One again, I find myself baffled at the interpretation which some home educators are putting upon current events. As most readers know by now, plans are being made for a change in the law allowing schools to keep a pupil on roll for twenty days after deregistering for home education. Over on the HE-UK list, this is being blamed upon civil servants at the Department for Education who are determined to push through the recommendations of the Badman report. The only question which I find myself unable to answer is, why would they want to do that? In other words, what is their motive, what do they stand to gain from this action? Let us look at the matter objectively.
One can see that local authority officers might have a stake in new regulations about home education. They might be able to make their jobs more secure and look as though they are saving children from abuse by playing up the need for monitoring home educated children. I don't personally believe that this is their primary motivation, but this idea is at least plausible, particularly with all the cuts being made by local authorities at the moment. But civil servants? They have job security; it is almost impossible to sack an established civil servant except for gross misconduct. Civil servants move routinely from one ministry to the other; somebody in the Department for Education today might well end up in the Ministry of Defence next year. Those working for the DfE are not at all committed to any particular method of education or policy on education. How would it possibly make the least bit of difference to them whether or not deregistration of pupils took immediate effect or was delayed for twenty days? Why would they even care; they're not going to be implementing the policy.
I have been giving this a good deal of thought and looking at it from all angles, but however I turn it round in my mind, I just cannot see why any civil servant at the Department for Education should give a stuff about encouraging ministers to implement the recommendations of the Badman report. What on earth is in it for them? I would be glad if any readers can explain this to me. I was myself a civil servant at one time and this really does not tie in with how I remember things. Mind you, that was forty years ago and perhaps things have changed since then. So let's see if anybody can come up with a convincing reason why any civil servant should still be trying to get Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill into law. This is not faux naivete, but rather genuine bewilderment as to what any civil servant would gain were any one of Badman's recommendations to be made law. Help me out here; I am puzzled!
Ah, you obviously haven't read the internal memos that circulated between some of them a few years ago which were released to us under the freedom of information act, then. If you had, you wouldn't need any help to understand.
ReplyDeleteCould you link to those or quote from them please?
ReplyDelete'Ah, you obviously haven't read the internal memos that circulated between some of them a few years ago which were released to us under the freedom of information act, then. If you had, you wouldn't need any help to understand.'
ReplyDeleteSo typical! Many people are foxed by this and instead of simply providing an explanation, this person would rather stand to one side, chanting 'I know something you don't know, I know something you don't know'.
Ooh, I do apologise! Difficult to provide a link to something only stored on one's hard drive. I was hoping someone else might be able to. I think a degree of patience might be called for.
ReplyDelete'Ooh, I do apologise! Difficult to provide a link to something only stored on one's hard drive. I was hoping someone else might be able to. I think a degree of patience might be called for.'
ReplyDeleteWhy not just tell us, explain in your own words?
I'd rather you read the exact words, so as not to be accused of misrepresenting them myself. If nobody else comes up with a link to them today I'll try to find some quotes for you later. It would take me some time and I am very busy today.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anonymous. I seem to remember something like this, but not the details.
ReplyDeleteMs Penny Jones a civil servant told home educated children that she did not care that their where against Badman ideas and that the 5 outcomes of the ECM would be forced on them no matter what the view of home educated children was she also said that you need to be checked on!
ReplyDeleteMs Jones has been the driving force behind changing the law on home education but she is only puting in place what europe wants! something we signed up to i think!
civil servants also tend to agree with other civil servants such as LA officers if a parent said something and an LA offficer said something to anther civil servant who would that civil servant belive?
http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/dfes-internal-emails-in-chronological.html
ReplyDeleteOkay - anon above at 1.05.... so is the list on the blog the internal emails we are discussing? I am a bit puzzled - they seem to be a tedious collection of emails, mostly involving Penny Jones, but which don't reveal anything about motives of civil servants?? ( and which are all 4 years old?)
ReplyDeleteNo the ones I've got are earlier - starting Oct 2006 with an email from Lesley Longstone?
ReplyDeleteBloody well link them then....
ReplyDeleteFrom Sue Hackman, 10th December 2006
ReplyDelete"Personally I think we should lay down a proper entitlement for the child educated at home which is more rigorous than this and closer to a simple summary of the NC. It's not so much about what the parent wants or can do, but the entitlement for the child who has no real choice unless we lay it down. We could ask for functional skills (En, MA, ICT). Beyond this big point, some specific drafting point: the word framework's tricky because it has very specific meaning now (as in framework for literacy and numeracy) so I'd say 'is able to' instead.
