Responsibility in this country for seeing that a child is educated rests firmly with the parents. About that, there is no argument on either side of the home education debate; parents have a duty to cause their children to be educated. The next question to ask is how do parents come to have this duty, where does it come from? The answer to this question will shed light upon the vexed question of monitoring visits.
For myself, the answer is quite simple and straightforward. I believe this duty comes from God and is part of his instructions to humanity, along with the prohibition on adultery, admonition to love my neighbour and various other commandments. However, it's often a little tricky to claim that one is doing something just because the Lord says so. After all, the Lord apparently told Peter Sutcliffe to hack up prostitutes with a screwdriver, so we need to be a bit cautious about using divine commands alone as a justification for our actions! Fortunately, in this case we don't need to. We also have the Education Act 1996 to fall back on. This too says that parents have a duty to cause their children to receive an education.
Most irreligious people are, even if they are unaware of the fact, legal positivists. Let's face it, if duties and rights don't come from God, then they must come from men and women. In the case of our society, these duties and rights are codified and then formed into laws. In other words, the duty to see that our children are educated has been bestowed upon us by law. We have many other duties and responsibilities like this, duties that parliament has given us. Paying a certain proportion of our income to the government is one such duty. Keeping your gun locked up securely in a steel cabinet if you have a firearms certificate is another. Now just because these duties have been laid upon us by parliament, does not necessarily mean that everybody will abide by them all the time. Take tax, for instance. You might think that it would be enough for the law to say that we have to pay part of our earnings and that would be the end of it. Why can't the government just trust us to do it? Why do they have to check up on us? The answer is fairly obvious. Even though we have been given a duty by law, some people will try and evade it. That is why we have tax inspectors and why the Inland Revenue have a huge range of powers to enter our homes and look at our documents.
If I wish to keep a shotgun in my house, then I must by law obtain a firearms certificate. This is my duty. I must also keep it locked up safely when I'm not actually using it. The police make regular visits to the homes of those holding firearms certificates in order to check that their arrangements are in keeping with the law. If you refuse to let them in the house, that's fine; you just lose your firearms certificate. Why can't they just take shooters' word for it? They have a duty, surely the police should just assume that people are observing this duty? It's outrageous, they won't take anybody's word for it, but insist on checking their homes regularly!
It is, when you think about it, quite sensible. Parliament thrusts these duties upon us whether we want them or not. Clearly, some of us will try to wriggle out of our duties if the state isn't watching. And so the next logical step is that if parliament lays a duty or responsibilty upon us, they will also want to check that we are actually undertaking this duty and not shirking it because we think we can get away with it. Makes sense really. So when we have a duty to pay tax, the government appoint people to check that we are doing so. Otherwise some people might be tempted not to pay the full amount. Similarly, the law lays a duty on those holding firearms certificates to keep their weapons securely locked up. To make sure that some fool isn't leaving a loaded twelve bore leaning against the wall in the living room, the government gets the police to pop round from time to time to make sure that this particular duty is being adhered to. And of course in precisely the same way, when we are given a duty by parliament to see that our children are being educated, the government assumes that some people will avoid this duty. They want to get somebody to visit every so often to see whether citizens are also undertaking this duty.
The duties which we have are, if not from God, then simply the free creation of human minds. The implications of this idea are profound and I have sketched some of them above. The conclusion is inescapable, if the duty has been devised by men and women and imposed upon us, then it is perfectly reasonable for those same men and women to check that we are fulfilling this duty. Causing our children to receive a suitable education is just one of many duties which we have under law. As with many other of those duties, the government likes to check up from time to time that we are actually doing it and following the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What you appear to have overlooked is the difference between positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty sees the individual as free to behave as they wish unless their behaviour is prohibited or regulated by law. Laws are made as a consequence of emerging problems needing resolution, not as a result of parliament thinking they might be a good idea. And the state is not allowed to go round looking for cases of law-breaking, except in certain specified circumstances.
ReplyDeletePositive liberty, by contrast, is liberty determined by the state and protected by it; the French constitution is a good example. The French constitution, like much European law, emerged from the legacy of the Roman occupation and the Romans had a well-developed view of the state. Judaeo-Christian theocratic law is also a positive liberty.
British law, founded on the principle of negative liberty, derives more from Viking and Anglo-Saxon views of communities as groups of self-determining individuals rather than citizens of a reified state.
The contrast between the two systems was debated extensively around the time of the French revolution and British people have been rightly proud of their legal heritage. For all its faults, it appears to have stood us in good stead for many hundreds of years.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know which firearms legislation you are referring to in your example.
