I have been looking at the document which Alison Sauer has been circulating about certain local authorities. Before I discuss it, I must mention that this has cleared up a puzzling little incident which occurred a couple of weeks ago. On December 8th, Tania Berlow drew people's attention to a website on home education. It may be found here;
https://sites.google.com/site/thehomeofeducation/educational
There was some pretty negative reaction to this website from some members of the EO list and as a result, a few things have been deleted from it. A couple of people said that it came across like a hostile spoof and somebody told me that she thought it could be a deliberate attempt to discredit home education. For instance, the site gave some slogans which it was thought that home educating parents might want to use. Among these was, ''Better Than Sex. Get Turned On with Home Education' . (Don't use this one when local authorities or the NSPCC are fretting about home education being used as a cover for child abuse!) Another one suggested that parents who didn't home educate their children, didn't really love them. This is a great line to take when building bridges with the wider community; tell everybody with a kid at school that they don't love their children. That should make them receptive to anything else you have to say!
The reason that I mention this site is that Alison Sauer's document contains a link to it. As far as I can see, this is where she collected the quotations which she uses. I am assuming this means that she is connected with the site and that she and other members of the so-called 'secret group' wrote the material to be found there.
Looking at the document itself, it is hard to know where to begin. It may be found here;
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGVob21lb2ZlZHVjYXRpb258Z3g6M2QzODc2MDdhMjQzZWY5ZQ&pli=1
Working as I do in a very diverse part of the East End of London, I was taken aback by one of the very first sentences. This talks of concern about 'ultra vires practices by Local Authorities being deployed against British Citizens'. I work with Asylum Seekers and refugees, many of whom have questionable status. Are the authors of the document saying that ultra vires practices would be acceptable against these individuals, because they are not British citizens? Perhaps saying 'people in Britain' would have been better than 'British citizens.
The next paragraph talks of the cost for local authorities 'in both financial and human capital terms' of their supposedly unlawful actions. 'Financial' means money and so I think that the idea is to tell us how much their activities in the field of home education cost local authorities. I will hazard a guess that 'human capital' means 'people'; if so, why not just say people or staff? Why use this bizarre jargon? Weirdly, after talking of this at the beginning, no attempt is actually made to explain the cost of what the local authorities are doing. The document says that there will be 'G & A' costs and 'Lost-Opportunity cost'. What does this mean? What are 'G & A costs'? What on earth is a 'Lost-Opportunity cost'? Would this be measured in financial terms or in terms of 'human capital'? We are also told that there are 'Implications for Individual Personnel'. What are these implications? The contorted language used here suggests that more than one person was involved in writing it. This is confirmed at the bottom of the thing, where there is a reference to 'authors'. Could Tania Berlow be one of them? It sounds a bit like some of her productions.
This is one of the big problems with looking at this thing. It is couched in a really strange jargon and it is hard to make out just what the authors are trying to prove. The 'ultra vires' actions seem to amount to local authorities asking to visit families and in some cases warning parents that unless they satisfied the authority within fifteen days that an education was taking place, a School Attendance Order would be issued. These are not really unlawful things for the local authority to do. I have in front of me a letter which I received from Essex County Council nine years ago after we had run into a truancy patrol. It says;
'Mrs Joan Barclay, an Education Welfare Officer, has informed me that your daughter Simone does not attend school. I would like to come and talk to you and Simone about the education you are providing. I hope to visit you on the morning of March 18th. If this is not convenient, perhaps you could let me know.'
