freedom in education

Child Tax Credits

2011-07-26T13:39:00.004+01:00

I am stealing this post directly from the HE forums. If you or anyone you know have experienced this problem - which is actually very serious - people are being forced into debt and poverty through no fault of their own, but through the HMRC's failings, please do comment on the thread on the forums.

"Has anyone been denied child tax credits for young people 16+ remaining in full time home-based education?

We are hearing some alarming stories of families receiving demands for alleged over payments, despite having clearly indicated their child(ren)'s continuing home educated status on renewal applications.

The eligibility criteria should not exclude home educated children over 16, who are by definition still in full time education, but the child tax credit office is either unable or unwilling to provide a detailed explanation for the exclusion policy they are evidently now implementing to the detriment of home educating families.

If the regulations have been changed to allow such discrimination, HE families are being penalised retrospectively for errors on the part of CTC staff.

Hopefully this is something that Graham Stuart may be able to raise with the Minister as a matter of urgency, but anyone who has been affected by this issue might want to ask their local MP to investigate the matter on their behalf.

Clarity and consistency from public servants should surely not be too much to expect."

Guidelines Shenanigans - Chickens Coming Home to Roost

2011-06-12T19:22:00.003+01:00

Finally the *draft guidelines* have been made public. They were *leaked* some time ago, but it seems that this time the *leak* has been more of a mains water burst than a teeny trickle. By accident or design we can only guess.

I've nothing new to say about them, preferring to treat them with the disdain that they and their author deserve, and anyway, Lisa has said all that needs to be said already, IMO.

Good to see that there are people out there who have the measure of those involved, and aren't afraid to (finally) come out and explain how the farcical process worked, to the rest of us.

Few things in life are certain, but you can be pretty damned sure that the truth will always out, and that chickens will eventually come home to roost. About bloody time.

Batting From The Other Side

2011-05-11T21:14:00.000+01:00

Great to read Graham Stuart's speech in the house of commons earlier today; I was worried that a rush of power to the head had changed Graham Stuart's support and understanding of HE, but credit where credit is due, he listened, took note, researched and admitted he'd got it wrong - a rare thing indeed in a politician.

Very interesting to read the comments of old adversaries such as Barry Sheerman too.

Also good to see Local Authorities illegal interpretation of HE shown up and recorded in Hansard.

Starts at the bottom of column 1216 here

The State We Are In

2011-03-19T13:36:00.001Z

This blog post says it all, this should not be happening in this country. Please read, and share far and wide. We owe John Hemming, and all those who dare to speak out about this, our support.

CME Postcard

2010-11-21T17:50:00.004Z

I decided that it might be useful if there was a simple postcard that people who support the call for changes to CME legislation could send to their MPs etc.

My daughter did the drawings, we know that they are terribly stereotyped, this was done deliberately to make the point very clearly in the easiest way possible. We do not believe that home educated children all sit studiously at desks all day long in the same way that we don't believe all truants are yobbish, chain smoking graffiti artists.

If you want to read more about this issue then please look at the following two links both of which are included on the postcard:

AHEd letter to Michael Gove

Mieke's blog about how CME is changing relations between the LA and HEers in Cumbria.

You might also like to look at these threads on the Home Education Forums which details further examples of CME being directed at Home Educators.

And at Gill's blog detailing why CME needs changing before we have any new guidelines.

If you click on the highlighted named links you will be able to download a copy of the front and back of the postcard to print off on an A6 sized piece of card. There is a lot of info to try to squeeze into a small space, but it does all print out ok - well, it did for me!

If you don't already know who your MP is you can find out who they are and where to write to them here.

CME Postcard Front

Back of CME Post Card (1)

Conspiracy of Silence

2010-11-09T18:50:00.002Z

It's now been over a month since the HE grapevine first started kicking off about the rumour that new guidelines were being written.

A month of people wondering, questioning, worrying and debating potential issues.

A month in which the known author of the guidelines could have responded to people's questions. A month in which she could have put people's minds at rest. It is surely what any decent person would do?

Instead we have had nothing. Zilch. Nada. Oh we've had the mutterings of a few self appointed fire fighters, who for their part seem only to have fanned the flames and attempted to stifle reasoned debate. From the Queen Bee though, nothing. She is, it would appear, above reproach.

There are people who could shed some light on the goings on, but we seem to be firmly in the midst of a conspiracy of silence. Whilst this may sound dramatic, I think that anyone who has been drawn into this episode would find it hard to disagree that elements of these effects are evident within parts of the HE *Community*.

Those who are directly suffering, or causing others to suffer, perpetuate their cycle of harm and suffering

Those who have suffered have their suffering extended by having their condition ignored or minimized, and are not considered seriously or redressed appropriately

Lessons that might be learned for future are not learned

Apparently the reason no one will speak out is because they are too frightened to *stick their heads above the parapet*. If those involved had the courage of their convictions then they would not seek to hide behind what they must perceive to be the safety of anonymity, they would be willing to defend their actions. That they are not suggests that self interest is at the heart of the whole sorry mess. We can only wonder at the possible motives involved, but top of the list would surely have to be financial gain. Maybe not immediately, that would be too obvious, but perhaps there is a longer term game plan afoot here?

Words like slander, libel and defamation are flying around the ether; friendships are being torn apart; suspicion is rife. Ed Balls's government couldn't have done a better job of creating such a rift. Meanwhile, silence.

Words couldn't express it better than this photo:

I would ask that the person responsible stand up and own her actions, but I know all too well that I would be ignored. Reprehensible doesn't begin to cover it.

Of course this post is probably just another example of me *Doing a Tech*.

What's In A Word?

2010-10-13T16:55:00.009+01:00

Guidance Guidelines what's the difference?

Guidance is statutory that is it is prescribed or authorized by statute. The CME (Children Missing Education) guidance is statutory because there is a clause in the original act which directs the relevant authority to take note of the contents of any guidance issued. It would appear that this is a neat way of altering the law without having to keep changing the primary legislation.

Guidelines are not statutory, and are basically just advice as to how to carry out particular duties.

GuidANCE trumps guideLINES.

As I understand it, HE cannot have statutory guidance because there is nothing in statute which refers an authority to any guidance. So to have statutory HE guidance we would need a change to the primary legislation.

It seems to me that this would not be a good thing, as each new guidance issued alters the legal situation - if I have misunderstood this PLEASE tell me, and explain to me how.

We have a situation where the 2007 HE Guidelines specifically state "The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home." This was in relation to CME and pointed to the 2007 guidance on CME.

3.3.16. If it becomes known that a child identified as not receiving education is being home educated, this should be recorded on the local authority's database and no further action should be taken unless there is cause for concern about the child's safety and welfare. Monitoring arrangements already exist for children being educated at home. Where there are concerns about the child's safety and welfare, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures must be followed.

However, the guidance was updated and so now it is the 2009 guidance which is the one that must be adhered to, and this is where the problems arise.

2009 CME guidance gives over a whole section to Home Education I would like to draw attention to this particular section:

92. In order to discharge their duties in relation to children not receiving an education, local authorities should make inquiries with parents about whether their home educated children are receiving a suitable education. The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear that parents who home educate may take a number of equally valid approaches to educational provision for their children.

So in one fell swoop we have gone from a case of - "record the fact that the child is home educated and that's all you need to do", to "make inquiries".

It would seem from looking at the websites of various local authorities that they have interpreted this new duty by immediately referring HEers to the CME department. North Yorkshire for instance was certainly a week or two ago advising headteachers not to deregister a child 'on demand' but to instead pass the details onto the CME team.

