Don't call me brave!

I've no doubt that when people tell me I'm brave for home educating my children they think they are paying me a compliment but they are not. Bravery is knowing what you're doing is dangerous or difficult or even wrong in some way but ploughing ahead regardless. Everything that bravery applies to is relative. One man's bravery is another man's stupidity and so on.

So when somebody tells me they think I'm brave, what they're saying is that I am risking my children's education by doing something inherently fearful. They are projecting their own fears about home education onto my family. If I started telling parents of schooled children that they're very brave for sending their children to school the meaning behind the statement becomes more explicit. It would become more of a judgment. You send your kids to school? Wow! You must be brave to risk that. Or maybe crazy. It would be unthinkable to say this to a parent of a schooled child. But somehow I am different and it's okay to say this to me. I guess the lesson here is 'think before you speak'. Unless you're actually aiming for patronising, bravery is not a word to be thrown about so lightly.

I am not brave because I know that home education is right for my family and I do not fear it. It's not dangerous or difficult. I don't fear my children will grow up unsocialised because they are growing up in society, not isolated from it. I don't fear that they will have no friends because they already have friends, of all ages. I don't fear that they will grow up stupid because they are not stupid. They are free to find their own meanings and interests rather than being fed chunks of predigested, state-sanctioned knowledge. I don't fear that they will never do exams or get qualifications because I don't mind if they take them or not but I do know that they are capable of preparing themselves should they feel ready to take them. They can decide for themselves what qualifications they'll need, if any, based on the interests they're already determined to follow. If they want to go to college, for example, they can see for themselves what the entry requirements are and if they want to get there badly enough, they will work hard to achieve what is necessary. Children are not a different species. They achieve their goals in the same way adults do when allowed the freedom to do so, with independence, enthusiasm and persistence. My children are home educated and I am not afraid.

So if you meet a home educator, please don't tell them they're brave for doing it. They are simply doing the right thing by their children, just as you are. Save bravery for those who stand up to injustice even when they might find themselves punished for it. Save it for those fighting physical or mental illness and their families who provide unwavering support. Save it for the kids who face bullying every day because society demands that they don't run away. Save it for them because they are brave and I don't deserve it.

Why would anyone mind providing evidence of what they're doing unless they aren't doing it?

Yes, really. Someone actually said that so I'll do my best to explain why I do mind. First you should know that my children enjoy their education because it is self-directed. They are happy, motivated, independent and curious. But I do mind providing evidence, as a matter of course, for a number of reasons.

The first is that I believe in the primacy of the family, i.e. that its needs should be put before those of the state. There is no reason to assume that educational provision will improve with the oversight of the state. I expect it will just lead to more hoop jumping exercises. I don't want that for my children. In short, how does state supervision enhance provision? The answer is simple. It doesn't. And I'd be prepared to wager that it would damage it. So if it's not enhancing provision and it might have the opposite effect, whose purpose does it serve? Bingo! The government's purpose - surveillance.

The second, wholly connected to the first, is a matter of privacy. My family is entitled to privacy. That includes my children. If they want to share their successes and stories with people, that is up to them. It's not something I'd force on them and, frankly, they can come up with more relevant people to share their experiences with than a clipboard monitor from the council.

The third reason is that I am not doing anything strange or special. Education is within the remit of parenting. It is my duty to provide education, food, clothes, housing, etc. Nobody is coming round to inspect my fridge and I'd tell them to sod off if they tried it. If I delegate my duty to someone else then of course I'd want assurances that my children were being well cared for and I'd expect the provider to have mechanisms in place so they could be accountable to me, the parent. If I am not delegating my duty, why would I need assurances that my provision was adequate? I can tell that for myself and have no need for a pat on the head from the local council. In fact, I'd find it quite patronising.

The fourth reason, and I've mentioned this many times before, is that the law in this country is based on the presumption of innocence. We are all expected to go about our daily lives without committing crimes or otherwise neglecting our legal responsibilities. If there is reason to suspect we are not, then the state has powers to intervene. If not, we are left alone. How can it be reasonable to expect families to provide evidence of lawful activity if there is no reason to suspect they are doing anything wrong? I would cooperate if there were genuine concerns but I will not cooperate with a misguided state mechanism of surveillance for the sake of it.

