Saturday 18 August 2012

On the nature of rights

Readers are probably aware of the home educating parent who fled the country a few months ago, with the assistance of Maire Stafford, Neil Taylor and others. She is now settled in Ireland, from which country she writes a blog detailing the persecution which she claims to have suffered in this country. Reading this provides a perfect example of the sort of disordered thinking which afflicts so many British home educators. Here is an extract:




You may THINK you have the right to freedom, privacy, autonomy of thought & deed... water, food shelter... a vote, equality, peace... education, heath care, social welfare, free speech... to not be victimised or offended or endangered or killed... but the 'rights' you believe yourselves to have are not written in stone... & I actually gravely doubt the reality of many of them... they are but a mirage. They are merely privileges accredited to us by others... they are hard won & can be easily lost.



Now there is nothing actually wrong with this; it is more the construction that she places upon the facts that is a little out of kilter. We will leave aside the idea that any of us have a right not to be offended, surely a strange idea, and examine her surprise at the possibility that the ‘rights’ which we are accorded might change over time. This is clearly of course a cunning piece of special pleading. Like so many home educating parents, she believes that she is possessed of a ‘right’ to educate her own children and believes that this ‘right’ could be under threat. It might help if we considered the general idea of rights.

‘Rights’ are not of course a natural phenomenon like gravity or light. It would be absurd to talk of an oak tree’s ‘right’ to water and light. Rights exist only in the human world and are something devised by humans. That is the first point. The second is that ‘rights’ are constantly changing; some appear, while others vanish. So far, I agree with the exiled home educator whom I quote above. Where I differ from her is that she seems to regard this as some alarming discovery to which she must draw our attention so that we can join her in being opposed to the situation. To me though, this continuous varying of rights  it is a very  proper activity. Why is it a good thing? Let us consider a couple of rights which, thankfully, no longer exist.

Until 1991, a wife could not be raped by her husband. A man had a ‘right’ to have sex with his wife, even when she withheld  her consent. This had been tested a number of times in the courts and upheld. I wonder how many readers were sorry to see the loss of that ‘right’? Helping a slave to escape in this country was as one time a violation of the ‘rights’ of the owner of the slave. It was tantamount to theft of his property. Here again is a ‘right’ which has been abolished. Most of us are glad about this. The right to an education was only guaranteed by law to children in this country in the late 19th century. This right has been modified in the past, with regard to school leaving age and other things and will certainly be changed in the future.

I have remarked before, that many home educating parents in this country are reactionaries in this question of rights. They are fearful of change and see any change in rights as being a bad move and one likely to harm their interests. I am sure that slave owners in the 18th century felt just the same when their ‘rights’ were under threat! Those of us with a more open view of the matter are glad to see change and recognise that rights and duties in a society are always fluctuating in this way; some increasing and others diminishing. New laws about education, immigration, work, social security and many other things will confer new rights and remove others. This is how history progresses. It seems to me that a lot of home educators, like the one in Ireland mentioned above, wish only for things to remain as they are. If they had had their way and a change in the law had been resisted by interested parties, then the 1991 judgement which had the effect of outlawing marital rape would not have taken place. At every touch and turn, they oppose change and ask nothing more than for the current collections of rights to remain fossilised. You will observe that she expresses regret that the rights which we now have are not set in stone. Nothing would be more terrible than for this to happen.

The rights of parents and children with regard to education are not a special catagory which should be immune from change. Sometimes they are extended and at other times restricted. Each change is advocated by some and resited by others. There can never be unanimous approval of any new right or abolition of an old one; the best we can hope for is wide agreement, following which those of us who differ in our view of the matter must go along with the majority.  Instead of digging our heels in and stubbornly fighting against any extension to children's rights or diminuation of the rights of parents, we should  ask ourselves only what best enhances the rights of the vulnerable party in the case. To give one final example, until fairly recently parents had the 'right' to beat their children. This right has now largely been removed. I think that removing this parental  'right' was a good idea, because it had the effect of increasing the rights of children. This is precisely how I see the current debate about home edcuation; as an attempt to decrease parental 'rights' and increase those of their children.

