Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Should parents have the right to home-educate their child without sending them to school or informing the state?

Should parents have right to home-educate child without sending them to school or informing state?

  • Yes, parents should have the right

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • No, parents should not have the right

    Votes: 33 94.3%

  • Total voters
    35
The Nazis banned home education in 1938. They made school attendance compulsory. It is still compulsory in Germany.
So my advice would be that anyone who views Nazism as the way forward should vote "No" in this poll.

The Nazis supported exercise.

Gyms are simply beerhouses in disguise!

Lycra is the new brown shirts!

Protein bars are antisemitic.
 
Thinking more about this, I don't think parents should have to inform the state on how they intend to educate their children.
Surely the assumption is that you are going to do a good enough job of parenting unless any evidence/suspicion to the contrary arises?
Otherwise why not have safeguarding visits to every family annually just to check they're doing a good enough job...
 
Thinking more about this, I don't think parents should have to inform the state on how they intend to educate their children.
Surely the assumption is that you are going to do a good enough job of parenting unless any evidence/suspicion to the contrary arises?
Otherwise why not have safeguarding visits to every family annually just to check they're doing a good enough job...
There’s existing education laws though such as truancy etc, less so parenting unless the parenting is abusive.
 
There’s existing education laws though such as truancy etc, less so parenting unless the parenting is abusive.
Education is part of parenting though, is it? Ultimately your legal responsibility as a parent is to ensure your child has a suitable education, and you can do that by sending them to school or educating them at home or elsewhere.
 
Education is part of parenting though, is it? Ultimately your legal responsibility as a parent is to ensure your child has a suitable education, and you can do that by sending them to school or educating them at home or elsewhere.
Yes, I was pointing out though that education laws are probably stronger than being a good parent laws without conflating the two.
 
Thinking more about this, I don't think parents should have to inform the state on how they intend to educate their children.
Surely the assumption is that you are going to do a good enough job of parenting unless any evidence/suspicion to the contrary arises?
Otherwise why not have safeguarding visits to every family annually just to check they're doing a good enough job...

I've been in two minds about this too, i thought given that we are 'allowed' to educate how we wish that showing that we're able to be thoughtful about how that might take place is reasonable but perhaps not especially as it only seems reasonable given the current understanding of 'suitable' which might change.

Also, I think in practice it would be extremely stressful and intrusive given that so many people end up home ed.ing because the child is so anxious or overwhelmed or traumatised by school and it might take time to find a way that works for that child. I don't know currently what would suit my child, she's not very self starting, she is very demand resistant, she finds school subjects very boring, and is now really lacking in confidence about any kind of learning.
 
Yes, I was pointing out though that education laws are probably stronger than being a good parent laws without conflating the two.
School/attendance laws rather than education laws.
The legal requirements for education are fairly minimal. There's not definition of what a full time education is for example, no requirement to follow the national curriculum or any curriculum, to produce formal work, to plan or follow a timetable, to mark or assess anything.
 
I've been in two minds about this too, i thought given that we are 'allowed' to educate how we wish that showing that we're able to be thoughtful about how that might take place is reasonable but perhaps not especially as it only seems reasonable given the current understanding of 'suitable' which might change.

Also, I think in practice it would be extremely stressful and intrusive given that so many people end up home ed.ing because the child is so anxious or overwhelmed or traumatised by school and it might take time to find a way that works for that child. I don't know currently what would suit my child, she's not very self starting, she is very demand resistant, she finds school subjects very boring, and is now really lacking in confidence about any kind of learning.
If we suggested a system where a social worker comes to inspect your home and interview your children on an annual basis for safeguarding, most people would say absolutely not, too intrusive, the state is overstepping - even if it meant some appalling abuse would be uncovered and children's lives would be saved.
But most people would probably think a council worker visiting home educators' homes annually and speaking with their children would be proportional to discover any children not getting whatever their interpretation of a suitable education is.
 
School/attendance laws rather than education laws.
The legal requirements for education are fairly minimal. There's not definition of what a full time education is for example, no requirement to follow the national curriculum or any curriculum, to produce formal work, to plan or follow a timetable, to mark or assess anything.
I’d have to ask my sister on this as she home schools my nephew but I guess she doesn’t have to mark lateness and absences the same way.
 
Anything that serves to give schools the idea that people do not have any choice about using them is a Bad Thing, in my view.
 
People should have the right to educate their kids at home but should have to inform their local education authority.

A fully balanced education (academic, physical and emotional) is a vital part of a child's development and with out it a person can suffer extreme difficulties in adulthood.

All those involved in educating children need to be registered to ensure that a child's right to recieve education is happening and imo this should include those who home school.
 
Education could and should be about preparing kids for the wider world, enabling them to navigate it safely, giving them the skills to assess situations, learn how to acquire knowledge and perspective, encourage them to enhance any inherent talents and capabilities. Etc etc.
But it's not often like that for most people. School can be a place of torment, bullying, exclusion, boredom. Indoctrination into religion, indoctrination into nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief systems. Preparation for working for capitalism. Denial of individual identity, experience and viewpoints.
State education can be all those things. Home education too. Neither one necessarily better nor worse than the other.
 
Education could and should be about preparing kids for the wider world, enabling them to navigate it safely, giving them the skills to assess situations, learn how to acquire knowledge and perspective, encourage them to enhance any inherent talents and capabilities. Etc etc.
But it's not often like that for most people. School can be a place of torment, bullying, exclusion, boredom. Indoctrination into religion, indoctrination into nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief systems. Preparation for working for capitalism. Denial of individual identity, experience and viewpoints.
State education can be all those things. Home education too. Neither one necessarily better nor worse than the other.
What school isn't a place of indoctrination into a nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief system? Seriously, perhaps people can discuss Summerhill or somewhere like that, but practically all schools fail at the first hurdle in this regard.