Now I suppose that this is what is described in Alison Sauer's document as a 'demand to allow access to the home'. Apparently, some parents who have received similar letters have endured, 'six weeks of terror' causing 'sleepless nights, tears and sadness'! I have to say that we were showing this letter to friends and laughing about it. I can't imagine offhand why I would have been, 'bursting into uncontrollable tears' or regard this letter as a 'terrifying threat'. We need to know more about the details here, before we can judge whether or not these are ludicrous over-reactions by parents to ordinary life. In other words, without being told the specific circumstances, we cannot judge whether or not a local authority has behaved unreasonably. It is possible that these are just very sensitive parents who react badly to any sort of questions from anybody who they see as being in authority. One of the difficulties with what are described as ultra vires actions in this peculiar document is that the some of the things are far from being unlawful or ultra vires; they are in fact duties which the local authority is legally obliged to undertake. Take one of the practices which the author complains of; 'written threats of taking legal action to send the children to school unless the parents comply with the demands which were being made'. Now this might be distressing or unwelcome behaviour of the part of the local authority, but it is hardly unlawful. As a matter of fact, they have to do this under certain circumstances. The relevant law says;
'If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory
school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by
regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in
writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period
specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education'
It is to be hoped that the guidelines for local authorities on elective home education which La Sauer has been writing have been put together with a little more care than the above document. (It would, to say the least of it, be unfortunate if they begin by suggesting that abuses of state power are more acceptable when directed against foreigners and stateless persons in this country than if they were to be used against those who had citizenship!) We must hope too that the guidelines are not littered with jargon such as 'human capital' and 'G & A costs'. None of this bodes particularly well for the guidelines themselves!
For those who cannot access the document via the above link, I reproduce it below.
Ultra Vires Activities by Local Authorities in Relation to
Elective Home Education
Impact Assessment
Part One [Extract 18.12.2010]
Situation Analysis
Impact upon the Victims of Abusive Conduct by Local Authorities
Immediate Victims of Harassment
A Legal Context
The Damage to Children
The Damage to Parents
Impact upon Home Educators in General
Impact upon the Wider Society
Impact upon Local Authorities
G & A Costs
Lost-Opportunity Cost
Implications for Individual Personnel
Human Resource Implications
Liabilities
Legal Costs
Reputational Damage
Summary and Conclusions
Addendums & Appendices
Situation Analysis
Suffolk, Oxford, Birmingham, Gwent. Gateshead and Bournemouth are all recent examples
of ultra vires practices by Local Authorities being deployed against British citizens. These are
citizens that have made the personal sacrifice and law abiding commitment to Elective
Home Education for their children.
The true cost in human terms for the family victims of such abuses and in both financial and
human capital terms for the local authorities is far more significant than most politicians,
members of the public and particularly Local Authorities realise. This document explores
the reasons for both the human cost and financial costs resulting from practices that are not
supported by law and in many cases are contraventions of law.
Whilst remedial changes to guidelines and Statutory Instruments are being considered,
there is a significant need for Local Authorities to recognise all aspects of the damage to
society being caused by ultra vires pursuits.
1. Impact – the Victims of Abusive Conduct by Local Authorities
a. Immediate Victims of Harassment
Serious impact upon the lives of parents of and children occurs with unwarranted and
clumsy interventions into the peaceful harmony of family life, for which there is no legal
basis. It is obvious from LA reactions to complaints that they are oblivious to the impact of
their actions.
b. A Legal Context
A basic tenet of criminal law in the UK is that the threat is no less a crime than action. This
reflects the real impact of threatening conduct. If you use a toy gun to threaten, it has the
same impact as a real gun upon the victim. The Prevention of Harassment Act does not
accept that the perpetrator did not know of the impact that would result. It simply and
rightly rules; they ought to have known. (section ‘7 Liabilities for the LA’ & section ‘8 Legal
costs for the LA’ of this document refer).
i.
Extract from the Prevention of Harassment Act:
1. Prohibition of harassment.
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in
question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable
person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct
amounted to harassment of the other.
ii.
Guilty until Proven Innocent?
An even more fundamental tenet enshrined into British law is the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. This has been aggressively and wantonly brushed aside by
the recent activities of certain local authorities. (Addendum 1 refers).
c. The Damage to Children
Whilst direct impact upon parents may be shielded from the children in the family, there is
nevertheless an indirect impact upon the children to some greater or lesser extent.
Even when circumstances allow the children to be shielded from the exact nature of the
threat, serious impact upon the children occurs indirectly by causing stress and anxiety to
the parents which of course the children sense.
