When I was at theological college, a few people seemed to have got really caught up in something that I found a little bewildering and surprising. They had decided that they should either home school their children or send them to a Christian school. You also got the sense that this was not a personal choice so much as something they saw as incumbent on all Christians.
The idea of Christian or Home Schooling your kids has come to the forefront recently due to two Government measures. One is the introduction of VAT on private school fees and the other is proposed measures in the schools and children bill currently going through parliament asking parents who home school to provide a little bit more information on what education their children are receiving. The latter is being presented by some as a “crack down” which draws images of Communist China. It is really nothing of the sort of course.
I think that some of the talk of crackdowns and the upset arises out of some misunderstandings, or rather a misunderstanding with a few linked facets. This is exemplified in Rhys Laverty’s article for the Spectator. There he says two things. First, he claims that:
British mass education is a Victorian social experiment. The Elementary Education Act of 1880 legislated that all children aged 5 and 10 must receive an education. But people have been having children for quite a bit longer than that, and no reform has removed the right to keep one’s children at home.
This rather misses the point that it was Christians and churches who were pioneers in providing schooling for children in poorer areas. It also offers rather a gloss on the history of schooling which goes back to ancient times. Of course, the idea of mass schooling in the sense of this being something readily available to the masses and not just a privileged few plus some charity beneficiaries of scholarships is newer but I’m sure that no one would want to argue that the massed working classes should be aspiring to an education today, would they?
Laverty goes on to say that:
“Indeed, the default status of any British child can be considered to be home education. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 states that the duty to ensure that eligible children are educated, ‘by regular attendance at school or otherwise’, lies with parents, not with the state. The state’s sole duty at this juncture is to provide schooling for those who wish to avail themselves of it or have no other choice.”
This seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding of the Law. Of course, the 1996 Act places a specific duty on parents. It says:
“Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age.
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
(a)to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b)to any special educational needs [F1(in the case of a child who is in the area of a local authority in England) or additional learning needs (in the case of a child who is in the area of a local authority in Wales)] he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.[1]
However, that is simply to make clear what a parent’s responsibilities are and to ensure that they take them seriously. The Act also makes clear in the next section what the legal school age is and then in Section 9 says:
“In exercising or performing all their respective powers and duties under the Education Acts, the Secretary of [F1State and [F2local authorities]] shall have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.[2]
Note, that the Act does, as was the political philosophy at the time and continued to be throughout the Blair, Brown, Coalition and Conservative Governments that followed until 2024, that parental choice was crucial in education. However, this does mot make home schooling the default. Furthermore, it is important to observe that the Act explicitly references both “the powers and duties” that the State has.
You will also appreciate that the Act refers to powers and duties derived from various acts, plural, not just one act. So, it is intriguing that Laverty chooses the 1996 Act out of all possible choices before and since. Of course, the most significant Act in terms of Education history in the UK is generally recognised to be the 1944 Act which opens with these lines.
“It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister (hereinafter referred to as ” the Minister “), whose duty it shall be to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.”
The 1944 Act therefore makes it explicitly clear that the State (The Crown represented by ministers) has a specific responsibility for, a duty towards the education not just of children but all people within England and Wales, both to promote it and to ensure the effective delivery of education. Local Authorities as an arm of the State have duties too and are accountable to the Education minister(s) for that.
Now, the question of whether or not parents should home school their children and whether they have and should have exclusive, unchallenged responsibility for educating their children isn’t answered by what UK law currently and previously has said. There are other questions that we, particularly as Christians, need to address. However, it is important that arguments are not based on a misunderstanding of the legal position. I will return to more philosophical and theological issues in a later article.
Faithroots 