After two years when people have been able to say anything they wish, the time has finally come to introduce some limits on what appears here. Let me explain. When people set out on a course of action which they know will affect many others, changing the law for instance, then these people put themselves in the public domain. It is fair to question their motives and examine their fitness to be involved in changing the law. This was the case with Graham Badman, Ed Balls and some of the witnesses who gave evidence at the select committee in October 2009. Precisely the same situation now exists with those people who have declared themselves to be engaged in a project to change the law in this country as it relates to home education. Just as in the case of Graham Badman, it is quite reasonable to ask why they are doing this and what, if anything, they hope to get out of it. I am sure that we all remember the suggestions that Graham Badman stood to gain financially from Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill due to his connection with two companies.
By writing newspaper articles and a book about home education, I have to some extent put myself in the same position. People are accordingly free to criticise and insult me if they wish and this blog provides a vehicle for them to do so. The case of people commenting here is somewhat different. I am happy for anybody to heap as much abuse on me as they wish; I have decided to put a stop to it when it is directed against people who are simply commenting here. This is starting to look to me like an attempt to drive some people off here and stop them from posting comments. I am not going to allow bullying of that sort. When people say things on the comments page like: ’Your personal stuff is safe with me’, this sounds like a threat to reveal private information. Similarly, the announcement of an impending birth has traditionally been the prerogative of the parents, rather than some random person commenting on a blog.
To sum up, anybody can say anything they like about me or question the motives of anybody trying to change the law or introduce new restrictions on home education. That is quite right and proper. No more sniping at other people for their comments though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who is currently trying to change the law? The guidelines are just that, guidelines to existing laws. Even if they get it wrong, the law does not change. Is there something else going on that you've not mentioned?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that there are guidelines already in place that are being misinterpreted (thus, misused) by the local authorities. It isn't that anyone is trying to change the law, just explain it to people who can't sort it out for themselves (apparently). And this is a multi-step process. All home educators will have a chance to give feedback as part of the process (I've been told). The updated guidelines shouldn't change anyone's rights, but the local authorities should behave better as a result.
ReplyDeleteGlad you are putting a lid on the sniping, however. As long as we can still snipe at you, we shall be content.
Would love it if you'd also put a lid on the wild conjecturing ("it's all a conspiracy!! mwah ha ha"), but perhaps your blog would be too boring without it.
'Who is currently trying to change the law? The guidelines are just that, guidelines to existing laws. Even if they get it wrong, the law does not change. Is there something else going on that you've not mentioned? '
ReplyDeleteThese are not just guidelines to the current law. For example, if a parent is not satisfied with what a local authority says, these guidelines introduce a right to have another local authority make an assessment. This is not currently done and relates to no existing law. Nevertheless, these guidelines say that local authorities 'must' do this. This is either an attempt to create new laws or guidance to some new legislation which does not yet exist.
Simon.
'Would love it if you'd also put a lid on the wild conjecturing '
ReplyDeleteI currently have no plans to prevent anybody from putting forward any wild conjectures!
Simon.
"These are not just guidelines to the current law. For example, if a parent is not satisfied with what a local authority says, these guidelines introduce a right to have another local authority make an assessment."
ReplyDeleteBut writing this in guidelines is an error and will not change the law or give the LA any additional rights.
'But writing this in guidelines is an error and will not change the law or give the LA any additional rights.'
ReplyDeleteThere are two possibilities when we read the following from the EHE guidelines;
'If at any stage the parents disagree with the Local Authority’s decision that there are serious concerns, then they may ask for a second opinion. This must come from an EHE officer who deals with home educators in another Local Authority area.'
Possibility one is that this is just some idea of Alison Sauer's that she has chucked in. If this is the case, then it shows that the person writing the guidelines does not understand the current law. The second possibility is that this is a planned process for the future; that local authorities will be exchanging information between themselves about home educating families. In either case, this is not simply a guide to the current law; it is an attempt to change the present situation.
Simon.
"In either case, this is not simply a guide to the current law; it is an attempt to change the present situation."
ReplyDeleteIf it's just an error it isn't. It would be identified and removed during consultation.
'If it's just an error it isn't. It would be identified and removed during consultation.'
ReplyDeleteAh, I think I see what you are driving at when you describe this as an 'error'. You mean that whoever wrote this genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that this accurately described the legal situation. In other words the author thought wrongly that local authorities are obliged by law to share data on home educating families in this way.
This is possible, but a little alarming. The person who wrote this is paid by local authorities to advise them on the law surrounding home education. If she misunderstands the legal basis for home education to this extent, is she really the right person to be writing these guidelines? This is by no means the only case in these guidelines where the law is grossly misrepresented in this way.
Simon.
On the other hand, if this document is as was said, just a draft it wasn't meant to be perfect. As I understand it, random ideas, suggestions and possible laws like this get drafted in to a document by its writers then it goes into the public eye/through government channels and they pick it apart to put together some semblance of a final document.
ReplyDeleteIn which case shouldnt we all just put these points of disagreement to those in government as part of the consultation so that they can consider the relevance of our views?
Nothing has been decided by the appearance of this draft document and I suspect it unlikely that Government would want an option to allow other LAs to assess disagreements(though that is just my opinion) and no doubt there are other things in the document that they wouldnt want either.
I really think we need to see what happens next.
I wish it would be released for consultation as soon as possible. If that is the plan.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if LA's haven't already seen the draft and weren't commenting on it themselves.
no more sniping?
ReplyDeleteFat chance !
So what about that dreadful diatribe by L against Tania Berlow on the 28th June in the 'Final Word' post?
Why is that still allowed to remain?
It's clear she has never met the woman, has second hand information which is unverifiable and her comments about character are just plain nasty.
Plus L's whole post seems to be based on a comment by another 'anon' whom L guesses to be Tania but this 'anon' and Ms Berlow herself say is not.
Walk the walk Mr Webb!
Oh you silly home educators had you not realized that it is possible that the only reason Simon Webb is not moderating is because he is away at a LETTPAC conference for the weekend. of course he will stand by his word amnd moderate any offensive material.
ReplyDeleteCould you not do something about the poor deluded one who thinks anyone called Anonymous is a bigot. And passive-agressive?
ReplyDeleteOn second thoughts. Leave him. He's quite funny.