55 comments:

  1. I agree that resistance to change for the sake of resisting change is not a good idea, but I think you are making too many assumptions and generalizations when discussing other people's views. Have you asked them to clarify these issues on the blog?

    I think children should have the right to direct their own education but I suspect that would be a step too fast in your opinion, Simon. Who do you think should be responsible for ensuring children receive a suitable education? The department of education who are on record as saying that school is the best place for children to receive an education (they didn't even qualify that with 'most')? If the decision making power moves too far in the direction of the state and away from parents, it doesn't seem impossible that the right to choose HE over school could be severely hampered, if not ended. I'm not sure why you would object to people taking action to prevent such a change after they have seen how much it benefited their children.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ' Who do you think should be responsible for ensuring children receive a suitable education?'

    In the first instance the parent, but with local authorities having the power to check that they are actually exercising this responsibility.

    ' The department of education who are on record as saying that school is the best place for children to receive an education (they didn't even qualify that with 'most')?'

    History suggests that this may well be true; or at the very least that it was true in the past. However, there must in a decent society be room for mavericks and eccentrics. There should be safeguards in place to ensure that the activities of such people are benefitting their children and not harming them.

    I am making the point in this post that whenever something crops up like the current Welsh Assembly proposals, home educators always seem to oppose change and insist they they wish to maintain the status quo. That is essentially a reactionary and conservative position. Our present system is not the best possible and I feel that it is more important that children have rights than parents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think home educating parents' anxiety about this lies in the precise definition of words like education, safeguards and harming.

    Some education professionals would consider the absence of a daily, traditional maths lesson to be harmful to children. Others have ideas about which subjects should be taught and how this should be done.

    Many would like such decisions to be removed from parents and given to the authorities instead. Where do you draw the line?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Some education professionals would consider the absence of a daily, traditional maths lesson to be harmful to children. Others have ideas about which subjects should be taught and how this should be done.

    Many would like such decisions to be removed from parents and given to the authorities instead. Where do you draw the line?'

    Personally, I would draw the line at any attempt to prescribe a curriculum for home educated children. However, I have never heard this suggestion being made by an education professional, so I am not too worried about it.

    Who is it actually that wants to remove from parents the decision about how often mathematics should be taught? I have not hear of this before and would be interested to know by whom it has been advocated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This and many other precise stipulations have been advocated by certain notorious people working in the field. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I am making the point in this post that whenever something crops up like the current Welsh Assembly proposals, home educators always seem to oppose change and insist they they wish to maintain the status quo."

    I see nothing wrong with people opposing a change they view as negative and potentially harmful to their children. You have said you would reach this point if the authorities attempted to introduce a curriculum for HE children. Other people draw the line in a different place.

    " That is essentially a reactionary and conservative position."

    You could only claim this if you had evidence that absolutely all changes (such as those similar to the changes to the rights of husbands you mentioned earlier) are resisted. I don't think this is the case. The people that are resisting these changes believe that they will be harmful to their families.

    "Our present system is not the best possible"

    Do you have any evidence to support this? New Zealand brought in compulsory visits but found that the same number of problem cases were detected, either relating to education or other neglect or abuse. They found that, even without regular checks, problems were brought to their attention via other routes. This has been true of all of the serious case reviews we've seen in this country, all of whom were already known to authorities as potential problems. The evidence suggests that attention needs to be applied to how services react when a potential problem case is identified rather than to the detection of cases, which doesn't appear to be that difficult or a problem after reading many of the serious case reviews published online.

    Even if our present system is not the best, I'm not sure what difference a simple list of home educating children will make. If for nothing else, it is worth resisting on the grounds of cost. Resources are limited so it's surely better if they are used where they will do most good. Maybe they should employ a social worker or improve their training with the money?

    "and I feel that it is more important that children have rights than parents."

    But only so long as the 'right' is controlled and directed completely by parents and/or the state? Again I would draw the line in a different place to you and would give children more rights than you would. The way it is enacted/enforced currently makes it more a requirement or duty for children than a right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "New Zealand brought in compulsory visits but found that the same number of problem cases were detected, either relating to education or other neglect or abuse. They found that, even without regular checks, problems were brought to their attention via other routes. This has been true of all of the serious case reviews we've seen in this country, all of whom were already known to authorities as potential problems."

