Education and the Integrated Communities Strategy

This week, the government published its Integrated Communities Strategy. The concept of social cohesion is nothing new – Professor Ted Cantle produced a similarly detailed report in 2001. In 2016, Dame Louise Casey, the then government integration tsar, produced a further Review into the state of social integration. You may be forgiven for thinking that nothing has changed in nearly 20 years.

However, while it may be true that social cohesion has not improved, the ideologies underpinning these reports are very different. Where Cantle talked about people living on parallel train tracks, often defined by faith, Casey talked about ‘less progressive religious communities’ who are ‘taking religion backwards and away from 21st century British values and laws’. Where Cantle suggested a 25 per cent cap on faith school places, Casey opined that ‘it is not okay for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage.’

So where does this latest attempt pitch the government with regard to religious belief? Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government defines integration as ‘communities where many religions, cultures and opinions are celebrated, underpinned by a shared set of British values that champion tolerance, freedom and equality of opportunity … values which include a proud history of defending people’s right to practise their religion within the law …’ So is it defending religious freedom?

The Strategy devotes a complete chapter to education, sweeping up all the current discussions surrounding illegal and unregistered schools, home education and schools where extremist materials have been seen by Ofsted inspectors. Why target schools? Because schools are the only place where you have most of the nations’ children in one place at one time – convenient to deliver propaganda. The problem, of course (as Amanda Spielman recently lamented) is that children only spend 20 per cent of their time in school – it’s the other 80 per cent that makes all the difference; although the government now has a plan for that, too.

Fundamental British Values figure large in the Strategy. Ofsted intends to beef this up in its inspection process, ensuring that integration is a factor in categorising schools. The same is true of all new free school applications. In the document, these values are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect’. So far, so good. Except that in the minds of the liberal glitterati (with Ofsted as the state-approved enforcer) this also encompasses every liberal ideology they espouse, including LGBT rights prioritised over those of all others and the active promotion of transgender ideology from the earliest years in school.

While nobody would argue with the compulsory registration of illegal schools (which are not, as Ofsted likes to suggest, mostly religious settings), the closer regulation of private schools is a direct threat to parental freedom. Many small independent schools are religious in character, chosen by parents who want to raise their children within their faith. The government is ‘committed to taking a firmer approach to enforce standards when there is evidence of noncompliance’. Noncompliance with standard safeguarding practices? Or noncompliance with the relentless march of liberalism, even when it conflicts with the tenets of faith?

The situation with home education remains confused. While there appears to be some attempt to differentiate between illegal or unregistered schools and home education, there is still no apparent awareness of the difference between elective and enforced home education, the latter growing because the state system has failed children to the point where parents have no other option open to them.

The battle waged unabated in the media, with The Times claiming that registration would go ahead anyway (that later turned out to be either fake news, wishful thinking or poor journalism) while the DfE responded by saying that compulsory registration was ‘categorically not in the green paper’. Meanwhile, with Louise Casey ignoring the facts and calling for home ed parents to be forced to opt out of education (registration by the back door) Lord Soley’s bill continues on its path.

There are two other deeply worrying decisions raised in this green paper. The first relates to the compelling of parents to accept the decision of their child’s school regardless of personal belief. It states that ‘Pupils have the right to manifest a religion or belief, but not necessarily at all times, in all places or in a particular manner’.It is probably a knee-jerk reaction to the recent situation at St Stephen’s school, where the head’s ruling on the wearing of a hijab was reversed after ugly pressure.

However, it could equally, in the hands of those wishing to impose a singular ideology, be used to prevent every child in the community expressing faith in any form, on the grounds that to do so would harm the social cohesion of the school. So, at what times will it be inappropriate? In what places? In what manner? To prevent abuse of sloppy law, this must be much more closely defined. Or is the real agenda to stamp out all expressions of religious belief in the public square, apart from the occasional reference to a benign deity who just wants us all to do what makes us happy?

