Friday 12 November 2010

More about the new guidelines

Others have noticed that in the last week or so three questions about home education have been asked in Parliament by Tory MPs. Two of the questions were identical;

'To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on home education; and if he will make a statement'

A third concerned the A levels and GCSEs passed by home educated children. There are two possible explanations for this flurry of interest in home education. One is that individual MPs are taking an interest in the topic of home education because their constituents are expressing concerns about it. The other and more likely explanation is that these questions have been 'planted' by government whips in order to suggest that people are worried about home education. The planted question of this kind is of course a very popular device in Westminster. If this is the case, then it suggests strongly that the Coalition is intending to do something about home education. The questions is, what are they going to do?

This brings us back to the only activity involving home education which we know is connected with Parliament; the famous new guidelines. Before we go any further, I would like to make it clear that I have no reason at all to doubt that all those dealing with Graham Stuart are doing so for the best of motives. I am sure that they genuinely believe that what they are doing will be for the best interests of home educating parents. This does not of course mean that they are right, nor that they are not being used unwittingly as fall guys or patsies. How could this be?

Here is what seems to me a very plausible scenario. Michael Gove, because of cases like Khyra Ishaq and the Riggi children in Edinburgh, wishes to introduce as a bare minimum compulsory registration for home educators. He is strengthened in this view by the fact that every report and almost all education professionals are in favour of such a move. He encourages, via Nick Gibb and Graham Stuart, a dialogue with various prominent home educators. ideas are generated and provisional rules drawn up. Then registration is included in a White Paper on education, with the intention of making it law. Michael Gove can then claim that a number of MPs have expressed anxiety about home education (via the planted questions) and that home educators themselves have been helping with the process of framing new legislation. Any resultant outrage will be largely limited to the Internet lists and so invisible to the general public. It will be all but impossible to ever establish what the members of the secret group did and did not agree to, because of course everything has been done on the quiet. I doubt whether newspapers are going to bother cooperating with another campaign by home educators against regulation as they did last year.

In order to see whether or not the above scenario is likely, it would help if we had the answers to one or two questions. I know that the people who are actually involved with Graham Stuart are reading this and so they could, if the wished, comment anonymously and reassure those who are worried that this is an undemocratic process likely to have a substantial impact upon home educating parents. The sort of questions that we need to ask are as follows.

Did the initiative for drawing up these guidelines come directly from Graham Stuart or was he encouraged to start this by Michael Gove or Nick Gibb?

Is there any intention, as Tania Berlow has hinted at on the BRAG list, of including anything about home education in a White Paper on education?

Has Graham Stuart given any written assurance that the law on home education will not change as a result of anything currently being done?

Graham Stuart has said that 'leaving things as they are is not an option'. What grounds did he have for saying this? What has he heard about government intentions in the area of home education?

These are four very simple and straightforward questions which could be answered in a dozen words. If the initiative for the guidelines came from Nick Gibb and there is an intention to include something about home education in a White Paper, then the chances are that new legislation is on the cards. Mike Fortune-Wood recently mentioned that he has held training sessions for local authorities and advised them soundly upon the law. They then go off and draw up procedures whish he has advised against and said were not lawful. A similar thing could very easily take place with these present discussions unless they have written minutes of meetings and a clear and unambiguous mandate.

I said in yesterday's post, 'Betsy Anderson, an American lawyer is not directly involved, but gives the odd bit of advice.' This is perfectly true. Without going into any details, Betsy Anderson has suffered something of a disaster which has effectively rendered her homeless. She according has little time to concern herself with these guidelines. She has not had any contact with Alison Sauer for months. Nevertheless, some of those involved with the guidelines have asked her opinion on specific points which are troubling them and she has replied. This is all that I meant and I am happy to clarify this.

