Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Problematising home education: challenging ‘parental rights’ and ‘socialisation’

  • Daniel Monk (a1)

Abstract

In the UK, home education, or home-schooling, is an issue that has attracted little public, governmental or academic attention. Yet the number of children who are home educated is steadily increasing and the phenomenon has been referred to as a‘quiet revolution’. This paper neither celebrates nor denigrates home educators; its aim, rather, is to identify and critically examine the two dominant discourses that define the way in which the issue is currently understood. First, the legal discourse of parental rights, which forms the basis of the legal framework and, secondly, a child psychology/common-sense discourse of ‘socialisation’, within which school attendance is perceived as necessary for healthy child development. Drawing on historical sources, doctrinal human rights and child psychology and informed by post-structural and feminist perspectives, this article suggests that both discourses function as alternative methods of governance and that the conflicting ‘rights claims’ of parents and children obscure public interests and fundamental questions about the purpose of education.

Copyright

References

Hide All

1. The Secret (London: Secker and Warburg, 2001) p 17 (emphasis added).

2. Children: the modern law (Bristol: Family Law, 2nd edn, 1999) p 542.

3. Political Crumbs (London: Verso, 1990, translation, first published as Politsche Brosamen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982) ch 7, ‘A Plea for the Home Tutor: A Little Bit of Educational Policy’, p 100.

4. Home education in the context of this article refers to children of compulsory ‘school age’ educated at home as a result of parental choice. It should not, therefore, be confused with home tuition, which refers to education within the home provided by local education authorities.

5. The following texts refer to the issue but with little or no commentary: A Ruff Education Law (London: Butterworths, 2002) p 252; K Poole, J Coleman and P Liell Butterworths Education Law (London: Butterworths, 1997) p 11; N Harris Law and Education: Regulation, Consumerism and the Educational System (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1993) p 209; Bainham, above n 2, p 542. The exception is the work of A Petrie who writes in support of parent's rights: ‘Home Educators and the Law within Europe’ (1995) 41(3–4) Int Rev Education 285; ‘Home education and the law’ (1998) 10(2–3) Education and the Law 123; ‘Home Education in Europe and the implementation of changes to the law’ (2001) 47(5) Int Rev Education 477.

6. See, for example, S Hart, C Cohen, M Erickson et al (eds) Children's Rights in Education (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2001).

7. T Jeffs ‘Children's Rights in a new ERA?’ in B Franklin (ed) The Handbook of Children's Rights (London: Routledge, 1996); D Monk ‘Children's rights in education - making sense of contradictions’ (2002) 14(1) CFLQ 45.

8. An exception to this is Bainham, above n 2.

9. Meredith, P The Fall and Rise of Local Education Authorities’ (1998) XX(1) Liverpool LR 41.

10. N Rose Governing the Soul (London: Routledge, 1989); A Prout ‘Children's Participation: Control and Self-Realisation in British Late Modernity’ (2000) 14(4) Children and Society 304; C Jenks Childhood (London: Routledge, 1996); H Hendrick Child Welfare (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2003).

11. R Garner ‘Rising number of parents decide they can do a better job than the education system’, Independent, 28 January 2002. These figures are provided by Home Education UK - a leading charity in this area. In 1995 LEA records suggested that the figure was 8,000 (0.09 percent) - double the number in 1988. However some suggest that the figure may be as high as 84,000 - see S Cook ‘Home Front’, Guardian Education, 10 December 2002 - as not all families that home educate are known to either LEAs or home education support groups.

12. The number of permanent exclusions in 1997 was estimated to be around 14,000: Social Exclusion Unit Truancy and School Exclusion Report (1998). The number of teenagers becoming pregnant in 1997 was 90,000; the number of under-16s becoming pregnant (ie those of school age and below the age of consent) was 7,700; and of these only 3,700 resulted in births: Social Exclusion Unit Teenage Pregnancy (1999) p 12.

13. I Hunter ‘Assembling the school’ in A Barry, T Osborne and N Rose (eds) Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (London: UCL Press, 1996) p 154.

14. Educating Children at Home, available at http://www.dfee.gov.uk/parents.

15. See Petrie (1995), above n 5; The Advisory Centre for Education Home Education (London: ACE, 1996) p 4. It is important, however, to recognise that parents who home educate are a far from monolithic group.

16. Leuffen v Federal Republic of Germany (1992) Application No 00019844/92.

17. M Dean Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault's Methods and Historical Sociology (London: Routledge, 1994) p 4.