The second concern is the resurrection of the regulation of out of school settings, even before the findings of the consultation are published. Not content with controlling what children hear in school, the government is now bent on controlling what they hear for the other 80 per cent of their lives. Interestingly, when questioned about this by Michelle Donelan MP during an Education Select Committee hearing, Amanda Spielman had absolutely no answer to the question, ‘Are you comfortable with that scenario, where we are constantly subjected to some kind of inspection in our private lives?’

A consultation is offered to sit alongside the Integrated Communities Strategy. If you take part, be aware of the extent of mission creep contained in these proposals – however reasonable and fair they may seem, many of them are just another step along the road to the removal of parental freedom and diminishing of individual rights.

The Unprecedented Number of Attacks on Home Education

In order to highlight the unprecedented number of attacks on home education in the press over the last few weeks, most of the articles in this week’s Update relate to the issue.

The parents of a child actress who played Matilda in the musical are in dispute with Westminster council over her home schooling. Edward Hardy and Eileen Tracy have been sent a school attendance order. They told The Guardian that they had sent evidence of her progress, including samples of her work and explanation about her studies, to the local authority, but the council said this was not enough. Read more

The Liberal Democrats have published ‘Every Child Empowered: Education for a changing world’ in preparation for their conference in March. Section 9 outlines their plans for home education (which is conflated with unregistered schools). It reveals that the LibDems will require twice yearly visits to every child not registered in school, together with a compulsory teaching of the National Curriculum for all home educators. Read more

Ofsted has ordered its staff to look at high rates of fixed-period exclusions in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber. Inspectors will also ‘look very carefully’ at whether schools are improving their results by ridding themselves of ‘troublesome’ pupils. The region is home to six of the 10 worst-offending areas in terms of the proportion of secondary school pupils who faced suspension in 2016-17. Read more

‘It is essential to ensure that a family perspective is consistently applied to policy making’ – so said Lord Farmer as he began the Second Reading debate of his Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill in the House of Lords. Lord Farmer’s excellent Bill – which was well-received by Peers – would ensure that all policy is subject to a statutory family impact assessment. Read more

The parents of a child actress who starred as Matilda in the award-winning musical have warned they are prepared to go to jail in an escalating row over her home schooling. Edward Hardy and his wife Eileen Tracy have been ordered by their local council to send their 12-year-old daughter Lilian to school by March 7 – or else face prosecution. Read more

The world knows their names and pixelated photos of their faces were splashed on front pages all over the world. The four teenage girls who left Britain to join Isis three years ago, seduced by the idea of becoming a jihadist bride in Syria are all now feared to have died in the war zone. Less well-known is a fifth girl, B – it later emerged in a family court hearing held to decide her future, that she had been home-schooled. Read more

The education secretary, Damian Hinds, is to crack down on illegal schools amid growing concern that children are at risk of being radicalised, trafficked, abused — or simply growing up ignorant. Insiders at the Department for Education said Hinds was determined to take a tougher line on illegal schools and out-of-hours tuition centres than his predecessor, Justine Greening. Read more

Concerns have been raised about child safety in unregistered schools, after a BBC investigation filmed a teacher appearing to strike a pupil’s head. The BBC filmed a suspected unregistered ultra-orthodox Jewish school in Essex, and photos from two other such schools showed dirty and unhygienic conditions. Ofsted said it has identified more than 350 suspected unregistered schools, but lacked sufficient powers to close them. Read more

School inspectors have warned that there are hundreds of unregistered schools but that they have few powers to investigate or shut them down. More than 350 sites have been investigated in England by education watchdog Ofsted since a specialist taskforce was set up two years ago. Ofsted inspectors say they don’t have proper powers to inspect or close them. Read more

Local councils, health services and police forces will have to involve schools in their safeguarding work from now on, the government has announced. Updated statutory guidance on ‘Working together to safeguard children’ will include an expectation that all schools be ‘given a voice’ in the work of those who set local safeguarding policy. Read more

Home Education: The War Rages On

Home education has dominated the education press for the last couple of weeks. That in itself is unusual, as home educators are not normally the focus of much attention. But the maelstrom swirling around parents who just want to be left alone to educate their children as they wish is of epic proportions. It’s indicative of the raging war in government departments.

