and then claim to have changed their minds, and cancel their deregistration. It is not clear whether schools or Local Authorities could use this 20 day period to get “troublesome” pupils out of the way, eg, during an Ofsted inspection.

In some, very popular schools, it is possible for a child’s vacated school place to be filled very quickly, preventing the family from changing their minds shortly after the initial deregistration decision. However, the number of unanswered questions surrounding this proposal suggest that a whole new consultation would be necessary, before such a thing could implemented.

6 b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?

Disagree.

Absolutely not. A child’s achievement and projected attainment information is sensitive data which is personal to them. It belongs to the child, is covered under the Data Protection Act, and should only be made available to the child and his/her parents. Passing such information to the Local Authority is a breach of trust.

The parents are responsible for providing a suitable education for the child. It is the parents, and the parents alone, for whom the school’s opinion on a child’s achievements and future potential is relevant. It is common for parents who have deregistered a child to do so after a long period of disagreement with the school, possibly regarding the child’s ability. For that parent to then be held to ransom by the school’s statements regarding the child’s capability is to compound the problem that deregistration sought to solve.

Q7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?

Disagree.

As I understand it, this is simply a way of asking if the DCSF should arrange to make all the changes I have objected to in questions 1 to 6, by means of statutory instruments which would not require the approval of Parliament. Absolutely not.

I have explained in great depth how the proposed registration of home educated children is discriminatory, unjust and anti-democratic. The registration scheme amounts to an appropriation of parental responsibility by government. It fundamentally changes the legal role and position of parents – all parents, not just home educators – in this country, by giving Local Authorities, not parents, the ultimate power to decide on the best way to educate a child. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should such changes as these be nodded through in the form of statutory guidance. The implications are enormous, and warrant a full, public debate, and the benefit of the whole parliamentary process.

Section 7 of the Education Act holds parents responsible for the education of their children, and has done so since 1944. If the government really thinks it wise, appropriate and valid to change this fundamental element of parental responsibility, it should be prepared to do it properly.

For the record, I find the attempt to slip home education monitoring into the Improving Schools & Safeguarding Children Bill, before the current consultation is over, utterly reprehensible. The looming general election is no excuse to bypass due process in this, or any other matter.

On the other hand, I would welcome making the current Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities (2007) statutory. They are actually very good, and obliging Local Authorities to stick to them would be helpful.

Q8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?

Disagree.

I find this proposal to be the least logical idea in the whole Badman report. Education and safeguarding are two entirely separate matters. Mixing them up like this helps no-one.

The implication would appear to be that a family home can be safe for a child during evenings, weekends and school holidays, but not during term-time between the hours of 9am and 3pm. That is clearly nonsense. If a child is at risk of suffering serious harm at home, they should not be there. The form of their education is irrelevant. If there is no evidence of such risk, then there is no reason to prevent a family from caring for their children by whatever means they see fit, including with reference to their education.

The assumptions behind this proposal are fundamentally flawed. There is an assumption that a child who is at risk, but is in school, is therefore being kept safe through daily monitoring. The number of abused children who only disclose their abuse after reaching adulthood would suggest that this is not true. There is an assumption that home educated children are kept out of sight of the world, and are therefore invisible to those who might otherwise intervene in their plight, should intervention be necessary. Mr Badman, however, found no evidence at all that this was the case. The vast majority of home educated children are constantly out and about in the community, joining clubs, making friends, taking learning opportunities from all around them. Indeed, some home educators find that they are reported to Social Services by neighbours, simply because their children were noted as not being in school.

I appreciate that the government is trying to limit the damage caused by a series of high-profile child abuse cases. In none of those cases, however, was the child in question “hidden”. In all cases, the children had been reported to Social Services, and/or seen by health professionals, and in all cases, it was the failure of staff to implement the existing procedures that led to the death of the child. Targetting new groups for new procedures will not solve that problem. The government should invest its limited resources in funding, staffing, training and accountability within their existing Social Services teams, regarding their existing case loads. Home education does not represent an increased risk of child abuse – indeed, the statistics gathered by home educators during the summer of 2009 suggest that home educated children are less than a quarter as likely to be abused or neglected as the general population (0.29%, compared to 1.3%).

