Friday 22 November 2013
Just ask!
I have been looking lately at the facebook pages and twitter feeds of various angry and discontented home educators. Much of their annoyance is directed currently not at local authorities, but rather towards the All-Party Parliamentary Group for home education. We have seen comments posted here, expressing these same feelings.
Now there are, it seems to me, two entirely different points to consider. The first is that the people who now form the secretariat of that group were not elected to the post. This is a perfectly fair matter to debate and I have mentioned it here. The second point is that some people are now complaining that they have all sorts of questions that they wish to ask of the APPG, but that these remain unanswered. Hints are made that Fiona Nicholson and Jane Lowe are blocking their enquiries and that Graham Stuart won’t answer their questions. I have seen quite a few exchanges on facebook saying this kind of thing. The only problem is, none of these people will say, even when chatting to their mates on the internet, just what it is that they wish to know! Generally speaking, when people wish to find out about things like this, a straightforward question will receive an answer. I have always found it so and we saw Anne who comments here, using the same strategy successfully a few days ago.
I know that Graham Stuart comes on this blog and so does Fiona Nicholson. Here is what I suggest. Those who have any sort of question to ask the APPG, why not put it on the comments here? Tell us what it is that you would know and then I strongly suspect that somebody else commenting, will be able to answer. If the answer is not forthcoming in a day or two, then I will ask the relevant people in the APPG and, if need be, badger them until I find out. There’s no point in a whispering campaign, whereby people are complaining that they are being shut out and not told what they wish to know, unless a chance is given for others to answer the questions. So let’s all just explain clearly what it is that we wish to know of the APPG and that might be the best way to bring forth the information.
How refreshingly sensible!
ReplyDeleteOh help, there goes my credibility as a home educator, because that's an excellent idea so I've now got to thank you twice in a week...
ReplyDeleteAnne
Dear me Anne, you will need to be careful; this sort of pleasant agreement could so easily become a bad habit. The sense that i am picking up is that some home educating parents are suspecting, as they so often do, a conspiracy. here is Gill Kilner:
Delete' I keep imagining a certain conversation between Michael Gove and Graham Stuart, in which the latter explains: "We don't need to regulate the home educators: we'll just organise the Local Authorities to do it for us."'
Now we can't really deal with imaginary conversations between Graham Stuart and anybody else! if the accusation is that Graham Stuart secretly wants to impose a monitoring regime on home education, we could of course ask him outright about this and get a definite commitment from him against the idea. I don't know if that is what lies at the heart of this or not. I see so many vague statements such as, 'This does not add up', but very few clear suggestions as to what people are afraid of.
Stand by for a new round of conspiracy theories Simon; some will claim that you've elected yourself as the ordinary home educators' voice to the APPG!
Delete'Stand by for a new round of conspiracy theories Simon; some will claim that you've elected yourself as the ordinary home educators' voice to the APPG!'
DeleteYes, that really would be a neat twist!
Aaaagh! I can't stand this! Now Simon Webb has setup a gateway to the APPG. This is simply horrible... I have to go for a calming infusion of Kava and Ashwaganda before writing extensively on my blog about the kind of thing that he, Fiona Nicholson and Graham Stuart might be plotting with their army of LA officer drone clones.
DeleteMake sure to include some 'imagined conversations' in your blog post. It give one so much more credibility.
DeleteWhy, what else would I be putting on?
DeleteSo here's my question for the APPG (I haven't asked this of anyone so far so I'm not complaining that I haven't had an answer - yet):
ReplyDeleteWhat mechanisms will be set in place to ensure that the new body of local authority home education officers is open, accountable and maintains a dialogue that represents the views of all home educators?
Er...I may be dim, probably am, but isn't that a question no one can possibly answer, not even, presumably, GS? The meeting at which this is going to be discussed hasn't happened yet.
ReplyDeleteYou say 'the new body of local authority home education officers', as though it exists.
Why not ask a question about a meeting that has actually occurred?
'You say 'the new body of local authority home education officers', as though it exists.
DeleteWhy not ask a question about a meeting that has actually occurred?'
Common sense, indeed! Maire Stafford and Gill Kilner, please note.
"You say 'the new body of local authority home education officers', as though it exists."
DeleteWe don't know what thinking has been done in advance, and so if they haven't thought about this, then they are on notice that this is a concern from the beginning and can be discussed in the meeting.
