Thursday 31 March 2011

Put not your trust in princes

I feel a little bit sorry for those who were so enthusiastic about the support they thought that they were getting from Graham Stuart MP. In case readers have forgotten, this was the fellow who was very keen to support home educators and swore that he would defend their interests against statist interference by Ed Balls & Co. There is currently a lot of dissatisfaction among some home educating parents at the introduction of one of Graham Badman's recommendations. People have been beetling off to Graham Stuart's Facebook page and urgently soliciting his help. You would have thought this a perfect chance for him to come to the rescue. And yet 'answer came there none'..... There is a very simple explanation for this.


At the end of last year, Graham Stuart had managed to persuade a number of people in the home educating community, Alison Sauer and Tania Berlow spring to mind, that the 2007 guidelines for local authorities needed to be rewritten. He did this in his capacity of 'Friend of the Home Educators' and had spoken to Nick Gibb the Schools Minister about it. We were told in December that these guidelines were almost finished and that they would be published after Christmas so that everybody could offer their views on them. Three months later and there is no sign of these new guidelines. I suspect there never will be. Graham Stuart has found that now his party is no longer in opposition, there is less advantage in embracing fringe causes like this. Michael Gove and Nick Gibb have shown that they are determined to tighten up the situation around home education and Graham Stuart has had to make a choice. Does he (a) continue to hang around with a cranky fringe group who are associated in the public mind with deaths like that of Khyra Ishaq, or does he (b) drop them like hot potatoes and concentrate on sucking up to the ministers in the hope of getting a ministerial post himself in a year or so? It is, as they say, a no-brainer.....


Being in opposition and courting various special interest groups who are angry with the government is one thing. Being in with the chance of rising in the government is quite another and Graham Stuart is now in the latter position. Perhaps angry home educators would do better now to make friends with a few Labour MPs, who will doubtless promise them all sorts of help and support, until they win the next election... You mugs!

27 comments:

  1. Do you have figures on how many chairs of select committees have ended up in government posts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not and very often the position of Chair of a select committee is given to MPs as a kind of consolation prize for those who will advance no further. Nevertheless, Graham Stuart is not yet fifty and I have an idea that he has now become part of the establishment and does not wish to upset any apple-carts. Perhaps I am wrong. Has anybody heard of him doing anything in connections with home education this year?

    ReplyDelete
  3. you may well be right there Webb about Graham Stuart(unless he says something to correct all of this?) now that his party is in government! but Home educators did get what we wanted from him which was his help to make sure the old children bill went down the drain last year we used him! it works both ways! you use who ever you need to win just like our M.Ps do and the one who is the best at this is Ed Balls so home educators have taken a leaf out of Ed Book! we use him and all if we need to!

    thier are NO new law being put forward for home education? other than that silly nonsense about the 20 days Gove not gone for the forced visit or the register of home edcuated children i wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Gove not gone for the forced visit or the register of home edcuated children i wonder why?'

    Certainly not the forced visit; that was never a realistic prospect. As far as the register goes, I would not be at all surprised to see this surface soon; probably, like the twenty day business, as an amendment to some law which home edcuators will not hear about until it has already been done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. '... very often the position of Chair of a select committee is given to MPs as a kind of consolation prize for those who will advance no further.'

    Or is a path chosen by MPs who are more interested in the functions of parliament than government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. certainly not the forced visit; that was never a realistic prospect. As far as the register goes, I would not be at all surprised to see this surface soon; probably, like the twenty day business, as an amendment to some law which home edcuators will not hear about until it has already been done.

    Maybe he do that who knowns? but to some degree we allready have a register of home educators most schools tell LA if child leaves to be home educated so he can pretend he bring in something new when he knows full well that LA's do keep a list of home educators in thier area governments do this all the time making out thier doing something new when in truth it allready happens! of course if an LA come across child it did not know it puts it on the list like it does now! every one happy we got register(but we had one allready!)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fantasy Webb strikes again

    ReplyDelete
  8. anon says-Fantasy Webb strikes again

    Im not one to defend old Webb(as he was in FULL support of crazy old Badman) but untill we hear from Graham Stuart he may have a point and Stuart been asked what his view his of the 20 day staying on the school role.A number of home educators want to know!
    as i said the other bits about a register well who knows? and we sort of have a register now!
    more inportant will Gove tackle the real issue that gets up Webb?LA nose the fact that a parent who home educators can say NO to any meeting or home visit? I dont think he will tackle this becuase you have to change the education act and then LA could be held to account for any child that did not get a suitable home education its much better as it is where it is the parent that can be held to account for the education he gives his child.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Certainly not the forced visit; that was never a realistic prospect."

    Schedule 1 stated:

    19E Monitoring provision of home education to registered children
    ...
    (3) Arrangements made by an authority under this section shall include
    arrangements made with a view to their—
    ...
    (d) visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or at least one of the places) where education is provided to the child.


    So visits would have been required. Schedule 1 went on to state:

    19F Revocation of registration
    (1) A local authority in England may revoke the registration of a child’s
    details on their home education register if it appears to them that—
    ...
    (e) by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1),


    So technically a visit could not be forced, but not having a visit would mean you could be refused registration and have to send your child to school.