For the record, Local Authorities who treat a parent’s right to offer evidence of their educational provision by means other than a home visit, as a “safeguarding concern” should be told in no uncertain terms that such a thing is not acceptable. There are many reasons why a parent might prefer to deal with the LA by other means, including personal preference, and they are perfectly within their rights to make that choice. Again, conflating the suitability of the education with the safety of the child is dangerous and unhelpful.

Q9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?

Disagree.

I refer to my answer to Question 3: It is discriminatory to demand to inspect the homes of home educators, just because they are home educators. The desire to do so betrays both an assumption that adequate resources are unlikely to be available, and an assumption a government inspector will be able to make value judgements about the quality of a child’s education, either by looking to see if books or a computer are in evidence, or by evaluating when the carpet was last hoovered. In either case, such an inspection proves nothing about education, but is hugely disruptive and intrusive to the family concerned. In any case, “the premises where home education is taking place” is a phrase devoid of meaning to many home educators, and a betrayal of the school-focussed perspective of the DCSF. Home education is not like school. It does not involve arriving at a venue, spending six hours there, and then leaving to go home. It happens wherever the child happens to be, at any time of the day or night that suits the family as a whole, and the child in particular. It includes clubs and activities, trips out, car journeys, visits to friends and family, and presence at any number of locations and venues.

Giving Local Authorities the right to enter private homes as a matter of course is a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8. Home educators, just like everyone else, have a right to their private family lives, and to be left in peace.

The idea of giving “2 weeks notice” is both rude, and potentially unworkable. Home educators are private individuals with lives and responsibilities. They are not sitting around waiting for their LA to turn up, and in some cases, they are much more inclined to go away for periods of several weeks or months. Does the DCSF anticipate criminalising home educators who choose to take their children away for a month, for not keeping an appointment made with two weeks’ notice?

Q10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?

Disagree.

Absolutely not. The only circumstances under which a child should be interviewed without the presence and support of their parents, are when that child is at serious risk of harm, ie, within the context of the existing legislation that Social Services teams use to protect children. In every other case, the right to interview a child at all should be at the discretion of the parents, and the right to interview a child alone should not even be requested by education professionals seeking to engage in good practice. All children are vulnerable, by their very nature as children, and the suggestion in the question that only the most vulnerable should be allowed any adult support at all, is reprehensible. For the majority of children, parents are the key supporter in times of stress, and such an interview has the potential to be very stressful indeed. The children should not be abandoned to a stranger.

Mr Badman’s implication that children should be given the opportunity, not to disclose abuse, but to disclose their secret desire to be educated at school, flies entirely in the face of the legal role of parents. Children are entitled to have their voices heard in matters that affect them, but it is the role of their parents, not the Local Authority, to decide how that voice will affect the decisions to be taken regarding their education, just as it is the parents who are responsible for making all the other decisions surrounding the running of the family. Not all children are happy with all the decisions made by their parents on their behalf. Arguably, most children are distinctly unhappy with some of those decisions. However, the decisions remain with the parents, whose greater knowledge, wisdom and experience can usually be relied upon. It is, of course, particularly farcical, that no-one would dream of offering schooled children the opportunity to demand to be home educated, even though their enrolment at school was just as much a decision of their parents, with which they may or may not agree.

There is no reason to assume that the hypothetical abuse victim would use their annual interview with a stranger from the LA to disclose the abuse. Children who disclose abuse generally do so to trusted adults, with whom they have built relationships over a long period of time. If the child has not disclosed the abuse to their friends, extended family, Brown Owl or swimming tutor, the likelihood of their doing so in this situation is slim in the extreme.