I also think the bullet should end with clarification 'appropriate to the chi;d's age and ability'. I also think we should say that the educator must themselves have a working knowledge of the skills and understandings appropriate to the age and ability of the child, and sufficient pedagogical skills to teach, induct and develop the child."
Sue Hackman still seems to work for the Department for Education. I understand she has delivered courses and published books on - amongst other things - the issue of 'personalised learning'.
Sorry, did you bloody well miss this one?
ReplyDeleteOK, the 2006 FOI memos on my hard drive are annoyingly saved in image form, so I'll have to type out individual messages and excerpts. Some are indeed tedious, so I'll try to confine myself to those that might be relevant.
The first one has the subject title 'FW: Home Educated Children and ECM' and it says: "Penny - Could you please let me have a draft response to this issue? I know that there are things in train but do not know how public we have been about them.
- copying to you only because this has come from a Councillor (Lib Dem). I have a lot of sympathy with this issue - we are working toward a consultation on a legal requirement to
register home educated pupils with the LA and powers for the LA to actually speak to children in conducting their assessment of whether the education is satisfactory. The home educators lobby will hate this but in my view, LAs cannot deliver their duties without it and there are real dangers of children slipping through the net and/or receiving a wholly unsatisfactory education."
It's from Lesley Longstone to Penny Jones, 24th October 2006, with Ralph Tabberer copied in, and Lesley Longstone still works for the Department for Education.
From an anonymous sender on 15th December 2006:
ReplyDelete"Dear [name blanked out]
I'm working on a consultation on home education, which will propose introducing compulsory registration and monitoring for home education (as well as clearer standards which home educators will have to meet). You may remember from the previous submission which you cleared in May - paragraphs 30& 31 of the attached - that there are presentational difficulties given that ministers have previously said we had no plans to introduce compulsory registration.Your advice was that this could be overcome if we can make a strong case for compulsion - does this stand?
Very happy to discuss if this would be helpful,
Best wishes [name blanked out] "
Presentational difficulties?
EO is more than happy to help implement Badman's recommendations.
ReplyDeleteRegistration - they continue to oppose compulsory registration but they acknowledge that the ISI effectively means de facto registration, and are more concerned with what we'd do once there was a register (as registration wouldn't be an end in itself.)
ReplyDeleteStandards - would be happy to see standards, although want them to be along the lines of the Scottish model (attached) and not prescribe surriculum issues. They were pleased that the consultation would include examples of possible standards. I think it would be useful to include something along the lines of the second standard (presence of a philosophy or ethos) in the consultation.
Monitoring - oppose as they thing it will not actually help those we need to help (given that the ultimate enforcement measure - an SAO - would remain the same). They are also concerned that it is over-prescriptive and will remove valuable flexibility from the current arrangements. They raised the issue of children who had been taken out of school because of serious EBD and how appropriate standards would be in the early stages. Perhaps the first meeting with the LA should be more about ensuring that the parent knows what is expected and will be able to deliver this.
They were also very interested in the LA guidance. They are concerned that they haven't heard anything from the Department since the consultation. They accepted our rationale for still wanting to publish the guidance, but said - I think rightly - that people will perceive that this looks messy. I think we need to give some thought and put something in the submission about the presentation of this. They also asked whether they will/ could have any further involvement before the guidance is published, and I promised to get back to them about this.
This led to a wider discussion about how they can get involved in the policy-making process. I think it would be useful to engage with them, as they had some thoughtful ideas about the consultation and also appreciated our perspective. They suggested they could look at the draft consultation immediately before it's published or that we could have a meeting with home education groups once the consultation period if over and we're considering what to do (apparently they did this in Scotland). I think the latter would be a very good idea.
Happy to discuss further in our KIT,
[name blanked out]"
- as does the first part of the fourth.
ReplyDeleteWill try once more to post the missing parts.
ReplyDeleteOK, the 2006 FOI memos on my hard drive are annoyingly saved in image form, so I'll have to type out individual messages and excerpts. Some are indeed tedious, so I'll try to confine myself to those that might be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe first one has the subject title 'FW: Home Educated Children and ECM' and it says: "Penny - Could you please let me have a draft response to this issue? I know that there are things in train but do not know how public we have been about them.
