There follows a guest post by Jessica Turpin, a home educator who is concerned about the Government overreach of the new Education Bill, which grants local authorities sweeping new powers to regulate home education and force home educated children to attend their own failing schools.
Who is responsible for your child’s education? It may well surprise you to learn that if you are a parent in the U.K. today then it is legally your responsibility to ensure that your child receives an “efficient full-time education… either by regular attendance at school or otherwise” (Education Act 1996 Section 7). This law makes complete sense since nobody loves a child, knows a child or is more committed to his or her wellbeing than the parent. Moreover, as a committed Christian, I believe that the Bible clearly delegates the responsibility of educating and training children to their parents, as well as admonishing us not to exasperate them! There is no space for the Government to usurp us on this point.
Most parents entrust the educational aspect of parenting to the Government. They are perfectly entitled to do so. A few of us do not.
My husband and I have seven children, aged four to 11, including two sets of twins. We have never made use of Government nurseries nor of Government schools. We have elected to give them a Classical Christian education at home and have never looked back. If you lived on our street, you would likely want your children to be friends with my children. Indeed, they are well-known and well-liked. My children will not teach your child to swear, they will not sell your child drugs, nor will they show your child how to find pornography on the internet. They will not beat up your child. I am not trying to be funny; my husband and I know the faces of the local schoolchildren who would not think twice about deliberately injuring one of our offspring.
If you would take the time to get to know another home educating family, you will meet people who may well do things differently to us. Families have differing values and differing reasons for home educating. Many, like us, have never taken advantage of the ‘free’ Government system. A great number have been burned by the schools. A large proportion have children with learning difficulties who have given up hope of receiving the support they require at the hands of the Government and elected to bring education ‘in house’.
Now the Education Bill has landed. It is being discussed in the House of Lords this week and devoted parents who typically pay twice for education (once for your children and again for ours), who generally manage on one income, who spend their evenings planning, preparing and networking instead of relaxing in front of the TV, who are raising the children whom you will want to employ ten years henceforth, are about to have their freedom removed by a Government that does not know the limits of its own power.
Before you brush us aside as an unusual and dangerous breed particularly deserving of Government control, could I ask you to ponder a few questions. What would you do if your child were being mercilessly bullied in the school playground and left the house each morning in tears? What if your child’s teacher posted explicit sexual content on Facebook and after an ‘investigation’, the school found nothing to be concerned with? What if your daughter suffered sexual abuse in the toilets? What if your bright child in a class of 25 was bored and frustrated, unstretched and unchallenged in the abilities you know he possesses? Is there a point where you would say, “Enough is enough. A line has most definitely been crossed. I no longer wish to outsource my child’s education to the Government since it has been tried and found wanting. Henceforth, I will personally oversee my child’s education and ensure his or her safety during the hours of 9am until 3pm?”
Allow me a moment to walk you through the ways in which this seemingly prudent and wise decision would open the door to unacceptable Government intrusion into your family life.
Number one, your name will be put on a register. “Innocuous,” I hear you say. The Government has lots of lists. It has a list of sex offenders. It has a list of people with driving licences. (Do we really need a licence in order to educate our own children?) What many home educators recognise is that once the Government takes control of one area of life, it does not easily relinquish it. The tendency rather is to impose ever tighter controls. A very real concern amongst home educators is that a register will open the door to the requirement to follow the National Curriculum. I would like to suggest that if they standardise us, they are discarding riches. Take my family: today our ‘book-work’ included Latin, Greek, a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem and some creative writing on an imaginary visit to Wonders of the Ancient World. We also visited the park, tidied our bedrooms, read stories to a poorly four-year-old and discussed recipes for an impending birthday cake. Every aspect of our day was an opportunity for learning and I have absolutely no idea whether any of these ticks the boxes of the National Curriculum. Quite frankly, I could not really care less, but I do know that we are thriving and that my children are receiving a far superior education to the one they would receive at our local primary school. The beautiful thing is that not one home educating family in the U.K. will have had the same day as ours. I know that a number were standing outside the House of Lords with their children, representing us all and giving their little ones a wonderful opportunity to learn about democracy in action.
Number two, once our name is on this ‘register’ the Local Authority (LA) will be given permission to require “such details of the means by which the child is being educated and any other information that may be prescribed” (Education Bill Part 436C). Take one moment to think about what this undefined, vague and dangerous statement means. All it would take is for one slightly hostile member of the Local Authority (and home educators know that we are generally treated with suspicion) to be legally entitled to visit my home and they have an open door to ask me what I teach, when I teach, how much sugar I give to my children, whether they can read, whether they belong to a library, what we teach about marriage, gender, the environment, Covid and why we read the Bible with our children every morning. This is tremendous, unthinkable Government overreach. The state has absolutely no authority to require this information of us.