The consultation, and the Badman report before it, gives no indication of how a child who refused to be left alone with an LA official might be regarded. It is not clear whether the parents would be penalised for such a refusal, or whether they would be expected to force the child to comply – in the latter case, it seems like an odd way to listen to a child’s voice, to ignore their refusal to be interviewed.

Q 11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.

Disagree.

I consider the current law to be adequate. It allows for Local Authorities to investigate whether a child is in receipt of a suitable education, and if they are presented with evidence that would convince a reasonable person that that he or she is, they should consider their duty fulfilled. The desire to monitor continuously suggests a belief that parents might provide an education at one time, but then cease to do so. This seems very unlikely to be the case – if a parent is prepared to take the time and trouble to provide an education once, they are very likely to continue doing so.

Monitoring, on the other hand, gives the Local Authority a responsibility for the quality of education that they have not previously had. It opens them up all kinds legal challenges, for undertaking a responsibility that previously belonged to parents.

Local Authorities seem very unwilling to utilise the powers that are currently available to them, through existing legislation. This being the case, their constant demands for greater powers through new legislation are inexplicable. There is no need to make regular monitoring compulsory. There is only a need for LAs to follow the rules and guidelines which already exist.

The DCSF has failed entirely to demonstrate that monitoring would improve the quality of home education, would solve any identifiable problem, or would do anything other than cost a great deal of money to implement. This is a white elephant proposal that should be scrapped.

Those points aside, I feel bound to point out that four weeks is a very short period of time after deregistration for a family, potentially in recovery from a major crisis, to deal with an LA inspection. The time scales, if they must exist at all, should allow a period of at least six months, for a family to recover themselves emotionally, organise themselves practically, and bring themselves to a place of having something to discuss. Nothing is likely to subvert a child’s recovery from a stressful school experience, like a compulsory visit from an official with the authority to send them back to school. The whole idea is abhorrent.

And that is why home educators are archiving a copy, and doing our best to get it up the Google rankings, so that when people are looking for the Guidelines, that might have a chance of finding them.

Thanks to renegadeparent, and to Maire for the heads up.

Most of what he’s up to involves opening new schools, commenting on the adventures of Norwich in the football league, and writing inane articles for newspapers.

His pet newspaper is the Wakefield Express. I haven’t checked, but I imagine that this is because Wakefield is his constituency. It doesn’t come up much, except that he writes a column in their local paper.

I am sure that the good people of Wakefield are delighted  beyond measure, when he uses their local paper to explain the latest insanity to come out of the Department for Cushions and Soft Furnishings. I mean, I’m sure people are as het up about the vetting and barring database in Wakefield as they are everywhere else, I’m just saying, it’s not exactly a local issue.

Anyway, I follow Ed Balls on Twitter, which means I read his announcement of his Wakefield Express column on vetting and barring, and so I wandered off to read the article. As ever, in precisely the manner to which I, at least, have become accustomed, he has spent 586 words completely missing the point.

“Oh, no!” he says. “The press are misrepresenting my wonderful scheme. They are saying that parents will need to be checked to do each other favours. That is silly, to say nothing of unenforceable. I will correct their sad misapprehensions, and then they will realise that they only need to be checked if they do a favour for Brown Owl or Akela. Then they will be happy, and will like me.”

No, Ed, on a number of counts. The problem I have is not with the number of people/circumstances that the new system claims to extend to, although it does seem a short step from sticking everyone on one big über-database, where we can check on everything, all the time. Parrallels with Big Brother and 1984 stopped being funny quite some time ago.

However, my actual reason for loathing the proposed system has less to do with who’s in it, than what’s in it. It is not merely a list of people with a history of abusing power and position in relation to children and/or vulnerable adults. It does not refer simply to people who have been tried and found guilty of specific crimes. In the ISA’s lengthy document entitled Guidance Notes for the Barring Decision Making Process, this corker of a statement is found:

even where a jury has found someone not guilty of having done something, you must always remember that, at most, this means is that the court did not find that someone did something “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Not Guilty, it appears, does not mean Not Guilty. It means Probably Guilty, But We Were Confounded In Our Attempt To Prove It. Am I the only person who finds that to be utterly outrageous? Has the concept of innocent until proven guilty – that’s proven guilty, not strongly suspected by some over-zealous official somewhere to probably be guilty – really been dispensed with in this country? Don’t we believe in that any more?

