I have to confess that I find Kelly Green immensely irritating. It is not so much the fact that she claimed on her blog that far from being a home educating parent, I was really an adviser to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I suppose anybody might inadvertently spread a falsehood like this. Nor is it that when I commented courteously on her blog correcting this ridiculous lie, she deleted the correction immediately. Why should I worry if she is keen on censorship, opposed to free speech and likes to propagate untruthful and damaging allegations about other home educators? No, these are relatively minor matters. The thing which annoys me about this woman is the confident way in which she shoots her mouth off about things she knows nothing at all about. This is not at all helpful to the cause of home education, particularly in this country. Have a look at this, from her blog Kelly Green and Gold;
http://kellygreenandgold.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/politics-and-paradox/#comments
Several things jump out at one from this post. First, Kelly believes that the Code Napoleon operates in the United Kingdom. She apparently thinks that as in some continental countries, we are limited in our actions to things specifically guaranteed in law. This shows alarming ignorance. She talks of the 'socialist paradise' countries of Sweden, France and Holland. Holland is socialist? Since when? France had a socialist government back in 1993, but even then, I would not have described it as a socialist country. Sweden has not had a socialist government since 2006. Home education in France is growing and has been for years. The situation there is that home education is a guaranteed right in law. Why on earth is she bracketing it with Sweden and the Netherlands, where home education is under threat? Where does this woman get her information? Now have a look at this post:
http://kellygreenandgold.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/a-way-forward-in-a-truly-happy-new-year/
Anything strike you as odd? Wait, Graham Badman is described as a civil servant. This really demonstrates that Kelly Green understands little about what is going on in this country. She says of this country in her post;
'We need to demand that government tells parents up front that this is one of your options when your children reach the age of compulsory education. You can educate them at home. This choice must not be hidden, and should be treated as an equal alternative to public and independent schools.'
Is this meant to be serious? If so, it again shows how little she really knows about the situation in this country. Let's have a look at the Department for Education's website;
http://www.education.gov.uk/popularquestions/childrenandfamilies/parenting/a005376/can-i-take-my-child-out-of-school-and-educate-them-at-home
What actually is being hidden here? How are the government not telling parents up front that this is one of their options? They even go out of their way here to draw parents' attention to the 2007 guidelines. Why does Kelly Green think that this choice of educational provision for children is being 'hidden' by the government? Is she not aware that both this government and the last went out of their way to emphasise that parents had a right to home educate and that there was no intention to change this?
I said earlier that I found Kelly Green's ignorance about home education in Britain and the rest of Europe alarming. The reason that I am alarmed is that this ill informed individual is now intimately mixed up with the group who are writing the new guidelines on home education. Frankly, this could be a disaster, judging by the level of her ignorance. Why would you wish to involve a person who knows nothing about British law when drawing up guidelines to the application of the law in Britain? This should be making us uneasy on a number of different levels.
On the plus side, she seems accidentally to have outed a few more members of the so-called secret group, which is interesting. Most of us knew that she and Alison Sauer have been running a mutual admiration society for a while and chatting regularly on the telephone about the best way of phrasing the new guidelines. In one of her recent blogs though, she thanks various other parents in this country for their help. Tania Berlow is one and we know that she is a member of the 'secret group'. Also mentioned is 'Leaf Lovejoy' (One of these days, I too am going to start using a whimsical name of this sort when commenting on lists and blogs. I can't decide though between 'Dreamcatcher' and 'Flower fairy). I think that Leaf Lovejoy has been doing some proof reading of the guidelines. The other names were Diane Varty and a woman who wishes only to be known as Grit. She has a blog called 'Grit's day'. Mind, I don't say that these two people are definitely members of the 'secret group', but it seems likely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are clutching at straws somewhat. Kelly knows and communicates with the people she mentions on her blog, she thanks them for their imput in shaping what she writes.
ReplyDeleteNOWHERE that I could find, does she mention that she is part of the group, or that they are. They are simply people from across the water that she has communicated with at various points in time.
Yes there are errors in some of what she writes, but that is to be expected seeing as she lives across the water and gains her knowledge second hand. Maybe an email mentioning the things you feel unhappy about would set her straight.
