Sunday 24 November 2013

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

I have lately been engaged in a soul-destroying and utter pointless exchange with a home educating parent. This contained so many of the familiar elements of the disputes that others have had with the more militant type of home educating parent, that I thought it worth rescuing from the relative obscurity of a thread on the comments and promoting it to a post of its own! Some readers might recollect that last year, the following appeal was circulated:

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. 

Alison Preuss Barbara Stark Elaine Kirk Gill Kilner Karen Gallant Lisa Amphlett Louisa Herbs Maire StaffordMichelle BeenyNeil Taylor MooreRaquel ToneySheila StruthersSusanna MatthanTechla Wood


All the usual suspects there, and no mistake! A few months later, once the subject of this appeal was safely settled in Ireland, she began blogging about the reasons for her misfortunes. She was an autonomous home educator and mentioned some of the things that had irritated local authority officers about her lifestyle. Then, she explained about the incident which sparked the need to flee the country. She said:

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.


Now the only possible construction which can be put upon those words is that the mother left her children alone in the house and that later on, it was judged that the seventeen year-old was not a competent person to be entrusted with the care of the younger children. I have no idea whether the local authority officers were justified in their beliefs about this; in other words, I do not know if  the boy was  sensible and reliable, a fit person to be left in charge of his younger siblings. However, it is certainly the case, at least according to the mother, that it was this which  triggered the supposed need for the  flight to Ireland.

One of the signatories  of the above letter was on here recently. It doesn't matter which one; they are all much of a muchness, in many ways. I recognised her name and said light-heartedly that:

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?

So far, nothing to complain about; she was part of the group and the mother herself claims that it was leaving her kids alone in the house which led to awkward questions from social services. It was the reaction to this which I found fascinating!  This is what the woman who had signed the appeal said:

my friend did NOT leave her children alone in the house! She made good provision for their care, always has and always would. 

I 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. 

It's very neatly done, isn't it? I particularly like the bit about my, 'propensity to make unfounded and damaging assumptions'! Note too, the claim that the mother did NOT leave her children alone in the house. A couple of things strike one about this. The first is that the writer is, to all intents and purposes, telling a complete lie. She is inviting readers to think that I am making an unfounded assumption, when of course she knows perfectly well that it was leaving her children alone in the house which precipitated the crisis which led to this woman leaving the country. I think that she was gambling upon my not having read the mother's own account of the whole affair and thought that this lie would pass unremarked! Once she has been rumbled, she tries various other tactics, for example saying:

You assumed she left the children without appropriate care. 

Of course, I made no assumptions of any  sort; I simply reported what the mother herself had said! Then she claims that:

You are reaching wrong conclusions about this because you're not in full possession of the facts


You're reading what she said wrongly

It's hard to make any sense of this. The mother says that her troubles were brought about by leaving her children alone in the house and that this led to accusations by social services. Which is all that I said.

I have observed these tactics so often in the past; sometimes used against me, but also very often against anybody who asks too many questions about anything to do with home education.  Initially there is complete denial, frequently combined with a direct lie.  When that doesn't serve,  the wriggling and reproaches begin, ending invariably with a statement to the effect of; I'm simply not going to discuss this with you, because you're too horrible. It is worth bearing in mind that although I make allowances for this sort of nonsense, many of those against whom these methods are used do not; they are not home educators like me. When these people encounter foolishness, lies and deliberate evasion, they tend to make unfavourable judgments  about home educating parents in general. This can sometimes have unfortunate consequences, because it means that even normal and well-balanced parents get tarred with the same brush as some of the more, shall we say excitable, of the breed.

54 comments:

  1. A home-educating parent is quoted as saying:
    "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."

    Simon commented:
    "Now the only possible construction which can be put upon those words is that the mother left her children alone in the house and that later on, it was judged that the seventeen year-old was not a competent person to be entrusted with the care of the younger children."

    Clearly, Simon, you don't have a particularly probing mind if you can only see one possible construction from those words; while I've been described as "a bit autistic" in some of my own inferences (not something I'd regard as a diagnosis), even I can see the signficant possibility of bitter irony in what that mother has written.

    For you to progress to the judgement that the seventeen-year-old was not a competent person is a leap that one might expect from "sloppy thinking".

    There have been times lately when I've found myself agreeing with you, Simon, but it's good to see that my long standing views are still spot-on; I detect mischief or gross ineptitude in your interpretation. In this case I suspect it's malice rather than incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'For you to progress to the judgement that the seventeen-year-old was not a competent person is a leap that one might expect from "sloppy thinking".'