ReplyDelete"Under the Firearms Rules 1989, a prescribed safekeeping condition is attached to all firearm and shot gun certificates. It is an offence not to meet a condition of a certificate. The maximum penalty for this offence can be up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both.
ReplyDeleteThe safekeeping condition attached to a firearms certificate requires that the firearms(s) and ammunition that the certificate is for must be stored securely to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, unauthorised people taking or using them. When a firearm or ammunition is being used, or the holder has the firearm with him while it is being cleaned, repaired, or tested, or for some other purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale, or if the firearms or ammunition is being transported, or for any other such purpose, the condition requires that reasonable precautions must be taken for the safe custody of the firearms(s) and the ammunition."
It is, in theory, left to individual police forces to specify their own requirements under the safekeeping conditions part of the legislation. The Home Office has however issued guidance on this. It must at the least be a steel cabinet with a five lever lock and the cabinet itself must be bolted to the floor or wall. If you are interested in applying for a firearms certificate suzieg, I can help you out with more detailed information. You can email me if you like.
As far as positive and negative liberties go, this is an interesting point, but somewhat of a red herring. To clear the ground, do you believe that before the passage of the Forster act in the late 19th Century, there was any pre-existing duty to provide an education for one's children? In other words, do you accept that the duty was created by law and before the law was passed there was no such duty?
Surely though one of the issues is the nature of inspection. When it comes to firearms, it is pretty clear to see whether said gun is in a locked cabinet or not; there can't be much debate over what a cabinet is and what a lock is; but when it comes to what an education is it isn't as straightforward. A policeman only has to recognise a few inert objects to tick the right boxes; some LA inspectors though seem to be looking for evidence of an education based only on their school experience and are therefore inadequately trained for their task.
ReplyDeleteBy now frequent readers here will have gathered that I am all in favour of a porper academic education - I am not the "autonomous type" and would have felt a complete failure if my daughter had failed to read, write and pass some GCSEs...because I knew she was capable of doing so. However even I wonder what an inspector (had one ever seen my daughter) would have made of her education at various earlier stages of her life, especially if they had taken a snapshot of a "bad" day. Now if someone like me (ex-teacher with the gift of the gab) had concerns, no wonder many less articulate people are worried. Some LA reports always pick out the negative .... even if the education is pretty schooly - just because the average inspector can't ever accept that home education is at least equal with school ed - but different.
Then there is the whole issue of what to do with "failed" home educated children anyway... but time for that later!
You touch upon an interesting point Julie, when you say that some local authority inspectors cannot believe that home education is any good, however much it looks like "school at home". This is another good thing about Schedule 1 of the CSF bill. For the first time ever,home education is explicitly recognised in Statute law as being a viable option. Before this, it was a pretty ramshackle business, relying upon the odd sentence in education acts and a few bits of old precedent. After the passage of the new legislation, home education will be placed on a secure, legal footing and local authorities will just have to accept that it is here to stay.
ReplyDeleteI think personally that there is a lot of dead wood to cut away, but I have no doubt that home education should emerge from all this leaner and fitter than ever. If I did not beleive this, then I too would oppose the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
Suzieg, you say;
ReplyDelete"And the state is not allowed to go round looking for cases of law-breaking, except in certain specified circumstances."
I'm afraid that this happens constantly in thousands of different settings. Inspectors from various agencies visit kitchens, for example. Why? In order to see whether they might be breaking the laws regarding food handling and preparation. Most of us see this as a good thing! The police visit holders of firearms certificates routinely. The purpose of the visit is to see whether the owners of guns might be breaking the law with regard to safekeeping of their weapons. Shops are inspected regularly to make quite sure that the owners are not breaching the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act 1963.
In fact "the state" spends a lot of time looking for cases of law breaking all over the place and at all times.
To clear the ground, do you believe that before the passage of the Forster act in the late 19th Century, there was any pre-existing duty to provide an education for one's children? In other words, do you accept that the duty was created by law and before the law was passed there was no such duty?
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking my hand up and saying "Sir! Sir! Sir!".
Yes, of course there was a pre-existing duty. It's the duty of a parent, as pretty much all the animal kingdom knows, to provide whatever is necessary prepare their offspring to one day successfully live independently in the environment they find themselves in. The only exceptions to this are those animals with offspring that don't need any such help.
Of course, you have to define what education is. I believe I just did it in the previous paragraph.
Duties, like morals, come from within. You may choose to invoke a mysterious being and call it God, which is fine, but I tend to think that ultimately we both mean the same thing.
