It is pretty obvious that there is no appetite among readers for learning more about the history of home education in this country. One can always tell when people are becoming twitchy and trying to prevent further information being published here! Yesterday, for example, one person commenting expressed the view that it would be better if I were to discuss the educational system in Prussia. Prussia of course ceased to exist as an independent state on the unification of Germany in 1871! Others then followed with various foolish questions, such as asking if I thought that all those who advocated self-sufficiency were Marxists. The effect of this sort of thing is to render any rational discourse impossible; but then I dare say that was the purpose.
There is nothing unusual of course about this. Followers of cults, religions, political parties and unconventional belief systems in general, often become anxious when people are looking objectively at their origins. I quite understand this. It is, never the less, a pity. To give one example, we are all familiar with the fuss about home visits and local authority officers requiring sight of children. None of those involved in the current conflict about this aspect of British home education seem to have asked themselves how and why this situation arose. As I explained a couple of days ago, it was once the practice to invite parents to the divisional office, without their children, for a chat. The reasons that this changed in the mid 1970s are fascinating and have a good deal to do with the actions of a tiny minority of home educators. Having precipitated this, these same people promptly went mad and began demanding judicial reviews…
Still, there it is; Vox Populei, Vox Dei. If people prefer to cling to myths and legends, who am I to object? I shall not be answering any comments for the next few days, because I have a signing and some publicity in Colchester for my latest book. Those who wish to meet me in person may turn up at Waterstones at 12:PM on Saturday.
http://www.visitcolchester.com/Colchester-Book-Signing-The-Colchester-Book-of-Days/details/?dms=13&feature=1001&venue=0657283
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"[people] often become anxious when people are looking objectively at their origins."
It's not objective if your claims are less than accurate, as evidence already given and ignored suggests. For instance, you claim that Kitto believed children should only be shown how to grow their own food, weave clothes and treat illnesses without doctors and that this was the ethos of EO. Yet Kitto clearly states elsewhere that, "EO does not have a particular kind of education to which it is committed", and that some, "join EO in order to give their children a good classical education which they cannot get at school."
Could you explain why origins matter so much to you, Simon? After all, most theories seem to start off being classified as weird and a lot of great discoveries are accidental (Like Columbus and America).
ReplyDeleteI'd be far more interested in your history, specifically how your HE evolved. From what you've said, you and Simone started very eclectic and gradually became more formal as she grew up, which mirrors my own experience. I'd be fascinated to hear if you think that 'structured' and 'autonomous' might describe stages in home education rather than separate and conflicting belief systems.
And good luck with the book signings. Bet you're glad it wasn't last weekend!
Atb
Anne
Someone who disagrees with you must be a follower of a cult? How silly.
ReplyDelete'The reasons that this changed in the mid 1970s are fascinating and have a good deal to do with the actions of a tiny minority of home educators.'
ReplyDeleteThe shift I observed happened in the late 90's and early noughties. I watched it happen on the internet. When I started HE, everyone, more or less, had visits. However, the internet spread the news of a few horrific visits and scared the pants off many parents. It was nothing to do with 'belief systems'.
'One can always tell when people are becoming twitchy and trying to prevent further information being published here!'
ReplyDeleteHow on earth would anyone be able to prevent you from writing anything on your own blog?
