Wednesday 23 June 2010

Keeping the faith

One of the things that an outsider finds very striking about the home education movement is the apparently united front which is presented to the world. Why, there may be eighty thousand home educating parents in this country, but they all feel the same way about Graham Badman and his report, all have the same thoughts about monitoring by local authorities, every one of them rejects the conclusions of the Ofsted report and so on. Of course most local authority officers and also staff at Ofsted and the Department for Education realise that this is nonsense and they know very well how this particular illusion is maintained. For the general public though, it might be interesting to look at this subject.

When we see a headline in the newspaper which says, 'Furious home educators reject Ofsted findings' or Badman report or anything else; what is actually happening? Well, usually it means that a spokesperson for Education Otherwise or HE-UK has decided to ring a newspaper and express a view on behalf of home educators. Nothing wrong with that of course, until you look a little more closely and ask yourself just how many people are being represented. Education Otherwise, for example, has a nominal membership of around two and a half thousand. This equates to about 3% of home educating parents. There's a high turnover; many parents join just for a year or so when first they begin to home educate. The organisation is really run by a couple of dozen people. Sure, they have to have an AGM which is theoretically open to everybody, or at least all Signed Up Members, but even then there is a great art in preventing people from attending such things. Simply give only a weeks notice, say, and then hold the AGM in the Outer Hebrides; that should ensure that only your friends turn up. The result is that the 'outrage' expressed in the press release is purely the opinion of one woman, not home educators in general. Even worse, the news media, in their usual lazy way, have lists of people who can be guaranteed to give an instant and angry response. They often ring people like this up and try and get them to express a view on the latest development. So it was that the BBC contacted one of the least temperate and emotionally stable home educating parents in the entire country last week to try and elicit her views on the Ofsted report. What a mercy that she didn't feel up to the task!

Mind you, we see a lot of comments on online newspapers and so on. Surely these are spontaneous expressions of the views of ordinary parents? I was, many years ago, in the Soviet Union, and I remember a factory worker showing me a circular from the local party chief. It announced that there would that day be a 'spontaneous outpouring of the people's anger at American imperialist aggression in Vietnam'. They would assemble at the Androvski Gardens at 2 PM sharp and march to the US Embassy. This reminds me very much of the 'spontaneous' responses to news about home education. What happens is that on several Internet lists news is relayed of newspaper articles daring to criticise home education or support regulation of it. Around fifty regular customers then post like mad on the comments pages, using a variety of secret identities. Mike Fortune-Wood might post as Marske123, others will sign themselves tinpanali, firebird and so on. The end result looks like a lot of ordinary parents who are shocked and disgusted at the news they see. Any normal person reading this will be unlikely to guess that this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign; it looks so natural. If anybody posts a comment supporting the new regulation or whatever, there are at once comments on the lists about these and people are urged to shout the person down. Two popular lists for coordinating this kind of thing are the Graham Badman Action Group and HE-UK, both of which are Yahoo groups.

The same handful of usual suspects were to be found sending in evidence to the select committee of course. It was amusing to go through these people and spot which were genuine home educators living in this country. Some had stopped being home educators years ago, some lived in Canada or the USA, many of those in this country were just Libertarian types who had been urged by friends to express a view against greater regulation of home education. Here too, the influence of the lists is felt. Many of the submissions have an eerily familiar feel about them; the same points, in the same order, using the same phrases. This caused much amusement among those reading them.

In fact opposition to regulation of home education is coordinated and conducted by a few hundred people. They were very good at getting people to sign petitions and so on, but then getting people to sign petitions against some New Labour initiative last year was pretty easy, whatever the subject.

I have a suspicion that there was nowhere near the furious anger against the plans for regulation last year as was being made out to be the case. I am guessing that most people, like me, would rather have been left to get on with home education without involvement with their local authority. I certainly saw no need to draw any attention to myself and register with either of the local authorities in the areas where my child grew up. However, when she did come to their attention, I wasn't that fussed. For an ordinary home educating family, an annual visit is no big deal. I think that many people feel like that; they don't particularly want visits, but then again it does not really matter to them. There are also many who actually want the help and support of their local authority. And there are too those who are very bitterly opposed to visits and will do anything to stop them happening. However, apart from those two ends of the spectrum, I rather think that most people, as I say, would prefer not to have visits, but will put up with them as a necessary evil if and when they occur. People like us though, who do not really feel that strongly about the matter, are unlikely to organise protests and get petitions signed. After all, we're not really that bothered in the first place! This leaves the field open for those who do feel very strongly about it; the three hundred or so who actually did all the organising last year.

I dare say that some people will remark that for every activist who was beavering away, there were probably twenty or thirty at their local groups who supported them and agreed with them. I shall post tomorrow on this aspect of things; how members of groups and Internet lists are discouraged from expressing heterodox views and opinions. This is really more a question of psychology, but it is certainly worth examining.

