Registering and Monitoring home educated children proposals

[marshlander]

Found this worrying. On the face of it and on first reading it seems harmless enough and would help children who don't go to school because their parent can't be bothered. But then, should government have the right to enter your home and deny you the right to home ed if they decide you're not up to their standards?

If your child isn't suited to mainstream school, would a government inspector know better than you how and what to teach?

This is in Wales at the moment but the UK usually follows after Wales irons out the wrinkles.

http://wales.gov.uk/consultation/dcells ... tatus=open

(edited to correct typo)

[gregorach]

If you're child isn't suited to mainstream school, would a government inspector know better than you how and what to teach?

Well, some people do have some truly bizarre ideas... If a child is being home-schooled because their parents want to ensure that they don't encounter certain facts, is that allowable? Surely children have a right to a reasonable eduction? And who other than the state could protect that right?

Let's not forget, a lot of the home-schooling movement in the US is being driven by the sort of people who want to be able to teach their children that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode a dinosaur... Whilst I'm prepared to give people quite a lot of leeway to decide how to raise their children, surely there have to be some limits?

Also, school is one of the places where signs of abuse can be detected... Would you trust, say, Joseph Fritzl to home-school? It's unfortunate, but we do need to recognise that children sometimes need to be protected from their families.

[GeorgeSalt]

Well, some people do have some truly bizarre ideas... If a child is being home-schooled because their parents want to ensure that they don't encounter certain facts, is that allowable? Surely children have a right to a reasonable eduction? And who other than the state could protect that right?

I have to say that this was my first thought when I read the proposal. Home education can provide many advantages, but someone has to make sure that it doesn't disadvantage the child. The important thing is for home eductation support groups and organisations to get onboard with the proposals at an early stage to be make sure they're implemented in a supporting manner and don't come anywhere near the remit of OFSTED.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

... and that Jesus rode a dinosaur...

Yeah, I mean, duh! It was a DONKEY.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I don't know. I am basically a little suspicious of any desire of government to extend their intrusion into peoples' lives. I can see Dunc's point, particularly as regards the question of abuse in the home, but I can also understand peoples' wishes to communicate their value set to their children rather than having it imposed by the state.

This is not necessarily a question of faith, though it might be, but it may include values such as ish, or wanting to lead a life that is not governed by greed or corporate worship or many other things that might not be adequately (in their eyes) dealt with at school.

Then there are issues of discrimination (race, creed) and bullying... and that's just the teachers.

The state has no love of home ed and would be happier if people just toed the line. Any document like this that comes out has to be viewed in that light.

[gregorach]

Did you read the consultation document Jon? The specific proposal in question explicitly recognises that people have a right to impart their own values to their children, and that that is a perfectly legitimate reason for home schooling. It also explicitly states that the only reasons why an application for home-schooling can be refused are if "the education offered does not meet the child’s needs", "there are welfare or safety issues putting the child’s education at risk", or "home educators do not let the local authority check a child’s progress". It seems to be solely aimed at ensuring basic minimum standards and a safe environment. Now, sure, you could construct some sort of slippery-slope argument (of the "once you let them legislate A, they'll legislate B, then C, all the way to Z!"), but you could equally do that for any form of legislation whatsoever.

I'm not exactly a great fan of the state myself, but equally, I'm also not a fan of the notion that children are effectively their parents property, to do with entirely as they see fit. Children have rights, and they are entirely unable to protect themselves, so somebody has to step in. I'm open to other suggestions as to how to do that, but I personally can't think of any.

[marshlander]

Must admit I hadn't considered the 'Jesus rode a dinosaur' brigade. I think GSalt has it right that home education support groups and organisations should get onboard with the proposals at an early stage. Home eders should make their views known either way as well.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Did you read the consultation document Jon?

Yes. I like stuff with big print and (mostly) short words.

It probably is what it says, all fluffy and benign.

[GeorgeSalt]

It probably is what it says, all fluffy and benign.

It could be fluffy and benign.. but it won't be unless the Home Ed community engages with it positively. If all that happens is muttering from the sidelines then it's very unlikely to satisfy anyone, and the mutterers will get what they deserve.

