A response to the DCSF CON-sultation on proposals for the registration and monitoring of law abiding home educating families.
1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?
DISAGREE
Parents are the natural guardians of their children’s rights and are presumed to act in their best interests. The state is empowered to intervene only when there is evidence to suggest that a parent is not fulfilling his/her legal responsibilities to their children and any action must be proportionate. Home educating parents are no more or less likely to fail in their duties than any other subset of parents and it is discriminatory to infer otherwise.
2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?
DISAGREE
The state already has a register of every child in England, known officially as ContactPoint or, unofficially, as the paedophiles’ address book. A separate register for home educated children and their parents would presumably resemble, at best, the dog licensing scheme which was abolished in 1987 due to its failure to encourage responsible dog ownership, and at worst, the yellow star scheme for Jews in Nazi Germany. It is an entirely inappropriate, illegitimate and discriminatory proposal.
3 Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?
DISAGREE
This is not registration, but state licensing of bona fide parenting . We do not agree in principle with a licensing scheme for a law abiding minority, which is what Hitler introduced for the Jews.
4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be required to keep the register up to date?
DISAGREE
See above. We reject registration and licensing and will support those who refuse to comply with unlawful demands.
5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
DISAGREE
See above. We reject registration and licensing and will support those who refuse to comply with unlawful demands.
6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that they intend to home educate?
DISAGREE
The provision of education is a parental, not a state, responsibility. Where a child attends a state school, the parent is delegating his/her duty and therefore has the right to resume direct responsibility without barriers being placed in the way of his/her fulfilment of a legal duty.
6b Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
DISAGREE
School-based achievement and attainment data are entirely irrelevant in the context of elective home education.
7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?
DISAGREE
We reject as a matter of principle any registration and monitoring scheme for home educators and do not propose to participate in, or co-operate with, the state oppression of ourselves or our children. Any ‘statutory guidance’ which is not human rights compliant, such as in respect of the proposed scheme, will be unlawful. The DCSF should instead focus on strengthening the current non statutory guidelines on elective home education which are routinely ignored by local authorities pursuing ultra vires practices.
8 Do you agree that children about whom there are substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?
DISAGREE
A child is either safe or unsafe in the care of his/her parents and this has no relevance to home education. Local authorities already have powers to intervene in cases where children require protection from significant harm (but more often than not fail to do so).
9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?
DISAGREE
By its very nature, home education is a flexible undertaking which takes place everywhere and anywhere. What the state is seeking is entry to private family homes without a warrant which will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?
DISAGREE
We will challenge any attempts by a state agent or agents to interview a child alone simply because he/she is home educated. Paedophiles and abusers are known to be over-represented in professions with regular access to children, and by allowing clipboard carrying strangers to invade a family home and usurp parental authority, the state will be effectively aiding and abetting the grooming of children.
11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.
DISAGREE
No no no no no to all of these. We will not co-operate, we will not participate in our own oppression, we will protect our children and will resist this tyranny, whatever it takes.