The psychological effects upon children of such indirect stress are far greater. The impact
caused to parents becomes more real and personal to the child, who is disturbed by seeing
distressed parents. Indirect impact is less understandable to a child and thereby more
troubling. It is less removed and adversely effects the people whom the child has the
greatest emotional and security attachment to in life. Whilst the child may not have the
verbal skills to enunciate their feelings, the feelings of anxiety exist regardless. Such anxiety
manifests its presence to the parents in uncharacteristic behaviour patterns.
In addition and somewhat paradoxically, by deflecting the parents and demoralising them,
the quality of home education is compromised too.
With older children, the seeds of long-term disaffection with the state may well be fertilised.
It is difficult to evaluate the qualitative or quantitative effect of such indirect impact upon
children.
d. The Damage to Parents (and Family)
A third party definition of stress to parents is less meaningful than listening to parents own
description of how they characterise the impact. The following remarks were made by
parents that had varying experiences from, demands to allow access to the home, threats to
bring the police to an unscheduled home visit, demands to prove that education was
‘suitable’ to the LA’s satisfaction, to written threats of taking legal action to send the
children to school unless parents comply with demands that were being made which were
ultra vires in nature. It speaks volumes:-
https://sites.google.com/site/thehomeofeducation/impact-assessment-call
“Completely frightening threats to deprive my children of home education”
“For a law abiding person to be threatened with the police is demoralising and made me
feel really scared”
“They were deliberately intimidating and totally insensitive to my feelings.”
“It was obvious form the very start that they were completely anti-home educators and
showed not even a n ounce of respect to me.”
“It made me very angry and upset to think that people could be like this”
“Terrifying threats from people that are ignorant about home education”
“After everything I have done to help develop well brought-up children, well educated,
safe and happy, it was a point of abject despair to be verbally threatened with the police
and the law courts and worse the thought of my children being forced into a bad
school.”
“Looking back, the six weeks of terror caused sleepless nights, tears and sadness that I
sometimes could not hide from my two children. It has changed my view of Britain being
a fair place to live.”
“I am scarred by the experience.”
“Friends and family were incredibly supportive at a time where I felt devastated.”
“At my son’s birthday party I burst into uncontrollable tears just thinking about it.”
“Deeply disturbing.”
“I guess I never had experience of real fear in my life until then.”
“The implication was that I was not doing the best for my children and it made me feel
inadequate. I lost self-confidence which is still not where it was after all these weeks.”
“I am still frightened and I have cut down the times that I take [name removed] out
during school term.”
“When he said he thought that he would start the legal process against us to get our
children into school, my husband and I both cried together that night.”
“Bitter”
“Home edding our children is the centre of family life. What bloody effect do you think it
had?”
“I was ashamed by the thought that my daughter would be taken to school and didn’t
want to tell anyone. I found a forum on the internet that really helped because I was not
alone.“
“Fear, panic, anger and desperation that’s all I can say.”
e. Impact upon Home Educators in General
Abusive conduct from L.A.’s encourages ‘Defensive parenting’.
It breeds contempt for the L.A. and educational services.
It alienates parents of EHE children from the state (the L.A. is seen as being the
frontline representative of the state).
It encourages those EHE families that are not known to the LA to remain so.
It encourages adopters of EHE to decide in favour of keeping an ‘unknown’ status.
f. Impact upon the Wider Society
It leads to increased distrust and alienation towards the LA for people not even
necessarily directly involved in EHE but aware of it through family or friends.
It alienates those people who are suppliers to, contributors or active supporters of
and EHE families (i.e. relatives).
It spreads bad repute far and wide. Local Authorities are oblivious to the total
number of people involved not just directly but indirectly in EHE. Bad repute
spreads more quickly than good repute.
© 2010 This extracted document and its content are the protected copyright of it authors.
Loading... 5 / 5
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I cant see the document, it wont load for me. Either way I need to see it before I can comment properly.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the first sentence(s?),
ReplyDelete"Suffolk, Oxford, Birmingham, Gwent. Gateshead and Bournemouth are all recent examples
of ultra vires practices by Local Authorities being deployed against British citizens" makes no sense at all. The whole thing does, as you say, appear to have many authors. It needs a lot of work IMO.
