The Diosa Dotada Endeavor

Some folks might wonder what led me to get as fired up as I did about the recent West article.  I mean, after all, the piece was relatively short and I think we can agree also poorly written.  Why even take it seriously?

Well, for two reasons.  First of all, Professor West admits that she’s working on something larger.  She has stated that this little jab at American home educators is really the tip of her proverbial legal iceberg.  Which leads me to my second motivation in calling attention to whatever Professor West is truly up to.  His name is Graham Badman.  And last year he published a report entitled, “Review of elective home education in England.” The report has thrown the British government and England’s home educators into the fiercest legislative battle that country has seen on the issue of homeschool freedoms to date.  In addition to reading the report itself, which you can access without registering at the link above, you can also find a collection of links to the various official letters and other government publications related to the Badman Review at the DCSF’s Every Child Matters site.

The report is frock with eerie similarities to the West article, even though it is significantly longer.  For example, check out this quote from Section 3 of the Badman Review:

As my introductory comments make clear, I am not persuaded that under the current regulatory regime that there is a correct balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child either to an appropriate education or to be safe from harm. That being said I am not in anyway arguing that elective home education is intrinsically wrong or that within the elective home education community there is not exemplary practice. Indeed, there is a strong argument to commission further research to better inform understanding of “personalisation” as an element of student progression and achievement. I shall return to this issue later.

3.2 The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right regulatory regime within a framework of legislation that protects the rights of all children, even if in transaction such regulation is only necessary to protect a minority.

Sound familiar?  A lot like the West article  (and other US academics.)  We’re not saying some of you guys aren’t doing a bang up job and all, but we’re sure you “responsible” homeschoolers wont mind if we reasonably regulate (the heck out of) you for the sake of those other poor, persecuted children, right?  The report is also chock full of the usual fear-laden claims against the liberties of religiously motivated English home educators, despite the evidence that those home educating in the UK for primarily religious reasons are a significant minority in that country.  Nice to know we aren’t the only country continuously laboring under exhaustingly stale stereotypes about our home educating population’s primary motivations.  There is also the illustrious Section 8 on “Safeguarding” that once again attempts to link home educators with child abusers without a shred of evidence to support the idea that home educated children are at high risk for abuse than their government school attending counterparts or that ANY of the proposed regulatory measures would prevent abuse or lower child abuse rates.  Hmm.  Where have I read equally poorly supported and inflammatory claims like that before?

All in all, Badman makes twenty-eight recommendations to the British government to do away with their previously “liberal” approach to what they call EHE, or elective home education in England.  Without any of that pesky stuff called data to back up his claims that these measures will improve anything for anyone, he suggests that the government execute a hasty about face and start repressing every English home educator they can possibly get their hands on.

How you ask?  (I suspect, once again, much of this will sound familiar…)  Annual registration that includes a home visit combined with curricular reviews by local authorities, for one.  And more specifically and narrowly determine definitions of what (according to the government, of course) constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education.  Oh, let’s not forget the suggestion that local authorities require parents to delcare their reasons for home educating so that the government can “analyse” them.  (To me, this sounds a great deal like Robert Reich’s party line about the ultimate goal of regulating home education being to herd these kids back into a government classroom in the end.)  Also, toss into the mix the “right” of local authorties to have “access to the home” and to “speak to each child alone,” along with the demand for proof of progress based on the curricular review performed during annual registration.

Another fantastic addition to these recommendations is the suggestion that schools be forbidden to suggest home education as a possible method of education for children experiencing severe difficulty based on an educational or behavioral issue.  I have to wonder how the home educating parents of highly and profoundly gifted children in England feel about this gem right here, considering that it is not uncommon for parents of PG kids to be told that home education might actually be the best option when the schools are ill prepared to provide a “sufficient” education for these children.  And once again, the gifted and special needs communities are equally mistreated with Badman’s recommendation for special reviews for special needs children being withdrawn from government schools to ensure the parents’ meet the burden of proof that their home education plans can provide a “sufficient” program of studies.  Why do you think these parents are pulling their kids out in the first place?  Who is really failing to provide these children with a decent educational experience?

In his conclusion, Badman also takes one last swing at English home educating families.  And once again, most American home educators have heard this song and dance before.  He calls into question the value of “autonomous learning” despite the previous existence of favorable academic findings in his own country.  He also off-handedly attempts to dismiss all previous findings in any country (believe it or not) that home educated children perform just as well as, if not better than their government school attending peers and that home educated children grow into successful, satisfied and productive adults.

Okay.  So what?  He published a trashy, unsupported opinion piece on home education.  Yes, he did.  And unlike the relatively benign nature of the recent West article in the United States,  the British government took it and ran with it, causing English home educators to scramble in concerted efforts to control the damage. Education Otherwise, a member-supported advocacy organization is maintaining a site at Freedom for Children to Grow that outlines and updates the most current situation.  A piece of legislation called the Children, Schools and Families Bill is now on the table and contains many of the regulatory recommendations from the Badman Review.  For a great recap of the situation, check out Kelly Green and Gold’s update, which got positive feedback from English home educators deep in the legislative fray. As she reminds us all over here in North America: “If any government successfully destroys the self-determination of children and families, then all families, everywhere, are threatened.”  No joke.  You can start with that post from January 4th, but she’s got more quality content before and after that post on the evolving situation.  I’ll warn you though.  It ain’t pretty.

So, should we American home educators sit around waiting for our own Badman to emerge from the shadows and wreck his (or her) own brand of havoc here?

Or should we learn to be the well-informed advocates the previous generation of American home educators were, regardless of demographic background or educational philosophy, and eloquently take to task those like Professor West– who would see our children “safely” back under predominately state control– whenever and wherever we find them and their poorly supported accusations?

I’m guessing you can already suss out what my vociferous answer to that line of questioning would be.