If everyone minded their own business, what kind of society would that be. This mentality of going it alone is not going to help us, we need to stick together. I am sure you saw the poem circulating during the Badman Review:
They came for the home educating parents, but i did not speak out because i was not a home educator. Then they came for the parents who chose a bad school, but i did not speak out, because our school was good. Then they came for the parents who chose the nursery with a sex abuser as a nursery nurse, but i did not speak out, because my children went to a different nursery.
And then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak up for me.
I applaud her for at least trying to highlight the difficulties faced in the UK by home educators even if what she writes isnt perfect. She tries her best, takes correction well, appologises when necessary, and keeps trying to help.
I apologise for being on my soapbox over this but I really feel you are being rather harsh.
Thank you for a good laugh, Simon. A definite pot-kettle-black moment there when you described Kelly as irritating.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Napoleonic Code, I think you're involving the square root of -1 a bit here. If I've pinpointed your area of concern, I'd highlight the bit that says "This is not necessarily the attitude, or the legal reality, for much of the rest of the world." The phrase "much of" doesn't have to include the UK.
'I am sure you saw the poem circulating during the Badman Review:
ReplyDeleteThey came for the home educating parents, but i did not speak out because i was not a home educator. Then they came for the parents who chose a bad school, but i did not speak out, because our school was good. Then they came for the parents who chose the nursery with a sex abuser as a nursery nurse, but i did not speak out, because my children went to a different nursery.
And then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak up for me.'
I certainly do recollect this. I thought then and feel now that using Pastor Niemoller's sermon on nazism and the Holocaust in this way is monumentally tacky. Comparing the persecution and murder of millions of Jews by Hitler with the proposed increased regulation of a fringe educational movement is monstrous. Anybody here familiar with Godwin's Law?
'A definite pot-kettle-black moment there when you described Kelly as irritating.'
ReplyDeleteA fair point indeed and one with which many would agree. Not so sure about your analogy of using 'i'. I seem to remember hearing that you are an engineer of some sort and so this might be why you chose this odd metaphor.
'I apologise for being on my soapbox over this but I really feel you are being rather harsh.'
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologise for being on a soapbox here, C! That is really the whole purpose of the blog. It would be a dull world if we all agreed and I am sure that Kelly green is quite able to withstand a little criticism.
I am glad its ok to disagree here. I think Kelly most definitely can take a little criticism and appears to do so very well and quite humbly from what I have seen.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the poem - I think when it was released it was done to highlight the way in which Badman had gone about his proposals in such an underhand and overbearing way. Whilst I dont necessarily think that it is good to re-write poems in this way I do think that it highlighted very clearly the way Clause 1 etc of that bill would have been difficult for HE had it gotten in. The nanny-state that was Labour appeared to be really trying to stamp out all differences.
So in short I think it encompassed our concerns at the time.
I also think the sentiment of sticking together and supporting differences especially those not in our immediate circle of friends/family/country etc is highlighted in both the original, and revised version and it was this I was really trying to focus on in my example.
I just googled Godwins Law. I see what you mean.
ReplyDeleteI have to add though, I, as a layperson who wasnt into politics of these things was truely scared when I heard the Badman proposals. They really did feel like he was trying to stamp out HE and in particular Autonomous HE and this IS very similar to the Nazi feeling about Jews and others who didnt fit their regime. Similar, but not the same.
"the overseas branch secretary of the 'secret group'"
ReplyDeleteMore fantasy from fiction writer Webb
'Similar, but not the same'
ReplyDeleteThe big difference being of course that one can choose not to be a home educator but cannot choose not to be a Jew. Oh, and the penalty for being a Jew involved extermination, whereas the ultimate penalty for home education might have involved receiving a School Attendance Order. But yes, apart from those minor differences, pretty similar!
" spread a falsehood" "ridiculous lie,"
ReplyDeleteMr. Webb, this is exactly whet you are renown for, as well as trying to bolster your ego by trashing everyone that is truly respected.
You really are loosing the plot now
the last went out of their way to emphasise that parents had a right to home educate and that there was no intention to change this?