      Absolutely baffling comment! I made no judgment of the sort, but speculated that because social services became involved after this, that they themselves might have thought so. We know, from what the mother said, that this was the trigger for social services action which ultimately caused her to leave the country. Perhaps readers could suggest any other way in which leaving children in the charge of a seventeen year-old sibling could provoke such a response from social workers?

      I might mention that I have asked the mother herself about this directly, but beyond saying that her problems were caused by leaving the seventeen year-old to look after the younger children, she will tell us nothing.

      Delete
    2. Note that, in his reply here, Simon didn't challenge the notion that another construction could be put upon the mother's statement.

      Delete
    3. Simon wrote:
      "I made no judgment of the sort, but speculated..."

      Then this seems to be a lack of judgement and too much ill-considered speculation on Simon's part.

      Delete
    4. 'Note that, in his reply here, Simon didn't challenge the notion that another construction could be put upon the mother's statement.'

      Here is what the mother actually said on July 25th, last year:

      '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, when I should have been at home washing the clothes...


      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'

      She gave this as the explanation for having to leave the country, one step ahead of social services. I am quite happy to be proved wrong about this, but I understood her to be saying that social services did not take kindly to her having left her seventeen year-old son in charge of his younger siblings. I think that had they regarded him as being a fit person to look after the children, then they would have been unlikely to be on the point of initiating care proceedings over this. So, perhaps some reader would like to tell us one or two of the other constructions which might be placed upon this situation? Let me make it quite clear that I am not myself making this claim, but rather working out that this was what the mother herself was suggesting.

      Delete
    5. Luckily you are not the judge and jury so nobody needs to prove anything to you or provide you with any explanations for anything.

      Delete
    6. 'Luckily you are not the judge and jury so nobody needs to prove anything to you or provide you with any explanations for anything.'

      I have not the remotest idea where judges and juries enter the case; there has been no suggestion that either the mother or her children have been guilty of any criminal offence. To recap, I said that the mother ran foul of social services when she left her children alone in the house. Since she says precisely the same thing herself, I am quite at a loss to know what any debate could be about. See the title of this post for details.

      Delete
    7. http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/judge,+jury+and+executioner.html

      Delete
  2. Ah, it is true, "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" and against such rigidity, rampant speculation and lack of understanding or sense of irony in your blog; well, what are the rest of us to say in the face of it?

    It is a pointless toil and not worth too much of our time while more imminent threats face us than your aggressive pursuance of a single family in order to push your own argument against autonomy and independence for the people of this nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'your aggressive pursuance of a single family in order to push your own argument against autonomy and independence for the people of this nation.'

      I rather like this! Note well how the interests of one family has been neatly conflated into the independence of the people of this nation. It is in cant of this sort that some of the better known advocates of home education in this country excel!

      One is forced to ask how responding to a series of objections and clarifications yesterday and then posting about them today could possibly be said to constitute, 'aggressive pursuance'. After all, if the mother did not want this matter to be discussed, then I suppose she would not have blogged about it publicly in the first place. Does this mean that every time I see anybody mention anything from this blog anywhere, I can justifiably claim that my family are being aggressively pursued? Generally speaking, when people blog things in this way, it is because they wish to share them with others.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha, I rather think you don't! Thank you for calling it "neat" but it is not at all a false conflation. In as much as the autonomy and independence of one family is threatened, so are we all threatened. Or perhaps you are an island?

      A nation can be judged on how it treats the least powerful.

      Delete
    3. 'A nation can be judged on how it treats the least powerful.'

      The implication being of course, that home educators fall, as a matter of course, into this category of being among, 'the least powerful'. Not really true of course; we have to bear in mind that our present queen is herself a product of home education. Some home educators are powerless and weak; others are not. If you wish me to believe that this particular family belong to the class of, 'the least powerful', then I would need to know a little more about them.

      Delete
    4. No, the implication being that how the powers of the state are used with reference to individuals and families is a fair indicator of the state of that nation.

      I'm sure you would like to know a lot more about them Simon. However, the privacy and freedom of one family is more important than what an army of nasty detractors might believe.

