« Have the Conservatives Shifted on Home Education?
Are Parental Rights in Conflict with Children’s Rights?
debate (@ 12:46:07) or to listen to individual speeches.
Any emphasis in quotations is mine unless otherwise stated.
I ask below whether he and others are right to assert that there is a balance to be found between the rights of children and those of parents. This was a theme recurring not only in the speeches of those noble Lords who participated in this debate – they mentioned children’s rights 13 times in all – but it is an argument used frequently by those who are contending in the various corridors of power that home education [HE] in England needs to be inspected by Local Authorities [LA]. What became apparent in this debate is that these educational activists are following in the wake of Graham Badman and his 2009 review of HE. In fact three peers referred to that review, with Lord Soley stating that he had met with Badman a few days before the debate.
It is worthwhile considering first what were the prominent recurring themes in the debate. The rights of children were only marginally squeezed out as the most mentioned topic by the safeguarding or protection of children, with 14 references. Third most popular was “registration needed” (12) with “recent increase in numbers” (10) and “don’t know how many children are EHE / need to know” (9) being placed fourth and fifth respectively.
I mention these repetitions because whilst most prominent supporters of HE think this bill is unlikely to make it into law, this debate was an excellent opportunity for the HE community to observe which way the wind is blowing amongst politicians. First let us note that of the thirteen peers who participated in the debate, only one, Lord Lucas (Con), spoke strongly in support of changing very little. Even the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, Baroness Garden of Frognal, emphasised “areas of concern” – in 2009/10, their Commons Education spokesperson David Laws was far more emphatic in expressing his party’s support for the HE community.
One does not need to hold a wet finger aloft for long to recognise that what was a breeze in favour of state control of HE under Balls and Badman, has strengthened in the intervening eight years perhaps not yet to a force 10 gale, but it is moving in that direction. Should the HE community be concerned at reports of a possible Storm Ed approaching these islands? Is there anything we can do to prevent a potential Hurricane Graham ripping our community to pieces? Or are those of us with fears of these gathering storms spreading fear unnecessarily?
On the other hand, I appreciate very much the concerns that have led the noble Baronesses, Lady Cavendish and Lady Morgan, to support the Bill today. As already outlined, we also acknowledge that by no means all children being educated at home are ​being educated well. Local authorities need to be able to act in such cases. We think they already have the tools for the job, but we want to hear the view of key participants in this debate. Accordingly, I can confirm to noble Lords today that we intend to publish a draft of revised guidance documents on elective home education for local authorities and for parents, and consult on them. It will be an opportunity for all stakeholders to put forward their views. We will carefully consider all responses and then publish the two guidance documents in their final form.
Most have taken the phrase I have highlighted as signalling that the present Government does not intend to change the law on HE. There is much to be relieved about in that assurance, even though part of me would prefer that if the law on HE is to be revised in the future, it should be done by a Conservative Government rather than a Labour one. Both the Badman Review and the current Bill were initiated by members of the Labour Party. That said, this signal allows the HE community to consider carefully the long term issues which have been raised through this debate. I personally hope that we will all engage in the promised consultations, even if the questions asked irritate us immensely.
I would not like to see this Bill leave the House without radical and extensive amendment, because I think it is set the wrong way round. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, said several times that we ought to be helping and doing better. So we ought. If we did that and lived up to our obligations to these parents and children under existing legislation, I do not think we would have a fraction of the worry and problem that we have.
As a Conservative, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that parents should be responsible for their children’s education. I believe that, by and large, the state does not make better decisions than parents about children. Even if the state knew everything, it still would not make better decisions. I do not much like the Bill as drafted, but there are better ways of doing these things.
As I say, the Bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child. I want to say straightaway that I will table certain amendments. Those who have read the Bill carefully will know that two phrases that will trouble people are the requirements to check on a child’s physical and emotional development. I put them in in the first instance precisely because of my worry about the minority of abuse cases. However, having thought about it for a week or so, it is clear that that is unrealistic. I will seek to amend the Bill to take those words out of the Long Title and subsections (1) and (4) of the proposed new section in Clause 1(2).