ReplyDeleteKeep swigging the gin webb it obviously does something for your imagination
I would not have described it as a socialist country. Sweden has not had a socialist government since 2006.
ReplyDeleteIdiot:
Following a forty year period of socialist control Sweden has an entrenched socialist civil service so changing governments has little effect. You know nothing about Sweden so either do some research or stop making things up.
Pratt webb
ReplyDeleteget it into you thick head once and for all
THERE IS NO SECRET GROUP
'You know nothing about Sweden so either do some research or stop making things up.'
ReplyDeleteActually I lived there during the seventies. My first wife was Swedish.
'I would not have described it as a socialist country. Sweden has not had a socialist government since 2006.
ReplyDeleteIdiot: '
Misleading quotation from my post. It was in fact France which I would not have described as a socialist country. It is prefectly true that Sweden had a socialist government for many years until 2006.
'THERE IS NO SECRET GROUP'
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to hear this and delighted to be proved wrong! Now tell us about the open group who are putting together the new guidelines. Who are they, what are their terms of reference, is their project officially sanctioned by Nick Gibb the Schools Minster?; just a few bits and pieces of information like that. After all, if this group is, as you say, not secret, there can be no reason to withhold any of this.
Okay....
ReplyDeleteI think that whoever the people are who are woking on new guidelines clearly don't want to reveal themslves, and thus it is perfectly futile for Simon to keep going on and on about them in the vain hope they are going to confess as to who they are.
Whether they are or are not a "group" at all is a bit academic too; we have been told some people are working with G Stuart to look at the guidelines again. Personally I am a little hesitant about this, for two reasons; the obvious one being that whatever they come up with may well fail to gain support from those not involved in the early stages. My main concern is that I am not sure that revisiting the guidelines will be productive; various posters pointed out that many LAs didn't stick to them because they didn't want to, not because they don't really understand them. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic, but I am afraid that more publicity for home educators may backfire on us;- pointing out that LAs are pretty powerless may not be a good thing, especially if the guidelines come to the fore at a time when some HE abuse story can be dragged up. I am fairly sure that nearly all LAs want more control and may well be working in the opposite direction, and somehow having everything up for debate again may well be counter productive in the longer term.
Your analysis is right on the button, Julie. I have said before that this whole thing has a great capacity to backfire on those involved. The fallout could well affect all home educating parents. I would have thought that the best thing that home educators who wanted to be left alone could do, would be to keep quiet and get on with home educating.
ReplyDeleteJulie said,
ReplyDelete"I am fairly sure that nearly all LAs want more control and may well be working in the opposite direction"
I agree with your overall comment. With regard to this point, maybe it should be pointed out to LAs that the more control they are required to have in law the more they can be held to account if something goes wrong? Currently it is very rare for an LA to be successfully sued for a child's poor education because the parent's are legally responsible for provision. However, if they are given the power to veto a parent's provision, they effectively take on the responsibility for provision and also for failure to provide a suitable education. It may well be possible for a child to prove that the education they received prior to LA involvement was better.
The same applies to safeguarding. At the moment they are only required to keep the safety and welfare of children in mind whilst carrying out existing duties. They are not given additional safeguarding duties beyond this 'consideration'. If they are given the specific duty to inspect for safety and welfare and then fail, they will be considered far more at fault than under the current system. In the Ishaq case the LA inspector could only be faulted for agreeing the education was suitable when clearly it was not. Under the previously proposed system, he would have been held to be at fault for far more.
Julie and the last Anonymous are quite right.
ReplyDeleteLAs should simply be pushed to stay within the current guidelines these are in the interests of LAs and HE families.
Elizabeth
"I would have thought that the best thing that home educators who wanted to be left alone could do, would be to keep quiet and get on with home educating."
ReplyDeleteThe problem there is that the home educators not in contact with others will be at the mercy of every rule their LA cares to make up. Strange as it sounds to regular users of the internet, not all home educators use the internet as regularly, not at least for contact with other home educators, or with other local home educators. Some of them may be happy to go with the flow and put up with what the LA 'requests', but I've spoken to enough people who belatedly found local groups or email lists and were glad to discover the real legal requirements, to fear that we would be abandoning many to their fate if we take a, 'keep our heads down, I'm all right Jack, don't rock the boat' type approach.