31 comments:

  1. old Webb says-These are four very simple and straightforward questions which could be answered in a dozen words

    Yes your right Webb and also Graham has given no wrrtten assurance that the law on home education will not change and why is all being done on the quiet? something very fishy going on!
    you should supports this though Webb as you want change in law on home education?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gossip again, Simon. I like facts myself.

    Like WHO told you that Betsy had been advising those re-writing the Guidelines?

    On the one hand, you say that 'some of those involved' have told you she is. On the other hand, she came on here and told you she hasn't and that it was a complete fabrication.

    What are we to believe? Gossip or Horse's mouth?

    Personally, I don't care either way. I just like facts, not gossip. I'm going to the hairdresser next week, so I can catch up with OK magazine then if I want.

    'Yes your right Webb' {shudder} a truly terrifying prospect of an unholy alliance if ever there was one.

    Mrs Anon, your Big Fan ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Like WHO told you that Betsy had been advising those re-writing the Guidelines?'

    The same three people who told me about her having to find alternative accomodation urgently adn the fact that she has had no dealings with Alison Sauer this year. I didn't say that she had been advising; I said that a couple of the people working on the guidelines had contacted her with specific questions which she had answered.

    ''Yes your right Webb' {shudder} a truly terrifying prospect of an unholy alliance if ever there was one.'

    A chilling prospect indeed; mad Peter and crazy Simon collaborating. It doesn't bear thinking about!

    ReplyDelete
  4. what a load of tosh Simon. I said that someone elses suggestion of the White paper making a positive affirmation of section 7 of the ED ACt may be a good idea...as for the rest of what you hae written as unsubstantiated .
    You say 'Some of those HAVE asked for her (Betsy's)opinion'- really? How on earth would you know this? I certainly have not.

    Your agenda is to play into the fears of others - fears which are not grounded in fact and fears which are being spread both by your rumours and the people on the far end of the HE Libertarian ideology. Your agenda is to advance the ideology of doing NOTHING constructive to change the reality for the many HErs who are subject to LAs who do not stick to current law and guidelines . You do this because you know that in 5-10 years when Labour may get back in if nothing changes, then the idea of compulsory registration will be resurrected.
     What a joke-Simon Webb and the very people who he has been ridiculing for 2 years working in harmony to prevent any possible positive change -but each faction for very different reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ''Some of those HAVE asked for her (Betsy's)opinion'- really? How on earth would you know this? I certainly have not.'

    Through people who have been emailing me privately and giving me background on the guidelines and other matters. These are people who are fairly well known and are in touch with those writing the guidelines.

    'Your agenda is to advance the ideology of doing NOTHING constructive to change the reality for the many HErs who are subject to LAs who do not stick to current law and guidelines .'

    My agenda is very clear. I think that compulsory registration is needed and I would like to see local home education councils compose partly of home educating parents and partly of local authority officers to agree on policies. I would like these councils to be something along the lines of the system in Tasmania and for the parents to be democratically elected. My problem with the current moves is that they are not being undertaken in a transparent and democratic way. I am accused of spreading rumour, but rumour is all that we have, because those actually engaged in this business are anxious to conceal their identities.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'What a joke-Simon Webb and the very people who he has been ridiculing for 2 years working in harmony to prevent any possible positive change -but each faction for very different reasons.'

    This hinges around what one regards as a positive change. Until we see the proposed guidelines it is impossible to say whether or not the changes are actually positive. You are convinced that they are, but then you have seen them. Why not answer the four questions which I have posed above and also give us a rough outline of what these guidelines are proposing. Then we shall be in a better position to judge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So your information isn't even from those working on the guidelines? Just people who 'are in touch with those working on the guidelines'?

    Dear me.

    I know someone who is in touch with someone important and, apparently, the world is going to end tonight.

    I won't bother washing up then.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  8. crafty Mrs Anon says-your right Webb' {shudder} a truly terrifying prospect of an unholy alliance if ever there was one.