18. Petrie (1995), above n 5; Petrie (1998), above n 5, at 134; P Rothermel and A Fiddy The law on home-education’ (2001–02) 181 ChildRight 19; A Thomas Educating Children at Home (London: Casssell, 1998).

19. Bevan v Shears [1911] 2 KB 936, 80 LJKB 1325 (suitability of education); Baker v Earl [1960] Crim LR 363 (failure to comply with School Attendance Order); R v Surrey Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex p Tweedie [1963] Crim LR 639 (LEA right to monitor provision); Phillips v Brown (unreported, 20 June 1980, transcript no 424/78) (LEA right to make inquiries); Harrison v Stevenson (unreported, 1981, no 729/81 (suitability of method of learning); H v United Kingdom (1984) Application No 10233/83 DR 105 (LEA right to monitor provision); R v Gwent County Council, ex p Perry(1985) 129 SJ 737, CA (lawful form of inspection).

20. Bainham, above n 2, p 542. Harris, above n 5, p 209.

21. See, however, Bainham, above n 2, p 542.

22. Education Act 1996, s 437(1). Where a child has a special educational need the LEA should take this into account. The case of DM and KC v Essex County Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [2003] EWHC 135 (Admin) is of interest here as it held that an LEA in fulfilling its statutory duty to a child could not oblige parents to provide particular educational support.

23. Poole, Coleman and Liell, above n 5, p 11 (emphasis added).

24. Elementary Education Act 1870, s 74(1) (emphasis added).

25. See, for example, Bevan v Shears [1911] 2 KB 936, 80 LJKB 1325. This and other pre-1944 cases are still cited in discussions of the present law and consequently it is suggested that there is no substantive distinction between the expressions ‘in some other manner’ and ‘or otherwise’. It has not been possible to establish the reason for the change in terminology.

26. R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justice, ex p Broadbent [1910] 2KB 192.

27. These defences have remained largely unchanged, see Education Act 1996, s 444.

28. R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justice, ex p Broadbent [1910] 2 KB 192 at 197 (emphasis added).

29. The London School Board v Duggan (1884) XIII QBD 176 at 178, per Stephen J.

30. The School Attendance Committee of Belper Union v Bailey (1882) IX QBD 259.

31. See generally F Hunt (ed) Lessons for Life: The Schooling of Girls and Women 1850–1950 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987); J McDermid ‘Women and education’ in J Purvis (ed) Women's History: Britain 1850–1945 (London: UCL Press, 1995) pp 121–123.

32. H Hendrick ‘Constructions and Reconstructions of British Childhood: An Interpretative Survey, 1800 to the Present’ in A James and A Prout (eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood (London: Routledge Falmer, 2nd edn, 1997) p 46.

33. See, for example, A James, C Jenks and A Prout, who argue that ‘Childhood is that status of personhood which is by definition often in the wrong place’: Theorising Childhood (Cambridge: Polity, 1998) p 39.

34. Exceptions are more radical children's rights commentators see Jeffs, above n 7.

35. J S Mill On Liberty (first published 1859: London: J M Dent, 1983) p 175. Mill was famously home educated by his father James Mill under the influence of Jeremy Bentham, an experience which biographers suggest was one of the causes of a severe mental crisis: see B Russell On Education (first published 1926; London: Unwin, 1971) p 102.

36. The London School Board v Duggan (1884) XIII QBD 176.

37. J Murphy The Education Act 1870 (Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1972); E Rich The Education Act 1870: A study of public opinion (Harlow: Longmans, 1970).

38. Bevan v Shears [1911] 2 KB 936, 80 LJKB 1325. This case is cited in support of the right of home educators not to follow the National Curriculum (see Poole, Coleman and Liell above n 5, p 11).

39. [1911] 2 KB 936 at 940.

40. It is worth noting, however, that the recent moves towards regulating the standards of education in independent schools arguably makes the far less regulated position of home education more anomalous: see Education Act 2002, Pt 10, ss 157–171.

41. A Prout argues that ‘at a time when the intensification of global competition, the speed up of economic processes, the demand for more compliant and flexible labour, and the intricate networking of national economies erode the state's capacity to control its own economic activity, the shaping of children as the future labour force is seen as an increasingly important option’: ‘Children's Participation: Control and Self-Realisation in British Late Modernity’ (2000) 14(4) Children and Society 303 at 307. See also Hendrick, above n 10.