Ok, Ive been able to read it now. I think it paints a fair picture of what HEers from many of the lists feel about LAs. It kind of goes back to your blogpost about how some people over-react to LAs/EWOs/others wanting to see them or their children and I dont think the evidence presented or the quotes are wrong but are taken from the select few more anxious parents rather than balancing this with quotes from more balanced individuals.
ReplyDeleteSo, interesting document - but where do you get the idea that this is part of the draft guidelines that are being written? I see no evidence of this, only that this is a document written to inform LAs about negative aspects of heavy handed LA tactics.
'So, interesting document - but where do you get the idea that this is part of the draft guidelines that are being written?'
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I meant to convey that this is produced by the same group who have been working on the guidelines and I was expressing the hope that the quality of this document was not an indication of the quality which we might expect of the guidelines when they are published after Christmas.
It is a draft which may explain dodgy the wording. It is also copyrighted and you have reproduced much of it without permission.
ReplyDelete"explain dodgy the wording."
ReplyDeleteLOL, 'explain the dodgy wording'!
'It is a draft which may explain dodgy the wording'
ReplyDeleteI am guessing here that the phrasing of your own comment was meant to be amusingly ironical? Its being a draft document hardly excuses such atrocious and incomprehensible use of English like that below:
'Indirect impact is less understandable to a child and thereby more troubling. It is less removed and adversely effects the people whom the child has the greatest emotional and security attachment to in life.'
What on earth is 'less removed' meant to convey in this context? The whole thing looks as though it has been translated from another language by a peculiarly inept computer programme! Who in the modern world uses an expression like 'bad repute'?
Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I meant to convey that this is produced by the same group who have been working on the guidelines and I was expressing the hope that the quality of this document was not an indication of the quality which we might expect of the guidelines when they are published after Christmas.
ReplyDeleteAh I see! Yes, the final guidelines in whatever form they take do need to be well written with no margins for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
I am not sure this is the work of the same group who are working on the guide lines. I am guessing that if it is, this document is indicated to be a rough draft and will be re-editted to make more sense before final publication.
'I am not sure this is the work of the same group who are working on the guide lines.'
ReplyDeletePretty sure that it is. This document was touted on HE-UK a couple of days ago by Alison Sauer. The quotations were gathered from the website which Tania Berlow was recommending on various lists. Both Alison Sauer and Tania Berlow are members of the group which is writing the guidelines. Both Alison and Tania come on here regularly; perhaps they would like to tell us?
You do live in world removed from reality Webb. You you should get out more!
ReplyDeleteThis document is nothing to with any secret group. 22 contributors from a broad spectrum of people that live in the real world were involved.
Anything which either excludes you or occurs outside of the scope of your little room with a PC becomes a target for your next conspiracy fantasy.
The tide has turned against you and your dogma Webb but you are the last person to notice it.
It is a disgrace that you choose to belittle the people that suffer from unlawful threats made to their families.
I am also sure that Alison and Tania have more interesting lives and amusing past-times than reading your demented ramblings
.
'This document is nothing to with any secret group. 22 contributors from a broad spectrum of people that live in the real world were involved.'
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying that this document has nothing to do with Alison Sauer or Tania Berlow. If so, I am surprised that Alison feels able to discuss the copyright so confidently and grant permission for it to be freely cross-posted.
I did not say that it had nothing to do with Alison.
ReplyDeleteI said it was is nothing to with any secret group.
Learn to open you mind Webb and then learn to read and try thinking.
I am glad the you have acknowledged reading the copyright information as you are in breach of ' Not For Publication'.
You clearly have no respect for anything and no self-respect either, other than for your own big mouth.
"You seem to be saying that this document has nothing to do with Alison Sauer or Tania Berlow. If so, I am surprised that Alison feels able to discuss the copyright so confidently and grant permission for it to be freely cross-posted."
ReplyDeleteNo one seemed to saying that. Why do you insist upon lying and distorting everything?
Please explain.
'Please explain.' It's simple - it's called 'Doing a Webb'
ReplyDelete"Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I meant to convey that this is produced by the same group who have been working on the guidelines and I was expressing the hope that the quality of this document was not an indication of the quality which we might expect of the guidelines when they are published after Christmas."