The fifth reason is that in imposing monitoring on children already damaged by the school system, we are teaching them that as their parents and protectors we cannot keep them safe in their own homes. By allowing these people access to our children, we are teaching them that there are people out there better qualified to make decisions on their behalf than us, their parents. To me, this is extremely dangerous. Children deserve to feel safe and secure and to have faith in their parents' protection.

There is no final reason as there are so many little things that I dislike about monitoring, but another is that I resent taxpayers' money being spent on non-jobs. If the state does not have a monitoring role which, according to the law, it does not, why is money being spent on monitoring jobs? And why, when no problem has been shown to exist, is money being diverted to home education that could otherwise be spent targeting vulnerable children?

Generally speaking, I can't think of a reason why someone would want to voluntarily provide evidence of being law abiding without due cause. I'd like to think that most people would question anyone who claimed to have authority rather than give in to their demands without thought for the consequences. Nobody randomly turns up at the police station to say what a good girl they've been. Or is it just me who missed that memo?

All children deserve monitoring because if it saves just one child it will be worth it

Some people insist that all children deserve to have their educational provision monitored. To me, this view is warped. I cannot understand it at all. The notion that all children deserve monitoring is like saying all people should be viewed with suspicion, or all people need to be watched because they are inherently untrustworthy. But who is doing the watching? And who is watching the watchers? And who is watching them? No. Surveillance should be kept to a minimum. All children deserve freedom from surveillance is my take on it.

All children deserve a good education, yes. We are all agreed on that. But no monitoring does not equal no education. The two are not linked at all. So the problem lies in the fact that the state believes it has a duty to ensure that the education is good, which it doesn't. That is the parent's duty. If the state declared itself parent in educational matters it would find itself in a whole heap of trouble.

In all matters of law, people are considered to be doing their legal duties until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. This is because our laws are based on the presumption of innocence. It is a basic tenet of British law and it applies to all parental duties too. I could be doing any number of things that the state may not approve of, or which may be explicitly illegal, but the state has to assume that I am not. It can't act without suspicion and it cannot discriminate on the grounds that I choose different things to the majority of the population. In short, the state cannot intervene simply because it doesn't know what I get up to in private.

I don't care that the state doesn't know what I'm doing in the privacy of my own home. Nobody knows what goes on in our house unless I or my children decide to share it with people, which we do, with friends and family. If I was confident that my children would be well educated and properly looked after by the state and I didn't have the time or inclination to attend to their needs myself, I would send them to school. Presumably I would no longer require monitoring if I did that despite the fact that I wouldn't know if I was adequately discharging my parental duties as I wasn't even there!

Now I appreciate that it is easier to tell if a child is not properly clothed or adequately fed than it is to tell if they are receiving an education or not. This might reasonably lead a person to believe that some other form of monitoring should be required IF it was the state's business. But it isn't, it's lawful and private family business. I won't budge on this point. I've looked at it from every angle and while I accept that there are some horrible people out there, they cannot be allowed to dictate what happens to innocent families. It's bad enough that they have the power to cause horrible things within their own families.

I hate the notion of collateral damage, but even more I hate the notion of "if it saves one child it will be worth it" because that comes with its own collateral damage; the thousands of children who have learned that their homes are not safe from state intrusion, that their parents cannot protect them from over-zealous social workers, or even that the state considers their loving parents to be a danger to them. And that's assuming that stretching the resources of social services ever further, by introducing compulsory monitoring, won't have a negative impact on those who really need help. That's assuming that making the haystack bigger will make the needle easier to find. A curious idea, wouldn't you say?

Would I let a clipboard monitor from the council into my home to assess my educational provision? No, I would not. They are no more qualified than the postman to pass judgment and I don't recognise their authority nor do I need their praise or recognition. As for support, I guess some live in cuckoo land on that one. Yes, some LAs are quite supportive, most are not. They don't understand the law, they misrepresent it in their communications and on their websites, they lie outright to new or potential home educators, they fabricate "concerns" and "worried phonecalls from concerned citizens" to get their foot in the door, they turn up mob-handed in an attempt to intimidate, they constantly call for more powers when they abuse, or simply don't use, the powers they already have. That is not to say I know everything or never need support, it's just that I go to my friends and family for these things, because they are the ones who care about me and my children. At best, LAs are paid to provide services, paid to "care", if you like, though I appreciate there are some wonderful people who work in EHE, child protection and, of course, schools. I would, of course, be cooperative if there were proper demonstrable concerns but I make no apologies for not cooperating with unlawful demands, unwarranted intrusion and incompetent and prejudiced state employees.