The arguments started with Lord Soley’s Private Member’s Bill, which has gone from ‘doesn’t stand a chance of making it onto the statute books’ to the noble Lord expressing every confidence that it will become law. That’s when the gloves came off.

Then came the safeguarding bandwagon, but that didn’t do the trick either, because Lord Agnew, Under-Secretary of State for Education, responded to the pressure by saying that there would be no new primary legislation, and anyway, local councils had all the powers they need, they should just use them properly. That’s when the war broke out.

Local councils started to get aggressive – Westminster council has issued a school attendance order for Lilian Hardy, the child star of the West End musical show Matilda. Apparently, learning lines, acting and having the confidence to perform don’t count for much in Westminster, which has its own rules (with questionable legality) and a mission to ensure that every resident child complies with its definition of ‘suitable education’ – again, with dubious legality under Human Rights legislation. Lilian’s parents will not comply with the order, and are prepared to go to prison to defend their right to educate their daughter as they, not the state, see fit.

And although school attendance orders have, in the past, been rare, some local authorities have suddenly started issuing them en masse – 21 in East Anglia alone. Why the sudden surge in activity from local councils? Probably to prove that they are using their powers in order to nullify Lord Agnew’s repeated assertions that they won’t be getting any new ones.

The Times embarked on a scare campaign, talking about ‘legions of missing children’ which are only ‘the tip of the iceberg’. Damian Hinds, the Education Secretary is ‘getting tough’, according to an inside source in his department, in an article in which his own department briefed against him. Hinds might do well to take note of Abraham Lincoln’s observation (itself taken from the Gospel of Mark) that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

The BBC aired an interview with Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, whose desire to control every child in the country has been well documented. She was calling for – yes – more powers for Ofsted to deal with unregistered schools, which are allegedly being used to hide home educated children. The public was treated to pictures of filthy, squalid and dangerous rooms, together with footage of a child apparently being hit around the head.

All of these situations are deplorable, if true. But the fact remains, as the Department for Education repeatedly states, all necessary powers are in place. The Department also took the unprecedented step of issuing a press release in which it reflected that it was a pity the BBC didn’t take the evidence to them, instead of airing it on TV. To prove that the system works, police started an investigation the following day.

But still the articles keep coming – more concerns about unregistered schools; an interview with Louise Casey, government tsar, taking her customary pot shot at religion, and ‘Time to take home schooling out of the shadows’ – a scurrilous mix of misinformation, false assumption, and patronising arrogance from Ms Spielman, who sneeringly refers to home educating parents as ‘doing their slightly homespun thing’.

Perhaps she should stop indulging in blame shifting and sort out the problems in the state sector which are prompting growing numbers of parents to home educate – bullying; inadequate SEND provision; lack of school places, and the questionable practice of off-rolling. Her organisation should set its own house in order.

So, why this relentless barrage of articles? Lord Agnew is suspiciously quiet in all of this furore and his much-vaunted consultation on home education is not forthcoming. The Department for Education simply keeps repeating its position – that no new powers are needed. It’s therefore a reasonable assumption that the DfE and Lord Agnew are at war with Ofsted and Lord Soley and the latter group is attempting to lobby Lord Agnew into allowing them the power after which they lust.

And home education parents? Well, they face Badman Two, the sequel. But this time it’s being acted out on a much more dangerous stage, because the Soley-Ofsted unholy alliance is playing the extremism card for all it’s worth. It‘s whipping up public opinion against anything other than state control of every child’s education on the grounds that home education is simply a smokescreen for extremist and radical child abuse.

Take note, Lord Soley, of the law. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states: ‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their child’. Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says: ‘State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to … the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’. You meddle with these rights at your peril.

Parents Not Politicians

Important new data was released by the Evangelical Alliance this week, following a poll by ComRes to test public opinion concerning the role of parents in Relationships and Sex Education.

Primary legislation passed in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 stated that parents would not have any right to remove their children from Relationships Education lessons during Primary school years. The DfE has made it very clear that this will not change.

