There has been a huge amount of traffic, both in blog spheres and the mainstream media, about the proposed new regulations affecting electively home educated children in England over the past few months. Much of it has ended up with some truly despicable spin being perpetrated by the UK Gov, in order to make their viewpoint seem rational. This has resulted in some epics fails in factual understanding of the issues, perhaps the most appalling being the moment Victoria Climbie's torture and death was linked to home education. By an 'expert'.

In the light of how high feeling, and Government spin, is running, I felt it useful to try and tease out some of the knots that have so many people tied up so tightly - in both directions. The biggest knot, I feel, is that it all seems so... rational. What the Government says, looks to innocuous and rational , that most people are simply bewildered when others scream and shout about oppression and civil liberties and human rights.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, a report has been prepared stating that, as law, home education needs tight control and regulation.  Two main reasons are cited for this.

1) To protect home educated children from child abuse

2) To ensure all home educated children receive a good education

Now, the problem with this, particularly for the man in the street, or even on an omnibus in Clapham, is that is look perfectly reasonable.  Utterly, utterly rational.  Any 'right minded' person is going to look at that and say "Quite Right" and move on.

If you object, and say "hang on, that's just not on..." you will be looked at like a social deviant, who clearly has something to hide.  "What's that, you don't agree that children should be protected from child abuse?  You think it's okay for kids to be kept at home, locked and beaten and made to do housework and not learn to read, whilst their suffering goes unheard?"  "ARE YOU A MONSTER?"

So to object to the premise, is to object to children being protected.  You are, indeed, a monster.

But it only looks reasonable, if a sleight of hand is in place.  And most people are not spotting the sleight of hand.  They're going straight to the kids, and their minds are flashing the horrible horrible memories of Maria Cauldwell, of Victoria, of Tyra Henry, of Baby Peter.  And once those children have flashed into their minds, that's it - THE CHILDREN WILL BE PROTECTED... and all rational response stops.  Because the connection looks reasonable.  But it isn't.

It's not reasonable.

And it's not reasonable because home educators do not abuse their kids.  It's not reasonable because home educated kids are not hidden.  It's not reasonable because some kids are so damaged by school that home education is safer for them.  No, none of these actually apply.

It's not reasonable because... there is no connection between child protection and education.

This debate, binds and ties and twists and blends these two elements together, and tries to suggest they relate to each other.  There is no connection.  Child safety has nothing to do with education.  Formal education is just something that happens to kids as they get older.

Child safety, and the check and balances, and the safe guards and procedures... exist regardless of education, regardless of school.  The child safety procedures are imbedded in all medical and health contacts, from before birth.  They are a net of connections between every Government employee who connects with you on anything to do with health and well being.  They have nothing to do with school, or school, or education.

Trying to get this over to people, that this is a twisting of how the worlds already works, this view that schooling is an element in child protection, is very hard.  Partly, because as a society we've grown used to dumping everything at the school door and demanding teachers do it.  Every scrap of information and skills we deem all children should know - we dump over to the teachers and scream if it doesn't happen.  Schools are now in the business in extremely deprived areas, of teaching children to toilet, speak and eat.  Every year, 4 and 5 years olds who are still in nappies, cannot talk and only eat mush and milk, are presented to the school system.  That's an extreme example.. but it's accurate.  It does happen.  We think it's entirely reasonable that school, and teachers, do everything.  

This is not reasonable.    It is not the job of school, and teachers, to raise children.  

It is their job to educate them.  Certainly, they do have an eye out for child protection, and if there is a suspicion of a problem... what do schools do?  They bring into operation the ... child protection system.  The one already in place.  The one that has been in place for that child, since before they were born.  

The system that already exists.  The one every child, even those outside school, is already in.  The one that exists, and the one that does not disappear like magic *poof* when the child has its fifth birthday.

Confused?  Hmm.. let me try it like this.  Let's look at the proposition, that school protects you from child abuse, and all children must be protected, as we don't know what is going on at home.  Let's journey to Maria's house, and examine her pathway as a responsible adult, ensuring her child at home is kept safe by going to school...

Mercedes Sosa performing in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2003. Photograph: Kerim Okten/EPA

Mercedes Sosa, the celebrated Argentinian folk singer and political activist, has died aged 74. Sosa possessed a deep, alto voice and a strong sense of conviction, and had a warm, engaging personality. These qualities helped to make her one of the few Latin American musicians who could, over five decades, command a wide international audience. Described as "the voice of Latin America", she was revered as a commentator on the political and social turmoil that afflicted the region.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/05/mercedes-sosa-obituary

Testimony of Patience Kershaw
(Frank Higgins)

It's good of you to ask me, Sir, to tell you how I spend my days
Down in a coal black tunnel, Sir, I hurry corves to earn my pay.
The corves are full of coal, kind Sir, I push them with my hands and head.
It isn't lady-like, but Sir, you've got to earn your daily bread.

I push them with my hands and head, and so my hair gets worn away.
You see this baldy patch I've got, it shames me like I just can't say.
A lady's hands are lily white, but mine are full of cuts and segs.
And since I'm pushing all the time, I've got great big muscles on my legs.

I try to be respectable, but sir, the shame, God save my soul.
I work with naked, sweating men who curse and swear and hew the coal.
The sights, the sounds, the smells, kind Sir, not even God could know my pain.
I say my prayers, but what's the use? Tomorrow will be just the same.

Now, sometimes, Sir, I don't feel well, my stomach's sick, my head it aches.
I've got to hurry best I can. My knees are weak, my back near breaks
And then I'm slow, and then I'm scared these naked men will batter me.
But they're not to blame, for if I'm slow, their families will starve, you see.

Now all the lads, they laugh at me, and Sir, the mirror tells me why.
Pale and dirty can't look nice. It doesn't matter how hard I try.
Great big muscles on my legs, a baldy patch upon my head.
A lady, Sir? Oh, no, not me! I should've been a boy instead.

I praise your good intentions, Sir, I love your kind and gentle heart
But now it's 1842, and you and I, we're miles apart.
A hundred years and more will pass before we're standing side by side
But please accept my grateful thanks. God bless you Sir, at least you tried.