"2.1 Regarding the Headteacher's duty to inform the LA before deleting pupil who is to be home educated from the register. In such cases please inform: Julie Fenny, CME coordinator"

Unless I have misunderstood the law regarding deregistration, the headteacher is supposed to remove the child from the register immediately the deregistration letter has been received, and then notify the LA, not vice versa.

If we look at what is happening in Bedfordshire, it's an even worse scenario:

"When parents withdraw their child from school to EHE, the child’s name can only
be deleted from the admissions register when the parents inform the school in
writing (section 8 (d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006)
giving reasons for decisions. The Head Teacher/Governor has to inform the LA of
withdrawal together with reasons before the child’s name is deleted."

Compare that with the actual law:

"It is then the duty of the proprietor of the school to inform the LA within 10 working days under Regulation 13 (3): “when the name of a pupil has been deleted from the admission register in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c) the proprietor shall make a return to the local education authority giving the full name and address of that pupil within the ten school days immediately following the date on which the pupil's name was so deleted”.

Arse about face isn't it? (You can see the full details here)

More and more cases are turning up where HEers are being *found out* having come into contact with local authority services. It would seem to be the case that everyone with a connection to children's services has a duty to inform the CME department about any HE children they come across in the course of their work. Previously, as far as I understand it, the librarian, school nurse, health visitor, hospital, gp etc etc could choose to *shop* you if they felt that way inclined, but equally could choose to do nothing and let you go on your merry way with no further hassle. It would seem that the CME guidance has changed all that, so unless you are able to avoid all public services you stand a very good chance of becoming known. If all LAs follow N Yorks lead and report straight to CME officers before deregistering a child, and it seems unlikely that N Yorks are acting as a maverick authority, then we effectively have non voluntary registration.

Whilst the 2007 EHE Guidelines are not statutory, they do stand as a clear reminder that HE was not to be conflated with CME. If we put in place new, updated guidelines, will that particular element be removed? If it is, are we left with not a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the CME guidance, which is what I believe we need to do before we even think about putting new guidelines in place.

Thanks to Gill for laying this out on this blog piece, and to Elaine for digging out the dodgy LA practices.

ETA: thinking about it further, would it even be possible to refer to outdated guidance in new guidelines? I would imagine not, so it would seem that that particular section will have to go.

Another addition: I have had a message passed to me via a third party from Alison Sauer:

"You might, if you are brave enough, like to suggest to Tech that she revisits her blog post and quotes the correct law........which sadly means that all these policies are actually technically correct. I'd really hate her to look daft. And this is not a sarcastic comment, it's genuine otherwise I would be on there correcting her.

Tech is quoting 1995 regs not 2006 ones. And the guidance accompanying it is poisonous and confusing. It tells schools to notify LAs ASAP and if the dereg is with immediate effect to delay dereg for 2 days.

I went ballistic when they changed it but it had no effect........

Alison Sauer"

Which is interesting as the section I quoted came Derbyshire Council's website screenshot linked to above and here too.

Elaine has posted this rather clear graphic dated 01/09/08, along with some other interesting information on the forums

No New Guidance for HE, until you've fixed the CME

2010-10-10T00:29:00.001+01:00

The new rallying cry goes out!

Guidance Connivance

2010-10-08T13:23:00.004+01:00

Gill has already done an excellent blog post about all this. Read it here.

For my part, all I want to say is this:

People who think they are qualified to write such things on behalf of the rest of us, without telling us, should at the very least be known to their LA, and have gone through the process of providing information to them. Training them in how to deal with the rest of us does not equal expert knowledge unless you have actually sat on both sides of the fence and come through the other side. It's the difference between theoretical knowledge and actual experience.

ETA: GS apparently has this to say about it all:

"For home education I think we need new guidance issued by the government to local authorities (LAs) which lays to rest, once and for all (hopefully), the agitation by LAs for more powers and encourages a new culture of support and humility ...from LAs rather than suspicion and distrust. I have spoken to a number of different people about this (including the Minister) and hope to come forward with a proposal for everyone to look at, dispute, improve etc to deliver the above aims. I have initially asked a few people to help come up with a first draft before opening out to the full drama of HE community input. Fundamental to anything I come up with will be the primacy of parents in determining their child's education and a complete rejection of compulsory registration and all the other "licensing" facets of the last government's approach. I think we have a real opportunity to settle this issue in a way that LAs can live with and which makes the chance of future action by government unlikely so that the Badman proposals are never resurrected."

Machinations and Networking

2010-09-25T13:13:00.006+01:00

This dropped into my inbox a short while ago:

"We are having a meeting at the Department of Education at their request with significant civil servants next week on the subject of home education.
If you have reports from your local education authority advisers or inspectors which you would be willing to make available to us to give to the Department of Education if they ask us could you send us copies? Scanned versions and email might be the only way we could do this at this stage. (Our meeting is on Wednesday 29th, next week.) But if you are able to help we would be grateful to receive."

It is apparently a communication from Teach, sent to those who use their ACE programme.

I suppose this meeting could be a good thing. Perhaps the new department is planning on pulling all those misbehaving LAs into line. LAs like Lancashire who were very disappointed not to see Badman implemented:

"In June 2009, Badman's report on the Review of Elective Home Education in
England was published. An overview of the Badman report was included at
Appendix B to the report now presented. Twenty Eight recommendations had
been made and accepted by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families. Many of the recommendations in the task group's report were mirrored
in the Badman report. The Badman recommendations were far reaching for local
authorities and strengthened the right of local authority officers to have "right of
access to the home" and "speak to the child alone if appropriate.

"The Children, Schools and Families Bill, had been progressing through
parliamentary procedures and it had been expected to become law in the ‘washup’
period (the last few days of a Parliament, after the election had been
announced but before dissolution). However, it was now reported to the
committee that not everything in the Bill had been enacted as expected and that
the elective home education element had been dropped."

"Mike Hart, Director of Children's Strategy and Resources came to the table and
explained that whilst the passage of the Bill in its entirety would have provided a
clear legislative basis to progress the recommendations of the EHE Task Group,
it was important to now look at the issues raised by the task group within the
existing framework.

"It was emphasised that the county council had a legal responsibility to safeguard
children and that it would do all that it could within the current framework to fulfil
that responsibility. One member urged that the county council should press the
next government to ensure that Badman's recommendations were enacted as
soon as possible.

"It was suggested that a further report be brought to the Children and Young
People Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the summer to set out how the
recommendations of the EHE Task Group would be addressed in light of the
EHE elements of the Children, Schools and Families Bill not being passed into
legislation."

Lancashire LA already run CRB checks on all the adults in a HE household:

"TM asked if there are any checks made on the family and home circumstances. AR advised that there were, home visit are made within the first month and parents are engaged to work through any difficulties. A CRB check is also made as well as a check of agency records with regard to any adults in the home; this information is covered in a parent's questionnaire."

I've been told that the EHE advisor is quite vehement that parents fill in and sign these questionnaires on the spot. One can only presume that they are using these forms as de facto permission to carry out the CRB check, without informing the parents that this is what is going to happen. Naughty.

Quite clearly these people are not going to let it lie just because a little thing like the law isn't currently on their side.

Going back to the email about the up and coming meeting, the bit about *significant civil servants* concerns me. I made some enquiries last week to see if Penny Jones was still *in charge* of HE over at the new department, and I was sent confirmation back that it is indeed part of her portfolio. I find this somewhat of a worry not least because PJ has been in this role for the past several years with the pinnacle of her career being her role as Badman's right hand woman during the review last year. Information released under the FOI Act show that much of what the CSF Bill wanted to implement was already in the pipeline for us as far back as 2006, with Badman just being the latest in a long line of attempts to bring in the extra powers that many LAs have sought for years. Will the civil servants who have plotted and schemed for all these years suddenly have had a moment of enlightenment with the change of government I wonder? I find this rather unlikely, especially when their colleagues on the ground are pushing for more power. Old habits die hard, and people with power who are defeated often become all the more determined to win.