42. See, for example, Jenkins v Howells [1949] 1 All ER 942; Spiers v Warrington Corpn [1954] 1 QB 61; Hinchley v Rankin [1961] 1 WLR 421.

43. See Baker v Earl [1960] Crim, Lr R v Surrey Quarter Sessions, ex p Tweedie (1963) 107 Sol JO 555; H v United Kingdom (1984) Application No 10233/83 DR 105; R v Gwent County Council, exp Perry (1985) 129 Sol Jo 731, CA.

44. Wisconsin v Yoder 406 US 205 (1972). Similar issues were addressed in the UK in R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, exp Talmud Toral Machzikei Hadass School Trust (1985) Times, 12 April.

45. See M L Stevens Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Home schooling Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); L and S Kraseman ‘HR6 and the Federalization of Homeschooling’ (1991) Home Education Magazine, January-February. More generally see The US National Home Education Network at http://www.nhen.org.

46. D Buss “‘How the UN Stole Childhood”: the Christian Right and the International Rights of the Child’ in J Bridgeman and D Monk (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Child Law (London: Cavendish, 2000). More generally on the Christian Right in the US see D Herman The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).

47. Petrie (1995), above n 5.

48. Petrie (1998), above n 5, at 134.

49. J White ‘Two National Curricula - Bakers and Stalins. Towards a Liberal Alternative’ [1988] BrJ Educational Studies 218, October.

50. Harris, above n 5; C Chitty Understanding Schools and Schooling (London: Routledge Falmer, 2002); L Bash and D Coulby (eds) The Education Reform Act: Competition and Control (London: Cassell, 1989).

51. D Hodgson The Human Right to Education (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 1998).

52. J Finch Education as Social Policy (Harlow: Longman, 1984).

53. Leuffen v Federal Republic of Germany (1992) Application No: 00019844/92.

54. The only known references to it are by Petrie - but no citation is provided and the Commission's arguments are not stated: Petrie (1998), above n 5, at 226 and (1995), above n 5, at 293.

55. Renate Leuffen is in some respects a German equivalent of Victoria Gillick: a conservative Catholic, she is a journalist and high-profile parent's rights activist. Her publications include: Naturlich ohne Schule leben (Bonn: Kid Verlag, 1993); Home Education Today: A Reference Book with Basic Information, (unpublished manuscript, 1994), both cited in Petrie (1998) and (1995), above n 5.

56. The equivalent legal procedures in England would be a School Attendance Order (Education Act 1996, ss 437,443,444) and an Education Supervision Order (Children Act 1989, s 36). Failure to comply with these orders can, in extreme cases, lead to a parent being imprisoned or a child being taken into care.

57. Petrie (1995), above n 5, at 293.

58. This fact is disputed by Petrie who states that Leuffen's ‘ability to home educate was never assessed, the school authorities stating that home education was not permitted’: Petrie (1995), above n 5, at 293.

59. Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 293, ECtHR. This case concerned parental objections to a policy of physical punishment of children in schools. While the court emphasised the limits to parental rights under the Convention, this is a rare case where the court held that the parent's rights under art 2 of the First Protocol had been violated.

60. Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1976) 1 EHRR 711, ECtHR.

61. That parental convictions should not prevail over the child's fundamental right to education was confirmed most recently in R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2003] ELR 176 at [302]. This case held that a belief in physical punishment as a form of discipline was a ‘conviction’ for the purposes of the art 2, albeit one that was not interfered with by prohibiting the practice of it by teachers. The question of whether an objection to schooling can be considered a ‘conviction’ was not raised in Leuffen. Following Williamson it is arguable that it could be; however, Arden LJ's equating of ‘schooling’ with ‘education’ suggests that such a conviction could be legitimately interfered with by the sate: at [302].

62. See Belgian Linguistics (1968) Application Nos 6853/74 and 7782/77. For a discussion of other cases see H Mountfield ‘The Implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the law of education’ (2000) l(3) Education LJ 146.

63. H v United Kingdom (1984) Application No 10233/83 DR 105.

64. Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1976) 1 EHRR 711, ECtHR.

65. Petrie (1995), above n 5.

66. I am grateful to Professor Ludwig Salgo for discussing this with me.

67. H Avenarius ‘Value orientation in German schools’ (2002) 14(1) Education and the Law 83.

68. Avenarius, above n 67, at 84.

69. Stevens, above n 43.

70. M Wyness ‘Childhood, agency and educational reform’ (1999) 6(3) Childhood 353 at 365.

71. W Klymica ‘Education for Citizenship’ in J M Halstead and T H McLaughlin (eds) Education in Morality (London: Routledge, 1999) p 88.

