One of the things that those not involved in home education sometimes fail to realise is the extent to which so many of the apparently spontaneous protests against any criticism of the practice are carefully planned. Baroness Deech in her speech on March 8th made reference to "lobbying", a suggestion which was indignantly dismissed by those on the HE lists. Lobbying? Organised campaigns? What ridiculous notions! Why, the woman must be paranoid. The truth is that Baroness Deech doesn't know the half of it. In the same speech she mentioned in passing something which Janet Ford had said about her daughter's social life. As a result of this, no fewer than nine women spent two days planning a response. Various texts were composed and redrafted until the final version was posted on Baroness Deech's Blog by somebody whose name was relatively unknown. This was incidentally quite a shrewd move. Had it been signed by firebird 2110 say, or Mehetable or Tania Berlow, the chances are that anybody reading it would have just dismissed it as the product of one of the usual suspects! I am pretty much up to speed with personalities, but I must confess that the name Norma Wilshaw is a new one to me. It puts one very much in mind of habitual criminals using somebody without a record to carry out some task.
Anybody who writes an article on home education, or mentions it on their Blog or makes a speech about it can expect to be deluged with abusive comments if what they have said deviates much from what a fairly small group of mainly autonomous educators regard as acceptable. There are not all that many of these people, but they make sure that they overwhelm the comments sections on Blogs and newspapers, thus giving the impression that the people's voice is firmly in favour of unregulated home education. Often, these comments are co-ordinated via HE lists such as HE-UK and BRAG. People will post suggestions for a response; others will help shape the tone of the comments, which aspects should be emphasised and so on. The end result looks very natural when the comments go up, but it is actually driven by no more than a dozen or so individuals. Just glancing at the comments though, gives a very authentic impression of an outpouring of spontaneous, popular anger. If a newspaper, national or local, has an article about home education, this same small group will post comments denouncing the author if he is insufficiently enthusiastic about home education. Anybody who says anything on these same comments pages even vaguely in favour of new regulations for home education is quickly shouted down.
That this is a fairly small band of activists is pretty plain from a number of clues. For one thing, it is always the same names which crop up. For some of these people, patrolling the Internet in this way looking for a scrap must be practically a full-time job. Lord knows when they find the time to educate their children! I have mentioned before firebird 2110, whose aggressive comments may be found in local newspapers as far apart as Portsmouth and Lancashire. I will not name personal names, but I think that we all know who I am talking about here! Often, it is the same nine people who made 70% of the Freedom of Information Act requests to the Department of Children, Schools and Families last year.
Now speaking for myself, I don't particularly mind this sort of thing. It's true that I had my own share of harsh comments for my pieces in the TES and Independent last year, but hey, that's OK. The danger that I can see is that those who are not aware of what is going on might be tricked into thinking that these extreme views are typical of home educators and not the mutterings of a tiny band of, perhaps fanatics is the wrong word, shall we say dedicated enthusiasts for their own lifestyle? This worries me, because it could so easily end up with the autonomous tail wagging the home education dog. I rather suspect that one or two Peers and MPs have been sucked into the debate on regulation because they have been persuaded that these militant types are typical of home educating parents and represent the majority. Perhaps if they were to start scrutinising the comments on a few blogs and online editions of newspapers and making a note of the names they see all the time, it would help disabuse them of this notion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is just silly, Simon, unless you are also suggesting that (for example) the thousands of responses to the DCSF's so-called consultation, the thousands of signatures on the petition to the prime minister, and the record number of petitions delivered to parliament from individual constituencies are also the work of these few people.
ReplyDeleteThe issue has little to do with autonomous education in particular, and everything to do with state intrusion, a misguided attempt to empower random LA officials to exercise their personal prejudices over people's lives, and attempts to smear a whole section of the population with unwarranted suggestions of child abuse and safeguarding concerns. (I notice, by the way, that Ed Balls has silently withdrawn his despicable statement attempting to falsely link the tragic death of Khyra Ishaq with home education for political purposes, perhaps you should follow suit?).
Back to autonomous education - I have my own doubts about this when taken to the extreme, but I also don't share your wholehearted scepticism. What I have no doubt about is the ability (and right) of individual parents to know better than a bunch of bureaucrats what to do for their children.
