Books
Click images for more details
Bishop Hill Jan 28, 2010 Home education A US judge has granted political asylum to a German family who said they had fled the country to avoid persecution for home schooling their children.
Sometimes politicians forget who are the servants and who are the masters.
Bishop Hill Oct 21, 2009 Home education There has been much interest in the statistics that the government is using in its campaign to link home educators with child abuse.
The essence of the story is that a survey of local education authorities has determined that 0.4% of home ed children are on the "At risk" register. This compares to a figure of 0.2% in the population as a whole. The 0.4% figure is described as varying greatly between different counties, suggesting to me that it is a measure that is prone to error.
The figures appear to be being used as a way of answering the question "Are HE kids more at risk of child abuse than those in schools", with "on the At Risk register" being used as a proxy for "At risk". It strikes me that these are not the same thing at all though. There are clearly very large numbers of children who are HE but are not known to the authorities and there will also be some who are at risk who are not known to the authorities either. Because of this, "On the At Risk register" would appear to be a very poor proxy for "At risk", at least as far as assessing HE is concerned.
The question is, how would you answer the question properly? With the survey as presented there must be a possibility that that the risk associated with HE is actually less than that for the population as a whole. But how would you calculate this probability?
This is a question for a stats blogger - I wonder if this man knows? I'll ask him.
Bishop Hill Oct 17, 2009 Home education There is a home ed consultation ongoing at the moment, inviting responses to the government's proposals. Readers may like to make their feelings know here. Responses are due by close of play on Monday.
Bishop Hill Oct 15, 2009 Civil liberties Home education Lynne Featherstone has been kind enough to respond in the comments thread on my original posting. I am reproducing her comment here in full.
It is because I am interested in finding a way to back your freedoms that I firstly took time to meet constituents, secondly took time to write about the issue very broadly on my blog; thirdly took time to read and response to comments - and am open to the arguments people people have made. But if all the home educators'responses are simply about slagging me off for even wanting to hear the arguments, daring to examine the concerns raised by the Badman Review and see what the challenges are to complete and absolute freedoms - then how liberal are you? If you cannot tolerate discourse and scrutiny and your only response is to attack me ........
Anyway - you have all helped shaped my views and over on my blog there are one or two really good posts that I have found helpful and constructive.
Firstly I have to take issue with the comment about all home educators slagging Lynne off. None of the commenters on my earlier posting have made any personal comments about Lynne. I see nothing in my own post that could be seen as abusive either, although not being a home educator, I presumably don't fall into the category Lynne defines. Whatever might have been said elsewhere, I would hope that Lynne would recognise that this site has been conducted in orderly fashion.
That said, there is a conundrum for us on the outside looking in at our representatives. When we observe our parliamentarians discussing the abolition of long-cherished freedoms, are we really expected to stand and watch with equanimity? Are we to make polite representations suggesting that perhaps the abolition of the assumption of innocence is not such a good idea and maybe politicians might like to reconsider? Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I infer from Lynne's own site that she is now receptive to the civil liberties defence of home education, which is welcome, and speaks of a certain strength of character in the face of some strong criticism. But I'm still not satisfied (and when I say this I am not trying to "slag off" Lynne in particular, but parliamentarians as a whole): should it not concern us that we outside parliament are having to point out to our elected representatives that what they are proposing is such a disastrous infringement of our rights? How is it that we have elected people who need to have this explained to them?
Isn't the first job of parliamentarians to defend the liberties of the people?
Bishop Hill Oct 13, 2009 Civil liberties Home education Dear Ms Featherstone
Your blog post today is about your being lobbied by home educators. You observe their fear that their way of life is being destroyed, that they will be subject to inspection and that a state-mandated curriculum will be imposed upon them. It is, you say, a conundrum to choose between the parent's freedom to educate their children as they see fit and the demands of the state to "ensure safety".
It is not a conundrum at all.
You see, this kind of issue is easy for a liberal. This is first principles stuff: the state needs to prove reasonable grounds before it can enter someone's home; it has to get a warrant first; you are innocent until proven guilty. That kind of thing.