72. C Lubienski ‘Whither the Common Good? A Critique of Home Schooling’ (2000) 75(1) and (2) Peabody J Education 207. Stevens similarly suggest that the dramatic increase in home education in the US can in part be explained by the fact that its advocates draw on resonant chords in the national culture such as a celebration of individuality, distrust of intrusive government and privileging of market values; in the US home schooling products are a multi-million dollar business: above n 43.

73. R Reich Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

74. Vogt v Germany (1995) 21 EHRR 205; X v UK (1979) 16 DR 101.

75. Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 293, ECtHR. A distinction that was reinforced in R (Williamson) v Secretary, of State for Education and Employment [2003] ELR 176 at [206], [212] and [240].

76. The nature of the right to education has been critical in cases where pupils have attempted to argue for process rights in accordance with art 6. In this context, however, resistance to awarding pupils such protection has required the courts to characterize education as a public right and explicitly not a private or civil right: see, for example, Simpson v UK (1989) Application No 14688/89. According to Craig such distinctions ‘have little normative merit’ and avoid squarely addressing which interests are sufficiently important to warrant protection: P Craig ‘The Human Rights Act, Article 6 and Procedural Rights’ [2003] PL 753 at 758.

77. Niemetz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97 at para 29.

78. Mountfield, above n 62.

79. See R (on the application of B) v Head Teacher of Alperton Community School and ors; R(on the application of T) v Head Teacher of Wembley High School and ors; R (on the application of C) v Governing Body of Cardinal Newman High School and ors [2001] EWHC Admin 229, [2001] ELR 359. For further analysis of this case see A Bradley (2001) 2(3) Education LJ 154; I Sutherland ‘Advances in Exclusions Law?’ (2002) 2(4) Education LJ 216.

80. Such an approach was used in the case of Costello-Roberts v UK [1994] ELR 1 against an independent school's policy of corporal punishment.

81. See Mountfield, above n 62, for a more detailed discussion of the meaning of ‘public authorities’ in the context of education cases.

82. Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 293, ECtHR.

83. Education Act 2002, ss 78, 79 and 99(1).

84. See, for example, R v Camarthenshire County Council, exp White [2001] ELR 172 and R v Vale of Glamorgan County Council, exp J [2001] ELR 223, QBD. Beyond these cases psychological care and social development is now emphasised in the context of PSHE and citizenship - but linked to skills - not an end in itself: Monk, above n 7. Beyond law this broad definition of education finds support in philosophical writings, for example, C Wringe argues that the ‘failure to receive education is not simply to be left with a restricted view and distorted understanding of the universe and our place in it. It is to have no understanding at all. It is also to have no possibility of independent existence among other human beings’: Children's Rights: a philosophical study (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981) p 145, quoted in J Fortin Children's Rights and the Developing Law(London: Butterworths, 1998) p 131.

85. R (on the application of L) v Governors of J School [2003] UKHL 9, [2003] 1 All ER 1012. According to L's counsel the regime treated him as, ‘a social and educational pariah’ and compared it to, ‘a correspondence course in prison’: [2003] 1 All ER 1012 at 1035e. However, the case is more complex than this suggests: for a detailed analysis see D Monk ‘Undermining Authority? Challenging School Exclusions and the Problems of Reinstatement’ (2004) 16(1) CFLQ 87.

86. Leuffen v Federal Republic of Germany (1992) Application No 00019844/92 (emphasis added).

87. G Bainer, London Borough of Bromley, in R Garner ‘Rising number of parents decide they can do a better job than the education system’, Independent, 28 January 2002.

88. See, for example, Danny Leigh comparing his own experiences with that of Lawrence: ‘Adolescence in all its sordid, humiliating glory was calling; but not for Ruth, busy disappearing in a quicksand of perpetual scholarship and arrested development’, ‘Ruth and me’, Guardian, 10 May 2000. See also E Addley ‘Are the kids all right?’, Guardian, 24 August 2001; and S Hattenstone and E Brockes ‘I'm not Crybaby Soo-Fi any more’, Guardian, 7 July 2000.

89. See, for example, C Warwick Princess Margaret: A Life of Contrasts (London: Andre Deutsch, 2000).

90. Burman, E Innnocents abroad: Western fantasies of childhood and the iconography of emergencies’ (1994) 18 Disasters 238 at 242.

