Katarina Tomasevski, the first United Nations special rapporteur on the right to education, observed that “where all school-aged children are in school, free of charge, for the full duration of compulsory education, the right to education may be denied or violated”.
She was right. Education has been hijacked by the schooling industry to the extent that most people no longer know the difference. Contrary to popular belief, school is not compulsory and the provision of education is a parental responsibility, which may be discharged, entirely equally in law, “by other means”.
The latest figures show that the number of pupils withdrawn from council schools in Scotland to be educated by their parents has doubled since 2013 - but these 1,000 escapees form only a small part of the overall home-education picture.
Many more parents are choosing not to delegate to schools in the first place, because they do not trust the system to keep their children safe, never mind deliver on the educational basics.
Forcing four-year-olds into formal schooling, antipathy towards testing and a belief that Curriculum for Excellence is anti-educational all figure as reasons for rejecting a one-size-fits-all state provision from the outset. Those who later decide to remove their children from the classroom are often worried about bullying, additional support needs and, increasingly, mental health.
‘State snoopers’
Disquiet over teachers being turned into “state snoopers” has led to more parents declining places in nurseries as well as schools, which are regarded as crossing the line into private family life by conducting unwanted “wellbeing” assessments and sneaky surveys without parental consent. Home educators were among the first to point out that the government’s Named Person scheme constituted a breach of children’s and families’ rights, accurately predicting the Supreme Court’s striking down of the intrusive information-sharing on which it relied.
That judgment is binding on past, present and future data-processing. The implications for the education sector are farreaching.
Even “circle time” is no longer a data-safe activity, when sensitive health issues, relationship problems and trips to the food bank disclosed by children in “wellbeing” show-and-tell sessions may later be shared with classmates’ families over dinner.
Council policies that encourage the trawling of home-educating families’ private records will also struggle to survive a legal challenge, according to experts
Although home education tends to polarise opinion, it is no more or less a “concern” than schooling. Such arbitrary interference cannot be justified when parents are responsible for their children’s education.
The state can only dictate learning experiences and outcomes if children are sent to school. As Tomasevski also reminded us, “the respect of parents’ freedom to educate their children according to their vision of what education should be has been part of international human rights standards since their very emergence”.
Alison Preuss is a coordinator of the Scottish Home Education Forum and a freelance writer
