This is a role that has no legal basis. If it appears that someone is not educating their child at school or otherwise, the state, through legislation, has  some remit. This does not only refer to home education though. It refers to all education.  So therefore, why is home education being treated as a special case? Why are parents who are sending their children to failing schools not being harassed under the exact same Law? Surely if it is ok to create a whole job description to harass home educating parents, then we should be harassing all parents who do not fulfil their section 7 duty? If we aren't going to do that, (and I'm sure nobody wants to really) then why are we paying approx £40,000 per annum to send an inspector to hound parents who simply fulfil their section 7 duty differently?


Why is this idea important?

My idea is important, because:

a) This role is a waste of money

b) This role  is promoting an ultra vires activity

c) This role has no known proven positive effects to the people involved

d) This role helps  perpetrate the myth that the state is parent of first resort 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.