23 comments:

  1. Simon said
    "I am guessing that most people, like me, would rather have been left to get on with home education without involvement with their local authority. I certainly saw no need to draw any attention to myself and register with either of the local authorities in the areas where my child grew up."

    Exactly; although you may be right that the most militant opposition was from a relatively few home edders, the majority I think would actually agree with your statement above; they were perfectly happy with the then status quo. Being told however by Badman and al that they are by association, child abusers, didn't exactly help relationships.

    I do think though that the whole profile of HE will never quite return to normal. On one side there is still a spirit of fear amongst some;
    elsewhere there is discussionas to whether the whole small school movement is part of a Govt plan to make HE redundant. Others are concerned about another possible high profile abuse case on the horizon. On the other side at least some LAs are trying harder to be "helpful" - a whole bunch of LA bods (ours and neighbouring LAs ) came (by invitation to an HE "professionals" open day last week...to be "educated" - by us. (Yes, I do hate the term "professional" - because in this case it should apply to the parents!- but you should know what I mean.) WE shall have wait and see what happens next.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My experience of various local groups agrees with Julie's. Most were happy with the status quo. I'm sure a few were for or against increased state involvement but my impression is that they were in the minority - a normal distribution/bell curve. However, the conflation of HE with abuse of children shifted the bell curve away from increased state intervention. There were still a few who in favour of state intervention in HE but there were fewer of them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, cynical! "Carefully orchestrated campaign" eh? Hardly: yahoo lists being made aware of articles etc. so members can add comments is normal practice for any interest group. The fact that there are a minority of individuals within a minority group who do most of the agitating, commenting and campaigning is not news. It works in any such group. It even works in a similar way in group of twenty HE families who set up a drama group in a village hall: there will be four or five people who do the booking, organise the activities, clear up afterwards... These people also become the experts, they support newer families, they get to know the LA officials, they write the local newsletters etc. That's the way the wheels turn: other users of the village hall drama group are happy to pay their fees and enjoy the experience. It's making all kinds of assumptions to say that because some people have the passion and energy and willingness to do such things and others don't, the (mostly - but not always - silent) majority is not represented. My experience of local HE groups last year is that the new proposals mobilised a huge number of hitherto fairly passive HE-ers, who were extremely grateful that there were articulate people ready, willing and able to speak for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Any normal person reading this will be unlikely to guess that this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign; it looks so natural. If anybody posts a comment supporting the new regulation or whatever, there are at once comments on the lists about these and people are urged to shout the person down."

    Carefully orchestrated campaign? You make sound so planned and organised! Yahoo email lists are discussion lists. People on them tend to discuss anything related to the topic they were set up to discuss. It would be strange if newspaper articles and comments about the email group's topic were not discussed! Why are you so surprised that a home education email list would discuss newspaper articles and comments about HE? The same would happen on any special interest group. When people hear about an article and feel strongly enough about it, why would they not comment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I call it a carefully orchestrated campaign because that is exactly what it is. If anybody posts a comment to any online article supporting registration, then we quickly get a message like this on the lists;

    "Couple of less supportive comments on there now, even a nothing to fear
    nothing to hide one! Anyone got the energy to slam em."

    Ordinary people reading the masses of comments opposing regulation do not realise that the whole thing is being coordinated in this way. This happened during the consultation last year, when half of the five thousand reaponses were so similar that it weas clear that they were part of a campaign. I don't know whether you are a member of BRAG, but if so then you will probably know what i'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Badmans report was not factual, it contains statistics that the dept of education say are unverified and it breeched the disabilities discrimination act by suggesting all parents with mental illness are unfit to home ed! (and no I do not have a mental illness)
    Why should any parent give credence to the badman report by accepting it's proposed regime??
    You really are not a person capable of rationalising are you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ""Couple of less supportive comments on there now, even a nothing to fear
    nothing to hide one! Anyone got the energy to slam em."

    Ordinary people reading the masses of comments opposing regulation do not realise that the whole thing is being coordinated in this way."

    This is completely normal and I have seen exactly the same in action on other special interest email lists I belong to including a medical condition and hobby list. It is human nature to discuss and react to perceived attacks and nothing like a 'carefully orchestrated campaign'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Badmans report was not factual, it contains statistics that the dept of education say are unverified and it breeched the disabilities discrimination act by suggesting all parents with mental illness are unfit to home ed!"

    This may be true, although it is debatable. You then go on to conclude,

    "You really are not a person capable of rationalising are you?"

    This does not follow on from your initial premise. No points for this, Miss Kirk!