Number three, if we fail (or forget) to tell the LA that we are moving out of the area, if we fail to provide some of the information required or even make a clerical error (perhaps we omit to inform them that we have changed our spelling curriculum), then based on no definite legal criteria whatsoever the LA may come to the belief that our children are not receiving a “suitable education” and slap us with an immediate School Attendance Order (SAO) (Education Bill Part 436 I). The Government can literally force us to send our children to a Government school, the likes of which the Prime Minister and Education Minister have deemed not good enough for their own children.
Finally, if we do not comply with orders to send our children to school, we are guilty of a criminal offence. We become liable to a £1,000 fine and a 51-week prison sentence (Education Bill Part 436 Q). The loving parent is criminalised, and removed from her children who are presumably put into care. What an excellent use of taxpayers’ money. It is almost as though the Government has taken offence to the fact that we do not wish to use its education system.
Before I wrap up, allow me to quickly address the suspicion that home educators keep their children home in order to abuse them. Contrary to popular belief, we are devoted to our children. Nothing turns our stomach more than child abuse and we are committed to keeping our children safe from predators. Research shows that home educators are referred at a higher rate under the Children Act than other families (which means we are held in greater suspicion) but that there is no significant statistical difference in the rates of child protection plans for home educating families and other children between the ages of five and 16. There is simply no credible evidence for suggesting that children are at a greater risk of abuse in home educating families.
There is, however, a strong argument that in keeping our child home with us, he is far safer than he would be in Government schools. Ofsted recently visited 32 schools in order to conduct a review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges. Its findings revealed that 90% of girls and nearly 50% of boys report being sent explicit videos and picture of things they do not wish to see. Moreover, it recommends that “even where school and college leaders do not have specific information that indicates sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are problems for their children and young people, they should act on the assumption they are.”
Six years ago, the Scottish Government tried to bring in the Named Person scheme and the Supreme Court in London ruled that, “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their ruler’s view of the world.”
Dear Government, by whose authority do you presume to enter our homes, assume the right to require whatever personal information of us you so desire and insist that we use your schools?
Might I suggest that you get your own house in order before you seek to tell me what to do with mine?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Where is Rachel from accounts?
It’s 2nd Thursday in the month and on her to-do list today is filing last month’s invoices and printing the wage slips.
The Princess of Theeves is hiding in the Number 11 broom cupboard with a Do Not Disturb notice on the door.
Rayner is on a building site back in Adswood knocking up another council house to make some more ackers out of on the side.
Lammy is in the Caribbean hunting for any sugar plantations overlooked by Wilberforce and the Royal Navy two hundred years ago.
Phillipson is checking the VAT returns and getting all the whiteboards changed back to blackboards.
And last but not least, Sir Kia is in Islamabad canvassing for the voters of the future.
Drôle.
Ultimately in a capitalist economy, whether you like it or not, the markets will pass judgment on your competence. The signs are not good for Rachel from Accounts.
To be fair on her, and with compassion towards a fellow human being, it can’t be easy for her. She must know she is incompetent. She knows she sexed up her CV. She knows she is being hated by a lot of people. This must put a lot of psychological stress on her.
Downticked you, sorry, I have no compassion for her. I feel sorry for the people she is exposing to misery because of her incompetence!
That’s OK, you can disagree.
But despite everything, she is still a human being. Incompetent, hopeless, out of her depth. She should admit it and resign. But even if I had absolute power over her, I would only want her to resign. Nothing more than that. So that’s my compassion.
JOpenmind – I agree with you. I have plenty of sympathy for people in poorly paid jobs who are stressed as they struggle to pay day to day bills because of increased taxes and increased costs due to inflation.
I feel sympathy for stressed people in the lower layers of organisations with impossible workloads working for tyrannical managers.
I feel sympathy for stressed people juggling family responsibilities with work.
I have zero sympathy for Rachel Reeves and similar people who use ruthless determination to climb the greasy pole – and then find it stressful due to their own uselessness and incompetence. Entirely self inflicted.
My view is 100% science driven. For those who are OK with Anglo Saxon language – see dial here: https://tenor.com/view/dont-care-bs-whatever-stop-gif-22436087
Also no compassion. If her mendacity is now causing her stress as she realises that she is not up to the job, the solution is simple – resign.
Karma. When she gets a bit more experience in life she’ll learn about balance and how the universe cannot abide a credit without an equal and opposite credit. Tell a lie and bad things have a habit of coming back to bite you.
Human? I dispute that.
I have no compassion for failed Lefties ever. I hope their life is totally miserable.
At least she knows what a woman is!
Good! If one is too arrogant and/or deluded to pay heed to the judgment of others then they deserve all the opprobrium heading their way.
Here is a list of things I find ridiculous.
— Rachel Reeves
— People who think that the UK economy depends on what Rachel Reeves does.
— People who think that the price of UK debt depends largely on what Rachel Reeves does or says.
I couldn’t rank them though. Quite how ridiculous they esch seem depends a bit on my mood.