It seems to me that some of the people complaining about the APPG are worried about this kind of thing, but have not expressed it clearly - they're muddling it with issues around APPG procedure.
I think discussing the arrangements for the LA officer body is more useful than getting worked-up about the constitution of the APPG itself.
"Why not ask a question about a meeting that has actually occurred?"
DeleteYou mean when the outcome is a fait accompli?
You mean you want to ask questions about meetings that haven't occurred yet?
DeleteHere's a quote from someone whose knickers were clearly in a twist the other day.
Delete'Not at all. One can have ethics and still attend. It is high time that someone with the ethics to inform other home educators what is happening in these meetings attends.'
I responded with, 'the minutes are all available', but that wasn't good enough. Questions had been asked and not answered. Well, now's your chance! Ask a question about what has happened at the APPG meetings and see if anyone can answer them.
Don't try to get someone to prophesy about possible future events.
"You mean you want to ask questions about meetings that haven't occurred yet?"
DeleteI think the meetings that have taken place are quite well documented, but I'd like to be able to raise issues and questions relating to the subject matter of future meetings. I don't think that seems unreasonable; of course I don't necessarily expect a complete answer before the meeting, but I'd like to ensure that the point is given consideration.
I've no plans to ask about what took place before it actually happened, if that's what you worried about!
'I think the meetings that have taken place are quite well documented,'
DeleteI thought so too. However, people commenting here over the last few days have been trying to concoct the theory that various unethical people, bent on power, glory and/or, of course, money, have lied or kept silent about what has REALLY been going on at those meetings.
This is why I was hoping that some actual questions would be asked so that they could be answered.
"...This is why I was hoping that some actual questions would be asked so that they could be answered."
DeleteOK, I understand, but I'm not sure any of those people will be convinced of anything other than their existing views.
'However, people commenting here over the last few days have been trying to concoct the theory that various unethical people, bent on power, glory and/or, of course, money, have lied or kept silent about what has REALLY been going on at those meetings. '
DeleteYes they have. However, Julie was present at the last meeting. Anybody who really imagines for a minute that she would be mixed up in anything shady, must be completely cuckoo! We have her account of the meeting and that should be enough to reassure any normal person.
ask Graham Stuart if he supports new laws being brought in to monitor home education a yes or no from him will do. I may ask him my self at some point.
ReplyDelete'ask Graham Stuart if he supports new laws being brought in to monitor home education a yes or no from him will do. I may ask him my self at some point.'
DeleteWhy not ask him now? However, since others also appear to want to know this, I shall ask him myself.
i may write him a letter at some point i wait and see what he says to you first he may respond quicker to you
DeleteIt was I suppose inevitable, that dealing as we are here with home educators, a simple offer of help should be viewed as just one more strand in a complex conspiracy which embraces the Illuminati, the Rothschilds, Area 51 and the Grassy Knoll! I have emailed both Fiona Nicholson and Graham Stuart, asking for clarification about things that apparently concern those commenting here. If and when I receive answers, I shall let everybody know. If anybody else wishes to ask these questions for themselves, then I urge them to do so. The next step will be that I am myself being accused of being a 'rent seeker'!
ReplyDelete"I have emailed both Fiona Nicholson and Graham Stuart, asking for clarification about things that apparently concern those commenting here."
DeleteGood i only want a yes or no if he supports new laws for home education not a load of civil service talk
Doing all this on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK and the first Dr Who is clearly a ploy by Simon to divert us from the fact that JFK was whisked away in a time machine.
DeleteOh that really is too much... First Fiona Nicholson, then Simon, and now JFK is trying to get in on the act by getting into meetings before they've happened for the rest of us!!!
DeleteI have had a reply from Graham Stuart's office. The relevant part reads;
ReplyDelete'
'There is no question whatever of Graham suggesting or supporting new regulation regarding home education. The aim is precisely to avoid some of the problems which arise through local authority officials misinterpreting the existing regulations (whether by accident or design).'
This seems very clear and is something to which people might hold Graham Stuart in the future. Mind, there is one troubling aspect of the exchange. The email was from Graham Stuarts' Education Adviser, whose name is Simon Clarke! But wait! He shares a Christian name with me. This is fishy. Coincidence? I don't think so...
I think we have no reason to disbelieve GS here. The issue now is whether he and the APPG can do anything to pre-empt demands from LAs for new regulation under the next Labour government.
DeleteHmm... I wonder if it would be worth looking at the LA's who are supportive and work within powers and seeing if we could persuade them to speak for us at this hypothetical new group if it gets off the ground?
