tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post7657920331274047170..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: Kelly Green and GoldSimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-28177592904022454162010-09-20T11:46:38.448-07:002010-09-20T11:46:38.448-07:00"Kelly Green was trying to persuade people th..."Kelly Green was trying to persuade people that local government officers would be permitted to question children alone', this is a gross distortion of what the propsed law actually said, especially when read alongside the guidance published with it."<br /><br />If the parents refused to co-operate with visits or interviews with the child alone they would have been able to refuse registration (Section 19F(1):(e)). If someone wanted to home educate they would have been forced to co-operate with home visits and interviews with the child alone if the LA had required it, or risk refusal of registration and the SAO (with the removal of proof of education as a defence) that would follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-68239212183994756852010-09-19T23:40:06.616-07:002010-09-19T23:40:06.616-07:00'Which is true?'
Well I think that both s...'Which is true?'<br /><br />Well I think that both statements are true, Claire. There was certainly no mention of home visits in the Bill, so that is true. The business about seeing children alone was in response to what Kelly green put on her blog, which was that home educators in this country were;<br /><br />' fighting a proposed law that would have forced them to permit local government Education Officers to question their children alone, no parent or trusted adult present.'<br /><br />References of mine to 'seeing children alone' must be read in that context. Kelly Green was trying to persuade people that local government officers would be permitted to question children alone', this is a gross distortion of what the propsed law actually said, especially when read alongside the guidance published with it.<br /><br />'Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-58324843615172679622010-09-19T15:45:17.285-07:002010-09-19T15:45:17.285-07:00'There was no mention at all of home visits in...'There was no mention at all of home visits in the bill, let alone seeing children alone.'<br /><br />Excuse me? On Kelly's blog you said this: <br /><br />"In fact when the Bill was published, it was explicitly stated that any interview with the child could only take place without the parents being present provided that both parents and child agreed to this.”<br /><br />Which is true?Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-46778591519228984662010-09-19T14:51:25.398-07:002010-09-19T14:51:25.398-07:00"They do not usually submit evidence to gover..."They do not usually submit evidence to government enquiries in those countries though, describing themselves as international observers!"<br /><br />How do you know? How many of these enquiries have you monitored?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-32173315047281770022010-09-19T14:44:20.117-07:002010-09-19T14:44:20.117-07:00For some reason your blog is one of a few where my...For some reason your blog is one of a few where my posts appear not to get sent most of the time. Something about it argues with both Firefox and Konqueror web browsers.<br /><br />CSF Bill Schedule 1 section 19E(4):<br /><br />"Arrangements made under subsection (3) may, unless the child or a parent of the child objects, provide for a meeting with the child at which no parent of the child or other person providing education to the child is present."<br /><br />This provides for meeting a child alone if family consent is gained.<br /><br />Section 19F(1):<br /><br />"(e) by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to in section 19E(1)."<br /><br />19E(1) includes "so far as is reasonably practicable", so if it's not reasonably practical, revoking a licence to home educate is overkill. Without that licence, the child would be expected to be registered at a school so an SAO would be issued if the parents refused. We were never given any details of any appeal procedure against any of this, it was all to be done by secondary legislation without the benefit of Parliamentary scrutiny. It's like signing a blank bit of paper onto which someone later writes a binding contract.<br /><br />Dave HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-21645217943011320262010-09-19T12:28:46.144-07:002010-09-19T12:28:46.144-07:00'People write to the governments of other coun...'People write to the governments of other countries about issues that concern them all the time, including home education.'<br /><br />Of course they do. They do not usually submit evidence to government enquiries in those countries though, describing themselves as international observers!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-36408427904090664262010-09-19T12:16:31.255-07:002010-09-19T12:16:31.255-07:00People write to the governments of other countries...People write to the governments of other countries about issues that concern them all the time, including home education. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. People and organisations from several different countries wrote to the Swedish government about their planned changes to HE law recently, for instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-69301360144651734192010-09-19T05:14:59.880-07:002010-09-19T05:14:59.880-07:00'I’m not sure why you find this strange. Isn’t...'I’m not sure why you find this strange. Isn’t it the kind of thing that Amnesty or Greenpeace members, for instance, do all the time?'<br /><br />Frankly Claire, I think that you are being a little faux naif here! Let us suppose that Canada were planning to introduce new regulations about the monitoring of home education. I do not live there and neither am I a citizen. If they held a government enquiry, do you really think that it would be acceptable for me to submit evidence and try to influence their legislation? What the hell business would it be of mine? This would be a matter for Canadian parents to deal with and hammer out with their government. What right would I possibly have to try and encourage the Canadian government to introduce registration or monitoring of Canadain children? If I did do so, it would be sheer busybodying; it's none of my business.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-35188309424362824812010-09-19T05:08:59.935-07:002010-09-19T05:08:59.935-07:00'If he didn't have the appropriate backgro...'If he didn't have the appropriate background to make recommendations why was he commissioned with undertaking the review?'<br /><br />The recommendations were a curioous mixture of proposed legal measures and vague suggestions for what people might do in the furture. It was never intended that they would all become law. Just look at Recommendation 17 for example;<br /><br />'That the Ofsted review of SEN provision give due consideration to home educated children with special educational needs and make specific reference to the support of these children.<br /><br />Badman's job was to generate a lot of ideas and it was then for the lawyers to pick over them and see which could practicably be passed into law.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-7927252980966117852010-09-19T05:03:15.657-07:002010-09-19T05:03:15.657-07:00'Dave H's, which refers to the fact that w...'Dave H's, which refers to the fact that while home educators would be able to refuse to allow their children to be interviewed alone, this would lead to a SAO being issued.'<br /><br />This looks like another misleading post! There was no mention at all of home visits in the bill, let alone seeing children alone. Can we have a little more detail about this idea that parents who refused to allow their children to be seen alone would be issued with an SAO? It is an interesting idea, but we need to know a little more about where in the bill this is found. I have just been re-reading it and can see nothing about this.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-44508247960863092442010-09-19T04:59:42.924-07:002010-09-19T04:59:42.924-07:00"'Why do you think that when the bill was..."'Why do you think that when the bill was published it differed in this respect from Mr. Badman’s recommendations?'<br /><br />The reason for this is fairly clear and has little to do with any campaigning by home educators. Badman is not a lawyer. Several of his recommendations were unrealistic and when the bill was drawn up, some of these ideas were dropped."<br /><br />I've already pointed out that Badman's take on the legal framework was lifted, almost wholesale, from the work of a law researcher. If he didn't have the appropriate background to make recommendations why was he commissioned with undertaking the review? Most people who lead reviews such as this are not 'lawyers' but they consult people who are, to make sure they properly understand the legal position before making recommendations.<br /><br />Ed Balls made it clear he wanted to accept all of Badman's recommendations. The convoluted nature of the EHE proposals in the CSF Bill made it pretty clear that some of Badman's recommendations had been dropped, not because of Badman's inadequate knowledge of the law, but because the DCSF realised it wouldn't manage to get them past the opposition parties. Who had been alerted to the legal problems by EHE parents.suzygnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-28250681219521653772010-09-19T03:59:42.544-07:002010-09-19T03:59:42.544-07:00'I am referred to comment 7 of the post about ...'I am referred to comment 7 of the post about which I wrote, but that seems to be one of my own comments.' <br /><br />Look at an up-to-date copy of the page. Comment #7 is Dave H's, which refers to the fact that while home educators would be able to refuse to allow their children to be interviewed alone, this would lead to a SAO being issued.<br />I would add that HEors would be unable to challenge the SAO on the grounds of the suitability of their educational provision; only the fact that they had refused the interview would be taken into account.Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-37278381835380854682010-09-19T03:46:16.226-07:002010-09-19T03:46:16.226-07:00Can you tell me which comments you think are misle...Can you tell me which comments you think are misleading? I can’t see any. '<br /><br />Se my above comment for a misleading comment from the Kelly Green and Gold blog.