For immediate release, 22 February 2009
PERSECUTION OF MINORITY GROUP IS "ABUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS"
Outraged families and support organisations flood the DCFS with 2000+
consultation responses to the elective home education review
The government's review of elective home education (1), which was
announced in January in a blaze of scurrilous spin stating that home education could be used by parents as a cover for abuse and forced marriage, has provoked an unparalleled reaction from home educating families and support organisations, including home education action group AHEd (2) and the home educators' network Home Education Forums. (3) Both have strongly rebutted the government's allegations as "vile and unsubstantiated" in their respective robust responses to the DCSF consultation. (4) and (5)
By the close of the unusually short online consultation last Friday, over
2000 individual and organisational responses had been sent in by
'stakeholders' who have in recent weeks demonstrated their collective
outrage at the "irresponsible scaremongering" perpetrated by government
minister Delyth Morgan and Vijay Patel of the NSPCC, who was forced to
admit on national radio (6) that no evidence exists to support the suggestion that home educated children may be more likely than schooled children to suffer abuse or be coerced into marriage or domestic servitude.
AHEd supporter Clare Murton commented: "Apart from the clear incitement
to hatred of home educators that Delyth Morgan's announcement provoked,
this review by Graham Badman must represent the straw that breaks the
camel's back. Home educators are trying to get on with the important work of
bringing up their children, but over the past few years have been repeatedly
distracted from that task by unwarranted and vicious attempts to usurp their
parental rights.
"Multiple government consultations have concluded that home education is
safe, efficient and in no need of tighter legal control and that local
authorities need legal guidance. It is astounding, therefore, that they now
give credence to slander such as Morgan's. This luckily has not defeated
home educators and there will be no 'death by consultation' in our neck of
the woods. Instead it has determined the home education community to put
a stop to this unprecedented witch hunt.
"No other section of UK community has ever been so impassioned in its
response to a DCSF consultation and I am proud to be part of a network of
people who really do think that every single child matters."
While there is absolutely no evidence of any link between home education
and child abuse, domestic servitude or forced marriage, there is plenty of
evidence of the offence caused and anger unleashed within the home education community itself and among non home educating families who perceive the threat to home education as the "thin end of the wedge".
A Downing Street petition submitted by Roxane Featherstone on behalf of
AHEd (7) has attracted more than 2000 signatures in a fortnight,while the Stop the Government Stigmatising Home Educators group (8) on the social networking site Facebook has more than 1500 members whose comments demonstrate a deep sense of collective outrage. Home education blogs, including the popular Sometimes It's Peaceful (9), have highlighted what appears to be a state sponsored campaign to persecute a minority group exercising a lawful choice and have strongly criticised some members of the team led by Graham Badman (10) who are to participate in the inquiry as "partial" and "lacking in knowledge or experience of elective home "education".
Alison Preuss, spokesperson for Home Education Forums, said: "I have only once witnessed such a mass reaction by the home education community and that was when the former Scottish Executive mounted a similar attack on home educating families north of the border. Overnight, they alienated every home educator across the land - and lost! This latest assault on educational freedom by people for whom child abuse represents a 'nice little earner' has provoked nothing short of fury among law abiding citizens who have in many cases had to remove their children from an unsafe and abusive school environment.
"While the economy tanks, our elderly folk are having to choose between
eating and heating and vulnerable children are being left unprotected due to
lack of competence in social services, as demonstrated in the case of
Victoria Climbie and the children abused by Eunice Spry (who was a
Gloucestershire Council approved foster carer), we have to wonder why
public funds are being diverted from frontline services into an unnecessary
analysis by bureaucrats of 2000+ consultation responses and an equally
unnecessary investigation of a non existent issue. In our view, this whole
exercise represents an abuse of public funds."
