Is this being reported anywhere?

[sorky]

I bought the Independent this morning thinking there would be a mention or even an article in there on this whole nonsense and there is absolutely nothing!

This is the worst thing that could happen, for it to sail through unnoticed unchallenged

Is it in any of the other papers?

"What I am concerned about is that there are some people who will not educate their children effectively"

Are you as concerned about the children in school who might not be being educated effectively. Would you offer them the option to a home education if it looked like it might be more effective?

"and they have a right to expect that someone will make sure they get it."

And parents are expected to be that someone whether the child is in school or not. In fact, it is the parent who has to fight the child's corner in the school system in many cases. Unless there is evidence that the child isn't receiving an education why should home-educating parents be automatically suspected of not ensuring that they are getting it?

If the system is such a great defender of educating children effectively why do schools fail so many?

Schools are inspected and reviewed regularly-isn't this just the HE equivalent?
(Which is surely necessary?)
Haven't read the whole thread, please excuse me if this has been answered

Seeker the trouble is that the Government WAS talking about abuse. And they haven't found any.

If the Government, like you, believe that some HE parents are not doing a good job, then they should say so and conduct a review into THAT, looking at the effectiveness and results and outcomes, PROOF AND EVIDENCE. (Hang on, this is the 4th major Home Ed consultation since 2005. Could it be that the Government aren't getting the answers they want?)

Anyway, they didn't. They accused us of abuse, found there was none, and then tacked all this extra stuff on the end of the report anyway.

ABUSE and "suitable education" ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Also, I couldn't disagree with you more about what a parent gets to teach his or her child, even if you don't believe what they're teaching them is right. I take it you haven't read Brave New World? Why don't we just hand all children over to the State at birth, to make sure they're not being told anything "incorrect" by their parents?

No MrsRuffalo - schools are inspected to feedback to the parents (the service users) because the parents are responsible for their own childrens education.

Home educating parents are there getting instant feedback - they don't need a review to tell them how they're doing.

And the government don't need a review because they are not responsible for individual children's education in the same way that a parent is.

Lets get rid of all faith schools, and private schools, where they might dare to teach something that is not the norm, that is outside the NC.

Lets get rid of all alternative schools (Montessouri, Steiner) that provide children with an option to learn in a different way.

Lets get rid of all Churches and places of worship where people might learn or be told something that you don't believe is right.

Lets abolish freedom in general, shall we?

Just the logical conclusion of your fundamentalist argument, before I get accused of getting carried away!

robberbutton - so it's OK for a parent to teach their child that they have a duty to kill infidels? Or that adulterers should be stoned? Or that it's OK for a husband to beat his wife so long as the stick he uses is no thicker than his thumb?

As for the curriculum point - sorry, I thought I'd answered it. I can't remember seeing the word in the review - I'll go back and have a look. If it does say that HEers will have to follow a proscribed curriculum then I iwll be as outraged as the rest of you.

I've never mentioned abuse, by the way - and it seems to me that the review is largely about education, (and the education of LEAs) not about abuse.

I clearly remember my ds coming home from school in Y1, in great distress at having been ridiculed and laughed at by his class teacher, teaching assistant and the entire class, for stating during a Geography lesson that parts of Antarctica were classed as deserts. He was reminded ('silly boy') that all deserts are hot, dry and dusty places and that he was mistaken.

He was six years old, and he was right, and two experienced teaching professionals were utterly wrong. He was beyond confused as he rightly expected his teachers to know more than he did.

And what about the Reception teacher who couldn't spell 'dinosaur' (and many other everyday Reception-level words)? Or the countless grammatical errors I've encountered over the years? And don't get me started on "he can't learn how to do horizontal maths yet, we don't do that till Y4" despite being at least two years ahead of his peers in the subject.

I completely agree that children do have a right to be effectively educated. Unfortunately that simply isn't happening in many schools. My son, and numerous other children, are far more likely to get a better quality of education in school than at home.

The recommendations in this review are dangerous. It has blurred the boundaries between education and welfare and seeks to encourage Local Authority interference in a valid and legal lifestyle choice. I am completely and utterly opposed to it.

School inspection is not just to provide information for the parents.
For example, if a school is found to be failing its students it is paced in special measures

LESS likely

From Case Law in this country:
"education is ?suitable? if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child?s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so."

From the European Convention on Human Rights:
?No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.?

Seeker, I cut and pasted the summary of recommendation 2 above. Its on page 39 of the review.

Mrs Ruffallo, But that is because the government is responsible for the provision made by their own schools. But the parents are responsible for the childs education. Which is why a child has never been able to sue a failing school for failing to educate them - because ultimately the parents were responsible.

Seeker I know you didn't mention abuse, what I am saying is that the Government's premise for the whole review was to check whether HE was being used as a cover for abuse.

And as I said earlier (deep breath, very blue now), and as MANY people have also said - look at RECOMMENDATION TWO.

CURRICULUM!!!!!!!!!!!!! Definition - "setting courses and their content; the group of subjects studied." (however broad).

"- it isn't saying that the LEA will impose a curriculum,"

Some LAs do this already-even before the recommedations that the definitions of what is suitable and efficient have been further ecplored.

"just that a home educator must have thought about what they are planning to do over the following year - which I presume they will have done anyway."