    Mrs Anon, your Big Fan ;-) says-

    we not in an alliance with weird Webb but Webb is right about- These are four very simple and straightforward questions which could be answered in a dozen words. and why is it all being done on the quiet? it is very fishy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tania says-What a joke-Simon Webb and the very people who he has been ridiculing for 2 years working in harmony to prevent any possible positive change -but each faction for very different reasons.

    What postive change Tania? what do you know that other home educators dont?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tania-says-but each faction for very different reasons.

    what do you mean by that Tania? explain in detail?

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'weird Webb'? Pot kettle...

    How was your trip to the library?

    Crafty Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  12. Crafty Mrs Anon says-
    How was your trip to the library?

    going to Library Monday very inportant Adult chess tournment on at Eastleigh college Peter playing in it 350 pound first prize Peter got a lot of money in his bank book now due to all the prizes he won is that not such good news Mrs Anon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes it is.
    Maybe he can now go to Enton College after all?

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  14. "These are four very simple and straightforward questions which could be answered in a dozen words"

    In a perfect world I think you'd be right.

    But having trawled through BRAG and home-ed-biz forums last night, after seeing the particularly disgusting anonymous poison pen post here, I think it would be opening the flood gates for more of the same with bells on, for any of the other participants to "go public".

    I came away with the impression that short of tearing off their clothes, doing a bit of public self flagellation and a promise to go live down a hole and never speak of Home Ed again, nothing the involved could say would satisfy.

    It is unpleasant reading and evidently "tag team posting" via email was being employed by some of the posters. Mostly it reminds me of why I loathe and detest being put on playground duty.

    What a PR disaster, considering who is certain to be reading and forming impression of us as a "species".

    Looking at it, I'd say the priority right now is, rather than focus on trying to force the hand of the people involved, take on the tone and make a song and dance about how it is not seen as acceptable by the community as a whole.

    Once civil exchanges have been restored maybe then you'll find the people involved more willing to talk freely,(if in fact they can, keeping confidences might be part of the price they were asked to pay for any HEor involvement at all). Cos the discussion will have a much better chance of being about the facts of the matter rather than be about how much some people don't like the people involved being involved.

    The whole thing reeks of a power struggle, prioritizing political leanings over HE itself, and a very "bipolar - ultra rapid cycling version" attitude towards bullying. If that is not addressed first, before all other issues, then I think you'll see the whole same thing replaying each and every time something comes up in the HE world. The geenie is well and truely out of the bottle. Not going to go back in by itself.

    And people wonder why so many home educators steadfastly refuse to engage with online groups in term of supporting their campaigns ? S'not rocket science.

    I understand your POV Simon, but while some are doing their level best to appear addicted to the high octane emotions of "battle cry for my freedom" I doubt they'll put up with any overtures of clarification that stands between them and their next fix. It seems to me they will run over anybody's best "clear the air" intentions with a steamroller to get at it. So IMO best fix the underlying issues regarding internal mode of communication first and then see if internal dialogue has a fighting chance of satifiying all parties need for discussion and detials regarding not only this current issue, but all the issues to come in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Crafty Mrs anon says -Yes it is.
    Maybe he can now go to Enton College after all?

    are you saying well done to Peter? I taught him chess little old me with no education no exams or anything LOL Peter is the 56 best under 14 in the whole of the world!

    Im afraid Peter not got enough yet to pay for Enton College but we do know who could help with this HCC LA! or government?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Crafty Mrs Anbon says:

    'So your information isn't even from those working on the guidelines? Just people who 'are in touch with those working on the guidelines'?'

    The problem here Mrs Anon is that I am not about to out any of those who are supplying me with the information on this. Perhaps I am making up the story about Betsy Anderson's accommodation problems, although it is hard to think why! I am not sure how important this is anyway. The difficulty is caused by the fact that those involved in this project will not come out into the open and the result is feverish rumour and speculation. I am posting here the information that I am pretty sure is true. I am doing this in order to shine a little light into this business and encourage the thing to take place in the open.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Webb says-The difficulty is caused by the fact that those involved in this project will not come out into the open and the result is feverish rumour and speculation. I am posting here the information that I am pretty sure is true. I am doing this in order to shine a little light into this business and encourage the thing to take place in the open.