ENDS
For more information contact AHEd ahed@ahed.org.uk or Home Education
Forums
info@home-education.biz
NOTES FOR EDITORS
(1) Elective home education review
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2009_0013
(2) Action for Home Education http://www.ahed.org.uk/
(3) Home Education Forums http://www.home-education.biz/forum
(4) AHEd reponse
http://ahed.pbwiki.com/HomeEducation-
YourViewsReview2009AHEdResponse
(5) Home Education Forums response
http://www.home-education.biz/forum/home-education-law-policy/155-hef-response-dcsf-home-ed-review-part-1-a.html
(6) Vijay Patel on BBC Radio
http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.com/2009/01/transcript-of-radio-2-jeremy-vine-show.html
(7) Downing Street petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Homeedreview/
(8) Stop the Government Stigmatising Home Educators
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45453211491&ref=ts
(9) Sometimes It's Peaceful blog http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.com/
(10)Graham Badman
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/search/?asset=document&id=129480
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Petition the Home ed. Review
Petition is HERE
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to remind his
government that parents must remain responsible in law for ensuring
the welfare and education of their children and that the state should
not seek to appropriate these responsibilities.
We ask him to remind ministers that recent DCSF consultations have
concluded that current law, when applied correctly, is sufficient to
the task of protecting home educated children should parents fail in
their duties, and that the law represents a satisfactory balance
between protecting children and the need for privacy and autonomy in
family life.
We also ask him to call a halt to the review of home education, begun
in Jan 2009. Home educators have already taken part in four
consultations in just over three years. New guidelines for LAs
regarding Home Education resulted from one of these consultations as
recently as Nov 2007 and yet we are now faced with yet another review
which appears to seek to erode parental responsibilities. We ask him
to remind ministers that repeated consultations infringe the BRE's
Code of Practice on Consultations, Criterion 5.
We also ask him to alert the DCSF that relations between home
educators and LAs are likely to deteriorate should the state elect to
intrude further upon family life.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to remind his
government that parents must remain responsible in law for ensuring
the welfare and education of their children and that the state should
not seek to appropriate these responsibilities.
We ask him to remind ministers that recent DCSF consultations have
concluded that current law, when applied correctly, is sufficient to
the task of protecting home educated children should parents fail in
their duties, and that the law represents a satisfactory balance
between protecting children and the need for privacy and autonomy in
family life.
We also ask him to call a halt to the review of home education, begun
in Jan 2009. Home educators have already taken part in four
consultations in just over three years. New guidelines for LAs
regarding Home Education resulted from one of these consultations as
recently as Nov 2007 and yet we are now faced with yet another review
which appears to seek to erode parental responsibilities. We ask him
to remind ministers that repeated consultations infringe the BRE's
Code of Practice on Consultations, Criterion 5.
We also ask him to alert the DCSF that relations between home
educators and LAs are likely to deteriorate should the state elect to
intrude further upon family life.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
HE PARENTS WELCOME CHILDREN'S SOCIETY REPORT
HE PARENTS WELCOME CHILDREN'S SOCIETY REPORT
Share
Today at 00:52
The Good Childhood Inquiry by the Children's Society will release the results of its study this week. Home educators have welcomed the review which reports that the children of Britain need more parental attention, more freedom to play, more access to the outdoors, and are harmed by junk food, peer pressure leading to consumerism and experimentation with alcohol and drugs, and the stresses of bullying, academic competition and exam anxiety.
These stresses and strains are some of the reasons why so many parents make the decision to home educate their children. Home educated children have greater familial contact and much less exposure to the negative social and academic pressures endemic in schools. They also have far more access to play and to the outdoors and are free of the rigours of constant testing and standardisation. Recent studies also show that most watch far less television than their schooled peers, and become more self-aware and community minded. [1] All of these are exactly what the Children's Society recommends for a happy, healthy childhood and by extension, a happy, healthy society.
"When I went to school I was bullied and I didn't get any help from the teachers. Now I'm doing home schooling, I get help if I need it and I don't get bullied." - H, aged 12.
"I am loved and cared for and have great fun everyday, exploring, exercising, laughing and talking!" - A, aged 11.
A 'slanderous' review
Home educators were angered on 19th January by the announcement by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of an Independent Review of Home Education [2], the fourth such consultation since 2005. The review was especially surprising as guidelines to Local Authorities on home education have only recently been issued as a result of previous consultations.[3] This review targets home educators as potential abusers, but has nothing to say about the well documented abuse of children within the schools system. Home education organisations have repeatedly asked for statistical evidence to back up these claims, but according to Vijay Patel of the NSPCC there is no such evidence [4] and requests continue to be ignored.