A more minor point: you write as if it's either-or, home education or state education, forgetting about private schools that educate a large proportion of the ruling class in Britain.

The idea of differential "inherent talents and capabilities" is bullshit - absolute bullshit - it's so Hadamary and SENny that the vile wretch Shechemite doubtless absolutely loves it.
Even UCL denamed Francis Galton in 2020 - a century late, but still, it was welcome that they eventually did it. IQ is the biggest bunch of cock out, and one way or another it's the big unquestionable ideology right the way through the British school system and practically every fuckwit of a schoolteacher believes in it because they were indoctrinated into it.
 
What school isn't a place of indoctrination into a nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief system? Seriously, perhaps people can discuss Summerhill or somewhere like that, but practically all schools fail at the first hurdle in this regard.

A more minor point: you write as if it's either-or, home education or state education, forgetting about private schools that educate a large proportion of the ruling class in Britain.

The idea of differential "inherent talents and capabilities" is bullshit - absolute bullshit - it's so Hadamary and SENny that the vile wretch Shechemite doubtless absolutely loves it.
Even UCL denamed Francis Galton in 2020 - a century late, but still, it was welcome that they eventually did it. IQ is the biggest bunch of cock out, and one way or another it's the big unquestionable ideology right the way through the British school system and practically every fuckwit of a schoolteacher believes in it because they were indoctrinated into it.
People, and that includes kids, do have inherent talents and abilities, as well as disabilities. This applies to creative, intellectual, emotional, physical aspects, and a whole lot more. That doesn't mean they are restricted only to those aspects, or that other areas of their personality or physicality can't be enhanced.
 
I remember seeing a few tracts on "de-schooling" but never really explored. Anyone read anything worthwhile from that?
 
Last edited:
What school isn't a place of indoctrination into a nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief system? Seriously, perhaps people can discuss Summerhill or somewhere like that, but practically all schools fail at the first hurdle in this regard.

A more minor point: you write as if it's either-or, home education or state education, forgetting about private schools that educate a large proportion of the ruling class in Britain.

The idea of differential "inherent talents and capabilities" is bullshit - absolute bullshit - it's so Hadamary and SENny that the vile wretch Shechemite doubtless absolutely loves it.
Even UCL denamed Francis Galton in 2020 - a century late, but still, it was welcome that they eventually did it. IQ is the biggest bunch of cock out, and one way or another it's the big unquestionable ideology right the way through the British school system and practically every fuckwit of a schoolteacher believes in it because they were indoctrinated into it.
What's your actual experience of modern day state schools and the people who work in them?
 
What school isn't a place of indoctrination into a nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief system? Seriously, perhaps people can discuss Summerhill or somewhere like that, but practically all schools fail at the first hurdle in this regard.
Checkable evidence please? Or do you just know this and I should just accept that?

For example what would you say of a school that seeks 'fairness', where 'fairness means everybody gets what they need'?

Louis MacNeice
 
I remember seeing a few tracts on "de-schooling" but never really explored. Anyone read anything worthwhile from that?

I did read a bit about it when I took the boy out of school and took some ideas from it.

For the first few months I pretty much left him to his own devices with no pressure to do anything academic, he was so worn down by school that he didn't see the point of trying because (in his eyes) he was useless and wouldn't be able to do it anyway.
He did a lot of tinkering in the garage - reconditioning bikes and selling them on, learning how to use various tools/bits of machinery, and gradually his self-confidence grew to the point where he was ready to do some formal learning.

Over the next year or so he got his Functional Skills L1 maths and English, got his dad to teach him how to weld and taught himself some woodwork skills.
All of which enabled him to get an apprenticeship when he was 17.

Like others incl. Red Cat have said, it wasn't something I'd have taken on if his needs had been identified and met via the school system, but for us it's turned out brilliantly.

'State' interference was minimal, his head teacher (privately) supported my decision and I would imagine she fed back to the local authority that he wasn't at risk. I filled in an education plan for them (largely a work of fiction) and they never contacted me again. He was 14 at the time though, I think there should be more LEA input/monitoring (and guidance, and support, and funding) when younger children are removed from school.


If we suggested a system where a social worker comes to inspect your home and interview your children on an annual basis for safeguarding, most people would say absolutely not, too intrusive, the state is overstepping - even if it meant some appalling abuse would be uncovered and children's lives would be saved.
But most people would probably think a council worker visiting home educators' homes annually and speaking with their children would be proportional to discover any children not getting whatever their interpretation of a suitable education is.

I don't think an annual review is unreasonable, especially if they were also able to offer support and guidance for home-schoolers.
 
Last edited:
I don't think an annual review is unreasonable, especially if they were also able to offer support and guidance for home-schoolers.
Annual review/report - fine. But I don’t need anyone coming into my home.
Unfortunately, offering support isn’t really within what LAs provide at the moment. Their role is just to identify children who aren’t getting a suitable education.
 
Checkable evidence please? Or do you just know this and I should just accept that?

For example what would you say of a school that seeks 'fairness', where 'fairness means everybody gets what they need'?

Louis MacNeice
"Checkable evidence" that most schools are places of "indoctrination into a nationalistic, authoritarian, hierarchical belief system"?
What a twatty thing to ask for. And no, you certainly shouldn't accept it just because I say it. You should think about it. Sound as though you are a long way from that, though.

In answer to your final question: I'd say it sounded like typical bullshit. In any case I've already accepted that there may be two or three schools in the world that don't fit into the above classification or that are on the edge. But I wouldn't say oh yippee that school that you mention - if it's real not hypothetical - must be one of them because its mission statement sounds really inspiring.
 
Back
Top Bottom