    We dont like Webb but he right here it needs to be out in the open for every one to see!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Perhaps I am making up the story about Betsy Anderson's accommodation problems"

    Perhaps it is entirely irrelevant and not the sort of stuff that should be used as post padding. I'd be hurt beyond belief if you used one of my (many) crises that have nothing to do with the debate as part of a response to any of the points I made.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'I'd be hurt beyond belief if you used one of my (many) crises that have nothing to do with the debate as part of a response to any of the points I made.'


    I quite see that, Sarah. In this case it is relevant because Betsy Anderson has worked closely with Imran Shah and Alison Suaer in the past. It was a natural assumption by many that she would be involved in the new guidelines and coded references were being made elsewhere to somebody being connected with the enterprise who was not British. I mentioned her domestic circumstances to show firstly why she was not deeply involved in this and secondly simply to demonstrate that I am not just inventing stories about her!

    ReplyDelete
  20. You couldn't just say she is busy with other (non HE) matters and leave it at that ?

    There was no need to go into the sort of detail that you did. It's not nice.

    And it worries me, cos this is the only place I like to post HE wise (in my own language) and it concerns me that I'm leaving myself open for a punch to the gut in the same way.

    I can understand that you don't see why it matters cos it wouldn't worry you if somebody posted that about you. But not every body is a carbon copy of you emotion wise. Just from the little you've posted you can work out the woman must have enough shit to deal with, without somebody rubbing her face in it on a public (and often rather hostile) forum.

    Cos that is easily what it could feel like if she is even in the most minor way like me.

    Which intentionally, or not, makes it a very unkind thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Sarah in deepest darkest...
    From what I've read Simon hasn't said anything bad about Betsy, you hounding the point has made it stick out and make people take notice.

    You are having a go at people who have an alternative view of the way things should happen, you say you have seen tag team posting, I presmume you mean from TB, AE etc. as they obviously do this on BRAG.

    The bad feeling has come about as far as I can see because of the way things happened in the first place, shrouded in secrecy. I feel sorry for Tania because she has been left as a target and I think this was the intention from the outset, the others aren't scared to come forward they are laughing up their sleeves at the whole debacle.

    I agree with everything Simon has said, apart from compulsory registration, which is a huge no no.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But you are inventing stories about me, Simon. And now you've gone beyond that, to spread rumours about my personal situation which are highly inflammatory and have no bearing whatsoever on the situation.

    I have said that I have no involvement at all with the new guidelines. Nobody has asked me opinions about them. I have not provided any. Why you continue to try to characterise me as involved, is beyond me. I made it clear on BRAG that I am not involved. I provided a statement, posted on BRAG, that amendments that HERA drafted in connection with CSF Bill are certainly not pro-registration (nothing to do with draft guidelines). That's it.

    And now, horrific rumourmongering. Calling me homeless. (Like I'm wandering the streets with my children? No.) Speculating that I would have been involved with the guidelines if I had a different personal situation. No. And not relevant. You are way, way beyond anything proper here. Revealing, perhaps, how you operate.

    Please, stop.

    Betsy

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have answered all questions on HE-Biz and on BRAG . i am not going to repeat it all here. The 'white paper' question I answered here and it was first mentioned on BRAG as a suggestion.
    As for the other questions they are addressed to GS so maybe GS should answer. He has listened to a lot of opinions from HErs over the past 18 months and there is no reason nor evidence to suggest he has a different agenda up his sleeve other than to help sort out the sorry mess that was left by the exiting government.Lord Ralph Lucas has also been very helpful when it comes ot understanding strategies and what may work best for a better outcome compared to the current situation.
    For Simon to suggest that another attempt to change legislation to the detriment of HE ,is not backed up by any evidence what so ever. ts another attempt to whip up emotions of uncertainty and fear.
    Legislation may be looked at but it is not the aim of these guidelines at all. It does however seem to be the stated aim of some with whom I disagree-to FIRST get HE removed from CME or to change S436a and CME 2009.