Quite honestly I'm stunned that anyone could possibly refer to Simon Webb's blog and rational discourse in the same sentence unless the sentence also contained an emphatic repudiation. Surely, surely Simon you don't imagine that you are engaging in rational discourse here? I cannot quite conceive of the level of self-delusion that would require. You do not engage in rational discourse, you do not even engage in rhetoric. Your writing is nothing more than a string of logical fallacies held together with a good deal of supposition and speculation supported by extremely selective quotations always ripped out of context and often shamlessly paraphrased, some might say "spun" to support your conclusion. Your writing exemplifies that same failing that the national curriculum exemplifies and it is no coinidence that you often address your readers as a primary school teacher would address his/her pupils. The failing I refer to is that both you and the designers of the national curriculum have a certain outcome in mind - a certain position you are convinced represents objective truth and that your job is to lead the ignorant out of ignorance into the light of your "truth". You already know where you are going and you work backwards from that, bending or ignoring evidence to suit. You call this education. Rational discourse and true education, however, moves in the opposite direction. It begins with the evidence, evaluates it logically and moves toward a rational conclusion. Rational discourse is a journey, the end of which is not yet known. Rhetoric and propaganda already know the end and must construct a journey to get there. This latter is what you engage in. To call it rhetoric however would be to do considerable injustice to the great rhetoricians. To call your writing badly written propoganda is as generous as it is possible to be.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent summary of Simon's approach here. It should stand as a warning to unsuspecting visitors who land here hoping to find something useful.
Delete'That's an excellent summary of Simon's approach here. It should stand as a warning to unsuspecting visitors who land here hoping to find something useful.'
ReplyDeleteIt might equally well stand as a monument to my avoidance of moderation! In fact that long comment is essentially a criticism of my style of writing. The author has nothing relevant, useful or interesting to say on the subject of home education; it is merely a personal attack on me.
"The author has nothing relevant, useful or interesting to say on the subject of home education; it is merely a personal attack on me."
DeleteWrong. It's highly relevant; it's useful in weighing everything you say. It's based on analysis of your writing and should be borne in mind as prior information by anyone reading your posts and comments.
' should be borne in mind as prior information by anyone reading your posts and comments'
ReplyDeleteIt contains no information; it is one person's opinion. It may perhaps be interesting if you wish to read this person's views on my style of writing, but it is not really relevant to the subject of home education.
"It contains no information"
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary; it's useful metadata.
"it is one person's opinion."
I share the views expressed by Rosencrantz, so that makes two. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that there are others who agree.
"it is not really relevant to the subject of home education."
It is highly relevant because you are frequently deceitful - prone to misrepresentation, misinterpretation, exaggeration and distortion - in your posts, and this might mislead readers, particularly those who come across your blog for the first time.
'you are frequently deceitful - prone to misrepresentation, misinterpretation, exaggeration and distortion '
ReplyDeleteThis is, as I said, entirely a matter of opinion. One person commenting here expressed an opinion and now you are adding yours. This is not information; it tells us only that one or two people do not care for either the form or content of my posts.
"This is, as I said, entirely a matter of opinion."
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find broad agreement that your own opinion - for that's largely what you express here - has been demonstrated to be deceitful and misleading on many occasions. Look back, and whether it's in discussions about interpretation of Lizard beliefs, statistics of any kind, or many other issues, you end-up resorting to weasel words or making some excuse or other for having to leave the discussion, refusing to answer or acknowledge points. You're rarely short of an excuse or a diversion, as I'm sure we'll no doubt see.
'you end-up resorting to weasel words or making some excuse or other for having to leave the discussion, refusing to answer or acknowledge points. You're rarely short of an excuse or a diversion, as I'm sure we'll no doubt see.'
ReplyDeleteAs I say, this is a matter of opinion. Reading the comment of which you seem so enamoured, I find little in the way of what you call 'metadata'. Instead, there is a string of loaded words and phrases which simply express the writer's opinion of me;
' Your writing is nothing more than a string of logical fallacies '
'shamelessly paraphrased'
'some might say "spun"'
'badly written propoganda'
All this of course sheds a good deal of light upon the personality of the author, but does not really help in a discussion about home education. Since this is a blog about home education, and since you too seem unwilling to discuss that topic, there is little more to be said. You do not like the way that I write and neither does another of those commenting here. I am not sure that this tells us anything relevant or useful about the subject in hand. Are you a home educator and do you have an opinion on this?
"All this of course sheds a good deal of light upon the personality of the author"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you infer about the personality of the author and how do you make such inference?
