Could Education (Welfare) Officers work with home educating parents?
In the 27 July 1999 Supreme Court judgment on the Christine Best case, Justice Barron
stated that "any form of education which takes a child, who would otherwise have been in
such mainstream, out of it cannot today be regarded as being a certain minimum." But he
went on to say: "It is obviously too narrow a test to equate a certain minimum as enabling the
child concerned to achieve its potential in the national examinations." Justice Keane wrote: "It
is also to be noted that the minimum education is not necessarily to be equated to the
present primary school curriculum, which...was above the constitutional minimum... it can be
readily envisaged that children with some degree of learning difficulties may be entitled to a
form of education which takes account of those difficulties." There are many children who, for
reasons ranging from dyslexia to extreme sensitivity, cannot take advantage of the
opportunities available in mainstream education. There are other children whose parents
prefer to teach them at home because the parents are of the opinion that some part of the
education offered in schools is incompatible with their religious convictions. In cases where
a child would benefit from mainstream education, and wants to go to school, but is
prevented from saying so from regard for the feelings of the parents, surely these parents
would be more likely to be persuaded to act in the best interests of the child by someone
who was an expert in and sympathetic to home education. An Education Welfare Officer
could be perceived by these parents as biased and antagonistic from the start and would be
met with resistance and mistrust.
We are of the opinion that the monitoring of home education must be done by experts in the
field of home education. We acknowledge that monitoring is necessary for the State to
ensure that the rights of the child to an education are being respected. The Tasmanian
model demonstrates sensitive monitoring and extensive support for home educators. We
consider it meets the State's requirements for registration and monitoring and fulfils our
expectations for the provision of the support home-educators sometimes need.
Consultation has not taken place
The Minister did not consult any experts in the field of home education before the Bill was
drafted. Hence the outcry of protest at the Bill's contents from all the home education groups.
Please listen to us
We plan to convene a panel of World Experts in home education at our Conference next
summer. The Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council, Ms
Susan Buggy, has agreed to attend. In-depth consultation with these experts would be
available to all involved in drafting legislation that affects home-educators. We sincerely feel
that it would be in everyone's best interests to defer legislation on home education until such
consultation has taken place, and ask that references to home education be removed from
the Education (Welfare) Bill, and new legislation specific to home-education be formulated
with the benefit of expert advice.
Debra E. James
for the
HOME EDUCATION NETWORK