I am often amused to hear that I am practically the only home educator in the country who approves of new legislation. It is perfectly true that an appearance of wonderful unanimity has been achieved on various Internet lists and other places and this does have the overall effect of presenting home educating parents as united in the hatred of and opposition to the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. How is this illusion maintained?
Until I was chucked off the various lists last Summer, I used to take an active part in many of the debates on both the HE-UK and EO lists. I would regularly get emails off-list from people who told me that they actually agreed with what I was saying but did not like to come out on my side openly. One mother told me that she was frightened of 'putting her head above the parapet'! I found this pretty disturbing. The reason these women did not like to say the things that I was saying was simply because they knew that it would make them unpopular with some of the more aggressive and regular posters. I watched this happen a few times. Some poor person would join and then express an opinion about visits from the local authority or registration and would then be hounded into keeping quiet. A number of mothers were actually driven off the HE-UK list in this way. One woman with whom I was in contact was sent very unpleasant emails off-list. She had suggested that Graham Badman might have a point!
A mother posted recently on one of the lists saying that she had had a very pleasant and positive experience of a visit by her local authority. You might imagine that this was a good thing, but it did not take long before other people began trying to poison this woman against her local authority. She was told that accepting visits could be bad for other parents, that she was letting down the side, she should not trust the local authority officer, that if she declined a visit in the future, the local authority might think she was abusing her children! I don't think that this particular person will be posting again in a hurry about having a nice visit. This is one of the ways that the united front is enforced; by ensuring that mothers who don't toe the line are made to feel uncomfortable and as though they are in some way letting down other parents by having an enjoyable monitoring visit. Since isolated mothers often depend on these lists, they do not wish to become unpopular for expressing heterodox views. This sort of thing is of course a type of bullying.
Another way of manipulating the appearance of home education in this country is done more subtly. A yahoo group called Homeedoutcomes has recently been started. The person running it has been appealing for true accounts of successful home education outcomes. I applied to join the list weeks ago, but despite following up this with another email, it is pretty clear that I shall not be allowed to do so. The eventual collection of accounts will be limited to those who chose an unstructured education for their children. This is a deliberate strategy in order to present a distorted picture of home education in this country. Just to check, I got another home educating parent known to me to send in a brief account of her structured home education outcomes. The same thing; she will not be allowed to contribute her story either!
These are just a couple of the ways in which a particular strand of home education attempts to portray itself as the one true faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me that as we get closer to a general election (and thus probable loss of the CSF Bill in the wash-up), many home educators have got angrier, rather than perhaps the opposite emotion (which one might have expected). One of the consequences of this is that you have become the current hate figure ( going by the increasing anger in some of the recent replies) - although since it is often difficult to tell one anon poster from another.
ReplyDeleteThere are likewise more "never cooperate" sort of posts on the main lists too, even though in some cases, as you have said, the original posts are about positive contacts with LAs.
Do you think all this is because some people have realised that whatever happens in the next few weeks, the whole legislation issue isn't going to disappear for ever? In addition I do also think that the whole publicty surrounding home ed and recent cases has made the LAs themselves a bit more twitchy. It is difficult to really know because of course the only cases we hear about are the extreme ones in which social services do become involved; we don't hear about ones in which the LAs and families do just get on with it without any problems.
This is simply a repeat of yesterday's post, isn't it Simon? This is another smokescreen. Your game-plan is transparent.
ReplyDeleteLet me just restate the only point that matters.
While other HEs may not agree with your method of educating and disclude you from their lists, and while they may evangelise their methods and critise yours, they do not want to ban your methods and they know they have no right to attempt to ban your methods. You have said that you condone the use of State violence to force its will on to the population, thus admitting you are an aggressive man. You condone the use of violence against HEs who do not educate in a way that you believe is suitable.
You must justify why you believe you have a right to ban another parent educating their child according to their own philosophy and justify why you condone violence against them.
It appears to me that you have positioned yourself, so as to attract attention and to gain income from journalism. Are the 30 pieces of silver worth it Simon?
Some LAs have already started enacting parts of the Bill as though it's already law which doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteI have very mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand I do not want to prevent anyone from making their own choices but on the other hand we do hear of LA staff holding up all the other home educators in her area who are perfectly happy with home visits. Why do you have to be so awkward/different/possibly have something to hide?
I've also seen a conversation between two home educators where one was saying how well their visit went and was commiserating with the other because there's had been difficult. It turned out they had both had the same visitor. I sympathise with the wish of someone who has experienced a good visit and wants to reassure others that it might not be as bad as they fear, but there is no way of knowing if others will have the same experience with the same area and the same policies, let along across the other side of the country.