Either way, it's certainly a subject worth of much discussion and research. When you're talking about matters of education, whether autonomous or not, you frequently have insightful and interesting things to say. I wish there was more of that here, and less of what seems to be a personal vendetta against those individuals who have, you say, shouted down your views and had you thrown off mailing lists for disagreeing with them. Not only is it tedious, but it reflects badly on you, in my opinion.
Okay.....so being baffled here, so what is the actual point you are trying to make, Simon? Yes,the whole anti-change campaign is exactly that and I can't see what any one would want to deny they exist. Yes, it is led by a relatively small number of "activists" and that is probably common of all such movements. I totally agree that whatver anyone thinks there are "pro-change" people out there, although few will be actively campaigning for such change because they don't participate in the online home ed world and anyway they know that their views are not going to be popular. The majority of families in our local group are so busy home educating they don't have the time or inclination to get involved on either side.
ReplyDeleteHowever I am pretty sure that politicians ( who are the ones who eventually will be responsible for making any changes) know how these things work!
When a group, online or not, makes it clear that you are not welcome, why do you insist on spying on them, sneaking bits of information and conversation out of what they think of as their private space, and printing it up here on your public blog, complete with misrepresentative twists?
ReplyDeleteYou keep doing it, despite even your own regular commenters telling you how badly it reflects upon you.
The group that you are talking about in this post has a vast number of regular participants, and you disrespect every single one of us every time you do this.
I think you have a vendetta that has blinded you. You simply fail to see most of us. I read a lot of blogs and a lot of tweets and a lot of group posts etc etc, and there is a very large number of people involved in these discussions. You only see what you call 'the usual suspects', you dont see the hundreds of people who made the effort to petition their MPs, the people who filled out the home ed picnics, the thousands who filled in the consultation. When I look at the list you mention, I can see there is a number of different posters, all with their own styles, all with their own concerns and emphasis. But you just skip over anyone who isnt on your hate list.
Nearly every day you write another long post full of innaccuracies and attacks, general and personal. The posts you write, your spying and your intrusion, your harassing and lying and slandering- none of it is about our list; its not about our blogs, or our comments; its not about our educational philosophies; its not about our children. Its All About You.
You're like the bully in the playground who calls people names and pulls their hair for attention. Grow up.
early every day you write another long post full of innaccuracies and attacks, general and personal. The posts you write, your spying and your intrusion, your harassing and lying and slandering- none of it is about our list; its not about our blogs, or our comments; its not about our educational philosophies; its not about our children. Its All About You.
ReplyDeleteYou're like the bully in the playground who calls people names and pulls their hair for attention. Grow up.
We agree with the above statement well said!
Julie says-The majority of families in our local group are so busy home educating they don't have the time or inclination to get involved on either side.
ReplyDeleteSo your group are allways right then Julie and ignore those of us who want no change to home education laws?
Anon ( but probably PW) said "So your group are allways right then Julie and ignore those of us who want no change to home education laws?"
ReplyDeleteer did I say that? er no! I said that a) there were pro change HErs around (pretty obvious really since 20% of the DCFS respondents said they were in favour of registration) b) that most people in my local group which is 140 plus families didn't take part in any of the debate either way - the vast majority whether they are for or against didn't complete the surveys or anything else.
That doesn't make them right or wrong in the actual issues involved - I am merely stating my observations.
You are the one jumping to conclusions, as usual, PW!
I've not responded to many articles or comments because the people you mention have already put my point of view across. Would you prefer many more individuals to post the same comments? I'm just glad that others have time to post the views that I agree with as it frees time for other tasks. I've spent the time I might have spent commenting on articles to write to my MP, for instance.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see a problem with autonomous educators hoping to have more influence in these issues. For one thing, they are the most likely to be adversely effected and for another, anything that is of advantage to AE families is highly unlikely to be a disadvantage for other groups but the reverse is not true. For example, some families are happy to write education content plans for the year ahead and would therefore not mind them being made compulsory. However, autonomous families could not do this and would be harmed by compulsion. If autonomous educators manage to prevent compulsion it wouldn't prevent the other families producing their plans so neither group is harmed.
Luckily I've spoken to many home educators who do not follow a particularly autonomous approach but who want to support other home educators in providing an education that they feel is suitable for their child even if it is different to their approach.
Teacher Julie says-there were pro change HErs around (pretty obvious really since 20% of the DCFS respondents said they were in favour of registration) b) that most people in my local group which is 140 plus families didn't take part in any of the debate either way - the vast majority whether they are for or against didn't complete the surveys or anything else.
