Dear Dr. Woods,
We have followed with great interest the course of the debate on the proposed
Amendments to the Education (Welfare) Bill by the Select Committee on Education and
Science.
Many of the Amendments that your Office has made have considerably improved the Bill.
However, there are still several areas of great concern to us.
We would be very grateful if you would take the time to consider the points outlined below.
We are concerned that, if you do not listen to what we are saying now, you will be listening
to countless solicitors saying the same thing for years to come.
We would welcome a brief meeting with you to clarify our position.
Susan Buggy, the Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council,
will be available in Ireland during August for consultation with those concerned with home
education. If you require details, please contact us.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. Debra E. James
Secretary, National Coordinating Body
Home Education Network
The Question of Guidelines
During the debate on the inclusion of those with expertise in home education in the
process of assessment of home-educated children you said: "As Minister I am
constrained by the Constitution from exercising any function in relation to the different types
of education. The parents have made a clear decision to exercise their constitutional right
to act as the primary educators of their children in these cases. I have no role in this area
save for the overriding concern that each child must receive at least a minimum standard of
education."
The "outcome" of the process of education is specified as the only point at which the
Government has the Constitutional right to involvement in a home-educated child's
education, not the methods or means by which that outcome is achieved. However, any
determination of whether the "outcome" is satisfactory or not requires "guidelines" as to
what actually constitutes "satisfactory" if that judgement is not to be a subjective
determination on the part of the "authorised person" making the decision. These
"guidelines" must be clear, and must have some reference to the fact that home education
is not the same as classroom education, as well as reference to the ability of the individual
child. This reference to the fact that home education differs from classroom education
cannot be construed as interfering with the parents' Constitutional right to determine the
method of education. "Guidelines" must give parents a clear indication of what they are
supposed to be endeavouring to achieve.
It is imperative that the "guidelines" referred to are formulated with the involvement of those
with experience in home education. The get-out clause enabling the Minister to avoid any
consultation with any persons other than the NCCA, "(if any)", is deeply objectionable to
home-educators.
The Composition of the Education Welfare Board
Your assurances that "I can in practice meet Deputy Bruton's and Deputy Higgins's
requirements that it be a broadly based board and not narrowly focused," are welcome, but
fall far short of what is required. What about another Minister in the future? The "broad"
base of the Board must be specified in legislation. The present provisions make the
composition of the Board dependent on a subjective judgement on the part of the Minister
at the time. This is unacceptable.
The presence of those with expertise in home education on the Appeals Committee is
essential. Those who have been educators in the mainstream school system are
specifically biased in favour of the methods used and the outcomes achieved in such a
system. Any Appeals Committee considering whether a "certain minimum" education has
been achieved in a particular case must have at least one member who has practical
home education experience. This presence would in no way infringe the Constitutional
rights of home educating parents.
Those lacking experience in home education may simply fail to understand what they are
seeing. Perception of a child's level of attainment can be distorted by the expectations of
the "examiner". For example, a home-educated child may not be familiar with the types of
exercises prevalent in the classroom, and therefore not able to perform them as a
classroom educated child would, being, therefore, unable to adequately demonstrate their
level of learning.
Your argument that: " As Minister I am constrained by the Constitution from exercising any
function in relation to the different types of education," is, with respect, irrelevant to the
matter of the composition of the Board and the Appeals Committee. The purpose of the
Board and the Appeals Committee is not to "exercise any function in relation to the different
types of education". Their raison d'etre is solely to determine whether each child is
receiving a "certain minimum standard" of education, not to influence the method of delivery
of that education.
Statutory Provisions for Truancy
Section 26 subsection (8) of the Education (Welfare) Bill currently states:
"Where a parent who is convicted of an offence under this section, or in proceedings for
such an offence, shows, in accordance with subsection (6), that he or she has made all
reasonable efforts to cause the child to whom the proceedings relate to attend a
recognised school in accordance with this Act, the Board shall forthwith so inform in writing
the health board for the area in which the parent concerned resides."
Your Amendment to Section 26 (number 142) proposes deleting subsection (8) and
substituting the following:
"(8) Where, a parent-
(a) is convicted of an offence under this section, or
(b) in proceedings for such an offence, shows, in accordance with subsection (6), that
he or she has made all such efforts as are referred to in that subsection,
the Board shall forthwith so inform in writing the health board of the area in which that
parent resides."
