HomeSchooler.org.uk

"Dear Kate,

Graham Badman’s review of Elective Home Education in England

In February we wrote to you regarding the Review of Home Education being conducted by Mr Badman on behalf of the government. His recommendations have now been published and we wish to seek your support in opposing the changes to current practice being proposed, for the following reasons:

Firstly, we are deeply shocked by the lack of any meaningful critical analysis in the report. Conclusions drawn and recommendations made bear little or no relation to arguments presented and the arguments presented are themselves not supported by any evidence whatsoever. ( I work in Higher Education and quite frankly if a student – even at undergraduate level - presented work this sloppy for assessment I would fail them). On principle we believe it is wrong that a report so thoroughly lacking in intellectual rigour should have any influence on policy and are terrified for the wider implications for all policy decisions on any matter if this standard of reporting is allowed to carry any weight. The Secretary of State, Ed Balls, in his response, asserts that the review carries strong arguments but in fact little argument is 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. To begin the review with an Issiah Berlin quote which suggests we all have to compromise on our values can be interpreted as Badman throwing down the gauntlet to Elective Home Education (EHE) families at the outset. No alternative interpretations of the flimsy facts presented are ever considered or argued against. The examples of lack of rigour are too numerous to elucidate fully here but are apparent with even a casual reading of the document. However it is important to flag up the way in which drawing conclusions without evidence is a dangerous thing.

For example, evidence on abuse by home educators – a key argument used to justify most of the recommendations 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. Moreover quotation’s from the NSPCC are used to back up these vague assertions and opinions, yet in email correspondence with us, the NSPCC have failed to provide evidence to back up their concerns that Elective Home Education could be used as a cover for abuse, despite 2.3 million calls to ChildLine a year (for which they receive 30 million pounds from government). They have also admitted that they know nothing about Home Education (in line with most of the review panel) and have had to, at the insistence of the Climbie Foundation, retract statements linking the Victoria Climbie case to Elective Home Education. These statements were particularly resented by the EHE community given that the NSPCC was one of the very agencies that failed Victoria Climbie and who then proceeded to falsify their computer records in order to conceal this, and it is not unreasonable to question the motivation of this organisation in joining forces with Baroness Morgan in calling for this review in the first place. Moreover, the desire of the NSPCC to raise a further 50 million pounds further calls their impartiality (both in calling for the review and in giving evidence to it) into question.

The review rightly points out that the number of parents opting for EHE 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’ (section 8:12). But given that the size of the Elective 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. Moreover it is our experience that electing to educate your child at home is used by LA’s as a prima facie reason to involve social services. We personally have had a worrying, though completely trivial, visit from our social services solely because we electively home educate. When we mentioned this to a senior member of staff at the Royal Marsden Hospital they were horrified because they had been repeatedly begging the very same social services department to intervene on behalf of a child that they had very grave concerns about. (This is real evidence of how it is government policy that is putting vulnerable children at risk by wasting precious resources on monitoring people who take their responsibilities very seriously indeed.) It therefore follows that the numbers of Elective Home Education families known to social services will be disproportionately high, because EHE families are already discriminated against.

The 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.

The sloppiness of the review, the speed and tone of the Secretary of State’s response (simultaneous with publication) and the way in which the review itself was carried out (it was originally supposed to be a consultation but when EHE families pointed out that the allocated timeframe breached the Consultation Code of Practice the terminology was hastily changed to a review, there was considerable discrepancy between the time allowed for, and the extent of evidence gathered from LA’s as opposed to EHE families) does not suggest an impartial process and leads us to suppose that Mr. Balls and Mr. Badman had predetermined outcomes they wanted to achieve before the review process even began. Indeed, in Recommendation 7 Mr. Badman talks of ‘bringing forward proposals’ - a choice of language that suggests such proposals already exist. Moreover, this unsettling suspicion is backed up by our personal experience of a meeting with LA officials, on the 30th of January, before the review had taken place, in which the SEN manager’s comments indicated that LA’s were already assuming they would be pursuing some of these recommendations.

However, the poor quality of the report and the irregularities in the review process are not the most worrying aspect this affair. It is the recommendations themselves which are most concerning. They endanger civil liberties and family life in such a fundamental way that it is imperative that legislation is not rushed through in the way in which Mr. Badman calls for. He calls for the implementation of Recommendations 1, 7, 23 and 24 within 3 months - and these are some of the most dangerous and extreme of the recommendations made. For example LA’s would have the power to withhold registration (and therefore either force children back to school or send their parents to prison using truancy legislation) where they deem the parents to be unsuitable educators for a number of reasons including: “anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education”. Such a broad statement surely gives LA’s unlimited powers to make value judgements about who is or is not a suitable parent to home educate.

This is just one example but hopefully gives you a sense of the tone and sensibility of this report. The powers of entry given to LAs, and the duty to interview children without their parents present would logically have to be extended to all pre school children, and school educated children in holiday periods, if the logic of Mr. Badman is to be followed. Clearly Britain would no longer be respecting and upholding the right to a private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) in such circumstances.

I am aware of the time constraints upon you and do not wish to make this letter overly long, but do urge you to look at the report http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=6080 and the response of Mr. Balls http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=6081 . We hope to be able to secure a meeting with you at an upcoming surgery to discuss the matter further.

We would also be grateful if you would draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the very serious concerns raised by the conduct of this review and the recommendations made by it. We would also like you to make a Freedom of Information request on our behalf for all the submissions made to this review to be made public. We have found that the few submissions, that have been made public, as well as to the other recent reviews before, all clearly demonstrate an ignorance about Elective Home Education and its place in society.

Graham Badman declares that nowhere in British legislation is Home education outlined as a right. What he fails to recognize is that rather than a right, it is a freedom (rights only exist to protect freedoms). Recently the British pubic fully understood that the Gurkhas have fought and died for all Britons to live in a free country. The government would do well to remember that it is their duty to protect those freedoms too.

Yours sincerely,"