    "

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is human nature to discuss and react to perceived attacks and nothing like a 'carefully orchestrated campaign'."

    I was really thinking of the attempts to whip up support and direct the nature of what was being said. For example many people were writing to newspapers and so on talking about the threat to home education posed by the proposals. On one of the lists, it was suggested strongly that talking of the threat to democracy would be more effective as most people didn't care about home education. The nature of the publicly expressed opposition then altered. Numbers were inflated by parents encouraging friends and workmates to submit responses to the consultation, there was a frenzy of this, with people posting things like "I'm 3679. Come on let's get it up to 4000". This is all perfectly legitimate and does happen in other carefully orchestrated campaigns. To deny that it was a carefully orchestrated campaign though, suggests to me that you were probably not involved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the way, Elaine I've just been re-reading the Badman Report. Where is he;

    " suggesting all parents with mental illness are unfit to home ed!"

    I might have missed this, but perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I was really thinking of the attempts to whip up support and direct the nature of what was being said."

    Yes, I've seen exactly the same on email lists about other topics, this is not unusual or specific to home education. As to directing the nature of what to say, at best they can make suggestions. There is nothing to stop someone who believes the opposite making their own comments (using a pseudonym if they feel it necessary).

    "On one of the lists, it was suggested strongly that talking of the threat to democracy would be more effective as most people didn't care about home education."

    What's wrong with this? It's a perfectly valid point and a good reason to bring the issue to the attention of a wider public. If another minority were to face legislation where function creep could put everyone at risk of having liberties curtailed, I would want to know. Wouldn't you?

    ""I'm 3679. Come on let's get it up to 4000"."

    Again, I've seen exactly the same comments elsewhere about different issues, word for word. Why do you think this is wrong? Do you think other groups (for e.g. those campaigning for greater support for alzheimers victims) should not do this either?

    "This is all perfectly legitimate and does happen in other carefully orchestrated campaigns."

    I'm still not sure that any of these 'campaigns' could be classed as carefully orchestrated. They just seem too reactionary and ad hoc to be called that. But if you think it's OK and we accept that this is normal behaviour for a wide variety of special interest groups, what is the point of this article? Most people realise this happens because so many do it so why the need to state the obvious and make an issue of it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was really thinking of the attempts to whip up support and direct the nature of what was being said."

    and the now gone DCSF would not smear and whip and support for what it wants to do? its ok for them to do it but not home educators?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "what is the point of this article? Most people realise this happens because so many do it so why the need to state the obvious and make an issue of it?"

    The point is very simple. The idea being sold was that the overwhelming majority of home educating parents were bitterly opposed to any change in the status quo. As evidence of this contention, attention was drawn to the submissions to the review and so on. Having taken the trouble to track down many of those who submitted evidence, I see that many are not home educating parents at all. Watching the comments posted on newspaper articles also tells me that a small number of people are doing all the posting. The same goes for the Freedom of Information requests to the DfCSF; nine people were responsible for 80% of these.

    I am simply making the point that if we assume at least eighty thousand home educating parents, then we have heard the views of perhaps one or two per cent of them. This means that we don't know what most of them think about things. The claim that the overwhelming majority are saying this or that, is therefore misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The point is very simple. The idea being sold was that the overwhelming majority of home educating parents were bitterly opposed to any change in the status quo."

    I suppose it would be more accurate to claim, "the overwhelming majority of home educating parents who expressed an opinion were bitterly opposed to any change in the status quo", but I think this qualification is implicit in all claims of this nature. Nobody expects every individual in a population to express an opinion so it's always understood that it's the opinion of those who wanted or bothered to give their opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. did the now gone DCSF whip up support for its view on home education yes or no Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  16. the DCSF and LA's always under rate parents who home educate and thought it could just force though its crazy ideas on home education. what it missed and still does including you Simon is that many parents are VERY unhappy about the way they have been treated by they LA and this is why the LA's have so much trouble with home educators!

    we wont go away and we will not be quiet no law can silence people who feel they have not been treated good by the school or an LA.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's interesting, though, that the representation of the views of all those you say weren't in agreement with those apparently loud-mouthed, radical few who posted comments, wrote articles, blogged, campaigned, spoke on the radio, made submissions, organised events (and in my area there has never been such a mobilisation of families: people I'd never met before were suddenly active and busy alongside the usual old hands) seemed to come down to, erm, you.

    Where are all these quietly disagreeing hundreds or thousands? I didn't meet them or hear from them, either in person or on local or national lists. Even given that it is easier to be in passionate dis/agreeement than be "meh" about it all, I'd have thought that they'd be obvious somewhere. The only voice I've heard piping up in favour of sticking with the status quo was yours. So I'd say that it was perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusion from this that either the rest of the home educating families in this country were happy enough to be represented by the vociferous few.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, five thousand consultation responses with 90-95% against the government proposals is an awful lot of fake names. Mind you, Ed Balls didn't believe it either, claiming that a majority of home educators were in favour of his proposals in the Commons.