These are simple concepts that have been the bedrock of British freedoms for centuries. These are fundamentals. I'm therefore struggling with the idea of a Liberal Democrat MP - a Liberal Democrat MP - in a quandry over whether warrantless searches should be permitted or not. Imagine that - an MP who declares themselves a liberal can't work out whether a fundamental civil liberty, fought and died for over the centuries, is a good thing or not!
Here's a clue - on release from prison, criminals may not have their homes searched without a warrant. Important that - you've served your time, now you go back to where you started from: innocent until proven guilty.
Yet you seem unsure if people who have been found guilty of nothing should be subject to search by government officers. Why, oh why, do you feel that innocent home educators are so much more worthy of state inspection than ex-cons? What prompts you to even consider treating them this way? Have the Liberal Democrats forgotten everything that mankind has ever learned about liberalism?
Consider the impact of what you are saying. Why should families of preschoolers not be subject to inspection but home educators should? Where is the difference? There is none. Tell us that you would have supported the idea of your children being interviewed by education welfare officers at age 4, in your absence, on the off-chance that you were abusing them. Would you have supported this? I think not. How then can you justify treating home educators in this way?
If you come down on the government side on the question of the Badman review, could you really call yourself a liberal again? Wouldn't your party just stand for the same authoritarian consensus that grips Labour and Conservative parties alike?
What is the point of the Liberal Democrats if not to speak up for liberalism?
Liberal societies have created constitutions and bills of rights to protect fundamental civil liberties from the depredations of politicians in the grip of whatever madness is gripping their thoughts at the time, whether it is safety or drugs or reds under the beds. Child abuse is just another of this long line of horrors. You have a choice: a free society or 1984. You will get child abuse in both.
Now you work out which way to vote.
Bishop Hill Sep 21, 2009 Education Home education Well, yes, we did say that the people shouldn't be frightened of the state and the state should be frightened of its people. But guys, we didn't mean you had to be frightened of small children too.
The Department of Children, Schools and Families have recently written to the Information Commissioner stating that they are having difficulties in complying with requests from home educators. (You will remember that the government launched an inquiry into HE which concluded that it was unregulated and was therefore bad). Confronted by an array of FoI requests, the DCSF now claim that there has been "harassment and a display of hostility towards Mr Graham Badman", the civil servant who was appointed to head the inquiry. They say that they need to consider the implications of this behaviour for their interpretation of Section 38 of the FoI Act, which "applies to information that if disclosed would be likely to put the physical or mental health or the safety of any individual at risk or greater risk". In other words they want to withhold information because its release might upset Mr Badman.
DCSF staff have helpfully provided some examples of some of this harassment and hostility. Here's one. It's strong stuff, so I've put it below the fold for the benefit of the squeamish...
Bishop Hill Aug 11, 2009 Children Education Home education The exodus of home-educating families from England seems to have begun, with Scotland apparently the favoured destination. The Guardian today carries a report about one family who have decided to head for Ayrshire without waiting for Ed Balls to put the Badman proposals into law. This is of course just one family, but from the tone of the article it does seem as if this does represent the tip of an iceberg.
An influx of free-minded people into Scotland could be an important opportunity. It is quite possible that the majority will end up in the central belt, simply because this is where the jobs and housing are. Families will also want to maintain their links to England and travel is obviously much easier if you can get to Edibburgh or Glasgow. If a concentration of home-ed families does develop in the central belt it could have some rather profound consequences.
For a start, HE would become much more likely to be something that ordinary people came across in day-to-day life. It would become much more normal. People would be much more likely to consider it as an option for their own families. Normalisation would remove a huge barriet to the HE movement and numbers could swell accordingly. This growth would then feed back on itself and boost numbers still further. The effects of this movement on the idea of schooling would also be interesting. Several people around the blogosphere have discussed the idea of denormalising the whole concept of schooling and a growth in HE could cause just this.
Another impact would be that a concentration of HE parents would have much more influence on local authorities. Having fled government intrusion in England they would presumably be vigorous in protecting their rights once safely installed north of the border. And this would not only apply in the education sphere. An influx of people who cared about civil liberties and the right to be left alone might also have an important influence on the wider political landscape. Many readers here will know of the Free State Project, a plan to "invade" the American state of New Hampshire with large numbers of libertarian-inclined people. It would be rather exciting if Ed Balls inadvertently diverted Scotland from its socialist path through a piece of socialist legislation.