Can a duty be created by the machinations of self-serving and morally bankrupt politicians. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
On another note, your two examples of taxes and firearms are bad ones as comparisons to the proposals for inspecting families, as follows:
In the case of taxes, the Inland Revenue DO NOT routinely come into your house and inspect your bank statements or look under your bed for biscuit tins full of cash. They have powers to investigate if there is suspicion of wrongdoing.
In the case of coming to inspect my firearms cabinet, it's a clear cut decision as to whether it complies with the rules or not. This applies to taxes as well - you've either paid them or you haven't. That's very different to the idea of officials from the LA (who have a track record in many cases of being ignorant prejudiced and vexatious) doing routine inspections and making totally subjective judgements which have the ability to disrupt private family life.
So, EVEN IF it's right that taxes are extracted and firearms are restricted, and that these things are subject to inspection, that does not make it right that the private family matters are subject to routine inspection. And there is plenty of room for disagreement with that 'EVEN IF' too.
"Duties and morals come from within" I cannot conceive what you mean by this Ciaran. I belive these duties to be the gift of heaven, handed down by the Lord. If one does not believe that, then the only alternative is that they have been created by human beings. Human values change constantly. For example, a couple of centuries ago, slavery was thought to be acceptable. This view changed and the law was changed to reflect this. There can be absolute divine values, but not absolute human ones; these change all the time. We have only to look at the values of South Africa a few years ago or the Third Reich to see this in practice.
ReplyDeleteThe only way we can really keep track of our duties in a secular society is to see what the law on the matter is. If the law changes, so do our duties and obligations.
m afraid that this happens constantly in thousands of different settings. Inspectors from various agencies visit kitchens, for example. Why? In order to see whether they might be breaking the laws regarding food handling and preparation.
ReplyDeleteyour kitchen at home is not sublected to inpsectors checking it for food handling or for how you store it what you serve. But we do know that some kitchen in some part of the UK would fail should we then check all houses in UK? where will it end? some window frames need painting replacing should we check take action? my garden path need to be replace should we check all houses some one could fall over on it? I thin kit comes down to trust and Simon does not trust people that is a real shame!
In fact "the state" spends a lot of time looking for cases of law breaking all over the place and at all times
Only target looking for law breaking you ask the police they go for target looking with evidence you dont check every house for stolen goods but of course you could but the police do not want this it would be a waste of man power!
I think personally that there is a lot of dead wood to cut away, but I have no doubt that home education should emerge from all this leaner and fitter than ever. If I did not beleive this, then I too would oppose the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
What dead wood? do you mean not doing home education the right way like a school? you want home education to be like a school based education?
should it ever get passed councils are so slow and it cost to much that i dont think it will work we going to have cutbacks next year so i dont think the money is they do you to waste on home educators people want any spare money spent on schools for they children!
We'll probably have to agree to not understand each other then, Simon, by the sounds of it. When you say "a couple of centuries ago, slavery was thought to be acceptable,", I understand that those with their hands on the levers of power decided it was beneficial to them, and thus acceptable, and so did those who blindly follow such people.
ReplyDeleteI can accept you would have happily found slavery acceptable under those circumstances, if that's what you're saying. I would not have done. It's wrong. I know this because simply because *I know this*, not because people tell me so, or it's accepted.
I don't personally use the words "divinely handed down" for this kind of basic knowledge of what's right or wrong, but I still maintain we might be referring to the same concept. It all depends on whether you are talking about something truly divine as a source for these things, or just some ancient writings that have been translated and twisted according to various agendas over the centuries.
Human values under the Third Reich, nor in any other similar situation. What happened is that bad people gained too much power and weak people followed, either as a result of fear, indoctrination, propaganda, whatever. That's one reason (trying to get back on topic) why the state must never be allowed to dictate that all children are educated according to its politically-motivated formula. That's what the Nazi's (you mentioned them first!) wanted and got, and that's what Ed Balls and his gang want.
Education seems more comparable to tax than shotguns, after all, a shotgun can kill if misused unlike education or tax. The tax inspector does not routinely visit the homes of every adult in the country to check that they are paying the appropriate tax, so why should the LA do this for education?
ReplyDeleteBTW, you were asked for the law that specifies that the storage facilities for shotguns must be routinely inspected but the law you quoted in answer does not say this. It is the equivalent of the law stating that we must ensure our children receive a suitable education. Not saying that it doesn't exist, but I would like to know where it is states in law that you must allow a routine inspection of shotgun storage facilities when their is no cause to suspect a crime.
