I am growing increasingly baffled about the need for secrecy of those currently trying to impose their own ideas upon home education in this country. In a recent post here, somebody commented anonymously claiming to be a member of the group working on the new guidelines for local authorities. I responded to what was said, whereupon another anonymous person chipped in saying, in effect, 'You fool! How do you know he is really a member of our secret group? He might be a member of another secret group entirely'. Because they both insist on remaining anonymous and because even if we knew their names, we do not know the names of those who are in fact members of the group working on the new guidelines, any attempt to debate the matter becomes pointless. Even Alison Sauer still refuses to confirm that she is writing these guidelines, which is pretty bizarre.
I have myself always had plenty of opinions on the subject of home education. I have joined Internet lists and expressed those opinions and I have commented on blogs. I use my own name and personal email address; why would I not? When I wrote a couple of pieces on home education for the national press last summer, they were published under my own name. Obviously, I could have insisted on a pseudonym, both for the newspaper articles and when I joined the lists and forums. I simply cannot imagine why I would do that. I have something to say, what I say might have an effect on people, it is only right that those people should know who is saying this. I have had a book published about home education. This too is in my own name. Readers will recall that when I was writing it, I asked for input from others; there was no secrecy about the thing.
I am completely foxed as to why those drawing up new guidelines for local authorities in their dealings with home education should not want anybody to know their names. We are assured that they are all home educators; how are we to know that this is so? Kelly Green in Canada is offering plenty of advice, chatting regularly to Alison Sauer on the telephone. There is a slight problem about this, because Kelly does not really understand UK law and this might lead her to offer bad advice.
This is the difficulty which secrecy is bringing to the project. We do not know who is contributing to the thing, what their motives are or anything about them. I have been trying to work out why I would myself want to do something like that and keep my name hidden. I suppose that one possibility would be if I was one of those home educating parents who was determined to remain unknown to the local authority. This is weird, but it might provide a legitimate reason for wishing to conceal my name. Alison Sauer and Imran Shah are not in this position those; both are fairly well known and vociferous. Neither wish to acknowledge their part in this project. We are assured that only home educators are involved in the business, but that seems to me to be unlikely. An easy way of proving this point would be for the authors to come forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"whereupon another anonymous person chipped in saying, in effect, 'You fool! How do you know he is really a member of our secret group? He might be a member of another secret group entirely'."
ReplyDeleteErr, I'm the second anonymous commenter and at no point did I say I was a member of a secret group. I also didn't suggest that the group the original commenter mentioned in their message was a secret group. They may just have been talking about their local group or a group of friends. You're getting as bad as the tabloids, Simon.
"Kelly Green in Canada is offering plenty of advice, chatting regularly to Alison Sauer on the telephone. There is a slight problem about this, because Kelly does not really understand UK law and this might lead her to offer bad advice."
Didn't Badman look to other countries to see how they dealt with HE? Do you think he was wrong to do this? Or was that OK because the countries he chose had greater regulation than the UK?
"This is the difficulty which secrecy is bringing to the project. We do not know who is contributing to the thing, what their motives are or anything about them."
I don't especially agree with the secracy around the project, but we have all had the oportunity to have input or to ask Graham Stuart directly about the project. We will all get to see the products of the work and have our input taken into account during the consultation. You've already said that you wouldn't care who was involved if it were a group of civil servants despite the fact that many of them would know far less about HE and home educators views than home educators and may have ulterior motives such as job enlargement/preservation. I really cannot see why you are making such fuss about this.
Ah but they say it's only you and 20 others on the list who disagree with them. They (if it is them speaking) justify their secrecy on the basis that it's better than previous situations.
ReplyDeleteThey should do a monkey poll if they really want to know. I would but I wouldn't know what I was polling about.
I think apart from the odd passionate explosion HE parents are pretty nice people and they don't wish to hound people, particularly if there is no proof about what's happening.
Mind you when this blew up there were rather more than 20 people who disagreed, I'm sure they don't wish to seem threatening to those who simply ask questions. But then maybe the anon who threatened legal action on here was not one of them?