Clouds do have silver linings.
Bishop Hill Aug 2, 2009 Home education Schoolhouse, the Home Ed charity working in Scotland, is reporting a fourfold increase in inquiries as English home educators hedge their bets on the outcome of the HE review south of the border.
Schoolhouse spokesperson, Alison Preuss, said:
"Our volunteers have been dealing with a growing number of enquiries from England since the home education review was first announced in January, but these have skyrocketed in recent weeks. The latter half of June saw a fourfold increase when compared with the same period last year. We are not only being asked about the law relating to home education in Scotland, but about the political climate, transport links, housing, employment and business opportunities by parents who are making plans to move to Scotland as the direct result of stigmatisation of home educators by the UK Government.
Bishop Hill Jul 11, 2009 Civil liberties Home education Rubbing the sleep from its eyes, Britain's premier human rights organisation has snuffled sluggishly from its summer slumber, ready to shuffle valiantly to the aid of the oppressed.
Is there a problem, they wonder?
News reaches me that Liberty has finally got round to replying to some of the inquiries about where it stands on the Badman review of HE. This was published something like six weeks ago, but no doubt the freedom fighters have had other things on their minds, like Shami's latest TV appearance.
If Liberty are going to stir themselves into action, that's good news. There's plenty for them to get angry about in relation to the Badman review:
1. Presumption of innocence. It should not be for parents to prove anything to the state.
2. Warrantless searches. Even freed criminals are not subject to search of their homes without a warrant.
3. Discrimination. Preschooling families are not subject to warrantless searches etc. Why should HE families have to endure this? Or is the intention to extend the new laws to everyone?
4. Breach of right to family life (protected under the Human Rights Act)?
5. Breach of right to education according to ones principles (ditto)?
I think this will create a problem for Liberty. Their instincts will be to follow the woolly lefty line of "balancing the human rights of parents and child". If Shami does come out with this line, it will have the unfortunate result of making her sound clearly and unequivocally like a cross betweeen David Blunkett and Charles Clark.
This would, I'm sure you'll agree, be rather unfortunate.
Another alternative is of course to recognise that there are some pretty fundamental civil liberties in play here: the presumption of innocence and warrantless searches (although the latter is now a liberty that is honoured more in the breach than in the observance). Can Liberty really come out and say that these are going to have to be secondary considerations?
My prediction - Liberty will equivocate. They will say that entry should be demanded sensitively, or some words to that effect.
Or then again, maybe they'll find it more tactful to curl up and go back to sleep.
Bishop Hill Jun 14, 2009 Home education Peter Hitchens discusses Home Ed today, and notes Ed Balls' decision to demand registration of home educators, with compulsory school for those who refuse to comply. Hitchens also notes another interesting decision by Balls. Children who have not received the MMR vaccination will be banned from schools.For these children, home education will be compulsory.
He hasn't thought this through, has he? A bit of a Balls-up, I would say.
Bishop Hill Jun 13, 2009 Civil liberties Home education One interesting aspect of the Badman review of home education is its demand that parents should once a year submit plans for what they are intending to teach children for the next twelve months. This seems rather extraordinary to me, since the school my children attend claim that they cannot give me such a plan for the following week.
As some have observed, this will signal the end of one important thread of home education, namely child-led, autonomous learning. The whole point of autonomous learning is that it's unplanned.
It's interesting to consider the legal implications of the proposed changes. According to the Human Rights Act,
...the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
Now if one's philosophical convictions are that education shall be child-led and autonomous, it seems to me that the government will breach the HRA if it insists that autonomous education is verboten. Now of course, the HRA isn't worth the paper it's written on since the courts will not strike down an act of parliament which breaches it. Instead they will merely issue a statement to the effect that a breach has occurred. I wonder though if one could ask the government, or perhaps ask the courts to enquire, if their intention is to breach the HRA. If it is, then it might be reasonable to ask them to say so explicitly.