I realise that my idealistic ideas probably wouldn’t have prevented Ian Huntley from attacking those two children in Soham. And it was the Soham murders that kicked off the seven-year process that got us to the Vetting and Barring database in the first place. But the answer is not to ascribe guilt to anyone who has ever had the finger pointed at them, however briefly, however unfairly, however maliciously. It is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It is eliminating innocent people from large areas of paid and/or voluntary work for no good reason. It is diminishing the day-to-day lives of the children and vulnerable adults that those innocent people might otherwise have worked with.

The problem with Ian Huntley, if we assume for a moment that the previous allegations against him were true, appears to be tied up with the deplorably low conviction rate in rape cases and other sex crimes in this country. I’m no expert in this area – many people who are better informed than I am have postulated as to why the conviction rates are so low, and how that can be changed. However, compensating for this weakness by declaring the Not Guilty to be Guilty is a very low blow. It is unjust, it is anti-democratic, and it is a form of insanity that could turn around to bite any one of us on the behind. It is not my job to prove that I am not a criminal. It is yours to prove that I am.

There’s other stuff, along the same lines – the sort of information that they might use to bar you, unproven, subjective opinion, the sort of thing that might result from your having had a row with a social worker once, or stood up for your superior understanding of the law against a police officer. The sort of thing that might make such a person angry enough to imply things in a report. It’s all pretty seedy, though, and it amounts to the same thing. I am innocent, until you can convince a judge that I am not. Even that process is far from fool-proof, but it is at least a process.

And that is why I am boycotting the ISA and their Vetting and Barring database. I currently hold a CRB check, and if I renew it in the next few months, it could be as much as two years before this new monstrosity crosses my path, but when it does, some people in my church are likely to get very upset with me. Because I will have nothing to do with it, and if that means I can no longer staff the creche, or work with the asylum seekers, then I’m afraid that’s the price to be paid. Democracy is disappearing down the toilet, and I can’t look the other way, and vaguely hope that it stops doing it.

Dear Ms Jump,

RE: Home Education changes

Thank you for a your letter regarding changes to legislation affecting home education.

I realise how strongly you feel on this issue. Should legislation be proposed, I will consider the point you made further.

Yours sincerely,

Louise Ellman MP

And the punctuation was corrected in biro, for good measure.

Dear Ms Ellman

I contacted you in March concerning the Badman Review of Elective Home Education, which has now reported its findings to the government. At the time I was concerned that the basis of the review was unfair and unreasonable, and likely to lead to unfair and unreasonable recommendations. I have now read Mr Badman’s report, and can confirm this is precisely what has happened.

Your response appears to have been to forward my letter to the Department for Children, Schools and Families, who in turn sent me a most unsatisfactory reply, which addressed none of my concerns, and offered me no solutions. I shall be responding to Ms McCarthy-Fry separately.

Having read the Badman report, and allowed myself a few weeks to absorb the full horror of its contents, I am now writing to point out to you the major flaws that contribute to its unfairness and unreasonableness, and am asking for your support in preventing these draconian recommendations from becoming law.

1) Academic rigour of the report
This was a very poorly constructed report. It offers little or no real evidence to support its conclusions, and Mr Badman uses the phrase “I believe” no less than sixteen times (not counting the occurrences of “I am not persuaded…” and “surely there can be no argument that…”). Mr Badman may believe in whatsoever he wishes, as far as I am concerned. In the context of a government report, however, I require that he produce actual evidence supporting his position, and consequent recommendations.

