Thursday 29 July 2010

Michael Gove and the home educators

I have always taken it rather for granted that Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, is a bit of a weasel. His appearance is distinctly musteline and he is after all a career politician. Still, he was the darling of the home educators during the run-up to the election. He valiantly denounced Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill and promised that the Tories would always stick by home educators. In January he said:

' I do not believe that the current system is perfect, but it is fundamentally important that we respect the rights of home educators first and that we ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'

I found this pretty awful actually, emphasising the rights of parents without mentioning the rights of children, but there, I admit that I have a bee in my bonnet about children's rights. And why on earth should we , ' ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'? Just because a group of people choose to follow some activity, does that mean that we must always automatically ensure that any legislation affecting them is in accordance with their wishes? Does that apply to fox hunters and vivisectionists as well? Or the owners of shotguns and pit-bull terriers? The logic of this escapes me utterly. In February he was promising that a Conservative government would repeal any legislation on home education which Labour passed. There was no doubt at all that Gove was the people's choice at least as far as the home education community was concerned.

In May Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Education. Home education was certainly safe in his hands. We could all breathe a sigh of relief and carry on educating or neglecting our children according to whichever particular strand of home education we favoured. Well at least for the next month or so, until Ofsted's report on Local authorities and home education was released in the middle of June. He suddenly seemed a good deal less sure about his opposition to new legislation about home education. The DfE announced that;

' We note Ofsted's findings and recommendations and ministers will shortly be considering if changes need to be made to the existing arrangements, given the strong views expressed by both home educators and local authorities.'

This was the first hint that Gove might be changing his position slightly. Note the words well, 'considering if changes need to be made'. Observe that crucial word 'if'. A mere five weeks later and the Serious Case Review on Khyra Ishaq's death was published. Michael Gove said;

' We respect the right of parents to educate their children at home and most do a very good job, some of them picking up the pieces where children have had problems at school. Clearly lessons need to be learned by the tragic events in this case, and I will consider the letter I expect to receive from Birmingham shortly, to see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements and reply in due course.'



What's changed in this picture boys and girls? Can you spot the difference? Well in June he was, ' 'considering if changes need to be made'. Now in July he will, 'see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements ' See what's changed? The 'if' has vanished. The statement earlier this week is saying in effect that changes need to be made. The only question is what those changes will be, not if they need to be made. In other words, the arrangements around home education are going to change.

You can't altogether blame Gove for this abrupt volte face. Everybody gets upset about dead little girls and the immediate impulse is to do something about it. Now that he is in government, the obvious thing to do is pass a law which will stop any parents in the future torturing their children to death in this way. This is the standard response to such tragedies. Victoria Climbie's death produced the Every Child Matters document, the Soham murders produced the Independent Safeguarding Authority and now Khyra Ishaq's legacy may also be a new law. This is what governments do when they can't think of anything else. I think that matters are now balanced on the edge of a knife and it would only take one more case involving the abuse of a home educated child to tip the balance. The rumour is that just such a high profile case is about to hit the courts in the next month or so.

That there has been a shift in public opinion on the subject of home education seems clear. When Alan Thomas had a piece in the Guardian a couple of days ago, the comments were interesting. Usually one would expect to hear a contrapuntal murmur from Guardian readers of 'creeping surveillance society...statisim.... liberty' and various similar expressions. In fact everybody apart from the home educators seemed to be in favour of a crackdown on home education. I found this surprising.

How would Gove go about changing the law without encountering the same sort of fuss that Ed Balls did with his CSF Bill. Perhaps by going about it piecemeal, instead of demanding everything at once. It would not, at least to begin with, need an entirely new bill. Little bits and pieces are constantly being tacked on to things like the 1996 Education Act, sometimes years later. I should think that something along the lines of The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006, Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1751 might meet the case to begin with. As I say, Gove would be unwise to start a row by doing everything at once. To begin with, a simple requirement for home educating parents to register with their local authority would probably have the support of almost everyone except home educators themselves. Then it would just be a matter of adding other provisions every six months or so. I don't know of course if this is what will happen, but I would not be at all surprised.

40 comments:

  1. What abrupt volte face? Many home educators were very grateful for the support of Graham Stuart and Michael Gove during the passage of the CSF Bill, but few expressed the belief that a conservative education secretary would mean that the legislation would stay as it was.

    Gove knows that meddling with home education will open a can of worms, and it isn't going to be high on his agenda. What the Ishaq case shows is that Birmingham children's services, particularly its social services department, needs to get its act together, something it has in common with many other local authorities. He would do well to have a good look at why that is the case. He could do worse than to assess the role of IT systems.