So we have a situation, once again, where our children's futures are being discussed without their knowledge or ours. Unless you're a member of Teach that is, an organisation who have at least had the decency to inform their members what is going on, albeit with rather limited information. What other HE orgs will be present at this meeting? Have they informed their members? If so, why is this not general knowledge? Why is this meeting and the implications not being widely discussed? Something stinks.

Thank goodness the HE networks that proved so successful at disseminating information during the Badman review are still alive and kicking. Is it time to roll out the Just Say No campaign again?

ETA: I've been reminded about the HEYC meeting with Penny Jones back in 2009, which they've helpfully transcribed here after being refused permission to share the video of the meeting. I know it's naughty to take just one line out of a whole conversation but I'm going to do it anyway because I think this one line says all we need to know ;)

PENNY JONES: Well, want or not, I am a government official, and these five outcomes are government policy. [loud crosstalk from all sides]

Child Abusers, Again.

2010-09-18T21:06:00.002+01:00

A link to this article from community care was left on Kelly's blog. If you scroll to the bottom of the page there is ever such an attractive check list of *risk factors*. Highlighted in red in the victims section is *home educated*.

Looks like those made up statistics of Mr Badman's have been doing the rounds then. Whosoever is behind this lovely little chart is clearly suffering from a particularly bad case of FSBP (flawed statistic based policy).

ETA: Ali has posted an excellent piece about this on the HE Forums here.

Happy Freedom In Education Day!

2010-09-15T20:01:00.002+01:00

I can't believe that this nearly passed me by, after all, I set this blog up just over a year ago specifically to celebrate freedom in education day.

So spurred on by this rather glowing blog post from my friend Kelly here is just a brief post to mark the day.

Today we didn't really do much to celebrate we just got on with the business of living, but this year we were able to do that without the deep seated fear that we were in the final days of the freedom that we have taken for granted over the past 10 years.

I don't think we will ever feel as carefree as we did in the preceding years, because the last year and a bit has made us realise just how much we need to protect freedom. It's not something that can or should ever be taken for granted.

Tomorrow we are meeting some HE friends for a picnic, mini sports day, bubble blowing, circus skills, messing around and enjoying life kind of day. The irony of this is that we will be doing all of these things in a playground that was largely funded by the DCSF. It feels like a final bit of defiance in the face of that blasted rainbow that caused us all so much heartache last year.

And because I'm currently listening to it whilst I cook tea here is my personal life anthem for your delectation and delight :D

James Overton

2010-09-01T14:02:00.001+01:00

I don't know who you are, but I think I love you!

Thank You :)

2010-08-25T21:03:00.003+01:00

I've now got 40 responses to my request for opinions on the affects of the badman review. That's so fantastic thank you all so much.

Still room for more though, if anyone feels up to it - positive, negative, bit of both it's all good :)

freedomined@gmail.com

Help needed

2010-08-13T18:57:00.002+01:00

I'm currently working on a project that I would really appreciate some help with.

I'm looking to collect people's opinions about how the badman review and it's aftermath affected them (and their families too).

A paragraph or two is fine, as is more than a couple of paragraphs if you find it flows once you start writing!

Anonymous or named both fine.

If you're up for doing this, please email your opinions to me at freedomined@gmail.com

thank you :D

The Children Were Educated in a School

2010-08-06T17:54:00.007+01:00

That is the headline we never see when a tragedy unfolds, ok so it's hardly big news is it? Most children go to school. This is something that social scientists refer to as an "unmarked identity", that is: something which is taken for granted, a social norm. Home educated children, by contrast, have a "marked identity" - something which is defined in my OU text book like this:

"... the marked identity never goes unnoticed and usually carries a negative value."

The BBC, as ever, loves to point out the marked identity of home education, it can't seem to help itself even when other journalists manage to write perfectly good copy without resorting to the spreading of prejudice against a minority group which has had more than it's fair share of attacks in the past 18 months.

Maybe, if every time a child died, the fact that they had attended that great social safety net that is a school was pointed out to them, people might start to question this form of education too. >hollow laughter<

This story is what has prompted this mini rant, if you haven't already seen it. Home Education Forums has an excellent rebuff on it's blog here.

The (in)famous Mr Ed

2010-08-04T15:21:00.002+01:00

I'm finally getting round to finishing this excellent book which I started way back in March - other books have taken precedence in the intervening months. Something which seems to happen with interesting regularity is that, since taking up this book again, several other areas of life have convened and lots of things are now slotting into place for me as a result.

I've been reading Kelly's collection of essays this morning, which has, rather uncomfortably, made me think about Ed Balls again - how I had hoped that man had been purged from my mind! So with that (him) in mind I'm just going to type up a bit of the book:

"One of the most poisonous ethereal ideas in human history is the concept of an absolute authority which overrides all other moral or legal considerations. Whether the authority cited is God or The Party, Science or Truth or The State, this particular ethereal idea has been used, and is still being used today, to justify some truly disgusting atrocities. By treating human beings as means rather than ends in their own right, it places human life, and quality of life, below some abstract goal. Whether or not it is associated with an explicitly totalitarian regime, it is a clear example of totalist thinking."

"... one of the joys of ethereal ideas is their apparent explanatory power, their capacity to make everything look simple. Dividing the world into clearly-marked *us* and *them* groups puts much less strain on one's cognitive resources than acknowledging the details of human difference."

I think that sums up pretty well what the man did, and is still trying to do when he writes guff such as this.

Lots of people have suggested that what home educators must now do is to keep positive stories about what we do in the press. That we can't afford to slide back into the shadows and get back to just living our lives as we were pre Badman. I must admit that I've not felt much attraction for this PR exercise, to be honest I resent it, it's an imposition, we are not celebrities, our lives are not fodder for the trashy magazines. But. Having read what Kelly has to say, and to find that it marries up with what this neuroscientist says about how to break through strong *cogwebs*, I think we really don't have any other option.

Can't recommend the book enough, it's fascinating, eye opening and a real education!

Caption Competition

2010-07-27T08:52:00.007+01:00

No prizes I'm afraid, just a bit of fun.

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. OUT! OUT! OUT!

2010-07-25T18:11:00.004+01:00

I’ll admit that politics hasn’t been top of my agenda since the change of government, but I couldn’t let the review of the Children’s Commissioner pass by without comment.

It was to be hoped that, this time, the cries of “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out. Out. Out.” would be heeded by a Tory government, but alas, with the political situation being what it is, we shall have to wait and see whether the coalition will have the balls to give Maggie the boot when the *independent* review presents its findings in November. In the mean time a little recap, along with a catch up, is in order I think.

Back in March I wrote this post which detailed some of the interesting connections between the various players in the HE Review, and the way that they appeared to link up to the tragic case of Khyra Ishaq. There are several mentions of Maggie Atkinson in that post which will be making a reappearance in this one, and whilst this post should stand alone, you might want to have a skim read of the earlier post to get an idea of the wider picture.

The review into the role of the Children’s Commissioner for England [CC] was announced on July 12th following “a furore over insensitive remarks by the current commissioner over the killing of James Bulger.” (Daily Mail article) This is not the first time Ms Atkinson has courted controversy in her role as CC: her appointment to the role was extremely controversial, with her champion, Ed Balls, thumbing his nose at the advice of the Select Committee charged with interviewing for the post, who felt that they were:

"unable to endorse her appointment, as we would like to have seen more sign of determination to assert the independence of the role, to challenge the status quo on children’s behalf, and to stretch the remit of the post, in particular by championing children’s rights." (opens Select Committee report PDF)

I find Barry Sheerman’s comments on this matter very interesting, and deeply concerning:

"When pushed... she said she would not champion children's rights, her role was to be the voice of children. We found it difficult to see how she could do one without the other."