      Delete
  3. You truly are a slime ball Webb. Truth is you cannot stand the fact that the people who know what happened have too much integity to tell you - so you invent a deliberately provocative pack of lies in the hope that someone will be provoked into filling you in with more information. Good luck with that. The mother concerned and all the people you list have more integrity in their left small toenail than you will ever have.
    The mother did not suggest her son was deemed unfit to have the care of the youngsters, nor was there ever any suggestion by social services to this effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'You truly are a slime ball Webb. '

      An excellent example of the kind of thing that anonymous people feel emboldened to say!

      'you invent a deliberately provocative pack of lies '

      I said that the mother left her children in the house and that this caused problems with social services. This may well be a pack of lies, but my source was the mother herself.

      'The mother concerned and all the people you list have more integrity in their left small toenail than you will ever have.'

      Impossible to say whether or not this is true, unless we have an agreed measure of integrity.


      Delete
    2. None of the people of integrity you mention is going to gratify your desire for information. You are reliably informed that your speculation is inaccurate. You are also reliably informed that spreading false and defamatory rumours on the internet may constitute libel, harassment and a crime under the Computer Misuse Act. You should probably stop.

      Delete
    3. None of the people of integrity you mention is going to gratify your desire for information. You are reliably informed that your speculation is inaccurate. You are also reliably informed that spreading false and defamatory rumours on the internet may constitute libel, harassment and a crime under the Computer Misuse Act. You should probably stop.'

      I have not asked for any information; nor do I require any. If the false and defamatory rumours to which you refer are my suggestion that this mother left her children alone in the house and that this triggered problems with social services, then I can only repeat that my only source for this information is the mother herself. As for it being a crime to mention things like this which have appeared on a blog, I wouldn't have thought that likely. Do you honestly think that anybody is being distressed and harassed because I am repeating, to a wider audience, things that she herself has claimed?

      Delete
  4. Just to remind those commenting here; some of whom seem to be getting themselves worked up. The mother in question said that she had to flee the country after leaving her children alone in the house. She said that this led to scrutiny from 'authority' figures. We also know that legal action was in the offing, which was why she had to skip the country. All this information has been put in the public domain by both the woman herself and her supporters. It now appears that having blogged about and otherwise publicised this family, it is hoped that there should be no further discussion of the matter. This is absurd. If it was hoped that nobody would look into this case or talk about it; whatever was the reason for making it a matter of public debate in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The false and defamatory rumours I am referring to are these. "I understood her to be saying that social services did not take kindly to her having left her seventeen year-old son in charge of his younger siblings. I think that had they regarded him as being a fit person to look after the children, then they would have been unlikely to be on the point of initiating care proceedings over this. "

      Delete
    2. 'The false and defamatory rumours I am referring to are these. "I understood her to be saying that social services did not take kindly to her having left her seventeen year-old son in charge of his younger siblings. I think that had they regarded him as being a fit person to look after the children, then they would have been unlikely to be on the point of initiating care proceedings over this. "

      As I said above, if the intention was not to open a public debate on this family, then what on Earth was the purpose of all the blogs and public statements? You appear, if I understand you correctly, to be agreeing that it was leaving the younger siblings in the charge of their seventeen year-old brother which precipitated the crisis. Before we discuss the matter further, are we agreed about that?

      Delete
    3. The fundraising posts were to raise funds, duh.

      There is some information about the case which has to be kept private. It doesn't matter how much you pry, you will never know the true facts.

      Delete
    4. I will not be drawn into satisfying your curiosity. There was no question of the boy being unfit to care for the children. You have been corrected on this point. If you continue to speculate on it you show yourself to be clearly malicious.

      Delete
    5. ' It doesn't matter how much you pry, you will never know the true facts.'

      I think I'll stick to what the mother herself said on this subject.

      'You have been corrected on this point.'

      To be precise, an anonymous person has contradicted me. This is a little different from being corrected.

      'The fundraising posts were to raise funds, duh.'

      Of course they were. When somebody appeals for our money though, it would be a little strange if we were then to be told that the cause for which the appeal was being made was off-limits for discussion! Similarly, when the mother blogs about the various circumstances of her life, it is surely because she wishes others to know about them and perhaps talk about them.

      Delete
    6. There had to be a degree of trust from those contributing the funds. None of them expected all the private and personal facts to be disclosed publicly or they would not have contributed.

      Delete
    7. Nobody is asking for your money. The appeal is closed. Those who were happy with the level of disclosure and supported the cause contributed. Those who were not did not. What are you hoping to achieve by raking up history, generously salting it with your own spin and publishing it?

      Delete
  5. If we are measuring integrity anyone who keeps company with social workers is pretty much automatically disqualified I should think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'If we are measuring integrity anyone who keeps company with social workers is pretty much automatically disqualified I should think.'

