Friday 28 May 2010

Meanwhile, in the USA....

Where America leads, we in this country tend to follow. Trends seen in the USA in areas as varied as crime, education, pop music and sport, sooner or later seem to find their way across the Atlantic. We have of course seen this happen with home education. From Paul Goodman in the sixties to Holt, Gatto and the Moores in the eighties, the ideology of American home education has had a profound influence on parents here. Some believe that the huge and growing numbers of home educated children in the Unites States are a foretaste of what we can expect in this country in the coming years. If this is so, could there be any lessons which we might learn from the States, any emerging problems with home education there?

A couple of weeks ago, a scandal erupted about home education in the state of Texas. Texas is of course famous for having very laid back and non-intrusive rules regarding home education. All it takes to become a home educator in Texas is a verbal assurance to the local school board and hey presto, that's it. Your child is home educated. Many home educating parents in this country believe this to be a good thing. The claim is made that tighter regulations in the different states of America do not have any effect on academic achievement. This belief is used to justify a slack and ineffective regime of monitoring in Britain. Let's see what has happened in Texas.

The recently released figures suggest that in the last few years home education in Texas has increased exponentially. Even dedicated advocates of home education in America have smelt a rat. Brian Ray, founder of the National Home Education Research Institute, has denounced this new statistic as 'Ridiculous'. According to the official figures, there were twenty three thousand new home educated young people in the state in 2008. Of course, this is simply not true. Home education may be growing in America, but not that fast! What had actually happened was that the number of long term truants from middle school and dropouts from high school was getting a bit high. This reflected badly on the local authorities and so they decided to encourage parents and students to claim that they were going to home educate. Readers with long memories might recall Firfield School in Newcastle pulling a similar trick in 1999. They managed to slash their figures for truancy and exclusion by this means. It's still a common practice in this country, largely because the monitoring regime in many local authority areas is useless and has no legal sanctions to back it up. Recommendation 15 of the Badman Report dealt specifically with this problem.

Does it really matter if this sort of thing goes on? Well, for one thing there are now tens of thousands of children and young people in Texas who are probably receiving no education at all because of a combination of slack monitoring and downright dishonesty on the part of teachers and other professionals. Schools are often glad when troublesome pupils drop out and this kind of thing relieves the authorities of having to make any sort of provision for them. The signs are that this is becoming a widespread phenomenon in the USA, involving tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pupils. The more laid back the monitoring system, the easier it is for this sort of stunt to flourish.

Many home educators are crowing that with the defeat of Badman and the Children, Schools and Families Bill, they can continue to refuse visits and fob their local authority off with some trashy educational philosophy downloaded from HE-UK. There can be little doubt that, as I said to begin with, where America leads we will follow. The greater the number of home educated children in the USA and the more relaxed the regulations, the more likely it is that thousands of children will simply drop out of education entirely. This is probably not a good thing and it would be sad if this sort of scam were to become even more widespread in this country than is already the case.

20 comments:

  1. I'm not really sure why this is something to worry about. These "long term truants and dropouts" were already receiving no education at all, and I doubt they would receive any if you frogmarched them into school and chained them to a desk. If there's something to be concerned about, it's surely how and why children get to this stage in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes lets hope so simon the more that leave school the better! could lead to some LEA staff not being needed LOL hope they sack the lot of them!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well of course the problem is Ciaran, that children who are simply allowed to drift out of school in this way are apt to find themselves at a disadvanatge in later life. That is saying nothing of the fact that children roaming around without anybody keeping an eye on them can easily get into mischief. Most are safer at school, unless they have loving and caring parents who will be looking after them. Unfortunately, the sort who become persistant truants or at risk of exclusion often do not fall into this category.

    I don't necessarily think that such children should be in school, but I do believe that some provision should be made for them. Otherwise they will end up like the three "home educated" teenagers a couple of years ago in Kingwood, near Houston. They went on a burglary spree and then, because they were at a loose end because they didn't go to school, they decided to dig up a corpse at the local cemetry. As one might do if one were feeling a little bored. They chopped the head off and used it to smoke dope. I don't say this sort of thing is common, but leaving teenagers to roam around in this way can lead to various ill effects not only upon them but also on society as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Otherwise they will end up like the three "home educated" teenagers a couple of years ago in Kingwood, near Houston. They went on a burglary spree and then, because they were at a loose end because they didn't go to school, they decided to dig up a corpse at the local cemetry. As one might do if one were feeling a little bored.

    Are you now saying that children who are home educated are more likly to dug up a corpse from a cemetry?

    you dont paint a very good picture of home education do you simon?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you follow this thread, you will see that I am talking not of home education at all, but those children and young people who have been withdrawn from school as part of a scam. That is of course why I placed quoation marks around the words home educated when I described the teenagers. I seriously doubt whether genuinely home educated teenagers are any more likely to disinter a corpse and use it to smoke cannabis than any other young people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I seriously doubt whether genuinely home educated teenagers are any more likely to disinter a corpse and use it to smoke cannabis than any other young people.

    but you think that most home educated children are not being educated dont you?(like most LA belive to) so they would be more likly to dig up a body?

    I think your problem is you spend to much time chating meeting mixing with LEA staff that you have become one in all but name! why dont you go the whole hog and apply for a job with your new nice LEA friends you fit in well with them and its good money to with a nice persion at the end!