    ReplyDelete
  10. but all that went down the drain anon! will Gove try and copy it? i dont think so but who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Peter,
    Luckily yes, but Simon seemed to be suggesting that visits were never intended. But if the Bill had avoided the washup process it would have gone through unchanged because Labour had such a large majority.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'So technically a visit could not be forced, but not having a visit would mean you could be refused registration and have to send your child to school.'

    Absolutely untrue. The wording was;

    '(d) visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or at least one of the places) where education is provided to the child.'

    As I have said many times before, this could easily have included a library or similar location. Nothing about forced entry to the home at all! the forced entry to the home business was one of the myths which grew up around Schedule 1. If that had been the intention then it would have been easy enough to specify, 'the child's home' in the legislation itself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "As I have said many times before, this could easily have included a library or similar location."

    It's still a visit (you didn't say home visit originally), and realistically, how much education is usually carried out in the library? We certainly never study in the library, and I hardly think choosing books would count.

    Besides which, the reasons for autonomous educators not wanting visits would apply wherever the visit took place. As Sarah Fitz-Claridge says, "a person standing in judgement over your whole life-style can be destructive of autonomous education, for it would be a very unusual child who did not experience a narrowing of choices, and very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety – and therefore from a loss of spontaneous motivation – at the very prospect of such a judgement."

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW, this is what the DCSF said about home visits at the time:

    We have considered these objections carefully but have decided that local authorities should visit the place where education is taking place, which will usually be the family home, as part of their monitoring work. This would allow local authorities to ensure that the home is in a suitable condition and is free from any factors that might interfere with the provision of education, such as a lack of power and/or heating, or severe overcrowding, for example.... If families choose not to cooperate, and as a result are not on the register, local authorities will be able to use a school attendance order to require the home educated child or children to attend school.

    So yes, the visit *could* take place elsewhere, but it sounds as though this would not usually have been considered acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Peter,
    Luckily yes, but Simon seemed to be suggesting that visits were never intended. But if the Bill had avoided the washup process it would have gone through unchanged because Labour had such a large majority.

    Hi anon! Webb knows that home visits where intended! the bill did go down the drain and now it is inportant to find out what is going to be suggested by Gove if anything? that is what we need to know at the moment it is all guess work other than the silly 20 days idea!

    ReplyDelete
  16. other anon says-So yes, the visit *could* take place elsewhere, but it sounds as though this would not usually have been considered acceptable.

    you are correct if you had turned down a home visit for your LA you would have found yourself in grave danger of a school attendance order! it get up the nose of peopel like Webb/Balls?Badman?DCSF that parents can say no thanks to a home vist! its all about power and it really hurts them that thier not allowed into your house to judge you!

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'it's still a visit (you didn't say home visit originally), '


    Sorry, this really began yesterday when Peter Williams said, 'Are you now saying you are now against the right of entry into a private house by a Local authority officer?'

    The whole thrust of the thing was that local authorities night have the right of forcing entry to homes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Webb says-Sorry, this really began yesterday when Peter Williams said, 'Are you now saying you are now against the right of entry into a private house by a Local authority officer?'

    The whole thrust of the thing was that local authorities night have the right of forcing entry to homes.

    But we know that you Webb are in agreement with forced home visits into a private house to see a home educated child you never said you where against this when Badman ideas came out and you never told that select commitee you where against forced home visits did you? you and your daughter where abd still are in full support of the balls/Badman old children bill your only regret is that it went down the drain! and you hope that some one will bring it back to life.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The whole thrust of the thing was that local authorities night have the right of forcing entry to homes."

    It depends on what is meant by 'forced' entry though. I don't think anyone had visions of doors being battered open, but if the alternatives are a home visit or an SAO? Sounds like being between a rock and and a hard place to me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon says-It depends on what is meant by 'forced' entry though. I don't think anyone had visions of doors being battered open, but if the alternatives are a home visit or an SAO? Sounds like being between a rock and and a hard place to me.

    It was quite clear if you refused a visit you would be served with an SAO. something Webb and his daughter agree with!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter and Carol said
    "it was quite clear if you refused a visit you would be served with an SAO. something Webb and his daughter agree with!"
    That's their right but you've got EO and MFW to thank for it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "That's their right but you've got EO and MFW to thank for it."

    How do you work that out?

    ReplyDelete
  23. anon says- Peter and Carol said
    "it was quite clear if you refused a visit you would be served with an SAO. something Webb and his daughter agree with!"
    That's their right but you've got EO and MFW to thank for it.


    Explain i dont understand what your saying? EO and MFW are against home visits and SAO!

    ReplyDelete
  24. just heard from Graham Stuart M.P on facebook

    Hi Carol,
    Graham Stuart Mp commented on his Wall post.
    Graham wrote: "I'm looking into this too and will post as soon as I have any info. Graham"

    ReplyDelete
  25. Posted this last noght but blogger ate it....

    Surely this proposal (the 20 day one) was one the original Select Comm (complete with Graham Stuart) approved in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Teacher Julie says-Surely this proposal (the 20 day one) was one the original Select Comm (complete with Graham Stuart) approved in the first place?

    you are correct but it is unclear if Graham agreed with this?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Perhaps angry home educators would do better now to make friends with a few Labour MPs, who will doubtless promise them all sorts of help and support, until they win the next election... You mugs!"

    I talked to them and helped persuade them to vote against the Bill in the wash-up, but I didn't vote for them and never intended to. Does that make me a mug?

    ReplyDelete