Sorry to bombard you with posts today, but this was well worth a read! It isn't very often that you have a head teacher defend home education to thier colleages now is it?

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/31/home-schooling

Why point the finger at home-educators?

* Bernard Trafford
* The Guardian, Tuesday 31 March 2009

It is commonplace now to talk about the surveillance society. One agency
after another becomes part of the mechanism, so we should not be surprised
that schools are the latest instrument for checking up on families.

Bowing to pressure after the succession of child abuse cases that has the
media screaming for action, and policymakers devising ever more layers of
safeguarding procedures, the government has asked Graham Badman - chair of
Haringey's safeguarding children board, replacing Sharon Shoesmith, sacked
after the Baby P inquiry - to review the safeguarding and support of
home-educated children. A recent article in the Independent quoted the
children's minister, Delyth Morgan: "If there are problems, we have to look
at the evidence. Home-education is a small but important part of keeping
children properly safe."

In the storm of outrage that followed the tragedy of Baby P, fingers were
bound to be pointed. Inexplicably, they are now being pointed at
home-educators. The estimated 20,000 parents who choose to educate their
children themselves currently stand accused of motives that are suspect at
best and abusive at worst.

Why they are suddenly a target is unclear. Outrageous allegations are made,
and apparently accepted, without proper examination. The Independent
described authorities' fears that parents home-educate to mask truancy, or
to hide forced marriages or children babysitting younger siblings. An NSPCC
spokesperson observed: "We have no view about home-education, but we do know
that to find out about abuse someone has to know about the child." The
inference is made. Mud sticks.

The suggestion is that only if children are in schools can we be sure that
their parents are not abusing them, but the smug moralising is unjust and
inaccurate. Victoria Climbié was not in school at the time of her death, but
she was not being home-educated. Eunice Spry was jailed after abusing her
foster children for 19 years: no one noticed the children's bruises because,
it is said, they were home-educated. But they werefostered. Where were the
social workers?

Home-educators deserve better treatment. I know, because I've been one.
Between 1991 and 1996, when I was a newly appointed secondary school head,
my wife taught our two daughters at home. Those five years were some of the
happiest we have known, full of the joy of discovery and learning. The girls
went back into the system for the secondary phase (their choice) and are now
happy, self-confident, well-qualified young adults with jobs.

It worked for us, but we were regarded as odd. Some friends and colleagues
were profoundly uncomfortable with our decision. People are wary of
difference, but parents often turn to home-education precisely because their
children are different and are bullied in school as a result. Others do it
on principle or, as we did, because they reckon they can offer something
better. For us, the issue was the national curriculum, which we felt had
blitzed primary education.

The image often painted of a secretive approach is misleading: most
home-educators do it openly and network widely. "

Read more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/31/home-schooling