In addition, where Mr Badman has referred to evidence at all, he has misused and misrepresented key elements, in order to support his opinion. He admits that he has found “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”, and therefore bases his recommendations entirely on the statement, “the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population”. Subsequent research, using Freedom of Information requests of 106 authorities, suggests that the average number of home educated children known to have been abused is 0.83% of the home educated population, compared with 1.8% of the general population. If Mr Badman has found authorities with numbers significantly higher than this, then I would suggest that those authorities are facing extraordinary problems generally, and that home education is unlikely to be a significant factor. It is also true that children “known to children’s social care” are not necessarily abused, or at risk of abuse or neglect. Since it is known that a higher than average number of home educated children have Special Educational Needs (generally because the the failure of the school system to meet those needs), then this unexplained figure could well include children who legitimately access services from the local authority in connection with those needs, as well as any other children whose contact with social services is entirely innocent, or short-lived, having been found not to be at risk on investigation by social workers. Indeed, it is the reprehensible practice of some authorities to automatically refer all known home educators to social services, as if home education itself were a welfare issue – presumably these authorities returned figures of 100%, to the question “how many of your home educators are known to the social care team?”

He has also misrepresented the opinions of contributors, most notably the Church of England, when he quotes them as being concerned that home educated children may not be exposed to “social and cultural diversity”, or “people with different faith and value systems”. Setting aside the obvious flaws in the reasoning that the C of E’s single faith schools somehow present diversity of faith and values, and that most schools only deliver the social and cultural diversity of their geographical location, he fails to acknowledge that this is the only negative point in a ten-point response, which concludes that the current legislation is perfectly adequate in safeguarding the education and welfare of home educated children.

He refers to a literature review, but gives no indication of what literature was reviewed, how it was evaluated, or how it informed the final report. He does say that he is “not convinced by the existing research studies on the outcomes for home educated children”, and makes vague references to how the sample sizes of “some” research are too small, or biassed, but again, he fails to highlight the specifics of his concerns, making it impossible for the reader to judge the quality of his conclusions. If I were a cynical person, I would wonder if he was actually seeking to prevent such a judgement by the reader.

2) Parenting by parents, not the state
Some of the recommendations made by Mr Badman do nothing less than shift the balance of responsibility for children away from their parents, towards the state. If the statistical outcomes for children in the care of social services are anything to go by, the state makes a very poor parent indeed, and should only take on that role in situations of dire emergency. Several times in the report, Mr Badman refers to the need for a balance to be struck, between “the rights of parents”, and those of children. What he fails to understand, is that parents rights are not in tension with or opposition to children’s rights. Parents do not have rights, as such, they have duties and responsibilities, and enough freedom to make choices concerning the best way to fulfil those duties and responsibilities. Mr Badman seems to suggest that home educators are denying their children their right to attend school, in demanding their right to home educate, but this confrontational understanding of the situation does not represent the reality of parenting in the vast majority of families. Most parents, home educating or otherwise, are seeking to find the options that will work best for their child, within the context of their family situation. There is no such thing as a perfect upbringing, there is just a long series of decisions and choices, made with the information available at the time, by the people who know and understand the individual child, and who are most likely to have that child’s best interests at heart. Most parents can and should be trusted to make those decisions for their children.

Consequently, Mr Badman’s recommendations that children should be routinely separated from their parents, to be grilled for evidence of abuse, evidence of subterfuge surrounding the information parents have given regarding their education, and to be asked if they would not rather be at school, anyway, is a horrifying and potentially abusive situation. Children are, by definition, vulnerable. Some are, for various reasons, more vulnerable than others. Most would not wish to be left alone with a stranger in an official capacity, without parental support, and in no other situation would anyone expect them to do so. The police are not allowed to interview children without a parent/guardian present, and as I understand it, social workers require a court order, and evidence of serious risk or harm to the child before they may separate a child from his/her parents. It would appear that the government’s unqualified acceptance of these recommendations means no more or less than the state’s belief in the malice and duplicity of all parents towards their children. Cases of child abuse and neglect are tragic and catastrophic, and the state needs to be prepared to intervene for a child in serious situations. However, if 1.8% of children are known to have been abused, then over 98% of parents are fulfilling their various duties to their children. Amongst the home educating community this number appears to be over 99%. The vast majority of parents are good, loving parents, who want the best for their children, and the government’s assumption to the contrary is an insult to all parents.

