Somebody has started a blog about the new EHE guidelines for local authorities. It may be found here:
http://morethanoneside.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog-there-are-two-sides-to.html
One problem glares out at one immediately; it is not possible to post comments. The author claims that he has disabled the comments facility because he does not ‘wish to spend my time moderating a volatile debate’ This is ridiculous. Lord knows that there are enough volatile debates on this blog, but I don’t have to spend my time moderating them! Why would I even bother doing that? People can say what they want about my opinions and if I feel like it I will join in and debate on equal terms with them. I suspect that the real reason that this man does not allow comments is because he does not like to be contradicted. This presents a problem. Without cutting and pasting his rather long posts onto here, it will not really be possible to offer a detailed, point by point critique. My own posts tend to be rather short and are intended more as a starting point for discussion.
However, a few points do stand out and are worth mentioning. He suggests that one of the reasons that Alison Sauer might be so shy of admitting authorship of the EHE guidelines is to protect her children and family. This sounds grotesque. Tania Berlow, Jacquie Cox and Rainbow-Leaf Lovejoy have publicly talked of their involvement. I doubt that their children are at risk as a result. I know that things get a little heated in the home educating community, but I wouldn’t think that anybody is going to kidnap Alison’s children or torch her house over this!
The author of the new blog asks rhetorically:
‘One test for success for new guidelines, therefore, will be whether they will lead to greater clarity for both local authorities and home educators. Will they outline not only what local authorities should do, what their duties actually are, but also what they must NOT do?’
I have already pointed out that the suggestion for data sharing between local authorities which is put forward in the new guidelines has no basis in law and seems to be a pet idea of whoever wrote the guidelines. There are a number of similar examples where the guidelines reference not current law, but possible future legislation.
‘ the current round of speculation about Mr. Stuart’s proposals seems rather a waste of energy.’
Run that one past me again. In what sense are these ‘Mr Stuart’s proposals’? Did he have a hand in writing them? We need to be told more about this if that was the case.
I have pointed out one or two things, but the best thing for readers to do is read this blog for themselves. If and when it is possible to post comments, I shall go on there and go through the thing point by point, but I am reluctant simply to reproduce it all here and without doing that it would be unfair to offer any detailed criticism.
It seemed like a fairly balanced view so far as I've read. Maybe he doesnt want comments because most reply comments are likely to be heated. He did ask for article submissions - not unlike yourself. Maybe he is calling them 'Mr. Stuart’s proposals' because GS asked for comments and submissions?
ReplyDeleteI need to read more to see any flaws more clearly.
Yes, at a glance it looked very reasonable to me too.
ReplyDeleteI can see why Alison would want to avoid the treatment that Tania Berlow got. It was pretty relentless, and it must have affected her family life.
It was also a very good example of why the new draft was written, not in secret, but in private, as this blog says. Little constructive discussion is possible when people are going off at the deep end all over the place; it would have been impossible to get the job done if they'd all been involved from day one.
Hmm, this whole thing is getting more and more curious.
ReplyDeleteFirst thing I notice is that the author of that blog refers to himself as a 'grump old man' much in the vein that you did Simon.
I wonder at the coincidences ... the author is called Harold Godwinson! A.k.a Harold II, Anglo-Saxon king of England. The author puts their location as Hastings - as in the Battle of ... which Harold II was of course involved.
Interesting that Alison and Ralph Sauer are avid historical reenactors.
It is well known that Alison likes to post in various places under pseudonyms and come out in support of herself.
And as for anon above, would that be you Tania? I only wonder because only you or one of your friends would know about how anything affected your family life.
I have no idea who wrote this blog but I suppose I may find out soon enough. I thought who ever wrote it presented the issues clearly and without bias nor emotive language.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, is this persons name to remain anonymous, private or secret :>)
I enjoyed reading the differences amongst the three definitions , even although I have been acutley aware of the distinctions.
There was never anything 'secret' as far as I ma concerned as anyone who was interested was invited to participate / read over/ edit or comment.
The word 'secret' was coined mainly by people who either objected to the idea in principle or to the alleged author in principle.
Those who still feel that way may not have anything to say other than 'no' but enough nay votes and it's voted down.
The draft framework was in way 'private' as it was not , during it's making, up for the general public to read and comment - it would have been impossible if every single interested home educator ad actually made contact and asked to participate. I feel this is the part Graham Stuart should be taking on from now on as it's a mammoth task. The reasons the blog gives for privacy seem well balanced to me and do cover the reasoning behind the last 6 months.