I find myself agreeing with you Simon, you are certainly not hiding, we can at least disagree with what you say and do, bother...I shall now be painted as your new best friend.
I know this is now boring but......
If they wish to help they should do so with the consent of those they help, in so far as that is possible, if that is not possible they should open themselves up to take criticism so that they can adjust what they do appropriately.
There is no legal requirement to do this of course. It is merely a suggestion on how to show respect for the HE community.
I will more than happily eat my hat (probably minced, slowly stewed with some harissa and beans) if they actually do a fantastic job and manage create a solution that keeps LAs in line and reduces interference. I like my hat, it'd be a shame but I'd do it and invite the secret group to the party. I wouldn't give a toss who they turned out to be if they did that, even if Ed, Graham and Delyth are on the team they'll be welcome.
Elizabeth
Seriously hoping to eat her hat.
'Didn't Badman look to other countries to see how they dealt with HE? Do you think he was wrong to do this? Or was that OK because the countries he chose had greater regulation than the UK?'
ReplyDeleteI have no objection to anybody looking further afield than Britain in order to get ideas about home education. There are two problems with Kelly Green. One is that she knows little about the legal situation in this country. In a recent post she claimed that the issuing of a School Attendance Order would force a parent to send her child to school without recourse to the courts. This is of course not true and most people involved in home education in this country would know this. The second problem is that she does not like anybody to disagree with her. When I pointed out on her blog that she was mistaken about something, her response was to announce that any further comments of mine would be deleted at once. She only wishes to deal with those with whom she agrees. (I say nothing of her telling people on her blog that I was an adviser to the Department for Children, Schools and Families!) Not a reliable or well informed person and therefore not one who should be involved in drawing up the new guidelines.
Now Elizabeth, you know perfectly well that you have been asked not to discuss this business or ask any more questions! Alison is getting distinctly snappish with you about this lately.
ReplyDelete' I also didn't suggest that the group the original commenter mentioned in their message was a secret group. They may just have been talking about their local group or a group of friends.'
ReplyDeleteHere is what was actually said;
'So you would prefer to believe the comment of a random, anonymous person who may or may not be a member of the group in question (they may well be talking about another group) than publicly made comments by a known individual?'
You must forgive me if I am having a bit of trouble keeping track of which group is which! Why not simply give the group working on the new guidelines a name, identify yourselves, explain what is going on and what the terms of reference for this group is, who belongs to it and so on? Otherwise, there is bound to be confusion of this sort.
I thought Kelly Green's blog post was commenting on the intentions of the CSF Bill, not current law.
ReplyDeleteWhat do others think?
http://kellygreenandgold.wordpress.com/2010/12/
Kelly green was commenting on the provisions of Schedule 1. She said of School Attendance orders;
ReplyDelete'This would have meant that homelearning families who attempted to practice civil disobedience by refusing to comply with regulations that required home visits and monitoring would have had no recourse in court. Such civil disobedience would have resulted in an automatic SAO, and this SAO, under the proposed regulation, would have been irrevocable.'
It is untrue that anybody issued with an SAO has no recourse to the courts. Now and if the CSF Bill had been passed in its entirety, anybody issued with a School Attendance Order and ignoring it would need to be prosecuted by the local authority. This would lead to a court appearance. Kelly Green does not appear to understand how School Attendance Orders work, nor does she seem familiar wioth the principle established in Bevan v Shears. This suggests to me that she is not a good person to be involved with a set of guidelines which will supposedly explain the law to local authorities; she does not know the law.
"Kelly Green does not appear to understand how School Attendance Orders work, nor does she seem familiar wioth the principle established in Bevan v Shears."
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit unfair Simon when it's obvious that whoever wrote that part of the Bill had the same misunderstanding. Yes it's clear she is talking about the Bill.
We have already been saved from that load of tripe. That is not the problem in hand which is currently being secretly solved though is it?
Elizabeth
"Ah but they say it's only you and 20 others on the list who disagree with them. They (if it is them speaking) justify their secrecy on the basis that it's better than previous situations."
