Abbotsbury parents hit out at home schooling bill (From Thisisdorset)

FREE WRITING/THINKING PROGRAM
Special Services Education to BA and Business

www.TheEasyEssay.com is a free program that is being used from Special Services Education (including ADHD, dyslexia and mainstreaming, ) to college education, FCAT, SAT, ACT, GED test preparation, home schooling, and educational rehabilitation (TBI/Stroke), as well as in business for concise, organized and targeted memos, speeches, reports, and recommendations.
A noted side effect of the program is that users begin to communicate logically.

“I have used this technique with my corporate clients, my theology students, and soon with my students at Kaplan University.”
Dr. Kathleen A. Bishop, M.B.A., PhD, ThD.

“I got feedback from the teachers. They love it and we are looking at using it with some of our AT devices.”
Dr. Suzanne Pope Dobson - Calhoun High School (Special Education Department Head)

MP Jim Knight said that a small minority of home educators are abusing their right.
So like so many 'rules' and laws set up by this government, the majority must suffer because of this small minority.
Nanny state rules, OK.

The majority will hardly be "suffering" will they? Get a grip.

Are people seriously objecting to children who are potentially more vulnerable and isolated by the very fact they are away from one of society's safety nets being seen away from their parents? If home-ed parents have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about. If I were to home-ed my children, I would welcome this Bill. Schools are subject to checks and inspections, why should individuals think they should be able to be above this?

This Bill reverses the assumption of innocence in English Law, giving the authorities powers to enter law abiding family homes. If this legislation goes ahead it will well and truly open the flood gate of yet more state interference into private family life. Parents are responsible for their children's education, not the state. Schools are "subject to checks and inspections" because with our taxes we pay for that education service and they have an obligation to parents to prove that they are fulfilling their paid duty. Parents do not have to prove that they are raising their children correctly, in law it is just assumed that they are.
"Under the plans, parents or their children will have the power to block the child being interviewed alone."- in the bill if parent or child exercises this power, then local authorities are allowed to issue a school attendance order for non-compliance!
Schools are not the foolproof "safety net" Government would like us to believe, nor does every child leave with a good education. In the current economic climate our taxes would be better spent improving the provision for the majority, rather than policing a tiny minority of home educators, for which there is no evidence that there is cause for concern.

The case referred to was not a home-educated child - she was not de-registered from the school.

Also, if anyone really thinks that if we've nothing to hide, we've nothing to worry about, then we should just introduce compulsory checks on all parents that they are fulfilling all their child's needs, and registration of how they intend to do this.

Our current system (sensibly) assumes that parents are doing a good-enough job unless there are specific concerns, in which case there are already powers to act, including regarding the parental duty to educate. If we start routinely trawling families and requiring them to regularly prove that they are not neglecting their children, then this would be ridiculously wasteful of time and money, and would simply divert resources away from actual need.

There is no evidence of either need or benefit fromthis unprecedented level of state involvement.

There is no case for closer monitoring.
Children do not belong to the state and the primary responsibility for them rests with their parents. Only when there is evidence in an individual case should LA's take responsibility.
Parents ultimately make the decision about how to educate their children - be it state school, independent school or outside school.
We already have all the safeguards we need. These proposals just take money and resources away from vulnerable children.
LA's do not provide services to home educators or their children. As a part of the general 'schooled' culture and within that the state testing and National Curriculum based culture they are completely unqualified to make any assessment of one-to-one education outside the classroom.
There is plenty of evidence from North America to show that such home education is extremely effective.
They are also part of the state system that many home educated children have been failed by. They are trained in methods that for many children with special needs, or differing educational needs have failed so completely that parents are forced to remove children from school.
This is an annual licence, which can be revoked for any reason and and LA's must NOT take the education into account when deciding to grant the registration when they find an unregistered child. Any non- cooperation by parent or child can be used to send a child to school - from refusing a visit because an autistic child will be traumatised by it, to changing your education plan because it was not working for your child, to not having filled in your form exactly the way your LA wants. It will remove the rights to a judicial review - essential from preventing LA's using these powers to stop home education purely because they don't like parents choosing an alternative to their schools.
Autistic children in particular will be damaged by visits - these children often only feel safe in their own homes where they have control over their surrounding and who they meet.
For children removed because of bullying - having the same LA come into their homes and threaten them with school will be very damaging. Around 16 children a year commit suicide because of bullying at school. Home education is often a last resort for many, allowing children to recover from situation like these.
Home educated children aren't hidden - they see friends, family, neighbours, shop keepers, librarians, sports coaches, etc etc etc. In fact far more different people in a given week than a schooled child is likely to. They are very conspicuous in their communities.
There have been no confirmed cases of home educated children married off, and the Government has repeatedly failed to find a single child protection case where a home educated child wasn't known already.
Where their are child safety and welfare concerns these must be refered to social services where appropriately experienced and trained people can assess the situation, not dealt with by untrained officials. Otherwise the room for falsely accusing parents and misunderstanding will result in harm to chidren and families.