While I agree that macro economics across the world impact on national economies in a way that Governments admit when things are going badly and deny when times are good, I disagree with you on two of your points. If Rachel from accounts decides to tax jobs, employment will be affected, everything else being equal and likewise, if she borrows more, again everything else being equal, the cost of that debt will increase. In the days when you could walk in to see your bank manager, if he perceived you to be a low risk, you paid a lower rate of interest than if he thought you to be a marginal or high risk and so it is on capital markets. With her budget, she has shown herself to be a high risk, so in a time of static or increasing rates, the price of our Government borrowing is having an even higher margin applied
Your points are logical. Except that if she tanks the general economy (likely) and company profits take a nose dive (likely), there will also be a huge demand for safety and liquidity and moderate inflation protection in government bonds. Quantifying the magnitude of that demand is tough, to say the least.
Yes, I understand the theory as well.
Now apply the theory and make some specific predictions of the level of any of these standard economic indicators based on different actions by Rachel Reeves (or anyone in the British government for that matter).
The problem is you can’t. Nor can anyone. Too many other variables the net effect of which overwhelms anything that Rachel Reeves may or may not do.
I have yet to encounter anyone anywhere that can make reliable economic predictions. All so called economic experts do is construct narratives about what happened, drawing attention to the bits they (randomly) got right and giving plausible explanations for the bits they (randomly) got wrong.
Put in a different way, I could get a monkey to throw darts at a board with plausible economic indicator predictions and then afterwards construct a coherent analysis of the difference with the actual data (which is also BS btw), explaining what was accurate with appropriate references to economic and giving plausible sounding reasons for deviations.
In fact, it would make for a great comedy skit.
Economics. The dismal science! Short term micro-economic predictions have some value, but beyond that it gets so complex… But governments think the reverse, claiming they know the picture for the next ten years and can model the effects of tax increases with certainty. Shocking that so many folk fall for it.
Well I agree it’s not a cause and effect science, but broad brush she believes in and is trying to implement a more centrally planned economy, higher taxes, higher government spending. We know from history that the more you go in this direction, the poorer you get. Scandinavia has highish tax rates but they have (or had) better human capital on average than we do, and a lower welfare budget supporting unproductive people, and we now have on top of all this a mad “energy policy” and I think you could draw some nice graphs correlating energy prices with prosperity and growth or the lack of it.
I’m sure one could draw all sorts of graphs.
But we’ve been on a NetZero war path for over a decade and promoted by every government’s during that time. And while that has remained constant, the 10 year rate has fluctuated. So…
Truss wanted to cut taxes and gilt yields went up. Reeves wants to raise taxes and gilt yields go up. Go figure.
The idea that these people have buttons that actually create predictable outcomes is just an illusion.
Buttons no, but they can certainly over time get in the way of human endeavour
I wouldn’t look at bond yields as a measure of anything useful
But these long term policies aren’t decided by politicians. Nothing major changes from election to election. It’s all pretty much pre-detwrmined.
Bond yields are very real and tangible. They go up and if you hold the debt, your wealth goes down and vice versa. That’s very real.
And for a country that is broke and needs to borrow money, yields better.
But Reeves doesn’t really affect any of that (which is what the article is about)
Politicians have the power to change course, usually not the will though.
It’s true that it’s not good if borrowing costs go up, I am just sceptical about the short term wisdom of the bond markets.
Reeves pushed the button that increased job taxation for employers. It was obvious that it would discourage recruitment and pay rises, and that’s exactly what has happened.
Yep. Some good points. UK 10 year gilt tracks US 10 year pretty neatly. And what drives the price of the US 10 year is v v complex. The US dollar is much more than just a currency these days. It is, at least in part, a payment network nicknamed “Eurodollar”. Anyone who can tell you with confidence where the US 10 year note will be in 3 months is a liar. … But – my guess is down, along with the UK 10 year. Check out the general direction of 10 year rates across the West…
‘Preparing for a jaunt to China …’
No jaunt. Just like Starmer and Lammy, as a committed communist she’s there to get her orders.
Notice how everything this government does benefits the CCP.
Whither Rachel – perhaps out searching for the ubiquitous yet invisible Far Right?
The trouble with the Student Union is who is there that is remotely competent? It is really scary that the vacant Anneliese Dodds was her predecessor.
Busy polishing up her CV for the next job she is not competent to hold?
I really wonder what she will achieve for the UK with her China ‘mission’? They will smile politely and send her back!
Rachel from Accounts is indeed pretty useless.
But take another look at that gilt yields graph. The big increase in gilt yields happened in 2023, under the Fake Conservatives. Rachel has just carried on with their policies.
The Telegraph’s attempt to paint this picture of Labour rapidly wrecking the economy is pathetic. Their own Conservatives were and are every bit as bad.
The Uniparty as we’ve said for a while…