DeleteThere must be cost benefits to not monitoring, surely? Or maybe we could reinvent ourselves as a minority who needs being nice to?
Failing that, we have to do the drone clone bit referred to above and create enough from the 'good' LA's to infiltrate the others...
Nice to know though, Simon even though he'd said as much to me last week.
Atb
Anne
'Nice to know though, Simon even though he'd said as much to me last week.'
DeleteWell that's absolutely right, Anne; I mentioned that in the post. The only thing is, nobody seemed to take any notice the first time. I thought it worth double-checking, because there is still a lot of anxiety about this. I don't think that Graham Stuart would be so definite about this, unless he was sure that he meant it.
I wasn't being snarky, just laughing at myself for being so pleased to read something that I already knew because if he'd said it to 2 of us then it was likely to be true. Which shows how contagious paranoia is, doesn't it? And you got it too for thinking I was getting at you. Okay, I usually do argue with you, but women are allowed to admit a man is right 3 times in a week as long as we don't make a habit of it...
DeleteWhich has got me thinking about LA's, because if I can catch paranoia that easily then I can start to see why they would too.
Anne
Well done old Webb on getting a reply so quick but has Graham being crafty in getting his education adviser to respond its not him saying he does or he does not support new laws on home education. he can get out of it by saying in the future it was the adviser saying this not me!
DeleteIt can't possibly be true, though, can it, Simon? All the doom-predictors on the blogs and Facebook can't possibly have been wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's all a diversion. Simon, Graham Stuart, Fiona Nicholson and JFK met with the LA officers at Illuminati HQ in Area 51 next February to plot something terrible for us. Only the ethical ones will be exempt.
Delete'It can't possibly be true, though, can it, Simon? All the doom-predictors on the blogs and Facebook can't possibly have been wrong.'
DeletePerhaps if people like Gill Kilner of the Sometimes it's Peaceful blog had spent a little less time 'imagining' conversation between Graham Stuart and Michael Gove and just done as I did and asked, it would have set her mind at rest. It took me a little under 90 minutes to get a categorical assurance from Graham Stuart's office.
Literally laughed till I cried. Simon, stop it.
DeleteAt least Gill Kilner, unlike Simon Webb, is able to distinguish between imagination and reality!
ReplyDeleteProof point?
DeleteI'm no fan of Simon, but I don't see much of value from any of these stream-of-consciousness bloggers.
'At least Gill Kilner, unlike Simon Webb, is able to distinguish between imagination and reality!'
DeleteA novel, if somewhat puzzling perspective! Meaning, I suppose, that whereas Gill Kilner knew that she was imagining a conversation between Graham Stuart and Michael Gove, I myself was deluded, when I thought that I was communicating with Graham Stuart's office? I certainly thought that i had emailed him, but maybe I only imagined it! The person who wrote this comment seems to be saying that it is better to rely upon words that we imagine that somebody has spoken, rather than find out what he actually thinks. But no, surely that would be crazy! I am now thoroughly confused. Perhaps the author of this comment could explain in a little more detail what she meant to convey?
Hello! I'm just home from taking the children to Jorvik, and someone told me my ears were burning so here I am.
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that you've contacted Graham directly and asked him some questions, Simon. How very clever of you. But I hope it wouldn't be too *conspiracy theorist* of me to remind you that he is a politician? And therefore skilled in placating people?
It would? Right, I'll get back under my tin hat, then.
'someone told me my ears were burning so here I am. '
DeleteGosh Gill, I feel a bit bad now, for having talked about you behind your back. Oh no, wait a minute; I don't! Considering how much you have had to say about me in the past, I am surprised that you really felt the need to make that observation. For instance:
' The main things, as far as I can tell, have been Simon Webb's spitefully demonic little flourishes'
'First, why is university seen by Simon Webb, Graham Badman, etc. as the be all and end all?'
' As for the grins when Simon Webb was mentioned, it was indeed due to signing'
I think that simply reporting your imaginary conversations between a couple of MPs was fairly neutral, compared with the malicious things that you have had to say about me over the years!
Okaaay! Not that you bear a grudge or anything ;-)
DeleteAre we all square now, or have you only just begun with me? Crikey, I don't know whether to be scared or excited! Or just to let you get on with it, while I keep living my life. I think I'll plump for the latter, if you don't mind. Always nice to chat, though!