But the public, it seems, thinks very differently about the role of parents. This is what the evidence from the survey says:
• Parents should have access to the content of relationships education lessons in advance – 78%

• Parents should be notified if external organisations are contributing to lessons – 80%

• Parents are the most appropriate people to decide when primary age children should learn about sexual activity and sexual orientation – 65%

• Politicians are the least appropriate group to make the decision about when children should learn about such sensitive issues – 66%

• The curriculum should include learning about family and friendships, how to stay safe online and unsafe contact with strangers – 86%

• Relationships education should respect the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds of children and their families – 71%

It would be a foolish government that did not take note of these kinds of statistics. And yet, in Parliament this week, during answers to education questions, Schools Minister Nick Gibb was happy to give an assurance that Damian Hinds shares his predecessor’s commitment ‘that relationship and sex education lessons must be LGBT inclusive’, which means that politicians will be determining what very young children are taught, regardless of what the majority of parents think.

You have until 12 February to make your views known via the call for evidence. The DfE is particularly keen to hear from parents. You are asked what you think are the three most important aspects of Relationships and Sex Education that should be taught in primary schools and also in secondary schools.

You are asked the same about PSHE. You don’t have to answer all of the questions and each question has a 250 word limit. Use the opportunity to tell the government what you don’t want your child to learn, as well as what you do want.

You also have the opportunity to describe how you, as a parent, want to be informed about RSE teaching in your child’s school. This is a chance to insist that you are given advance notice of lessons and are able to view all content. And although the DfE is adamant that the law on withdrawal will not be changed, you can still express your views about it.

The data from the ComRes survey is already being used to draw politicians’ attention to the wishes of the vast majority of the voting public. But a survey isn’t as effective as individual parent voices, so make your voice heard and add it to the growing call for parents, not politicians, to make crucial decisions about what children are taught.

Home Education And The Safeguarding Bandwagon

The safeguarding bandwagon in relation to home education rolled on throughout the Christmas break. Wales announced consultation on compulsory registration – the significance of which was missed by the national media.

Eleanor Schooling, Ofsted’s National Director of Social Care, published an article on more effective safeguarding for home educated children – a thinly veiled attempt to coerce the government to agree to compulsory registration, which hung in the ether and appeared to have no purpose.

Hackney Council was next to jump on the bandwagon, publishing an article on unregistered educational settings (UES) in its borough. The report focuses exclusively on Jewish yeshivas and laments the lack of government urgency in introducing compulsory registration and in giving local authorities powers to inspect home education. The argument goes that because these settings are unregistered, they constitute home education and all home educators must therefore be controlled.

Having no education expertise but never a lobby group to miss an opportunity, Humanists UK weighed in, contributing to the report and adding to calls to control Jewish education. They took much of the credit for the Hackney report, presenting themselves as leaders of the national campaign against religious schools and, in passing, accusing Jewish schools of child abuse.

Why is the bandwagon gathering such momentum? Probably because those who want complete control of every child in the country under the guise of safeguarding sense that they may be losing the argument.

In a written answer, Lord Agnew (who recently replaced Lord Nash as Under-Secretary of State for Education) not only says that there will be no new legislative powers, he uses Amanda Spielman’s own comments on Ofsted’s success in dealing with UES to prove that existing legislation is effective.

He even states that there are far fewer unregistered schools than at first estimated. That’s not what supporters of Lord Soley’s private members bill wanted to hear.

Lord Soley’s bill aims to tighten controls on home education; it received its second reading in November. Adopting a warm, avuncular tone, Lord Soley says he wants to help home educators, as they are a much neglected group, often unsupported and with unacknowledged needs. That’s the warm, cuddly bit.

The truth is a little more ominous. He wants to balance the rights of the child against the rights of the parents, even though home educating parents are discharging their duty and responsibility, not exercising their rights.

In his speech, he thanks local authorities, two in particular, for their help in preparing the bill. And an FOI request to one of those authorities reveals, via transcribed emails, what that help actually looks like.

On the elective home education (EHE) lobby:

You are correct the EHE lobby is mobilising – already FOI requests…asking for copies of all emails between officers and yourself.’