    I am not a member of any national organisation, but I was opposed to it all on principle. Poor research, very weak and flawed evidence, government dogma and deafness to anything that might have any hint of detracting from their view - yes we've had several years of it in various forms, but this one got personal with its claims of abuse, and I think that it was more than just your handful of home education Illuminati that were fighting this cause.

    I have to admit it was educational for me, three local radio slots, a TV appearance and a large local newspaper article (must have been a slow news day?) plus learning about our Parliamentary system, meeting my MP, visiting Parliament and meeting MPs and peers, all things I would not have expected to do a couple of years ago.

    We did have a few families locally who were indifferent or in favour, but there weren't many and every one was already known to the LA, so had very little to lose. For the rest of us, it was a database too far and we declared that enough is enough.

    The rules of the game have changed. Once upon a time I, and I suspect others, would have been happy to keep our heads down and get on with life. Now it's a case of stand up and fight and attempt to correct the false assumptions people have of home education (just what did you do about socialisation, Simon?). The side effect is that I also find that I'm more prepared to fight other battles as well, so my MP will be hearing from me on other topics.

    Think of the BBC and other organisations that deal with complaints. They figure that the number of people who actually complain is small compared to the number that agree with the complainants. One or two complaints on a subject is normal, but if the total hits three figures they sit up and take more notice.

    I reckon there were more who were vehemently opposed to the legislation than were vehemently in favour. The "whatever" crowd in the middle don't really count because they've effectively abstained from voting. I only know of one home educator who submitted anything in favour, although there might have been more. I know significantly more who submitted material opposed to the legislation. The Ayes definitely did not have this one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Well, five thousand consultation responses with 90-95% against the government proposals is an awful lot of fake names. Mind you, Ed Balls didn't believe it either, claiming that a majority of home educators were in favour of his proposals in the Commons."

    Yes, it's a wonder they bother to have consultations if they intend to ignore the results and state the opposite. Another complete waste of public money by Balls to go with the Badman review. I wonder if they will answer FOI requests about the cost of the review now?

    "We did have a few families locally who were indifferent or in favour, but there weren't many and every one was already known to the LA, so had very little to lose."

    I'm glad they were comfortable making their views known, this was my experience in a local group too. In Simon's view anyone in favour of the database was cowering in a corner nodding along with everyone else as they ranted against registration plans, scared to death that anyone would guess they held alternative views. I never could understand why these people did not just write their views anonymously or with a pseudonym though. Simon never explained that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Well, five thousand consultation responses with 90-95% against the government proposals is an awful lot of fake names."

    I don't think anybody is suggsting that these are fake names! At any rate, I am not. What I am saying is that a very great number of them are not home educating parents in England and Wales, the only people likely to be affected by this legislation and therefore, in a sense, the only ones whose opinions should be heard.

    If we look at the names of those who submitted evidence to the select committee, we can see how this works. There, we find a number of clergymen who have objected to the proposed legislation on scriptural grounds. We find Kelly Green, a Canadian citizen resident in Canada. She decesribes herself as an International Observer, as though that gives her the right to try and influence legislation which will have no effect at all on her. There are a number of American home educators and some from Scotland; all of these would not be affected. Some people submitted three responses. Some parents are not home educators; either because they have stopped or they have no children between five and sixteen. Paula Rothermel is there, a long term resident of Switzerland and not a home educator.

    I was just making the point that just as with the five thousand names, there are a good proportion who are either not home educators in England and Wales. These are the only people whose opinion really counts here, because they are the only people to be affected by a new law. Still, i suppose that five thousand sounds more impressive than two or three thousand.

    ReplyDelete
  21. " In Simon's view anyone in favour of the database was cowering in a corner nodding along with everyone else as they ranted against registration plans, scared to death that anyone would guess they held alternative views. I never could understand why these people did not just write their views anonymously or with a pseudonym though. Simon never explained that."

    Good point. I shall be addressing this very point in the posts today and tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I don't think anybody is suggsting that these are fake names! At any rate, I am not. What I am saying is that a very great number of them are not home educating parents in England and Wales, the only people likely to be affected by this legislation and therefore, in a sense, the only ones whose opinions should be heard."

    But it would not have affected only home educators and why should only their opinions be heard anyway? I would expect to have a say in how my taxes are spent in any area of the economy. Why do you think we should not have a say in how taxes are spent? The other side of the issue is that once it is accepted that it is necessary to check regularly that one group of children are alive, there is nothing to stop it spreading to all children so of course everyone should be able to have a say.

    ReplyDelete