    And in the case of the Guardian readers, you would expect such a contrapuntal murmur in response to an article arguing for a crackdown on home education. People respond more strongly to a threat to their beliefs than to an affirmation of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must confess that I didn't think that the election would make a permament difference to attempts to change HE legislation. Whatever we might think, the lack of registration is an anomaly in the age we live in. The Conservatives might want less interference in family life (a sentiment I applaud) but society has moved too far from the Victorian age of relying on families and charities to support the "weak" to go back. The recent publicity from the SCR just emphasizes the problem - there is an expectation that the "authorities" should be stopping this sort of thing, and that if legislation is too weak to make it happen, than the law should change.

    Public expectation is also influenced by the wider trend. We have had a spate of child cruelty/deaths in the press, and the continual cry is "why didn't social services intervene?" Yes, there is the occasional outcry over removal of children from the home and false allegations, but it is only when there is a massive error (the removal of loads of children due to one incompetent doctor or odd rumours of satanic cults) that public opinion will spring the other way. Until then home educators to be outside any perceived safety net; and therefore lack widespread support.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting bit from today's mirror as the call for change gathers pace;

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/30/kids-before-money-115875-22450600/

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What abrupt volte face?"

    Before the election, Gove was fretting about 'stimatising' home educators by making them register with their local authority. He was promising to repeal any legislation on home education which Labour introduced. Everything had to be done in accordance with the wishes of home educating parents. Now he is apparently planning to change the law himself. I would call that an abrupt volte face, considering that only a few months separate his various positions on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have no love for Gove, the Tories or politicians in general; in fact, based on observation and experience I regard most of them as generally incompetent and many as untrustworthy, with perhaps a few exceptions. Even when they do they appear to do the right thing (in my view), it isn't necessarily for the right reasons (whatever they may be).

    However, Simon's remark about Gove:
    "I have always taken it rather for granted that Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, is a bit of a weasel. His appearance is distinctly musteline"
    is another nice illustration of Simon's - for want of a better word - reasoning processes; based on prejudice, ignorance and an unswerving confidence in his views and ability.

    This same Simon claims: "I cannot abide sloppy thinking" but yet his posts are riddled with it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Interesting bit from today's mirror as the call for change gathers pace'

    What call for change? What gathering pace? This reads like something you wrote Simon. Not another pseudonym I trust?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, I have read the Mirror article - not exactly visible from the main webpage - I wonder if it is the paper? (but I am not going to pay for it to find out!)

    I suppose that as the paper supported Labour they would take that view. One thing though that is sort of true I think - cutting back financially the social care budget isn't going to help these or any such cases. The special needs playscheme in our town has just been told no funding for next year; that is another vunerable group who will suffer. Yet it is money which (as I am forever saying) would make most LAs lives easier - more HE families will come forward to register/ cooperate if there was something in it for them!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "is another nice illustration of Simon's - for want of a better word - reasoning processes; based on prejudice, ignorance and an unswerving confidence in his views and ability."

    Now children, do you all remember what I was telling you recently about po-faced and humourless indivisuals? Well I want you all to say a big 'thank you' to anonymous for giving us the opportunity to examine a prize example of the species. The joke here of course is that I have religiously voted Tory since 1974 and actually support Gove's stance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Not another pseudonym "

    Another pseudonym? I wasn't aware that I had even one, suzyg! I don't suppose you would care to tell us about these pseudonyms? You have got me interested.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought you had written under an assumed name (and gender) for The Lady?

    Or were you making that up?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I thought you had written under an assumed name (and gender) for The Lady?"

    I had hoped that it would be possible to get through today without another reference to a jokey email which I sent almost two years ago! What happens in women's magazines is that the editors prefer to have women writers and often alter names to reflect this. So if a man called John writes an article, they prefer to change it to Joan and so on. The People's Friend, for instance, is written almost entirely by men and yet all the names are women. The same thing happens if a man writes a piece about a sensitive topic aimed at women. How many women are going to want to read an article about vaginal itching writen by a bloke called Dave Smith?

    A similar thing happens when a magazine or newspaper has very few writers. They then invent names to disguise this fact. I have never used a psedonym myself, but from time to time if I have two pieces due to appear in the same issue of a magazine, I will find one published under a name invented by the editor. This has happened for instance in Prediction. On other occasions, an editor has added an 'e' to the end of my Chritian name and feminised it to 'Simone'. This is quite a creepy experience! Anyway, I am not really conducting a workshop here on freelance writing and I hope that we can get through the rest of the day without dredging up that wretched email.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No idea why you imagine home edders would get much sympathy from Guardian readers. I've never spotted it there on any previous occasions. Given the fact that many Guardian readers are teachers and social workers and so on, it doesn't really surprise me. And, of course, people like to have a good row on comments threads so views from the middle ground tend to disappear pretty quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Given the fact that many Guardian readers are teachers and social workers and so on, it doesn't really surprise me."

