Wednesday, 25 November 2009

What motivates local authorities?

A couple of days ago, I looked at the idea that there might be a plan to destroy home education by burdening parents with so many restrictions and regulations as eventually to stifle it entirely. I concluded and most people I think agreed, that there was no such overall plan, more a number of separate trends which all tended to make life difficult, particularly for autonomously educating parents. Today, I want to look at a similar point. Why do local authorities wish to interfere in the matter at all? Why can't they just leave home educators to get on with it?

Well, why do local authorities, some more than others, actually fuss about home education? A number of possibilities suggest themselves. One is that this is just busybodying for the sake of it. Another explanation would be that local authorities wish to promote schools as the only appropriate places for educating children; that they are opposed on principle to home education. A third possibility is that they genuinely care about home educated children and worry that they are either at hazard or are not receiving a good education. Let us look at these hypotheses in turn.

There is no doubt at all that local authorities like to poke their nose in other people's business. They do it all the time. Whether it is how we are disposing of our rubbish or the height of out hedges, it seems that the council are always hovering about ready and willing to interfere. Could it be that this is at the bottom of their interest in home education? Just a mania to regulate for the sake of regulation? If this were the case, then I would expect local authorities to pester all home educating parents with forms and paperwork and generally to make a nuisance of themselves with all home educators. They do not.

Rather, they focus usually on those about whom there are concerns from other agencies, those known to children's social care for example. They make a point often of making early contact with families who withdraw their children from school and about whom the school has expressed unease. A number of local authorities take more interest in uneducated parents who intend to educated their children and also in those who say that they are doing so autonomously. All this looks as though local authorities target those children who, rightly or wrongly, they feel to be at risk of failing educationally or to be at some sort of risk for reasons unconnected with home education. In other words, it does not look as though they are determined to crack down on home education as such, but only specific groups of home educators.

What of the idea that local authorities see school as the best and most appropriate place for children to be educated? Again, the evidence for this is weak. Even LAs where some parents have had problems, seem quite happy for certain parents to home educate. Most local authorities now have a bit about home education on their websites and are happy to provide parents with information about this option. There is no feeling that home education as such is a cause for concern. The fact that so few home educating parents are made the subject of School Attendance Orders also argues strongly for the idea that most local authorities do not have a problem with home education as such. Only perhaps with certain types of home education or particular groups.

Lastly, what of the possibility that local authorities act as they do out of genuine worries about some home educated children? Here, the evidence is stronger. Some militant autonomous educators complain of local authorities taking actions which are, strictly speaking, ultra vires. For instance, they may urge parents to follow a curriculum, ask for a plan of work, insist on home visits and so on. I cannot offhand think of any reason for such behaviour other than that they are concerned about a number of particular children being taught at home. The concern may be misplaced. They may be wrong to feel anxious about children whose parents are opposed on principle to teaching them or deciding what their children should learn. It is however these families that many LAs focus upon. This makes it look as though the officers in these authorities are targetting those very children who they feel will not thrive academically through home education. In short, they do so because they are anxious about the welfare of these children. It is this which has motivated them to appeal for stricter regulation of home education. They may be wrong, but they have no motive more sinister than the desire to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society - our children.

40 comments:

  1. You've forgotten the most likely reason, they feel they need to cover their backs. Our visitor seems unconcerned and uninterested in our child and their work. All they want to do is tick their boxes and go.

    "They may be wrong to feel anxious about children whose parents are opposed on principle to teaching them or deciding what their children should learn."

    Half right. Autonomous educators are not opposed in principle to teaching and will teach if their child asks. The child decides what *and* how they learn. If the child asks you to teach them and you refuse you are preventing your child from controlling their own education. How could you call yourself an autonomous educator in that situation? Maybe you are thinking of people who follow an pro-informal, anti-teaching approach?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi

    How have you gathered evidence for your generalisations about LA behaviour?

