something borrowed, something new, something off to tories blue

I sent this letter to my MP, as you can see, i did borrow somewhat heavily from the Staffordshire blog, as I am very time pressed at the mo, but still wanted to do something. i note how fabulous and active they are being, and will try and be so myself

Thankyou for all your correspondence whilst we awaited the review into
home education

I wish to seek your support in opposing the reforms to current practice
proposed by Graham Badman in his “Report to the Secretary of State on
the Review of Elective Home Education in England” for the following
reasons:

1. The Review fails to make a case for its recommendations. The
Secretary of State says it contains strong arguments, but there is, in
fact, little argument supported by evidence in the review. We would
have welcomed a well argued, evidence based review, as this would have
enabled an engagement. Instead there is assertion, but little analysis
and evidence – for instance, the review simply says ‘I believe …’ 16
times.

2. The review lacks intellectual rigour, independence or impartiality.
Where evidence is presented there is an absence of critical analysis,
together with highly selective use of quotations from respondents. Thus
it includes without comment a lengthy, and somewhat naïve, quotation
from the Education Division of the Church of England, but does include
a quote from a home educator which is less than complementary about
local authority staff. The use of quotations is not ‘neutral’, they
serve to highlight certain views merely by their inclusion. In the
review, he notes that he is not convinced by any of the positive
research into home education in this country or others, despite this by
well respected researchers. however, no other data being available, his
lack of conviction is without empirical reference.

3. Evidence on abuse by home educators – a key argument used to justify
action (see below) – is absent from the review report. Somewhat
surprisingly given the review’s terms of reference there is no analysis
of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving
home educators. Indeed, there are no robust figures or trends presented
(even at an aggregated level), instead there is a vague reference to
‘local authority evidence and case studies’. Thus it is impossible to
tell whether the concerns about possible child abuse are based in fact
or merely imagined. I requested, through the freedom of information
act, the information from [my local] LA about welfare concerns amongst
home educated families, and they knew of no cases.
[link to the response on what do they know]

The review rightly points out that the number of parents opting for
elective home education is unknown. Yet it also claims that ‘the number
of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities
is disproportionately high relative to their home educating
population’. But given that the size of the home education population
is unknown, it is impossible to calculate the proportion, unless these
councils have made up a base for the calculation; in effect the
statement is meaningless.

4. This lack of evidence and analysis is compounded by the absence of
expertise amongst the review panel. In the absence of evidence, some
degree of confidence in the review’s judgements might rest on the
expertise of those involved. They could perhaps be forgiven for simply
making assertions if they had expertise or relevant professional
knowledge of the subject matter. Unfortunately this is not the case. No
home educating parent was on the review team. This does not accord with
a Government that wishes to listen to the public and empower them.

Combined with the first point, this undermines the legitimacy of the
review – why should what appears to be no more that the prejudices of
this group of people be imposed upon the home education community?

5. Furthermore the recommendations are not logically consistent with
review’s limited evidence.
a. The review says that many LAs are not performing adequately, but
then recommends they have more powers. Without an analysis of why they
are failing it would seem inappropriate to give them more powers; this
would simply create problems and maladministration claims for the
future.
b. The review recognises the diversity of home educators, but fails to
take this in to account in its ‘one size fits all’ recommendations

6. A key statement from the review, informing its recommendations is:

“The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right
regulatory regime within a framework of legislation that protects the
rights of all children, even if in transaction such regulation is only
necessary to protect a minority.”

This guiding ‘principle’ is presented with no provisos or limits. It is
highly risk adverse position, and assumes that all parents are capable
of abuse. This leads to recommendations that are disproportionate and
even the Secretary of State is wary of the cost implications.

Indeed, it logically follows from this that parents of all pre-school
children must be registered and inspected annually; even that visits
are required of children attending school during vacations.

7. I would like to draw your attention to one of the recommendations
being that authorised officers should have the right to speak to each
child alone, and only if the child is particularly vulnerable or
communication difficulties can they have a trusted adult. Personally, I
will refuse this right of access for strangers to interrogate my
children.

You also need to know that the review was poorly conducted – for
example:
• It was announced as a consultation on the consultation website then
when it was pointed out that it was not compliant with the Consultation
Code of Practice it suddenly became a review;
• The review outcome was partially pre-judged in advance, Graham
Badman, author of the review, publicly said as much when he asserted
the status quo could not remain long before the review was completed;
and
• The on-line questionnaire used to gather home educators and others’
views was badly designed involving leading and poorly constructed
questions.

In addition, the review process has angered and alienated many home
educators. The review report and the Secretary of State highlight the
importance of there being good relationships with home educators.
However, the review has undermined this objective; it has even been
counterproductive. Many home educators are now opting out of any
involvement with their local authorities after many years of effort to
improve relationships with them.

I realise that policy on home education is probably seen as part of the
‘backwater’ of political debate in Parliament, and that at present
other issues have higher media and public profile. However, the home
education community is a vocal and organised, if disparate, group, and
you might like to advise your colleagues to take an interest in this
issue as it has the potential to generate some very adverse publicity
for the party.

The review report can be found at:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/homeeducation/

If you or a member of your staff require more information or details of
sources, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I believe that
from the outset this review has been prejudiced against home-education
and home-educators, using supposition and flights of fancy to justify
draconian monitoring, registration and interrogation permissions which
far exceed those expected by children at school, and ignoring or
belittling all of the research and evidence in favour of home-education
or maintaining the status quo.

I look forward to hearing from you, and would be happy to meet with you
to discuss this further.

Yours sincerely,

so, sorry for rampant plagiarism, but anyway, he has written back, suggesting this has been discussed in tory policy circles, and has forwarded my letter onto ed balls for further discussion.