- copying to you only because this has come from a Councillor (Lib Dem). I have a lot of sympathy with this issue - we are working toward a consultation on a legal requirement to register home educated pupils with the LA and powers for the LA to actually speak to children in conducting their assessment of whether the education is satisfactory. The home educators lobby will hate this but in my view, LAs cannot deliver their duties without it and there are real dangers of children slipping through the net and/or receiving a wholly unsatisfactory education."
It's from Lesley Longstone to Penny Jones, 24th October 2006, with Ralph Tabberer copied in, and Lesley Longstone still works for the Department for Education.
This one is interesting in the context of your 14th April 2011 blog post, Simon, although not especially about the views of civil servants.
ReplyDelete19th December 2006 to Penny Jones from [name blanked out]. Subject: Home education consultation - Education Otherwise meeting. Attachments: Scottish guidelines.doc
"Penny,
I had a very useful meeting with [name blanked out] and [name blanked out] of Education Otherwise.
Their overall position:
I think it's interesting to see repeated again the concern about 'presentation'. Taken as a whole, the memos show at least three civil servants, all still employed at DfE, displaying opinions that contradict the Section 7 requirement for parents - not local authorities - to ensure that children receive a suitable education. They all seem to me to be labouring under the delusion that local authorities and governments should indeed be laying down requirements of this education and it appears to go without question that there should be regular checking and monitoring
ReplyDeleteof parents' compliance with these requirements. Whatever your stance about the range of teaching and learning methods employed by various home educators, or your concerns about the needs of vulnerable children not being met, the messages here make it clear that certain DfE civil servants had a clear, ideological agenda to pursue and were determined to do so in spite of ministerial statements and positions that might present obstacles to this. There's no specific reason to suppose this is no longer the case, is there?
Even you, in your 'Mad Hatter's Tea Party' post as recently as 31st July last year, said: "It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."
So I would contend that you really do know the answers to your questions posed in your main post here.
I posted four excerpts above. The first keeps disappearing, as does the first part of the fourth. And this one does too! Very strange.
I think it's interesting to see repeated again the concern about 'presentation'. Taken as a whole, the memos show at least three civil servants, all still employed at DfE, displaying opinions that contradict the Section 7 requirement for parents - not local authorities - to ensure that children receive a suitable education. They all seem to me to be labouring under the delusion that local authorities and governments should indeed be laying down requirements of this education and it appears to go without question that there should be regular checking and monitoring
ReplyDeleteof parents' compliance with these requirements. Whatever your stance about the range of teaching and learning methods employed by various home educators, or your concerns about the needs of vulnerable children not being met, the messages here make it clear that certain DfE civil servants had a clear, ideological agenda to pursue and were determined to do so in spite of ministerial statements and positions that might present obstacles to this. There's no specific reason to suppose this is no longer the case, is there?
Even you, in your 'Mad Hatter's Tea Party' post as recently as 31st July last year, said: "It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."
So I would contend that you really do know the answers to your questions posed in your main post here.
I posted four excerpts above. The first keeps disappearing, as does the first part of the fourth. And this one does too! Very strange.
I think it's interesting to see repeated again the concern about 'presentation'. Taken as a whole, the memos show at least three civil servants, all still employed at DfE, displaying opinions that contradict the Section 7 requirement for parents - not local authorities - to ensure that children receive a suitable education. They all seem to me to be labouring under the delusion that local authorities and governments should indeed be laying down requirements of this education and it appears to go without question that there should be regular checking and monitoring of parents' compliance with these requirements. Whatever your stance about the range of teaching and learning methods employed by various home educators, or your concerns about the needs of vulnerable children not being met, the messages here make it clear that certain DfE civil servants had a clear, ideological agenda to pursue and were determined to do so in spite of ministerial statements and positions that might present obstacles to this. There's no specific reason to suppose this is no longer the case, is there?
ReplyDeleteEven you, in your 'Mad Hatter's Tea Party' post as recently as 31st July last year, said: "It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local
ReplyDeleteauthorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."
So I would contend that you really do know the answers to your questions posed in your main post here.
I posted four excerpts above. The first keeps disappearing, as does the first part of the fourth.