    Fiona Nicholson
    Education Otherwise

    ReplyDelete
  3. This does not strike me at all as a likely explanation for why local authorities are so keen to increase their powers with respect to home education. After all, those currently unknown to them are not their responsibility in any way. With compulsory registration and monitoring however, their duties and responsibilities will be vastly increased. So too will be their culpability for failure, should harm come to a child. If their motive were simply to cover their backs, then they would not seek additional responsibility for these unknown home educated children.
    I am ware that even the most ruthless and dedicated autonomous home educaotr would not actually refuse to teach a child, if specifically asked by the child. I should not have thought it likely though that many children would approach their mothers and say, " Mummy, I don't precisely understand the failure of the British Expeditionary Force to halt the German advance into the low countries in September 1914. Could you teach me about the Schlieffen Plan and how it failed to take into account the various factors which wre applicable in 1914, but not in 1902 when it was formulated? Few children actively petition their parents in this way for formal instruction. I meant of course to suggest that some parents were opposed to routine and regular teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These are not generalisations, Fiona. I have seen and heard a number of people put forward possible explanations as to why local authorities seem so keen to acquire new powers to monitor home education. Among the explanantions that I have seen, and so will you as you are on the HE-UK and EO lists, are that LAs are trying to stifle home education, that they are anxious to cover their backs and that they are some of them opposed to home education because they feel that children are better off in school. I was looking at these ideas and trying to gauge whether they might be true. My own hypothesis is that local authorities are motivated on the whole by concern for the welfare of home educated children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be honest I think there are families that use HE as a loophole not a choice and don't provide their children with an education full stop, let alone a suitable one. Some discovered the loophole when the LA shoved it under their nose and said "sign here", the unethical gits.

    These families will be known to SS and other authorities in a way they won't be to the HEing community at large.

    These families, given their lack of interest in HE as a choice in educational terms are highly unlikely to be found taking part or seeking out HEing communities be they on-line or in RL, which is probably why the bulk of HEs who do this for the sake of their children have never come across them or heard of them.

    I don't believe that they are a large part of the population at this point, but I can imagine the current regs cause a hell of a lot of frustration for the agencies that would like to intervene for the sake of the kids and the idea that over time their numbers might grow and the kids effectively fall off the radar might also motivate a change now for the sake of the children in this situation in the future.

    The regs seem to be written to allow intervention where deemed necessary whilst giving the option to leave a family alone at the authorities discretion. HEing in Italy for example contains the clause that puts a SS inspection on the table, it reads like a foregone conclusion that it will probably happen to all. Yet there is only one case I have come across where it has been utilized, and to be honest I don't blame them for using it one bit in that particular case. Our director described it as a clause of safety net, only to be used where HEing was a symptom rather than being done for its own sake.

    Obviously there are no guarantees and I am only getting this second hand, as well as being influenced by the realities here. However that is what it looks like to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, Peter Traves (DCS Staffordshire) is worried about covering his back, and since he was representing the ADCS at the CSF select committee hearing on 14/10, it wouldn't surprise me if he is not alone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm sure that he isn't the only one! This does not explain though, why so many local authorities were and are so keen on compulsory registration and stricter monitoring. As the law stands now, the twenty to forty thousand home educated children who are not registered with their local authority are in effect none of their concern. If one of them were not receiving a suitable education, or even to be abused or murdered, then the LA could claim that it was hardly their fault. They are actively seeking new powers and voluntarily assuming responsibility for tens of thousands of children for whom they are not currently responsible. Can anybody suggest a motive for this, other than the obvious one that the LAs are worried about some of these children?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How about *different* local authorities might have *different* reasons for their keenness?

    I would argue that if they were really concerned about the quality of education received by children they would start with the ones in the schools in their area. They are children for whom the LA has a direct responsibility after all.

    And if they were still worried about HE children, then some resources might not go amiss. I don't see LAs lobbying the government for the retention of the per capita allowance, to offer support to HE families, or addressing the reasons why parents HE.

    By their fruits ye shall know them...

