This is the letter I composed in response to reading the article:
"They don?t know if they want to go to school because most of them have never been."
I've never been to prison, but I'm fairly sure I don't want to! What kind of nonsense is this article?
For instance:
"Families who learn at home are formally inspected twice a year, but Mike Allpress, an inspector for Essex, feels some children are still losing out: ?My experience is that a small proportion, perhaps 5%, are doing really well. They?re the sort of kids who would do well anywhere. But the majority are either doing adequately or not terribly well.?"
Families who learn at home are not formally inspected twice a year, unless the Local Authority is far exceeding its remit and harassing them! The only duty a LA has is to make enquiries if no suitable education appears to be offered, and many of them have taken it on themselves to interpret this as requiring formal inspections on a far too regular basis. In reality, families can submit reports, have a quick meeting or whatever - as it is the education that is on offer that is under inspection, rather than any achievements made, there is no requirement to meet the children at all.
And asking an inspector his opinion is a dubious way to go about it. Although then again, perhaps you should ask his opinion on how many children in schools are doing really well?
Yet again, another stereotypical article about home educators as irresponsible drop outs from society. Very far from the reality that I'm aware of as a one time home educator whose children are now flexi schooled at a montessori school.
*
can't remember if there was anything else glaringly wrong in it, but the inspection bit is certainly off.
hth
Jax