ReplyDeleteThey are many more HE against than for change to law on HE. you say you local group didn't take part in debate either way you dont know that for sure do you Julie? some may have said to you they did not because they knowyou sort of agreed with change to HE laws.because you only want home education done in the right way like a class room? is that how you run your group with you at the front droning about something no one is intersted in!
You are the one jumping to conclusions, as usual, PW!
With good reason after being told by Morgan and back up by Balls that home educators abuse they children and according to Deech we hold them captive in our house just because we home educate!
Not a word from that Jan Lewis is she still on hoilday? i wonder if she is an ex teacher do you know Julie?
I do enjoy these chats with you Julie its been a long time since i spoke to a teacher LOL
PW again said "some may have said to you they did not because they knowyou sort of agreed with change to HE laws"
ReplyDeleteConcentrate Peter! I have never said I was in favour of the changes; I am not - partly because I am against any more govt interference in family life, and secondly because I don't think they will work very well in practise (the false positive thing). Your logic about my local group is therefore faulty.
As for Jan Lewis - I have only met her once so I am not the best person to ask (Jaki from NHEO knows more than I do) and she has certainly met her recently so she must be around. I understand that her background isn't from teaching.
As for what we actually do in our local group - I can only say that it might not be what you want but it is certainly what many home educators do ... we now have a growing waiting list !
Harsh words indeed from one of those who commented about my most recent post! I suppose that it is worth reminding people that this is an obscure little blog written by a middle aged man with somewhat eccentric views and opinions. I don't think I can really be accused of bullying, because only those who wish to read my thoughts ever come on here. I certainly don't have a "hate list". I regard some of those whom I see a lot on various sites as misguided and foolish, but then they probably view me in much the same light! Hard to say really, which of us is right. I only take notice of the HE lists generally when my name is mentioned there. A good example of what I was talking about above, regarding co-ordinated responses, occurred when I posted a comment on Baroness Deech's blog the other day. Somebody drew attention to it on one of the lists, urging people to respond to me. Fortunately, somebody else there explained that I was a sad man and that they shouldn't bother!
ReplyDeleteMy original post today was inspired by this. I have been involved in many campaigns on various things, but this one seems very different to me in a number of ways.
How much influence so you think lobby groups actually have with politicians, Simon? I know that a few years ago there was at least one case where money changed hands in order to swing how the recipient voted (presumably), but at a more general level does it really make a difference? You mentioned the Red Cross (I think) campaign about introducing first aid to school curriculum; will that have any effect- do politicans really listen or are we in a weird state because of the nearness of the General Election and the apparent uncertainty about the outcome?
ReplyDeleteYou are probably right about this Julie. It is just that I have never seen a campaign quite like this one. As you know, some Freedom of Information Requests have been turned down because it was felt that Badman was at risk of harrassment. Part of this was triggered by somebody on one of the lists saying that he would have "blood on his hands". Now this same expression has cropped up again. Baroness Deech is being told that she too will have blood on her hands. As you might remember, I posted unflatteringly about the Baroness and also wrote to her, because of comments she made at the APPG. But to suggest that she has "blood on her hands" because she is sceptical about the benefits of home education!
ReplyDeleteMy point is that this is particularly sharp, almost vicious campaign which is being waged against those who have reservations about home education. I have not even heard anybody come out against home education; only some people not being entirely convinced that it is a good idea. I am not the only one to notice this and I am not at all sure that some of the things being said are creating the best possible imprssion for home education.
"It is just that I have never seen a campaign quite like this one." So? You don't strike me as a campaigning type of man Simon, so it's quite likely you haven't. Though you must have gone round with your eyes shut in the 60s and 70s.
ReplyDeleteDo any of us really know what a campaign is like unless we are a part of it? I do wonder about this campiagn compared to the previous one in which the DCSF decided there was no need for change - why was that one (which was so low key) successful yet this one (in which the no campaign is much more active) still on-going? Whatever the actual end of the process ( ie the date of the Election etc) the govt/DCSF haven't shown much sign of backing down. The whole battle is far more political because of the Election and organisations like EO have been far more active than before. What will happen if the Labour party get back in, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteI used to be involved in many campaigns back in the sixties and seventies. There was a little more idealism in those days. One of the things which I have particularly noticed is the cynical and dishonest way that this campaign against the CSF bill is being waged. Here is a typical example. In an attempt to get the public to back home educators, they are being told that this affects them as well. A home educating parent living in Market Drayton sent this letter to her local paper;
ReplyDelete"local authority officers be given powers to enter family homes and to interview children alone – without the need to show evidence that the child might be at risk, without a warrant, and without a police officer being present. ....
