The Real Problem with the Problem Bill

The Real Problem with the Problem Bill

What’s been said?

Emma Duncan doesn’t mince her words in her Times comment piece It’s time to put home schooling in detention [Archive Today copy – free to read] published on 9 January. From the title onwards, she couldn’t have made her own views about ‘home schooling’ clearer.

But amidst all the calumny and unsubstantiated rhetoric, there are some helpful insights into the increasingly statist regime we find ourselves living in, and a reminder about the unique development of the British education system.

It’s important to understand both as we reflect on the Government’s agenda for HE and independent educational settings evident in the Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill documentation and the Second Reading debate on 8 January. [Video | Transcript]

Why does it matter?

Undeniably, a first reading of pieces like Duncan’s causes a collective groan to go up from HE parents, as they wonder just how much more vilification these media people have got up their sleeve.

It’s not hard to spot bias and inconsistency from the outset. How can it be bad to ‘strip academies’ of the freedoms that have enabled Britain’s education systems to outperform others at the same time as it can be good to seek to regulate parent-led learning – a fundamental expression of educational freedom – almost out of existence?

Either curtail freedom and choice across the board, standardise everything and subject everyone to that grey uniformity that actually benefits very few, or value freedom and educational choice as the fresh air that it is, enjoy its benefits and cope with any resulting untidiness as a reflection of life in all its variety.

It was very clear from the debate that most Tories have bought into the necessity of registration, though some were still advocating for elements of flexibility and choice to be maintained within the schooling system. Damien Hinds helpfully reminded the House that “what gets measured gets mangled.”

Shadow Education Minister Laura Trott had spoken in strong terms of the devastation she believes this Bill will cause across the education system – “vandalism… command public services… sweeping powers… rampant centralisation.” But there was no parallel understanding of the impact the Bill will also have on those who have taken the road less travelled and are providing education outside the confines of the state.

An understanding of where the proper boundaries of state and parental authority lie and how legislation can subtly shift them are key to what is going on with this Bill, and that is where Duncan’s piece is useful.

Her by-line is very informative, showing how deep-rooted the belief in state control actually is, for the majority of MPs have bought the narrative that control of education lies and should lie within the remit of the state.

“Lax Britain fails to appreciate the societal pitfalls of an education the state cannot measure” [Emphasis added]

Education, Duncan posits, has to do first and foremost with the state. In fact, it is the most important tool in their box when it comes to shaping the thinking and behaviour of the rising generation. If you subscribe to that model, it is of course vitally important for the state to be able to control, determine and measure the inputs and outputs of its whole educational programme. In fact, one early contributor to the debate suggested a “national wellbeing measurement.”

It’s fairly obvious from previous attempts to shut down any flourishing of educational independence that this is the underlying belief of the educational bureaucrats, but rarely do we see the core motivation expressed so overtly in its broadest terms:

“education is central to state formation.”

This is essentially why elective home education or small parent-led learning communities are seen by the ideologues as a threat to future progress and cohesion.

In practically every speech or article about HE, we hear platitudes about the parent’s right to choose their child’s mode of education. Lip service is paid to those ‘admirable’ parents who do a good job, but such sentiments must stick in the throat of those who at heart favour an increasingly state-controlled education system.

That phrase ‘our children’ so beloved of politicians is very telling; elective home education or “l’instruction en famille” as the French call it is actually an offence to ideological hard-liners.

One MP, Rebecca Smith (Con, SW Devon,) has got this. After likening the HE proposals to “a hammer to crack a nut” and referring to her HE constituents’ deep concerns about “proposed over-regulation,” Smith said:

I am concerned by the implication in the Bill that the state is better at parenting than parents themselves. The changes in the Bill directly contradict section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent’s legal duty to ensure that their children “receive efficient full-time education…either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
That is important, because it underscores the principle that parents, not the state, hold primary responsibility for the education of their children, except in the minority of cases where there is harm or neglect. Let us not forget that many parents opt to home-school because the state system has failed their children.” [Emphasis added]

Duncan’s point about Britain never consciously creating a modern state is another relevant one. It is true that we got to where we are educationally by a long and winding road very different from some of our European neighbours. And it has left us with what could be called some idiosyncrasies. But better that than a top-down, state-controlled system imposed upon all children – as Smith reminded the House, our Education Act for the moment still invests the responsibility for their children’s education with their parents, and long may that be respected in reality, not just in name.

Duncan is not the first to compare our nation’s political infrastructure or approach to HE regulation with those of other nations, and she’s unlikely to be the last. But comparisons are odious as they say, and achieve nothing positive in this case. Readers may recall Amanda Spielman, previous Ofsted CEO, bewailing the fact that England was an ‘outlier’ when it came to HE regulation.

We’ve noted in the past how the term ‘socialisation’ has come to mean something rather different in the minds of educational bureaucrats and children’s professionals than it does to the man in the street, and Spielman played her part in advancing that narrative too.

More recently, the word ‘wellbeing’ also seems to be undergoing subtle redefinition at the hands of the ideologues in order to bring it more in line with state requirements.

Another issue raised by Duncan was the potential lack of social integration for HE children. Someone who holds the view that “schooling is the most powerful vehicle for integration available to society,” will almost inevitably think that cultural literacy can only be achieved through those means.

But both history and present experience deny the truth of this. The majority of HE young people are skilled in interacting with people of different ages and outlooks and enjoy a wide range of community connections. Compulsory mass schooling is a relatively new kid on the block, and neither employers nor business leaders seem too convinced about the employability rating of the product.

If school attendance is little more than a necessary adjunct to toughening young people up so they’re ready for the challenges of later life, many home educating parents would probably bypass that option asserting that as their child’s parents, they’re actually in the better place to determine what level of challenge that child is ready to undertake and when. And the paucity of constructive social interaction within today’s schools may deter them further.

What can I do?

Read Duncan’s article and think carefully about the matters raised.

Read or listen to the whole of Rebecca Smith’s debate input. (If she happens to be your MP, write and thank her for her input.)

Think about Amanda Spielman’s words about socialisation and Britain as an educational outlier.

If you understand the issues well yourself, it’s easier to know how to push back against the narrative unthinkingly swallowed by both politicians and the general public.

John Taylor Gatto’s name may be familiar as the author of the book Dumbing Us Down. His extensive research into the development of state education and the motivation behind it may be of interest to some.

Be thankful that Duncan has one thing correct at least – home educators hold their views with passion and have spoken up to defend their corner! Long may this continue – with wisdom, clarity and great effect.

In closing, let’s not forget the ancient tradition of ‘beating the bounds.’ These days the practice survives purely as a ceremonial local attraction, but let us recall the original aims of the exercise and see how important it is for parents right now to regularly reaffirm the boundaries of their territory and make sure the next generation don’t forget it – especially when once-reputable newspapers are publishing articles like this one!

“Before maps were more commonplace, beating the bounds was a way of re-affirming the territories of each parish, as well as a way to pass the knowledge on from one generation to another.”