    Good point Allie. However, there always used to be a strong libetarian streak as well. Mind you, I remember when it was the Manchester Guardian and in those days it genuinely was a Liberal newspaper. Anybody here remember Joe Grimond?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simon said:
    "do you all remember what I was telling you recently about po-faced and humourless indivisuals? Well I want you all to say a big 'thank you' to anonymous for giving us the opportunity to examine a prize example of the species. The joke..."

    Ah yes, I remember when "humorous" remarks about skin colour were regarded as being "funny" in the same way that Simon thinks his remarks about other aspects of physical appearance are funny.

    I'm sure Simon will "explain" the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Simon wrote to another anonymous,
    "Now children, do you all remember what I was telling you recently about po-faced and humourless indivisuals?"

    You have still not explained the humor behind you stating in a national newspaper article that you are a teacher. I can see the point, it gave your article an authority it might otherwise have lacked, but I still cannot see the funny side. You've said I have no sense of humour, so maybe, as you are still appear to be in a teaching frame of mind, you could explain it to me in simple language?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The joke here of course is that I have religiously voted Tory since 1974 and actually support Gove's stance."

    What is Gove's stance, in your view?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Ah yes, I remember when "humorous" remarks about skin colour were regarded as being "funny" in the same way that Simon thinks his remarks about other aspects of physical appearance are funny."

    Brilliant attempt to compare poking fun at a public figure's appearance and character with racism!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You've said I have no sense of humour, so maybe, as you are still appear to be in a teaching frame of mind, you could explain it to me in simple language?"

    Alas anonymous, life is very short and precious and there is a limit, as I have remarked before, on the amount of time that I wish to spend rehashing stuff relating to articles I wrote and emails which I sent years ago. This is particularly so with those which do not have any bearing upon home education.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Simon said:
    "Brilliant attempt to compare poking fun at a public figure's appearance and character with racism!"

    That's Simon's not-so-brilliant attempt to avoid explaining his unpleasant prejudices and inferences based on appearance - prejudices that share common roots with racism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "unpleasant prejudices and inferences based on appearance - prejudices that share common roots with racism."

    Anybody who really does not understand the difference between racism, with its connection with power, privilege and prejudice, and making joke about how a person's physical appearance might reflect his character really does not deserve an answer. This is very much like Godwin's Law, only bringing in racism as a trump card rather than the Nazis. I regard racism as too important an issue to be bandied around in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "unpleasant prejudices and inferences based on appearance "

    The key aspect of racism is not appearance, but culture and identity. If appearance alone were the key then Jews and Poles would have nothing to worry about. This assumption, that racism is based upon appearance, is a terrible mistake and causes great harm to those grappling genuine racism. The writer is apparently stuck in a timewarp and feels that racism is only about people whose skin contains more melanin than her own or who have an epicanthic eyefold. Perhaps she has never seen a sign saying 'Sorry no travellers' outside a pub? We can be racist about people who share precisely our own physical attributes but whose culture and lifestyle we despise or belittle. Very rudimentary awareness of the subject, which makes me think that there is no posssibility of carrying this dialogue further. Also has nothing to do with home education!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another Anonymous wrote:
    "You have still not explained the humor behind you stating in a national newspaper article that you are a teacher. I can see the point, it gave your article an authority it might otherwise have lacked, but I still cannot see the funny side."

    Yes, I seem to recall that and thinking Simon was a teacher; I think it's all part of an illusion that he tries to create; he seems to like to hint at things about himself which might lead one astray as a first time reader, then says things along the lines of "whatever makes you think I'm..." (e.g., christian); an interesting technique.

    It's strange that he gets upset about anonymous comments and yet really very little of substance is known about him. I have no problem with this, or anonymity, if statements are taken at face value and are in the open. One can read and comment on what is written, without additional context about the writer.

    I recall the teacher thing was pretty explicit, though, and I suspect he always has the get-out clause that he taught his child.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "whatever makes you think I'm..." (e.g., christian"

    Presumably a reference to the fact that although I am a regular church goer, I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate; I would not therefore describe myself as a Christian. Certainly confusing for those who find ambiguity makes them uncomfortable and prefer things to be clearcut and either one thing or the other. Also not really relevant to home education.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Simon said:
    "I regard racism as too important an issue to be bandied around in this way... The key aspect of racism is not appearance, but culture and identity."

    This is another interesting didactic stunt; my earlier comment was about "unpleasant prejudices and inferences based on appearance - prejudices that share common roots with racism". Note, common roots; roots in ignorance, perception and misconceptions about differences between people or groups of people.

    This is also seen in Simon's views of autonomous educators (for clarity, I'm sufficiently ignorant of fully autonomous HE that I'm neither for nor against).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Simon said:
    "Presumably a reference to the fact that although I am a regular church..."
    Another one we hear ad nauseam.