    ReplyDelete
  7. As you say Simon, some provison should be made for persistant truants and those at risk of excusion. It's got nothing to do with home education though.
    Local Authorities already have a duty to identify children missing from education, which in practice has also given them a duty to check up on all the HE children they know about, so that they can satisfy themselves that these children are not missing from education. No further legislation is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anony says -which in practice has also given them a duty to check up on all the HE children they know about, so that they can satisfy themselves that these children are not missing from education.

    No the law does not allow an LA to satisfy themselves that a home educated child is not missing from education!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous at 8.09: In practice, since Every Child Matters in I think 2002, they now have this duty.
    Anonymous at 8.05

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anony says-@Anonymous at 8.09: In practice, since Every Child Matters in I think 2002, they now have this duty.

    Duty is not the same as a law to act!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "No the law does not allow an LA to satisfy themselves that a home educated child is not missing from education! "

    But case law has established that LAs can ask for evidence of education and, if the parent decides not to provide the evidence (as is their choice), the LA can decide to issue a School Attendance Order. The following is taken from 'Elective Home Education - Legal Guidelines', which was compiled by home educators and checked for legal accuracy by a team of home educating lawyers.

    "case law (Phillips v Brown, Divisional Court [20 June 1980, unreported] Judicial review by Lord Justice Donaldson, as he then was) has established that an LEA may make informal enquiries of parents.

    Lord Donaldson said:

    "Of course such a request is not the same as a notice under s 37 (1) of the Education Act 1944 (now s 437 (1) of the 1996 Education Act) and the parents will be under no duty to comply. However it would be sensible for them to do so. If parents give no information or adopt the course .......... of merely stating that they are discharging their duty without giving any details of how they are doing so, the LEA will have to consider and decide whether it ‘appears’ to it that the parents are in breach of s 36. (now s7 of the 1996 Education Act.)""

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon says-But case law has established that LAs can ask for evidence of education and, if the parent decides not to provide the evidence (as is their choice), the LA can decide to issue a School Attendance Order.

    Can ask and can decide to issue a school attendance order its all nice and wolly thank goodness! in others words they is nothing an LA can do LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Whereas simply dropping a line to the school and refusing any further contact makes it a lot easier for these people to operate. "

    They can issue a School Attendance Order and then take you to court if you refuse to abide by it, which is not woolly at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anony says-They can issue a School Attendance Order and then take you to court if you refuse to abide by it, which is not woolly at all.

    can issues a SAO and may take you to court is wolly! it does not say in law that if SAO is issued you then have to be taken to court its worded in May/can which is wolly! a lot of LA's issue SAO but very rare they take parent to court even if parent still refuses any contact like we have! they also let SAO run out if say child is a primary school they dont issues it again for big school one of the reason they dont take parents to court over SAO is becuase they not sure if they win in court! its just used as a threat if you say no thanks to the LA they go away!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "can issues a SAO and may take you to court is wolly! it does not say in law that if SAO is issued you then have to be taken to court its worded in May/can which is wolly!"

    It seems sensible to me. Otherwise LAs might end up having to issue a SAO when it's clear even to them that it would be harmful to the child. The point is, if the LA have genuine concerns about a child/family they do have powers that they can use.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems sensible to me. Otherwise LAs might end up having to issue a SAO when it's clear even to them that it would be harmful to the child.

    but SAO are issued as a threat not because they is concern about the education some officers hate home education! one officer only has to refer to welfare with sly comments and welfare officer will start the proccess of SAO but its just on the word of one bad LEA officer is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "SAO are issued as a threat not because they is concern about the education some officers hate home education! one officer only has to refer to welfare with sly comments and welfare officer will start the proccess of SAO but its just on the word of one bad LEA officer is that right?"

    That may be true in some cases but not all LA officials are the same. I had an LA visitor who encouraged autonomous approaches and disliked seeing lots of workbooks, for instance. Try not to tar them all with the same brush just because you have had a bad experience. Remember, people are more likely to write to lists about negative experiences because they need help or to let off steam.

    The SAO may just start with one LEA officer but they will need to justify the issue of it in court so I doubt they will do so without good reason in the majority of cases.

    ReplyDelete
  18. so if SAO is issued to you cos of a bad LA officer its just to bad and you got to keep quiet about it? dont forget LA workers are paid by us the tax payer and we are the customers? or maybe you dont thin kyou are a cunster of a service from them?

    they only have to justify if it goes to court they dont otherwise and can leave a family in limbo! is that right to? and nothing happens to LA officer who did this is that right to? he carrys on in his job! you can complain but they close ranks is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "so if SAO is issued to you cos of a bad LA officer its just to bad and you got to keep quiet about it? dont forget LA workers are paid by us the tax payer and we are the customers? or maybe you dont thin kyou are a cunster of a service from them?"

    Who said anything about keeping quiet about it? That's where support charities come into their own and ultimately the court will decide against the LA officer who is likely to be reprimanded (or worse) for wasting money.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anony says-Who said anything about keeping quiet about it? That's where support charities come into their own and ultimately the court will decide against the LA officer who is likely to be reprimanded (or worse) for wasting money.

    but it would be kept quiet if it does not go to court? and the LA officer would know that nothing will be done to him?(LA staff close ranks) The LA officer can issue SAO knowing full well that it wont go to court is that right? SAO are issued on the view of one LA officer who may not like the family is that right?

    support charities cant do anything about an SAO

    your view is it is just to bad? tough luck never mind about it? you should not be cross that SAO was issued by Bad LA worker?

    you not answered about parents being the customers of the service from an LA? have you forgotten we pay the LA staff they wages though tax?

    ReplyDelete