    ReplyDelete
  9. The children attending maintained schools are receiving an education. It may be an inferior education or not the sort of education which some of us would choose for their own children, but they are undeniably receiving an education. This may not be the case for some of the children who have been withdrawn from school or not sent in the first place. As for the per capita allowance, of course that would be welcome, but its lack does not hinder a parent from providing a good education. What is your theory as to why local authorities were so keen to take on the responsibility for monitoring those children who are not currently known to them?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Simon,

    There are many reasons behind the LAs' (as well as the government's) motivation:

    Undoubtedly there are some that would like to put an end to HE altogether (I recall seeing some indication of this from a teachers' union leader). Some of these speak out but I've little doubt that there are many more that keep their heads low and will encourage the proposed legislation; even if it is not strong enough for them, it's a start in the right direction.

    There are some that "desire to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society"; they are probably also in favour of ending world poverty and all evil, they have heard about the terrible things that might happen to HE children and this seems like a quick win to save a few. But they bury their heads in the sand when it comes to bigger problems like helping hundreds of thousands of children who labour and suffer humiliation to care for others, or fixing the problems with schools.

    Then we come to what I suspect is the big bulge who can all agree that this proposed legislation is "a good thing" and would like to see it happen because apart from it being "a good thing", they have something to gain - all (or rather, mostly) perfectly above board - from the new regime.

    Many in high positions undoubtedly see it as covering their backs; suzyg mentioned Peter Traves and my own Labour MP was pretty explicit. It's an easy insurance policy against the moral equivalent of catastrophic floods or meteorite strikes.

    I'm sure many see this "good thing" as an opportunity for business-like activities and empire-building or career advancement. This might range from "money for old rope" in the form of people ticking boxes in an undemanding job in which they do the questioning and are seen as "The Authority", to managers who will use the kind of arguments that you highlighted in the impact assessment to try to command bigger "revenue streams", with all the kudos, salary and pension benefits that this will bring. Some of these opportunities may even spill out of the LAs and OFSTED to private beneficiaries as this might encourage DCSF to put more money in eventually. The impact assessment looks like the investment banks' "leveraged" borrowing and lending of money that doesn't exist. One way or another, money will flow to pockets at all levels in the LAs, maybe OFSTED and elsewhere.

    This behaviour is ubiquitous and increasing in many spheres. Witness HIPs (Home Information Packs); from reading a number of these and judging by many of the people who perform the inspections and "write" the reports, this is simply a lucrative employment opportunity for people who are ambitious but not very bright.

    Whatever the actual activity - inspecting homes or home educators - money flows, people are employed and the principle - some might argue - is "a good thing". In practice, boxes are ticked, nothing of value is generated, money is wasted and in many cases the result is utter rubbish. OFSTED is a more relevant example that has sought to expand its reach - and is now eyeing HE as a new opportunity - but is now being seen for the shambles that it is.

    Are home owners or buyers getting a better deal because of HIPS? Not at all, but the only harm they cause is a bit - or sometimes a lot - of cash down the drain.

    The proposed legislation against HE erodes personal liberty and risks damaging the life chances - or worse - of "some of the most vulnerable members of society - our children".

    ReplyDelete
  11. I should also have added the possibility, raised in the thread about the motivation of Balls etc., that the LAs, too, are concerned about the prospect of a much larger number of HE children - as that would be seen as "A Bad Thing" - a slap in the face for state schools and standards - and so anything that puts the brakes on the growth of HE is to be welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course some children's life chances might be damaged. Others would find their life chances greatly enahnced as they began to recive a systematic and structured education. It's swings and roundabouts really. You say that personal liberty would be eroded, but persoanl liberty is not a good thing in itself. Imagine if you will that i am a strict follower of a macrobiotic diet. That is a matter of persoanl liberty and no consern of anybody else. If however I attempt to impose this lifestyle on my child and the result is scurvy or beri beri, then my personal liberty has become a bad thing and must be curtailed. Children do not belong to us to do with as we will in the same way that our cars and gardens are ours.
    I am not at all sure that I would agree with you idea that self interest is at the heart of the desire for local authorities for more powers. The ones agitating for this are not the ones who will ultimately benefit. You seem, if I understand you correstly, to be saying that the educational establishment is somehow trying to make this into a job creation scheme for local authority officers. Considering the terrible trouble that this will be for them, this does not seem likely at all to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Simon - those who fully advocate the proposed approach ALREADY interfere almost to this degree.