In truth, though, while the state is very good at inspecting within a very regulated framework, it is less good at exercising judgement and discretion where people are not absolutely following that framework and regulation but are nevertheless doing a decent job. Most of us have talked to teachers and head teachers who have complained about the present inspection framework, and I can well imagine how nervous some parents are that they are going to have that conversation with some sort of regulator.
I say to my noble friend Lord Soley, the proposer of the Bill, that he was absolutely right to acknowledge that that is an issue, but it is not one that we should ​not take on. It is just one where we have to be sensitive, and I hope that in considering the implementation of the Bill we will talk to those parents who are doing a good job of educating their children and do not want to have to change too much. We should make sure we can accommodate their needs. To ask a state regulation system to accommodate innovation and quirkiness almost does not go together as a request, but somehow we have to get this right.
Many HE families have had encounters with representatives of the State who are unskilled at engaging with those outside the State’s system. In fact the reason why many of these parents and children have walked away from that system is because it was serving their family very badly indeed. She also rightly observed that a State regulation system will seriously struggle to accommodate individuality (I dislike her use of “quirkiness”), and I think the HE community will need to emphasise this total mismatch in the future. We will probably also need to argue that there is no constructive way for the State to understand HE if they seek to do so, to quote Lord Lucas, with punitive measures.
My Lords, this Bill is the mildest possible remedy for what has long been recognised as a risk—a situation that is not good for children or society. I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on this before and I am very happy to do so again. If I had my way, school education would be compulsory unless parents could prove that they had good reason to avoid it. Then there would be compulsory inspection and assessment of the home-schooled child’s results in national exams. I am aware that there is an almost hysterical reaction from home educators to any proposal that might be seen as protecting their children. That reaction is in itself good reason to want to keep an eye on the situation.
This is a significant change when compared to the views of the peers who commented on HE in the Second Reading debate of the CSF Bill in House of Lords on 8 March in 2010. There were eleven such speakers on that occasion, and the split between those in favour of Badman’s proposals and those against was as near 50/50 as possible. Surely the HE community must ask itself why this change has happened?
When Badman’s proposals were taken out of the CSF Bill in the pre-election “wash up”, we breathed a collective sigh of relief. We were all very glad that this battle had been won and many were pleased to get back to concentrating on the important thing for them, raising their own children. A few, myself included, felt that we should not take our eye off the ball (no pun intended). Sadly, I think this debate has demonstrated that too many of us have done exactly that. I can understand why this was the case. HE makes big demands on parents’ energy, emotions and time, and very few have much left in reserve to stand against those who want to see change. It is also true that those who argue that change is needed are well-funded, well-positioned and well-connected – not only has Lord Soley been talking to Graham Badman, I would not be surprised if Sir Michael Wilshaw has also been in contact with him concerning HE.
Some years ago, when I first raised this in a blog on the House of Lords, I was inundated with opposition. I am delighted to tell the House that, on this occasion, the majority of letters, emails and phone calls I get are in favour of the Bill. There is recognition now that registration is important. Part of the reason for that, which I will expand on in a moment, is because children are now known to have disappeared and been abused, radicalised or put into extremist situations. We have to deal with that. We cannot ignore it, for the sake of both the child and society as a whole.
You bet he was delighted! Whilst I suspect that many of these contacts were education professionals rather than HE families, they enabled Soley to claim public support for his attempt to impose state control on all children. When Ed Balls commissioned Badman’s report, he did so under the pretext that Khyra Ishaq had been abused because she was educated at home. (As the care proceedings for her siblings and the Serious Case Review established, this was not true.) The list of reasons to monitor has now been expanded – children have not only been abused but have also “disappeared”, been “radicalised” and “put into extremist situations” all because they were home educated! Really? Consequently the HE community is in danger of losing the propaganda war and therefore our freedom to bring up our children according to our personal philosophies.