If this article is anything to go by, I find her assertion that she would be the voice of children rather hollow.

On July 23rd Ms Atkinson told the TES that she had been given the nod that her role is safe, and that “she believes that the review could even STRENGTHEN her powers.” (my emphasis)

Consider that “the powers the Commissioner does have exceed those granted to parents under the terms of the legislation. Parents are not mentioned in Part One of the Act, so although the Commissioner is required to consult organisations working with children in the discharge of his functions, he is not obliged to consult parents. Similarly, he has the power to conduct interviews, or authorise someone else to do so, with a child in private, subject only to the child’s consent.” (opens PDF)

Personally, I think the role, and therefore Ms Atkinson, has far too much power already, and that it needs reining in, not strengthening. Have a look at this video where Maggie describes your children as her children, and see how comfortable you feel with her having this much power. It sends shivers down my spine. Perhaps it was a well meant comment, but it’s not one that I think anyone who is a parent would make.

Another concern regards the duties of the CC, which according to the Bill that enacted the role are:

“monitoring complaints procedures for children, overseeing arrangements for children’s advocacy, monitoring legislation to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account, overseeing child death reviews and carrying out inquiries into major child abuse cases and child deaths; and to make provision to ensure that the work of the Commissioner is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child.”

Looking at these duties I believe the Select Committee was absolutely right to question whether Ms Atkinson would be able to “assert the independence of the role”.

Ms Atkinson was formerly the Director of Gateshead Children’s Services, and head of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS). In her role as CC she now “oversees child death reviews and inquiries into major child abuse cases and child deaths”.... So when a child dies, or suffers abuse enough to result in a serious case review, Ms Atkinson will be overseeing it, it would seem. I am struggling to see how it would be possible to trust the outcome of such reviews given Ms Atkinson’s close affinity to the people who are “accountable for the outcomes of every child in an area.” (Ministerial speech (opens Word Doc) to ADCS 2008 conference) It would surely be a conflict of interests?

In 2009 Gateshead Safeguarding Children Board held a serious case review after Child D was hospitalised with a fracture and malnutrition. The SRC found that the issues investigated were “primarily a failing on the part of Children’s Services”. One cannot help but draw parallels with the Khyra Ishaq case. The person in overall charge of Gateshead Children’s Services in 2009, was Ms Atkinson, as DCS.

I’m struggling to comprehend how then, as the head of a failing Children’s Services involved in a serious case review, she managed to land the role of Children’s Commissioner.

Mind you, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the Teflon coating these people seem to have. Let’s for a moment move our attention to Graham Badman who, only last week in a matter unrelated to home education, was described by a Conservative MP as being “Ed Balls’ henchman”. (I think this is also what Michael Gove was inferring about Atkinson when he said “that Atkinson had been appointed to three government educational roles in the past and that in each post she had been "a consistent supporter of government policy".) (Guardian Article)

In 2008 a little girl called Tiffany died at the hands of her father. As this Telegraph article explains: “Kent County Council, which deals with up to 20,000 referrals from children's social services, conceded that an independent review of the case had identified a "missed opportunity" within children's social services to share information.” The Director of Children’s Services in Kent at the time was Graham Badman, and yet he was tasked with carrying out a serious case review into the death of Baby P! As John Dunford (yes, the same man who is conducting the review into the Children’s Commissioner) said in this Guardian article:

“directors of children's services have "the job from hell", responsible for everything that happens to children in their area.”

But they know that when they take the role on, and if they aren’t prepared to carry the can for their failings then they shouldn’t be in post.

Of course Badman’s gravy train came to an abrupt halt with the change of government, his pet quango being one of the first to be killed off in the cutbacks making quite a hefty saving of £75 million. If the role of Children’s Commissioner were abolished, it would only save £3 million so perhaps the government will decide that it is worth keeping to avoid any potential posturing about a lack of concern over children’s rights. Something I think Ms Atkinson was hinting at when she said in the TES article that:

“there were children's commissioners or ombudsmen in every other UK country and in most European and Commonwealth nations and that cutting the post would put England in an "absolutely unique" position.”

I hope that the government will not be swayed by such veiled threats, and instead look very closely at the damage someone with Ms Atkinson’s history could do to parent/child and state/parent/child relationships, particularly if they do as she seems to want and grant her more power.

John Dunford says at the end of the Ministerial Letter announcing the review:

“I look forward to leading this important review into the role and functions of the Children’s Commissioner. I will be looking with an open mind about the best way to give young people a voice and protect their rights. That is why it is important that I talk to young people themselves to hear their views about the best way to represent them.
I will also be talking to a wide range of children’s groups, people working in education and children’s services, and looking at successful practices in other countries.”

I think that there might be rather a lot of Home Educated children who would like to tell Mr Dunford their views. You can respond to the consultation here, if you or your child feel up to taking part in yet another government consultation process that is...

With thanks, as ever, to EK for providing the information and the much needed push to create this post!

To Blog or not to Blog

2010-06-08T15:01:00.003+01:00

Trying to decide if I should use this space a bit more as a general HE blog, now that Badman, Brown, Balls and Becta have bitten the dust.

We're at a bit of a turning point in our HE journey right now, and now that the wonderful UKHE is up and running again, I've been feeling inspired by the stories and voices of those who have walked this path before us.

Hmm...

RIP DCSF

2010-05-13T00:41:00.003+01:00

What a great day, not only is Michael Gove in charge of education, but we hear of the death of the DCSF. Wonderful, and to celebrate this was created by a real Jem.

Hopefully that's me signing out of this blog for the foreseeable!

7 months of this blog captured by Wordle

2010-04-22T12:52:00.002+01:00

thanks to wordle

Tonight We Celebrate!

2010-04-07T20:55:00.003+01:00

At long last, after more than a year of flat out battling we can take a pause for breath and raise a glass, and dance on the grave of the CSF Bill.

I cannot tell you how much pleasure it gives me to think how galling it must have been for Baroness Morgan to have to stand against the HE parts of the Bill.

9.30pm we shall be raising a glass and jumping for joy!

Capitulation? No Thanks.

2010-03-16T11:42:00.009Z

Two words I particularly dislike:

Pragmatism: "Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

and

Capitulation: "A military term. Capitulation refers to surrendering or giving up.

In the stock market, capitulation is associated with "giving up" any previous gains in stock price as investors sell equities in an effort to get out of the market and into less risky investments. True capitulation involves extremely high volume and sharp declines. It usually is indicated by panic selling."

Now I have been told that the reason for my dislike of these particular words is that I am an idealist, as though idealism were a bad thing; a childish fantasy; a silliness not to be entertained by proper grown up people. I disagree, obviously.

There is much talk of the war against Home Educators continuing after the election, no matter which party *wins*, because the LAs are going to keep on pushing the powers that be for more and more power over us, so we'd better brook a deal, hadn't we?

Why?

Because it's the pragmatic thing to do of course.

No. making deals with other people's freedom is wrong. We have no right to give up this fight for the sake of a bit of peace. If anyone seriously believes that we will achieve that longed for respite from the fighting by capitulating, then frankly they need their heads read. A timely reminder of the attitudes we are up against can be found here over at Douglas Carswell MP's blog.

Do you honestly believe that if these people have more power they will respect us? Treat us and our children well? Give us that longed for peace we all desire? They are incapable of using the powers they already have for goodness sake.