The DCSF is ignoring the problems with their over-worked, under-funded and under-trained social care workers [5] and instead is looking into adding to their workload with the monitoring of a home educating minority, justifying their stance with unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay and little else.
Criticism for the DCSF
The DCSF has been criticised for its methods from the start of this review. Home educating parents in their hundreds have decided to use FaceBook as a tool to organise their protests, contesting the rights of the DCSF to interfere with their freedom to educate at home unmolested by bodies who have a history of hostility towards them and little apparent understanding of them. Several conclusions have been reached:
The branding of home educators by this review as potential child abusers is discriminatory and incites prejudice which actively harms children and their families.
There are concerns that issuing press statements that home education may be a cover for abuse may violate Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [6]
Article 17 says that the Government must not allow the mass media to publish things which harm children, but "the media, with Government backing, has inferred that many children are being abused by dint of the fact they are home educated," says Techla, a home educating mother from North Yorkshire. "My children are hurt and angry at the suggestion, and at the thought that their non-HE friends will think this is the case." Other children have also expressed their feelings that inciting suspicion against mum and dad is causing them distress.
Also, by not considering disabled children or those with Special Educational Needs the review's consultation of Local Authorities may actually be illegal. [7]
In-house Social Services and Local Authority publications have carried letters and articles criticising home education, and reports are that memos have been circulated advising on how the Local Authorities consultation should be answered. This will have undue influence over the results of that consultation.
Many children were removed from school because of bullying, abuse, neglect, or the lack of provision of a suitable education. In many cases the Local Authorities were at best apathetic, at worst openly hostile to the needs of the child. To suggest that these children and their parents should be investigated by the very agencies that failed them is insulting and dangerous.
Home education provides a good childhood
Independent research has shown home education provides many of the qualities that the Good Childhood Inquiry finds essential to a happy, healthy childhood, and therefore to a happy, healthy society. Home educators then ask why the Government is apparently intent on the regulation of HE in the face of yet another indictment of their failing schools system. The DCSF's attitude seems to be that childhood should be managed by the State at any cost. The conclusion seems to be that parents will necessarily abuse or neglect their children if they are not supervised. With their placing of the rights of Local Authorities above those of parents and children, as advocated in this Review of Home Education, it looks like the Children's Society report will fall on deaf ears.
As home educators and parents we support the findings of the Inquiry as outlined above and feel we demonstrate the positive nature of many of their recommendations. Home education should be seen as evidence of a supportive, loving and nurturing home, not as a potential cover for malefactors.
Jem
The Good Childhood Inquiry can be seen at http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/all_about_us/how_we_do_it/the_good_childhood_inquiry/1818.html
--------------
Notes:
[1] "How Children Learn at Home" by Alan Thomas, 2007.
[2] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/homeeducation/
[3] Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, October 2007. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf
[4] Jeremy Vine show, Radio 2, 20th January 2009:
JEREMY VINE: "Vijay, have you got any statistical base at all?"
VIJAY PATEL (NSPCC Child Protection Policy Advisor): "We... the inf... We don’t have the evidence there statistically, no."
[5] UNISON report "Still Slipping Through The Net?" See http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8347
[6] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
[7] The LA questionnaire asks about children who are statemented for SEN. This ignores children with other disabilities and those which have SEN but are not statemented (parents of many home educated children with SEN prefer that they not be statemented). Government has a legal duty to consider disabled/SEN children (statemented or not) in all its documentation. http://www.dotheduty.org/
Share
Today at 00:52
The Good Childhood Inquiry by the Children's Society will release the results of its study this week. Home educators have welcomed the review which reports that the children of Britain need more parental attention, more freedom to play, more access to the outdoors, and are harmed by junk food, peer pressure leading to consumerism and experimentation with alcohol and drugs, and the stresses of bullying, academic competition and exam anxiety.
These stresses and strains are some of the reasons why so many parents make the decision to home educate their children. Home educated children have greater familial contact and much less exposure to the negative social and academic pressures endemic in schools. They also have far more access to play and to the outdoors and are free of the rigours of constant testing and standardisation. Recent studies also show that most watch far less television than their schooled peers, and become more self-aware and community minded. [1] All of these are exactly what the Children's Society recommends for a happy, healthy childhood and by extension, a happy, healthy society.