It's a bit like the lady at the anti-natal follow up class I went to. I was a second time mother and she had just had her first. She quite aggressively asked me why I hadn't warned her that it would be so painful. I had found it painful but not every one does and it sounds as though her experience was more painful than mine. I still don't know what I would tell her if I had my time again.
AM said
ReplyDelete"The fact that Simon has defended and still defends this vicious and corrupt Bill, makes him an enemy."
I have a problem with that really; if supporting the Bill (and at this point, I shall point out again, that I don't!) makes someone an enemy, then well - I meet such "enemies" at least weekly ... and to be frank, some of them support the CSF bill for less rational reasons than Simon!
REFORMS RECONSIDERED: INS AN OUTS OF THE BILL
ReplyDeleteIN
* School inspections to take into account the requirements of pupils with special educational needs
* Personal, social and health education (PSHE) to be mandatory with one year of sex education
* Provisions for the supply of information to local safeguarding children boards
OUT
* The licence to practise
* Changes to law over home-educating parents requiring registration with local authorities
* Pupil and parent guarantee providing a series of entitlements and subsequent redress if not met.
It beong reported in TES that the home educating bits are being got rid of great news Simon? we won! glass of wine time!
"You have said that you condone the use of State violence to force its will on to the population, thus admitting you are an aggressive man."
ReplyDeleteI don't recollect this! I certainly said that it happened and was in the nature of government. I don't in general approve of it though. However, most people condone the state us of violence in certain circumstances. If a policeman comes across a man raping a child and says, "Come along now and stop doing that". Suppose the man refuses? Is the policeman just to leave it at that? Or should he lay hands on the rapist and drag him off to the police station? A "Yes" to the last question here would mean condoning state violence.
We all of us condone state violence against some people; the question is, against which people should the violence be directed?
The metaphore in " Are the 30 pieces of silver worth it Simon?" is hackneyed and tired at the best of times. At this time of year some might find it offensive.
are you pleased Julie that the bits on Home education will now not be passed? We won! i told you all we would win! Simon you are on the losing team with old Balls?DCSF/Badman! i going to have a nice bottle of ginger beer tonight LOL
ReplyDeleteI suspect Julie, that Mr Williams has not yet realised that you are opposed to the Children, Schools and Families Bill!
ReplyDelete"I have a problem with that really; if supporting the Bill (and at this point, I shall point out again, that I don't!) makes someone an enemy, then well - I meet such "enemies" at least weekly ... and to be frank, some of them support the CSF bill for less rational reasons than Simon!"
ReplyDeleteANYONE who wishes to take away another person's rights is an enemy, Julie.
You don't have any rights with regards to your child, Anonymous. You have instead duties. It is this peculiar and skewed perspective which has caused a lot of the trouble. Even Graham Badman was fooled into talking of balancing the "rights" of parents against the "rights" of children. The only people in this case who have any rights at all are the children. Their rights are my only concern, not the supposed "rights" of some adults to pursue an unconventinal lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteSo is it OK to take away the right for my children to choose the education that suits them best? Who do you think should have the right to decide on what form of education is suitable for a child, the child, their parents or the state?
ReplyDelete"I don't recollect this! I certainly said that it happened and was in the nature of government. I don't in general approve of it though."
ReplyDeleteYES, you do approve of it, otherwise you would not support the CSF bill.
"However, most people condone the state use of violence in certain circumstances. If a policeman comes across a man raping a child and says, "Come along now and stop doing that". Suppose the man refuses? Is the policeman just to leave it at that? Or should he lay hands on the rapist and drag him off to the police station? A "Yes" to the last question here would mean condoning state violence."
The rapist should of course be stopped by force by a policeman or anyone else. Stopping a rapist by force is not 'condoning State violence'. The rapist is committing an act of violence against another person, defiling that person's rights. As the defiler of that person's rights the aggressor loses his rights. This has nothing to do with 'the State'.
'State violence' is a very different thing entirely. The State has the monopoly of the use of violence. It is the only organisation that is allowed to 'legitimately' aggress, coerce, steal, enslave, kidnap and kill. That is the nature of the State. By condoning the State's activities ie its aggression against HEs and parental rights, you are party to its violence. It is of course your right to believe anything you choose, but at least do it honestly.