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-39850933779174172062010-09-19T03:45:30.467-07:002010-09-19T03:45:30.467-07:00I am referred to comment 7 of the post about which...I am referred to comment 7 of the post about which I wrote, but that seems to be one of my own comments. The next one says, 'Why do you think that when the bill was published it differed in this respect from Mr. Badman’s recommendations?'<br /><br />The reason for this is fairly clear and has little to do with any campaigning by home educators. Badman is not a lawyer. Several of his recommendations were unrealistic and when the bill was drawn up, some of these ideas were dropped. The one about visiting people's homes was dropped, as was the idea that children should be interviewed alone against their parents' wishes. As phrased, the bill provided for a visit in one of the places where the education was taking place. This could have been a library, for example. This is precisely the situation which exists with visits today; some take place in the home and some at neutral locations. I don't think the campaigning had anything to do with this.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-45474356603141585512010-09-19T03:36:31.441-07:002010-09-19T03:36:31.441-07:00My dear Claire, if I were to write a post entirely...My dear Claire, if I were to write a post entirely about you and a comment which you had made here and head it; Are trolls monsters or mertely irritating, then the inference is plain. I regard you and ivite others to regard you as either a monster or an irritating person.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-25147091168653711742010-09-19T03:09:52.471-07:002010-09-19T03:09:52.471-07:00‘She posted a piece referring to me as a troll or ...‘She posted a piece referring to me as a troll or monster’ <br /><br />No she didn’t. She merely asked if trolls were monsters, or just irritating, and then referred to you. Not once did she call you a troll or a monster.Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-12893085596605090502010-09-19T03:09:22.177-07:002010-09-19T03:09:22.177-07:00‘Part of the book deals with media bias and what i...‘Part of the book deals with media bias and what is described as 'combating uneducated, unsubstantiated opinions and hate speech about home-based education'.’<br /><br />Like the stuff you write about autonomous HE, perhaps.<br /><br />‘I was surprised when reading the submissions to the select committee last year to find one from somebody who was not a citizen of this country and did not even live here. I must confess, I found this strange. It would be as though I had heard of a government enquiry in Uganda or South Africa and not liking the law that was being proposed, decided to submit evidence of my own in an attempt to influence their legislature. It would be a bit of a cheek if I were to do so!’<br /><br />I’m not sure why you find this strange. Isn’t it the kind of thing that Amnesty or Greenpeace members, for instance, do all the time?Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-92169510754682534092010-09-19T03:08:37.760-07:002010-09-19T03:08:37.760-07:00“The idea that we should shun all contact with tea...“The idea that we should shun all contact with teachers and local authority officers, just on the offchance that one of them will turn out to be a child molester is a little bit weird really.” <br /><br />I refer you to comment#5 on the second post you linked, and I suggest that you read this post carefully, so that you understand that this is not what Kelly was suggesting.<br /><br />‘This leaves all subsequent people commenting free to say further misleading things to which I am unable to respond.’<br /><br />Can you tell me which comments you think are misleading? I can’t see any. And if there are any, I’m sure other commenters will pick up on them.Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-80853439355126699412010-09-19T03:07:58.962-07:002010-09-19T03:07:58.962-07:00‘When the CSF Bill was actually published, it was ...‘When the CSF Bill was actually published, it was made clear that any such interview would only take place with the agreement of both the child and her parents.’ <br /><br />I refer you to comment #7 on the first post you linked.<br /> <br />‘As such, I am very concerned about home education and do not feel that it is helpful to perpetuate misleading rumours about things like the CSF Bill, such as that it would have given education workers the right to see children alone without their parents.’<br /><br />Again, I refer you to comment#7.Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-77830326981767756802010-09-19T03:07:45.513-07:002010-09-19T03:07:45.513-07:00"I think that we can be pretty confident that..."I think that we can be pretty confident that if I had written anything else on the subject, somebody would have seen it by now and drawn attention to it."