Firearms certificates are issued by the police. They will not issue one until the safekeeping arrangements have been inspected. They will drop by to check them every year or so after that. This is covered by various Statutory Instruments, all of which allow the police a good deal of latitude in their inspections. Nobody has in the last ten years or so been issued with any sort of firearms certificate without the police satisfying themselves about the safekeeping arrangements.
ReplyDelete"BTW, you were asked for the law that specifies that the storage facilities for shotguns must be routinely inspected but the law you quoted does not say this. Not saying that it doesn't exist, but I would like to know where it is stated in law."
ReplyDeleteAccording to this page, http://www.shootinglaw.co.uk/articles/firearms_and_shotgun_certificates.doc there is not right in law to inspect routinely.
"The second is that the Police have no right in law to inspect the storage arrangements of the Certificate Holder. Contrary to what some Firearms Licensing Officers say, it is a matter for the Certificate holder to store his guns securely as required by the Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms Rules 1998."
Do you know if the law has changed on this since the Farrer v Chief Constable Essex (2000), Simon? Seems possible with terrorism etc, but it would be nice to know. Otherwise it looks much like the situation with home education where LAs state that they are required to carry out a routine home visit despite there being no requirement in law.
Education seems more comparable to tax than shotguns, after all, a shotgun can kill if misused unlike education or tax. The tax inspector does not routinely visit the homes of every adult in the country to check that they are paying the appropriate tax, so why should the LA do this for education?
ReplyDeleteWithout wishing to become embroiled in too much of a discussion about firearms certificates, Anonymous, you may care to look at the 2002 Home Office Guidelines;
ReplyDeletehttp://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf
The minute details of safekeeping are such that it is impractical to issue a certificate without inspecting the premises. Of course, anybody objecting to this can do so; they will simply not get a firearms certificate. the police are resonsible for assuring themselves of these matter and also issuing the certificates. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
@Simon
ReplyDelete"And of course in precisely the same way, when we are given a duty by parliament to see that our children are being educated, the government assumes that some people will avoid this duty. They want to get somebody to visit every so often to see whether citizens are also undertaking this duty."
Or you could say:
"And of course in precisely the same way, when we are given a duty by parliament to see that our children are being fed and nurtured, the government assumes that some people will avoid this duty. They want to get somebody to visit every so often to see whether citizens are also undertaking this duty.
Would that be acceptable to you? Bearing in mind that the consequences of failing to feed or nurture children are potentialy much more serious thn the consequences of failing to educate them?
"They want to get somebody to visit every so often to see whether citizens are also undertaking this duty"
ReplyDeleteI thought they took home visits off the table ?
Have they done u-turn on that one ?
S'ok, I went and looked it up, it's this bit I think.
ReplyDelete___________________
Arrangements made by an authority under this section shall include
arrangements made with a view to their—
(a)
holding at least one meeting with the child during the registration period;
(b)
holding at least one meeting with a parent of the child during the registration period;
(c)
if they consider that a person other than a parent of the child is primarily responsible for providing education to the child,
_________________________________
They've taken away the "home" bit of the visit and made provision for a parent to be present if they object to their child being seen alone.
Right ?
The meeting will not have to take place at home. It could be a library, for instance.
ReplyDeleteSarah, that's a bare-faced lie that Ed Balls keeps on telling - "There is no right of entry into people's homes." What it says is that they will request to enter people's homes, and if they refuse that's grounds for issuing an SAO, and in the hearing related to that the fact that the child is receiving a suitable education must not be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, they will not actually break down the door. You either open it, or they will a) drag your child to school, b) send you to prison, or c) both. You choose.
As Simon says, there is another technicality - it is not "the home" but the place where the education usually takes place. It would be a bit of a stretch to claim that was the library, and I daresay if you did so it would be assumed there was something suspicious about your home, and this would also count as non-cooperation. Consequences as above.
How all this plays out in practice of course depends entirely on the disposition (and prejudice, etc) of the particular officials and the policy of the particular LA. As there are plenty of well known examples of very bad ones already (as well as good, to be fair), I don't think my interpretation above is fanciful or alarmist in any way.
Of course, this assumes the proposed legislation makes it onto the statute book, which I think is unlikely.
arah, that's a bare-faced lie that Ed Balls keeps on telling - "There is no right of entry into people's homes." What it says is that they will request to enter people's homes, and if they refuse that's grounds for issuing an SAO, and in the hearing related to that the fact that the child is receiving a suitable education must not be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, they will not actually break down the door. You either open it, or they will a) drag your child to school, b) send you to prison, or c) both. You choose.