ReplyDeleteIt is not from a group writing guidelines. So Webb you are just lying again.
"There was some pretty negative reaction to this website from some members of the EO list and as a result,"
ReplyDeleteMore lies and distortion
"The document says that there will be 'G & A' costs and 'Lost-Opportunity cost'. What does this mean? What are 'G & A costs'? What on earth is a 'Lost-Opportunity cost'?"
ReplyDeleteYes their is a whole world out there that you do not know about Simon Webb
"Now this might be distressing or unwelcome behaviour of the part of the local authority, but it is hardly unlawful"
ReplyDeleteGood thing you not a legal advisor Webb - watch and see!
" None of this bodes particularly well for the guidelines themselves!"
ReplyDeleteThis document has nothing to do with guidelines.
You are demented
"t is possible that these are just very sensitive parents"
ReplyDeleteNo, they are just not thick insensitive people like you.
" I am assuming
ReplyDeleteI will hazard a guess
As far as I can see"
All a good credible basis of fiction
'All a good credible basis of fiction'
ReplyDeleteWhy, you anticipate me, strange woman in Somerset! Following on from the runaway success of Elective Home Education in the UK, my next bestseller will be called The Secret Group and should be available in all good bookshops in time for the summer holidays.
" strange woman in Somerset! "
ReplyDeleteMore guesswork and fiction again Simon Webb
Some one has said the 'tide is turning' Another 'watch and see'.
ReplyDeleteCases against local authorities are being formulated and once again you will be proved wrong, out -of-step with reality and just like your book, an anachronism.
'More guesswork and fiction again Simon Webb'
ReplyDeleteNot really. You were the only person on the blog when you made a post. Site meter did the rest!
Mr. Webb,
ReplyDeleteWhat part of 'Not for Publication' do you find it hard to understand?
You have reckless disregard foe everything including the law and especially the truth.
Please answer.
'What part of 'Not for Publication' do you find it hard to understand?'
ReplyDeleteThe part where an author encourages the cross posting of a document and specifically says that this is desirable.
"select few more anxious parents rather than balancing this with quotes from more balanced individuals."
ReplyDeleteSo feeling anxious about authority figures is unbalanced? I think I know what you mean (I hope) but the implication in this sentence seems a bit harsh. Some people are more comfortable dealing with the authorities than others. I don't think this means that those that aren't comfortable are mentally unbalanced, which is what is usually implied by your phrase (in my experience).
Personally, since Alison S has put this document out for discusssion, it seems fairly clear that it will end up in all sorts of places for discussion - some supportive, some less so.
ReplyDeleteI have only skimmed it, but it does slightly worry me that the argument seems to be that LAs have such a detrimental effect on families. I know full well that LAs can be highly irritating and I am not in any way approving of that, but to move from that to a big list of what is largely an emotional response seems a bit negative. Some LAs already seem to suspect that home educating families are a bit "odd" and I wonder if this just gives them more ammunition.
I am also a bit concerned by the comments of one (or more?) of the anons above, which seems to imply that some big legal action to stop all this sort of thing is on the way. I hope I am interpreting this wrongly, since again I think any such action may backfire on home educators.
"(It would, to say the least of it, be unfortunate if they begin by suggesting that abuses of state power are more acceptable when directed against foreigners and stateless persons in this country than if they were to be used against those who had citizenship!)"
ReplyDeleteReading this document, it does not to me that anyone is making such a suggestion. You however, seem to want to have some phoney argument about political correctness to try and marginalise anyone who speaks up for the rights of British Citizens.
Reading the comments here, does not "bode well" for anyone that might have hoped that your book was going to be useful to L.A.'s. One L.A that made reference to it has already issued an apology for the mistake they made.
"Julie said..."
ReplyDeleteHi Simon, is this your sister or something writing on your behalf?
"More guesswork and fiction again Simon Webb'
ReplyDeleteNot really. You were the only person on the blog when you made a post. Site meter did the rest!"
What technical rubbish is this?