91. Hendrick, above n 32, p 34.

92. S Orbach ‘Starting School’ in S Orbach What's really going on here? Making sense of our emotional lives (London: Virago, 1994).

93. C Jenks Childhood (London: Routledge, 1996).

94. Grier, A and Thomas, T A war for civilization as we know it: some observations on tackling anti-social behaviour’ (2004) 82 Youth and Policy: The Journal of Critical Analysis 1.

95. In relation to childhood and space see A James, C Jenks and A Prout Theorising Childhood (Cambridge: Polity, 1998) pp 37–58.

96. A Hunt and G Wickham Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociology of Law and Governance (London: Pluto Press, 1994) p 102. See also M Foucault ‘Truth and Power’ in C Gordon (ed) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Writings 1972–1977(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1980); P Miller and N Rose ‘Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government’ (1992) 43(2) BRJ Soc 173.

97. M Freeman ‘Children's Education: A Test Case for Best Interests and Autonomy’ in R Davie and D Galloway (eds) Listening to Children in Education (London: David Fulton Publishers, 1996).

98. The rhetoric about parental rights and involvement in education has been subject to much critical commentary: see, for example, Harris, , Above n 5; A Blair and M Waddington’ ‘The home-school “contract”: regulating the role of parents’ (1997) 9(4) Education and the Law 291.

99. Petrie (2001), above n 5, at 493.

100. Medlin, R G Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization’ (2000) 75(1) and (2) Peabody J Education 107.

101. There are similarities here with the strategies adopted by lesbian mothers; where there is a similar tension between a strategic need to emphasise their normality and a desire to celebrate the radical transformative potential of their choice, for while some lesbian mothers claim that their parenting can challenge the gendered assumptions of the traditional family, home educators argue that they challenge the ageism of dominant educational practices: S Golombok ‘Lesbian Mothers’ in S Day Sclater, A Bainham and M Richards (eds) What is a Parent? A Socio Legal Analysis (Oxford: Hart, 1999).

102. An important case in this respect is R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex p Talmud Torah Machzikei Haddass School Trust (1985) Times, 12 April, where a small school run strictly in accordance with orthodox judaism was, unsuccessfully, threatened with closure on the grounds that the education provided did not prepare the children for life in the modern world and within the society beyond their community. For a searing critique of faith-based schools see A C Grayling ‘Keep God out of public affairs’, Observer, 12 August 2001.

103. T Dowty (ed) Free Range Education (Stroud: Hawthorn Press, 2000).

104. R Meighan The Next Learning System: and why home educators are trailblazers (Nottingham: Educational Heretics Press, 1997).

105. Meighan, above n 104; J Fortune-Wood Doing it their way: home based education and autonomous learning (Nottingham: Educational Heretics Press, 2000).

106. Examples of support group websites in the UK are http://www.heas.org.uk (Home Education Advisory Service); http://www.education-otherwise.org; http://www.horne-education.org.uk; http://www.free-range-education.co.uk. For Europe generally see http://www.worldzone.net/lifestyles/homeducation. In the US there is a vast array of organisations for home educators; however, the Home Schooling Legal Defense Association (http://www.hslda.org, HSLDA), which is closely associated with the Christian Right, is currently the most influential, whereas the National Homeschool Association (NHA) represents ‘alternative’ parents.

107. See Stephens, above n 45, ch 2, ‘From Parents to Teachers’.

108. Stevens, above n 45, describes these two extremes as ‘believers’ and ‘inclusives’ and they have also been described as ‘ideologues’ and ‘pedagogues’ to reflect the fact their decision to home educate is a response to radically distinct philosophies. Not all home educators belong to these groups; the decision is sometimes motivated by concerns about the child, such as bullying, where the focus is more explicitly on the perceived needs of the child rather than the beliefs of the parents.

109. Hendrick, above n 32, pp 54–56; Rose, above n 10; S Kingsley Kent Gender and Power in Britain 1640–1990 (London: Routledge, 1999).

110. See B Neale and C Smart ‘In Whose Best Interests?: Theorising Family Life Following Parental Separation or Divorce’ in S Day Sclater and C Piper (eds) Undercurrents of Divorce (Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1999); C Piper ‘Assumptions about children's best interests’ (2000) 22(3) J Social Welfare and Family Law 261; M Freeman ‘Feminism and Child Law’ in J Bridgeman and D Monk (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Child Law (London: Cavendish, 2000); M Place ‘Attachment and identity - their significance in decisions about contact and placement’ [2003] Fam Law 260.