As Simon says, there is another technicality - it is not "the home" but the place where the education usually takes place. It would be a bit of a stretch to claim that was the library, and I daresay if you did so it would be assumed there was something suspicious about your home, and this would also count as non-cooperation. Consequences as above.
yes i agree with ciaranG if you refuse visit to home/meeting school attendance order issued no account of education will be heard by court.This cant be right can it? your be guilty no chance to tell court the education your giving the child!
But i dont think it become law due to government running out of time i think it be held up in the lords to stop it!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"The minute details of safekeeping are such that it is impractical to issue a certificate without inspecting the premises. Of course, anybody objecting to this can do so; they will simply not get a firearms certificate. the police are resonsible for assuring themselves of these matter and also issuing the certificates."
So the guidance is non-statutory and there is no legal requirement to allow an inspection. The Police are in a similar position to the LA now, except that the LA is deciding if it needs to issue a SAO and the police are deciding if they will issue a licence but it is still up to them. They could decide to issue a certificate without inspection and still remain within the law. If an inspection is refused and the Police refuse to issue a licence in response to this refusal, the issue would then be decided in court just as the legitimacy of the SAO can be disputed in court if it is issued purely because a home visit is refused (and when this happened the judge stated that a home visit should not be a routine requirement).
However, as I said, education seems more comparable to tax than shotguns, after all, a shotgun can kill if misused unlike education or tax. The tax inspector does not routinely visit the homes of every adult in the country to check that they are paying the appropriate tax, so why should the LA do this for education?
Sarah wrote,
"I thought they took home visits off the table ?
Have they done u-turn on that one ?"
Home visits are not compulsory but refusal can be taken as failure to co-operate and a licence, sorry registration, refused.
"Or you could say:
ReplyDelete"And of course in precisely the same way, when we are given a duty by parliament to see that our children are being fed and nurtured, the government assumes that some people will avoid this duty. They want to get somebody to visit every so often to see whether citizens are also undertaking this duty."
Yes, like the shotgun, lack of food can kill but routine visits are still not a requirement to feed your children at home. Under 5's not at nursery could easily go unseen by 'authority figures' or anyone for that matter, yet families are not required to submit to regular inspections of their kitchens and their child is not required to be observed eating or have regular weight checks (to be sure the are really receiving the food the parent claims they are). Why is education more important than food? Or is it just a matter of time? Where would you draw the line, Simon?
i agree with that by anonymous will it simon just be a matter of time before we check to see that children in the home are eating the right food and in the right way? kitchens inspected will the child have to be watched when it is eating once a year or more will it be weighted? you have to have trust that is the only way once you go down simon way everthing must be inspected. it is a crazy way to live
ReplyDeletePrevious-but-one-Anonymous: Are you sure about the weight checks? cough.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about this issue of food in the next few days, when politicians scramble to use the tragic death of a young girl starved by her evil parents as a political football, and justification for suspicion of everyone and intrusion into anything and everything. I suspect Simon will be hopping aboard that particular bandwagon (again) too, something along the lines of "if they're not in school, how can we know they're not being starved and beaten, unless we inspect their homes?"
yes CiaranG- you are right that tragie girls death will be used by our politicians/Balls to give justification for suspicion of every one! its all about gaing assess to our homes every home Simon? i want balls home inpsected just in case he is beaten up his children just in case! iwant Badman home inpsected just in case he is beating up his wife! i want his wife inpsected for signs of abuse!
ReplyDeleteNo One from Our LA will ever get into our house.
To live in simon world where you mistrust every body can not be a nice way to live! you got to trust people simon you got to trust parent/children you have become a bitter old man dont it not to late to re-think.
M.Gove M.P tory(spokesman for schools just said this " I think Home educators do a wonderful job-they give up time and sacrifices so much for they children-Government should support them and WE wont allow the current Government plans to stigmatise home educators to get though!"
ReplyDeletein other words it will run out of time in the lords! glass of wine time later thanks Mr Gove M.P
Simon,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think will happen in the next Parliament (if Labour lose) and this Bill is washed out? Do you think a different govt will introduce a registration scheme at the very least?
My personal opinion Julie, is that the free and easy days of home educating without telling anybody or involving the local authority are over. I strongly suspect that the Conservatives will be relieved if the CSF bill is passed. The business about Khyra Ishaq is due to reach a huge climax just while the Lords are debating the bill. I can see a groundswell of public opinion that will be very anti-home education. This may be irrational, but then you know what the British public are like! At a guess, I would say yes, if this bill didn't get through, then somebody would dash of a private members bill that the government of the day would give time to.