      An interesting conclusion on the suitability of the Badman review recommendations with regards to cases of abuse/neglect from a meeting with a group of LA officers that appears to support this conclusion from a slightly different angle:

      "Many doubted that the proposed monitoring arrangements would deal with the "hard cases". One commented that "people who have things to hide will run" and that there was a danger of making the life of genuine home educating families difficult in the process."

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/39/3914.htm

      Delete
  7. 'This and many other precise stipulations have been advocated by certain notorious people working in the field. I'm surprised you didn't know this.'

    Well, could you give us the names of a few of these notorious people and where they made these precise stipulations?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, I have better thing to do with my day thanks. It's enough for me to say that I think it's a valid basis for parents' concerns.

    If you were really keen for the details, having somehow missed them in your years of home educating, I'm sure you could find them if you were willing to put the time in to doing some research.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, I have better thing to do with my day thanks. It's enough for me to say that I think it's a valid basis for parents' concerns. '


    Well, not really. If I were to claim that a number of notorious autonomously educating parents had advocated sacrificing their first-born children to the great god Moloch, that would not in itself constitute a valid basis for local authority concerns! We would need to examine who they were, exactly what they had said and when.

    Anyway, thank you for clarifying the situation for me so neatly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do you usually demand that every single assertion be backed up by a full dissertation of properly referenced evidence? If so, it must be hard work living in your house!

    You can easily spend a few hours googling to find out whether I'm right or wrong, if you really want to know. I suspect you don't though, because such knowledge might require you to take a different position.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Do you usually demand that every single assertion be backed up by a full dissertation of properly referenced evidence?'

    Not at all; I thought you might just give us a couple of names! I could then contact the people directly and discuss their views.

    What this amounts to then, is this. You have the names of a number of well-known, you use the word 'notorious' education professionals, who, in your words, 'consider the absence of a daily, traditional maths lesson to be harmful to children.' You are determined not to reveal the names of these people and yet claim that their supposed views form a ' valid basis for parents' concerns'. Once again, we enter the Alice in Wonderland world of home education! I will let this drop, because you clearly do not want to tell anybody who these people are. I think we must deliver the traditional Scots verdict of 'Not proven' on this one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You are determined not to reveal the names of these people"

      My impression was that they didn't have the time to look up the names, rather than that they were keeping them secret!

      Delete
  12. ' I suspect you don't though, because such knowledge might require you to take a different position. '

    You seem to be saying here that you are in possession of knowledge which might require me to take a different position. You are however fiercely determined to hang onto this knowledge and not share it with me. This is frankly puzzling! Surely it would be a good thing if I were to take a different position? I would have thought that you would be only to happy to help me on the path to a correct point of view. Alas, no. Your stubborness dooms me to remain in darkness, clinging to views which you could, if only you would, sweep away in a few moments by revealing just one or two names. You would not even need to search for those names; because they are so notorious, they are presumably on the very tip of your tongue.

    I hope that the next time you see me declaiming ignorantly here on the subject of home education, you will realise the heavy guilt that you yourself bear for refusing to help enlighten me?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'My impression was that they didn't have the time to look up the names, rather than that they were keeping them secret!'

    This seems unlikely. When somebody says, 'This and many other precise stipulations have been advocated by certain notorious people working in the field. I'm surprised you didn't know this. ', then it is surely resonable to assume that they know who has made such 'precise stipulations'? After all, if they are that 'notorious' then I would have thought that their names would be pretty well known?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You clearly have a better memory for names than me! ;-) I can easily envisage reading such claims and failing to remember precise details such as names.

      Delete
  14. If the 'precise stipulations' about the harm caused to children by not having a daily mathematics lesson have really been made by famous or notorious education professionals, then surely some other reader must know of this? I can assure you all that if I am given the name of the chump who said this, I shall get in touch and tell him or her what a fool he or she is. I never heard such nonsense in all my life and will certainly make a point of challenging this absurd statement, if indeed it has been made.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "‘Rights’ are not of course a natural phenomenon like gravity or light. It would be absurd to talk of an oak tree’s ‘right’ to water and light."

