HomeSchooler.org.uk

Dear David Lepper,

We are writing to express our deep concern over the recommendations of the Badman Review of Elective Home Education. These proposals have led to a government consultation on a draconian new regime of registration and inspection of home educating families.

The proposals represent a fundamental shift in the legal position of home education. As the law stands today, all parents bear responsibility for ensuring that their children receive an education suitable to their age, aptitude and ability. This may be achieved either through attendance at school, or otherwise. The proposals made by the DCSF would make the choice to educate otherwise dependent on annual registration, inspection and approval by the local authority.

Among our many concerns about Graham Badman's proposals is the threat to diversity that such a system poses. We believe that it is an indication of a healthy democracy for there to be a range of educational choices available to children and young people. Home educating families often work hard to ensure that each child's education is tailored to their own unique needs.

We know, from previous experiences in education, that large, bureaucratic systems of monitoring and assessment damage the autonomy of teachers and learners, and in doing so, kill off creativity and innovation. Just as the government is beginning to recognise the value of truly personalised education, it is proposing to stifle the many successful examples of this in home educating families by introducing a top-down assessment process.

Our own approach to our children's education is based upon a deep belief in the importance of intrinsic motivation and children's natural desire to learn. We see our role as primarily that of facilitators, assisting our children in their learning journeys. Graham Badman's proposals would demand that:

"At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months."

We have no objection to stating our educational approach, and we have already done so in reports to our local authority. However, we simply do not have "planned outcomes" for our children. This is not because we can't be bothered, or haven't got round to it, but because we reject the validity of planning learning outcomes for our children - any goals or ambitions our children may have are for them to choose, not for us to impose on them.

We believe that this fundamental incompatibility between the educational approach of many home educating families and the recommendations of the review are not a result of an unfortunate oversight on Mr. Badman's part. Mr. Badman is well aware of the prevalence of autonomous and child-led approaches among home educators. In his report, he reveals his suspicion of these approaches, when he says at paragraph 10.1:

"what constitutes ‘autonomous’ learning. Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes thought the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential." (all spelling and punctuation as in the report)

However, rather than looking for further research, or advising the government to commission it, it seems that Mr. Badman has come to his own conclusions, and made recommendations that would severely restrict the freedom of home educating families to live according to this philosophy.

Approaches to education should be a matter for debate. There will never be universal agreement as to what constitutes an ideal education. What matters, in a free society, is that people have the power to choose approaches in accordance with their own beliefs.

We are intending to visit your next surgery, and would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this unwarranted and disproportionate challenge to our way of life.

Yours sincerely,

Dani Ahrens and Allie Rogers