    "Certainly confusing for those who find ambiguity makes them uncomfortable and prefer things to be clearcut and either one thing or the other."

    Another common Webb device; I suspect most people here have no problem with ambiguity where appropriate; but Simon tries to place commentators in some box or other that implies they are intellectually inferior in some way. It usually pays to read the whole chain and look at how he twists and turns, obfuscating and diverting readers from his difficulties before resorting to some complaint about anonymity or grammar, or explaining why he used "she".

    This blog is a rich source of material for a PhD thesis. Whoops - a sore point!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon said:
    "We can be racist about people who share precisely our own physical attributes but whose culture and lifestyle we despise or belittle."

    Autonomous educators?

    ReplyDelete
  27. On The Guardian, Simon says: "However, there always used to be a strong libetarian streak as well."

    Ha ha Ha - do you know what Libertarian means? Clearly not. FYI, The Guardian is probably the most pro-State, pro-collectivist newspaper in the UK. It is the antithesis of Libertarian.

    As a socialist paper, its views on any individualistic endeavour are predictable. Home birth, alternative medicine, home education - anything that keeps choice/power in the hands of the individual are viciously attacked and smeared.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The key aspect of racism is not appearance, but culture and identity. "

    Human beings have a tendency to create 'outgroups'. This involves stereotyping, mythologising and often villifying groups that one sees as different - and usually in competition with - oneself. Whatever the distinguishing characteristics of the group, it's not a helpful thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well, it's my newspaper of choice, despite the irritating assumption that we all have a family income of over £50,000 and live in London. I don't think it has ever been as simple as being a "pro-state" or a "libertarian" paper. There are tensions between the two and it is broadly left wing. I know many a socialist who would laugh at the idea that the Guardian is a socialist paper - filled as it is with pained articles about the ethics of choosing private education or how much to pay your cleaner!

    When it comes to your politics, Simon, I'm not at all surprised to find you a Tory voter from 1974. There's something about your style that takes me right back to the Tories of the late 80s.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AM wrote:

    "FYI, The Guardian is probably the most pro-State, pro-collectivist newspaper in the UK. It is the antithesis of Libertarian."

    While I agree there's a lot of truth in that now, to be fair to Simon (and I've been giving him a "bit of stick" today), it used to have, as he said, a strong libertarian streak. These days, with a few exceptions, it's mostly run and written by airheads that barely understand the existence of anything outside of the M25, let alone the Manchester of its roots.

    It's a great pity; it was in decline for a long while, but the rot was really setting in when they introduced the the silly font before the one they have now, ~20 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ... and having said that, like Allie, it's still my newspaper of choice when I buy one, although I also occasionally pick-up the Indie or the FT.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Allie said:
    "When it comes to your politics, Simon, I'm not at all surprised to find you a Tory voter from 1974. There's something about your style that takes me right back to the Tories of the late 80s."

    Surely you're not suggesting that he's the result of a liaison in the '50s between Margaret Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Simon wrote,
    "Shortly after this discussion on the comments, somebody posted a link to a GCSE course in Coventry which they thought might be suitable for home educated children;

    http://www.covcollege.ac.uk/courses/Pages/Types/Course.aspx?@ID=882


    I followed this up, but it is really aimed at overseas students from whom fees may be extracted. The person to whom I spoke at the college was surprised at the idea of a teenager without any experience of previous GCSEs starting the course and did not think it very likely. Back to the drawing board I fancy on this one."

    I think you must have spoken to the wrong person Simon. I've just spoken to someone via email who says they have always taken home educated young people who need GCSEs on this course. They suggested that anyone interested in next years courses (the September start course if full) should go along to their open evening in November.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oh this is getting silly again; can't we stick to dissecting what Simon is saying about HE matters rather than attempting the same action on Simon himself?

    ReplyDelete
  35. ' I don't know of course if this is what will happen, but I would not be at all surprised.'

    It's terribly difficult to make accurate political predictions, isn't it? I didn't think, six months ago, that there'd be a coalition government now, did you? The fact is we don't know what will happen.

    My own suspicion is the same as Suzyg's:

    'Gove knows that meddling with home education will open a can of worms, and it isn't going to be high on his agenda.'

    Mrs Anon, dipping a toe back in...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ooh, Hello Mrs Anon! Welcome back....nothing changes here...

    Waving madly!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mrs Anon - good to see you back, I always enjoyed your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hello peeps! Thanks for the welcome back!

    I hope some things have changed, Julie. The chess blokey was a bit scary.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  39. we still here Webb!

    ReplyDelete
  40. did old Mrs anon get scared ahhhhhhhh!

    ReplyDelete