AHEd calls for the withdrawal of sections 26 (Schedule One) and 27 of the
CSF Bill currently under scrutiny.
1. Civil Liberties:
The issues addressed in the Children Schools and Families Bill, sections 26
(Schedule One) and section 27 are serious issues of civil liberty. We urge
all MPs to oppose these sections of the bill The grossly disproportionate
proposals hold serious implications for the civil liberties of all parents,
children and families in this country. They have potentially fatal
implications for all parental responsibility for education as enshrined by
s7 of the 1996 Education Act and, furthermore, violate human rights
1.1 Articles 8, Human Rights Act 1998
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.
1.2 Protocol 1. ARTICLE 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any
functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the
State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and
teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical
1.3 Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.
1.4 The proposals of sections 26 and 27 represent attempts to remove a
fundamental freedom and make it into the provisional gift of government.
1.5 By long tradition and common sense, it is parents and families who
safeguard children, as is their legal and moral duty. In general citizens
have benefited from an assumption of innocence and families are trusted to
care for their children without routine oversight by the state.
Rule by regulation represents arbitrary authority and interference that
should not be imposed upon the people.
2.1 Sections 26 and 27 allow for the making of regulations relating to the
registration and monitoring of home education provisions in England and
Wales. These sections ask parliament to agree to a skeleton provision for
the regulation and monitoring of a section of the electorate, the content of
which regulation parliament does not know.
2.2 Parliament is asked to grant power to vary regulation without rigorous
Registration is permission, since it can be withheld; the recommendations
specifically intend it to be withheld where education proposals do not meet
with prior state approval.
3.1 The proposed registration scheme is about complying with a licensing
scheme in order to gain permission to carry out parental responsibilities.
Education is a parental responsibility. Families who choose to educate their
own children outside the state school system are not required to register
their decision with the local authority as they do not require LA services.
Local authorities are responsible to provide school places for those
children whose parents require a place for them - not to inform themselves
of the education provision of all children
4. Monitoring Education and Welfare:
The proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary. The current system
allows for parental choice and responsibility which is balanced with strong
local authority powers where there is an appearance of failure or risk. This
is proportionate and effective where properly enacted. In cases of dispute,
courts can decide if a suitable and efficient education is in place. These
terms have been defined in case law.
4.1 Some LAs do not believe the current system is strong enough. Mr Badman
told the scrutiny committee that LAs have been frustrated at not being able
to do the job they "think" they should do. The position is that current
legislation IS strong enough but it does NOT provide for the LAs to do the
job their preferences and prejudices cause them to THINK they should do.
Many LAs find it hard to accept that home education is a private issue not a
public issue - unless and until a parental failure to comply with their
duties occurs, which does not require routine monitoring, just as other
private family provision does not.
4.2 It is an attack against families to try to replace the current balance
with intrusive family interventions by attempting to generate a false
dichotomy between "rights" of parents and "rights" of children, saying that
the government must routinely intervene between the two to "balance" these
rights. This is an argument for state intervention, control and division of
4.3 In exhaustive and repeated consultations over the past five years all
results have favoured supporting existing freedoms unchanged and to ask
local authorities to abide by existing law. DCSF are now attempting to
detract from the overwhelming vote against their proposals, denying many
home educators a voice by labelling them "part of a campaign".
4.4 The underlying issue is that local authorities have failed to understand
their duties. LAs believe that they must ensure the welfare, education, and
"Every Child Matters" (ECM) outcomes of every child in their area; but do
not have the legal powers to do so. They do not have the power because they
do not have these duties. Parents are responsible to ensure the welfare and
education of their own children. ECM outcomes are a guide in the provision
of public services to children. Home Education is not a public service
provided to children.
4.5 Home educated children and their families are subject to the same laws
as every other family. These laws already provide for Local Authority
intervention where there is evidence of concerns for the education or
welfare of a child. Routine checking and monitoring of all home educating
parents and children would undermine fundamental civil liberties, contravene
the Human Rights Act and send the very divisive and dangerous message to
children, that their parents are not to be trusted and that strangers from
the LA over-ride parental authority.
4.6 Routine checking and monitoring of all home educating families would be
unnecessarily costly. This is particularly controversial at a time when
there are limited resources available for Children's Services, which should
be properly directed towards genuine need. Therefore, the government should
trust parents to do a good job and measures for intervention should be on
the basis of reasonable concern only as currently provided for.
4.7 After extensive consultation, the DCSF did produce guidelines to local
authorities on elective home education in 2007. The guidelines have not
satisfied home educators or local authorities because of inconsistencies
where the department has tried to support the assertion that local
authorities are responsible to ensure the educational provision and welfare
of all children in their area. The assertion angers parents, who are
responsible for their own children and should be left alone to do their job
with the confidence of their government. The assertion pressurises local
authority officials to carry out duties for which they do not have any
corresponding legal powers with the intention of carrying out intervention
in families to prescribe, legislate and inspect all educational provision
and ensure its compliance with state requirements regardless of logic, need,
benefit, or resource implications
4.8 Families should not be subjected to a system of routine surveillance to
ascertain their innocence, or to investigate ungrounded fears about families
who simply choose not to receive Local Authority services. Such a policy
would cause vastly more harm that it could ever hope to prevent.
AHEd members call for the removal of sections 26 (Schedule One) and 27 from
the CSF Bill. Current law as it relates to elective home education already
freedom of conscience
the presumption of innocence
promotes the best interest of the child
requires education suitable for the child
provides for local authority action where there is an appearance of failure
gives access to due process in the case of dispute
Please see our Parents' Declaration:
We declare that:
We refuse to cooperate with any recommendations made or any actions taken by
any government unless they support our existing freedoms.
Following a history of being sidelined, persecuted and harassed, having had
to resist years of repeated and vexatious consultations designed to
regulate, control or remove our parental options, we will not tolerate any
further persecution or erosion of our freedoms.
There can be no compromise or negotiation between totalitarian intentions
and our agency over our own lives.
We are opposed to registration.
We are opposed to monitoring.
We are opposed to government interventions in how we educate our children in
We are opposed to compulsory home visits.
We are opposed to compulsory interviews with our children.
We will not co-operate with the oppression of our children.
We demand a presumption of innocence
We want our representatives in parliament to say:
NO to the nationalisation of children
NO to the licensing of parents
NO to any new legislation restricting home education