This approach appears to allow an option to refer a child with school attendance problems
whose parent(s) have made a sincere effort to get the child to go to school to the health
board instead of convicting the parents of a criminal offence. Presumably home-educating
parents who, during proceedings, showed that they had made a sincere effort to provide a
"certain minimum" education for their child would have an option to secure further support
rather than face a criminal conviction.
The distinction between home-educating parents who find themselves before the court for
"violating the terms of a school attendance notice" where the child has been refused
registration or had his/her name removed from the register, and parents who face
proceedings because they have failed to cause their child to attend a school at which the
child is registered should be made clear. Home-educating parents who have, for some
reason, been refused registration in the register, are summarily transformed, by the
issuance of a school attendance notice, into parents of truants, to be dealt with as such by
the Courts. This situation is completely unacceptable.
The proposed Amendment to Section 26 subsection (8) does not specify that home
educating parents could be offered, during "proceedings for such an offence", the
opportunity of referral to an agency capable of providing sufficient support to enable their
provision of home education to achieve a satisfactory level, thus enabling them to avoid a
criminal conviction and the stigma attached thereto. They would be referred, as parents of
truants, to the area health board, which is not an educational body, and makes no
pretensions to offer educational support.
Separate Statutory Provisions for Home Educators
For this and other reasons the Home Education Network has been, for the past year,
continually reiterating its request for home-education to be removed from the Education
(Welfare) Bill and dealt with in its own Bill, or Section of the Bill.
Ex-Minister Martin clearly demonstrated the level of his consultation with home-educators
when he said, in the debate on Amendments to the Bill in the Select Committee:
Mr. Sargent: When the Minister is amending it could he try to have a section on home
education? If I were in his shoes, I would prefer separate legislation.
Mr. Martin: But that might be the last thing home educators want.
Mr. Sargent: That is not my understanding.
Mr. Martin: They do not want the State to tell them how to do their business. This is where
we get into trouble again. On the one hand one is accused of being too intrusive. On the
other hand if one moves to a legislative framework for home education in terms of the
broad issues, one could end up in all sorts of trouble.
The Home Education Network has presented as an acceptable model the Tasmanian
home-education legislation, which does not tell home-educators "how to do their
business", nor is it "a legislative framework for home education in terms of the broad
issues". The Tasmanian model provides for the registration of home-educated children
and "assessment" of home education, which it calls "monitoring", and stipulates that this
must be carried out by those with experience of home education. The choice of method of
education is not prescribed or in any way restricted, which is consistent with the
requirements of the Irish Constitution.
The circumstances under which the "examination" of "emotional and physical
development" that Section 10, subsection (4) empowers the Board to arrange would be
carried out are not specified in the Bill. The Constitution only mentions "emotional" and
"physical" education in the context of a "certain minimum education" that home-educated
children should receive, and does not countenance the performance of such an
examination in ANY circumstances. What "guidelines" would be provided as to what
satisfactory "emotional" and "physical" "outcomes" are? The OUTCOME of education is the
ONLY stage at which any interference in home-education by the State is allowed under the
Constitution. This fact was repeatedly cited by the Minister as his reason for not including
anyone with home education experience on the Board or the Appeals Committee.
Therefore, the "examination" allowed for in Section 10 subsection (4) can ONLY be carried
out in the case of classroom-educated children who have school attendance or other
problems, NEVER in the case of home-educated children. The "outcome" is the ONLY area
in which the State may take an interest. Only "certain minimum" "emotional" and "physical"
"education" "guidelines" may be offered, and assessment of home-education may include
a judgment as to whether "a certain minimum" "physical" and "emotional" "education" -
NOT DEVELOPMENT - for "development" is NOT mentioned in the Constitution - has been
achieved.
If the person dealing with the family perceives a lack of "physical" or "emotional"
development, the child would be referred to the health board, as these areas are, as
several Deputies pointed out to the Minister in the recent debate, NOT the remit of
education.
The lack of clarity on the distinction between the treatment of children with non-attendance
problems and the treatment of home-educated children in the Bill is one of the reasons
why the Home Education Network has always requested at least a separate Section
dealing with home education in the Bill.
The Tasmanian model also provides for the provision of support for home educating
parents. This provision is notably absent from the Education (Welfare) Bill, presumably due
to the Constitutional preclusion of any "interference" with the method of education.
"Support" is very different from "interference", as the method of education chosen by the
parent(s) would be supported.
March 10, 2000