It would appear that this article has been passed around a bit probably by the people who are doing the home education, I do not agree with home education at all, going to school is part of life its where we learn a lot without realising it, things like social skills etc and it is only by going to school and mixing with others that you learn these things some good some bad and it is how your judgment is developed. I am all for stricter controls on home education for many reasons one being that in this country we have a very large immigrant population and only by control can we ensure that the children are getting the rounded education they need to make them good British citizens, but that is just one reason. Unless a child is disabled in some way they should be at school no ands ifs or buts. Miss Buckle says and I quote (We wanted our children to learn things when they were ready and in their own time. It’s more natural.”) what is that supposed to mean? Only by carrying out checks can we confirm that the children are up to the required standard and as long as there are two people present I see no reason why the parents should be present during the interviews in that way the cild will not feel intimidated by their parents presence.

First for those who do not agree with Home Education. Just to remind you that the Nazi party made it illegal so the state not the parents could control children. Also, it is the parents responsibility to ensure a suitable education for their children which a large number of parents delegate to state schools. Others decide to be directly involved.

Second the latest estimates for building the national database are 500 million pounds over a ten-year period. You also need to include the costs for the annual OFSTED inspection for every child so lets double this to 1 billion pounds per year for state inspection of parents who home education. So the question is why us? Given there is absolutely no evidence to suggest HE parents abuse their children and in fact it is more likely that they have a deeper, closer relationship they shouldn't all shool-based parents be CRB to ensure they do not abuse their children.

Finally, the state provides absolutely nothing to HE parents, not a penny. So they are planning to blow 1 billion pounds and the HE community get nothing in return.

Welcome the return of facisism in the UK via Ed Balls!

It would appear the Echo has gone national or is it just a load of parents who are frightened of what the authorities might find out, Home education should be banned for all that are capable of going to school and any that can’t go to school should be under strict supervision.

The trouble with this bill based on hasty and flawed research is that it's trying to do TWO things at once: safeguard children at risk, and check the suitability of children educated outside of school.

Tragically, even children known to every authority to be at risk still die. Registration is no solution. Also even government admitted there is NO evidence AT ALL of home ed. children being abused. I'd like to say that if you opt to educate your children outside of school it's because you care about them very much - you have to! It's full-time and expensive.

As to education, by law this is the responsibility of parents, not the state. This bill is trying to slide in by the back door a radical change to British democracy, making education - and then what next? - the state's responsibility. Already we see failures in state-run education - high rate of illiteracy, innumeracy, bullying, lack of provisioin for special needs, to name a few; also some people think state ed is just for passing exams. Other parents prefer their children to learn as they participate in real life, rather than 'be taught', in a safe environment tailored to the individual, and socializing with all ages and all walks of life instead of the very artificial 'socialization' of school: with 30-some others of the same age all day 5 out of 7 days

Just because School Education means sitting in a classroom all day being taught by teachers, people mistakenly think that so-called Home Education is sitting at home all day being taught by parents. This is not the case. So-called home-ed children are rarely at home! They're at home ed centres, local community learning centres, round at each other's houses, out on trips to castles/Stonehenge/E
den Project/Maiden Castle, stage schools, libraries, museums, art galleries, and OK yes, doing research on the internet probably at home. They're out playing after school hours and weekends just like every other child. They are happy, they are safe, and they are learning.

Ban home education? What a joke!

Lets introduce a national parenting exam that adults have to pass before they have children. They have to be reassessed every year. Anyone who fails the exam will have their children taken into care.

Introduce spot-checks on families so inspectors can come at any time to see if parents are meeting childrens needs. Written warning for providing coke & crisps to under 8?

You have no idea what you are talking about!

Mr Knight M.P. should perhaps read the Badman Review before quoting from it. The Review found no evidence of forced marriage what-so-ever. The Forced Marriage Unit has confirmed that they too have not a single case where a child was de-registered from school as a cover for forced marriage. On the grass roots level, Karma Nirvana's director, Jasvinder Sanghera can also confirm that she has not come across a single case of de-registration for the purposes of forcing a marriage on a young person.
The Home Education section of the CSF bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as Graham Stuart M.P. comments, 'It is a solution for a problem that does not exist'- and an expensive solution at that.
Graham Stuart (and other MP's) have take the time and effort to listen to the issues and understand the objections of Home Educators nationwide. It is indeed a scary thought that the lives of thousands could be changed by some MP's and Peers who have no idea what they are talking about. It is even more concerning when a bill is being discussed that gives more powers to Local Authority civil servants who have already evidenced through their actions that they are untrained in law, guidelines and the differing philosphies of education and Home Education culture.

The relationship amongst the 152 local Authorities and the home education community has been eroded in the past 10 years , to the point where one has to ask why is it that the majority of parents who chose to home educate , also choose to have as little to do with their Local Authority as possible. Dorset's own past record is poor, as evidenced by the lack of Dorset Home Educators who chose to meet with the new incoming Principle Welfare Officer for the EHE department, Ken Stephenson , in a meeting organised to discuss the issues raised by the possibility of this bill passing into law. Dorset Local Authorities response to the consultation on Home Education is instructive and I urge people to read it-
http://www.whatdothe
yknow.com/request/co
nsultation_on_electi
ve_home_ed#incoming-
60000.