On what they want to achieve:

Gov view is that LA’s need to stretch the guidance and they want case law to be tested’…’ Problem is that this needs to be communicated to EHE community’.‘That’s basically the trouble with all of this. Too much relies on parental permission’. ‘The core issues then are to establish clear statutory access to the children and having full details of all EHE’s’. ‘Hopefully our collective efforts will influence the DfE’s thinking.

On removing the words ‘emotional and physical development’ from the proposed wording in order to get legislation past the home ed lobby:

The starting point is to get access to educational provision. Looking at provision is firmer ground than trying to tackle emotional development’, ‘words “physical and emotional” could be left out not least because this will distract and allow the EHE lobby to be critical. The important issue is the duty to monitor the child’s “educational’ development”’

Once EHE professionals are under duty to monitor the “educational’ development” of the child by a visit to the home and a discussion with the parent and child, they will be in a better position to detect any safeguarding issues’ ‘the starting point is to get access to educational provision. Looking at provision is firmer ground than trying to tackle emotional development.

Lord Soley’s concern over the possible role of Lord Agnew:

I understand the new Minister is S T A [Sir Theo Agnew] – is that correct? The other problem here is the position of the new minister on this issue. If he is still sympathetic to co-operating with me on getting the Bill into a form that satisfies the Government and myself then obviously I will try and involve the Department at all stages. If there is not a willingness to co-operate then I will have to reconsider how I handle the Bill. Any ideas about this?

On sanctions for non-compliant parents:

Where a new statutory duty is created it is usual and good practice to create a sanction for non-compliance with the duty…[include] a provision that makes clear that where a parent fails to register a Local Authority may take this into account in determining whether to issue a notice under the Education Act 1996…case law has established that “if parents refuse to answer it could very easily conclude that prima facie the parents were in breach of their duty.

Lord Soley ends one email by saying that he needs to work out ‘how best to enlist public support as the opposition is now growing’. Oddly, I thought that was what living in democracy meant – legislation can be both proposed and opposed. Clearly he has temporarily lost sight of how democracy works.

He also observes that opposition is ‘still far less than it was some years ago’. Watch this space, Lord Soley and make no assumptions about using your power to get ‘clear statutory access’ to other people’s children. Parents are the guardians of their children’s welfare, not the state.

Faith Cleansing In Our Schools

The 2007 Children’s Plan could not have made it clearer: parents bring up children, not governments. That didn’t stop the government of the day commissioning Graham Badman to investigate home education, with a particular emphasis on safeguarding; the introduction of compulsory registration; home monitoring inspections, and the definition of ‘suitable’ education.

Unprecedented protests that the proposals would ‘for the first time in our history, tear away from parents and give to the State the responsibility for a child’s education’ kicked the issue into the long grass.

Despite that, Louise Casey regurgitated the same arguments against home education in her report into opportunity and integration just a year ago. And here we are, yet again, with exactly the same proposals in a private members’ bill introduced by Lord Soley, which recently received its second reading.

At first sight, Lord Soley’s thoughts seem entirely reasonable, particularly after Colin Diamond, Birmingham’s corporate director for children and young people, warned that a recent court ruling could drive Muslim children into radicalising settings. Surely compulsory registration would be a good step?

Except that here’s the thing. Lord Soley is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society so their lobbying is probably behind the latest attempt to place home education under state control. The October ADCS Elective Home Education survey still talks about safeguarding, but the NSS is taking a new tack this time – it’s all about children’s rights.

The survey finds that most long term home educators do so for philosophical or religious reasons, so the NSS is leaping into action to demonstrate that children’s rights are being abused by parents’ religious worldviews, although they have no problem with philosophical ones.

‘If children are raised and educated only within the context of a religious community’, they declaim, ‘they are left unprepared for life in modern Britain’. Well, if you want to raise your child to know and love God and live according to biblical standards then yes, that’s probably correct.

But then, those parents don’t want to raise their children to engage in casual sexual encounters; to engage with sexting and revenge porn; to lie drunk in the gutter after a night out with friends or to live in ways that are all about ‘What’s in it for me?’ rather than God’s design for us as uniquely created in His image.