"You do not like the way that I write and neither does another of those commenting here."
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about the way that you write? We're concerned about what you write and the way in which you form the opinions you express in your writing.
'Who said anything about the way that you write?'
ReplyDeleteWell, the author of the long comment above did, when he or she mentioned, 'badly written propoganda'. When somebody talks in this way of bad writing, it is clearly a criticism of my style of writing.
As for the rest of the comments, this is nothing more than a matter of opinion. Two people say that I am deceitful, misleading and use weasel words; I hold quite another view on the matter. I don't see that we will resolve this simply by restating out positions. Do you have anything to say on the subject of home education, or do you want only to discuss me and my writing?
It's quite clear that we are are talking about the way in which you develop the arguments that you write, not your style of writing. The two are different but you are either incapable of distinguishing the two, or deliberately confusing them.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which you form your arguments is germane to home education for at least a couple of reasons: 1) the opinions you express about HE should be assessed with the prior knowledge about the way in which you form them (i.e., don't trust a shyster) and 2) this is useful educational material; analysis of your arguments forms a useful exercise in dissecting material which (while undoubtedly grammatically correct) is formulated to deceive.
By the way, I think you'll find that rather more than two people believe you to be deceitful.
"All this of course sheds a good deal of light upon the personality of the author"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you infer about the personality of the author and how do you make such inference?
You seem to have avoided this question Simon; curious, given that you're unhappy about anything that you perceive to be a personal attack on you.
The use of words such as 'shyster' and 'deceive' illustrate clearly what I have been saying; that this is more a personal attack than a rational discussion of home edcuation. I am happy to discuss home education, but will not be responding any further to claims that I am a deceitful shyster. As I have already said, this is a pointless exercise. You have one opinion on this subject and I have another. There is no way of establishing which of us is correct.
ReplyDelete"I...will not be responding any further to claims that I am a deceitful shyster."
DeleteA very wise move Simon, given that you don't have a leg to stand on.
'What do you infer about the personality of the author and how do you make such inference?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have avoided this question Simon; curious, given that you're unhappy about anything that you perceive to be a personal attack on you.'
It was less that I was avoiding the question, than that the answer seemed pretty obvious. The comment is written by somebody who dislikes me immensely and is not interested in discussing home education.
Simon's pleading here reminds me of the hard-faced denials made by Chris Huhne when faced with accusations about his speeding ticket antics.
ReplyDeleteSimon is another one who likes to wield the "trusty sword of truth".
'Simon's pleading here reminds me of the hard-faced denials made by Chris Huhne when faced with accusations about his speeding ticket antics.
ReplyDeleteSimon is another one who likes to wield the "trusty sword of truth".'
Somebody appears to be confusing Chris Huhne with Johnathon Aitkin! One is forced to ask what on earth Chris Huhne's speeding ticket has to do with home education. Are any of these characters coming on here actually home educators? It is impossible to say.
No confusion at all; I mentioned Huhne as the most recent example. One can think of other examples such as Neil Hamilton. It seems to be a characteristic of people - like you - who promote ideology above reason.
DeleteI am a home educator, and I find very little on your blog about home education; instead, I see a great deal of deceitful ideological drivel attempting to justify handing control of my children to people who aren't fit to take care of a goldfish.
"The comment is written by somebody who dislikes me immensely and is not interested in discussing home education"
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is precisely the kind of thing I was talking about. You cannot reasonably and logically deduce either of those things from my post.
There is a very valuable and helpful saying that I am fond of and I can think of no-one who needs to take this advice more than you. The saying is
"Don't believe everything you think."
If you took the time to very carefully and seriously ask yourself not only what you think is true but how you know it and compelled yourself to logically and critically examine your assumptions then I think your writing would be much better and maybe even valuable. You have an instinct and curiosity for journalism but you do not think critically enough about your conclusions.