    Absurd? I think you'll find that many great minds have discussed and debated 'natural rights' extensively over centuries!

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'You clearly have a better memory for names than me! ;-) I can easily envisage reading such claims and failing to remember precise details such as names.'

    The problem being of course that if you can't even remember the name of the person making the statements, what assurance do with have that the statements themselves have been accurately recalled? These statements were described as, 'a valid basis for parents' concerns'. According to your ideas on the subject, the writer could then be paraphrased thus;

    'Somebody whose name I have forgotten once said something like X or Y'. You may think that this sort of thing constitutes a 'valid basis for parents' concerns', but I would have to disagree. Suppose that I posted here and said that, 'A well known autonomously educating parent said that it was OK to abuse children. Unfortunately, I have forgotten her name and don't know when or where she said this. This is a valid basis for local authorities' concerns'. Does that sound OK?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the lack of information is not helpful to readers, but I don't think it rules out the 'valid basis for parents' concerns', comment. It's entirely possible to remember your own responses of concern to such a statement and also the expressions of concern from other home educators at the time, without remember precise details. In the writer's view there were valid concerns and they made that point, but since we have no more information, it seems pointless for us to spend so much time discussing the point!

      Delete
  17. 'Absurd? I think you'll find that many great minds have discussed and debated 'natural rights' extensively over centuries!'

    Indeed they have, but this does not help us much. From this perspective, it is entirely possible that a 'natural right' exists for a man to rape his wife or flog his child. I am not at all sure that I would agree that this is possible! The only rational view is that rights are things devised by men and women and then codified into law. If that were not to be the case, then I might claim all sorts of 'natural rights' like the 'right' to keep slaves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't suggest that it helps us, it was just a response to your suggestion that the very idea of discussing natural rights is absurd when so many great minds have done just that over the centuries!

      Delete
  18. "The only rational view is that rights are things devised by men and women and then codified into law."

    So a right is only a right if it is given to people by a law? But that would then rule out the right of a husband to rape their wife, unless you know of a law that specifically gave them that right. So this suggests that rights are also 'given' by a lack of a law against it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. yes lets have the right for ALL children to say if they want to be home educated what would happen if most school children said i want the right to be home educated? would old webb support that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah....let's have the right where ALL children can choose to be home educated.
      In the morning, if they get up in the morning they can watch Jeremy Kyle, smoke a few spliffs and down some Kestrel super. In the afternoon take the pitbull out, maybe do some shoplifting, vandalism and drug dealing. In the evening a bit of joyriding, get pissed have a fight and terrorise people at the bus stop and chip shop.
      At night they can really let rip..in some parts of London and other inner cities, that's when the knives and guns come into play.
      Alternatively you could allow those children to have a chance at recieving an education that provides them with opportunities in adult life.
      You really don't have a grasp on reality do you?
      Not every child is raised in the comfort of a home that is conducive to being a future chess master or go to Oxford. The only chance they get is school, and they grasp that chance because that's all they're going to get.

      Delete
  20. What you've just described is the real lives of people who DID go to school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's home ed propaganda.
      I described the daily routine of many teenagers/young people, a routine that can be witnessed on many estates.
      They have been labelled NEETS, they're a result of inadequate parenting and politics...
      If you gave those guys a choice of whether to go to school they would opt out and no responsible adult would bother to educate them.
      Many well balanced youngsters that go to school do achieve some qualifications, learn some team skills and go on to have either a decent job or a career, they have aspirations.
      I wonder how many home educated children have gone on to have either a decent job or a career..it appears that many have some sort of learning disability that might prevent them from ever working, others seem to be in some form of endless further education..
      Some may have found employment through family connections, but HE is in a minority and employers tend to have their pick of the crop..
      They want real, practical people with experiences of the real world. They don't want sniffy oversensitive 'individuals' with attitude problems and a superiority complex that comes from an over protective family.

      Delete
    2. This comment is one of the most ignorant I've ever seen in the comments section of this blog.

      'endless further education' Do you mean university? Most of my kids HE'd peers are there at the moment. They have a great work ethic, with many of them holding down part-time jobs as well as studying.

      The NEETS you descrbe are not the product of 'politics'. They are the direct product of families and schools!