Modern Britain is not what every parent wants for their child. What right does the NSS have to tell them that they’re wrong? However, with an apparent benevolence which belies the underpinning arrogance, the NSS claims that they have an interest in opening opportunities for children, not closing them. So a lobbying organisation with a membership similar to that of the British Sausage Appreciation Society knows better than parents?

It might seem that paying so much attention to less than 0.5% of the school-age population is excessive. But combined with other opinions raised in the media, it suddenly takes on a much more ominous tone. Because this week, Humanists UK has complained to the DfE about Catholic schools ‘unlawfully promoting political action’ by encouraging parents to campaign against the admissions cap that prevents the Catholic Education Service from opening free schools.

The irony seems to elude Humanists UK that its own campaigning against faith in the public square is a partisan political action. Or is this a case of double standards? Humanists UK can campaign about what they believe in, but parents can’t.

They also seem to have missed the point of a liberal, democratic society, which is one where all worldviews can be freely expressed. Every child’s upbringing is rooted in parental and community worldviews and part of growing up is to decide what to embrace and what to reject.

What both secularists and humanists refuse to accept is that theirs are also worldviews. So why, in a liberal democracy, should the worldview of just 1% of the population prevail over all others? The answer, of course, is because they assume themselves to be right not only for themselves, but for everyone else.

Andrew Copson is quoted as saying that, ‘For too long, religious organisations have hijacked our state education system to further their own vested religious interests’. When I pointed out to him that without church schools, there would have been no free or universal education until well into the nineteenth century, he responded with, ‘And if it weren’t for churches in the 19th century then state education would have come more quickly – they blocked it for a long time fearing a loss of control’.

Spot the irony yet again – Humanists UK wants to enforce its ‘neutral’ worldview in every school and on every home educator in the country. If that isn’t control and vested interest, what is?

However much these groups lobby the DfE and bend the ear of Ofsted, they cannot escape from two powerful facts. The most persuasive is that considerably more than a third of parents choose faith settings and these schools are always massively oversubscribed. Try telling all those parents that they’re wrong.

The other fact is that our education system couldn’t function without church money – the state simply couldn’t afford to maintain all the lands and buildings that are owned by the church. The answer to that one is for the NSS and the BHA to stop sniping and to open free schools of their own.

Nothing has changed since the last attempt to impose state control on home educators: this is just another round of faith cleansing. If humanists and secularists want a seat at the education table, they should spend their time talking about what they are for, rather than what they are against. It’s getting hard to discern what they believe in through the white noise of anti-faith rhetoric.

When it comes to education, the Bible doesn’t talk about rights, it talks about responsibility. Parents alone are responsible for educating their children, so it is for parents to choose how they do so and with whom they partner in the process – ‘These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up’ (Deuteronomy 6:6—7).

It is not the business of the state to remove that responsibility.

Agents of Forced Conformity

Earlier this month, Sean Hartford, Ofsted’s national education director, spoke to the Lords’ committee on citizenship and civic engagement about the teaching of British values. According to him, a small minority of schools are doing badly in promoting said values. Earlier this week, Ofsted released its report into non-association independent schools.

According to the media, a growing number of these schools are failing to promote British values and have therefore been judged as ‘Requiring Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’.

There is a common link between these two reports – faith schools are being blamed. Sean Hartford claims that this is because faith schools serve insular communities that don’t connect with the wider community.

Sir Michael Wilshaw says it’s because the Bridge Schools Inspectorate, which was closed down by Ofsted in 2015, was failing to identify ‘warning signs of extremism and radicalization in school settings’. And that, of course, comes down to a definition of ‘extremism’.

As Tim Farron pointed out in his searing analysis of the place of Christianity in contemporary society, ‘If you actively hold a faith that is more than an expression of cultural identity … you are deemed to be far worse than eccentric. You are dangerous’.

He continued by observing that ‘if you say you favor diversity and pluralism, then you must oppose all attempts at assimilation and forced conformity … you must not aim to build a society where you engineer that via legal or social pressure’. And yet, that is exactly where we are in the world of education, with Ofsted enforcing conformity to a singular aspect of the Equality Act 2010, regardless of the fact that religious belief is also a protected characteristic and a long-established freedom.