Mr Badman’s recommendations seem to be aimed at making home education as difficult as possible. They are bureaucratic, unweildy, and stacked against the likelihood of a parent successfully negotiating them. He proposes an annual “registration”, which amounts to a licence to home educate, dependent upon

* a series of compulsory visits to the family home,
* private access to the child,
* the acceptance by the local authority of a “clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months”, into which local authority staff would have had significant input,
* an eight week time limit for the production of the said plan,
* an incorporation into the plan of the school’s ideas of the child’s level and likely progress, if the child has been de-registered,
* the child being “allowed” to demonstrate their attainment and progress,
* non-education specialists in “adult services and other agencies” finding no grounds to declare a parent unfit to home educate, relating to “drug/alcohol abuse”,”domestic violence”, “previous offences against children” or “anything else that might affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education”.

The level of bureaucracy outlined is a waste of much time and energy, that might be better spent actually educating ones children. Frankly, the skills required to successfully negotiate such a bureaucratic construct bear little or no relation to the skills required to actually educate children, and I particularly resent the implication that if I am not capable of wading through this mire of local government documentation, I am likely to be deemed unsuitable. It is the education that the child receives (which may be from a variety of sources, managed by the parent, rather than from the parent him/herself) that should be of value, not the capacity to impress professionals, write documents and fill in forms. The statement of “desired/planned outcomes for the child” cuts right across the way home education works. Its great strength is that it is not like school. It allows the flexibility for even the most structured of families to completely change tack, if a particular approach is not working, and it can be totally responsive to the individual needs and interests of the child, at the precise moment that they arise. Such “informal” learning (often described as “autonomous education” by advocates), was described last year as “astonishingly efficient”, by Alan Thomas, in an academic study of the phenomenon.

Mr Badman’s assertion that the “checks and balances” laid upon schools, in the bid to establish whether or not they are fulfilling their educational purpose, should rightly be applied to home education, misses an important point: schools are inspected and monitored precisely because parents have delegated the educational responsibility for their children, to the school. The parent remains legally responsible for the child’s education, and therefore needs mechanisms by which to satisfy him/herself that the education is suitable. The school, and indeed the local authority, are accountable to the parents and taxpayers, not the other way around. Since home educators receive no government funding to assist with the task, they are not accountable to the taxpayer, and since they have ultimate legal responsibility for their child’s education, they are not accountable to the local authority. They are only accountable to their children. To make home educators jump through hoops for the privilege of educating their own children, effectively undermines their responsibility. If local authorities have the final say on who, if anyone, gets to home educate, then local authorities have become the child’s parent, and the actual parents become government lackeys, charged with the bringing up of children according to a state tick-sheet. I suspect that, deep down, the local authorities do not want to be held legally responsible for children. If they were, then every child who failed to fulfil their potential in school would be able to sue the authority for their inadequate provision. The best schools in the land cannot claim to maximise the potential of every single child.

Much of the tone of the report implies that home educated children are being kept out of school against their will, on the petulant whim of unsympathetic parents. Whilst this seems most unlikely to be true, even if it were, it would be unfair. The human rights legislation to which this country subscribes highlights the child’s right to an education – not his/her right to school. It is the role of parent, as previously discussed, to find the best way to deliver that education, and whilst school is the norm for most families, does not mean that these two things should become confused. Mr Badman appears to believe that children should be taken aside and asked whether they would prefer to be at school, and yet he does not notice the irony, that most school children are never given such a choice. The child has a right to have his/her opinions heard, but as in all other situations, it is the role of the parent to hear that opinion, then make a decision on the child’s behalf. Surely, if a school pupil declared a desire to be home educated, it would be the role of the parent to decide whether that were feasible or desirable in their own family’s situation. It makes no sense to give the local authority the final say in the reverse situation.