As for anonymity, as most people who keep informed know, I was not anonymous but I respected the rights of individuals to remain so and got a lot of flack for refusing to 'out' people.
Despite what you write, Simon, there has been quite a bit of 'fall out'.I do not want to go into detail but it was pretty miserable for a few months.
I will leave it up to others who have also not remained anonymous to mention their experience if they wish.
The blogs actual wording on the issue is
'to protect children , friends and family from any fall out.'
The blog , unlike traditional Webb fashion, did not take the reasoning to epic proportions and say children were at risk of kidnap or house torching!
Using this emotive language ,I feel, is designed to stir up a reaction which is how I also feel about those who chose to use words such as 'secret' ,rent seeking' ,'vultures' and 'queens'.
Of course there are 'flaws' in any document
Of course there will be disagreements amongst people (especially home educators).
I never expected every comment I made to be instantly taken into consideration but I do hope that my thoughts on the bits I do not like are able to be discussed now in public so that maybe enough people see my point and agree. If no-one does then I will have to accept that possibly I am being too picky. C'est la vie.
As for comments being disabled. I am not sure about that one. The blogger says that anyone can write to him or her and I truly hope that the points being made , if they are constructive criticism will be published as starting points.
Maybe this anonymous blogger could clarify what is to happen to valid points that people wish to make ?
I see on the HE forums that the final word is 'nobody with any sense can be bothered'. Again I truly hope that enough people can see past the made up rhetoric and emotive language that has been put out there over this subject and have a look at the document if and when Graham Stuart publishes it.
Elaine said:
ReplyDelete"And as for anon above, would that be you Tania? I only wonder because only you or one of your friends would know about how anything affected your family life."
The phrase I used was "it must have affected..." That means I think it did. I think it would have affected anyone's family life, don't you? It's a bit extreme, isn't it, to conclude from that that I am Tania?
Another example of how if anyone says anything at all, however vague, in support of the people involved with the draft guidelines, the wheels of suspicion and speculation immediately start spinning out of control.
<< I only wonder because only you or one of your friends would know about how anything affected your family life. >>
ReplyDeleteReally?
Is it possible that the comment was made by someone who happened to call or email me either in support of the idea itself - as was requested publicly , or because they were expressing support for someone they previously has seen doing her best to help during Badman who was being who wasbeing berated publicly ?
Do these scenarios automatically mean they are now classed one of my 'friends'?
All I can conclude is 'anon' above is not a foe!
'I can see why Alison would want to avoid the treatment that Tania Berlow got. It was pretty relentless, and it must have affected her family life.'
ReplyDeleteDon't see this at all! I was on the receiving end of some pretty relentless treatment myself in the past, but it didn't affect my family life. How on earth would it?
Simon
'I wonder at the coincidences ... the author is called Harold Godwinson! A.k.a Harold II, Anglo-Saxon king of England. The author puts their location as Hastings - as in the Battle of ... which Harold II was of course involved.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that Alison and Ralph Sauer are avid historical reenactors.'
Yes, I wondered if anybody else would spot this! The email address is gatefulford, which was the battle which Harold fought just before Hastings. I too suspect that this might be Alison Sauer. There are some cracking pictures on the net of her being a 17th century wench at an historical re-enactment day; well worth seeing!
Simon.
'Those who still feel that way may not have anything to say other than 'no' but enough nay votes and it's voted down.'
ReplyDeleteWell this is interesting news indeed! You mean that some sort of referendum will be held on the final draft. i suppose that as long as this is supevised by some outside body like the Electoral Reform Society, this should be OK. This is the first that I have heard of this though and perhaps Tania could tell us us a little more? Has Graham Stuart agreed to this?
Simon.
'The blog , unlike traditional Webb fashion, did not take the reasoning to epic proportions and say children were at risk of kidnap or house torching!'
ReplyDeleteOK, well perhaps you could tell us what the children actually were being protected from? I am puzzled by this. I have had some monumental falling out with various groups of home educators, but it has never made me want to conceal my identity. How were my children at risk? I really don't get this and hope that somebody will explain.
Simon.
I have always written that I was told that this was the plan .Therefore not exactly news but at least you find it interesting Simon.
ReplyDeleteI doubt GS would use it further if it was voted down fair and square once tweaked by them that want to tweak.
Sounds very much like rampant paranoia and mild hyteria.
ReplyDeleteHysteria too.
ReplyDelete