'Are we all square now, or have you only just begun with me? '
DeleteWell now, I mentioned your imaginary conversations, not to get back at you, but rather to give readers a good example of the sort of fruitless speculation being undertaken about the motives of Graham Stuart and Fiona Nicholson. I found it strangely charming that you then proved so sensitive about being quoted here, especially as you are so prone to poking fun yourself at people when the mood is upon you!
'But I hope it wouldn't be too *conspiracy theorist* of me to remind you that he is a politician? And therefore skilled in placating people? '
Perhaps I knew this already; I have, after all, met Graham Stuart and think I have the measure of the man. After a definite and categorical statement such as that made by his representative this afternoon, he would find it extremely awkward to backtrack. That was my intention. I tend to rely more upon this sort of thing, that is to say genuine messages from real human beings, rather than any number of imaginary conversations. I realise that you would not agree with this and that actually asking somebody a direct question would, to you, seem odd. I think this says something about our differing world-views. Please be sure though to let us know if Graham Stuart has any more imaginary conversations with his friends, as I dare say that we would all like to know what you think they might say to each other.
I'm not at all sensitive about being quoted here, and am quite happy - as you say - to poke fun at others from time to time (although not so much lately) so I must take what I give.
DeleteSome of those quotes about you puzzled me though. I had to Google to find them and when I did, I realised that the last one wasn't even said by me, but by someone else, commenting on my blog.
I'll claim ownership of the second one - and the first, if you insist, although I can't remember that either. I can't really imagine you being so touchy as to mind.
I ask people direct questions all the time and don't find it odd at all. However, conspiracy theorist that I am, I would not waste my questions on politicians. That you want to is your prerogative, of course, and none of my business.
In nearly ten years of blogging, I think that is the only reference I've made to any kind of imaginary conversation. I might do so more often in future, now that I know it provides such entertainment.
''I'll claim ownership of the second one - and the first, if you insist,'
DeleteI find this use of language very odd. What on earth does it mean to 'claim ownership' of a quotation? Does this mean that you said it? I certainly don't insist upon your 'claiming ownership' of these personal remarks; although I find it strange that you could describe somebody's writing style as 'demonic' and then forget it. Presumably you use such expressions so often that you tend to lose track of whose writing you have criticised in this way!
I have just remembered, weren't you one of that gang who helped somebody slip out of the country and relocate to Ireland, in order to avoid answering all those awkward questions from social services about leaving her kids alone in the house?
No, I'm remembering now. It was about that article of yours in the Independent. I stand by everything I said about that, though it wasn't much.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been in a gang since I was a teenager! What fun.
And my friend did NOT leave her children alone in the house! She made good provision for their care, always has and always would.
ReplyDeleteI think it's your propensity to make such unfounded and damaging assumptions about people that probably triggers the use of adjectives like 'demonic' about your writing.
Autonomous educators being a case in point, since I've now been reminded to reread your pieces in the Independent and the TES.
'And my friend did NOT leave her children alone in the house! She made good provision for their care, always has and always would.
DeleteI think it's your propensity to make such unfounded and damaging assumptions about people'
Well, I was only going by what she herself said. I'm sure you know that since moving to Ireland, she has kept a blog? In it, she says:
'A few months ago I shamefully attended a meeting about how to obtain Organic Food, leaving my young children in the care of their 17yr old brother.
This led to scrutiny from 'authority' figures & caused me to commit a further sin of defying that 'authority' when it sought to persecute myself & my family for my wayward ways, particularly my disgraceful choice to educate my children outside of the state system or allow my parenting, educational provision, or moral scruples to be inspected & dictated by dubiously qualified 'experts'.'
It certainly sounds as though she left her children alone in the house. if her own account of the affair is not reliable, then perhaps you would like to tell us the real reason that social services were investigating her family.
I can't believe I'm even bothering to answer this.
DeleteIn fact, I'm not.
(But I just had to move it to the right place.)
So, just to get this straight, I said that your friend had left the country, ' in order to avoid answering all those awkward questions from social services about leaving her kids alone in the house.' You tell me that this is an, 'unfounded and damaging assumption.'
DeleteHowever, your friend herself says that she left the country because social services became involved after she left her children in the house without anybody else being present. You might explain why you think that my mentioning this constitutes an, 'unfounded and damaging assumption'. I have made no assumptions, damaging or otherwise, but merely reported what your friend herself has said publicly.
You assumed she left the children without appropriate care. That's not correct. She left them in the 17 year old's care, which was entirely appropriate.