"or with other local home educators."
ReplyDeleteshould have been:
or have contact with other local home educators.
Anon above said "we would be abandoning many to their fate if we take a, 'keep our heads down, I'm all right Jack, don't rock the boat' type approach"
ReplyDelete- I am not suggesting that at all (nor are the others I am sure!)- - we should be pushing LAs to keep to the existing guidelines at all times. This is howver different from more national attempts to change the guidelines again.
Julie, I know you didn't suggest that, I didn't suggest that you had. I quoted Simon. My comment was specifically addressed to the quoted text. Maybe I've misunderstood what Simon meant. Maybe Simon has other ideas for keeping LAs in line (beyond giving them what they want so they are happy to keep in line)?
ReplyDeleteI also have doubts about the current guideline revision project, mainly that I don't think it will make any difference to the actions of LAs and, if there is the chance that it may reduce current freedoms if great care is not taken. However, at least they are trying and, combined with other activities that may follow from the guidelines (if there are any), they may help. Well, you never know...
Actually I lived there during the seventies. My first wife was Swedish
ReplyDeleteyes sure, forty years ago
Wake up webb
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteActually I lived there during the seventies. My first wife was Swedish
yes sure, forty years ago
Wake up webb '
I was replying to this comment of yours;
'Idiot:
Following a forty year period of socialist control Sweden has an entrenched socialist civil service so changing governments has little effect. You know nothing about Sweden so either do some research or stop making things up.'
You were suggesting that I knew nothing of Sweden or its socialist history. I was explaining that I did and probably knew more of it than you do yourself becaus I actually lived there and am in regular contact with family and friends in that country.
'Maybe I've misunderstood what Simon meant. Maybe Simon has other ideas for keeping LAs in line (beyond giving them what they want so they are happy to keep in line)?'
ReplyDeleteI don't think that parents should allow local authorities to do what they want. I think that they should familiarise themselves with the legal sitaution and ensure that both they and the local authority observe the law. Since there is apparently no prospect of the law changing in the near future and since the 2007 guidelines et out the law with perfect clarity, I am a little foxed as to what it is which needs changing. Some LAs do not follow the strict letter of the law. This is not because they do not know the law or have never seen the 2007 guidelines. It is because they can get away with it. New guidelines will not change this. All that this fuss about new guidelines is likely to achieve is to reawaken the debate on home education itself. I am not sure if that is what many parents want.
"I am pleased to hear this and delighted to be proved wrong! Now tell us about the open group who are putting together the new guidelines. Who are they, what are their terms of reference, is their project officially sanctioned by Nick Gibb the Schools Minster?; just a few bits and pieces of information like that. After all, if this group is, as you say, not secret, there can be no reason to withhold any of this."
ReplyDeleteYes, there is simple reason for withholding information, it is called privacy - something that you have no regard for other than your own.
Privacy from a scurrilous person called Simon Webb who berates everyone that doe not abide by his archaic doctrine with a castigation of lies.
I was explaining that I did and probably knew more of it than you do yourself
ReplyDeleteOh lets try that, I was educated Uppsala university where I am still, four times a year, a visiting lecturer (after 27 years) and sometimes Associate Researcher for Behavioural Science and Educational Science.
You are full of BS
S. Liljegren
PS want to switch to Swedish for the next round? (or Suomi - native speaker!)
Oletko todella suomalainen? Luulin että olit saksalainen.
ReplyDelete'Yes, there is simple reason for withholding information, it is called privacy - something that you have no regard for other than your own.'
ReplyDeleteThe act of drawing up new guidelines to British law on home education might have an effect upon around one hundred thousand parents. This means that if the guidelines are adopted, these people will, for good or ill, be affected by what is being done. This will certainly affect their privacy. You seem to be saying that the group working on this should be left alone and no questions asked of them, because otherwise their privacy will be invaded?
I do think that to ask for 'privacy' when engaging in work in the public sphere is a bit rich! No-one is asking for details of anyone's else's private life - just for the people doing this work to say who they are. I can't for the life of me understand why they don't.
ReplyDelete