    All reasons listed, by you and others above, are correct. It is not balck and white.

    Most officers with any training or experience want all of this less than others....

    And yes there is evidence to suggest this.

    Many don't understand that the proposed powers won't actually allow them to enforce the law (because they've got it wrong already). The proposed powers will add to their duties and responsibilities and will actually be an unbearable burden if not an impossible task.

    Would you like to sign off a child as "safe and well and receiving a suitable education" only to discover they were killed the next day and the "interviews" had been rehearsed?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simon, I agree it's swings and roundabouts - as always a range of possibilities - but we probably differ in where we draw the lines. Your comment on personal liberty could be switched around to apply to the state; it is a mistake to imagine that the behaviour of such a large and "authoritative" collective is in any way superior to that of an individual - especially when the state dismisses competent views. Children don't belong to the state, either.

    Continuing along the lines of your example, in the short time that one of my children attended school it was clear that their idea of diet in the canteen was completely at odds with their public preaching - mashed potato and pasta was one of their better vegetarian options! This is not uncommon in schools highly rated by their inspection regime.

    This applies across the board; I could trash the execution and final product of the school system in a great many ways. Once I might have thought that even a poor state system would still be better than leaving it to parents but my observation of the behaviour of both potential providers, state and willing HEors, tells me otherwise.

    We're going over old ground and perhaps don't differ on many of the inadequacies of schools. However, I've become increasingly inclined to the view that overall, HE parents will do a better job - perhaps in part because of the strong drive from a genetic and/or parental bond (and that might be regarded as a form of self interest) - than a collective of individuals that have other personal priorities, and so I don't share your view that more oversight of HEors by LAs is needed.

    I have little doubt that some form of self interest (including self defence) is the biggest single factor for many, perhaps most, of the supporters of these these proposals. It's easy for them to provide "justification" and I also have no doubt that they would think that they are doing "A Good Thing".

    As for your remark about "terrible trouble", self interest does not always lead people along the best path for them or others, although I think there is plenty of opportunity for individuals in - and around - the LAs. OFSTED looks as though it's in a mess, it does a very poor job and costs a lot of money. Nevertheless it has grown and many individuals associated with it are prospering as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Few children actively petition their parents in this way for formal instruction."

    That may be your experience, but all of my children and my friends children have asked to be taught various things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon said: Few children actively petition their parents in this way for formal instruction.

    How many autonomous families do you know well enough to have observed their education at first hand? Because while you may be right about children who have always had formal instruction imposed on them, I think autonomous children see it very differently. All my children have asked for formal instruction at times, and at other times have been keen to try it if I have suggested it. For example, it can be very useful, for some children and at the right time for them, when learning to read and write, do maths or gymnastics, or play a musical instrument. I have one child who prefers to work on his own and has achieved good GCSE grades in his chosen subjects with very little help, one who likes to be taught and has now chosen to go to school and is flourishing in a structured environment, and one who is somewhere in the middle. As things stand at the moment, all their needs can be met, but if I had been forced to follow a curriculum and impose formal instruction on all of them, at least one of them would have suffered.

    suzyg said: Peter Traves (DCS Staffordshire) is worried about covering his back, and since he was representing the ADCS at the CSF select committee hearing on 14/10, it wouldn't surprise me if he is not alone.

    He isn't. The person responsible for EHE at my LA has the same concern. He is under the impression that Section 175 of the 2002 Education Act supercedes Section 7 of the 1996 act and makes local authorities responsible for safeguarding *all* the children in their area, that he is breaking the law if he doesn't check up on *all* EHE children including the unknowns, and that compulsory registration is necessary so that he can cover his back. From what I have heard and read, it seems that many LA's believe this to be the case.
    However, this is a misinterpretation of Section 175, which does not create any new functions, but merely imposes a duty on LA's to act with regard to safeguarding and welfare *within the functions conferred on them already*.

    Sarah said: To be honest I think there are families that use HE as a loophole not a choice and don't provide their children with an education full stop, let alone a suitable one. Some discovered the loophole when the LA shoved it under their nose and said "sign here", the unethical gits.