The law in the UK has long protected individuals against unjustified intrusion into private homes; this protection is about to be removed in the case of’ home-educating families. There is no guarantee that these powers, if granted, will not be extended to include other families. I have serious concerns about the implications of these measures for our democracy"
Now when this letter was written in December, the writer knew perfectly well that none of this was true. All this talk about entering homes without a warrant is not in the Children, schools and Families Bill at all. The writer is trying to put the frighteners on ordinary, non home schooling parents and get them supporting the campaign against the bill.
This is the sort of questionable tactic which is discussed on the HE lists and then put into practice by letters to newspapers and the BBC, as well as comments on Internet sites. It is not a straightforward and open campaign at all. This is how it differs from those with which I was myself engaged forty years ago.
Simon says -you are probably right about this Julie. It is just that I have never seen a campaign quite like this one. As you know, some Freedom of Information Requests have been turned down because it was felt that Badman was at risk of harrassment.
ReplyDeleteWhat risk was Badman at over harrasment? i dont understand that statement explain in detail?
If you refuse a meeting in the home a school attendance order will be issued yes or no Simon?
teacher JuLie Says Do any of us really know what a campaign is like unless we are a part of it?
What campaign? its just people who home educate
who do not want change to the law on home education now we know you Julie want change to the law on home education but most home educators dont!
Who is Jaki Julie? i never heard of him or her?
i must say these chats Julie are quite fun with you! and your a teacher! you have a waiting list Julie to listen to you?? amazing!!
PW said "Who is Jaki Julie? i never heard of him or her?"
ReplyDeleteYou are still not concentrating, Peter - Jaki is the NHEO moderator who is organising a display on Home ed at Alton library and who had (endless) conversations with you a few weeks ago here!
Although for all the good it did, she might as well have been talking to the wind......
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDeleteI know Mrs Of Market Drayton; I suspect that here are 2 things going on here - it is quite hard to actually keep up with what is going on (ie Badman said one thing, the DCSF another and so on) Secondly there is little trust of both politicians and Local authorities; so the fear is that even if the "entry to home" bit isn't in the Bill, the feeling is that it will be used on a basis of "let us in or you won't be approved"
The trouble is that there is so much fear of the whole business around, we can't know how much is real and how much is entirely without warrant, and some people, particularly with SEN children have often had bad past experiences so there is a greater basis for their fear.
In the middle of all this, some LAs are jumping the gun and saying all sorts of things. A friend who had a visit last week had a newish inspector who insisted on testing her 5 year old. She muttered a lot about the new law and the need for more paperwork and so on (probably fairly normal) which will be an issue 'cos the family are autonomous. Then, on discovering (by her own tests)that this 6 year old came out with a reading age of 9 and a maths age(!) of 12 finished the visit by telling the mum that the child would be better off in school! Doesn't engender confidence, does it?
I too know Mrs X of Market Drayton, she is after all a regular contributor here! I'm sure that you too have seen people on various lists telling each other that the way forward is by making other parents feel that they too are at risk. I have been irritated to see a number of newspaper articles which repeat all this stuff about children being interviewed alone and LA officers having the right to enter homes. It is true that Badman envisaged this, but there was never any chance of it and the CSF Bill certainly does not suggest that it will happen.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right about some local authority officers. I too have heard of such people flexing their muscles and arrogating to themselves powers which they do not yet have. I think that the answer here is more and better training. The fact is of course, that many of these epople are ex teachers and do not really approve of home education. I can see that this would be at best annoying and at worst unnerving for parents. I dislike as well and hope that home education becomes as accepted as school based education one day.
i forgot to ask Julie are you pretty?
ReplyDeleteDo you still think the DCSF are wrong to expect the main place of education (i.e. the home) to be specified for visits in statutory guidance? They already state on the DCSF website that an EWO will contact families who wnat to HE and arrange a home visit to check provision and decide if the provision is suitable - no mention of a home visit being optional.
ReplyDeleteDo you also doubt that refusal to allow the child to be spoken to alone will be viewed by some EWOs as non-cooperation and used grounds for refusal to register or revocation of registration (as detailed in the Bill)?
Julie are you pretty?
ReplyDeleteI doubt one of these suggestions and feel that the other should be qualified. The most recent information on the way that the government is thinking about this is to be found in the government response to the select committee's recommendations. This was published the day before yesterday and I have a copy in front of me as I write.
ReplyDeleteAs far as monitoring visits go, they say;
"While in most cases this is likely to be the home, it is not the only place where home education is conducted. In many cases a meeting in the home should be more convenient for the family and more comfortable for the child who will be in familiar circumstances. Our guidance will ask local authorities to be flexible in making arrangments that suit the circumstances of parents."
In other words, the home will be the most convenient, but if parents don't want that then it will be somewhere else. As for seeing children alone, the latest line is as follows;
"We envisage this would be where there is no evidence that the child has recieved the education described by the parents, little or no evidence that the education meets the needs of the child, or where there are doubts that the child is resident at the registration address - and where these matters can only be resolved by talking to the child without their parents present. These circumstances will be rare, but it is important that the power is available when all other efforts to establish whether education is suitable have failed"
I don't think that this is going to be at all common, but agree that it is a necessary power.
Freedom of speech if fine, but should it include harassment which is being to have a more sinister edge? Not sure if you could be considered complicit as someone with moderator/editing powers.
ReplyDeleteSo the DCSF's current approach of stating on their website as part of their information for parents that annual home visits are required for EHE doesn't signpost the direction things are going to you?
ReplyDeleteIf the comment about freedom of speech is referring to Peter Williams of Alton asking Julie if she is pretty, I think Julie has this fool's measure and I seriously doubt if she is feeling harrassed by him! Drawing attention to such behaviour often tends to encourage it. This would make it a moot point which of us was more complicit, should there be a repetition!
ReplyDeleteSince the Children, Schools and Families Bill has not yet become law, both the government's response on Thursday and the advice from the DCSF have no legal standing. We will have to see how things work out when the bill becomes law and the details are filled out by a series of Statutory instruments.
ReplyDeleteStrange way to proceed isn't it - we have to wait until SIs are drawn up before we know what the law will be - when you consider that SIs are not debated in parliament. Bit of a blank cheque really. I wonder who they will listen to most when they draw them up? the DCSF or home educators?
ReplyDeleteRe: being complicit - I'm not the one with editing privileges. I believe editors can be found guilty of libel - wonder if the same applies to other laws.
I hardly think that asking a woman if she is pretty is libellous! But I am prepared to take the risk. I also think that I would myself be guilty of sexism if I were to act upon the assumption that Julie, as a woman, is not quite capable of taking care of herself in an arena such as this. I do not subscribe to the Victorian idea that women are fragile blooms whom chivalrous men must protect from insult. From the little I know of Julie, I rather suspect that she would find that even more insulting than my leaping to her defence by censoring some lunatic in Alton! Get a grip, Anonymous; he asked if she were pretty! I think her is trying to flirt with her, although in the most hideously crass way imaginable. This is neither libellous nor sinister!
ReplyDelete"I hardly think that asking a woman if she is pretty is libellous!"
ReplyDeleteDidn't say it was, please read more carefully.
It may be just flirting but I doubt it going by previous messages. Maybe sinister is a bit strong but it feels creepy to me. I would feel at least uncomfortable if I knew this person lived nearby and could easily find me.
Part of the problem with the right of access to the home is the very poor way in which it was written. At one point it gives the parents and child power to say no, whereas elsewhere it considers that such refusals are valid grounds to serve an SAO. This government thrives on vagueness, assuring us one thing and then going back on that assurance later - ask an Icelander what he thinks of our terrorism legislation. I watched some of the Lords debate on renewing the control orders legislation and many of them expressed regret for agreeing to it back in 2005 and calling for it to be allowed to lapse as they consider it a blot on our system fo rhow it was implemented.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Baroness Deech is complaining on LotB today about the amount of work the Merits of Statutory Instruments committee has on its plate. If Schedule 1 passed into law then she'd find an awful lot more, because pretty well nothing is nailed down in primary legislation except to allow all the secondary legislation to pass without reference to Parliament.