      By the way, I'm not the commenter who believes that all children should be given the option to be home educated. I think there are plenty of families where that would be a disaster for the child. However, your reasoning is based on ignorance and prejudice about real HE.

      Delete
    3. Do you mean university?
      Mostly it appears to be called The Open University, foundation courses etc etc etc..
      Except, there's a quite a proportion of HE parents who like to claim that their child is studying an OU course who don't actually know anything about OU or FE.
      I notice that you claim that 'most' of your kids HE'd peers 'are there at the moment', that makes a rather small number of children.
      You really do need to wake up and smell the coffee if you believe that politics and government doesn't affect parenting and education... in fact, if you believe that schools are responsible for NEETS then you are seriously, seriously deluded.
      Politicians have constantly tinkered with both family life and the education system for decades. Thatcher was responsible for many mining and industrial towns being laid to waste. The workforce of those areas made idle, their children left idle and their grandchildren left idle, drug dealing became the only growth industry in most mining and industrial towns .
      Drug addiction and alcoholism has more influence over parents than a work ethic. There are no jobs there is excessive immigration, the bankers have caused a massive financial crisis and there are police cuts.
      Policy wonks have ensured a lack of discipline, dumbing down and endless cycles of restructuring in almost all walks of life.
      And... then we get some home education fanatic like you claiming that it's schools that are to blame for societies ills.
      FFS

      Delete
    4. 'Except, there's a quite a proportion of HE parents who like to claim that their child is studying an OU course who don't actually know anything about OU or FE.'

      What proportion would that be? How many home educators do you actually know? My kids didn't do OU, but I imagine that it can be very useful for some with limited means or people on the autistic spectrum.

      'And... then we get some home education fanatic like you claiming that it's schools that are to blame for societies ills.
      FFS'

      I didn't say that at all.

      I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere:

      'There is a strangely twisted picture of HE'd people appearing in the comments sections of this blog for some reason and I don't want to see it go unchallenged.

      Again, I'm not interested in bashing schools. I'm FOR schools. I'm also for home education.'

      Delete
    5. Are you attempting to convince us that there are no home educating parents that lie through their teeth?
      I've met them and they're quite common, they're often found to be bragging away about just how well their child is doing in their O.U course. Sadly they know nothing about the O.U system...it takes next to no questioning to reveal that.
      Several have inadevertently revealed that their child is studying not a O.U course as they claim, but an ASDAN course at their local FE college.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, right.

      And I've met you and you have a very, very long nose and buck teeth.

      Delete
    7. So what...it's the person inside that's important, I might be ugly on the surface.

      You've just proved that you're an ugly ****** through and through.

      Delete
  21. The NEETS you describe are not the product of 'politics'. They are the direct product of families and schools!

    I think you will find the previous comments suggested that 'they're a result of inadequate parenting and politics...' I understand as you home educate you love to bash schools but are schools really to blame for all societies ills? Firstly if you have a pupil who has no structure or rules in their home life then they will have none at school. Trying teaching a child like that when they have not been taught right from wrong and get everything they want when they want it. Then try discussing with a parent brought up in the 'me me me' society we have now, that their child might not be the perfect angel they thought. Parents are as bad as children now and take offence at any slight criticism of their child. Sadly they al know their 'rights' when it comes to schhool issues.... Finally 'politics' is what dictates how schools are run and it is these rules teachers have to work under. Try disciplining a child or even expelling them!! When i was at school the pupils knew the rules, the headteacher and teachers encouraged us to follow them and our parents supported the teachers and the schools. Easier to blame the schools than look at the real issues or reasons though............


    ReplyDelete
  22. 'I understand as you home educate you love to bash schools but are schools really to blame for all societies ills?'

    I am a teacher and so I don't 'love to bash schools'. I have a completely realistic understanding of what goes on in them, however. This is reason I didn't send my own children to them to be educated.

    I don't understand why you've started so many sentences with 'try....etc'. I've done all those things. Of course it's difficult maintaining discipline in schools where the parents have failed to instill respect, politeness, a good work ethic etc in their children. The facts are that the NEETs described above are the end result of schools NOT home education. All of the HE'd grown ups we know are now either employed or in Further or Higher Education and doing very well, thank you very much. Even the ones with disabilities are achieving far beyond what was predicted for them.