'Hi Simon, is this your sister or something writing on your behalf? '
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is possible that Julie and I are siblings who were separated at birth. If so, it is the first that I have heard of it and since my parents are both dead, I am unable to check. Tell me Anonymous, what has caused you to think that this might be the case?
Oh come off it anon, do I ever write in support in whole hearted support of Simon? As I don't know who you are, I can't assume you know who I am; but I am someone who spends a lot of time working with and supporting families in their battles with LAs!
ReplyDelete"Not really. You were the only person on the blog when you made a post. Site meter did the rest!"
ReplyDeleteWhat technical rubbish is this?"
Other anon, Simon labours under the misapprehension that Sitemeter (a visitor counter people can add to their web sites) records the locations of individuals visiting his web site. However, he is actually being told the location of the computer your ISP is routing your internet traffic through before it is sent on to you. I've just checked where Sitemeter thinks I am (I have it on one of my web sites) and it gives a location about 200 miles away from where I live.
I use Adblock Plus (a free download) to block Sitemeter when I view Simon's blog so he will not be able to 'see' me.
"I know full well that LAs can be highly irritating and I am not in any way approving of that, but to move from that to a big list of what is largely an emotional response seems a bit negative. "
ReplyDeleteJulie, the document claims to be an analysis of the impact of abusive conduct by Local Authorities rather than normal behaviour, so I would expect more extreme reactions than normal.
BTW Simon, why do you fork out $59+ a year for Sitemeter? If you didn't want a hidden counter you can sign up for free.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2 said "the document claims to be an analysis of the impact of abusive conduct by Local Authorities rather than normal...."
ReplyDeleteYes, I get that, but I am still not sure that it is a good place to be arguing from. I don't think any LA would regard their behaviour as abusive; so large scale extreme reactions to wha they consider "normal behaviour" won't cut any ice with them; I am pretty sure it is ammunition for the "look, we only said such and such, and look at the response" rather than a sort of penitential " ooh, look at the damage we have done" sort of reply; if that makes sense!
I am not denying that some people feel very upset; I am not deying that some LAs do extremely strange and unreasonable things; I am just concerned that this sort of wholesale quoting of feelings makes us (ie home educators) seem a more vunerable group rather than a group who ought to be confident about what we are doing.
What alternative approach would you suggest? Some authorities claim to want to improve relations with home educators but if they are not told where they are going wrong they are unlikely to change. Social anxiety is a common problem for people. In one study I saw for instance, 24% of a randomly selected sample of over 500 adults reported experiencing some or much anxiety when dealing with people in authority. The fact that their children are involved is only going to exacerbate any natural anxiety a person might feel in this situation.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I think it must be down to local action. Local groups need to work with LAs not only to point out the error of their ways, but to come up with some positive ideas too. My current approach is to point out the dangers of the internet; what LAs got up to 25 years ago may never have come to light, but today's stupid idea (like Suffolk's) is all over the internet in a morning, leaving the LA being attacked on all sides and bombarded with unwelcome publicity from who ever HErs have "got at" ie MPs etc asking questions; plus annoying (to them) FOI requests. It may avert the particular incident, but all too often the whole episode ends in denial (eg wasn't it Lancs that Nick Gibbs got involved in who then denied that whatever they had said was actually said in the first place?) Then it all starts again. What I want is to get the LAs to realise that they are the losers by these actions (since it makes HEers less likely to engage with them) and come up with something positive to start with.
ReplyDeleteLast week I had the rare opportunity of meeting a person that claimed to be friend of the Author of this blog (of course he might not have been telling the truth).
ReplyDeleteHe told me about his irritation that people posting comments would never tell anything about themselves but hid their past lives in ‘veil of secrecy’.
I understood the message so I am taking the trouble to expose my background which may explain why I occasionally read this blog for a sense of amusement and fun.
In an early career move, I pursued studies to become a Gynaecological Anthropologist with specialist expertise in mitochondrial DNA extraction and more generally, the reproductive systems of dinosaurs. This was largely directed at exploring the Nomis/Bbew/Reknaw theory of evolutionary dinosaur chains prior to extinction.