    Excellent! The real face of militant home education begins to emerge from the shadows. Tell us a little more about this hypothesis, Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wild speculation fail. I am not a home educator.

      Delete
    2. Oops that's two wild speculation fails in one afternoon. No wonder you didn't make it as a journalist, even a third rate hack.

      Delete
    3. 'Wild speculation fail. I am not a home educator.'

      I'm sorry, the fault here is mine. I did not mean to suggest that you were a home educator; after all I am no longer such myself, at least not technically. I meant that you were representing or putting forward the ideology of militant home education, just as I put forward the tenets of a certain strand of home education myself.

      Having cleared that misunderstanding up, could you explain why you feel that associating with social workers should rob anybody of their integrity? It is a fascinating idea and I fell sure that we would all like to hear a little more about it.

      Delete
    4. What strand of home education do you represent? Autonomous, or structured? It seems like a lot of Simone's learning turned out to be autonomous, once you found out what it really meant.

      Delete
    5. 'What strand of home education do you represent? Autonomous, or structured? It seems like a lot of Simone's learning turned out to be autonomous, once you found out what it really meant.'

      I should be happy to discuss home education, which is of course the purpose of this blog, but perhaps we can deal with one topic at a time? You say that the proximity of social workers robs people of their integrity and I am intrigued by the idea. Could you explain a little about this?

      Delete
    6. I didn't say that. I'd much rather talk about your autonomous home education provision. Especially after all those years of deriding it as a method, before you found out what it really was. A credibility void if ever I saw one.

      Delete
    7. " I meant that you were representing or putting forward the ideology of militant home education"
      I absolutely refute that assertion. I have no knowledge of any such ideology. Your imagination seems to be running wild today. Perhaps you need to adjust your dose a little?

      Delete
    8. 'I didn't say that.'

      Another problem with so many anonymous people commenting here!

      Delete
    9. Is your silence on this issue an indication of your forthcoming apology to all of your fellow autonomous home educators for your many ignorant attacks on them, before you actually did your research?

      And if you now understand the value of autonomous learning, do you also understand the damage done to it by excessive official oversight?

      Delete
    10. 'Is your silence on this issue an indication of your forthcoming apology to all of your fellow autonomous home educators for your many ignorant attacks on them, before you actually did your research?'

      It was rather caused by having a shower! As far as my daughter's education was concerned, I worked to the strictest plan of study; one of my own devising. I knew a year in advance what I intended her to study and then learn. I decided when she was eleven which IGCSEs she should be taking and what marks I expected her to get in them. It is quite true that we found time for all sorts of other agreeable byways in education. If this is what you mean by an autonomous education, then yes, my daughter was autonomously educated. None of this has ever been a secret.

      Delete
    11. So you autonomously home educated without realising it - and then spent considerable time and energy lambasting autonomous home education? And then realised that you too had been an autonomous home educator?

      In the light of this, it's not surprising that you want to focus on another family's crisis. A person could almost sympathise with you.

      Delete
    12. 'So you autonomously home educated without realising it - and then spent considerable time and energy lambasting autonomous home education? And then realised that you too had been an autonomous home educator? '

      You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that if a parent imposes a strict curriculum upon a child, decides what she must know and learn each year, gives her no choice about learning to read, write and perform arithmetical operations, insists that she sits down at a table to work for two or three hours a day and decides that the child must take IGCSEs and even chooses the subjects that will be taken; this is an autonomous education. I just want to check that I understand what you are saying here.

      Delete
    13. No, I am talking about the 'all sorts of other agreeable byways in education' you mention above. Autonomous learning and structure are not mutually exclusive. It is steep learning curve, is it not? A matter of some complexity.

      Delete
    14. 'No, I am talking about the 'all sorts of other agreeable byways in education' you mention above. '

      Ah, I think I am getting your drift now. You appear to be saying that if a child is allowed to learn things in addition to the set curriculum, then she is an autonomously educated child. Is that right? So I suppose that if a child was attending a fanatically strict and academic school, you would define her as being autonomously educated if she could join an astronomy or chess club; in addition to the compulsory subjects. Does this sum up your definition of autonomous education?

      Delete
    15. My definition would be any learning that is student-led. So it would follow the child's interests and there would be no resistance on the child's part because she would be absorbed and happy in her work. From what I have read here about Simone's education and as you confirm above, there were elements of it that were like this. You were therefore at times an autonomous home educator.