Those in parliament have no respect for the rule of law, let alone those who they are supposed to be there to serve. Can any of you honestly say that watching the performances in the houses of parliament - that most ancient and revered of political institutions - filled you with pride and honour? That you felt respected as sovereign beings? That your children would be safe in the hands of these twisters of words? Or did you feel like me and my family did - horrified that this was how our laws are made? That this was surely a farcical pantomime not the workings of government? That there was no way that lot are to be trusted to do what is right and just?

Once upon a time many of us would have recoiled in horror at the idea of being considered anarchists, but the truth is that more and more of us are now finding we have anarchist leanings and the government have only themselves to blame for that.

I, along with other HEing friends, eagerly tuned into Newsnight to watch Balls, Gove and Law discuss education. What a great debate that would be I thought, we might see some real discussion; some real ideas; some real movement forward. What a bloody joke. It was playground behaviour, political point scoring in the run up to the election. Well it's just not good enough. This is the education of our children they are playing silly buggers with, and bickering will not come up with a solution to the problem. If they can't get their act together how can they expect parents to blithely accept what the state provides? Why are more and more parents turning to Home Education? Because the state is failing the country's children and parents are (in the most part) hard wired to do what is best for their own children. As Heidi so brilliantly points out:

"A parent is biologically and psychologically designed, programmed, conditioned – call it what you will – to care deeply about the wellbeing of their child. If the child is threatened, or the parent’s ability to nurture the child to the best of their ability is threatened, the parent cannot help but defend themselves, their children and family. Moreover, the parent is unable to be motivated by, and give a normal response to, needs that come higher up the hierarchy until this fundamental need has been satisfied."

Our children come first. They are our main priority. We must do our damnedest to preserve and protect their freedoms, they will not thank us for capitulating. Those who think they know better, who meet behind closed doors, who value pragmatism over idealism, who think they can make deals on our behalf, ought to know that this is not acceptable. They have no more authority to do this than the LAs and the government and they will look very foolish when we all JUST SAY NO! No one says it will be easy, but we have come this far, why on earth would we back down now?

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

Yorkshire Evening Post, Tha Needs Playing Pop Wi'.

2010-03-08T13:35:00.009Z

Now I'm a Yorkshire Lass, from good Yorkshire stock. Yorkshire folk are renowned for being plain speaking people, so Yorkshire Evening Post, I'll keep it simple, and tell it like it is.

This article you've written, it's a pile of rubbish. You've been duped. You are being used to propagate anti home education propaganda at a politically sensitive time.

I'm rather ashamed, I really did expect better of a Yorkshire publication; I had this romantic notion that Yorkshire folks were a bit more canny than this.

You can view the figures that gave rise to your article here[opens PDF].

I don't have anything to say about those figures, others can and have done a better job than I, such as one commenter on the YEP article who said:

"FOIs show Leeds to have 140 home educated children, 6 with no education, 5 not suitable, 14 not co-operating, 20 not yet assessed and 34 not "full-time" which is a bit of a red herring as in the official guidance it states EHE is assumed to be full time.... I can't find any way of making 6+5 = 25% of 140....can you? I can't even get it by adding in the 14 not co-operating!"

What I will say though is that I wouldn't trust Leeds as far as I could throw them. They are not a great LA, I know people who have had problems with them. I also know that they don't like EHE parents being informed about the law, they went as far as to admit this in a consultation document a few years ago. The particular quote I was thinking of is:

"Like other LEAs, we have no idea how many parents in total are educating their children at home. We do know of 150 in Leeds. We are successful in arranging home visits with 98% of these parents largely because they see us as being helpful but also partly because a number of them are not aware that they need not agree to meet us!"

This may be irrelevant to this issue, but I do think it is important that people realise that LAs behave badly where home education is concerned. If LAs truly believe that they have HE'd children who are not receiving an education suitable to their age, apptitude, ability and any SEN, then they should be issuing SAOs. Are they doing that? I think not. If you take Plymouth LA they say that 100% of their EHE children are NOT receiving a suitable and full time education! Really? I find that a staggering *fact* quite frankly, and I'm more inclined to think that it has more to do with issues that the LA has with the idea of EHE in general, than the failings of EHE parents in the area.

What you might like to do, YEP, is have a look at this expose of the figures and then you might like to have a read of my previous blog post and think about how you have just fallen into the trap laid by government. You will see that the TES did exactly the same thing as you have, which goes to show the shoddy standard of journalism today. Shame we no longer use newspapers as chip wrappers, as it least then your article would have a use. As it stands it is neither use nor ornament.

Bursting Bubbles

2010-03-04T20:45:00.057Z

It's been a beautiful sunny day here, with hardly a cloud in the sky. We've had friends visit and we all made and burst giant bubbles. It was a perfect day in home ed land.

Just when we thought it couldn't get any more perfect the most beautiful poetry landed in my inbox.

Birmingham City Council's LABOUR councillors are calling for Ed Balls to launch a public inquiry into the events which lead to the death of Khyra Ishaq. Obviously there are political points to be scored against the Conservative/Lib Dem Council in the run up to the election, but this is something of an own goal for their party. The Labour councillors know that home education had nothing to do with this tragic case, and it would seem that they are angry that the council is using home education in a buck passing exercise, and bless them, they intend to bring the judge's ruling to the attention of Ed Balls himself! I don't imagine Ed is going to be very happy about that, do you? He and his henchman have worked so hard, for so long, to use this case to bring in draconian legislation which will, to all intent and purpose, kill home education as we know it, and here are people from his own party trying to put the kibosh on the peg he had been hoping to hang it all on! If that isn't poetic justice I'm not sure what is!

You could say that the bubble has burst, and what would you know? We got a picture of the exact moment it happened!

Bubble Hydrodynamics say that "after formation, a bubble rapidly accelerates to its terminal velocity." I rather like that use of language. Terminal velocity. Yep, I think you can safely say that the Ed Balls Bubble reached terminal velocity today, and now we can look and see all the chaotic little pieces that originally made up the unified whole, flying off in all directions.

An interesting thing to come out of today's newspaper report from the Birmingham Mail, is that the Judge's findings were available to the council way back in March 2009. That's a whole year to get a story worked out to save their sorry arses. You have to wonder if they thought that the judge's findings would never make it into the public arena, as her findings are so clear that home education was not the reason Khyra was failed. Surely they would have come up with a more water tight excuse if they suspected the findings would be made public?

"Mr Howell, supported by Councillor Les Lawrence, the cabinet member, and by assistant chief constable Suzette Davenport, claimed that tough laws governing the right of parents to remove their children from school and educate them at home made it impossible to gain access to the house and to check on Khyra."

Maybe they all just thought that with Home Educators having been so nicely stitched up in the press, that they would be safe to continue to abuse the death of a child and castigate a community of loving, caring parents in the name of protecting their rather hefty pay packets, regardless of the evidence.

Thankfully the Birmingham Mail is not letting them get away with it:

"Today, the Mail can expose Mr Howell and Coun Lawrence’s pathetic excuses for what they are – weasel words designed to protect the self-serving interests of two public servants who know that a department under their control must carry a huge responsibility for Khyra’s death."

The thing is though, I don't think it's just the Birmingham Councillors, social services and police who are at fault here. The whole twisted system needs to be exposed and made accountable for its despicable use of the death of a child to smear an entire community of families, who, for whatever reason, they just don't think should be allowed to carry on going about their loving and lawful business.

Khyra died in May, 2008.

In March 2008, Maggie Atkinson was appointed president of ADCS - the Association of Directors of Children's Services. We'll come back to Maggie again in a little while.