I do not want to go through those pieces of misinformation individually – look around this blog to find some of my relevant observations. However I do want to cite one piece of information which should be widely known, from the excellent “Briefing on Home Education Regarding the House of Lords Bill H11 2017” prepared by Mike Wood of Home Education UK with help from many others. (Well worth the effort of reading this.) In it Wood reports that “An FOI request undertaken in 2016 shows that not one LA in England has any knowledge of any child who has been withdrawn to home educate and subsequently been radicalised“. Altogether 151 LAs replied, out of which 6 (North Lincolnshire, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Sheffield & West Sussex) declined to answer the question. Now it is possible that some of the LAs which declined could be places where Islamic radicalisation is taking place in schools. Perhaps unregistered, and therefore illegal, schools which rely on “home educated” children for their students are only located in those 6 LA areas. However, it should be noted that many other places with high levels of Muslim residents replied that they knew of no such cases. These included Birmingham and Tower Hamlets where OFSTED has in the past closed Muslim schools because pupils were at “serious risk of extremist influences and radicalisation” according to Sir Michael Wilshaw.
What should thinking people make of this mismatch between the headlines and the facts? I suggest exactly the same as what we know about the way in which Ed Balls, and others subsequently, abused the memory of Khyra Ishaq by using her tragic death as a pawn to further their political ambitions. I suggest these claims which have been put forward in the years since Badman are known to lack substance. Here follows a prime example of Michael Wilshaw, whilst he was the Chief Inspector at OFSTED, using an opportunity to switch from a real concern to an attack on HE.
I suggest that the HE community needs to encourage equally strong voices in the media and corridors of power, making known the benefits and successes of ‘grow your own families’. I believe that to do this successfully, we also need to understand the reasoning behind the ongoing campaign to bring HE, and therefore our families, under State control.
The title of this post reflects Clive Soley’s opening demand to balance parental rights with the rights of children. Is this a reasonable argument? It is certainly one which politicians and public servants of all types have embraced on the whole.
Now it may seem quite clear to most thinking people that both these touchstones of human rights affirm that parents have the lead responsibility to decide the kind of education their children receive, and the world-view upon which that education should be based. It is also plainly stated that “the State shall respect the right of parents” in deciding the philosophical basis of the education their children receive. Whilst my own world-view motivates me to be concerned about responsibilities rather than rights, we live in a “rights culture” and because much is being made by politicians about this perceived clash of rights, then we have to look at them too.
Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights also grants the right to education while respecting the rights of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their views. The European Court has held that this, of necessity, implies state regulation of the education that the child receives. The court held that Germany was entitled to ban home education. It is the duty of home-educating parents to secure for their children the education pledged in international treaties; the parents do not have stand-alone rights to determine that education in any way that they wish without state regulation.
It has been a hallmark of over-dominant regimes throughout history to seek to squeeze children out of the likeness of their parents, especially free-thinking ones, and into a mould shaped by the dictates of State and its power-brokers. Is this what is happening in Britain today? If so, should all parents, not just those who HE, be concerned?
It is not only HE families who are being told today that the State cannot trust the parents. Yes, we seem to be at the pointed end of that stick not just in England, but in Wales, the Isle of Man and elsewhere. As far as I am aware there has been no move to change the law on HE in Scotland, but a far more pervasive scheme has been put forward under the agenda known as “Getting it right for every child“. Like the “Every Child Matters” initiative introduced in England & Wales by the Labour Children’s Act (2004), GIRFEC seems to be targeted at agencies providing services for children. In England however the thinking behind ECM has now influenced the way in which the majority of LA staff relate to parents, assuming that whether or not they are receiving services from the State, their children are primarily the responsibility of the State. Before saying more about GIRFEC and the Scottish “Named Person” scheme, let me introduce you to the thinking of a leading English “specialist” in children’s work.
What does a DCS do then?
In a nutshell, people aged pre-birth to nineteen, who live, work and study in my place, are my responsibility.
If they’re ill or disabled, if they died aged under eighteen from whatever cause, if they’re in danger of being taken into are already in or have recently left care.
Put simply, they are mine, and so are their families, their schools, the other settings their use. And everybody in their communities.
