Memorandum submitted by Dorothy Murphy

 

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 review.

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.

July 2009