"When I went to school I was bullied and I didn't get any help from the teachers. Now I'm doing home schooling, I get help if I need it and I don't get bullied." - H, aged 12.
"I am loved and cared for and have great fun everyday, exploring, exercising, laughing and talking!" - A, aged 11.
A 'slanderous' review
Home educators were angered on 19th January by the announcement by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of an Independent Review of Home Education [2], the fourth such consultation since 2005. The review was especially surprising as guidelines to Local Authorities on home education have only recently been issued as a result of previous consultations.[3] This review targets home educators as potential abusers, but has nothing to say about the well documented abuse of children within the schools system. Home education organisations have repeatedly asked for statistical evidence to back up these claims, but according to Vijay Patel of the NSPCC there is no such evidence [4] and requests continue to be ignored.
The DCSF is ignoring the problems with their over-worked, under-funded and under-trained social care workers [5] and instead is looking into adding to their workload with the monitoring of a home educating minority, justifying their stance with unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay and little else.
Criticism for the DCSF
The DCSF has been criticised for its methods from the start of this review. Home educating parents in their hundreds have decided to use FaceBook as a tool to organise their protests, contesting the rights of the DCSF to interfere with their freedom to educate at home unmolested by bodies who have a history of hostility towards them and little apparent understanding of them. Several conclusions have been reached:
The branding of home educators by this review as potential child abusers is discriminatory and incites prejudice which actively harms children and their families.
There are concerns that issuing press statements that home education may be a cover for abuse may violate Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [6]
Article 17 says that the Government must not allow the mass media to publish things which harm children, but "the media, with Government backing, has inferred that many children are being abused by dint of the fact they are home educated," says Techla, a home educating mother from North Yorkshire. "My children are hurt and angry at the suggestion, and at the thought that their non-HE friends will think this is the case." Other children have also expressed their feelings that inciting suspicion against mum and dad is causing them distress.
Also, by not considering disabled children or those with Special Educational Needs the review's consultation of Local Authorities may actually be illegal. [7]
In-house Social Services and Local Authority publications have carried letters and articles criticising home education, and reports are that memos have been circulated advising on how the Local Authorities consultation should be answered. This will have undue influence over the results of that consultation.
Many children were removed from school because of bullying, abuse, neglect, or the lack of provision of a suitable education. In many cases the Local Authorities were at best apathetic, at worst openly hostile to the needs of the child. To suggest that these children and their parents should be investigated by the very agencies that failed them is insulting and dangerous.
Home education provides a good childhood
Independent research has shown home education provides many of the qualities that the Good Childhood Inquiry finds essential to a happy, healthy childhood, and therefore to a happy, healthy society. Home educators then ask why the Government is apparently intent on the regulation of HE in the face of yet another indictment of their failing schools system. The DCSF's attitude seems to be that childhood should be managed by the State at any cost. The conclusion seems to be that parents will necessarily abuse or neglect their children if they are not supervised. With their placing of the rights of Local Authorities above those of parents and children, as advocated in this Review of Home Education, it looks like the Children's Society report will fall on deaf ears.
As home educators and parents we support the findings of the Inquiry as outlined above and feel we demonstrate the positive nature of many of their recommendations. Home education should be seen as evidence of a supportive, loving and nurturing home, not as a potential cover for malefactors.
Jem
The Good Childhood Inquiry can be seen at http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/all_about_us/how_we_do_it/the_good_childhood_inquiry/1818.html
--------------
Notes:
[1] "How Children Learn at Home" by Alan Thomas, 2007.
[2] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/homeeducation/
[3] Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, October 2007. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf
[4] Jeremy Vine show, Radio 2, 20th January 2009:
JEREMY VINE: "Vijay, have you got any statistical base at all?"
VIJAY PATEL (NSPCC Child Protection Policy Advisor): "We... the inf... We don’t have the evidence there statistically, no."
[5] UNISON report "Still Slipping Through The Net?" See http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8347
[6] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
[7] The LA questionnaire asks about children who are statemented for SEN. This ignores children with other disabilities and those which have SEN but are not statemented (parents of many home educated children with SEN prefer that they not be statemented). Government has a legal duty to consider disabled/SEN children (statemented or not) in all its documentation. http://www.dotheduty.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)