Who are we?
In 1998 some Irish home educators saw the need for a more formal and structured
organisation. From this the Home Education Network evolved as a support and lobby
group. Prior to the setting up of H.E.N., home educating families were supported through an
informal network and a regular newsletter, Sa Bhaile.
The aims of the group are:
• To support parental choice in deciding the most appropriate form of education for
each child;
• To raise awareness of the fact that home education is a viable and legal option;
• To help parents utilise available resources to develop educational techniques suitable
for each child's needs;
• To provide a means for the interchange of ideas and experiences among home
educators through an annual Conference, regularly held social gatherings, newsletters and
seminars.
Our first Annual Conference was held in Waterford in July this year. Our mandate was
confirmed by the home-educating families who attended, and our support continues to be
sought by families countrywide who contact us every week.
Home Education is specifically recognised in the Irish Constitution
The fact that the rights and duties of home educators are specified in the Constitution
proves that home education has always been a fact of Irish life. This recognition and
respect must be mirrored in any legislation applied to home educators.
What international experts on home education have to say
• Dr. Amanda Petrie (UK Government Advisor & Research Fellow, University of
Liverpool, UK): "...one has to question whether the good of the individual child is being
considered, rather than the ideals or convenience of education administrators."
• Patrick Farenga (Director, Growing without Schooling, USA): "...the national DOE
[Department of Education] has a vested interest in maintaining its control over children's
education... any unreasonable expansion of its power is a direct threat to parental rights to
homeschool as guaranteed by the Irish Constitution."
The Education (Welfare) Bill - our objections
"Minimum Education"
The Education Minister is given the power to prescribe a minimum education for every child
in the State. In the Education (Welfare) Bill as passed by Seanad Eireann this "prescribed
minimum education" is to be provided to each child who is being educated in a place other
than a recognised school. We feel that this is discriminatory. The details of a prescribed
"minimum education" are to be worked out by the Minister with or without consultation after
the Bill has been enacted. This leaves uncertainty as to the level of consultation that will
happen in practice.
Parents excluded from creating a suitable education plan for the child
That the parent might be included in the determination of what was a suitable "minimum
education" for their child is not considered. There is to be no involvement of the parent in
determining what and how the child is taught. In the Tasmanian system of "monitoring" the
parents present an education plan to the Education Advisor. This plan is considered by the
Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council. The presence within this education plan of a
"suitable minimum education" is evaluated by the Education Advisor. If support is needed to
attain the level of "minimum", this support is provided; thus, what constitutes a "minimum
education" is not imposed by the State. The Minister has stated that an appropriate
curriculum would be devised by the Department for "each individual child". This would be
the curriculum parents would have to teach. This, we believe, fails to reflect the special
position accorded by the Irish Constitution to the family in deciding the nature of the
education its children receive.
Assessment & Entry into the Home
In order to be accepted for registration as a home educator, according to provisions in the
Bill, parents must agree in advance that an education assessor may enter their home to
conduct assessment. In our opinion, "one choice is no choice". Home education takes
place in many locations: libraries, museums, and so on. Assessment in the home is no
more valid than assessment in an office or some other "neutral" place.
A ruling in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Brunelle & others vs. Lynn Public
Schools, November-December 1998) emphasised that home- schooling should not be
evaluated in the same way that institutional schooling is evaluated. Yet this is what the
Education (Welfare) Bill proposes to do. The Court noted that only one State in the entire US
requires homeschoolers to submit to home visits by school officials, stating that: "While the
State can insist that the child's education be moved along in a way which can be objectively
measured, it cannot apply institutional standards to this non-institutionalised setting.
Furthermore, a requirement of home visits may call into play issues of family privacy in
seeking to keep the home free from unwarranted intrusion". The Court went on to say that
"both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have emphasised, in connection with
the protected right of parents to raise their children, that 'government may not intrude
unnecessarily on familial privacy'". Parents may be concerned not to have their child's
privacy invaded out of respect for the child's autonomy and any hint of testing or examination
by strangers with a different agenda can be experienced as undermining.