Bishop Hill Jun 12, 2009 Civil liberties Home education Terribleman, appallingman, sickoman, tyrantman, evilman, sinfulman, ruinousman, rottenman, putrescentman, baseman, poisonousman, wickedman.
The Badman report on home education is out, and it's monstrous. Forced entry to people's homes is recommended. Revolutions have been started over this sort of thing.
I'm too angry to say anything sensible. Read Lisa instead.
Bishop Hill Jun 8, 2009 Education Home education Let me tell you about a school I know.
As schools go, it's a big one. The grounds and buildings are extensive although it has to be said that they're a bit of a mish-mash. They've had some new buildings in recent years, but many of them are a bit shabby and run-down to be frank. Still, everyone seems happy enough with them; "Needs must", they say. The parents are the same really - a real mix. The school has managed the unlikely feat of bringing together families from all sorts of different backgrounds in one place and avoiding all those social rifts you seem to get at most comprehensives: there are machinists and lorry drivers and teachers and accountants: name a job and you'll probably find a representative among the parent body somewhere. It's non-denominational too, with Christian and Moslem families represented alongside the secular majority. It's a cross-section of society at large I guess, and by and large they all seem to rub along together pretty well.
It's perhaps not the best-equipped school around: some decent science labs wouldn't go amiss for a start, but hey, some schools won't even let the kids try science practicals these days. Despite the less-than ideal facilities, the school still manages to achieve some truly excellent results. The children - it's co-ed by the way - score very highly in standardised tests of their language and maths skills - way above the average in fact, and what is really remarkable is that children from poor families are doing just as well as the rest - better in fact than a middle-class child at an average school. This is the kind of school where a bright kid from a poverty-stricken background can get their chance in life.
There's no selection though: no academic hothouse, this. There are children who are academic, of course, but most are just like any other kid: good at some things and not so good at others. The school has more than its fair share of special needs kids too. It's not easy coping with such a variety, of course, but they seem to have found a way to more than muddle through. I'm sure that other schools could learn a lot from watching them.
It's a fine school then. An extraordinary one, even. So there's no surprise that it's very popular, with the school roll growing at as much as 25% a year. With more and more parents wanting to get their children admitted, it's just as well they have so much room: so far they've been able to accomodate everyone who wants to get in.
It strikes me that this school should be, to a socialist, pretty much the ideal. Just run down the list again - comprehensive, non-denominational, child-centred, and turning out rounded, self-motivated children with literacy, numeracy and skills to boot. This is everything the left says it wants in a school.
So why the hell do they want to close it?
(*The inspectors report is here, by the way).
Bishop Hill Jun 6, 2009 Civil liberties Home education Signals are being sent out that the government's umpteenth review of Home Education will advise the government to "get tough on home tuition".
The government will be advised to crack down on home education to ensure it is not being used as a cover for child abuse or for parents to avoid educating their children at all, in an independent review that has angered families that home-school their children.
The inquiry into home education was ordered by ministers in January to investigate whether home education is used to conceal "child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude".
As has been pointed out, this decision will have implications for everyone, because it destroys the principle that parents are responsible for their children's education.
It was fairly clear that the Badman review of HE was in fact a sham, set up as a cover for the introduction of a predetermined policy outcome, and there has been a litany of fake charities doing their masters' bidding and queuing up to smear the home ed community. I've posted before about the NSPCC, but today's article has a new one: the National Children's Bureau.
Half of the NCB's £20m income comes from government departments. Add in their National Lottery funding and you get to a whopping 73%.
And what did the NCB have to say on the HE review? Here's their principal officer Jacqui Newvell:
We know a lot of home educators are doing a great job but our concern is the minority who slip thought the net.
The problem is of course, that nobody seems to have identified anyone who has "slipped through the net". There just don't seem to be any instances of home ed being used as a cover for abuse. This underlying purpose of the review seems not to have been about child protection. Instead, it's about expansion of bureaucratic empires. It's a "solution" in search of a problem.
Bishop Hill Apr 16, 2009 Children Education Home education Once upon a time, there was a Baroness. When surveying her kingdom of schools and teachers, she came across a small community of parents who had legally opted to retain their independence...