    There is a strangely twisted picture of HE'd people appearing in the comments sections of this blog for some reason and I don't want to see it go unchallenged.

    Again, I'm not interested in bashing schools. I'm FOR schools. I'm also for home education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might want to apply proportionality to that notion of yours that schools are to blame for NEETS...
      And suspend your belief in the hype that you're trying to pass off as fact, it's easily identifiable as the same disinformation that is created and circulated by Education Otherwise and HEUK.

      Delete
    2. I've never been a member, so i wouldn't know. I am writing from my personal experiences, which include teaching in a inner city school.

      Delete
    3. I don't think you do teach...if you did you would recognise the flaws and bias in your argument.

      Delete
    4. LOL! Then there's not point in the discussion.

      Delete
  23. Hi

    I never mentioned HE'd kids and I know that many of them do well. My issue is that people seem to continually blame schools for poorly educated and badly behaved children when for the majority of cases its simply poor parenting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In most cases, Cat, it's more than just poor parenting. It's an inadequate response by schools TO the results of the poor parenting. There have always been 'difficult families' in the UK. Schools used to be better at dealing with them.

      Delete
    2. Poor politics caused poor parenting, poor politics caused a seriously flawed education system.

      Delete
    3. And home educating parents can be equally guilty of that.

      Delete
  24. This anti-school attitude, it's getting to the point that it's almost as distasteful as racism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This anti-home educator attitude, it's getting to the point that it's definitely as distasteful as racism. Dislike and blame based on ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it's only ever a response to the ridiculous anti school comments made on here and other home ed websites. Those comments are based on rampant egotism, disinformation and misinformation, they're rooted in self righteous indignation and ignorance.
      You constantly stereotype schoolchildren and teachers.
      In all truth no one cares whether you home educate your children or not, when they encounter a home educator they're intrigued at best and may have a few questions. Eunice Spry, Angela Gordon and Lianne/Martin Smith did nothing but damage to your cause, but most people move on and they recognise that you get a few loose nuts in most walks of life.
      Badman and whe inquiry into home education was a typical government response to tragic events..
      I've never really encountered any parents of schoolchildren discussing home education with any spiteful and prejudicial attitudes or remarks, most teachers readily understand that some parents are always going to home educate their children..the subject is rarely discussed.
      It appears from your websites that most home educators have aquired and voice some very distasteful attitudes towards schoolchildren and teachers.

      Delete
    2. Ah, I see your problem. You see some websites or blogs displaying an attitude which you don't like and so you jump to the conclusion that this must be the mindset of all home educators. So, you encounter a home educator here and believe that they share the attitudes of the website/blog you've read and shout, 'School Hater!' at them.

      Home Educators are not nearly that homogeneous. There is a wide variety of attitudes to schools, schoolchildren, regulations, laws, social services etc.

      However, if you wish to see how some teachers view home education (I can't take you into my staffroom, so you can't share my own experiences) take a look at the TES online and search home education. A lot of misinformed vitriol.

      Delete
    3. I know of TES...there's not nearly as muchvitriol as you suggest, and there is some that is quite tongue in cheek.

      Delete
    4. What you describe is known as the societal identity theory, and that is the dangerous mentality of many home educators that appear to contribute to this blog and other home ed websites.
      That is exactly the unhealthy mentality responsible for racism.
      I'm merely responding to that attitude and mentality, it's more than apparent that you have succumbed to being afflicted yourself.
      Perhaps intentionally, maybe unconsciously?

      Delete
    5. I asume, Anon of 09:44 that you are replying to Anon of 00:48 because Anon of 23:55 has already explained that he or she is a teacher.

      It must be very tricky trying to diagnose so many anons all at once.

      Delete
  26. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19342998

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much, it is all home educators that have the anti-school attitude.

      Delete
    2. And since you've met all home educators, you would know this for a fact.

      Delete
    3. I don't see you posting any messages here that argue against anti school attitudes....

      Delete
    4. How could you? You have no idea who the 'you' is.

      It may have escaped your notice but this is a home education blog.

      Delete