"The positive outcome of the CSF Bill is that many HEs have become politicised. They are rightly angry that a 'government' can, on the whim of a minister, effectively destroy their lives. They have watched the system operate and they have realised that the system stinks."
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with this and I have had far more contact with my MP over the last few years than during the previous 40, and not just about home education. I must admit to not realising how unrepresentative the current system is and had had no idea about how the whip system worked. I was taught at school that local people elected someone to represent them in parliament but the whipping system that limits them to voting along party lines makes a mockery of this idea. To see members of parliament expressing doubts about a piece of legislation and then promptly voting in favour of because they have been told to surely demonstrates a total lack of representative democracy.
I hope that more independents make it into parliament in future. If enough reach parliament and the main party majority is small, maybe we can see some genuine voting and debate. Debate is vital to help avoid laws being past in haste with poor wording and leaving too much of the detail to secondary legislation.
or even, passed in haste - a case in point.
ReplyDeletePW said "We won! i told you all we would win!"
ReplyDeleteI am not dancing in the streets yet. First of all- I am not given to believing news in advance - we keep hearing that the GE *will* be called on Tuesday and that the CSF Bill *will* fail in the wash up, but let us actually see it happening first. Then there is the election - a few months ago we were told Brown was dead and gone; now it appears less certain. If they are re-elected, then I suspect it will be "here we go again". Then if there is a new Govt - more legislation still seems probable.
Ginger beer for me 2nite Julie raise a glass to victory Julie LOL!
ReplyDelete"You don't have any rights with regards to your child, Anonymous."
ReplyDeleteTHIS is totally false. The parent has sole guardianship of their child, until their child is old enough to own itself. Only cattle and slaves do not 'own' their offspring. This special form of 'ownership' by the parent is what protects the child from the State and other aggressors. This is the most basic and natural of all rights.
"You have instead duties."
No, you have guardianship; 'duties' are something that is imposed upon you.
"It is this peculiar and skewed perspective which has caused a lot of the trouble. Even Graham Badman was fooled into talking of balancing the "rights" of parents against the "rights" of children. The only people in this case who have any rights at all are the children."
THIS is the peculiar and skewed perspective which is causing the trouble! The idea that a child has 'rights' is a very new one; it is wholly divisive in its attempt to separate the parent and child.
Not only is it unethical, it is wholly unworkable. Who is responsible for the child? Who decides what the child should eat or learn or when to go to bed?
"Their rights are my only concern, not the supposed "rights" of some adults to pursue an unconventinal lifestyle."
What are 'unconventional lifestyles'? HAHAHA you are funny guy.
If the parent is not the guardian of their child, then of course the State will gladly take on that role. The State will happily decide what a child must eat, how much it must weigh, what it must believe.
This is a nightmare scenario that even Stalin or Hitler would not have dared to suggest.
Think carefully people, you are being duped into giving away your children in exchange for this false notion of 'Children's Rights'.
"So is it OK to take away the right for my children to choose the education that suits them best? Who do you think should have the right to decide on what form of education is suitable for a child, the child, their parents or the state?"
ReplyDeleteYOU have the right to decide what education is suitable for your child. Only YOU. YOU may decide, as your child ages to share decision making with your child; but this is YOUR choice, not the child's or the States.
When YOU decide the child is old enough to make his own decisions about his education, then HE can decide what constitutes a suitable education. This handing over of responsibility is a wholly natural process.
Because parents only want what is best for their child, there is never any reason to doubt their motives or doubt their judgment concerning their child's education or well-being.
AM said "Because parents only want what is best for their child, there is never any reason to doubt their motives or doubt their judgement concerning their child's education or well-being"
ReplyDeleteGosh do you really think that is always true? I would like to think that, but there are so many examples where it doesn't seem to be tue. The press is littered with the high profile abuse cases of course, but I can think of so many others (which don't involve what would be considered child abuse) where it be hard to see that the parents judgement of what is appropriate is right. I am NOT talking about home ed here (in fact I think there your statement is more likely to ring true, because of the sacrifices they have made in order to home ed) but in so many other areas of life. Other home educators have been critical of many of these parents actions - a lot was made on the home ed lists recently of families who send their children to boarding school at 8; I can think of the woman (in our local hospital) who fed her newborn trifle in the hospital ward.
I wish life was as clear cut as that....
The state should be the parent of last resort. State care of children is known to be very poor and to have very poor outcomes and jumping in too soon can cause more harm than good. The state should not have routine rights over the basic choices families make about diet, fashion, religion, education, etc. until there is cause for concern of harm.
ReplyDelete