Dear Editor,
My thanks to Name Withheld (Letters, June en) for responding to ‘The Educational Pincer Movement’ (May en). I appreciate the chance to interact on this crucial subject. I take the basic question to be ‘Who is ultimately responsible for the upbringing and education of a child?’ The answer, I hope we’d agree, is the child’s parents. Related questions are ‘Who has emergency powers of intervention if a child isn’t being educated?’ and ‘How are these powers to be exercised?’ The current policy conversation jumps straight to these secondary questions, makes them primary, and answers them in a way which undermines the parent-child relationship. Emergency government powers subtly become a ‘right’ to know about each child, and presumptive involvement with families. This should concern Christians deeply.
My correspondent did not address the basis of my argument: the clear Biblical witness to the primacy of parenthood in the education of children. This is something we must understand and prize, for the world around us does neither. We must recover what some have called ‘sphere sovereignty’ – the idea that the Lord has created differentiated spheres of authority – the state, the church, the family, etc. These domains are independent, and no sphere may usurp the God-given prerogatives of another. Yet this is what is happening as the UK state expands into civil society.
I argued that the mandatory registration of children not in school, involving the maintenance of Local Authority (LA) case-files on each child, is a red line which must not be crossed. My friend, speaking as a LA educational manager, argued that such a register is the only way for LAs to discharge their duties under the 1996 Education Act (Section 436A). This requires LAs to identify ‘so far as it is possible to do so’ children of school age who ‘(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and (b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school’. Two quick points on this. First, this legislation should not be read in a vacuum. LAs must operate within the confines of all relevant UK legislation, which includes Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ The second point is more crucial: if Section 436A truly represents the state giving itself powers of surveillance over all children not in school, then its provisions ought to be resisted on principle by those tasked with its implementation, by community leaders, and by parents. The state has given itself a ‘duty’ to which it has no right.
Another issue raised briefly was safeguarding. There are tragic cases of neglect which must be dealt with robustly. But such cases are not an argument for blanket surveillance, or a recalibration of our freedoms. Crucially, as Christians we need to see that the world’s definition of safeguarding is hopelessly inadequate. When society calls good evil and evil good, the main threats to the physical and spiritual wellbeing of our children are well-rooted in our schools and services. LAs in general are not interested in protecting our children from destructive and deceptive ideologies. Parents must be free in order to safeguard their children. Until now, Christian parents have been able to mitigate the influence of secularism and sexualisation by choosing alternative schooling or home education. The growing ideological regulation of schools, and the proposed tightening of regulations on alternative learning communities and home educators, means this freedom is fragile.
In May the Welsh Senedd published draft guidance which would force home educating families to accept home visits from LA officials. The educational pincer-grip is tightening, fast. I hope and pray that readers of en, whether parents, pastors, or public servants will be encouraged to be like those who in Daniel 11:32 ‘stand firm and take action’.
Yours sincerely,
Joshua Kellard kellard.j@pm.me
Dear Editor,
Name Withheld’s (NW) letter (June en) and comments as a Christian and Local Authority Education Service manager were interesting.
NW appears to say, ‘Yes, I’m worried about the state. But they have a monitoring duty they can’t easily perform, so I’m in favour of giving them a bigger stick.’ NW wisely concludes: ‘…please let us consider what the implications of any unintended consequences may be.’
I wonder if one ‘unintended consequence’ of NW’s position is legitimising the illegitimate educational rights of Babylon? It is the parents’ duty to ensure education, not the state’s. Biblically, the state – as God’s servant – only gains legitimate interest when the education is so unsuitable it looks like criminal harm or neglect. This is an exceptional right, not a normative one, and must be based on evidence.
I cannot find Biblical principles supporting government rights to the pre-crime surveillance of all. A mandatory register for home educators constitutes a dangerous reversal of the Biblically derived ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach. Further, Babylon will always find Christ an unsuitable and unsafe teacher. Is our state closer to Babylon or Christ?
‘Hard cases make bad law.’ NW cites an example to justify their position. Home educators cite counter examples. Christians seek objectivity. A systematic reviewer of all searchable ‘home education’ Serious Case Reviews reported: ‘In all of these cases none of the children are “invisible to services”, it is a red herring to hook upon Elective Home Education for the systematic failures of safeguarding.’ It is pure myth that without a ‘register’ children are dangerously vulnerable ‘ghosts’.
When the state assesses for Statutory Attendance Orders (SAOs), it presumes its own competency. I suspect that the average home education is superior to the average state education — in terms of both safety and suitability for the child.
Alas, time doesn’t permit the discussion of divergent pedagogies or holistic character development. However, to avoid the risk of ivory tower discussions, it is worth considering how ‘unsuitable’ and ‘unsafe’ state school education is. A third of Key Stage 4 kids don’t get a GCSE pass in Maths and English. 50% of kids were bullied in the last year, 20% continually. 30% of all girls 16-18 report experiencing unwanted sexual touching at school.
These are national averages. Parents often take their children out of school for related reasons. If forced back into a school via an SAO, typically it will be into the worst performing schools, i.e. where spaces are available.
In our neighbourhood, eight-year-olds in local schools are being told they might be either a boy or a girl. More widely, kids are told murdering children in the womb is OK; that abstinence until lifelong heterosexual marriage is just one option among many, rather than the hands-down best. In other words, to their great and enduring harm, children are being systematically lied to by teaching opposed to Christ’s. Such anti-Christ elements cause criminal harm.
Jesus suggested millstones for any who caused little believers to stumble, and that anyone who sets aside one of the least of His commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
Given the state’s poor track record and currently Babylonian-oriented education, Biblical principles would oppose giving her more responsibility. ‘She who is faithful in little, is faithful in much; she who is incompetent in little, is incompetent with much.’
Christian, if you don’t want a beating, please don’t give a bigger stick to an aggressively anti-Christ drunk policeman. A mandatory register is like unlimited powers of stop and search on mere suspicion. As the slide into secularism increases, it will continue to negatively impact your congregation’s efforts to bring up their kids in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Please don’t make Caesar lord of education. Christ didn’t.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Seidler Elder, Hambro Road Baptist Church