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I'm not part of the group producing the draft guidelines and I didn't say that only Simon and 20 others on email lists disagree with them. Someone (you?) said that the majority of home educators think the group are making a big mistake. I just made the point that we don't know what the majority think. We have heard from about 20 people who are against it and a similar number (but less vocal) who are prepared to wait and see. Please read what people write before replying to an invented version.
"They should do a monkey poll if they really want to know. I would but I wouldn't know what I was polling about."
I doubt they do want to know. They probably believe that it's fine for them to draw up a draft for the rest of us to comment on and change as necessary at a later date. As I said, I disagree with the secrecy, but am keeping an open mind about the guidelines. At least this time they are being drawn up by home educators and not civil servants who might well invent busy work for themselves to save their jobs.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"In a recent post she claimed that the issuing of a School Attendance Order would force a parent to send her child to school without recourse to the courts. This is of course not true and most people involved in home education in this country would know this."
It's not true as the law currently stands but it was part of the Bill and Schedule 1 and this was what she was talking about. The intention was to remove provision of a suitable education at home as a defence against a school attendance order. So how was Kelly Green wrong?
This is the text from Schedule 1:
“(3A) If it appears to a local authority in England—
(a) that a child of compulsory school age in their area is a home educated child, but is not registered on their home education register, and
(b) that it is expedient that the child should attend school, the authority shall serve a school attendance order on the child’s parent.
(3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) whether it is expedient that a child should attend school, an authority shall disregard any education being provided to the child as a home educated child.”
A court could not take account of any home education being provided to the child either. Common law can only be used to interpret statute, not change it so magistrates and judges would not be able to take education provision into account if that is what statute states. The only reason we currently have this defence in court now is because it is because the current law states that the LA must have regard to such provision.
ReplyDeleteSee this page for more info. on the law:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm
"Comparing legislation with common law, statutes generally have the power to change the established common law, but the common law cannot overrule or change statues. A statute can only be overrruled or amended by another, later statute."
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"It is untrue that anybody issued with an SAO has no recourse to the courts. Now and if the CSF Bill had been passed in its entirety, anybody issued with a School Attendance Order and ignoring it would need to be prosecuted by the local authority."
Not a lot of point in going to court if all the LA must do to win is to show that you are not registered. On what grounds could the parents win if they are not registered as home educators with an LA and the provided education cannot be taken into account?
Sounds like Kelly knows more about the Bill and Schedule 1 than you do Simon. Just as well you're not part of the group drafting the new guidelines! But then... maybe you are but just haven't told anyone. After all, we've been told that members of the group don't necessarily know the identities of other members. Maybe your blog posts are just a smoke screen to hide your involvement?
ReplyDelete'Sounds like Kelly knows more about the Bill and Schedule 1 than you do Simon.'
ReplyDelete'3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) whether it is expedient that a child should attend school, an authority shall disregard any education being provided to the child as a home educated child.”
I was of course aware of this. It would still have been necessary for the local authority to prosecute the parent if he disregarded the School Attendance Order and did not send the child to school. This was the principle laid down in Bevan v Shears. Kelly Green was under the impression that the local authority could force a child to school without the parent having recourse to the courts. This was not true.
"Someone (you?) said that the majority of home educators think the group are making a big mistake."
ReplyDeleteNo not me, I would never presume that. I agree we don't know, I don't see how we can. I agree with you about keeping an open mind too.
I keep niggling because they keep feeding in bits of information in a spinning/PR kind of way and I think that needs softening.
I do wish that there wasn't a desire to attack any such efforts with OTT anger then there'd be no excuse for the silence and they wouldn't be able to imply or say that those challenging the idea are simply angry nutters.
Elizabeth
"I was of course aware of this. It would still have been necessary for the local authority to prosecute the parent if he disregarded the School Attendance Order and did not send the child to school."
ReplyDeleteSo what? It's just one more step against which the parent would have had no defence so it would effectively be irrevocable in the situation Kelly describes (civil disobedience by not registering with the LA. Court would be a total waste of the LAs and home educators time and money.