It is also engineering the Brave New World of Secular Liberalism by its imposition of a feminist ideology on non-compliant schools, apparently confident that social pressure will eventually finish the work that its interpretation of the law cannot.

But there’s a much more deeply personal issue here – one of which Ofsted appears to have no understanding. Talking on Four Thought this week, teacher Michael Merrick challenged current thinking on social mobility, using his own story to illustrate his argument. Exactly the same points apply to children being raised by parents of faith.

To conform to the liberal agenda is, for such children, to move away from the families and communities that nurture them and want to see them flourish. It creates a division that forces children and young people to choose – their faith and their community, or social acceptance. It’s not a choice that anyone should have to make.

Michael goes on to make the point that ‘in a contest … some choose home, not because of ignorance, but because of a refusal to shed heritage as participation fee’. If we want a genuinely diverse and pluralist society, then we must stop creating a contest between faith and a place in society.

Hartford can talk all he likes about insular schools, but until the parents who choose independent faith schools perceive that society not just tolerates their faith, but actively welcomes their contribution, they will continue to choose schools that correlate most directly with their expression of belief, their culture and their heritage.

As Tim Farron points out, that means we can’t share a common set of fundamental British values, however much the liberal glitterati seem to think we must. So instead of walking the talk of equality and diversity, they use the law to impose their singular set of values, appealing to nationalist sentiment in order to annexe society’s approval.

Sean Hartford misses the point about community. In true community, peoples’ hearts are touched through connection with each other in relationships. In a Christian community, people are connected not only with each other, but also in relationship with the God who created our amazing world. Community cannot be imposed by law or shamed into existence by social pressure and until you understand that, Ofsted, you will simply continue to widen the divide.

The tyranny of modern liberalism will not change hearts and minds. Christians will not conform to a contemporary culture which is materialistic and self-seeking. Society’s economy is one of transaction and wealth acquisition based on the question ‘What’s in it for me?’God’s economy is about relationship; about love and grace which are both boundless and free, and about asking ‘Who does God want me to be?’

Photo courtesy: Christian Institute

Call to Educate Not Indoctrinate

A poll of Conservative councillors conducted by ComRes earlier this year shows a significant gap between grass roots opinion and the actions of central government when it comes to matters of personal morality. It amounts to a call to government to stop indoctrinating children and concentrate on the business of educating them.

Nearly 9 in every 10 respondents want the government to focus on the economy and Brexit instead of the liberal causes espoused by the Department for Education and enforced by Ofsted. There is an equally clear point made on the issue of parental rights – nearly 80% think that parents, not the state, should decide how and when their children are taught about adult relationships.

In addition, 62% felt there was an undue focus on political correctness and gender identity. It amounts to a clear message from the grass roots. Schools should educate not indoctrinate. Personal morality is the province of parents. The state has no right to use education as a social engineering mechanism by embedding liberal ideologies.

There are plenty of other people saying this, too, of course. The problem is that growing numbers of concerned parents are actually afraid to speak, because anyone who voices an opinion contrary to that of the liberal glitterati is immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced. More than half of the poll respondents think that making toilets in schools unisex in order to conform to transgender policy is wrong, but try saying so.

For parents this is an impossible situation because both they and their children find themselves labelled as intolerant bigots in need of reprogramming. And so, the education service can continually reinforce its own righteousness in saving future society from toxicity and hatred. Suddenly Nineteen-Eighty Four seems less dystopian and more prophetic.

Ofsted, in its self-appointed role as the Ministry of Truth, committed to rooting out all thought crime, also comes in for criticism. More than half of those who responded to the poll think that ‘Ofsted appears biased in favour of an ideological left-wing agenda’ and 38% supported the idea of Ofsted being scrapped altogether, replacing it with an accountable, objective service. There are plenty who would agree with that.

On the issue of content in the proposed Relationships and Sex Education, there was an overwhelming call for the teaching of traditional marriage. This might be expected in a poll of Conservative councillors, but it is a view amply supported by the evidence. As David Cameron said, ‘Family is where people learn to be good citizens, to take responsibility, to live in harmony with others. Families are the building blocks of a strong, cohesive society. This isn’t a hunch. A whole body of evidence backs it up.’ So why are successive governments ignoring the evidence?

