The Review of Home Education in England by Graham Badman spells bad news for independent home education in England. In fact, if all recommendations are adopted, England will go from having the most liberal home education laws in Europe to some of the most restrictive (not counting countries where home education is illegal.) The opening quote is interesting:
The need to choose, to sacrifice some ultimate values to others, turns out to be a permanent characteristic of the human predicament. Isaiah Berlin
Indeed. And just what values are being sacrificed? And to what end? Registering, asking reasons for home educating in each family, and home visits (in which the official may ask to see the child alone) are just a few of the 28 recommendations in the report. As Badman notes, many of the proposals “can be implemented and achieved through advice and changes in guidance in due course…” (meaning they don’t need to work through the law?). On a few specific proposals (1, 7, 23 and 24), however, he sees need of “immediate action.”
For those of us here in the US, there is something I find interesting: the rationale behind the restrictive regulations (emphasis mine:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice.
. . .
Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the child to determine or ascertain such views.
This–The UNCRC–is what is being used as a rationalization for home inspection by state officials in which they may speak to children in private without the parents breaking any laws or even being suspected of breaking any laws. At least here, we need an anonymous tipster.
Furthermore, Article 23 of the UNCRC recognises the right of the child to an education. . .
Following this is a discussion of the education law in England and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which demonstrate that the fundamental right of the child to education by its nature calls for regulation by the state.
Debate on the UNCRC is heating up here in the US again as our president has declared the US’ refusal to sign the convention “embarrassing” and Senator Boxer is pushing for the administration to give attention to the Convention. Mike Farris of HSLDA has been very active in his opposition to the UNCRC to the point of supporting a parental rights amendment to the Constitution in order to prevent it from affecting American families. (More on that in an upcoming entry.)
There has been some fear that the UNCRC would essentially outlaw home education in the United States, but the only opinion I know of that the UN has given regarding the issue is Victor Munoz’ recommendation to Germany to allow homeschooling under the supervision of the state in order to uphold the rights of the parents (93g).
But now we have an example of the UNCRC being used exactly as many homeschoolers here have feared it would be used all along, to separate parent from child and tip the balance of power in the education and upbringing of children away from the parent and toward the state.
___________________________
Update: Spunky also shares her thoughts. I think the LifeSiteNews article is slightly off in its reporting, however. I’m checking on this, but the report was just made available June 11. The Department for Children, Schools and Family Children’s Minister Delyth Morgan has accepted the recommendations “in full.” But according to the department, they appear to still be proposals.
Following the review of home education, the Government is proposing to introduce arrangements for the registration and monitoring of home educated children. Department for Children, Schools and Families
They are still asking for comment through October 19. Hopefully, home educators in England will be able to work together to get this defeated.
Update 2: Received confirmation that these are indeed proposals, not law or policy changes. It is thought nothing can happen before the coming general elections and that private schools will be opposed as well, many of whom have ties to politicians.
Scatty shares a couple of blogs in England discussing this report: Dare to Know and Sometimes It’s Peaceful.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC CRC homeschooling homeschool home education Review of Home Education in England Badman
Here are some blogs discussing this issue, for anyone who is interested:
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/
http://sometimesitspeaceful.blogspot.com/
There is another news story out in the UK that confirms that the review was accepted by the government but legislation needs to be enacted. So it looks like there is some wiggle room, how much remains to be seen, but it looks like homeschooling regulation will be tightened somewhat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/5506542/Home-education-clampdown-an-infringement-of-civil-liberties.html
How ironic. The state, notoriously bad at educating chidren, wants to abridge the rights of parents who really care deeply about their children’s education. Of course there are bad homeschooling parents out there, but it is hardly the majority and by that logic, we ought to remove all children permanently from their homes since we KNOW some kids are being neglected and abused.
They’re quoting the “British Humanist Society” as being concerned about parents, you know, actually teaching their children a thing or two about the Bible. How many quotes are embedded from the local Pentecostal or Baptist churches… hmm… round number there.
Not that that shows any bias or anything.
Then in the very next page, they’re blathering about bolstering trust with home educators, and how are we magically going to do that when we’re putting a bunch of new demands on them? Oh! A “drop in” centre. Nice little place to hang out with other homeschoolers where the public school folks can keep a good eye on you.
Maybe, just maybe, some of these home educators have good reason to voice “anger” at these arrogant officials.
Well, it was a good post, Dana, but I didn’t enjoy reading it.
You can see why our Declaration of Independence from the King was so important as you read; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness along with Inalienable Rights from our Creator. Without that foundation the State can do anything to usurp the inherent rights given to parents as head of the family. This is a line drawn in the sand for us here in America where the battle is being waged to remove any reference to God given rights.
Mrs. C, the quotes in this are interesting. They could be a post in itself, but I didn’t want to outdo the report in word count! Like this one, under the views of homeschoolers:
The range of response principally outside the public call for evidence varied enormously from:
to the more measured:
Now you know that accusing the Local Authority of not being the intellectual equivalent of their children is not a representative response to the questions. But it makes it sound like these people are crazy. So take the one person who expressed their frustration in a sarcastic way and let them stand for all home education while deciding on regulations?
Ghosts of Rob Reich, I must be getting really old. . .