ReplyDeleteSiom says then somebody would dash off a private members bill that the government of the day would give time to.
ReplyDeleteA government can give time to a private members bills but it is very rare that a private members bill becomes law it is often a way to let M.P let off stream with out anything happening it looks goog for that M.P
Simon says My personal opinion Julie, is that the free and easy days of home educating without telling anybody or involving the local authority are over.
I dont think that is right Simon if as i suspect this law is not passed nothing has changed.The LA will not have they new powers if anything they be weaker as they put everything into geting the new law passed and failed! LA will have been shown to be weak! which we both know they are all talk and no action! it will be good news all round for home educators it will show every one that you can fight back and win!
Julie says-ulie said...
ReplyDeleteSimon,
What do you think will happen in the next Parliament (if Labour lose) and this Bill is washed out? Do you think a different govt will introduce a registration scheme at the very least?
I dont think they be a registration scheme if tory win election they have far more inportant things to be geting on with such as cuting back on government spending to get the very bad debt we in thanks to Brown/Balls we going to see real cut backs in public services so i dont thin kthey will be the money to waste on crazy schemes for home educators
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"At a guess, I would say yes, if this bill didn't get through, then somebody would dash of a private members bill that the government of the day would give time to."
It's clear that you have some incredible beliefs and this is another. I can believe that the CSF bill will make it through, but if not, I'd be very surprised to see a private members bill attract such support. Unless the profiteers really start to apply the pressure.
Tell us Simon, do you expect to profit as a result of your book? I don't mean from royalties, but from work that might arise as a result of LAs etc., looking around in desperation for people who might be able to "advise" them. Can you assure us that you don't have a pecuniary interest in any form of tighter legislation on home education?
Well of course many people in the world of home education make money out of it. I wonder if you happen to know hoe much Paula Rothermel charges for her services as an expert witness. Mike and Jan Fortune-Wood have also published books about home education and Mike gets paid by local authorities for training their staff. Alison Sauer also gets paid for that sort of thing. Catherine Mooney shamelessly touts for business on the home education lists for her English courses and of course Jill Harris posts repeatedly, advertising her business of Cradlecare.
ReplyDeleteDoes Mike Fortune-Wood have, as you put it, a pecuniary interest in advising local authorities? Of course. Or are you saying that it would only be wrong for somebody to be paid for giving what you consider to be the wrong sort of advice?
It would be wrong if you are campaigning for the changes because you see them as creating a source of income for you rather than because you think they are a good thing. I can imagine that there are plenty of companies rubbing their hands at the thought of the income they can make when LAs outsource inspections to them and they would have good reason (in their eyes) to lobby for the law to go through.
ReplyDeleteThat's absurd. You might just as well say that it would be wrong for Mike Fortune-Wood to campaign against changes in legislation, because canging the law would mean that he would be out of a job training local authority officers! I assume that he genuinely believes in what he says, regardless of his financial interest in the matter. If you are going to make these sly and baseless insinuations, you might at least have the courage to put your name to them.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, Anonymous? I think you've got a point! Simon's out of a job now his daughter's at college, and I've always wondered why he makes such a point of being the only home educator in the world who agrees with Badman. Interesting...
ReplyDeleteAh yes, that old chestnut. Simon Webb as the only home educator who agrees with Graham Badman! You clearly have not looked at the analysis of the responses that Badman received from home educators. Another sleazy Anonymous trying to spread malicious rumours.
ReplyDeleteOh. I apologise. I didn't realise that you are the only one who's allowed to spread malicious rumours.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know how you interpreted the analysis of HE responses to the review to mean that you are not *almost* alone in your opinions (OK, I did exaggerate a bit, but only for dramatic effect. Are you the only one who's allowed to do that too?).
Simon, I'm wondering who you're going to give your vote to in the election, now that Michael Gove has made it so clear whose side he's on.
ReplyDeleteHave any of the posters tag teaming with the snide posts about remuneration also taken part in discussions that hotly decried bully boy tactics and jumped up and down about malice or libel in the same bit of cyberspace by any chance ?
ReplyDeleteThe last few months of reading the comments on this blog have led me to a few conclusions.
There is no way in hell I am going to expose my son to an HE "get together event" in the UK since there is too great a risk of it being infected with playground tactics and principles that ebb and flow depending on who would benefit from their application.
Simon can only dream of damaging the "no change to the law" campaign to the extent that some of the commentators here manage.
I've seen committed trolls utilizing email tag behind the scenes do less damage to a "side's" credibility.