Similarly, nothing is mentioned of the child’s right not to be taken away from his/her parents for private interview. If the child does not wish it, or refuses to talk to the local authority official, or decides not to demonstrate their learning for the official’s benefit, will his/her rights be taken into account, or will this be held up as a black mark against the parents? A child’s home is part of his/her security, and to have it compulsorily invaded by an official with the power to destroy the family’s way of life is likely to be hugely stressful for any child, and more so if the child has any special needs, such as autism, mental health problems, history of bullying at school, bereavement, or any one of a thousand other problems. Mr Badman’s lack of concern for the integrity of the child’s home is reprehensible.

I find the idea that staff in adult services units can veto home education on basis of their view of the capability of the adult slightly horrifying. There is no reason to assume that such staff would have any knowledge or background in home education, and if/how adults might be impaired in its delivery. This item alone, has the potential to create a situation where an adult in need of support fails to access it, for fear of having the right to home educate taken away. In my view, refusing permission to home educate on safeguarding grounds is nonsense. Either a child is safe in their own home, or s/he is not. Being declared safe during evenings, weekends and school holidays, but not in term time is little short of insanity. In addition, the line referring to “anything else that might affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education” could be twisted to mean almost anything – a family could be refused because they have a faith, or have no faith, or are vegetarians, or joined the Labour party, or on any other excuse.

The belief that the state knows best, in the intimate business of family life, is the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. Mr Badman’s review undermines freedom, not just for home educators, but for all families. If home educated children are assumed to be unsafe at home, then why stop there? Many under-5s are at home with their parents all day – should we be checking up on them, too? What about the schooled children during those long summer holidays? Should we be sending someone round to their homes to make sure they’re safe? Our legal system operates on the presumption of innocence. Checking that my children are OK is directly comparable with sending a policemen round to check that I don’t have stolen goods in my back bedroom. If there is evidence of a problem, either with a child’s education, or his/her safety, then there are laws in place which can be invoked to intervene in that problem. If there is no evidence of a problem, it is an enormous violation of ordinary families’ liberty to interfere.

3) Cost to Local Authorities
A letter has recently been sent to the Directors of Children’s Services in all the Local Authorities in England who employ such a person, outlining in great depth the huge potential problems that the Badman report’s recommendations present to them in their role. I do not intend to recreate that letter here, but I would like to highlight some of the key points.

How Local Authorities deal with the Elective Home Educators on their books varies enormously from one area to the next. There is no specific funding available to support this work, and consequently councils take widely differing approaches, both in terms of who deals with the caseload, to whom they report, and how they go about it. Some prefer to establish the suitability of a child’s educational provision through personal interview, while others prefer to receive a written report, which takes up less of their time, and fewer of their resources, to process. The Badman recommendations envisage compulsory interviews, certainly annually, and more frequently at the beginning of a family’s home educating journey, as well as compulsory registration of all home educators. Since Badman himself estimates that compulsory registration could quadruple the number of children known to Local Authorities, it seems that it could become a very expensive business indeed, for the Directors to fund. Yet, Lord Lucas has been told in the House of Lords that no “impact assessment” is being done, since “We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education.” From the point of view of Local Authorities, these recommendations are unworkable without huge additional investment, and in these straightened times, it seems most unlikely that any new money is available to pay for children who currently cost the government nothing at all.

As a result of these points, I would like you to:
a) continue to lobby the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in a bid to enable them to see sense on this issue;
b) join at least five of your Labour Party colleagues in signing EDM 1785, “Home Education and the Badman Review”;
c) do whatever else you can to see this report rejected, and to prevent its attack on decent family life from becoming law.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Ruth A Jump