tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post822898656562748246..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: What motivates local authorities?Simon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-41309231594255811272009-11-27T14:38:45.671-08:002009-11-27T14:38:45.671-08:00Very sharp and observant, Erica! I am revealed as ...Very sharp and observant, Erica! I am revealed as inconsistent.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-48673061376870575062009-11-27T10:05:08.822-08:002009-11-27T10:05:08.822-08:00Oh dear.Oh dear.Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-15169820459338289832009-11-27T10:03:32.698-08:002009-11-27T10:03:32.698-08:00My message vanished! Trying again; apologies if it...My message vanished! Trying again; apologies if it appears twice.<br /><br />Simon said: DCSF<br /><br />Hang on, Simon, shouldn't that be D.C.S.F.?Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-84984080718033674882009-11-27T10:01:13.206-08:002009-11-27T10:01:13.206-08:00Simon said: DCSF
Hang on, Simon, shouldn't th...Simon said: DCSF<br /><br />Hang on, Simon, shouldn't that be the D.C.S.F.?Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-39107867097940986982009-11-27T09:55:32.300-08:002009-11-27T09:55:32.300-08:00Just for completeness for interested readers.
(Th...Just for completeness for interested readers.<br /><br />(This probably needs to be in a separate thread on tedious linguistic pedantry, but it might be generally helpful and, after all, I think we're all interested in home education. )<br /><br />Abbreviations such as BBC, DNA, RAF, always used stops until recently and it's still perfectly correct (although some of these have become names in themselves without stops) . <br /><br />For contractions such as Dr and Mr there is a sensible rule that helps the reader to understand the contraction: where the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the word, omit the stop, otherwise, use one, e.g.,<br /><br />Mister -> Mr<br />Doctor -> Dr<br />Captain -> Capt.<br />Professor -> Prof.<br /><br /> Truce over!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-61307232121404891032009-11-27T07:45:25.759-08:002009-11-27T07:45:25.759-08:00"Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought..."Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought it was I who stood accused of being bitter and vitriolic...."<br /><br />Bitter and vitriolic are too strong for what I feel, mild disagreement would be more accurate. The perils of quickly written messages...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-24772516536136510172009-11-27T07:39:21.544-08:002009-11-27T07:39:21.544-08:00I quite agree with you on the statistics used by B...I quite agree with you on the statistics used by Badman in the chapter on Safeguarding. Perhaps not technically wrong, but so small as to be meaningless. After all, if one boy from school A is excluded, but two from school B, it might be accurate to state that exclusions at school B are running at twice the rate of school A. It would be true and accurate but very misleading.<br />I am aware that Dr is now the preferred form of the abbreviation for the word doctor. this is more a matter of style though than grammar. It is not so long ago that full stops were used all the time in such contractions - B.B.C., D.N.A. and R.A.F. for example. I tend to stick to this convention.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-28676815570745904382009-11-27T07:04:31.367-08:002009-11-27T07:04:31.367-08:00(Just to avoid confusion the previous Anonymous po...(Just to avoid confusion the previous Anonymous post is another Anonymous; I'm the one that has been going on for a bit. You can call me Dr Who)<br /><br />"I thought that I was picky and pedantic, but I have to take my hat off to you Anonymous!"<br /><br />Thankyou Simon, I'll take that as a compliment! Just to prove your point, in British grammar, it is, more strictly, "Dr" rather than "Dr." ! <br /><br />So far as use of this being pretentious is concerned, while I'm not this old, I have read lots of proceedings of learned meetings (seriously learned, not mamby-pamby wet science or pseudo-science) from the early 20th century where the title was almost invariably used. Today it is barely used among groups of such people but, when dealing with authority that already treats you like an insect, if you've got it then flaunt it, so I don't blame those people at all for using it (and after all, most medical Doctors aren't Doctors).<br /><br />(BTW, in Germany, if I recall correctly, you are legally REQUIRED to use the title if it is from a German establishment; but then HE isn't legal either).<br /><br />I barely remember Beeching, mostly by parental references for years afterwards in a small village that lost a valuable rail link; I think his title tended to be stripped and replaced by something else less worthy.<br /><br />The numbers used in the Badman report and in his revised submission are subject to so much statistical noise as to be useless. One can say that number x is larger than number y, but no sensible statistician would have allowed Badman to infer anything from the samples he used. Children that go to school don't spend enough time tossing coins or pulling different coloured socks out of bags.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-78633993482830823322009-11-27T06:56:04.096-08:002009-11-27T06:56:04.096-08:00Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought it wa...Harsh words indeed, Anonymous! And I thought it was I who stood accused of being bitter and vitriolic....Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-31056033432732181632009-11-27T06:46:19.781-08:002009-11-27T06:46:19.781-08:00"I thought that I was picky and pedantic,&quo..."I thought that I was picky and pedantic,"<br /><br />You? If you are you don't display it on your blog, except perhaps with regards the grammar skills of others. Your writing would probably benefit from paying more attention to detail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-57158049706093296012009-11-27T06:34:02.897-08:002009-11-27T06:34:02.897-08:00I dare say you are not old enough to remember the ...I dare say you are not old enough to remember the amusement caused by Dr. Beeching in the early sixties? He was an engineer and although perfectly entitled to use the term "Dr.", it was regarded as being horribly pretentious.<br /> As regards my views on the Badman Report, you must read the whole of 8.12 to see what I mean. The jury is still out and there is some wrangling on the matter of whether there are a much greater proportion of children known to children's social care who are being educated at home. If there are, it is in any case a tiny number. I am however prepared to accept that the proportion is in fact higher; to that extent, the statement is not wrong. <br />However, Badman then goes on to suggest that this means that there is a potential additional risk to home educated children. This does not follow on logically as a matter of course from the preceeding sentence.That is why I described this as misleading. Later on, in the run-up to and during the hearing of the DCSF select committee, it was suggested that actually the numbers were double those of children at school. This is probably false. I thought that I was picky and pedantic, but I have to take my hat off to you Anonymous!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-34718234842406133962009-11-27T05:07:49.951-08:002009-11-27T05:07:49.951-08:00"I was more amused at the way that such prete..."I was more amused at the way that such pretensions have become increasingly common"<br /><br />Given that the latter is false - possibly the opposite of the truth even, as anyone with long experience of an academic environment won't hesitate to confirm - you were pretty sour about something that should not have been an issue for you!<br /><br />"I did not actually notice the immense breadth and depth of experience of those who criticised the report in their submissions to the DCSF select committee."<br /><br />I'm sure you didn't.<br /><br />"I said that it struck me as misleading to make a statement about the number of home educated children known to children's social care being disproportionately high. This was quite true, but because the total numbers were so tiny, it was of no real significance. I certainly did not say that it was wrong, it wasn't."<br /><br />Really now? Previously (15th November) you went somewhat further:<br /><br />"For instance, a few random examples where I do not agree with it. 8.12, dealing with the idea that a disproportionately high number of home educated children are "known to children's social care". I do not at all agree with either the statement or the implications which can be drawn from it."<br /><br />and later you said you always regarded the statements as "suspicious" and that they ultimately "proved to be completely false".<br /><br />The Web, Mr Webb, is a wonderful thing,<br />though the Webblog may fail, the caches will sing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-77519162031863680312009-11-27T02:08:41.091-08:002009-11-27T02:08:41.091-08:00Well, that's me tarnished then! I would hardly...Well, that's me tarnished then! I would hardly have said that my comments on those who choose to describe themselves as Dr. So and So were bitter and vitriolic. I was more amused at the way that such pretensions have become increasingly common. The quotations from the C of E submission to the Badman enquiry do not at all give the impression that they favour a change in the law. Badman quoted the British Humanist Association on a concern that was not about education, namely that children raised so might have an unbalanced view of life due to a religious upbringing. Then, in the interests of fairness, he put a long section in showing what the Anglican Church thought about this particular aspect of the matter.<br /> I did not actually notice the immense breadth and depth of experience of those who criticised the report in their submissions to the DCSF select committee.<br />I did not say that the report was wrong on the child abuse allegations. I said that it struck me as misleading to make a statement about the number of home educated children known to children's social care being disproportionately high. This was quite true, but because the total numbers were so tiny, it was of no real significance. I certainly did not say that it was wrong, it wasn't. Nor do I think that there was a sinister motive behind making the statement.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-19278564975450391582009-11-27T00:21:48.330-08:002009-11-27T00:21:48.330-08:00Yes, Simon, we've seen your comments on the su...Yes, Simon, we've seen your comments on the submissions to the select committee and I don't think many people were impressed by you or your comments either! They were a desperate attempt by you to rubbish just about everyone who opposed it - I even recall you resorting to some vitriolic, bitter and mistaken attempt to denounce PhDs - people with real doctorates - for using their rightful titles in a formal setting! <br /><br />The statistics were a sham and even you have admitted that the report was wrong on the child abuse allegations. The collection and analysis of the numbers highlight the incompetence of the whole exercise; the so-called statistics simply don't stand-up to any competent analysis. Given the poor data, the most elementary use of statistical inference would have changed the conclusions. Incompetence.<br /><br />The quotations from the Church document gave the misleading impression that they felt a change in the law was necessary; good authors don't do this, or at least try not to. A peer review process would give such behaviour a good kicking if the reviewer was familiar with the source.<br /><br />Badman's report was not supposed to be like some shoddy newspaper article; for the purpose it served it should have been at least of the standard of a peer reviewed article and arguably better, with reviewers double-checking statements and numbers. Dishonesty - or at least gross and utter incompetence - and completely unprofessional.<br /><br />As I've said, weighing the immense breadth and depth of expertise and experience of those who opposed the report, against its narrow band supporters, there is no contest. Continuing to stand by a piece of work as shoddy as the Badman report only tarnishes its supporters further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-51745250225915202512009-11-26T22:51:35.035-08:002009-11-26T22:51:35.035-08:00I have already commented on the submissions to the...I have already commented on the submissions to the DCSF select committee. I am not particularly impressed with them. The fact that I only mentioned dishonesty did not of course mean that I accepted that the report was incompetent and unprofessional! What sort of logic are you employing when drawing that conclusion? The Anglican Church was certainly irritated with Badman for quoting the passage that he did. However, it is inevitable that one is selective in such quoatations. The C & E document was a long one and Badman used a couple of hundred words of it to support a point he was making. All authors do this; it is neither unprofessional nor incompetent.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-89598739890518240552009-11-26T15:01:37.934-08:002009-11-26T15:01:37.934-08:00Simon said: "That the Badman Report was disho...Simon said: "That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it."<br /><br />I thought that would flush you out; so you don't dispute that it was incompetent and thoroughly unprofessional?<br /><br />The only way to defend it against dishonesty is to say that it's even more incompetent - consider the misrepresentation of the CofE submission for a start.<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that Badman was quite so incompetent and therefore dishonesty is the only remaining conclusion.<br /><br />As for "only certain sectors" disagreeing with it, looking at the submissions to the parliamentary select committee, there are people with immense breadth and depth of expertise and experience from many fields including education, science research, industry etc; compare that lot with the narrow and uninspiring combination of Whitehall wonks, DCSF, Balls, Badman, the LAs, not to mention you, I don't see much competition - and it's not in your favour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-5848838806440962742009-11-26T14:51:31.494-08:002009-11-26T14:51:31.494-08:00Simon said: That the Badman Report was dishonest i...Simon said: That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it.<br /><br />The Badman report was, at best, based on inaccurate data and usubstantiated allegations. Have you seen the Google stats on suitable education, collated from FOI requests? They are very different from the figures Badman used. And they have an impeccable pedigree; their provenance can be traced straight back to the LA's through the WhatDoTheyKnow site.<br />And we all know about the allegations.Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-30935928139054988312009-11-26T14:40:42.384-08:002009-11-26T14:40:42.384-08:00Simon said: Of course some children's life cha...Simon said: Of course some children's life chances might be damaged. Others would find their life chances greatly enahnced as they began to recive a systematic and structured education.<br /><br />That may well be true. But the potential new law may well make it impossible for those of us for whom autonomous education works, to continue doing it. Surely there must be a way of giving help to the children who need it without interfering, to a potentially very damaging extent, in the lives and education of those who don't? This bill does nothing to build trust between home educators and the LA's, it does the opposite. It takes a huge chunk of our freedom away and puts it in the hands of the LA's. And we are doing nothing wrong. Our children are learning. Our lives are busy and productive. We contribute to our communities. We are successful. At the moment we are free to choose the style of education that works for us. This bill is a threat to our freedom; it proposes to make it dependent on the approval of an organisation which has clearly shown itself to have very different ideas about the definition of suitable and efficient education to my own. I'm not prepared to give my freedom away to anyone I don't trust.Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-37297883597274783442009-11-26T14:33:59.761-08:002009-11-26T14:33:59.761-08:00That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an obj...That the Badman Report was dishonest is not an objective fact at all, but an opinion. There has been no broad condemnation of it; only certain sectors have disagreed with it.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-773397307974533712009-11-26T14:23:40.060-08:002009-11-26T14:23:40.060-08:00Simon wrote: "...We cannot know for sure what...Simon wrote: "...We cannot know for sure what the best move is and so have to take a chance one way or the other."<br /><br />In that case, in view of the evidence that there is, the broad and intelligent condemnation of the Badman report and the objective fact that the report was dishonest, incompetent and thoroughly unprofessional, I would take my chance - on behalf of children that I ultimately defend - on calling a complete halt to the proposed legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-37142026713056837782009-11-26T14:10:48.183-08:002009-11-26T14:10:48.183-08:00But there is no proof that children are being harm...But there is no proof that children are being harmed by the present laws, whereas there is plenty of proof that the PTB's idea of what constitutes a good education is harming many. That's not a chance I want to take.Ericanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-16252463341064085652009-11-26T13:35:14.003-08:002009-11-26T13:35:14.003-08:00Whatever action we take or fail to take, there wil...Whatever action we take or fail to take, there will be consequences. This is as true for keeping the law as it is and also for introducing new laws. We cannot know for sure what the best move is and so have to take a chance one way or the other.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-43318943278584275972009-11-26T11:10:29.422-08:002009-11-26T11:10:29.422-08:00"Of course some children's life chances m..."Of course some children's life chances might be damaged. Others would find their life chances greatly enahnced as they began to recive a systematic and structured education."<br /><br />But what proportion will be harmed and how many helped? Until we know this we could harm more children than are helped. Where is the evidence to support the theory that the planned changes will swing the balance the right way?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-1500883896933543942009-11-26T11:02:34.513-08:002009-11-26T11:02:34.513-08:00"If however I attempt to impose this lifestyl..."If however I attempt to impose this lifestyle on my child and the result is scurvy or beri beri, then my personal liberty has become a bad thing and must be curtailed."<br /><br />An excellent example of appropriate state involvement. The state do not monitor and examine your child's diet each year but act if it becomes clear you are providing an inadequate diet. The same should apply to education. There is no reason to believe this would not be the case with ContactPoint and current legislation and certainly no evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-42702872622231223142009-11-26T06:39:58.460-08:002009-11-26T06:39:58.460-08:00Simon said: Few children actively petition their p...Simon said: Few children actively petition their parents in this way for formal instruction.<br /><br />How many autonomous families do you know well enough to have observed their education at first hand? Because while you may be right about children who have always had formal instruction imposed on them, I think autonomous children see it very differently. All my children have asked for formal instruction at times, and at other times have been keen to try it if I have suggested it. For example, it can be very useful, for some children and at the right time for them, when learning to read and write, do maths or gymnastics, or play a musical instrument. I have one child who prefers to work on his own and has achieved good GCSE grades in his chosen subjects with very little help, one who likes to be taught and has now chosen to go to school and is flourishing in a structured environment, and one who is somewhere in the middle. As things stand at the moment, all their needs can be met, but if I had been forced to follow a curriculum and impose formal instruction on all of them, at least one of them would have suffered.<br /><br />suzyg said: Peter Traves (DCS Staffordshire) is worried about covering his back, and since he was representing the ADCS at the CSF select committee hearing on 14/10, it wouldn't surprise me if he is not alone.<br /><br />He isn't. The person responsible for EHE at my LA has the same concern. He is under the impression that Section 175 of the 2002 Education Act supercedes Section 7 of the 1996 act and makes local authorities responsible for safeguarding *all* the children in their area, that he is breaking the law if he doesn't check up on *all* EHE children including the unknowns, and that compulsory registration is necessary so that he can cover his back. From what I have heard and read, it seems that many LA's believe this to be the case.<br />However, this is a misinterpretation of Section 175, which does not create any new functions, but merely imposes a duty on LA's to act with regard to safeguarding and welfare *within the functions conferred on them already*.<br /><br />Sarah said: To be honest I think there are families that use HE as a loophole not a choice and don't provide their children with an education full stop, let alone a suitable one. Some discovered the loophole when the LA shoved it under their nose and said "sign here", the unethical gits.<br /><br />Which doesn't speak volumes for their genuine concern for children, does it? In fact it says far more about covering their backs.<br /><br />>These families will be known to SS and other authorities in a way they won't be to the HEing community at large.<br /><br />Quite. They will already be known and the law already provides for them, if the LA's go to the trouble to uphold it.<br /><br />>HEing in Italy for example contains the clause that puts a SS inspection on the table, it reads like a foregone conclusion that it will probably happen to all. Yet there is only one case I have come across where it has been utilized, and to be honest I don't blame them for using it one bit in that particular case. Our director described it as a clause of safety net<br /><br />But we don't need a new law to cover this; SS already have a duty to act where there are welfare concerns, and LA's already have a duty to act where there are genuine educational concerns. The proposed new law is not going to make the genuine problems disappear; making registration compulsory will not make everybody register any more than the fact that murder and theft are illegal stops people from killing and stealing. All it's going to do is cause a lot of problems for the law-abiding majority, and make a lot of extra work for the already overstretched authorities. I am seriously concerned about a law that will allow my LA inspector to refuse my registration because he doesn't like autonomous education, but do nothing to help him deal with the abusive family down the road who will move on as soon as the LA catches up with them.Ericanoreply@blogger.com