If my right to HE in peace depended on this campaign succeeding I'd be sorely tempting to take a large bunch of the anonymouses, superglue their gobs shut and lock them in a cupboard for the duration.
May your respective campaigns prosper.
@Sarah
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame you feel like that, because most of the UK HEors that I've met are lovely people in the flesh :-)
Bear in mind that we are all stressed and on edge because of this interminable attack on our way of life.
And that Simon has a long history of betraying people's trust and making himself unpleasant and unpopular on the home ed lists, which is why he's been kicked off them all.
I suspect that many people post here anonymously or under a pseudonym because if we use our real names when we disagree with Simon he has a nasty habit of getting personal. That's certainly why I do. He's tried to make my life difficult in various ways which I won't go into here because I don't want him to know who I am.
The only reason I read his blog and post here is because I don't want anyone who stumbles on this blog while looking for real information about home education, to get the wrong idea and assume that he knows what he's talking about. His oft-repeated conflation of autonomous education with neglect, for example, should not in my view be allowed to go unchallenged.
I'm usually polite, because I really am here to promote fruitful discussion, but just occasionally the temptation to wind him up overcomes me.
I don't honestly think that a bit of Simon-baiting, or even wild ranting, on a blog with seven followers, will do the public image of HE any damage at all, but it does annoy me when people start ranting and bitching in more public arenas like the comments sections of the daily papers, or more sensitive ones like Lord Lucas's blog.
If you want some civilised and genuine debate about HE there are many blogs, forums and email lists you can go to. Have a look around.
Yes Sarah, you are quite right. Others have remarked on the irony of parents who have withdrawn their children from school due to bullying and then take up bullying themnselves on the Internet. On the HE-UK list, for example, anybody diagreeing with certain members is liable to be driven off the list by being sent agressive offline messages. There is very definitely a playground bully element on the HE lists.
ReplyDelete"Anna" asks how I interpreted the responses to Graham Badman's review of elective home education in such a way as to conclude that I was not alone in my opinions. Well I have the figures right here in front of me. Of the something over two thousand parents who responded to the review, almost a third were in favour of registration. Clearly I am not alone in calling for registration in order to keep track of home educated children! I have pointed out before that fewer than 1% of parents of home educated children responded in any case. What the other 99% think, I have no idea and neither does anybody else.
ReplyDelete"John Smith", you say, " His oft-repeated conflation of autonomous education with neglect". I have certainly said that I am a little sceptical of the educational benefits of this method. Perhaps you could tell us where I have "oft repeated" that it is neglectful? Of course some parents could, under the guise of autonomous education, neglect their children's education entirely. But when you use the word "neglect", I imagine that you are hinting that I think sutonomous eduators neglect their children in a wider sense? Let's have a few examples of my doing this.
ReplyDeleteSarah-here is no way in hell I am going to expose my son to an HE "get together event" in the UK since there is too great a risk of it being infected with playground tactics and principles that ebb and flow depending on who would benefit from their application.
ReplyDeleteDont you live aboard? as for playground tatic who started it? i belive it was Balls/Morgan?DCSF calling home education a form of abuse. so no wonder home educators are angry! something i learnt to if you dont fight back hard you will lose! Home educators where very happy until Balls started to poke his nose in! with claims of child abuse have you seen him with that smug smile? we want answers from him as t owhy he hates home education so much!
"That's absurd. You might just as well say that it would be wrong for Mike Fortune-Wood to campaign against changes in legislation, because canging the law would mean that he would be out of a job training local authority officers!"
ReplyDeleteBut the planned changes wouldn't do this, so what's your point? If Mike campaigned for or against any legislation that would be harmful to some home educators and his main priority was monetary I would say he was in the wrong. Wouldn't you? Do you condone people campaigning for harmful legislation purely for financial gain? The current legislation will not protect children, on the contrary, it will take money away areas where it is really need and seems likely to result in children being left in dangerous situations because local authorities will be even less able to find the needle in the ever growing haystack of normal, healthy families that will face regular monitoring.
"If you are going to make these sly and baseless insinuations, you might at least have the courage to put your name to them."
I didn't. I just explained why it might be wrong *if* that was your motivation. It was someone else who brought up the possibility and asked:
"Tell us Simon, do you expect to profit as a result of your book? I don't mean from royalties, but from work that might arise as a result of LAs etc., looking around in desperation for people who might be able to "advise" them. Can you assure us that you don't have a pecuniary interest in any form of tighter legislation on home education?"