The heads of all the chairs of local safeguarding children's boards as at March, 2008 are listed here. Judging by the contents of this report, it would seem that these people are extremely influential in both local and national government. Indeed, John Harris says on page 16 of this newsletter:

"I can tell you from first hand experience that the partnership with DCSF and other government departments is better than it has ever been. Local authorities are actively engaged in developing national policy, through formal working groups but also with informal contacts with key civil servants and Ministers."

There are 4 names which immediately jump out at me from that list and they are:

Graham Badman
Tony Howell
Jo Grills
Sue Berelowitz

Graham Badman, well not much needs saying about him does it? Presided over the biggest stitch up of Home Educators to date, largely discredited, but still there flogging his dead horse, presumably trying to salvage the knighthood that Ed Balls must have promised him for services rendered. Or did Ed just Balls up again when he said: "I have asked Sir Graham Badman to produce a report" (Find it here, directly above column 174.)

Moving on to Tony Howell; he's our man in Birmingham, the same guy who hired a PR expert to spin the Khyra story, to the tune of £800 a day.

Moving along then to Jo Grills. Now us home educators have long memories, and Jo is something of a blast from the past. Jo was the woman in Gloucestershire at the time of the Eunice Spry case. She tried to pull off the same trick as Tony Howell by blaming the failings of her department on Home Education. Unfortunately for Jo, the then Children's Minister, Beverley Hughes did not agree as this reply shows:

"I appreciate you writing to me with your concerns about the case of Eunice Spry. The Serious Case Review found that although Gloucestershire was judged to be serving most children well, in the case of Eunice Spry there were shortcomings in the services the children received as looked after children. The Commission of Social Care Inspection felt that this was the most significant factor in this case, rather than the fact that they were home educated."

That's pretty clear I think, although if you've only read the latest article about the Spry case, you'd never know it. This social worker's perspective is more objective.

Moving on to Sue Berelowitz. Hand picked by Graham Badman to be one of the *expert panel* for the HE Review, in her capacity as chief executive of 11 Million AKA the office of the children's commissioner. In her submission to the Select Committee she says of 11 Million:

"We support these proposals coupled with the recommendation that designated local authority officers should have the right of access to the home and to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate. These are basic measures which will assist officers in satisfying themselves that the child is safe and well."

Singing from the *right* song sheet there then. Now this business about interviewing the child alone is interesting, lets have a look at the ADCS submission to the Select Committee. Oh and here we go, that same song sheet again:

"4.3.1 The local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place, and two weeks notice of this visit should enable parents to be engaged in this process. Regular visits by the local authority to premises and interviews with the child would enable safeguarding issues to be addressed."

Hmm. And yet, the same ADCS, regarding Laming's proposals that ALL children referred to social services should be seen, said:

"the Loughborough research indicated that prescribing an initial assessment for all referrals would divert resources away from the most vulnerable children."

Which is precisely the point that home educators have been making regarding the Badman proposals contained within the CSF Bill.

Now let's go back to Maggie, or *Two Words Atkinson* as we home educators like to call her. Why? Well, Maggie was in front of the Select Committee for a job interview, the position being Children's Commissioner (11 Million...) At the end of her interview Paul Holmes MP asked:

"What do you think we should be saying as a Committee regarding the legislative process and the Badman report, and whether it is protecting children's interests or trampling all over the interests of home-educated children?".

and Maggie replied:

"I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died — Khyra Ishaq"

Consider that the case was sub judice, consider that this means that it is "considered inappropriate to comment publicly on such cases, and that it can be considered an offence which can lead to contempt of court proceedings." Consider that Maggie uttered her infamous *two words* immediately prior to the Select Committee hearing evidence in its inquiry into the Badman Review. Naughty, very naughty. One has to wonder if it was calculated, particularly as Balls, Badman and Atkinson had met just prior to the announcement of the review, back in January 2009 at:

"a 24-hour session with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and partners about the Children's Plan. Ed Balls introduces. The event is excellent with a great sense of opportunity and shared commitment. My co-president John Freeman and directors Maggie Atkinson and Graham Badman fly the ADCS flag".

The interview with the select committee didn't go so well for Maggie, they had this to say:

"While we are satisfied that Maggie Atkinson demonstrated a high degree of professional competence, we feel unable to endorse her appointment, as we would like to have seen more sign of determination to assert the independence of the role, to challenge the status quo on children’s behalf, and to stretch the remit of the post, in particular by championing children’s rights."

But, no worries, Ed was on the case:

"he rejected the verdict, declaring that Ms Atkinson's evidence in fact showed she would be a "strong, effective and independent voice for the children and young people of our country".

ADCS held a conference in July 2008, chances are high that many if not all of our little list above attended, networked, talked about "the big case". I couldn't possibly say that they hatched a plan, but it makes you wonder, particularly as this newsletter (page 16), published in July 2008 says of the Ishaq case:

"I therefore contacted Maggie Atkinson (DCS - Gateshead), who is the ADCS President,to discuss how ADCS should respond. In fact, Maggie Atkinson did appear on the Radio 4 bulletin to discuss Lord Laming's comments. ADCS has since prepared a position statement that is going to be shared with key officials at DCSF, the Children's Commissioner, Local Government Association, and the British Association of Social Workers."

Strangely the DCSF deny any knowledge of this position statement.

These people really do not like Home Education or Home Educators as was made clear to Douglas Carswell MP only last month:

"The unyeilding, arrogant, we-know-what's-best-for-your-child attitude I encountered today makes me realise that mums and dads who fear what these proposals could mean are right to be fearful."

It's taken a long time for people to start to see the institutional prejudice we have had to put up with for too many years. Back in 2007 we had hearsay written up into a document and passed around authorities to help them fill in their consultation responses:

"It was minuted that Ms Kuhn's draft had indeed been helpful in assisting individual local authorities in writing their own submissions. The document had formed the basis of a London Regional Partnership response and other Regional Partnerships had used it as a basis for their's, so there had been a good "cascade effect " from the work."

Even dear old Aunty (The BBC) get in on the act. Their coverage of the Kyhra Ishaq trial judgement was nothing short of propaganda for Ed Balls. I can't link to the 6 o'clock news, but I have it on good authority that it was the Badman and Balls show.

The TES trumpeted Badman's discredited statistics in a scandalous headline:

"Officials at Leeds City Council said many home-educating parents "hide behind the law" and some children are "never seen" after being taken out of school. Others use it as a way to avoid being prosecuted for truancy, according to Brian Hogg, who is responsible for "education other than at school" services for Education Leeds."

Can you blame us for believing that the entire review was engineered around the Kyhra Ishaq case? That it was only the unfortunately illness of a juror which prevented the Government from getting away with it? They would have too, if it wasn't for those pesky home educators.

In America, it is the social workers who get put under greater scrutiny when a child starves to death. Yes, that is definitely needed, but let's remember that it is those at the top of the food chain, making the policies that fail the staff on the ground, that need to be answerable.

Indeed, their own policies demand it of them:

"In 2003 the Every Child Matters Green Paper announced the creation of the DCS role as follows; ”We are proposing a range of measures to reform and improve children’s care – crucially, for the first time ever requiring local authorities to bring together in one place under one person services for children.

Not in the sense of directly managing every service, of course, but being accountable for the outcomes of every child in an area.

And as the responsibilities of local authorities are clarified and Children’s Trusts are increasingly empowered to drive the system forward, so your accountability for those outcomes comes into even sharper relief."

This responsibility and accountability was something Peter Traves was well aware of, and admitted to the select committee that it was all about arse covering:

"We have seen recently what happens recently to directors of children' services when things go seriously wrong - it is not only sacking, it is public humiliation and it is a very serious matter."

Well I'm afraid the protection of your arse is not my problem, nor is it my children's, and we WILL NOT be forced into abusive relationships with those who have been deemed to have power over us by nature of their daily work. We certainly will not be letting strangers with pieces of paper take our children to one side, alone.