If most parents are trustworthy and have their children's best interests at heart, which I firmly believe is the case, why do we need these great protectors of children for all children? I am the great protector of my children. It's tragic that this is not the case for all children but social services should be there for the vulnerable ones. To redirect resources to areas where no problem has been proven to exist betrays a cruel obstinacy. Local authority personnel who behave in the ways stated above are untrustworthy and I wouldn't let them near my children. I don't care if my declining services annoys them or makes them suspicious. It says a whole lot more about their willingness to blindly accept surveillance in their own lives than it does about my ability to educate my children.

That said, I know people who do accept monitoring. Some do so because they have ex-partners who need placating and an official report from the authorities seems to do the trick. There are all sorts of reasons why people accept monitoring and I respect their right to choose it. I have no power over my children to insist they perform tricks for strangers and I wouldn't want to guilt-trip them into it. They are at liberty to show off their abilities to anyone they choose though I'd caution them against bragging. There may be an assumption that those declining visits have something to hide, but that is not a reasonable assumption. I have nothing to hide under these clothes but that doesn't mean I'd accept or relish the opportunity to reveal myself, not even if I could be sure the world is ready for it, though others might. That is their choice.

Essentially, I don't want others deciding on a whim what freedoms my family should be allowed to have. I resent the notion that parental rights are at the opposite end of a spectrum to children's rights. They are not. Yes, in this country parents have the right to have their children educated according to their wishes, regardless of where that education takes place, but above all parents have duties. It is my duty (in law) to provide my children with a suitable education, to feed, clothe and house them. It is a pleasure and an honour to do it. It is my duty to uphold my children's rights and I expect the government to intervene only if I fail in my duties. I will always protect my family, I will always love my children, I will always do what is best for them and I don't need payment, supervision or a government mandate to do it. I am a parent and that's all the motivation I need.

This is based almost entirely on a forum post I made earlier in the year.

The Welsh Problem - Part One

Imagine a scenario...


The government decides that all parents not choosing to have school dinners, i.e. those preparing packed lunches for their children themselves, must register with the local council, even though they are declining a service (i.e. school dinners) rather than being provided with one. A bit odd, but let's go with it. The parent's failure to register with the council will result in their children being forced to eat school dinners instead, effectively punishing the child for the parent's misdemeanour. School dinners could also be forced on the children if the parents supply the council with false or "inadequate" information. Essentially, a parent could be criminalised on a whim, despite fulfilling their parental duty to feed their child. This can't be right!

On top of this, to make sure that the contents of the lunch box meet a new state-determined, nutritional standard, the council will be given the authority to inspect the food cupboards and fridge in your home. Instead of sending a nutritional expert, as you might expect if such a thing became law, they will send someone whose business is school dinners or maybe someone whose usual job is in child protection (just to make you feel really bad about having the gall to feed your own children). The lunch box inspectors will be from the same department which is currently under threat of having its duty to provide school dinners removed for failure to adequately feed children.

These inspectors also want to meet your child. Let's hope your child isn't shorter, taller, fatter or thinner than average. Who knows what they might say to them during the interview? People can be so cruel. And yes, I did say interview. What if the inspectors find your child is a little overweight and spot a cake on your shopping receipt? Will they listen to your explanation that it was a birthday treat or will they write a report stating that cake appears to be a regular feature on your menu? Will they be able to suspend all your food preparing duties? It's really not clear from the proposals. What if the lunch box inspector is one of those people who lives on soup and lettuce? Will they bring their biased views into your private family life? What if you're vegetarian? What if you're vegan? Your local inspector could be a rampant carnivore who is totally ignorant about alternative diets. Oh no, the government can't really interfere in private family decisions, can it?

Finally, the council will be able to deny or revoke your registration which means that far from being a simple registration scheme (as if that wasn't bad enough), it's actually a licensing scheme. And they want 12 weeks to make their minds up, but it's not clear whether you'd be able to continue to provide packed lunches or whether you'd have to wait for permission while your child ate school dinners. In essence, as a parent choosing to feed your children yourself, you are expected to submit yourself, your child and your home to monitoring and apply for a licence to parent. After all, feeding your child is just part of your parental duty like everything else you are expected to provide for them - clothing, a home, love, an education. Why should you need a licence to feed your child when everyone else can get away with no monitoring at all just because their children eat school dinners? Surely, that's extremely unfair. All parents should be trusted to feed their children, at least until such times as a concern is raised to the contrary. Isn't the presumption of innocence the basis of law in this country?