Seems a reasonable question in the circumstances. Many companies will be hoping to make money as a direct result of this legislation (outsourcing of monitoring, provision of 'suitable' curriculum and study materials, on-line schools, etc). Don't you think it's legitimate to question the motives of people who campaign for legislation that could potentially increase their income?
I asked the question about pecuniary interests and just returned to see the answer and some entertaining debate.
ReplyDeleteIt's a perfectly reasonable question; there was no "baseless insinuation" and suggesting that it is sly or snide is really quite absurd. I am not supporting a change in the law that will have have a detrimental impact on other people while giving me the opportunity for financial gain; neither are the other people that Simon mentioned, so far as I am aware.
I'm well aware of others that sell services and skills in relation to home education, including some that Simon mentioned. I asked the question so that I could also be aware of Simon's position - or is he allowed to maintain secrecy while others are open?
Nevertheless, thankyou, Simon, for your enlightening answer!
I am completely at a loss to know what financial gain I am likely to make from a change in the law. Perhaps someone can tell me where I can collect this money once the bill receives Royal assent? The change in the law may well have a detrimental effect on some people, it might improve the lot of others. Precisely the same could of course be said for leaving the law as it is. This comes down to personal opinion, mine being different from some of those who have commented above.
ReplyDeleteOf course Mike Fortune-Wood would lose out financially if the law changed. I can't see him being prepared to train local authorities about the need to enforce Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009! To that extent, he probably has more of a financial stake in the business than I do. After all, he is actually being paid for training local authority officers in the current law.I am not and nor do I have any plans for doing so in the future if the law should change. This whole debate is taking on an Alice in Wonderland air!
I think he's more likely to be concerned about the Bill stopping his children from home educating autonomously in future if they wish. My impression is that he doesn't make much money from training LAs ATM - he's too busy running a publishing company (unconnected to HE).
ReplyDeleteBut wait! Would that be Cinnamon Press, the same Cinnamon Press that publishes Jan Fortune-Wood's five books on home education? The Cinnamon Press which publishes the Home Education Journal? I had forgotten about Jan Fortune-Wood's books. I dare say that you will be wanting to make a few comments about her royalties for those books, won't you Anonymous?
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me as though the Fortune-Woods have turned their interest in home education into quite a nice little cottage industry. They would certainly be out of pocket if autonomous education became impossible in this country. Just a moment though! Doesn't Mike Fortune-Wood bang on about the threat to autonomous education? Does he have what you have described as a "pecuniary interest" in his campaign to retain the status quo? Hot diggety, I hope somebody denounces him for the mercenary rascal he so plainly is.
These comments are growing a little unwieldy, so I shall be putting up a post about well known people in the home education world who stand to lose out financially if the law is changed. I am obliged to you for suggesting this, Anonymous.
As Cinnamon Press press publishes over 25 books a year I doubt Jan's 5 HE/parenting books account for much of their income and it's doubtful that the new law would affect their income either. The US is a much bigger market and autonomous education or unschooling is popular. My impression is that the Fortune-Woods are moving away from HE as their children pass compulsory school age to be honest.
ReplyDeleteSimon (I asked the question in the first place), you are muddying the waters. The other people that you mention are either selling services to LAs etc., for a status quo that the overwhelming majority of HEors wish to keep, or selling books and services that people can choose to buy or not.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with people selling skills, services and the benefits of their experience for which there is a market; much of the economy depends on this kind of thing! This applies to the people you mentioned AND to you.
I may disagree with you on many of the points you make about the legislation but I have no doubt that you have some good HE experience and (less common) that you could usefully convey that to others, whether that be via a book (but in a niche market, that's not as lucrative as people may think) or training others. If you earn a decent living, tour a bit, do the chat shows, have a fan-club etc., that's fine by me.
The problem I have is that the opportunities afforded by the new legislation are largely around enforced box ticking and game playing; nothing to do with a good education for children. The state will expand its army of bureaucrats with the aim of making itself look good, ticking boxes on the Every Child Matters agenda. Home educators and their children will gain little or nothing while being subjected to a great deal of pointless, stressful bureaucracy. When organisations like Crapita are jumping in on this, you know there is a really bad smell and there will be plenty of others in their wake. In short, a gross and irresponsible and damaging waste of money (I think that point may be the nub of any residual disagreement).
I'd be very happy to see a post on what's being offered to HEors and their children; I might learn something useful and spend some money.
JIM MCGILVERY DOES NOT TELL THE TRUTH
ReplyDeleteHCC TELL LIES ASK THEM TO SUE ME LOL
ReplyDeleteJACK CAWTHRA IS A LIAR
ReplyDelete