I've dealt with the authorities before on consultation for regulations, and unless the silent majority positively engages with the consultation the vocal minority get their agenda very well represented unopposed. And once it's gone past consultation it's much more difficult to get things changed.

[oldjerry]

I'm not exactly a great fan of the state myself, but equally, I'm also not a fan of the notion that children are effectively their parents property, to do with entirely as they see fit. Children have rights, and they are entirely unable to protect themselves, so somebody has to step in. I'm open to other suggestions as to how to do that, but I personally can't think of any.

I think Jon and Dunc have come up with a brilliant precis of the problem.I've looked at the above paragraph several time,and much as I would like to,I find it hard to disagree with.

I think I could suggest that many of the ills the State can protect us from,it ,at least indirectly, encourages ( dependancy culture,leading to poor parenting,the destruction of the extended family etc.etc
Similarly,as the State,when compared to the child's family ,has little to gain from the child's welfare ,it 's hardly surprising that at times it's a role that it takes on so incompetantly.

[Helsbells]

I am not sure there is a problem if parents want to teach their children that the world is 600 years old etc. If they believe it is true then of course they will teach it. When the children are older they will question and find out for themselves if they really believe it is true or not. As long as the parents aren't hurting their children physically or mentally then what is wrong with teaching them what they believe?

[GeorgeSalt]

As long as children are taught that it's ok to question, and have someone that they can ask those questions of.

You can be educationally disadvantaged without being hurt psychologically or physically.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I think I could suggest that many of the ills the State can protect us from,it ,at least indirectly, encourages ( dependancy culture,leading to poor parenting,the destruction of the extended family etc.etc
Similarly,as the State,when compared to the child's family ,has little to gain from the child's welfare ,it 's hardly surprising that at times it's a role that it takes on so incompetantly.

The thing is, the state could protect us from so much. It could assess us and make sure that we did jobs that suited our particular abilities, it could filter our news and internet to make sure we didn't see anything that upset us or was just irrelevant; it could use genetic profiling and personality tests to decide who we marry and have children with, and all these things could be packaged up to sound oh so reasonable.

My initial comment was a knee-jerk, based on a sudden outbreak of cynicism, and I apologise for that. I mean, it's not as if I'm really a fan of home-ed, particularly as we are immigrants and the children badly need the instruction in language & culture that they can only get in school as we are not qualified.

It seems that so much information is collected on us these days by so many organisations, all of it for our convenience & wellbeing, and I'm not sure why it provokes such suspicion in me, but it does.

[boboff]

Umm, I don't agree with the fact that the rights of the parent should be questioned in terms of education of their child.

You, the state and no one else should be able to tell a parent that there beliefs are wrong, this, oh I don't believe I am going to say this, is not some Nazi dictatorship! *sorry.

But it is true, you can not prescibe peoples values, provided the child is happy healthy social etc etc.

Now I for one laugh at the "Anti Gay" protestors in the States where Bigot begets Bigot, so to speak, where you see a child of 10 telling people they are Satan for watching a bit of boy on boy action on Red Tube, BUT surely that is the nature of a democracy, and the nature of free speach.

This is odd really, as odd as finding out Frank Turner is a Tory! I mean your normal "lefties" want to tell the parents off for Teaching something they believe in!

Child Abuse = State Intervention

Teaching a child moral lessons as if they were true = Crack on!

Where one blurs into the other in terms of a parents responsibility to equip a child for adulthood????

[gregorach]

I am not sure there is a problem if parents want to teach their children that the world is 600 years old etc. If they believe it is true then of course they will teach it. When the children are older they will question and find out for themselves if they really believe it is true or not. As long as the parents aren't hurting their children physically or mentally then what is wrong with teaching them what they believe?

So what you're saying is that you don't see any problem with people teaching their children "facts" which are objectively and unquestionably false? We clearly have a different understanding of the term "education"... How about 1 + 1 = 3? Do you believe there should be any sort of educational standards at all? I mean, there are groups in the US producing home-schooling science "textbooks" which assert the factual existence of the Loch Ness Monster as a argument against evolution. (No, I'm not making this up!) Is that OK with you?

In my opinion, teaching your kids utter nonsense and calling it "fact" is "hurting them ... mentally".