    I suggest for anyone with more questions they look at the above mentioned lists and forum and see for themselves the differing views. I know that the only thing left unsaid is the identities of those who have agreed to work on the idea of clearer guidelines. Clearer guidelines are thought to be needed so that the LAs will have something from the new government they can have a look at. Some LAs have long since buried the 2007 guidelines in a dusty drawer in preparation for the Badman Regs via Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill.
    The content is not ready for 20,000-100,000 people to mull over yet any more but there is nothing I have thus seen which is different from previous meanings in the 2007 guidelines and a heck of alot different with the structuring and the duty of the LA to be open , honest ,consistentand in line with the law with those HErs whom they do know about.
    Simon- yhou have a different view of democracy than i and I know you read BRAG so no need to repeat again what I said there.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You are having a go at people who have an alternative view of the way things should happen"

    If you chose to believe that I'm having a go for the sake of it, then that is your prerogative.

    I just don't think it is a particularly forward thinking strategy in terms of improving levels of persuasion.

    Ditto reinventing the boundaries of words like "hounding".

    Please excuse my uncharacteristic brevity. My desire to converse with people who hide behind "anonymous" has taken something of a nosedive since the little gift left on yesterday's thread.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'And now, horrific rumourmongering. Calling me homeless. (Like I'm wandering the streets with my children? No.) '

    I am not at all sure that you really are Betsy Anderson, Anonymous! If you were, then you would know about the unfortunate circumstances which led to an urgent need for new accommodation. But I am happy to leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "And it worries me, cos this is the only place I like to post HE wise (in my own language) and it concerns me that I'm leaving myself open for a punch to the gut in the same way."

    That's why many choose to post anonymously, they've seen Simon in action before.

    Anon (but not the poison pen anon!)

    ReplyDelete
  27. PS Glad to see you back, Sarah!

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I am not at all sure that you really are Betsy Anderson, Anonymous! "

    Why are you calling her Anonymous when she signed herself as Betsy? How does she prove that she is Betsy if you have been misinformed about her situation? Her version is always going to disagree with yours if this is the case!

    ReplyDelete
  29. "That's why many choose to post anonymously, they've seen Simon in action before."

    I'm not sure it is much of a vaccination. You'd have to post anon everywhere and in real life walk about with a paper bag on your head refusing to give your name in order for it to work.

    Mind you, some days a paper bag would preferable to showing the world my face\hair\grumpy scowl. Tis a stratagy I may have to reconsider. Or take the botox plunge and get my lazy bum to the hairdresser.


    "PS Glad to see you back, Sarah!"

    Yeah well, got bored with Mumsnet. Actually that isn't true. I was banned from Mumsnet. By my husband. Who said "You haffa 'usbond, you haffa bambino and der is much pilgrim unthreatened with bodily 'arm for wicks!!! You stop now obsessive ranting on da interwebbee !!!", and made arm waving motions indicating the intent to throw my computer away unless I stopped going there.

    S'not my fault "Am I being unreasonable" is laced with crack. Or something.

    Am rehabilitated.

    As you can see.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I'm not sure it is much of a vaccination. You'd have to post anon everywhere and in real life walk about with a paper bag on your head refusing to give your name in order for it to work."

    It's an adequate vaccination for Simon as I don't post anywhere else so he can't 'name and shame' me as there's no way he can link me to a name.

    "Am rehabilitated.

    As you can see."

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  31. "as I don't post anywhere else"

    Yeah, that would help. In my wildest dreams I could never be so restrined. I seem to be drawn to the concept of arguing the toss with random strangers on the net.

    Debate flame - me moth.

    ReplyDelete