      Delete
    16. 'My definition would be any learning that is student-led.'

      I think I see what you are saying. Since it is impossible to imagine any home educating parents who would actually discourage his or her child from learning something that she was interested in, you are saying that every home educated child in the country is receiving an autonomous education. We can, I suppose, go further and say that since all children at school are similarly free to learn things which are not prescribed by the curriculum, then they too are all being autonomously educated?

      It might help if you were to describe an education which you would not describe as autonomous.

      Delete
    17. From some of your descriptions about Simone's early home education, it is safe to say she enjoyed more autonomy in her learning than most school children. Your accounts of this have been uplifting and inspiring. It is just a shame you did not know them for what they were.

      Delete
    18. 'It is just a shame you did not know them for what they were.'

      So it is then your contention that every home educated child in this country is receiving an autonomous education? I really think that it would help us to get a better grasp of this, were you to describe what you think an education which was not autonomous would look like. By the way, are you sure you're not the person who thinks that standing next to a social worker can somehow cause one's integrity to be sucked away? I ask, because I am still hoping to learn more about this.

      Delete
    19. I am not that person, no. In answer to your first question I imagine most home educated children enjoy some autonomy in their learning, otherwise I cannot imagine them being inspired to learn very much. There are probably some who are marched to a desk and kept there all day to work on subjects that do not interest them, but it is hard to imagine what a caring parent would hope to gain from this, is it not? It seems like most home education is a combination of autonomy and structure. Sometimes the child herself chooses to learn in a structured way. This might have been the case with Simone?

      Delete
    20. 'Sometimes the child herself chooses to learn in a structured way. '

      Hard to imagine this happening with a child who has had no experience of school! It is reassuring to discover that every home educated child in the United Kingdom is being autonomously educated. Mind, I have an idea that not every autonomous educator would agree with you about this.

      Delete
    21. There are many different definitions, I agree. I myself try not to think in such black and white terms. I think you will find many children with no experience of school enjoying a structured education and seeking more of it. Was this not the case with Simone?

      Delete
    22. 'I think you will find many children with no experience of school enjoying a structured education and seeking more of it.'

      All the home educated children that I have known who wanted exercise books, sitting at a table and so on, had been to school. This was their model and unless those props were present, they could not believe that they were actually being educated. I suppose that it might be possible for a child who had never been to school to crave for such reassurance, but I can't think it at all common.

      Delete
    23. But many of the home educated children I know who have never been to school enjoy doing workbooks and attending workshops and so on. A common aim for home educators is to inculcate a love of learning in their children and I am sure you were no exception.

      Delete
  7. Incidentally, when in the original post I mentioned that tactics of, 'foolishness, lies and deliberate evasion, so often used by a certain type of home educator, I should have added, 'the threat of legal action'. We saw this above and it too is a recurring leitmotif in British home education. Anybody asking too many questions is sure, sooner or later, to be threatened with either the libel courts or police!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curses, I should have also mentioned that other standby of some in this area, when they find some obstinate person who won't agree with them. I refer of course to suggesting that person must be mentally ill;

      'Perhaps you need to adjust your dose a little?'

      All that remains now is for somebody to diagnose me as having autistic features and then we will have the complete set of home educating debating tricks!

      Delete
  8. Simon wrote,
    "'Sometimes the child herself chooses to learn in a structured way. '

    Hard to imagine this happening with a child who has had no experience of school!"

    Is it really that hard to imagine? My child never went to school and learnt autonomously throughout her childhood. She chose to study a few correspondence courses (an English Language course, an OU creative writing course and an Open College of the Arts art course). She is now in her final year at University after gaining BTECs at college (without a GCSE to her name) and all chosen by herself. There, you don't have to imagine it now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Simon wrote,
    "This was their model and unless those props were present, they could not believe that they were actually being educated. I suppose that it might be possible for a child who had never been to school to crave for such reassurance, but I can't think it at all common."

    You can only imagine that a child would study in a structured way from books or course materials either because they are compelled to do so or because they crave reassurance? Really? You cannot imagine that a child might freely wish and choose to gain a particular body of knowledge, and also recognise that the most efficient and enjoyable way to learn this might be from a course compiled by fellow enthusiasts? Has Simone never chosen freely to learn anything from a non-fiction book, textbook or in other structured ways such as courses? I find that as difficult to imagine as you appear to find the opposite. But they do say that truth is often stranger than fiction.

    ReplyDelete