    Which doesn't speak volumes for their genuine concern for children, does it? In fact it says far more about covering their backs.

    >These families will be known to SS and other authorities in a way they won't be to the HEing community at large.

    Quite. They will already be known and the law already provides for them, if the LA's go to the trouble to uphold it.

    >HEing in Italy for example contains the clause that puts a SS inspection on the table, it reads like a foregone conclusion that it will probably happen to all. Yet there is only one case I have come across where it has been utilized, and to be honest I don't blame them for using it one bit in that particular case. Our director described it as a clause of safety net

    But we don't need a new law to cover this; SS already have a duty to act where there are welfare concerns, and LA's already have a duty to act where there are genuine educational concerns. The proposed new law is not going to make the genuine problems disappear; making registration compulsory will not make everybody register any more than the fact that murder and theft are illegal stops people from killing and stealing. All it's going to do is cause a lot of problems for the law-abiding majority, and make a lot of extra work for the already overstretched authorities. I am seriously concerned about a law that will allow my LA inspector to refuse my registration because he doesn't like autonomous education, but do nothing to help him deal with the abusive family down the road who will move on as soon as the LA catches up with them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "If however I attempt to impose this lifestyle on my child and the result is scurvy or beri beri, then my personal liberty has become a bad thing and must be curtailed."

    An excellent example of appropriate state involvement. The state do not monitor and examine your child's diet each year but act if it becomes clear you are providing an inadequate diet. The same should apply to education. There is no reason to believe this would not be the case with ContactPoint and current legislation and certainly no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Of course some children's life chances might be damaged. Others would find their life chances greatly enahnced as they began to recive a systematic and structured education."

    But what proportion will be harmed and how many helped? Until we know this we could harm more children than are helped. Where is the evidence to support the theory that the planned changes will swing the balance the right way?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Whatever action we take or fail to take, there will be consequences. This is as true for keeping the law as it is and also for introducing new laws. We cannot know for sure what the best move is and so have to take a chance one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  20. But there is no proof that children are being harmed by the present laws, whereas there is plenty of proof that the PTB's idea of what constitutes a good education is harming many. That's not a chance I want to take.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Simon wrote: "...We cannot know for sure what the best move is and so have to take a chance one way or the other."

    In that case, in view of the evidence that there is, the broad and intelligent condemnation of the Badman report and the objective fact that the report was dishonest, incompetent and thoroughly unprofessional, I would take my chance - on behalf of children that I ultimately defend - on calling a complete halt to the proposed legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Simon said: Of course some children's life chances might be damaged. Others would find their life chances greatly enahnced as they began to recive a systematic and structured education.

    That may well be true. But the potential new law may well make it impossible for those of us for whom autonomous education works, to continue doing it. Surely there must be a way of giving help to the children who need it without interfering, to a potentially very damaging extent, in the lives and education of those who don't? This bill does nothing to build trust between home educators and the LA's, it does the opposite. It takes a huge chunk of our freedom away and puts it in the hands of the LA's. And we are doing nothing wrong. Our children are learning. Our lives are busy and productive. We contribute to our communities. We are successful. At the moment we are free to choose the style of education that works for us. This bill is a threat to our freedom; it proposes to make it dependent on the approval of an organisation which has clearly shown itself to have very different ideas about the definition of suitable and efficient education to my own. I'm not prepared to give my freedom away to anyone I don't trust.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Simon said: That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it.

    The Badman report was, at best, based on inaccurate data and usubstantiated allegations. Have you seen the Google stats on suitable education, collated from FOI requests? They are very different from the figures Badman used. And they have an impeccable pedigree; their provenance can be traced straight back to the LA's through the WhatDoTheyKnow site.
    And we all know about the allegations.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Simon said: "That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it."

    I thought that would flush you out; so you don't dispute that it was incompetent and thoroughly unprofessional?

    The only way to defend it against dishonesty is to say that it's even more incompetent - consider the misrepresentation of the CofE submission for a start.

    I find it hard to believe that Badman was quite so incompetent and therefore dishonesty is the only remaining conclusion.