111. S Day Sclater, A Bainham and M Richards (eds) What is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis (Oxford: Hart, 1999) Introduction.

112. R Cocks ‘Ram, Rab and the civil servants: a lawyer and the making of the “Great Education Act 1944”’ (2001) 21(1) LS 15; Chitty, above n 50; M Barber The Making of the 1944 Education Act (London: Cassell, 1994).

113. J Bowlby Attachment and Loss. Vol 2 Separation: Anxiety and Anger (London: Penguin, 1978, first published London: Hogarth Press and The Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1973).

114. Bowlby, n 113 above, p 300.

115. Bowlby, n 113 above, p 300 (emphasis added).

116. Bowlby, n 113 above, p 301 (emphasis added).

117. Bowlby, n 113 above, pp 301–304.

118. The Advisory Centre for Education Home Education (London: ACE, 1996) p 4.

119. D Monk ‘Education Law/Educating Gender’ in J Bridgeman and D Monk (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Child Law (London: Cavendish, 2000).

120. See, for example, Furniss, C Bullying in schools: it's not a crime - is it?’ (2000) 12(1) Education and the Law 9.

121. D W Winnicott Home is Where We Start From (London: Penguin, 1986).

122. Winnicott, above n 121, p 137.

123. Winnicott, above n 121, p 139.

124. Winnicott, above n 121, p 139.

125. Winnicott, above n 121, p 139.

126. J Mitchell and J Goody ‘Family or Familiarity?’ in S Day Sclater, A Bainham, M Richards (eds) What is a Parent? A Socio Legal Analysis (Oxford: Hart, 1999).

127. See, for example, P Elfer, who makes clear the extent to which the notion that mothers who go to work harms children is rejected now by child psychologists: ‘Attachment theory and day care for young children’, Highlight No 155, National Children's Bureau, 1997.

128. Piper (2000), above n 110.

129. A Phillips Terrors and Experts (London: Faber and Faber, 1995) p xiii.

130. Quoted from Finch, above n 52.

131. Chitty, above n 50, p 11.

132. Chitty, above n 50; Finch, above n 52; R Watts, ‘Pupils and Students’ in R Aldrich (ed) A Century of Education (London: Routledge Falmer, 2002).

133. See Cocks, above n 112, who argues that the introduction of the expression ‘Independent’ Schools by the 1944 Act was, ‘a shrewd change to make in a society which was less respectful of private property than it had been: “independent” had all the right political connotations’: p 28.

134. S Ransom Towards the Learning Society (London: Cassell, 1994).

135. Finch, above n 52, p 87.

136. Finch, above n 52, p 85.

137. Piper (2000), above n 110; H Reece ‘The paramountcy principle - consensus or construct?’ (1996) 49 CLP 267; D Monk ‘Children and the Law: in whose best interests?’ in M J Kehily (ed) An Introduction to Childhood Studies (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2004).

138. Finch, above n 52, p 85.

139. M Fortune-Wood, from Education Otherwise, quoted in the Guardian, 10 December 2002.

140. Miller and Rose, above n 96, at 181.

141. See Department for Education and Skills guidance, above n 14.

142. Stevens, above n 45, p 196.

143. Leader article, ‘E is for e-education’, Guardian, 10 January 2003.

144. S Holloway and G Valentine Cyberkids: Children in the Information Age (London: Routledge Falmer, 2003); I Hutchby and J Moran Ellis Children, Technology and Culture: The Impacts of Technology in Children's Everyday Lives (London: Routledge Falmer, 2001); D Buckingham After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000); R Sutherland, K Facer, R Furlong et al ‘A new environment for education? The computer in the home’ (2000) 34(3–4) Computers and Education 195; N Lee Childhood and Society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001).

145. Hendrick, above n 32.

* Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Social Legal Studies Association Conference, Aberystwyth, 2002, and the Nordic Youth Research Conference, Roskilde, 2003. I am grateful to those present for their constructive comments. I am also particularly grateful to the anonymous referees for their comments and to Pamela Millard for providing me with material by Bowlby and Winnicott and for discussing their work with me. Opinions and errors remain my responsibility.

Problematising home education: challenging ‘parental rights’ and ‘socialisation’

  • Daniel Monk (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed