I have remarked before upon the way that anybody disagreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy among home educators tends to be shouted down and where possible suppressed. The only reason of course that I began this blog in the first place was because I had been barred from all the Internet lists on home education! One gets the feeling that only those who follow a certain ideology and have a particular attitude towards matters such as the Badman Review and so on are welcome on those lists. I have also found the same thing happening with some blogs; I comment in a perfectly courteous and good natured fashion and a few hours later my comment is deleted. Since both the list owners and those keeping the blogs are keen to brandish their libertarian credentials, I find this odd and a little inconsistent.
The latest example of this is on the blog Kelly Green and Gold. I was surprised when reading the submissions to the select committee last year to find one from somebody who was not a citizen of this country and did not even live here. I must confess, I found this strange. It would be as though I had heard of a government enquiry in Uganda or South Africa and not liking the law that was being proposed, decided to submit evidence of my own in an attempt to influence their legislature. It would be a bit of a cheek if I were to do so!
Somebody recommended to me that I read the blog written by Kelly, the American/Canadian who submitted the statement to the select committee. I did so yesterday and found that she had been posting about two things which I have noticed before being said by parents in this country. Firstly, there was a gloating reference to a teacher in her country and an education welfare officer in ours who had been discovered to be using child pornography. She went on to link this to the supposed attempt to pass a law making it possible for local authority officers to see children alone, without their parents being present. This was a reference to Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. The inference was clear; if such a law had been enacted, home educated children would have been at risk from paedophiles working for the local authority.
Now while it is quite true that Graham Badman suggested this, there was never any realistic prospect of the idea finding its way onto the statue books. It would have required a wholesale revision of our common law! Badman is not a lawyer though and this was just one of his ideas. When the CSF Bill was actually published, it was made clear that any such interview would only take place with the agreement of both the child and her parents. It was also made plain that this sort of interview was not intended to be a routine event, but rather was something which might have happened only in very rare circumstances. I pointed this out in comments on Kelly's blog. Here is her post, with my comments;
http://kellygreenandgold.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/here-be-monsters/#comments
Her response was swift. She posted a piece referring to me as a troll or monster and saying that any further comments of mine would be deleted at once. I have noticed before that many home educators call anybody who disagrees with them 'trolls'. I have even been accused of trolling on my own blog, which is a truly surreal notion. I have not yet, even by the most dedicated autonomous educator, been described as a monster though! Her post about me may be found here;
http://kellygreenandgold.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/are-trolls-monsters-or-just-irritating/
I answered, again in a good humoured fashion saying;
'Dear me, harsh words indeed! There were certainly problems with Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009, but children being seen alone by local authority officers without the presence of their parents was not one of them. I felt this was worth pointing out. You say that I am ‘ well-known in the home education community for these kinds of tricks’, but I am probably better known for being a lifelong, ideological home educator, whose own daughter never spent a single day in school. As such, I am very concerned about home education and do not feel that it is helpful to perpetuate misleading rumours about things like the CSF Bill, such as that it would have given education workers the right to see children alone without their parents. Including this inaccurate piece of information in a post mentioning paedophile teachers and education workers would naturally lead to the inference that these two topics were connected.'
True to her word, this was deleted almost immediately. This leaves all subsequent people commenting free to say further misleading things to which I am unable to respond. I find this particularly staggering in view of the fact that this blog is touting a self-published book of Kelly's called A matter of Conscience - Education as a fundamental freedom. This is precisely the kind of libertarian slant to which I referred above. Home educators often claim that they are pursuing their lifestyle in the name of freedom. Part of the book deals with media bias and what is described as 'combating uneducated, unsubstantiated opinions and hate speech about home-based education'. That anybody could write about these topics and then react to the views of a home educator with whom she apparently disagrees by calling the person a monster or troll and then refusing to allow any response says all that I need to know about this woman! 'Monster'? Sounds a bit like hate speech to me......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think it was disagreement with your views that got you banned from lists, Simon.
ReplyDeleteBadman's take on the law was derived, almost wholesale, from Daniel Monk's papers on the subject of home education and he is a lecturer in law so I suspect your conclusion that it would never make it to the statute books is a little optimistic.
ReplyDelete"I comment in a perfectly courteous and good natured fashion and a few hours later my comment is deleted."
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. I've had the exact same thing happen to me here. Repeatedly.
'That's funny. I've had the exact same thing happen to me here. Repeatedly. '
ReplyDeleteIf this has happened to you, it is none of my doing! Others have drawn attention to the blogspot problem where comments are vanishing; it is not limited to this blog. In the case of Kelly green's blog, there was an avowed intention of deleting my comments, which she immediately enforced. I am sure that you can see the difference between this and a technical glitch affecting many blogspot blogs.
'Badman's take on the law was derived, almost wholesale, from Daniel Monk's papers on the subject of home education and he is a lecturer in law so I suspect your conclusion that it would never make it to the statute books is a little optimistic. '
ReplyDeleteThat is a perfectly reasonable comment. My point was that it is quite ironic that those who portray themselves as radical libertarians should be so intolerant of anybody who disagrees.
Yes, we're all free to believe and say exactly what we'd like, as long as we don't try to sail against the prevailing wind. I've certainly noticed that.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great shame because there are people, like me, who LEARN through debating, or observing debates between others. Lecures at uni were interesting, but I really learnt more in the seminars when staff and students got stuck in, proposing, critiquing and defending ideas.
I would understand a situation where someone has a blog for just a few friends and family, mostly about their day to day struggles, and then a nationally well-known figure like you or Mike F-W for eg commented in a disagreeable way, but that's not what happened, it seems.
I'm all for free speech, me.
Mrs Anon
'nationally well-known figure like you '
ReplyDeleteWhy you flatter me, Mrs Anon! I agree with you that we learn by debating. My views certainly change and are modified in this way. It is only by allowing all opinions to be put forward that the truth will emerge. I am quite happy for anybody to come on here and call me an idiot or liar. Sometimes they may even be right.....
Any comments on my initial post Simon?
ReplyDelete'nationally well-known figure like you '
ReplyDelete>>Why you flatter me, Mrs Anon!<<
Well, the HE community does seem to have its White Knights and Betes Noir. Guess which role you seem to be cast in? Oh and you can now add Craig Koester to the list. He seems to be the Enemy Du Jour right now. Step down from your throne, Simon.
Mrs Anon
'Any comments on my initial post Simon?'
ReplyDeleteWell suzyg, you say that you do not think that I was banned from the various home education lists because of my views. Perhaps you could expand upon this a little. I have read Monk's stuff about this. He certainly puts forward some ideas about monitoring and I shall re-read him and give a considered view later this evening. The point which I was making in this post is that some of these things are certainly debateable. It was the irony of the situation which intrigued me, where somebody posing as a radical libertarian should be so outraged at somebody who disagreed with her that she would call him a troll or monster and delete any further comments.
I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly, you were barred from HE-UK because you put material from the site in the public domain without the permission of the poster or the list owner.
ReplyDeleteYou have justified this behaviour in the past by pointing out that because chat forums can easily be hacked into, anyone who posts anything on the internet risks finding their comments in the public domain at some point.
To, me that is akin to saying a doctor shouldn't be sanctioned for harming a patient through neglect, because we know that there is s risk that a visit to the doctor could result in harm. It completely overlooks the issue of good faith.
Today's blog implies that your opinions were unwelcome on home education lists because they differed from the prevailing orthodoxy. That might be the case, but I don't think it was why you were barred.
You upset Webb cos Kelly book will sell more copys?
ReplyDeleteA school attendance order would have been served on a parent who refuseds to allow there child to be seen on its own by an LA officer no matter how good the education was! it was quite clear if that bill had of been passed refusing to meet or allow child to be seen would have meant LA had to serve SAO.
ReplyDelete"The only reason of course that I began this blog in the first place was because I had been barred from all the Internet lists on home education! "
ReplyDeleteI think you're exaggerating a bit. You haven't been a member of all national internet HE lists, let alone all HE internet lists, so how can you have been barred from them all?
Also, I don't think it was your views that got you banned. You held those views all the time you were on the lists yet you were there for nearly two years before being banned.
'I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly, you were barred from HE-UK because you put material from the site in the public domain without the permission of the poster or the list owner.'
ReplyDeleteAlas suzyg, your memory does not serve you correctly! Don't worry though; these things happen when you reach our age. I cited one case of home edcuation on one of the articles which I wrote at the end of July 2009. This case was taken from the public section of the Education Otherwise website. Nothing in either the article in the Independent or the TES were connected with any Internet list to which I belonged. I was chucked off the lists because of my opinions. Mind you, as Harry Truman once said of J Edgar Hoover after somebody had suggested sacking him. 'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.' Had I remained on the lists then all the opinions which I express now about home education would have remained upon those lists rather than being on a public blog like this.
'You haven't been a member of all national internet HE lists, let alone all HE internet lists, so how can you have been barred from them all?'
ReplyDeleteI meant to suggest of course all the HE Internet lists to which I belonged.
"Had I remained on the lists then all the opinions which I express now about home education would have remained upon those lists rather than being on a public blog like this."
ReplyDeleteOr in newspaper articles and books?
'Or in newspaper articles and books? '
ReplyDeleteI have written two newspaper articles about home education in my life. I have no plans for any more. The book is a natural extension of this blog. Had I not been chucked off the lists, I would not have started this blog and so the book would probably not have been written.
I find that hard to believe. You began writing for a larger audience before you were asked to leave the lists and you seem to constantly court publicity, taking part in TV programs along with various newspaper interviews about your daughter's educational successes. Why would you stop at two articles?
ReplyDelete"Alas suzyg, your memory does not serve you correctly! Don't worry though; these things happen when you reach our age. I cited one case of home edcuation on one of the articles which I wrote at the end of July 2009. This case was taken from the public section of the Education Otherwise website. Nothing in either the article in the Independent or the TES were connected with any Internet list to which I belonged. I was chucked off the lists because of my opinions. Mind you, as Harry Truman once said of J Edgar Hoover after somebody had suggested sacking him. 'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.' Had I remained on the lists then all the opinions which I express now about home education would have remained upon those lists rather than being on a public blog like this. "
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, my mistake. It was the *other* time you put the material in the public domain, wasn't it? It still doesn't appear to me that you were barred for your views, so much as where you voiced them. Considerable concern was expressed on the lists you refer to about what you might do with information you had gleaned whilst there. The whole point was that your opinions *didn't* 'remain upon those lists' but was expressed in national newspapers.
'I find that hard to believe. ...... Why would you stop at two articles?'
ReplyDeleteI think that we can be pretty confident that if I had written anything else on the subject, somebody would have seen it by now and drawn attention to it. I have certainly written about other aspects of education, but only two articles on home education itself.
'The whole point was that your opinions *didn't* 'remain upon those lists' but was expressed in national newspapers.'
ReplyDeleteQuite a few of the people on the lists had opinions which did not remain on the lists but were expressed in national newspapers! Are you saying that all those who spoke to the newspapers about the Badman review or gave interviews about that subject or wrote letters to a newspaper about it should have been thrown off the lists? That would include you then suzyg. I am surprised that you did not do the decent thing when your letter was published in the Shropshire Pig Farmer's Weekly, or whatever it was called, and resign from the lists of your own accord! Or is only those with heterodox views who should leave the lists? As I say, it was not for expressing my views in the mass media that I was chucked off, but for the nature of the views themselves. In other words, as I said, I was thrown off the lists for my opinions.
List owners are entitled to allow who they like on their lists, and to bar them on whatever grounds they feel like. Of course lists develop their own 'groupthink' and people with minority opinions find themselves outnumbered; but then there is no reason why they should not set up other lists where people they agree with can post with little fear of contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI regularly read posts on the TES forum. These are in the public domain - anyone can read them. Indeed, extracts from posts used regularly to be published in the TES. But I suspect that if I wrote a couple of articles in national newspapers selectively quoting from, and castigating the views of some teachers using that forum (and there's plenty to castigate), I would not be flavour of the month. I would be unlikely to be barred, but the moderators might have something to say about it, because I would have betrayed the element of good faith that such forums rely on for their smooth functioning.
You were on 'the lists' for years before being thrown off; it wasn't your opinions that brought this about, but how and where you presented them.
"I think that we can be pretty confident that if I had written anything else on the subject, somebody would have seen it by now and drawn attention to it."
ReplyDeleteI didn't suggest that and you are missing my point. You suggested that the only reason you write your blog and wrote your book is because home educators barred you from lists, so you needed an alternative outlet for your views. I just doubt that you would have confined your views to the lists. You had already written two articles appeared on a national TV program and been interviewed several times by local newspapers about your daughter before being barred from two HE lists, yet you expect us to believe that you would not have continued to court publicity in this way if you had not been barred?
‘When the CSF Bill was actually published, it was made clear that any such interview would only take place with the agreement of both the child and her parents.’
ReplyDeleteI refer you to comment #7 on the first post you linked.
‘As such, I am very concerned about home education and do not feel that it is helpful to perpetuate misleading rumours about things like the CSF Bill, such as that it would have given education workers the right to see children alone without their parents.’
Again, I refer you to comment#7.
“The idea that we should shun all contact with teachers and local authority officers, just on the offchance that one of them will turn out to be a child molester is a little bit weird really.”
ReplyDeleteI refer you to comment#5 on the second post you linked, and I suggest that you read this post carefully, so that you understand that this is not what Kelly was suggesting.
‘This leaves all subsequent people commenting free to say further misleading things to which I am unable to respond.’
Can you tell me which comments you think are misleading? I can’t see any. And if there are any, I’m sure other commenters will pick up on them.
‘Part of the book deals with media bias and what is described as 'combating uneducated, unsubstantiated opinions and hate speech about home-based education'.’
ReplyDeleteLike the stuff you write about autonomous HE, perhaps.
‘I was surprised when reading the submissions to the select committee last year to find one from somebody who was not a citizen of this country and did not even live here. I must confess, I found this strange. It would be as though I had heard of a government enquiry in Uganda or South Africa and not liking the law that was being proposed, decided to submit evidence of my own in an attempt to influence their legislature. It would be a bit of a cheek if I were to do so!’
I’m not sure why you find this strange. Isn’t it the kind of thing that Amnesty or Greenpeace members, for instance, do all the time?
‘She posted a piece referring to me as a troll or monster’
ReplyDeleteNo she didn’t. She merely asked if trolls were monsters, or just irritating, and then referred to you. Not once did she call you a troll or a monster.
My dear Claire, if I were to write a post entirely about you and a comment which you had made here and head it; Are trolls monsters or mertely irritating, then the inference is plain. I regard you and ivite others to regard you as either a monster or an irritating person.
ReplyDeleteI am referred to comment 7 of the post about which I wrote, but that seems to be one of my own comments. The next one says, 'Why do you think that when the bill was published it differed in this respect from Mr. Badman’s recommendations?'
ReplyDeleteThe reason for this is fairly clear and has little to do with any campaigning by home educators. Badman is not a lawyer. Several of his recommendations were unrealistic and when the bill was drawn up, some of these ideas were dropped. The one about visiting people's homes was dropped, as was the idea that children should be interviewed alone against their parents' wishes. As phrased, the bill provided for a visit in one of the places where the education was taking place. This could have been a library, for example. This is precisely the situation which exists with visits today; some take place in the home and some at neutral locations. I don't think the campaigning had anything to do with this.
Can you tell me which comments you think are misleading? I can’t see any. '
ReplyDeleteSe my above comment for a misleading comment from the Kelly Green and Gold blog.
'I am referred to comment 7 of the post about which I wrote, but that seems to be one of my own comments.'
ReplyDeleteLook at an up-to-date copy of the page. Comment #7 is Dave H's, which refers to the fact that while home educators would be able to refuse to allow their children to be interviewed alone, this would lead to a SAO being issued.
I would add that HEors would be unable to challenge the SAO on the grounds of the suitability of their educational provision; only the fact that they had refused the interview would be taken into account.
"'Why do you think that when the bill was published it differed in this respect from Mr. Badman’s recommendations?'
ReplyDeleteThe reason for this is fairly clear and has little to do with any campaigning by home educators. Badman is not a lawyer. Several of his recommendations were unrealistic and when the bill was drawn up, some of these ideas were dropped."
I've already pointed out that Badman's take on the legal framework was lifted, almost wholesale, from the work of a law researcher. If he didn't have the appropriate background to make recommendations why was he commissioned with undertaking the review? Most people who lead reviews such as this are not 'lawyers' but they consult people who are, to make sure they properly understand the legal position before making recommendations.
Ed Balls made it clear he wanted to accept all of Badman's recommendations. The convoluted nature of the EHE proposals in the CSF Bill made it pretty clear that some of Badman's recommendations had been dropped, not because of Badman's inadequate knowledge of the law, but because the DCSF realised it wouldn't manage to get them past the opposition parties. Who had been alerted to the legal problems by EHE parents.
'Dave H's, which refers to the fact that while home educators would be able to refuse to allow their children to be interviewed alone, this would lead to a SAO being issued.'
ReplyDeleteThis looks like another misleading post! There was no mention at all of home visits in the bill, let alone seeing children alone. Can we have a little more detail about this idea that parents who refused to allow their children to be seen alone would be issued with an SAO? It is an interesting idea, but we need to know a little more about where in the bill this is found. I have just been re-reading it and can see nothing about this.
'If he didn't have the appropriate background to make recommendations why was he commissioned with undertaking the review?'
ReplyDeleteThe recommendations were a curioous mixture of proposed legal measures and vague suggestions for what people might do in the furture. It was never intended that they would all become law. Just look at Recommendation 17 for example;
'That the Ofsted review of SEN provision give due consideration to home educated children with special educational needs and make specific reference to the support of these children.
Badman's job was to generate a lot of ideas and it was then for the lawyers to pick over them and see which could practicably be passed into law.
'I’m not sure why you find this strange. Isn’t it the kind of thing that Amnesty or Greenpeace members, for instance, do all the time?'
ReplyDeleteFrankly Claire, I think that you are being a little faux naif here! Let us suppose that Canada were planning to introduce new regulations about the monitoring of home education. I do not live there and neither am I a citizen. If they held a government enquiry, do you really think that it would be acceptable for me to submit evidence and try to influence their legislation? What the hell business would it be of mine? This would be a matter for Canadian parents to deal with and hammer out with their government. What right would I possibly have to try and encourage the Canadian government to introduce registration or monitoring of Canadain children? If I did do so, it would be sheer busybodying; it's none of my business.
People write to the governments of other countries about issues that concern them all the time, including home education. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. People and organisations from several different countries wrote to the Swedish government about their planned changes to HE law recently, for instance.
ReplyDelete'People write to the governments of other countries about issues that concern them all the time, including home education.'
ReplyDeleteOf course they do. They do not usually submit evidence to government enquiries in those countries though, describing themselves as international observers!
For some reason your blog is one of a few where my posts appear not to get sent most of the time. Something about it argues with both Firefox and Konqueror web browsers.
ReplyDeleteCSF Bill Schedule 1 section 19E(4):
"Arrangements made under subsection (3) may, unless the child or a parent of the child objects, provide for a meeting with the child at which no parent of the child or other person providing education to the child is present."
This provides for meeting a child alone if family consent is gained.
Section 19F(1):
"(e) by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1)."
19E(1) includes "so far as is reasonably practicable", so if it's not reasonably practical, revoking a licence to home educate is overkill. Without that licence, the child would be expected to be registered at a school so an SAO would be issued if the parents refused. We were never given any details of any appeal procedure against any of this, it was all to be done by secondary legislation without the benefit of Parliamentary scrutiny. It's like signing a blank bit of paper onto which someone later writes a binding contract.
Dave H
"They do not usually submit evidence to government enquiries in those countries though, describing themselves as international observers!"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know? How many of these enquiries have you monitored?
'There was no mention at all of home visits in the bill, let alone seeing children alone.'
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? On Kelly's blog you said this:
"In fact when the Bill was published, it was explicitly stated that any interview with the child could only take place without the parents being present provided that both parents and child agreed to this.”
Which is true?
'Which is true?'
ReplyDeleteWell I think that both statements are true, Claire. There was certainly no mention of home visits in the Bill, so that is true. The business about seeing children alone was in response to what Kelly green put on her blog, which was that home educators in this country were;
' fighting a proposed law that would have forced them to permit local government Education Officers to question their children alone, no parent or trusted adult present.'
References of mine to 'seeing children alone' must be read in that context. Kelly Green was trying to persuade people that local government officers would be permitted to question children alone', this is a gross distortion of what the propsed law actually said, especially when read alongside the guidance published with it.
'
"Kelly Green was trying to persuade people that local government officers would be permitted to question children alone', this is a gross distortion of what the propsed law actually said, especially when read alongside the guidance published with it."
ReplyDeleteIf the parents refused to co-operate with visits or interviews with the child alone they would have been able to refuse registration (Section 19F(1):(e)). If someone wanted to home educate they would have been forced to co-operate with home visits and interviews with the child alone if the LA had required it, or risk refusal of registration and the SAO (with the removal of proof of education as a defence) that would follow.