This is the mindset in which many LA staff have been and are being trained. One other area where this thinking is driving policy is that of parental freedom to discipline their children with a smack. Whether you think such discipline is helpful or unhelpful, can I encourage you to look behind the subject to the principle on which repeated attempts to criminalise parents who smack their children have been made. Research is conflicting on the long-term damage/benefits of smacking; here are two very different reports from the same newspaper, The Telegraph. Smacking makes children naughtier: research (2008) & Smacking does children no harm if they feel loved, study claims (2013). Conclusions are probably shaped more by the researchers’ pre-existing views than by real data, but that is not my point here. Removing the freedom for parents to discipline their children in a considered and controlled way is yet another example of the State assuming parental responsibilities for every child. Whilst several attempts to introduce such a law in England have failed, the matter is ongoing in both Wales & Scotland.
I believe that education is the regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.
I believe that this conception has due regard for both individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is duly individualistic because it recognizes that this right character is not to be formed by merely individual precept, example, or exhortation, but rather by the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual.
Let us pick up our books and pens. They are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one pen and one book can change the world. Education is the only solution.
These are our most powerful weapons.
That is why I launched the Global Education First Initiative last year.
Every girl and every boy deserves to receive a quality education and learn the values that will help them to grow up to be global citizens in tolerant communities that respect diversity.
Governments and development partners are working hard to meet this goal.
Could this be the song sheet Baroness Deech is singing from? Does she want them to learn to be global citizens? There is insufficient space here to explore all that this involves, but at first sight the objective seems commendable. Here is one sentence from the final point above: “Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies.” However, we must also bear in mind that these objectives appear to cut across the UN’s own charter of human rights. Remember that Deech believes these international treaties grant governments the upper hand in deciding how and what children should be taught. You may think that these objectives have not reached our shores yet – after all, who hears them being discussed by politicians and educationalists?
An increasing number of conservative religious schools deliberately flouting British values and equalities law. Illegal ‘schools’ are also being created in order to avoid teaching fundamental values of democracy, mutual tolerance and respect.
I thought “British Values” included “mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.” Do I spot Orwellian doublespeak in action here? Why should this concern the HE community? Well, a good number of HE families do want to teach their children according to their own religious convictions. The plight of these small, often parent-led, independent schools should also concern those in the HE community who do not have any religious convictions for the following reasons. First, I think most of us are aware that OFSTED has been actively trying to associate HE with unregistered schools, but thus far has published no data to substantiate the connection. Secondly, all parents have “philosophical convictions”, even where they are not fully thought through. History tells us that movements which seek to impose their own ideologies upon others are not satisfied until they extinguish all forms of dissent.
The question I will pose before I conclude is a simple one. Are those who are seeking to remove the responsibilities of parents to raise their children according to their own convictions (people like Graham Badman, Ed Balls, Michael Wilshaw, Amanda Spielman, Clive Solely, Ruth Deech, and Hilary Cavendish) doing so because they want the best for children or because they want your children to conform to global values which will make them unquestioning, compliant citizens who will never challenge political dogma? You may find this question more difficult to answer that it was for me to ask. If so, can I suggest that you take a long, hard look at the way education has changed in recent decades. Are schooled children in Britain today taught to think or to repeat set answers? Are they taught to challenge the prevailing view, or to comply with it? Are they encouraged to investigate things thoroughly for themselves, or to accept what the National Curriculum says?
I suggest that the real problem with home education in Britain and around the world is that, unlike state-controlled education, it teaches too many children to grow into adults who question, who investigate, who will refuse to be conformed to any system which seeks to impose its views and values on men and women. Home education is very close to being the only remaining choice for parents who want to teach their children to stand out from the crowd. I believe it is important for us to stand up and be counted in defending that freedom, not just for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, but for every future parent and child in this country and elsewhere.
We have had a rest for far too long after Badman; we have rested in a false sense of security, but those who want to drain away our freedom have been busy. I want to encourage all who read this post to stand up and defend our responsibilities as parents to train up our children as we see fit. Our responsibilities and rights as parents are not in conflict with our children’s rights to an education, but they are in direct conflict with the desire of those who have been swayed by Rousseau’s and Dewey’s belief that state-controlled education is the prime tool of social reconstruction.
This entry was posted on 17/12/2017 at 4:14 pm and is filed under Home Education UK. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.	Responses are currently closed, but you can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.