The Education (Welfare) Bill gives a directive to the assessor to assess the teaching
method. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that this is not permitted under the Constitution.
The Bill directs that a child's "physical, intellectual, social and emotional" education must
be assessed. We doubt if any one person can be adequately trained in all these fields. We
can find no mandate for the assessment of a child's "emotional" education in the
Constitution. Children in schools are not subjected to any such explicit assessment. This
gives credence to charges of Ministerial "discrimination against children in the non-
statutory system" (The Annual Report by the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy).
From the Seanad debate on the Bill (16th June 1999):
Mr. Ryan: It seems anomalous to go to enormous lengths to evaluate children who are
being educated outside the school system if we do not ensure there is a similar evaluation
of children who are in the school system. Mr. Martin: We already do this, but we need to do
more of it. Mr. Ryan: Speaking as a one time member of a board of management, I did not
know we did this. Mr. Martin: The Senator should consult with Senator O'Toole. The reason
for including a register is because of the constitutional obligation to children educated
outside the school. I take the Senator's point that there should not be complacency that
within the school setting a child automatically receives the minimum standard of education.
There are various instruments, for example, whereby we can determine the requirements
for children who need remedial education or assistance or, indeed, the special needs area
where children need extra resources and so on.
Training Education Welfare Officers
It seems to be an inappropriate use of resources to train hundreds of Education Welfare
Officers in assessing the various methods of home education, each of whom would
assess only one or two home educated children per year. Any such assessment should to
be done by someone who has been so trained. Education Welfare Officers will be trained
primarily to work with children who have school attendance problems, not with children who
do not have problems, but who are just educated differently. These officers would tend to
perceive home- educated children as having problems because dealing with problems is
what these officers are trained for.
It is the perception of being treated as a "problem" that causes the persistence of the
protests of home educators against inclusion in the Education (Welfare) Bill.
Conscience and Lawful Preference
Article 42.3.1 of the Constitution states: "The State shall not oblige parents in violation of
their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the
State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State." Would parents who had
been refused registration as home educators be forced to send their children to State
schools in contravention of their conscience and lawful preference? The Bill implies that the
ultimate responsibility for the children of parents convicted of school attendance offences
lies with the Health Boards. Would these children be taken into the care of the Health
Board?
The right to dignity
The names of children involved in cases of sexual abuse are withheld from the public in
order to protect the child. But children at the centre of home-education cases are named.
They and their families are exposed to intense media attention. The Preamble to the
Constitution describes the reasons why the Constitution was adopted: "so that the dignity
and freedom of the individual is assured". In a recent home-education case, the Judge
described the education that the family was providing as "inept", "wrong-headed", and
"incompetent". These remarks constituted a personal attack on the integrity and worth of the
family, and as such were an offence against the "right to dignity" described in the Preamble
to the Constitution. Such public humiliation violates both the letter and the spirit of the
Constitution.
A Supportive Approach
We acknowledge the duty of the State to require assurances that an education is being
provided, and wish to affirm the right of every child to an education. We are of the opinion
that a more appropriate approach to home education than including it in a Bill primarily
designed to deal with truancy, would be to Amend the Education Act 1998 setting up a
Home Education Advisory Council, made up of home educators and educationalists versed
in the educational methodology and philosophy of home education.
Under such a scheme, a family would be registered by means of written notification of their
intent to home educate. Trained Education Advisors working with parents would be well
versed in the process of home learning. Assessment could take place outside the home, in
the Education Advisor's office, where the parents could also obtain materials and
curriculum development advice, if they so wished. This assessment should be carried out
in a manner that has been determined in consultation with home educators, is suitable to
the situation, and is minimally intrusive.
Any legislation affecting Home Education must take into account the provisions of Article 29
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. An assessment of the child's
physical development could be made by annual (or bi- annual) visits to a health practitioner
of the family's choice.
We feel that this approach would vindicate the parents' right to home educate, protect the
right of the child to an education, and provide a means for the State to ensure that the child
has an opportunity to make known any problems at home.
Home Education Network