20 Apr Home education and the law’s fear of abuse
Home educators feel unfairly lumped in with abusive parents and are still concerned for future changes to legislation following 2009 disruptions.
In January 2009 the Government called for a review on the regulations surrounding home education due to the fear of home educated children being more at risk of abuse than the average school child following abuse cases including the deaths of children Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq who were not attending school prior to their deaths. This was met by affronted home education organisations, parents and supporters who did not feel that this was a fair assumption. They rallied against the movement and Labour were not successful in making any adjustments to the law before the change in parliament.
With the general election in May 2015 the home educating community are somewhat concerned what a new government would mean, fearing that they may go down the same route that Labour tried to follow. The 2009 review was conducted by Graham Badman and seemed to follow a series of abuse cases that stormed the media. These cases involved children, who were not attending school, being abused or even killed. Home educating parents were outraged, feeling that they were being tarred with the same brush as abusers simply because they chose to educate their children at home.
Mum of three Kate Moore, who has educated her children at home, said “home educators everywhere were furious that they were being lumped in with abusers, they [the politicians] think that we don’t care about our children, but in fact it’s the total opposite – we care so much about our children that we’re willing to devote our time 24/7 to educating them. The abused children are not home educated, they’re just being hidden at home”. Education Otherwise (EO) and the Home Education Advisory Service (HEAS) worked together to oppose the views that the government were putting forward.
Prior to Badman’s review in 2009 the NSPCC had called for the government to look into changing the laws regarding home education. In March 2009 they conducted their own review in which they stated they felt that the current laws (which have not since been changed) were not adequate because ‘the law currently requires parents to notify a school only when they decide to withdraw a child from a school roll and choose to educate them at home. There is no requirement to notify anyone if a child has never been enrolled’ and that they believe a registration scheme is necessary to allow the local authorities to be able to ensure that the child is receiving good care and a good education. Labour MP David Chaytor said, back in 2009, that he was “curious as to why they [home educators] were reluctant to demonstrate the quality of what they were doing”.
Former Media Officer for HEAS Cathy Koetsier remembered the NSPCC voicing their concerns on the matter and said “there were a number of serious case reviews where children had been under the umbrella of home education and had been abused”. Regarding the cases that the NSPCC presented as evidence for why the legislation should be changed Koetsier said “in every one of those serious case reviews the children were already known to the various social service agencies. They had either been reported by a neighbour, by a teacher if they had previously been in school or by a health worker. Somebody had already notified social services of their concerns and in many cases more than once”.
The general consensus among home educators and their supporters seems to be that they have accepted that the government will likely plague them again at some point in the future. They now know that they are capable of working together and seem confident that they will be able to do this again if and when the time arises. The home educating community is a very small part of the overall population and it is clear that they do not feel supported by the government. Home educating mother Kate Moore also said “‘home educators are not only not supported by the government but are also attacked by the government”.
Time will tell as to whether or not the new 2015 government, or any consequent one, will look again at making adjustments to the law.