This led to the publication of the much acclaimed and revered academic work of my PHD thesis. A ground-breaking works indentified the DNA characteristic proving the first scientific breakthrough evidence of homo-sapiens genetic link to dinosaurs rather than just apes.
For those that have interest, the works (ISBN 1472 9891) is entitled:
“The True Genetic Origins of Simon Webb”
That's fine as far as it goes and much has been achieved in this way. However, much time has also been wasted when the current LA incumbent leaves and you have to start all over again. It also relies on having a wide sprinkling of people with the time, personality and skill to achieve this. From reading email lists, the spread is very spotty. It sounds as though your group benefits greatly from your activities, but how many areas benefit from people like you? Lets hope the guidelines help. At least this is a positive approach and, if the government backs it up, it may improve the situation. Though I doubt it's going to influence those who are against HE who stand a good chance of re-gaining influence after the next election.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to Simone on her Oxford offer! You must be so proud Simon.
ReplyDelete"select few more anxious parents rather than balancing this with quotes from more balanced individuals."
ReplyDeleteSo feeling anxious about authority figures is unbalanced? I think I know what you mean (I hope) but the implication in this sentence seems a bit harsh. Some people are more comfortable dealing with the authorities than others. I don't think this means that those that aren't comfortable are mentally unbalanced, which is what is usually implied by your phrase (in my experience).
Sorry, you are right, my wording was appalling - what I meant was that only quotes from anxious, concerned parents were highlighted and there were no quotes from people who may have had more favourable experiences with their LAs.
By balanced, I meant it should include more views, not that people who were anxious were in some way unbalanced.
I have negative experiences with Social Services and hospital staff so understand the feeling of angst and concern at such situations- I full appreciate how some families might feel uncomfortable with and threatened by LA involvement. Appologies again.
“Sorry, you are right, my wording was appalling - what I meant was that only quotes . . . .there were no quotes from people who may have had more favourable experiences.”
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the documented quotes was not to provide a survey of general opinions. It was obviously and quite justifiable so my view, a document to raise awareness of the negative impact upon families arising from spurious, heavy-handed activity. One L.A. is now clearly in apologetic remission. Despite Webb's view to the contrary, other are following with a similar retreat.
I am glad to see that rather than badmanesq propaganda the truth is now coming out. Politicians are growing in their loathing of this legacy too.
Claire H
"what I meant was that only quotes from anxious, concerned parents were highlighted and there were no quotes from people who may have had more favourable experiences with their LAs."
ReplyDeleteI thought that's what you meant, I'm glad I was right. I suppose it could be good to include examples of good practice to show poor LAs that there is another way. The danger there is that the same LA can be fine with some home educators whilst being terrible with others, sometimes even when the same officer is involved. Prejudices and preconceptions can trigger very different reactions in people and not always in a predictable way. One LA officer criticized a friend for being too structured and for having a house that was too tidy and organised, for instance! If an LA were held up as a good example but were later found to have caused problems for other home educators, we could run into problems.
'So, interesting document - but where do you get the idea that this is part of the draft guidelines that are being written?'
ReplyDeleteWebb Says:-
"Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression."
You are a liar. You used the very specific heading :
"Alison Sauer presents the first fruits of the 'secret group'"
They have absolute grounds against you and I hope they pursue it
Julie Said-
ReplyDelete"What I want is to get the LAs to realise that they are the losers by these actions"
Julie, it is obvious to anyone that, this is purpose behind the document. Also, whilst home educators are know for their resilient spirit, there is bay any definition, no question they are a vulnerable group in society.
Look at CRAM with no evidence behind it at all.
It amounts to state sponsored persecution of a minority group.
Unless you admit to reality, you will never make a difference.
Claire H
'You are a liar. You used the very specific heading :
ReplyDelete"Alison Sauer presents the first fruits of the 'secret group'"
They have absolute grounds against you and I hope they pursue it'
Yes, I meant that this document had certainly been put together by Alison Sauer and the other members of the so-called 'secret group'. It simply suggested to me that they had been working on more than just the new guidelines. What on earth do they have 'absolute grounds' against me for? Sounds most alarming!