This is what Kelly said,
This would have meant that homelearning families who attempted to practice civil disobedience by refusing to comply with regulations that required home visits and monitoring would have had no recourse in court. Such civil disobedience would have resulted in an automatic SAO, and this SAO, under the proposed regulation, would have been irrevocable.
This is correct. Who would bother going to court in this situation as the law would have been clear. The court would have found for the LA within seconds.
"No not me, I would never presume that. I agree we don't know, I don't see how we can. I agree with you about keeping an open mind too."
ReplyDeleteHi Margaret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we probably agree much more than we disagree on this subject. I dislike the secrecy, but on the other hand, having seen the treatment Tania received, they may well have made the right choice. They would have spent all of their time arguing their position instead of drafting the guidelines. I'm not sure how else it could have been managed. Some kind of election may have worked I suppose, but contacting everyone to enable a fair vote would have been a massive task and most people would not have known the people they were voting for anyway. At least this way we get an initial draft that will be open to all for comments. That's where democracy comes in in my view.
Isn't it better in a way to just have the text in front of us to argue through point by point rather than an individual presenting a particular point? At least then we can concentrate more on the issue in isolation and not have it tainted by the personality of the person who put it in writing?
"Hi Margaret, sorry for the misunderstanding."
ReplyDeleteSo sorry, Elizabeth, for getting your name wrong!
'This is correct. Who would bother going to court in this situation as the law would have been clear. The court would have found for the LA within seconds.'
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what everybody thought in Bevan v Shears (1911). That's why we have courts.
How is Bevan v Shears relevant? The bit you've quoted before states:
ReplyDelete"In the absence of anything in the bye-laws providing that a child of a given age shall receive instruction in given subjects, in my view it cannot be said that there is a standard of education by which the child must be taught. The court has to decide whether in their opinion the child is being taught efficiently so far as that particular child is concerned."
But in this case there would not have been an absence of instruction in the law. The law would have stated that the judge could not look at the education being provided at home when deciding if the SAO should be enforced. He would have been instructed by statute to check only if the family were on the LA register of home educators or not. Everyone will know before it reaches court that the family is not on the register so the result is a foregone conclusion. The judge could not decide by himself to look at education provision because it says he can't in statute. This would only be possible if there were an absence of instruction either way.
But maybe you are thinking of another aspect of Bevan v Shears?
Talking of old cases, had you realised that judges were talking of the rights of parents to home educate as long ago as 1910? In the only recorded case where the lawfulness of home education itself was challenged rather than the content and form of education, Chief Justice Alverstone, when rejecting the argument of the local school board, commented that:
ReplyDelete"it would be a very strong thing to wholly deprive the parent of the right to give efficient elementary instruction to his own child . . . "
R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justice, ex p Broadbent [1910]
"They would have spent all of their time arguing their position instead of drafting the guidelines."
ReplyDelete2 examples of great work done mainly by small bunches of people but open to the comments of a wider audience were the AEUK submission to the Select Committee and the BRAG Right to Reply.
Fabulous and useful documents both of them.
Any dangerous errors were mitigated against by the visibility of the work.
I agree that Tania had a tough time but if I wasn't prepared to answer people's questions I'd have dropped the conversations. There was some that was unacceptable but some was simply people engaging in conversation and trying to understand what she was saying.
Elizabeth
"2 examples of great work done mainly by small bunches of people but open to the comments of a wider audience were the AEUK submission to the Select Committee and the BRAG Right to Reply.
ReplyDeleteFabulous and useful documents both of them.
Any dangerous errors were mitigated against by the visibility of the work."
But isn't that what's supposed to happen next? And didn't someone have to set the ball rolling and put up a first draft up in these examples? Could the draft development be considered the equivalent of that?
As I say, I'm still undecided and it all depends on how 'real' the consultation process that follows the draft production is. If it's similar to your examples, the great, I see nothing wrong with the process except for disliking the secrecy. However, if the consultation is anything like the Bill 'consultation' carried out by the last government, then it will definitely have been a massive mistake on the part of those who have contributed so far. Unless, of course, they manage to develop the perfect draft that everyone agrees with... In their dreams - LOL!