As many home educators are now aware, I have been called to give evidence next week at the enquiry into the review of elective home education. Fairly predictably, a campaign is now well under way to discredit me by telling as many lies as possible. Since the people involved in this have no hesitation about using old posts of mine from a private mailing list, I see no reason at all not to name them and detail their actions. Step forward, Maire Stafford, who sent an email to the select committee yesterday stating that;
"He is now on both of the message boards he mentions under a false name despite being removed by the list owners, as he freely admits on his blog".
This is of course a lie. Some members of the list forward messages to me, this is quite a different thing from joining under a false name. I dare say that some will remember Maire Stafford's agony a few weeks ago when she thought I was going to quote from one of her emails. In a truly breathtaking display of display of hypocrisy and double standards, she has copied a huge chunk of this Blog in her email to the select committee. Astounding!
Next up is somebody called Debs on the home education forums. She says of me;
"The inclusion of Simon Webb is also of grave concern. He is in fact an EX home educator, not a current one, who now spends his time writing vitriolic, insulting and personal articles about home education (especially autonomous home education, which he appears to know very little about) on his blog and in various publications. He has assumed various guises to infiltrate home education email lists"
Two things strike one about this email to the select committee. The first is the repetition of the lie that I have infiltrated home education lists under false names. As I dare say everybody knows, I actually joined under my own name and personal email address and never made any secret of my views. The second thing is really quite funny. Home educators, particularly autonomous ones, often claim that the idea that education starts at five and ends promptly at sixteen is quite ludicrous and wholly artificial. I agree completely. Now however, many of them have apparently decided that in the case of home education, it should end in the June of the year that a child turns sixteen. This means of course that I am no longer educating my daughter and should not therefore be allowed to give evidence on home education. How ingenious is that? Another A* for hypocrisy, I think! A cunning idea, but unfortunately the select committee have a fairly detailed biography and know my daughter's age. But a good try, never the less. Just to be scrupulously fair, I have contacted the select committee and reminded them about this. They assure me that they will now amend their records and list me as a formerly home educating parent.
Wendy Crickard is keen to denounce me to a member of the select committee, Lynda Waltho MP. She wishes to use old posts of mine from a private list. Janet Ford duly obliged by providing her with these. Unfortunately for these two, Lynda Waltho will not actually be sitting on the committee that day, but ten out of ten for trying. Julie Garret wants to know if there is a good way to discredit witnesses in advance of the hearing. There are many more, but these examples give one the flavour of the affair.
What none of these individuals seem to realise for a moment is that they are busily engaged in subverting the democratic process. The whole point of a select committee is to examine the actions and intentions of the Executive. It is our Legislature at work, a most vital constitutional check against the Executive. This is not one branch of the government rubber stamping another government department's decisions. The contempt displayed by these people for the constitutional processes of democracy is astonishing. I hope that this is the last post that I shall have occasion to make on this subject and that I will now be able to get back to discussing the wider aspects of home education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
...and failing to advise the Select Committee that if they accept your advice they will in fact be hijacking the diversity of approaches in home education and forcing it to conform to a specific approach that is rooted in a specific Christian worldview - without any regard for the diverse faiths of the families concerned - imposing Christianity by force - that *isn't* subverting the democratic process??
ReplyDeleteJoely
My approach to education is affected by my religious beliefs. The same is true of every home educator and indeed every every parent, even atheists. I cannot for the life of me see what you are driving at. Are you saying that Christians should not be allowed to give evidence to select committees? Or are you saying that all witnesses should be obliged to declare their religion? And what on Earth is all this about "imposing Christianity by force". You will, I am sure, forgive my remarking upon this, but I really think you must be off your head!
ReplyDeleteJust come across your blog and I think you have some very odd ideas about HE and learning. I hope when you go to the select committee you manage not to give the impression that what HE needs is the recommendations in the Badman report. You say you dislike sloppy thinking, well from where I'm sitting, I think you do quite a lot of this and express great hostility to quite simple ideas about raising children in a positive and effective way.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives you the right to make sweeping generalisations about so many people, both HE and not? What gives you 'expert' status on HE, learning and all the other areas you spout on? You write with such certainty and seem entirely definite about everything - the mark of a closed mind full of prejudice?