I am so annoyed with Senator Boxer, and Feinstein for that matter. California has some real issues right now, but that is a whole other issue.
What is going on here? I was a life long Democrat–a liberal who was often seen as conservative by family and friends. BUT I am seeing our country turning into a form of Big Brother and although it bothers me immensely, it down right scares me to see the global Big Brother regime that seems to be forming and growing right under our noses. The UN having any say as to what goes on in our borders and/or in our homes is just baffling, disgusting imo. Haven’t we seen this whole global world thing before somewhere in history?
Shawna, Reagan was a Democrat, too, and said he never left the party, it left him.
I think politics is changing and a lot of us aren’t finding a “home” in the parties we have been affiliated with.
The quote above ‘…no one from the LA (local authority) would in my opinion be on my child’s intellectual level or they wouldn’t be working for the LA.’ was taken out of context. I am given to believe that it actually refers to a scientifically gifted home educated child, and in that context sounds a lot more reasonable.
The report plays fast and loose with academic research, statistics and indeed facts, so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that its author has played fast and loose with submissions to him
Another excellent blog to keep up with the reaction is http://renegadeparent.net
I always wonder when those types of things enter reports. Was it really said and in that context? A senator here remarked that she had been called a communist in some of the exchanges after she put forward her homeschool bill.
I can’t help but wonder if that was really sent to her, or she was talking about comments on some of the blogs and articles that were discussing the bill. There is a huge difference between some flippant comment made on a blog and a letter to a senator.
And if it isn’t representative of the submissions, you really have to wonder why they bring it up?
Didn’t Adolph Hitler employ similar techniques or don’t we study that anymore either?
Looks like Godwin’s Law is still in effect. . .
Reason had a sort of interesting article on Godwin’s Law awhile back.
Thus, despite all efforts at regulation, the market has repeatedly decided in favor of the N-bomb. There simply isn’t any other tableau, in history or fiction, that offers the same variety of evil and oppressive examples as the Third Reich. Why compare some propaganda to 1984 and some slaughter to Srebrenica when you can double down and link both of them to Nazism?
It’s all part of our cultural memory, along with the “Never again” I was taught in school as I was forced to watch a documentary of walking skeletons, mass graves, and ghostly, dead eyes.
As an actual argument, it lacks…well…an argument. As a cultural point, a horror we all shared even though it happened before most of us were born, it is rather interesting.
At least to me.
After all, we can’t point to ourselves. Our Liberty Cabbage and Liberty Steaks. Parading German-born Americans about to shame them. Dousing those who objected to purchasing liberty bonds with paint, and stealing the Mennonites cars and using the money to buy liberty bonds since they refused. Lynching a German family. Stopping the German language newspapers and German language schools.
Of course, that was WWI…before the Nazis and before any clear moral “right” on either side of the “War to End All Wars.”
Or our treatment of Native Americans. I can see certain correlations between this and the forced removal of children from their families and culture in order to “civilize” them. Or even in our treatment of Catholic immigrants.
Some of these events in our own history actually seem to have a much stronger correlation to home education concerns. But perhaps it is “safer” to look abroad and to the extreme rather than deal with the very real fact that America, too, is not above interfering in the family to force the will of the majority.
And without going back to relevant history, just think about current events such as students protesting the “election” in Iran and their government’s heavy-handed response, plus the general police state concerns in England completely apart from homeschool regulation (the death of Ian Tomlinon during political protests in the streets, likely at the hands of police etc.)
Whether we lean right or left and whether our wing is in power or out, it’s not so simple for any person or group such as homeshcooling, to reflexively believe police are always right and students are always wrong, or vice versa.
Keyboard freaking out — Ian Tomlinson.
Hello,
I am a newcomer to this site, but found it through other links relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My wife and I have spent hours studying this treaty and the issues surrounding it. While I know that not everyone against the treaty agree with our solution, (a Parental Rights Amendment), I at least urge everyone to investigate this threat to all parental rights and take action. Do not wait until our great nation becomes a nation where the government controls the minds and souls of our next generation. I am working in Tennessee to spread the alert. Please join me if you live in Tennessee, or permit me to equip you to start working in your own state. I am also willing to address any questions/concerns that you have.
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B47062D1-5377-40F9-9A26-0CFFD0DD66CC}&DE=
I don’t understand why everyone feels so threatened by this treaty. This treaty deals with basic rights of a child, rights such as the right to life, basic freedoms such the right to not be forced into sexual slavery, etc. The U.S. signing it would would signify U.S. leaders agreeing within the international community that they would not violate the rights of any children anywhere in the world. The convention is designed to protect children from being forced into workhouses and used as child-soldiers in places such Sierra Leone. I think the U.S. has been reluctant to sign it up until now, because U.S. corporate interests profit daily from underpaid child-labor overseas. Signing could potentially jeopardize some of those interests. I think that the U.S. signing could potentially greatly improve the lives of children all over the world.
As for the concerns over homeschoolers’ rights being jeopardized, the treaty wouldn’t allow for more privacy invasion than Child Protective Services already has. All Child Protective Services requires to investigate is a concerned phone call. Then an actual investigation is launched, in which hard evidence of abuse is required for any action to take place. How is the treaty any different from this? In both cases both the interests of the parents and the child are taken into account.