    As for "only certain sectors" disagreeing with it, looking at the submissions to the parliamentary select committee, there are people with immense breadth and depth of expertise and experience from many fields including education, science research, industry etc; compare that lot with the narrow and uninspiring combination of Whitehall wonks, DCSF, Balls, Badman, the LAs, not to mention you, I don't see much competition - and it's not in your favour.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have already commented on the submissions to the DCSF select committee. I am not particularly impressed with them. The fact that I only mentioned dishonesty did not of course mean that I accepted that the report was incompetent and unprofessional! What sort of logic are you employing when drawing that conclusion? The Anglican Church was certainly irritated with Badman for quoting the passage that he did. However, it is inevitable that one is selective in such quoatations. The C & E document was a long one and Badman used a couple of hundred words of it to support a point he was making. All authors do this; it is neither unprofessional nor incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, Simon, we've seen your comments on the submissions to the select committee and I don't think many people were impressed by you or your comments either! They were a desperate attempt by you to rubbish just about everyone who opposed it - I even recall you resorting to some vitriolic, bitter and mistaken attempt to denounce PhDs - people with real doctorates - for using their rightful titles in a formal setting!

    The statistics were a sham and even you have admitted that the report was wrong on the child abuse allegations. The collection and analysis of the numbers highlight the incompetence of the whole exercise; the so-called statistics simply don't stand-up to any competent analysis. Given the poor data, the most elementary use of statistical inference would have changed the conclusions. Incompetence.

    The quotations from the Church document gave the misleading impression that they felt a change in the law was necessary; good authors don't do this, or at least try not to. A peer review process would give such behaviour a good kicking if the reviewer was familiar with the source.

    Badman's report was not supposed to be like some shoddy newspaper article; for the purpose it served it should have been at least of the standard of a peer reviewed article and arguably better, with reviewers double-checking statements and numbers. Dishonesty - or at least gross and utter incompetence - and completely unprofessional.

    As I've said, weighing the immense breadth and depth of expertise and experience of those who opposed the report, against its narrow band supporters, there is no contest. Continuing to stand by a piece of work as shoddy as the Badman report only tarnishes its supporters further.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, that's me tarnished then! I would hardly have said that my comments on those who choose to describe themselves as Dr. So and So were bitter and vitriolic. I was more amused at the way that such pretensions have become increasingly common. The quotations from the C of E submission to the Badman enquiry do not at all give the impression that they favour a change in the law. Badman quoted the British Humanist Association on a concern that was not about education, namely that children raised so might have an unbalanced view of life due to a religious upbringing. Then, in the interests of fairness, he put a long section in showing what the Anglican Church thought about this particular aspect of the matter.
    I did not actually notice the immense breadth and depth of experience of those who criticised the report in their submissions to the DCSF select committee.
    I did not say that the report was wrong on the child abuse allegations. I said that it struck me as misleading to make a statement about the number of home educated children known to children's social care being disproportionately high. This was quite true, but because the total numbers were so tiny, it was of no real significance. I certainly did not say that it was wrong, it wasn't. Nor do I think that there was a sinister motive behind making the statement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I was more amused at the way that such pretensions have become increasingly common"

    Given that the latter is false - possibly the opposite of the truth even, as anyone with long experience of an academic environment won't hesitate to confirm - you were pretty sour about something that should not have been an issue for you!

    "I did not actually notice the immense breadth and depth of experience of those who criticised the report in their submissions to the DCSF select committee."

    I'm sure you didn't.

    "I said that it struck me as misleading to make a statement about the number of home educated children known to children's social care being disproportionately high. This was quite true, but because the total numbers were so tiny, it was of no real significance. I certainly did not say that it was wrong, it wasn't."

    Really now? Previously (15th November) you went somewhat further:

    "For instance, a few random examples where I do not agree with it. 8.12, dealing with the idea that a disproportionately high number of home educated children are "known to children's social care". I do not at all agree with either the statement or the implications which can be drawn from it."

    and later you said you always regarded the statements as "suspicious" and that they ultimately "proved to be completely false".