On one issue the respondents were almost unanimous – respect and consent in relationships. There is a problem with this, though, when it comes to definition. Evidence says that children don’t possess the cognitive skill to accurately judge the speed of an oncoming vehicle until they are about 14. The law says they can’t drive a car until they’re 17.

To protect their health and wellbeing, they can’t purchase alcohol or cigarettes until they’re 18. So by all means teach about consent, in the same way that schools teach about the dangers of substance abuse, if the age of consent in taught and enforced. Consent as the pundits would have it taught is merely as a means of self-defence so that children and young people can engage in sexual activity at ever-younger ages and ‘stay safe’.

Christianity is often seen by its opponents as a list of rules drawn up by a narcissistic God who just wants to spoil our fun. But actually, the rules are there for our own benefit. We are born biologically male or female. It’s empirically proven that a strong, secure marriage is most likely to lead to happiness. Children are raised most effectively in loving homes with secure parental relationships, and with both a mother and a father to give them a rounded perspective.

So the evidence is there, and it all goes to prove that living in accordance with God’s design for humanity really is the best way to live.

Persistent Alarm Bells For Home Educators

Photo courtesy: Home School Legal Defense Association

In October last year, in a blog titled We are the state: we are the parents I wrote about Graham Badman’s 2009 Review of Elective Home Education in England, the recommendations of which were soundly defeated in Parliament. It was almost immediately followed by the Ofsted report Children Missing from Education – a titled premised on the assumptions that education can only happen in school and parents who opt for an alternative are up to no good.

Next came the Local Government Association, asking for new powers to check on home schooled children because ‘any Elective Home Education learning situation potentially puts a child in a very vulnerable position … because the child is isolated, they are not visible to their peer group and professionals don’t keep an eye on them … It is unacceptable for any child of compulsory school age not to be receiving a suitable education’.

So parents are definitely up to no good and they aren’t suitably educating their children who are lonely and isolated. Anyone who knows anything about the home ed community knows how far from the truth this really is.

But the desire to make everyone conform to central statute didn’t abate. In January, I blogged about the Casey Report which attempted to review educational opportunity and integration. It rang some significant alarm bells for home educators, using the same arguments that have already been defeated. Alan Wood is currently conducting an enquiry into the role of Local Authorities and home education is one of the areas which he is considering. It’s not difficult to work out what his conclusions and recommendations will be.

This week, a seemingly innocuous private member’s bill appeared in the House of Lords, brought by Lord Soley and introduced by Estelle Morris. Innocuous for two reasons – private members’ bills rarely make it onto the statute books and Lord Soley has a previous track record on the subject, not least via Lords of the Blog so this is merely an extension of previously expressed views. But in reality, it is far from innocuous.

In 2014, Diana Johnson introduced a private member’s bill on sex education. As expected, it didn’t go anywhere, but three years later, we saw far-reaching legislation on Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) sneeked into law using the Children and Social Work Bill as a Trojan Horse. The private member’s bill was just part of the normalization process – raising the issue, provoking debate and testing the water.

And that is exactly what is happening here. The bill won’t go anywhere – Lord Soley knows that. But it is part of the softening process, a piece in the jigsaw which is designed to remove a parent’s right to educate their child as they think best. And the consequences are likely to be far reaching, with parents required to deliver on comprehensive RSE and PSHE regardless of their faith position.

As my previous blog demonstrates, Ofsted judges that teaching our children about gender reassignment and sexual orientation takes priority over faith.

So what can you do? If you’re a parent, whether or not you home educate your child, write to your MP expressing concern about this bill. Say that it will remove from parents their legal right to educate their children according to their own philosophy. You might also draw the parallel between this bill and the Badman legislation, which was soundly defeated.

Ask your MP to raise your concern with Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Education, so that the DfE can monitor the reaction. You can also keep track of what is going on via Facebook

In another context earlier this week, I was directed to Psalm 11. It asks: ‘When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ The answer is clear: ‘The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly throne’ (Psalm 11:3-4).