Delete'You assumed she left the children without appropriate care. That's not correct. She left them in the 17 year old's care, which was entirely appropriate. '
DeleteThis is of course, completely mad! I said that she had faced awkward questions from social services after leaving her kids alone in the house. In fact, she did face awkward questions about this very thing. Quite possibly, social services were wrong to ask these questions; I wouldn't know. But it is indisputably true that she did face awkward questions about leaving her children in the house alone; which was of course all that I said in the first place.
Simon. You are reaching wrong conclusions about this because you're not in full possession of the facts. I'm not going to fix that situation because it's none of your business and it's not my place to do so. I can only say that I hope if you were in full possession of the facts, you'd be a little more kind about it.
Delete'Simon. You are reaching wrong conclusions about this because you're not in full possession of the facts.'
DeleteI am reaching no conclusions at all about this matter; merely reporting what the mother herself says about it. She says that she faced trouble from social services for leaving her children alone in the house and I repeated that here.
For readers who are baffled about this exchange, the background is as follows. In the spring of 2012, Gill Kilner and some other people appealed for money on the grounds that:
Delete'A well-known member of the HE community and trusted friend needs our help. The person's family is facing a possible court order and they felt the need to leave the country very quickly in order to protect the children from unfounded interference based on home education as a risk factor. '
The person herself then blogged, saying that her troubles stemmed from going out and leaving her children in the house by themselves. This apparently caused social services to start asking questions.
Gill Kilner is now suggesting that I am being in some way unkind for talking about all this! This is absurd. All the parties concerned, including Gill Kilner herself, have put all this information into the public domain and I am only repeating what they have said. I honestly do not see how this can be considered unkind, let alone how I am making damaging assumptions. If these people don't want all this to be generally known, then why on earth have they made it the subject of public appeals and blogposts? Idiots!
You're reading what she said wrongly. I'm not going to sink to your level by calling you an idiot. In fact, I'm not going to say anything more about this at all.
Delete'You're reading what she said wrongly.'
DeleteAh, I think I see. You appear to be saying that when she said that she went out and left her children alone in the house, that is not what she actually meant to say. You evidently do know what she meant, but you are not going to tell us. I'm a simple man. If somebody says something like this, then I am afraid that I take the words at face value.
That's not actually what she said though, is it?
DeleteSimon wrote,
Delete"in order to avoid answering all those awkward questions from social services about leaving her kids alone in the house?"
But this was misleading on your part. When I originally read this I thought you meant young children. Why else would this be an issue worth mentioning, except as an example of excess by social services?
So yes, she left her kids alone in the house, but one of them was 17. Old enough to marry, have children of his own, fight for his country and less than a year from being old enough to be a childminder looking after other people's children for pay. I'm surprised you're not making comments about 'other' reasons for SS interest and veiled comments along the lines of, 'no smoke without fire', as you've done in the past. But maybe that's to follow.
'That's not actually what she said though, is it?'
DeleteI can think of no other construction to put upon the following words than that the mother left her children, and only her children, in the house:
'A few months ago I shamefully attended a meeting about how to obtain Organic Food, leaving my young children in the care of their 17yr old brother.'
That's right. And as anonymous says, that's not the same thing as leaving her young children alone in the house. And as I said, leaving them with a 17 year old was entirely appropriate. A 17 year old is hardly a child.
DeleteYou do seem unhealthily fixated on this poor family, Simon. I will leave you to your obsessions, since I've got a lot to do today and only came here to address a completely different issue.
' not the same thing as leaving her young children alone in the house.'
DeleteNobody, least of all me, said anything at all about leaving young children alone in the house!
'You do seem unhealthily fixated on this poor family, Simon. '
You will, I am sure, forgive my pointing out Gill, that I merely made a brief and wholly accurate, throwaway remark. It is you who has been so determined to prolong the discussion.
Oh! You deleted the part where you said you didn't remember mentioning it before, and that the mother in question had devoted a whole blog post to you.
DeleteNow, I really MUST be getting on with other things, nice though it is to chat. Of course you are forgiven. It was indeed quite stupid of me to prolong the discussion.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"After a definite and categorical statement such as that made by his representative this afternoon, he would find it extremely awkward to backtrack."
Why? All he would need to say is something like, "taking into account X [insert some new piece of information]), I have changed my mind on this issue." There's nothing unreasonable about adjusting your views in the light of new information, quite the reverse, in fact.