What is more we demand public apologies, we expect accountability and resignations - and yes, that includes you too Ed - and we will not roll over and allow any of these despicable human beings to carry on treating us as cattle.

Remember, when it looks as though the bubble will engulf you, it is about to reach terminal velocity, and it will burst into a million tiny fragments of slime.

I would of course have included Ed Balls' statement via the DCSF, but something very strange has happened to the link. I shall be checking in the morning to see if it is back as it should be!

With heartfelt gratitude to EK for supplying the material for this post.

ETA: Well, well, well. Ed's statement on the DCSF website is still a mass of error codes, so if anyone cached it I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy, and now he bleats to the Birmingham Mail:

“I want to see the Serious Case Review on my desk as soon as possible explaining what happened and why, identifying the right lessons to be learned and setting out what needs to improve in Birmingham.

“I expect a full, thorough executive summary to be published so everyone can see what happened and the action being taken as a result."

Is Ed about to do a U-Turn? One thing's for certain, it looks as though he is going to try to cover his own sorry arse and lay the blame at the door of Birmingham social services. Sorry, Ed, but the buck stops with you as I seem to remember saying the other day:

"At the beginning of October last year, Birmingham Social Services was branded "not fit for purpose." They were given THREE MORE MONTHS to sort things out, otherwise the government would intervene. They had already received the lowest rating back in 2008. That's nearly TWO YEARS ago."

I wonder if that original statement, blaming Home Ed, has disappeared down the memory hole on purpose?

But look, in the space of a few minutes fabulous HEers have found the original in a google cache:

Secretary of State's response to verdicts in the Khyra Ishaq case

25 February 2010

Regarding the verdicts in the Khyra Ishaq case, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said:

What happened to Khyra Ishaq and the other children involved in this case was tragic and will shock and appal everyone who reads or hears about her terrible death. It is very hard for any of us to understand how adults could do this to children in their care.

There are clearly serious questions to be answered about what local services and professionals were doing in the months before this tragedy took place. As the trial has shown, it is now clear that concerns about these children were not acted upon effectively and it is right that a Serious Case Review has been carried out.

The Local Safeguarding Children Board will report shortly - I expect it to publish a full and detailed Serious Case Review (SCR) executive summary that is clear about what happened and what action is being taken as a result. The Government has already taken decisive action to intervene in Birmingham’s children's services, following Ofsted's judgement in December 2008 that their services were inadequate in terms of safeguarding. If we think there is more to do, we will.

The trial has demonstrated, and statements today from the police confirm, that home education was a factor in this case. It shows why we do need a system in place to make sure that when children are home educated or removed from school, they not only get a good education but are safe. That is why I asked Graham Badman to review home education and home educated children’s safety and welfare.

I am now taking forward Graham Badman’s recommendations that every local authority should have access to any home educating family and that all home educating parents must register with the local authority. We will do all we can to ensure the safety of children, in Birmingham and elsewhere, including using statutory powers where it is right to do so."

Map Pins

2010-03-01T20:06:00.003Z

Sharing this picture - apparently it's banned on face ache!

Time Table of Sordid Events

2010-02-27T23:46:00.010Z

I wasn't going to blog about the Khyra Ishaq case as others have already done so far more eloquently than I ever could, but...

I've just been reading this article which includes this comment made by Gordon Brown:

"On Monday Gordon Brown paid tribute to the two girls, saying: “It is a sad and tragic situation when children so young die.
"Ed Balls and the Children's department will take very seriously any information that is given to them concerning these cases."

Now just look at the first two words of that comment. "On MONDAY". "On MONDAY". Monday was February 22nd. THREE DAYS before Ed Balls made this statement regarding the Khyra Ishaq case.

THREE DAYS before Home Educators were vilified across the national press by Balls and his henchman Badman.

Are we really expected to believe that "Ed Balls and the Children's department will take very seriously any information that is given to them concerning these cases"?

In March last year, ie nearly a whole year ago, Ed Balls stood up in parliament and promised a "root and branch shake up of child protection services."

At the beginning of October last year, Birmingham Social Services was branded "not fit for purpose." They were given THREE MORE MONTHS to sort things out, otherwise the government would intervene. They had already received the lowest rating back in 2008. That's nearly TWO YEARS ago.

Who has been head of the DCSF for those intervening years? Who has done sweet FA to sort out the horrific mess that is Birmingham children's services? Would that be one Mr Edward Balls?

I said this the other night on twitter and was rounded on by a Ballite (Ballache?!) for it, but Ed Balls should fall on his sword. Particularly now, after wilfully slandering an entire community in his desire for political point scoring over the death of a child. How poisonous can a person who heads the department of Children and Families be to knowingly blame the failings of one of his departments, knowing that more children had died on his watch who had NOTHING to do with home education, on something he despises so much - home education? No matter that he is causing real and heartfelt pain and distress for tens of thousands of those he is supposed to help and support in his role of Secretary of State for Children [schools] and Families.

I for one demand your resignation Edward Balls.

ETA This article shows just how far back Birmingham's problems go.

Geography

2010-02-26T13:01:00.002Z

Here is a map for you to look at boys and girls:

I wonder what jumps out at you about those little blue pins? For me it was the interesting way that many of them are in quite obvious clusters. There are the odd few which seem isolated, but overall, there does seem to be a pattern. It could be that they are just centred around the largest cities I suppose. I wonder if it could be anything to do with local authority boundaries? I don't know if there is any relevance to be honest, but that was what first struck me.

Now, you might be wondering what all those little pins are. If you go along to this page you can hover over them and find out.

Shall I spoil it and tell you? Those blue pins are instances of child abuse by people with clean CRB checks. You know, the sort of people that dear old Ed wants so desperately to have one to one private access to our children for up to 16 hours every year.

To use the vernacular... I think Ed can go fuck himself, don't you?

My BBC Complaint

2010-02-25T12:39:00.006Z

Yes it's a rant I'm afraid.

*Home Educators have been waiting months for the grave robbing activities of the government and press to start up again, and here we have it.

Graham Badman said himself in his own report, which the government accepted in full, that he found NO EVIDENCE that home education was being used as a cover for abuse. He knew about the Ishaq case at the time he wrote the report. He is now pouring forth vitriol because he was caught out using dodgy statistics and bare faced lies in order to do his master's bidding.

Such a pity that a Great British institution is in the pockets of it's masters over at LIEbour central. More gongs for the boys no doubt.

Slandering a minority group by using a dead child, a child who died because of the lack of care of the authorities, authorities who already had the power to save her, is disgusting, and you should have your license to broadcast removed as a result."

ETA: Maire's complaint here

Debs complaint here

Firebird is keeping a Media Watch here

Jax complains here

If you'd like to make a more effective complaint than my rant (wise!) there is great advice here

Will add more as they are blogged

What Can We Do?

2010-02-24T10:25:00.004Z

This is the question I keep asking myself at the moment. I realise it's probably not the done thing to admit to feelings of despair at our situation, but after yesterday I just can't pretend all is rosy and hopeful any more.

I can't blame this feeling of despondency totally on the shenanigans in parliament last night, more's the pity, though I'm quite sure I can blame it in it's entirety on the past (almost) 13 years of this government.

The country is in tatters, spirits are low, people have had enough of every single little aspect of life being a constant struggle. My children have known nothing but a Liebour government, their lives have been blighted because of it, and the only comfort I can take is that neither myself nor my husband have ever voted red. Even my MIL, a dyed in the wool labour party member jumped ship a few years ago. And yet, still there are seemingly intelligent people out there, even YOUNG people (although I suppose they know no better) who will argue for the benefits of another liebour government. It never ceases to amaze me. Do these people inhabit the same country as me?