    The Web, Mr Webb, is a wonderful thing,
    though the Webblog may fail, the caches will sing!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I dare say you are not old enough to remember the amusement caused by Dr. Beeching in the early sixties? He was an engineer and although perfectly entitled to use the term "Dr.", it was regarded as being horribly pretentious.
    As regards my views on the Badman Report, you must read the whole of 8.12 to see what I mean. The jury is still out and there is some wrangling on the matter of whether there are a much greater proportion of children known to children's social care who are being educated at home. If there are, it is in any case a tiny number. I am however prepared to accept that the proportion is in fact higher; to that extent, the statement is not wrong.
    However, Badman then goes on to suggest that this means that there is a potential additional risk to home educated children. This does not follow on logically as a matter of course from the preceeding sentence.That is why I described this as misleading. Later on, in the run-up to and during the hearing of the DCSF select committee, it was suggested that actually the numbers were double those of children at school. This is probably false. I thought that I was picky and pedantic, but I have to take my hat off to you Anonymous!

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I thought that I was picky and pedantic,"

    You? If you are you don't display it on your blog, except perhaps with regards the grammar skills of others. Your writing would probably benefit from paying more attention to detail.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought it was I who stood accused of being bitter and vitriolic....

    ReplyDelete
  33. (Just to avoid confusion the previous Anonymous post is another Anonymous; I'm the one that has been going on for a bit. You can call me Dr Who)

    "I thought that I was picky and pedantic, but I have to take my hat off to you Anonymous!"

    Thankyou Simon, I'll take that as a compliment! Just to prove your point, in British grammar, it is, more strictly, "Dr" rather than "Dr." !

    So far as use of this being pretentious is concerned, while I'm not this old, I have read lots of proceedings of learned meetings (seriously learned, not mamby-pamby wet science or pseudo-science) from the early 20th century where the title was almost invariably used. Today it is barely used among groups of such people but, when dealing with authority that already treats you like an insect, if you've got it then flaunt it, so I don't blame those people at all for using it (and after all, most medical Doctors aren't Doctors).

    (BTW, in Germany, if I recall correctly, you are legally REQUIRED to use the title if it is from a German establishment; but then HE isn't legal either).

    I barely remember Beeching, mostly by parental references for years afterwards in a small village that lost a valuable rail link; I think his title tended to be stripped and replaced by something else less worthy.

    The numbers used in the Badman report and in his revised submission are subject to so much statistical noise as to be useless. One can say that number x is larger than number y, but no sensible statistician would have allowed Badman to infer anything from the samples he used. Children that go to school don't spend enough time tossing coins or pulling different coloured socks out of bags.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I quite agree with you on the statistics used by Badman in the chapter on Safeguarding. Perhaps not technically wrong, but so small as to be meaningless. After all, if one boy from school A is excluded, but two from school B, it might be accurate to state that exclusions at school B are running at twice the rate of school A. It would be true and accurate but very misleading.
    I am aware that Dr is now the preferred form of the abbreviation for the word doctor. this is more a matter of style though than grammar. It is not so long ago that full stops were used all the time in such contractions - B.B.C., D.N.A. and R.A.F. for example. I tend to stick to this convention.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought it was I who stood accused of being bitter and vitriolic...."

    Bitter and vitriolic are too strong for what I feel, mild disagreement would be more accurate. The perils of quickly written messages...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just for completeness for interested readers.

    (This probably needs to be in a separate thread on tedious linguistic pedantry, but it might be generally helpful and, after all, I think we're all interested in home education. )

    Abbreviations such as BBC, DNA, RAF, always used stops until recently and it's still perfectly correct (although some of these have become names in themselves without stops) .

    For contractions such as Dr and Mr there is a sensible rule that helps the reader to understand the contraction: where the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the word, omit the stop, otherwise, use one, e.g.,

    Mister -> Mr
    Doctor -> Dr
    Captain -> Capt.
    Professor -> Prof.

    Truce over!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Simon said: DCSF

    Hang on, Simon, shouldn't that be the D.C.S.F.?

    ReplyDelete
  38. My message vanished! Trying again; apologies if it appears twice.

    Simon said: DCSF

    Hang on, Simon, shouldn't that be D.C.S.F.?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Very sharp and observant, Erica! I am revealed as inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete