Somebody commenting here yesterday put forward an argument which I have seen advanced many times by home educators. It is this. Any change in the legal situation around home education should only take place after consultation with and obtaining the consent of home educators themselves. As the person said;
'You can only get real change about home education if you win over home educators'
Of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, it was said by the same person;
' I cannot think of one planned change that would have been positive for any home educators '
The idea seems to be that one should only change the law if one can be sure that any new law will not have a negative effect upon any group. If it is likely to do so, one should be sure to ask that group for their views and opinions before introducing legislation. This seems on the face of it reasonable, but the implications are truly terrifying.
When the law is changed, it is because our representatives in the legislature agree to do so. These people are MPs and we vote them in so that they can, among other things, make new laws. They make these laws for what they see as the general good of society. A law which prohibits the private ownership of pistols was made because it was felt that the fewer guns floating around, the better. This law was very unpopular with those belonging to shooting clubs. They were not even consulted; the law was pushed through without anybody asking the group most affected what they thought. Similar things have happened with owning pit-bull terriers, beating children at school, husbands raping their wives, fox hunting; all sorts of things in fact. Nobody suggested that any of these special interest groups should be courted, consulted and carefully won over. That is not how representative democracy works.
With the practice of home education, a new set of rules should, at least according to home educators themselves, be applied. Any new law there should only be made with the permission of those affected by the legislation. The implication is that any attempt to pass a new law redefining paedophilia should only be introduced with the agreement of paedophiles. One should not have banned hare coursing without first asking those involved in killing hares with dogs whether they wanted their activities to be curtailed. Any law which tightens up the principle of consent to sexual activity could only be introduced after consultations with the rapist community.
I would like to know why home educators feel that their own favoured activity deserves special consideration in this way. If anybody could explain to me why this should be, I would be very grateful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'husbands raping their wives'
ReplyDeleteAgain, a ridiculous and insulting comparison with home-educating parents, Simon.
You can take hyperbole so far, you know, that you sound a little hysterical.
A law against this would never have been possible hundreds of years ago because people thought of women as chattel. Obviously, it was only possible to act legislatively once the argument was generally accepted that it was a bad idea.
'A law against this would never have been possible hundreds of years ago because people thought of women as chattel. '
ReplyDeleteActually, marital rape was only recognised in law in 1991, not exactly hundreds of years ago. Until twenty years ago, most people in this country were quite happy with a situation where a wife could not refuse to have sex with her husband.
So, did you get my point then?
ReplyDeleteUnless you have more context than the two quotes you use, nothing in them states that a change in the law requires the consent of home educators.
ReplyDeleteThe first merely reflects reality - how many changes in the law cause inconvenience but fail to change behaviour? The hunting people still meet and go crashing round the countryside, smokers still light up. Life carries on much as it did before with minimal lip service paid to unpopular laws.
The second merely states a fact - the whole of Schedule 1 was written for the benefit of the state, granting all sorts of powers. Nowhere was the welfare of the child considered - break the rules and it's an SAO with no appeal.
The mood of home educators at the time was that many of us would have been prepared to go fight it out in the courts, taking up a lot of time and money because we believed that doing so would be better for our children. This can be directly related to those quotes - the first is that we wouldn't change much because we consider we're already doing the best we can for our children. The second is that Schedule 1 would have tilted the playing field in favour of the authorities but as they discovered (to their surprise - I don't think they were quite prepared for the scale of resistance to the Bill) home educators are a persistent bunch with a wide range of resources freely shared and who are used to fighting the system. And we learn quickly.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo, did you get my point then?'
Not really. Until a few years ago, what happened in the home between husband and wife was regarded as purely private and it was thought wrong that the state should concern itself with the matter. This extended to abuse and non-consensual sex. Now, we are being invited to believe that the same is true of what goes on in the home betweeen parents and children. I don't buy the theory in either case.
'The second merely states a fact - the whole of Schedule 1 was written for the benefit of the state,'
ReplyDeleteNot true at all, but I cannot help but wonder what you feel might have been the motive for this part of the CSF Bill?
' the whole of Schedule 1 was written for the benefit of the state'
ReplyDeleteI am guessing that somebody will be able to explain the benefit to the state of getting mixed up with a hundred thousand or so stroppy home educating parents? It is not immediately apparent.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, it was said by the same person;"
Just a minor point but I wrote the second comment but not the first. Sitemeter can only tell you so much, Simon. For instance, it cannot tell you who wrote individual comments. I don't even show up on Sitemeter, for instance, so even if only one person 'appears' to be visiting your site when a comment is made, I and other unrecognised visitors may also be present.
"I am guessing that somebody will be able to explain the benefit to the state of getting mixed up with a hundred thousand or so stroppy home educating parents? It is not immediately apparent."
ReplyDeleteThe point is the changes wouldn't have benefited any home educators and would have adversely affected some, so you shouldn't be surprised if many home educators react negatively to new suggestions for change. But for those who believe that government wants to increase surveillance and control of 'human capital' generally, the benefits to them are obvious.
"Until a few years ago, what happened in the home between husband and wife was regarded as purely private and it was thought wrong that the state should concern itself with the matter. This extended to abuse and non-consensual sex. Now, we are being invited to believe that the same is true of what goes on in the home betweeen parents and children. I don't buy the theory in either case."
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the two situations though is that in the first, one of the two involved parties would have been strongly in favour of the new law. I would say the battered or raped person is most affected by no longer being battered or raped than the person who is no longer able to batter or rape so there would have been consent for the new law from the persons most affected by it.
Unless you think a rapist is more harmed and affected by being unable to rape, than a victim of rape is harmed or affected?
'Sitemeter can only tell you so much, Simon. For instance, it cannot tell you who wrote individual comments.'
ReplyDeleteQuite right and a powerful reason for identifying yourself, at least by a Christian name. Otherwise, we are all bound to get a little muddled up if the only indication of who is expressing a view is, 'Anonymous said....
' But for those who believe that government wants to increase surveillance and control of 'human capital' generally, the benefits to them are obvious.'
ReplyDeleteThe benefits to the state of monitoring home education are honestly not obvious to me. Could you explain what they are?
"therwise, we are all bound to get a little muddled up if the only indication of who is expressing a view is, 'Anonymous said.... "
ReplyDeleteOr you could just quote a comment and reply to it. Who wrote the comment is surely unimportant?
'Or you could just quote a comment and reply to it. Who wrote the comment is surely unimportant?'
ReplyDeleteWell it seemed to matter to the person who said, ' Just a minor point but I wrote the second comment but not the first.'
It does not really bother me, but I do wonder why people make a point of not identifying themselves and then getting ratty if I fail to guess who said what among the many anonymouses.
Why not assume they were written by different people? Better for your ego if there are more people contributing.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't concerned and was certainly not 'ratty', that's why I said it was a minor point, minor meaning unimportant, it was just a 'by-the-by' correction of misinformation.
But I'm surprised you thought the two comments came from the same person. The comments argued different points and were written in completely different styles. As a writer yourself, and so keen on analysing messages on other occasions, I'm surprised you didn't spot this, especially with your electronic surveillance via Sitemeter to help.
'But I'm surprised you thought the two comments came from the same person. The comments argued different points and were written in completely different styles. As a writer yourself, and so keen on analysing messages on other occasions, I'm surprised you didn't spot this'
ReplyDeleteUtterly baffled as to why you would wish to play these games! I can well understand why people would not wish their real names to be associated with some of the views expressed here, but in that case, why bother to comment at all?
Games? I mentioned in passing that you had linked two comments in error, not really expecting a reply. I mentioned Sitemeter and writing styles because I find your constant attempts to identify anonymous posters by analysing language, comment contents and the location of their ISP funny, and wondered why your huge experience in this area hadn't clued you into the fact that different people had written the two posts. How is this a game? If anyone is playing games it's you - the 'identify anonymous posters' game, LOL.
ReplyDeleteAs I have remarked before, I don't really know why people have this obsessive need for secrecy. I always use my own name when commenting anywhere and this makes things much simpler. If people wish to play silly beggars and conceal their names, this tends to lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.
ReplyDelete"I am guessing that somebody will be able to explain the benefit to the state of getting mixed up with a hundred thousand or so stroppy home educating parents? It is not immediately apparent."
ReplyDeleteI don't think they realised at the time quite what was going to happen :-) They were assuming they could impose a regime where we were expected to toe the line or else. The ability to serve an SAO because of something the parent did, with no reference to the welfare of the child, is certainly not to be benefit of the family. It assists the state because it would have provided a big stick that could be used to ensure compliance with whatever the state wanted. Note how the appeals procedure was left to be defined afterwards using secondary legislation. Some LAs would have adopted a sensible approach, but others, as we continue to see, are still very much pushing their own version of the rules.
Yes, they would have removed the defence against an SAO of provision of a suitable education. One of the LAs main complaints is the expense of taking people to court if they fail to comply with an SAO, especially as all the parent must do to win is prove that they are providing a suitable education. This alone would have been very much to governments advantage. All the LA would have needed to prove to win in court was that a family were not on the LAs HE register. How many families would have attempt to argue this point in court!
ReplyDelete'Yes, they would have removed the defence against an SAO of provision of a suitable education. One of the LAs main complaints is the expense of taking people to court if they fail to comply with an SAO, especially as all the parent must do to win is prove that they are providing a suitable education. This alone would have been very much to governments advantage'
ReplyDeleteWhat actual advantage would the government get from all this? Let us assume that Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill had been passed. What is the benfit which the government reaps from all this? I am honestly perplexed here. It would have cost money, been a lot of fuss and extra work. How would this benefit anybody apart from children? What motive do people say that the government had for all this?
"What motive do people say that the government had for all this? "
ReplyDeleteControl. They certainly weren't bothered about spending money, as shown by the current mess we're in.
Look at the legacy of the previous government, it was all about the state providing everything and knowing best, micromanaging whatever they could. Those of us who have opted out of their control represent a challenge to the system, hence attempting to bring us all back inside the cage.
"What actual advantage would the government get from all this?"
ReplyDeleteThis started out as a question about why home educators resist change. The answer was that every other attempt to change the system would have been harmful to some and neutral at best for home educators so why would they welcome another round of suggested changes?
However, as well as control I suppose they gain a bit of butt covering along with the expansion of their jobs and hopefully (for them) gaining more job security in a dodgy economic climate. Growth of institutions for their own benefit (bigger fiefdoms, higher salaries and better promotion prospects for individuals from the bottom to the top of an organisation) is a recognised phenomenon. They become an end in themselves instead of a means to and end.