OK, the excerpt at 4.03 is the second part of the one at 4.08.
ReplyDelete"http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/dfes-internal-emails-in-chronological.html"
ReplyDelete"My view is this is a good example of a policy which has not nearly enough evidence to go ahead with, and the assessment I think clearly shows this. The evidence is lacking in every area. There is uncertainty relating to the numbers of children involved, the benefits that might be achieved, and even the costs side is highly uncertain at the moment. There seems little or not recognition of the important possibility that families that do not need the intervention will not benefit but there will be significant cost imposed for and on them anyway.
I don’t agree with the first primary benefit calculation in the form which states: “if 55 pupils were helped over the threshold the policy would break even.” I think this is highly misleading as a marginal change in GCSE attainment is unlikely to reap the full lifetime earnings improvement."
I think this email is interesting. It would be nice to know who wrote it. This is the conclusion I reached after looking at the evidence and in the end they more or less used the primary benefit calculation he mentions and says would be misleading. The following messages seem to completely ignore this email.
Home ed uk might officially blame the 20 days de reg rule on civil servants. However there was a comment posted on the uk home ed list recently in which the poster made the strong allegation that EO, MFW and Ian Dowty actually dropped the ball and allowed it to go through, and that no protest was delivered from these people during consultations with Birmingham LA. This allegation appears to be confirmed by Ian Dowty.
ReplyDelete"However there was a comment posted on the uk home ed list recently in which the poster made the strong allegation that EO, MFW and Ian Dowty actually dropped the ball and allowed it to go through, and that no protest was delivered from these people during consultations with Birmingham LA. This allegation appears to be confirmed by Ian Dowty."
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in seeing this message. Can you give us the relevant message numbers, then only list members can read them and confidentiality will not be broken. I've been skimming messages recently and have not seen anything that supports your conclusions.
These internal emails are certainly interesting, but I don't put the same interpretation on them as some do. To me, it looks as though ministers have given vague instructions about the sort of thing which they want to see plans for and that, as usual, the civil servants are filling in the details. It seems that ideas are being kicked about, some of them not in accordance with current law, but that this is an exercise in drawing up a number of proposals. These would then be shown to the minister, who would give his views, which the civil servants would then go back and work on. I don't get the feeling at all that they are themselves the driving force for this, rather that they are groping in the dark a little and trying to come up with stuff which will meet the brief they have been given. Thanks anyway for these; they make interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"To me, it looks as though ministers have given vague instructions about the sort of thing which they want to see plans for and that, as usual, the civil servants are filling in the details."
It would be interesting to know what the civil servants meant by this comment:
"ministers have previously said we had no plans to introduce compulsory registration. Your advice was that this could be overcome if we can make a strong case for compulsion - does this stand?"
This could be taken in two ways. That the minister had changed their minds since saying there were no plans to introduce compulsory registration, or that the ministers views could be changed or "overcome" if they, the civil servants, make a strong enough case.
As has been mentioned before, you previously said,
""It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education.""
Have you changed your mind about this because your current views seem contradictory?
'Your advice' referred to advice given to other civil servants by Penny Jones - a civil servant. Nothing to do with minsters changing their minds. Everything to do with civil servants trying to find the best ways of pushing their own agendas through despite the opposite intentions being expressed by ministers. That phrase says it all.
ReplyDeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"So let's see if anybody can come up with a convincing reason why any civil servant should still be trying to get Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill into law. This is not faux naivete, but rather genuine bewilderment"
and Simon said,
"It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."
Which one in true?
"Which one in true?"
ReplyDeleteBy which I mean, which one is an accurate reflection of your views, since it's obviously impossible to know for sure. Though your second quote does give the impression of first hand knowledge, so maybe you do know why DfE staff might want to try and get Schedule 1 into law?
'Which one in true?'
ReplyDeleteThere is no contradiction between these two statements. The original post was prompted by reading elsewhere that some people believed that civil servants were the primary force behind the move towards increased regulation. I said that I found this unlikely and I still do. Ministers set tasks for civil servants. Sometimes the tasks are all but impossible; they are asked to square the circle. In this case, they have been variously told that there will be no compulsory registration and then that there will; things like that. Once these people have been set to work on a task, they will beaver away at it until instructed to stop. It is like the Sorcerer's Apprentice; they just carry on until the spell is broken. The last government told them to carry on and the new one has also told them to keep working on this and keep producing ideas. I certainly know that Penny Jones reads this blog, because she told me so. Civil servants approach their duties sometimes with more enthusiasm for some ideas than others. In this case, while conducting their research, they have probably come to the conclusion that ministers are right and that something does need to be done. Most of them will be parents themselves and wish to protect children. If the minister tells them to stop and forget the whole business though, they will stop at once. We know this has not happened because Michael Gove has said that his people are still looking to see what changes need to be made to home education. Obviously, those working on it now have some experience and grasp of the ideas involved.
