I honestly wonder whether or not some home educators are suffering from multiple personality disorder! That is the charitable view; the alternative would be deliberate deception. This reflection has been prompted by the latest accusations being made against the Department for Children, Schools and Families; that they are linking Education Otherwise to the British National Party. It certainly seems an implausible hypothesis. Let's see what the fuss is about.
Following the publication of the Badman Report and the outcry which followed, the DCSF opened a consultation on the subject of Home Education – registration and monitoring proposals. This ran until October 19th and 5211 responses were received. 2222 of these were from home educating parents and 436 from children who were being taught at home. The great majority of these responses were opposed to the proposed new regulations. There were also some responses from organisations, but the largest group was made up of "others", that is to say anonymous or people who did not say whether they were home educators. It is this large group which has caused the recent fuss. About them, the DCSF said;
"A further 2,390 replies fell into the “other” category including anonymous responses, those who did not specify a respondent type; and “campaign” type responses which were received after groups including the Christian Institute, Education Otherwise and the British National Party lobbied their members to reply to the consultation via their own websites"
Well I know perfectly well that the Christian Institute did encourage people to send in responses to the consultation. They suggested the sort of things people should say. For example;
"Under new proposals a government official could enter your home, and question your child about what you teach them - and all without you being present. At the moment, this is being proposed for home-schooling families. But which families will be next? Children do not belong to the state. Even if you don’t home school, tell the Government to keep families free."
Eerily similar to the letter which I quoted recently from the Market Drayton Advertiser! There is no doubt at all that the Christian Institute was behind some of the "other" responses. The BNP site said much the same thing and certainly encouraged members to respond to the consultation along the same lines. What about Education Otherwise? I think that anybody who watched the Education Otherwise and HE-UK lists carefully at that time, as did I, would find it hard to deny that a co-ordinated effort was being made to flood the DCSF with responses to this consultation. People gave each other ideas of the line to take, they posted the number of responses which had been reached; there is not the slightest doubt that a campaign was under way.
A natural result of all this was that many of the "other" responses were very similar; same phrases and expressions, same concerns, even the same sentences in some. The DCSF smelt a rat and thought it worth pointing out that this had been happening. Plus of course, staff there also visit the EO, HE-UK and BRAG lists. They already knew what was going on.
The peculiar thing is that even though the game was clearly up and it was obvious that the DCSF had twigged, many home educators indignantly denied that a campaign had been conducted at all! This extraordinary denial is still going on. I can't decide if these people, most of whom belong to the HE lists and who knew very well about the campaign being run, have genuinely forgotten what they were up to or if they are simply cold blooded liars. These can surely be the only two explanations. Freedom of Information requests have been made by individuals who were themselves involved in the campaign and have apparently forgotten about it. They are now claiming that the DCSF have maligned Education Otherwise by mentioning them in the same breath as the British National Party. I don't see this at all. The only similarity is that both co-ordinated campaigns to get people to respond to the consultation, I don't think that the DCSF were suggesting for a moment that EO have any other similarities with a neo-Nazi group.
There is something quite weird about this business, an Alice in Wonderland quality. People spend four months fighting a campaign and then erase it from their memory. It is so completely erased, that they then argue up hill and down dale that no such campaign ever took place! Decidedly odd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People spend four months fighting a campaign and then erase it from their memory. It is so completely erased, that they then argue up hill and down dale that no such campaign ever took place! Decidedly odd.
ReplyDeleteI not erased from my memory i want more am pleased to be able to say we fought Balls?DCSF?Badman and will go on fighting them untill bill is lost in Lords and also will not fortet that Morgan called us a child abuser plus Deech saying we keep our children locked up!
I thought the DCSf would bring in BNP party trying to link it with home education they doing that because Balls is facing a very strong challenge from BNP in Yorkshire so much so that he has been busy wrting about jobs for english making it harder to come England! would be very funny if he lost his seat to the BNP! LOL
I am one of the main people put in the FOI's to collate data. Just because I appear ‘prolific’ does not mean that I agree with every word typed and sent on the lists.To assume or imply so is as disingenuous as stating that my participation in this comments section means I may be in cahoots or agreement with everything Simon has to say.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason the government misjudged that there would be such a response to this Review and Bill is that previously with consultations and position papers, the main individuals behind the scenes in the various Home Education groups could not get many people motivated or concerned enough. The Badman Review managed to mobilise many people due to its tone and that people simply did not recognise the version of EHE that the Review was implying was the 'norm'. People responded by joining together in groups.Previously 'keeping your head down' , not drawing attention to your families choices and just ‘getting on with it’ was sufficient. The people in particularly ’bad’ LAs made sure they had no contact with that LA or they moved to better postcodes.It’s important to note that before the CME legislation 4 years ago,certain demographic groups did not impact on the overall EHE landscape either.
If people wish to join in email lists for the purpose of discussing the current situation then that is obviously essential in the democratic process. Other political groups seizing on the issue and urging its members to respond- such as the BNP is inevitable.What I object to is using 'campaign' and 'lobbying' to DISMISS a point of view, Especially when that point of view was in the majority. I was also concerned that the DCSF somehow were commenting on actual knowledge of how many responses came from the BNP and Christian Institute and EO but it has become obvious that the DCSF had no way to know if even one single BNP member did fill in the consultation.There were 2 or 3 different comments on different BNP websites for a period of a month.That's it. The DCSF statements make it look to people who do not know much about what is transpiring , that most of the 'other' responses could be from BNP members. It would be interesting to know how many BNP members also home educate. I suspect numbers are tiny.I guess that many of the people who put 'other' were doing so as they were actually 'home educating parents' worried their email address would be used as a way of 'finding' their family should the Bill be passed. I know of several families who decided not to respond or be 'public' about any of their opinions for fear they would become 'traceable'. I have been prolific ,vocal and public as I have nothing to fear from my LA in South Somerset.
...continued...
To return to the specifics of what you said, ‘A natural result of all this was that many of the "other" responses were very similar; same phrases and expressions, same concerns, even the same sentences in some.’
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that this is not the case, but how do you know this? A yes/no answer would suffice as a journalist should not give away his sources.
As regards your comment ‘They are now claiming that the DCSF have maligned Education Otherwise by mentioning them in the same breath as the British National Party’
Who are ‘they’? Would it not be a more conducive method to stop antagonising people and make your points so that those you are criticising may be able to hear that there is some validity? As a ‘heretic’ you are including yourself in the community of people you are criticising. So I ask you,why this method and not a more constructive one?
I conclude that the BNP comments by the DCSF do not have merit and it was a tactic in their political arsenal. I have never thought that ALL families would end up with home visits AND the child being asked questions without the parent present. What I am worried about is that some Local Authorities already show a disregard for Home Educating families and would overuse their powers. LAs know they already have enough 'powers' should there be concerns, but that they simply do not have enough FUNDING to implement these powers. The only way to get this funding is to champion a political cause. If mud is being slung about ‘lobbying‘ it can be slung both ways.
I have spoken to enough EHE departments where the number of 'problems' they see is around 2-6%. Most of these families need extra input. Since the CME legislation some EHE visitor have seen a two-fold increase in their caseload without any extra funding. With a few families an SAO would be a last resort option- but the EHE departments do not have the money to follow through. In some LAs they are finding that they no longer have any time left to keep in contact with families who do a great job. This means that in the end all they see are a minority who are 'problematic' and take up scant resources- just as a consultant obstetrician only sees difficult cases and then becomes so removed from natural and normal birth that they come to distrust the process itself. It comes down to personalities. Thankfully in some LAs there remain people who believe in the process of Home Education. The CSF Bill would make their jobs untenable as they would be asked to do in law what they do not agree with in principle.
Some LAs have much higher numbers of 'concerns' because their starting point comes from institutional bias. They do not understand current guidelines and demand to see curriculae, timetables, evidence of written work or photos of outings or insist visits are mandatory for all families in the absence of any concerns and have convinced themselves that they do have a monitoring role. Some LAs also have people higher up the food chain than the Cinderella EHE department and their institutional bias and lack of understanding of EHE filters down despite the actual EHE visitors having a different opinion. These are the Local Authorities where I would NOT be happy to see with more powers. I prefer to invest energy in finding solutions to problems that currently exist rather than waste energy over a Bill which is aimed at solving a problem which does not exist.
The reference to Freedom of Information requests was not a dig at you Tania, although I can quite see why you thought it might be! I was actually thinking of Dani Ahrens. Like you, I seriously doubt that many BNP people are educating their own children. Loughton is a hotbed of the movement and most of the ones I see look as though they have only recently begun to walk upright, never mind being able to teach anybody anything.
ReplyDeleteThe campaign against the CSF Bill is fine, I am not objecting to it at all. I am just pointing out that many people who took part seem to have forgotten that they did so. Here is a concrete example. Look at this letter, which was published in a local newspaper;
http://northshropshe.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/091218mdadv.jpg
This is quite typical of many. It mentioned democracy, because if something is headed "Home Education", many people's eyes glaze over! This is also a perfectly fair tactic and, incidentally, one suggested on a number of lists as part of the campaign. What I am astonished about though is that yesterday, less than three months after she had written this letter, the author was denying flatly that she had ever mentioned the Children, Schools and Families Bill in a letter to a newspaper. It is this bizarred amnesia that I find fascinating, not the fact that a minority group has organised a campaign to fight for what they believe in.
Tania, you ask, "Who are ‘they’?" I have noticed that people are apt to get a bit ratty when I mention specific names. "They" are the people who are claiming that the Department for Children, Schools and Families have defamed Education Otherwise by mentioning in passing that EO and other organisations organised campaigns against the CSF Bill. Of course Education Otherwise organised such a campaign and why shouldn't they? I am simply left a little open mouthed with amazement that the thesis is now being put forward that there was not a campaign at all. I have been reading with interest the comments on the BBC, CYPT, online versions of the National press, local newspapers and so on. In many cases, the letters and comments are so similar, that it is clear that there was a common source. (It's rather like form criticism, where we are able to deduce an earlier document from studying many corrupt, subsequent versions). The line about the CSF Bill being a threat to democracy, for instance, was explicitly spelled out on two lists and suggested as a better bet than talking about home education. That is why the letter which I mention above is so interesting; it is practically a carbon copy of others I have seen. Still, as I say, the fascinating thing is that the authors of these letters have now forgotten that they ever wrote them. This is distinctly strange and I do not think it at all antagonistic to remark upon it.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that the mention of democracy was used just as a tactic. Why would you assume this? I and many people I know have genuine concerns about this having a wider significance than HE and this deserves to be brought to the attention of a wider public. If a precedence is established for one group - routine access to the home without specific concerns - other groups and the public as a whole will have fewer grounds to argue against the same treatment. They could be asked, 'if you accept this for home educators, why should the same not apply to you?'.
ReplyDeleteI put in the FOI requests you are referring to, Simon. I think you have misunderstood my intentions.
ReplyDeleteI certainly haven't forgotten campaigning against Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill. I think campaigning for things you believe in is a sensible and reasonable thing to do in a democracy. I am not at all indignant about the DCSF saying that some people campaigned on the issue.
In fact, on the specific issue of how to respond to this consultation, I and many others involved in this particular campaign were quite careful not to provide suggested answers to the questions, as we were aware that identical responses would be dismissed by the DCSF in exactly this manner. EO certainly did not do so.
When I challenged the DCSF on the question of where on EO's website they saw the 'lobbying of members to respond' that they claimed EO had done, they changed tack completely, and said that the 'campaign type responses' were not a result of lobbying on EO's website but of discussion on social networking sites.
They now seem to be saying that there was a deliberate plan by home educators on social networking sites to tick the 'other' box, rather than identifying themselves as home educators. I have no knowledge of this happening - it may have done, but I was not privy to any such discussion or plan at the time. Again, this was certainly not orchestrated by EO.
So if EO did not take the specific action the DCSF originally claimed they did, what was the purpose of mentioning EO, the Christian Institute and the BNP by name in the consultation report?
It seems clear to me that this was a deliberate smear. That is what I am indignant about. Regardless of the facts of the matter, the DCSF chose to dismiss the views of thousands of respondents to the public consultation on their plans by implying an association with the BNP. It is not surprising, but it is disgraceful.
This strikes me as semantics Dani! The DCSF said;
ReplyDelete"groups including the Christian Institute, Education Otherwise and the British National Party lobbied their members"
In fact much of the campaiging and people encouraging each other to submit very similar responses took place on the Education Otherwise list. So perhaps technically, not all those on there are members of EO. I did not get the impression that the DCSF were implying any association of Education Otherwise with the BNP, which I agree would have been disgraceful. They mentioned three organisations which had encouraged their members and sympathisers to submit responses, many of which were almost identical. This does not seem to me to be a smear; it is the plain truth.
Anonymous, you ask;
ReplyDelete"You suggest that the mention of democracy was used just as a tactic. Why would you assume this?"
I assume this because on at least two lists this was being suggested as a way to get the message across. It was thought that by making the focus democracy, rather than home education, that more sympathy would be gained by ordinary, non-home educators. As i say, it is a perfectly fair tactic, but it was certainly first suggested on a couple of lists and then taken up by people who wrote to newspapers in those terms.
But they used this 'truth' to dismiss those responses. A smear is something that can damage a reputation. They used 'campaign' in a negative way to suggest that, because it was a 'campaign', those answers could be ignored. It was an attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of the consultation results by smearing organisation for organising campaigns.
ReplyDelete"I assume this because on at least two lists this was being suggested as a way to get the message across. It was thought that by making the focus democracy, rather than home education, that more sympathy would be gained by ordinary, non-home educators."
ReplyDeleteThat may have happened but it doesn't mean that the views expressed by those people were not genuine concerns. It was a 'happy' coincidence that a potential harm for a small group could also apply to the wider population. You imply that the only reason it was brought up was as a tactic to involve the general public but that was not the case.
Well, we don't know how many of the responses were nearly identical. I did ask, but didn't get a figure from the DCSF. All I got was that they did receive nine identical responses, which they classified as a campaign.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't sound like many to me.
I don't think people discussing things on the EO Yahoo list can be described (as the DCSF did) as "Some organisations representing home educated children and parents advised their members, via websites, how to structure their responses and provided details of what they should say"
People don't have to be members of EO to take part in discussions on the EO Yahoo list. It's not a place where EO advises members to do things.
I think the DCSF can't stand it that the home educators campaigning against their proposals are not, in fact, being coordinated by a central organisation. They wish that EO were representing and organising us all, as they would then be able to easily behead and disorientate the campaign by buying off and/or discrediting EO.
I think that is why they mentioned EO by name in conjunction with the BNP. Their audience was the media, MPs and Lords, most of whom would not yet have realised that this is a very inaccurate picture of the home education community. They were attempting to undermine EO's credibility with those people by subtly suggesting that EO was some kind of lunatic, fringe organisation like the BNP.
As I said before, the BNP and the Christian Institute may have lobbied their members to respond to the consultation, but the fact is that EO didn't, on this occasion.
I am suggesting that much of the opposition to the Children, Schools and Families Bill has been co-ordinated and encouraged by Internet lists. I am also saying that many of the letters to newspapers, comments on blogs and responses to the consultation were heavily influenced by what a fairly small number of very vociferous and vocal individuals were saying on the lists. I am further saying that to deny this and attempt to represent all these very similar responses and letters as a spontaneous expression of feeling is misleading in the extreme. The entire opposition to the bill has been orchestrated by a number of lists. I know this, the Department for Children, Schools and Families know this and so I suspect do all the people commenting on this blog!
ReplyDeleteI can see Dani, that you have forgotten people on the EO list saying things like, "I was number 3867. Come on, the consultation closes in eight days. let's get the numbers up to 4000 at least". You have also apparently forgotten the sort of ideas being floated on there for what would make an effective response.
ReplyDeleteHome ed lists have a long history of members helping each other with the wording of letters to LAs and others. Why is this a problem? The idea is to thrash out people feelings on issues and discuss how those feelings can be clear expressed and easily understood by others in text. What's wrong with that? It's not as though people on the internet can force others to use those ideas or to change their views.
ReplyDeleteSome people are better than others at writing well enough that ideas can be understandable and clear to others (otherwise journalists would be competing with everyone!) It doesn't mean that the people using, or more usually adapting, the wording of others do not hold the views they are expressing, so why is it relevant?
And what's wrong with individuals encouraging other individuals to respond? I wanted there to be a good response so that the government would learn how home educators felt about it so I asked my home educating friends to respond. I didn't check first that they agreed with my views before suggesting they respond and this is obviously even more true of those making the suggestion over the internet as they have no idea who will read them. Those requests were just as likely to have elicited alternative views to the requesters as similar views. Did the DCSF encouraged LAs to respond? If they did, would this have been viewed as a campaign and their responses downgraded or ignored?
ReplyDeleteI saw no personal dig.I have always thought my efforts were part of a lobbying mechanism or campaign to inform others of what I have discovered.Information which enables people to make up their minds is crucial as between the rhetoric of both sides of this debate lies the truth and the solutions.I may have made statements I would now prefer to retract but for the most part this was not an intentional misleading plan but rather the result of exhaustion and frustration.One learns from ones mistakes.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally , although I would not choose to use the 'walking upright' analogy, I do feel that the DCSF insinuated that there are vast numbers of barely hobbling families who are trying to home educate and hence the BNP association is beneficial to their campaign.It would be only logical to point out that this particular emperor has no clothes.After all if someone wanted to say that you were in cahoots with the DCSF would you not try and point out the failings of their accusation.Unless someone had hard evidence that you are in cahoots, it is conjecture and insinuation aimed at tarring your good name ;>) and I would expect you to point it out as such. No-one knows how many actually responded from the BNP because if they did they would certainly use numbers and percentages to make the point. What you are blogging about just now is a tricky issue to address- seeing as we are not a one size fits all group but may have a common aim- which is stopping the CSF bill.
To make different analogy,as a Zionist who wishes to see a 2 state solution materialise,I am critical of many of the actions of the Israeli government and the desensitisation of my people and the Palestinian people. I have criticised for over 25 years. I criticise because I care and I criticise because in a democracy ,I can. If Israel was not a democracy I would be risking all sorts of punishments from death to imprisonment with intimidation somewhere in the middle. That Israel is a democracy is a good thing- we expect dreadful behaviour from dictatorships and non democratic movements. When ever a democracy's government acts in way that some people see as unsavoury and not beneficial, one can choose to act.Many others are also critical of Israel's political actions as a state. Some of these people who are critical call for death to all Jews , or drowning for all Israelis or try to legitimise one peoples right to self determination and sovereignty whilst at the same time de- legitimise the other. Suffice it to say, I do not agree with these ideas either.
Some feel so threatened they feel the need to ignore the wrong doings on which ever side they are on and only concentrate on the 'other'. Suffice it to say that I find this an unhelpful polarised road to travel and it stops one from hearing what the other is saying.I stated in a recent post here that I think there has to be a forum where not only can Home Eductors/LAs hear each others concerns but that these concerns get addressed in a mutually respectful way before we get to the point of any 'solutions'.I hear your concerns Simon but I do not appreciate being stereotyped by you as a home education campaigner any more than I like it when the DCSF tries to do this to Home Educators'.I am trying to steer clear of hyperbole from now on and look at the actual issues with others who are prepared to do the same.This is a bottom up approach as those with power in the DCSF and those with power in the LAs are not about to relinquish that and chat with people like me at this point. Which is a shame.I do not dismiss everything that LAs are saying just because I disagree with the tactics of government and equally I feel other view points should not be dismissed because some (myself included as I admitted above) have used these same tactics in reverse.The power differential must first be addressed. Starting with institutional bias being removed, equity of relationship be an assumed starting point and hopefully ending with mutual respect and understanding.
They Did it cos Balls is seat is under threat from BNP they is a strong challenge to him from BNP i read it in daily mail it is also a good smear tatic it is a dirty lie but what else would you expect from Balls DCSF? lets hope they lose loads of seats at election that wipe the smile off his face!
ReplyDeleteTania, at risk of becoming sidetracked, the "Two State Solution" was implemented in 1922 when 75% of "Palestine" was handed over to the Hashemites for services rendered during World War I. It's worth remembering how they treated the inhabitants of this area, culminating in Black September 1970. I hardly think that any of the remaining 25% of the mandated territory needs to be handed over to anybody! Quite the opposite, really. (I'm guessing here that you are no sort of fan of Jabotinsky and the Revisionists?)
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the DCSF has downgraded or ignored any responses.They are simply acknowledging the fact that many of them are probably multiple submissions or sent by friends or relatives of home educators. This usually happens with this sort of thing. It's a bit like collecting signitures on a petition. I have never yet known people doing this not to add a few extra ones. People swap pens round, write with their left hand and so on, just to swell the thing a little. I'm quite sure that anybody who has ever been involved with any petition will be aware of this, reprehensible though it clearly is. The best historical example is the Chartist petition in 1848, when they managed to add literally millions of false signitures. All the DCSF were saying was that something of the sort was probably happening with the responses to the consultation. So what, it's not a hanging matter! As I say, my only difficulty is the way that some home educators are now denying that this has happened at all. Perhaps they really have forgotten trying to bump up the number of responses.
ReplyDelete'I am further saying that to deny this and attempt to represent all these very similar responses and letters as a spontaneous expression of feeling is misleading in the extreme. The entire opposition to the bill has been orchestrated by a number of lists. I know this, the Department for Children, Schools and Families know this and so I suspect do all the people commenting on this blog!'
ReplyDeleteNo. You are wrong, I'm afraid.
It took my own local group weeks of discussion, going through the Badman Report line by line and much research on the part of group members to understand all the implications for HE'ers, who all the agencies referred to in the report were, and so on. Lots of research, lots of discussion and lots of spontaneous responses from people who were each individually seeing and working on their own bits of the jigsaw.
The huge majority of people in that internet group are not members of the national groups, had never wanted to be, before Badman. They just kept their heads down, kept going at HE, doing the right thing for their families. Gradually, their outrage moved them into positions they'd never anticipated.
Later, a campaign based on a gradual collective understanding of the Report and the subsequent legislation coalesced, with the aid of (not directed by) a couple of national groups formed for the purpose.
Occasionally, suggestions were made in those groups which people disagreed with. Political campaigns, whether they are conducted online as now or in small, linked Affinity Groups as in the Olden Days, often emerge in the same way. It's just a slightly more compressed and efficient process now.
There certainly were 'spontaneous expressions of feeling' in local groups among members who had never belonged to national groups. I witnessed this process in my county group. It was fascinating. Are you involved in your local HE group online, Simon? If you were, I'm surprised that you didn't see how this actually happened for yourself.
Mrs Anon
I don't doubt for a moment what you say Mrs. Anon. I rather suspect though that these responses would have been either in the two thousand two hundred and twenty two from parents or alternatively those from organisations. There were many well thought out and spontaneous responses; I don't deny this for a moment. There were also many which had been drummed up on the various lists. This is what I meant when I talked of, "these very similar responses and letters". These are the ones which the DCSF called "campaign" style responses. As October 19th approached, people were posting a lot, telling everybody what their number was and trying frantically to boost the numbers by getting other people to join in. The result was that some people were getting relatives and their children to send in a response each, thus adding half a dozen more to the total. Some, and I dare say yours were among them, were carefully composed. Others were bashed out as a favour by friends and relatives of home educators.
ReplyDeleteWell obviously I can only speak for myself and those I know but we didn't ask relatives and friends to complete the consultation. Yes, we asked them to sign the petition but that's different, as you say this is expected and a way to show support. But we viewed the consultation differently - it was for stakeholders themselves. 2 of my 3 children did answer the consultation and I see no problem with that. They had been discussing the issue with their friends at HESFES and on-line and wanted to put their views across. They are part of the group that would be most affected by the changes, after all and arguably had more reason to respond than you or I. I didn't see anyone asking people to take part in the consultation *just* to support us unless they felt strongly about the issue themselves.
ReplyDeleteWell yes that really would be side tracking. No never a Jabby fan - no iron walls nor concrete walls for me!I never considered Hashemite Jordan a viable option for the Palestinian people even although they constitute a majority although it may work if there was a democracy , an end to the Hashemite monarchy and a smaller Hashemite minority third state solution ;>)
ReplyDeleteStands to reason we disagree on the best course of events..........
One thing that gets my goat is people who consider themselves immersed in this subject and spout off what they have read third hand and from one side.......kind of like a certain baroness on a very different issue we are familiar with. Needless to say the futility of side tracking on this subject is obvious- we would not even side track that far over Passover dinner for fear of someone choking on matza or upsetting the wine glasses!
'There were also many which had been drummed up on the various lists. This is what I meant when I talked of, "these very similar responses and letters". These are the ones which the DCSF called "campaign" style responses.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Dani say that there were 9 such responses? I wouldn't call 9 'many' in the context of thousands.
I'm sure that many (more than 9!) were helped by those last minute reminders. Sometimes, procrastination takes hold and we need a sharp poke in the ribs like that to actually send our half written and edited responses off. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm trying to get my head round what the point of this post is.
Yes, there was a campaign. So? It was quite a good one, developed in a fascinatingly consensus-driven way which I'd not seen in the HE community before. No, that doesn't mean the responses should have been dismissed as irrelevant.
Mrs Anon
The point of the post was simple, Mrs. anon. There was a campaign, but because the DCSF drew attention to the fact, some people are now denying that it happened. I found this puzzling and wondered why it ws felt necessary to do this. The DCSF assertion is that thousands of the responses they received were very similar; what they describe as "campaign" style responses. I have absolutely no objection to the campaign, whish ws very right and proper. I was simply foxed as to why anybody would pretend that it had not occurred.
ReplyDeleteI must be walking around in daze then, because i'd not noticed anyone denying a campaign, just annoyed that the campaign was being dismissed by the DCSF. And shocked that it should have been linked to the BNP.
ReplyDeleteMrs Anon
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I don't think that the DCSF has downgraded or ignored any responses."
and also,
"It's a bit like collecting signitures on a petition. I have never yet known people doing this not to add a few extra ones. People swap pens round, write with their left hand and so on, just to swell the thing a little."
Do you really think that the DCSF would not have downgraded or ignored responses if they believed people had done this? You can't see a contradiction in what you wrote?
I think it had the effect of making the DCSF take some of these responses with a pinch of salt.
ReplyDeleteThis is the sort of thing I mean, Mrs. Anon. This is from a letter to the DCSF;
ReplyDelete" I understand from the Chair of the Government Policy Group of
Education Otherwise that Education Otherwise did not lobby its
members to respond to the consultation, and did not provide
information on its website about how to structure consultation
responses and advice on what to say. Please could you give me a
link to the part of the Education Otherwise website where you saw
this alleged campaign?
Yours faithfully,"
By talking of an alleged campaign by Education Otherwise, the suggestion is clearly being made that there was no campaign connected with them and that they did not advise their members how to structure their responses. In effect, the writer is saying, "Campaign? What campaign?" Of course the Education Otherwise list was at the heart of the efforts to generate responses to the consultation.
actually Simon I saw nothing on the EO lists as structured as this. On BRAG people did post their responses to each question and the responses were collated so that anyone else could look at the files section and see what others had considered as a response which covered the question. No one said that people ought to copy them verbatim. I still do not see anything wrong with doing it in this way- BRAG as you know is the Badman Review Action Group. Action implies campaigning and lobbying in my opinion. I too am not comfortable with the DCSF trying to dismiss the results and linking responses to the BNP.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand we are told that our responses were ignored because we are too diverse; there is no organisation that speaks for us all; and the bods who collate the responses can't cope with diversity and love organisations.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, they're telling us now that our responses were ignored because they were part of an organised campaign, and therefore too similar to be taken seriously.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Why are they really ignoring us?
My post just vanished. Sorry if it appears twice.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, we are told that our responses were ignored because we are too diverse; there is no organisation that speaks for us all. The bods who collate the responses can't cope with diversity and love organisations.
On the other hand, we're now being told that our responses were part of an organised campaign, and were too similar to be taken seriously.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Why are they really ignoring us?
Erica, you say:
ReplyDelete"On one hand we are told that our responses were ignored because we are too diverse; there is no organisation that speaks for us all; and the bods who collate the responses can't cope with diversity and love organisations. "
Told by whom? And when was this said? Who love organisations? Any chance of a few actual quotations from the Department for Children, Schools and Families which say this? I hope you're not juts setting up a straw man to knock down!
You could try para. 1.3 of the Badman report for starters;
ReplyDelete"I have read the many submissions made by home educators who argue their case from almost
as many standpoints as there are children in elective home education – indeed to attempt
to categorise the views of home educators or regard them as an homogenous group would
simply be wrong. It is a cause of concern that although approximately 20,000 home educated
children and young people are known to local authorities, estimates vary as to the real number
which could be in excess of 80,000. I will discuss this later in this report. The degree of
individualism exhibited may well be a strength but it militates against securing representative
opinion and has led to factions within the elective home education community that actually
distort the strength of philosophical commitment, achievement and need. I shall make
recommendation in this regard."
And this means that our responses were ignored because they were too diverse? I don't read it like that. Graham Badman simply describes the situation, he does not say that he loves organisations at all. Indeed, by saying, " has led to factions within the elective home education community that actually
ReplyDeletedistort the strength of philosophical commitment,", this sounds like a dig at organisations like Education Otherwise and HE-UK. I don't think at all that he is saying here that he loves organisations; quite the opposite!
'but it militates against securing representative
ReplyDeleteopinion' looks to me like he didn't see the responses of home educators as an organised 'campaign'.
Of course not. The "campaign" only took off and became a force to be reckoned with after the publication of Graham Badman's report in June. It was once the consultation opened that the orchestration of responses began. I hardly think we can blame Badman for not displaying precognition.
ReplyDeleteI see the DCSF's mention of 'campaign' responses as referring to those identical letters/postcards/email templates dished out by charities for members to send to their MPs. MPs, understandably, don't take much notice of them, because it doesn't take a lot of conviction to copy an email to one's MP. Unless their postbag/inbox is overflowing with them, in which case it could be an indication of widespread support for the sentiments expressed.
ReplyDeleteWhat they do take notice of is individual constituents drawing their attention to government action that does, or might, affect the individual or local groups concerned. Obviously, people in similar positions are likely to have similar concerns. People objecting to a new ring road are hardly likely to each raise a completely unique set of points for consideration. And people communicating with each other about the ring road are quite likely to borrow each other's terminology, if it expresses their concerns effectively.
My reading of the DCSF's comments about 'campaign' responses (ie the template ones) was that they were, in effect, discounting them. The reason why home educators have denied being part of a 'campaign' is that they perceive themselves as not having simply sent off a template response because a lobbying group has told them to, but because, even if they nicked the wording from someone else's response, they wholeheartedly meant every word of it.
Which I agree is perfectly reasonable and true. My original post was simply to express surprise that people seemed to be claiming that no such campaign had taken place. It was being referred to as an "alleged campaign". It had taken place and there was no reason why it shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteIt depends what you mean by 'campaign'. Many home educators did not respond by sending off a template response as requested by an organisation, so they did not see themselves as part of a 'campaign' in the sense the DCSF appears to use the term.
ReplyDeleteThe DCSF recived only nine template letters of this sort. The two thousand three hundred and ninety response which they classified as "other" had enough similarities to make it clear that they were not exactly expressing original thoughts. As I say, I see nothing wrong with this, but one can hardly blame the DCSF for noticing it and drawing attention to the fact.
ReplyDelete