<br /><br />I didn't suggest that and you are missing my point. You suggested that the only reason you write your blog and wrote your book is because home educators barred you from lists, so you needed an alternative outlet for your views. I just doubt that you would have confined your views to the lists. You had already written two articles appeared on a national TV program and been interviewed several times by local newspapers about your daughter before being barred from two HE lists, yet you expect us to believe that you would not have continued to court publicity in this way if you had not been barred?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-62113181522189442252010-09-19T02:50:12.075-07:002010-09-19T02:50:12.075-07:00List owners are entitled to allow who they like on...List owners are entitled to allow who they like on their lists, and to bar them on whatever grounds they feel like. Of course lists develop their own 'groupthink' and people with minority opinions find themselves outnumbered; but then there is no reason why they should not set up other lists where people they agree with can post with little fear of contradiction.<br /><br />I regularly read posts on the TES forum. These are in the public domain - anyone can read them. Indeed, extracts from posts used regularly to be published in the TES. But I suspect that if I wrote a couple of articles in national newspapers selectively quoting from, and castigating the views of some teachers using that forum (and there's plenty to castigate), I would not be flavour of the month. I would be unlikely to be barred, but the moderators might have something to say about it, because I would have betrayed the element of good faith that such forums rely on for their smooth functioning.<br /><br />You were on 'the lists' for years before being thrown off; it wasn't your opinions that brought this about, but how and where you presented them.suzygnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-38888981193147253452010-09-18T23:25:53.255-07:002010-09-18T23:25:53.255-07:00'The whole point was that your opinions *didn&...'The whole point was that your opinions *didn't* 'remain upon those lists' but was expressed in national newspapers.'<br /><br />Quite a few of the people on the lists had opinions which did not remain on the lists but were expressed in national newspapers! Are you saying that all those who spoke to the newspapers about the Badman review or gave interviews about that subject or wrote letters to a newspaper about it should have been thrown off the lists? That would include you then suzyg. I am surprised that you did not do the decent thing when your letter was published in the Shropshire Pig Farmer's Weekly, or whatever it was called, and resign from the lists of your own accord! Or is only those with heterodox views who should leave the lists? As I say, it was not for expressing my views in the mass media that I was chucked off, but for the nature of the views themselves. In other words, as I said, I was thrown off the lists for my opinions.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-44515408233315351822010-09-18T23:19:30.071-07:002010-09-18T23:19:30.071-07:00'I find that hard to believe. ...... Why would...'I find that hard to believe. ...... Why would you stop at two articles?' <br /><br /> I think that we can be pretty confident that if I had written anything else on the subject, somebody would have seen it by now and drawn attention to it. I have certainly written about other aspects of education, but only two articles on home education itself.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-22111212391097890342010-09-18T22:52:40.237-07:002010-09-18T22:52:40.237-07:00"Alas suzyg, your memory does not serve you c..."Alas suzyg, your memory does not serve you correctly! Don't worry though; these things happen when you reach our age. I cited one case of home edcuation on one of the articles which I wrote at the end of July 2009. This case was taken from the public section of the Education Otherwise website. Nothing in either the article in the Independent or the TES were connected with any Internet list to which I belonged. I was chucked off the lists because of my opinions. Mind you, as Harry Truman once said of J Edgar Hoover after somebody had suggested sacking him. 'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.' Had I remained on the lists then all the opinions which I express now about home education would have remained upon those lists rather than being on a public blog like this. "<br /><br />Oh, yes, my mistake. It was the *other* time you put the material in the public domain, wasn't it? It still doesn't appear to me that you were barred for your views, so much as where you voiced them. Considerable concern was expressed on the lists you refer to about what you might do with information you had gleaned whilst there. The whole point was that your opinions *didn't* 'remain upon those lists' but was expressed in national newspapers.suzygnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-31705102204085356962010-09-18T16:02:57.458-07:002010-09-18T16:02:57.458-07:00I find that hard to believe. You began writing for...I find that hard to believe. You began writing for a larger audience before you were asked to leave the lists and you seem to constantly court publicity, taking part in TV programs along with various newspaper interviews about your daughter's educational successes. Why would you stop at two articles?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com