There are a few more points to note. The rationale for this scheme is that councils have a duty to identify those children who are not receiving a lunch at all. Apparently, it would be much easier for them to compel parents by law to register their packed lunch provision than it would be to write to all schools asking them to provide details of total children, total school dinners and total packed lunches. With the second approach, a simple sum could be used to determine if anybody is left out. And let's face it, it would be a huge failure on the part of schools if any children were unaccounted for! Seems so simple, doesn't it? I wonder why they don't go for that approach instead. But no. The first option of introducing legislation to force parents to register for a non-service is the bizarre solution they've come up with. Well, that's the rationale for the compulsory register. But what about the licensing? Sorry, totally stumped with that one. It must just be an attempt to control and monitor parents. Or possibly that the council (and the inspector) have more to gain if we invest in their school dinners. What else could it be?

Even those whose children do eat school dinners would want to hear about this injustice. Even they wouldn't support this government interference, would they? Can they be relied upon to stand shoulder to shoulder against the government alongside the lunch box brigade? It might be lunchboxes today, but tomorrow could find us being inspected to see if we love our kids enough, or if our house is the right temperature, or if our children's clothes are adequate. Will the mums and dads stand united to protect all our families from unwarranted state intrusion? I wonder...

Now, in case you're wondering what the hell this is all about, this is the basis for the Welsh problem, which is not an imaginary scenario, but a government proposed reality. It just doesn't happen to be about school lunches. Look out for part two.

Seems I've been ranting elsewhere lately...

I love a rant and a moan, me. But I haven't blogged for a while. I blame Facebook. When I rant there people rant back. Or sometimes agree. And it draws me in. Sometimes though, it's nice to just throw ideas into the wilderness and not have anyone notice. It's a bit like having the freedom to stand on top of a hill to shout at clouds. It's liberating. But since freedom seems to send me scurrying back to my box, I'll post something pointful (which is a word if I want it to be).

My other rants have been tamed into reasonably articulate newspaper articles. I am a bit of a Lefty, but that beats being a blowhole. I wrote the articles for The Medway Broadside, an independent community newspaper written solely by volunteers.

The first was about the provision of analogue hearing aids. Or how some departments of the NHS were denying patients a choice about their treatment. You can read it here.

The second was about a brilliant up and coming artist called Daisy Parris and the exhibition she had back in February. She is currently exhibiting at the Deaf Cat Cafe in Rochester. Her work will be there until the 10th of July so make sure you get down there for a look. That article can be viewed here.

The third, which I'd actually forgotten about in all the disappointment, was an article about the AV referendum. You can read that one here, not that it matters any more.

The last article I wrote, which featured in the most recent print edition, was about youth clubs, cuts to youth services and the message it sends to our young people. But mostly, it was about how one community sought to help the local kids rather than demonise them. You can read it here.

My photos keep turning up in unexpected places too, most recently inside the sleeve of the new Lupen Crook album, Waiting for the Post-Man, which you must buy immediately as it's stark raving genius. If you don't want to take my word for it, there are a few reviews around. You could start with this one which is pretty thorough.

That is all.

Twelve

Saturday's child. Five days early. Seven pounds, nine ounces. Ten fingers, ten toes. Jet black hair. See what happens when you're fed on milk and kisses and given room to grow....

One...

Two...

Three...

Four...

 Five...

 Six...

Seven...

Eight...

Nine...

Ten...

Eleven...

Happy Birthday to my baby. Twelve today.

Today will bring me sunshine because you are here xo

UPDATE: Twelve...

Love and Hope

Today has been a tough one. I don't believe in gods. It seems almost beyond reason that I should. Why would any god create something so utterly beautiful if he meant to destroy it? No, I don't believe in gods. And so I don't have the comfort of unwavering faith to still me. I have instead an easily broken heart and a lump in my throat. I have tears, some spilled, some frozen, in waiting. I skitter about in the peripheral vision of a friend, helpless and horrified. I have hoped with all my might. I have lingered over photographs and sent my invitation, and if that doesn't do it, nothing will. I have sent thoughts and love into the wild. I have chewed my restless fingers and shaken my head in anger. I've been here before.

Tonight I hope there is a god because I'll spend the night on my fucking knees praying. I will be all heart and silence. Any god who pulls off a miracle tonight, will have my conviction by morning.