I haven't read all your stuff, and to frank, I'm not going to as what I have read is full of wild generalisations which seem to show great mistrust, hatred and disregard for wide sections of the population - so many people who don't do things YOUR way. Tsk, they should all be shown the light by you apparently.
My daughter is doing very well, thank you, despite us following an autonomous approach to education. Instead of US deciding what she should know and then forcing her to learn it, we have encouraged, guided, pointed things out, shown her our interests, listened to her ideas, helped her understand the things he wants to know about, provided help to enable her to follow her chosen paths. She now knows a great deal about a wide range of things, but we've never sat down and done lessons with her. Humans have an amazing ability to learn. She is still self-motivated, enjoys learning, is inquisitive about the world, still has great relationships with us despite being a teenager (much to the amazement of other parents we meet), and has recently taken a GCSE at 14 because she wanted to. No doubt she may do some more in the next few years.
So, what's wrong with this approach - why is it so terrible for you? Why is it so terrible for the Govt? If the LA gets to define what suitable education is, then my daughter's right to decide what she learns, when she learns it, and how she learns it will be lost.
So, it is vital for so many families if you could support the main principle of HE - the freedom to learn, instead of having someone else's view imposed to the detriment of all.
I hope that when you speak you will have more humility than in your writing - acknowledging for a moment that you may be wrong and what you think is not necessarily right for other people. Most problems in the world seem to be caused by other people determining that they know what is best and trying to fix others - please try and avoid doing this as you could cause great harm to so many children, just like Badman's proposals will do.
To implement all of Badman's report would be to effectively kill off HE. Please take great care in what you say and how you present your ideas - keeping in mind that my daughter's freedom, quality of life and learning are at stake. Whatever your views of the vitriolic HE activists who you seem to have so much angst about, it's time to rise above this and defend educational choice, freedom and real learning. I hope you will be up for the challenge, see the bigger picture and what is at stake here.
M
Spoken like a true projectionist.
ReplyDeleteYour approach to HE isn't affected by your beliefs it is *derived* from them. From a particular view of children that they are born corrupted and sinful and therefore must be taught and trained. And you want to impose your educational philosophy based upon your theology on the rest of us. My autonomous approach is rooted in my theology, but if you get your way, I won't be able to educate in accordance with my faith or I will be persecuted for doing so. Is that what democracy in this country is all about for you Simon?
Joely
I believe Joely, that small children often tend to be selfish, greedy and untruthful. I don't believe that we teach them to behave in this way; it is in their nature. Many psychologists also believe this. Obviously, we are animals and abstract qualities such as charity, justice and compassion tend to be rare in the animal world. It would be quite natural if humans also had an animal nature, devoid of these higher feelings, feelings which need to be taught and nurtured. This is not a worldview exclusive to Christianity, but one which Freud would at once recognise. Whether you call this natural ability to be selfish and greedy "original sin" does not affect the situation; it is mere semantics. Most people would agree that how we raise our children affects how they become in later life. A child raised in a den of thieves if far more likely to become a thief in later life than one raised in a home full of honest people. I think that most parents teach their children the difference between right and wrong. They do this whether they are Christians, atheists, Muslims or Jews. That is all there is to it. My belief that children need to be taught the difference between right and wrong is hardly exclusive to one worldview, on the contrary it is shared by most right thinking people.
ReplyDeleteI see you are backtracking Simon. That's good, it means you are thinking things out. It's not quite as simple as you make out though is it? Yesterday autonomous ed was out because children needed training up, the basis for which belief you derive from the bible. Today it's only about teaching right from wrong. Should I assume therefore that you are only opposed to autonomous education that is practised by non-Christians or non-believers in Freud, where parents are not instilling values that you personally approve of, or is it still all autonomous ed is proscribed today, whether or not a parent teaches right from wrong in the manner you prescribe?
ReplyDeleteWhether you quote psychology or theology "small children often tend to be selfish, greedy and untruthful... it is in their nature." you are talking theories, not authorities. You have yours, I have mine. The two differences between us are that (1) I don't have the ear of the Select Committee into which I can pour my theories, pretending they are something other than theories, and (2) If I did, I would not be seeking to impose my theories and the worldview that arises from them on you or on any other parent.
Joely
I really am having difficulty following you here. You say, "yesterday autonomous ed was out". I have not said a word about autonomous education in this context. This whole thing started because of a few light hearted words which I exchanged with Julie, who is also a church goer. My views on autonomous education are quite another matter. I hold these based upon both theory and observation; they are held for empirical reasons. As I observed to another poster this morning, even I am not mad enough to found my educational philosophy upon stuff written in the Bronze Age!
ReplyDeleteOK, now you have backtracked completely Simon, yesterday it was quite clear that you rejected autonomous ed because parents who autonomously educate don't train up their kids and the bible says parents should train up their kids. Guess even you realised that was gonna get you into hot water.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, were you aware of the DCSF research that strengthens Rothermel?
Joely
Simon, can I assume that you will be speaking broadly in favour of the recommendations of the Badman Review when you appear before the select committee? Wil you be raising any concerns about any of the recommendations?
ReplyDeleteSimon, will you and Badman be going for a coffee afterwards to discuss what naughty boys you are? Amazing what similarities you two have! Maybe you were twins separated at birth??
ReplyDeleteMr Webb, thou doth protest too loudly...
ReplyDeleteWe are a little devious too aren't we? Trying to make people believe there are others as bad as you passing on info when it was you all the time?? Tut tut, good try. Unfortunately for you we aren't all gullible. Enjoy the reading :)
Homeedmonkey, you've lost me. What "info" am I supposed to have passed and to whom? Am I supposed to catch the allusion here?
ReplyDeleteAllie, it all depends what I am asked by the MPs. I shall make it clear that these are my opinions and that I am not speaking for all home educators.
ReplyDeleteJoely, you are the only person so far to mention the Bible in connection with autonomous home education. All this has largely been put together in your head.
ReplyDeleteIt's perfectly clear from your posts that you believe parents have a biblical responsibility to train their children, that those who don't are "bad" families, not sacred and that you support the intervention of the state into such "bad" families. It's not in my head, it's on your blog.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question though, about the DCSF research Simon. Are you aware of it? Have you studied it?
Joely
Are you talking about the York Consulting study here;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR827%20r.pdf
I am curious to know how you have been picked to be involved with this enquiry - if you happen to know.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect (and as an EX home educator myself), I do find your views untypical. I also think that any perusal of the make-up of the people involved with this enquiry shows that it is enormously weighted in favour of the result that the government seems, quite clearly, to want to achieve. It is certainly not, as you suggest, "democracy in action".
Nope.
ReplyDeleteJoely
As to how I was picked to give evidence, I don't know the mechanism used. Clearly, it would be impossible for everybody who wishes to give evidence to do so. For all I know to the contrary, they pick the names from a hat! I have to say that I don't think that Fiona Nicholson, and Jane Lowe are DCSF stooges, nor is the woman from AIM.
ReplyDeleteAs an Author myself! It is apparent to see, you clearly target your audience by criticizing them in order to gain. As a Writer I jolly well think this is below the belt. The spirit of fluent dialogue should not breach anyone else's position, especially to reconise them selves. You clearly are breaking golden rules, in publishing material that can identify your characters.
ReplyDeleteClearly you are an established critique using your material to gain an income,at what appears, to be instigated out of personal circumstances to prosper on other Home Educator's personal upbringing of their own children and chosen way of life.
Surely you know the rules of printing Libel.
This extends to targeting your audience with intentions to use their material, without their knowledge. But to influence your own living from it at the expense of other people's anguish, then putting them on a pedestal in crucial developments that could turn their lives round for the worse. Surely is taking your INCOME a bit too far.
The bible also indicates the Love of money is the route of all evil.
But it is very difficult for any one to see the truth that's in you, as you quite bluntly admit you lie for gain.
Please search your heart to understand why people are not trusting the character within your self.
Or should we say - Character's.
Moses
Well Simon, I have yet to read many of your posts on this here blog, but you do talk a good argument in the comments! I disagreed with much of what you said in 'that' article in the Independent, which was the only time I'd heard of you before this recent brouhaha over the Select Committee.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the fact that you were given a forum in a national newspaper in which to showcase these views. However, in the interests of free speech, I cannot justifiably complain - I have after all an equal right to express my opposite opinions in a different paper should I so choose (if I could find one that would publish them). I am afraid that I am one of those deplorable people that feel that Nick Griffin should appear on Question Time so that he can be ripped apart by the crowd. Verbally of course - I'm not advocating his actual evisceration. It can be difficult to live in a democracy.
I find it rather disingenuous of you though to make such a fuss in your section about 'home education doesn't stop at sixteen'. I agree, as I think most people would, but I would argue that home education *in the context of the Elective Home Education Review* stops when your progeny go into full time education. Otherwise those who send their children to school would also be "home educators" because, as you will accept, education doesn't stop outside of school hours. Or perhaps I have misunderstood, and your daughter is not now in full time education doing A-levels? Please correct me if I am wrong.
The thing is, if you boast about being a liar, some people are going to believe you... and of course if you're not actually a liar but just pretending to be one, then you're a liar anyway... have I gone wrong somewhere?
ReplyDeleteAnd talking of being disingenuous, why is it hypocritical of Maire to use this public blog in her email to the select committee? Why have a public blog if you don't want the public to see it?
Everyone seems to be getting very worked up over this...why is it surprising that the Select Committee have called someone who is in favour of more legislation to give evidence? Wouldn't it be surprising if they didn't? I assume the other home educator will probably be some one against the review, and certainly the other witnesses in the same session are also anti- Badman, so in the interest of balance calling Simon seems highly predictable; and if it wasn't Simon it would be someone else with similar views.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it would also seem probable that when the Select Committee called for evidence ( back in July) that Simon was still technically a home educator.......
ReplyDelete"I also think that any perusal of the make-up of the people involved with this enquiry shows that it is enormously weighted in favour of the result that the government seems, quite clearly, to want to achieve"
ReplyDelete- now that does seem very likely!
I'm amazed anyone would think for a moment that anything to do with the review would be anything but heavily weighted in favour of what the government wants. This is not a vonspiracy theory, it's politics!
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't mean we shouldn't express our points of view vehemently and protest whichever parts of the proposed legislation we have issue with. And continue to do so if they come to pass. Everyone has a right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion. My opinion is that Ed Balls is a power-hungry monster who uses others' personal tragedy for self advancement and who has gathered a coterie of lackies to help him achieve this. But hey! That's politics!
Spider, Maire Stafford is being hypocritical about this, because when I asked her permission to quote from one of her posts on the HE-UK site, she hit the roof. There followed a long discussion on HE-UK about how unethical it would be of me to do this, even if I did not include her name. There was talk about copyright, the intellectual property aspects and Mike Fortune-Wood expressed the view that I was beneath contempt for even thinking of doing so. A few weeks later and she is lifting stuff from my Blog and using it together with my name in order to attack my suitability as a witness to the select committee. I am sorry if you are unable to see why I view this as hypocrisy!
ReplyDeleteYour blog is public. The HE-UK list is not.
ReplyDeleteMaire Stafford? You mean Maire52? I am surprised anything she writes is worth quoting. The only good thing is that Bruce corrects her typos for her. Thank goodness for the Prof!
ReplyDeleteI find your obssession with Maire disturbing Simon.
ReplyDeleteJoely
Mouse, I was not "given a forum in a national newspaper"! I wrote some articles for them which were then published. I don't agree with a lot of what i read in the papers, but I do not see it as people being given a forum. The alternative would be for our papers to be the way Pravda used to be, full of statistics about tractor production and so on. Most people like to read opinions in the paper. And when we come right down to it, that is what those two articles were, my opinions. There was no suggestion that I was anything other than a home educating parent with opinions on home education. You ask what my daughter is doing now. I'm afraid that I shall not be saying any more at all on that subject. One of the people who has written to the select committee has been mining this Blog for information about my family and using it to try and discredit me. I shall be saying nothing further about my wife and daughters. That is why I removed the post about my older daughter attending school.
ReplyDeleteCan you mine a blog? I thought it was all there on the surface, in the public domain so to speak, with a blog. You haven't said anything on your blog which could be used to discredit you, have you? So you've got nothing to worry about.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a shame that you deleted the only post that gave me any hint that you are a human and not an argumentbot.
Never mind. Bye.
Quarrying would perhaps have been a better metaphore.
ReplyDeleteI simply want to say that I have enormous difficulty, somehow, given past examples of your disingenuity, in believing that you really have no idea how you were called to give evidence to the select committee.
ReplyDelete