Memorandum submitted by
Comments on the conduct of the Badman Review into Elective Home Education.
1. The supposed premise for the review was that there are concerns about the
safety of some home educated children. This has not been proved. It is clearly
wrong to make up a reason for a change to legislation.
2. Obvious stakeholders such as individual home educating families were not
informed of their right to take part in the Consultation which preceded the
3. Local Authorities with established good practice were not called upon to
give evidence of their procedures.
4. The Review was not authored by someone who is 'independent' or neutral on
Home Education. Graham Badman was already very
opinionated on the subject as evidenced by his speech to the NASWE annual
conference in May. This was during the period when Badman
was supposed to be collecting evidence from an independent standpoint. His
speech clearly expressed his opinions which were present from before the Review
and eventually studded the Report.
5. The Review Panel did not contain a single expert on Home Education, which is
substantially different to Schools Education. As a former Head of Dept in a
Secondary school and a home educating parent, I can testify to those differences.
6. No specific or measurable data was presented in the report as evidence to
support Badman's opinions.
7. There were no examples of current good practice given.
8. The presumption of innocence of home-educating families will be lost. Surely
it can't be right to recommend that in a report? There WILL be court challenges
to this and other matters in the report.
9. No appeals process was outlined for families who are denied permission to
home educate under the Badman proposals.
10. The quotes from consultation responses used were highly selective and
deliberately taken out of context in order to misrepresent the writers'
intentions. This can be proven.
11. Badman ignored a wealth of evidence from the USA, which has
a large population of home educated children. He said little research had been
done. This is incorrect. Badman simply chose to
ignore the extensive research which did not support his opinions.