Nope
I haven't got a plan for what we will be doing tomorrow-how on earth would I supply 12 months of plans?
My child is totally autonomously educated. She follows her own interests.
She is 16 now.
By the end of this summer she will have an OU course start course under her belt, which says she is studying at degree entry level, one A level equivelant course and one GCSE equivelant course grade A-C.
She has been accepted to do a BTEC National Diploma at FE college (equivelant to three A levels I am told)

She has done all of this despite being diagnosed as severely dyslexic and being totally autonomously educated-without any plans or timetables, no formal work-until she decided to access the qualifications, and no progress reporting, no monitoring and no inspections of work (for years there simply wasn't any to show!)

There are other MNs who could tell of their children returning to public school, having gained a scholarship and others of children doing degree level and PHd University courses after being totally autonomously educated.

Autonomous home based education is a very efficient method BUT it is entirely interest led, by the child his or herself, in an entirely self directed way.

AE simply will not fit with these review recommendations.

And yes tomorrow I am going again to support a mother whose children are on the 'At Risk register' the charge is neglect-simply because they are home educating autonomously-and that is before this damn report recommendations are accepted!

robberbutton - could you answer my point about whether or not it's OK to teach a child that it's OK to kill infidels(like some fundamentalist muslims) or beat women (like some fundamentalist christians) while I think about this curriculum issue?

I'm obviously not robberbutton but here's my answer anyway.

No, I don't personaly believe that its okay to teach those things. But I don't believe that they constitute education, they are values. And these things can be taught to school educated children just as easily as home educated children. And againg - legislation should be for the majority, not a tiny number of extreme cases.

Sorry seeker, excuse me while I have my lunch!

In law, it is already not ok to teach these things - "as long as it does not foreclose the child?s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so". Teaching these values (as anastasia put it) would prevent someone from being able to function in our society.

Your first argument was about creationism, and it was that I was replying to.

Anyway, I regret getting so off the point. The point is, that if Badman has discovered an epidemic of children being homeschooled in order to produce mini-terrorists / fundamentalists, he would be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact is, he didn't.

And it's not good enough, without proof, without evidence, to instigate far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally change the way of life for thousands of innocent people in this country.

"It should not be good enough for a parent to say, for example, that "I have a right to tell my child that the world is 6000 years old and all fossils are hoaxes" and not let them be exposed to any alternative point of view."

Well I do agree with you on that one point

However, even among the fundementalist HErs, I know, its pretty rare for them to have such control over their kids that they are not exposed to other viewpoints. Possibly when the kids are very little. However most HE'd kids do have quite a range of friends, do quite a range of classes, go on field trips etc, even the fundementalist ones, from what I can see. We're a small community and we tend to rub along, my atheist, pro-science educated kids have fundementalist-educated friends.

OTOH I'd put odds down that a kid going to a fundementalist school, which they can do in this country, with OFSTED's blessing, would not get the same opportunities.

Interesting take though. Could the government's anti-HE stance be actually part of this "anti-terror" kick?

creationist school lauded by ofsted

How on earth is the govt going to come up with a definition of a 'suitable' education, anyway? Are they planning to use the school sats targets? How will they determine what is suitable for children with a varying range of SN?

Also, how will they enforce the interviewing alone thing? Will they insist that a child is alone in a closed room with an inspector? Who will decide when it is 'appropriate' for the child to be accompanied.

If parents are to be excluded from these interviews, surely they must be allowed to tape the interview, in the same way that police interviews are taped - to make sure that children aren't coerced or led into saying things that will then be used as the basis of a written report about them.

seeker, you said,
"I've never mentioned abuse, by the way - and it seems to me that the review is largely about education, (and the education of LEAs) not about abuse."

LEAs currently have sufficient powers (in my view) to ensure home educators are providing a suitable education to their children. The ContactPoint database will provide them with a full list of children not registered at a school. The LEA are entitled to ask for evidence of the education the parent is providing and can issue a school attendance order if they are not satisfied. The parents can then either send their child to the school named in the SAO, provide further evidence to convince the LEA that they are providing a suitable education or argue their case in court.

seeker have you actually read the report?

you do need to before commenting, i think. Its not a common sense thing. This has gone way beyond what a lot of us thought was likely.

I am quite moderate on a lot of HE issues. I am shocked.

Yes, I have read the report. That's why I know that it doesn't say that children should be interviewed alone. It says that in some circumstances, children could be interviewed either alone OR in the company of another trusted adult - not the home educator. There MAY be very rare circumstances where it could be vital that this could happen.

It also doesn't say anywhere that registration means that the right to home education can be refused. Unless I've misread it - registration is a formality to ensure that there are no children that the authorities are not aware of. Which surely has to be a good thing.

Oh come on Seeker - No it doesn't say 'and if we don't like the form the education takes we will refuse registration'

Not in those words.

It says you need plans, progress will be measured, a curriculum will be defined (again not in those words but through defining a suitable education in a general sense so it is no longer individual to the child), and in recommendation 23 this comes under safegaurding:
And in addition:
■■ anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education

So now the two issues of welfare and education are so mixed up that either can give cause for concern about the other.

But no, I'm sure you're right and no-one will be refused permission. So long as they jump through the hoops and check the right boxes.

Seriously, if there was the possibility of registration being refused there would be stuff in there about appeals, and all that sort of thing. And there would have to be statutory grounds for refusal, bearing in mind that parents have a right - enshrined in law - to home educate

I take the point of the autonomous educators - although I still think that "parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of
their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months." is broad enough to encompass it. Particularly, "desired/planned outcomes"

Some will have detailed plans, some will have "desired outcomes" - it does seem to cover all bases.