But the memos above refute that completely. Sue Hackman: "Personally I think we should lay down a proper entitlement for the [HE'd] child.. which is more rigorous than this and closer to a simple summary of the NC." She wishes to prescribe everybody' home education curriculum herself, with no references to what ministers might think.
ReplyDelete"I also think we should say that the educator must themselves have a working knowledge of..."
That's her personal opinion. She says so. She's trying to drive policy based on her personal opinion rather than the law and instructions from ministers.
Lesley Longstone says "The home educators lobby will hate this but in my view.."
The blanked out name says: "...ministers have previously said we had no plans to introduce compulsory registration.Your advice was that this could be overcome if we can make a strong case for compulsion"
That's irrefutable evidence of civil servants working together to actually defy ministerial agendas.
The internal emails prove that the civil servants in questions are far from being the automata you make them out to be.
'The internal emails prove that the civil servants in questions are far from being the automata you make them out to be.'
ReplyDeleteWell, not really. These people are given a vague brief by a minister who knows nothing about the law or anything else much himself. The bit about ministers having previously said that they had no plans for compulsory registration is not a case of civil servants urging the minister to introduce it. What has happened here is that in the past the minister has said this and has now asked his civil servants how he can wriggle out of it and now say that he is in favour of compulsory registration. These memos show the civil servant coming up with ways that the minister could claim that circumstances have changed since he denied that registration would be brought in. They are helping him to come up with an excuse for breaking his word, not pushing him unwillingly to adopt a policy of their own choosing.
'That's irrefutable evidence of civil servants working together to actually defy ministerial agendas.'
ReplyDeleteCan you suggest any possibe motive for this? What do you think that they would gain from defting their minister? I think you might have been watching too many old episodes of 'Yes Minister'.
What they get is to push through their personal opinions and agenda - I believe it's called 'power'. And according to the political memoirs, Yes Minister wasn't far from the truth.
ReplyDeletePart two (because blogger is deleting posts again,
ReplyDeleteSimon also wrote,
"It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."
How can you now claim that you were saying that civil servants do not want increased regulation themselves?
Attempt to send part one again,
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"The original post was prompted by reading elsewhere that some people believed that civil servants were the primary force behind the move towards increased regulation. I said that I found this unlikely and I still do."
No it wasn't. This comment was made at the end of a post describing various strange comments posted on your blog. You then said that these people should consider what they write here because your blog is read by DfE civil servants who, as a direct result of what they read here, believed more strongly than ever that regulation should be increased. You were not saying that it's an unlikely scenario, you said the opposite. Here's the comment again.
"The original post was prompted by reading elsewhere that some people believed that civil servants were the primary force behind the move towards increased regulation."
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, 'the original post', did you mean the first post I quoted from or the second?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The original post was prompted by reading elsewhere that some people believed that civil servants were the primary force behind the move towards increased regulation."
When you say, 'the original post', did you mean the first post I quoted from or the second?
I actually meant reading stuff on the HE-UK list.
if civil servants and Ms penny Jones do read this blog i got a message for them dont poke your nose in where it is not wanted you may get a nose bleed!
ReplyDelete"I actually meant reading stuff on the HE-UK list."
ReplyDeleteYes, but which of your posts, the one in July or this one, did you mean by 'the original post'? Which post was prompted by reading stuff on the HE-UK list, the one where you say the civil service are motivated to increase regulation or the one where you say they are not?
Is it a coincidence that the delay in de-registration was first attempted in 2006 and is being pushed through again now? Different government, but maybe the same civil servants (or suggestions passed on from old to new incumbents).
ReplyDeleteHeya! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers?
ReplyDeleteMy last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing months of hard work due to no backup.
Do you have any solutions to protect against hackers?
Also visit my webpage - Skip Navigation