This bill seeks to change the relationship between family and the State. Currently in UK law, it is a parental duty to educate their children whether they choose to do this themsleves or choose to delegate that duty to a local authority school. Interviewing a child alone is not the only objection. This bill will give the State greater powers than parents themselves to decide what is 'suitable' education. This is a dangerous precedent and will further change the balance between families and the State.Those who think that this does not affect thier family because they are not Home Educators shold think again......If the balance is changed, the state will have , through the back door , introduced legislation which gives them the right to routine 'inspections' of ALL families of the under 5's and all families with children (who after all only spend one third of their daily lives in school)- The State should never be the primary parent in a democracy. The function of the state in a democratic caring society should be to protect those who may need protection and the basic premise for further investigation should stem from valid concerns about individual families-not the right of the State to check all families just in case .In current law and guidelines, if there is reason to suspect something is amiss, the powers of the State to intervene already exist.
I wish Ken Stephenson success in creating a relationship built on mutual trust, understanding and co-operation with the 170 Home Educators in West Dorset. Somerset has managed to sucessfully do this. The reports from various parts of England show that many many local authorities have lost the confidence of the Home Education community-the Badman Review and subsequent clause in the Children Schools and Families Bill has furthered that rift. Until the government sets is own houses in order , the tax payer may see, with the passing of this bill , a huge increase in resources being used for a community which will not co-operate -a community which currently takes up no government resources has openly stated that civil disobedience is the likely outcome if this bill passes into law.

If your child doesn't go to the doctors because they are well, does the surgery send round an inspector to check that this is not a cover for neglect?
Home educators are being targeted for making a choice that is a reasonable one, to take responsibility for their children's education just as they take responsibility for their children's health.
The sad thing about this bill is that it polarises arguments. Very few people know very much about home education and now their views are based on Daily Mail type scare stories, not on evidence. And it is the lack of evidence behind the bill that frustrates home educating families, like mine.

New Zealand recently abandoned registration and monitoring of home educators because it was a waste of time and money, which would be better spent dealing with real problems. The Education and Social Services in this country are already over-stretched, under-funded and understaffed; how often do we hear about failing schools and abused children slipping through the net? What can possibly be achieved by stretching these resources even further in order to monitor ordinary families who have their children's best interests at heart? Parents are responsible for their children's education, not the state, and home educators are simply choosing to fulfill their duty by taking personal responsibility for their children's education. Schools need inspecting because they provide a service for parents who choose to delegate the education of their children, and as the parents are still responsible in the eyes of the law, they need to know that the schools are doing a good job.
What is the justification for inspecting families?
It is difficult to see how it can be justified unless the state is prepared to assume responsibility for ensuring that every child receives an efficient, full-time education that is suitable for their age, aptitude and ability, and any special needs that they may have. And if it does that, it will lay itself open to legal action from countless people whose state education has failed to meet this standard.
There is no evidence that home education is failing children. There is plenty of evidence that it works very well. Home educated children have been shown to be ahead of their peers academically and socially.

It has also been claimed (with no evidence whatsoever) that home educated children are at risk of abuse because they are "hidden". This is nonsense. They are no more "hidden" than any under-5 who isn't in daycare, or any child during the school holidays. Many children who go to school, and many under-5's are abused at home. How can the government justify discriminating against home educators by insisting that they alone are subjected to regular welfare checks when there is no evidence that they are necessary?
And there is no evidence. Look carefully at the handful of cases which have been used to justify this draconian bill, and you will see that home education is incidental or plain irrelevant in all of them. Khyra Ishaq's teacher was concerned enough about her welfare to phone Social Services 4 times the day after she stopped going to school; Social Services failed to take her concerns seriously. Eunice Spry's family was well-known to SS; her children were so desperate for help that they ran away to a police station; the police took them home and nothing was done.

If the bill is passed, it will cost many millions of pounds to set up and maintain a system of monitoring and registration and to train and employ new staff. And for what? Why spend the money looking for needles in haystacks when we've got a pile of needles in front of us already? Social Services need fixing. Schools need fixing. Home education ain't broke.

Moderator, the first posting here looks like an advertisement, especially with its Endorsements. Is that within the remit of the Forum. Thanks

I suggest anyone using the website in barry51's supposed comment which is actually just promoting the website use caution. This site that claims to promote free thinking and improve logical communication lacks details about the site owner other than a company name of which further details are difficult to obtain. A bad sign and would be illegal in UK.

I reported this post as advertising but to the Echo - no action has been taken - yet.

The reality of 'central kontrol' from Government departments in all area's of life is disturbing. The almost 'communist' line management style with tick box accountability is reaching 'stalag' proportions. Qualitive reserarch is rarley carried out in many areas; national policies on many human aspects of life have been railroaded through. Government has stopped listening to people; 'tick boxes 1,2,3,4, only' 5 is for the manager!'