Yesterday I was told by some automaton on the NHS Summary Care Record Helpline, that it is not up to parents to decide if their children may be opted out of the online database of health records, no, it is up to the GP to decide if it is *in the best interests of the child*. Yes, there we have it, parents are no longer able to make informed choices on behalf of their children. This disgusts me perhaps even more than the insult that is the CSF Bill. Does it surprise me though? Of course not, it's par for the course for this paranoid, control freak government which shows its utter disrespect and contempt for its citizens. Parents are the scapegoats for all of societies ills, and yet how can we be when we are having all say in the lives of our children removed from us? Twisted, perverse, despicable - but it is not us, the parents, who are these things it is YOU the government of lies and spin and bullying who are all of those things, and I hope that all decent, free thinking, responsible, intelligent people will vote with their feet whenever the election finally comes, because if they don't, England will be forever a wasteland.

Old Holborn posted a round up of the legacy this government has left us with the other day, he's a prolific blogger, so I am going to copy it here and include a link also:

Just to remind us what 13 years of power can do (cut out and keep edition):

Ballot Boxes are interfered with

Voting registers go missing

The Police can kill innocent people and get away with it

The state can kill people and get away with it

You can be put in prison for 42 days on pure suspicion

You can be put in prison indefinitely on the word of a politician

The State can torture people

Your children are monitored at School by Political Officers

Their behaviour is logged on a State database for their entire lives

Your innocent fingerprints, iris scans and biometrics are held by the State

You do not have the right to remain silent

You are watched on 4 million CCTV cameras

You may not photograph the Police

The media is controlled by the State

You do not have the right to protest peacefully

Curfews exist for entire communities

Your travel movements are logged and monitored

Who you vote for is logged and monitored

Your shopping habits are studied and logged by the State

Your emails and telephone conversations are recorded by the State

Your passport can be withdrawn at the whim of the State

Government agencies can use lie detector tests on you.

- £22,500 of debt for every child born in Britain- 111 tax rises from a government that promised no tax rises at all- The longest national tax code in the world- 100,000 million pounds drained from British pension funds- Gun crime up 57%- Violent crime up 70%- The highest proportion of children living in workless households anywhere in Europe- The number of pensioners living in poverty up by 100,000- The lowest level of social mobility in the developed world- The only G7 country with no growth this year- One in six young people neither earning nor learning- 5 million people on out-of-work benefits- Missing the target of halving child poverty... - Child poverty rising in each of the last three years instead- Cancer survival rates among the worst in Europe- Hospital-acquired infections killing nearly three times as many people as are killed on the roads- Falling from 4th to 13th in the world competitiveness league- Falling from 8th to 24th in the world education rankings in maths- Falling from 7th to 17th in the rankings in literacy- The police spending more time on paperwork than on the beat- Fatal stabbings at an all-time high- Prisoners released without serving their sentences- Foreign prisoners released and never deported- 7 million people without an NHS dentist- Small business taxes going up- Business taxes raised from among the lowest to among the highest in Europe- Tax rises for working people set for after the election- The 10p tax rate abolished- The ludicrous promise to have ended boom and bust- Our gold reserves sold for a quarter of their worth- Our armed forces overstretched and under-supplied- Profitable post offices closed against their will- One of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe- The ‘Golden Rule’ on borrowing abandoned because it didn’t fit- Police inspectors in 10 Downing Street- Dossiers that were dodgy- Mandelson resigning the first time- Mandelson resigning the second time- Mandelson coming back for a third time- Bad news buried- Personal details lost- An election bottled- A referendum denied.
New Labour. Stamping on the faces of the many, not just the few. Forever.

PS “A future fair for all” is an anagram of “Our fearful fat liar”

Handing the Floor to Gatto

2010-02-10T14:29:00.001Z

Take Back Your Education

By John Taylor Gatto

09 February, 2010
Yes Magazine

More and more people across America are waking up to the mismatch between what is taught in schools and what common sense tells us we need to know. What can you do about it?

Nobody gives you an education. If you want one, you have to take it.

Only you can educate you—and you can’t do it by memorizing. You have to find out who you are by experience and by risk-taking, then pursue your own nature intensely. School routines are set up to discourage you from self-discovery. People who know who they are make trouble for schools.

To know yourself, you have to keep track of your random choices, figure out your patterns, and use this knowledge to dominate your own mind. It’s the only way that free will can grow. If you avoid this, other minds will manipulate and control you lifelong.

One method people use to find out who they are becoming, before others do, is to keep a journal, where they log what attracts their attention, along with some commentary. In this way, you get to listen to yourself instead of listening only to others.

Another path to self-discovery that seems to have atrophied through schooling lies in finding a mentor. People aren’t the only mentors. Books can serve as mentors if you learn to read intensely, with every sense alert to nuances. Books can change your life, as mentors do.

I experienced precious little of such thinking in 30 years of teaching in the public junior high schools of Manhattan’s ultra-progressive Upper West Side. I was by turns amused, disgusted, and disbelieving when confronted with the curriculum—endless drills of fractions and decimals, reading assignments of science fiction, Jack London, and one or two Shakespeare plays for which the language had been simplified. The strategy was to kill time and stave off the worst kinds of boredom that can lead to trouble—the trouble that comes from being made aware that you are trapped in irrelevancy and powerless to escape.

Institutionalized schooling, I gradually realized, is about obedience in exchange for favors and advantages: Sit where I tell you, speak when I allow it, memorize what I’ve told you to memorize. Do these things, and I’ll take care to put you above your classmates.

Wouldn’t you think everyone could figure out that school “achievement tests” measure no achievement that common sense would recognize? The surrender required of students meets the primary duty of bureaucratic establishment: to protect established order.

It wasn’t always this way. Classical schooling—the kind I was lucky enough to have growing up—teaches independent thought, appreciation for great works, and an experience of the world not found within the confines of a classroom. It was an education that is missing in public schools today but still exists in many private schools—and can for you and your children, too, if you take time to learn how to learn.

On the Wrong Side of the Tracks

In the fall of 2009, a documentary film will be released by a resident of my hometown of Monongahela, Pennsylvania. Laura Magone’s film, “One Extraordinary Street,” centers on a two-mile-long road that parallels polluted Pigeon Creek. Park Avenue, as it’s called, is on the wrong side of the tracks in this little-known coal-mining burg of 4,500 souls.

So far Park Avenue has produced an Army chief of staff, the founder of the Disney Channel, the inventor of the Nerf football, the only professional baseball player to ever strike out all 27 enemy batsmen in a nine-inning game, a winner of the National Book Award, a respected cardiologist, Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana, and the writer whose words you’re reading.

Did the education Monongahela offered make all these miracles possible? I don’t know. It was an education filled with hands-on experience, including cooking the school meals, serving them individually (not cafeteria-style) on tablecloths, and cleaning up afterward. Students handled the daily maintenance, including basic repairs. If you weren’t earning money and adding value to the town by the age of seven, you were considered a jerk. I swept out a printing office daily, sold newspapers, shoveled snow, cut grass, and sold lemonade.

Classical schooling isn’t psychologically driven. The ancient Greeks discovered thousands of years ago that rules and ironclad procedures, when taken too seriously, burn out imagination, stifle courage, and wipe the leadership clean of resourcefulness. Greek education was much more like play, with studies undertaken for their own sake, to satisfy curiosity. It assumed that sane children want to grow up and recognized that childhood ends much earlier than modern society typically allows.

We read Caesar’s Gallic Wars—in translation between fifth and seventh grades and, for those who wanted, in Latin in ninth and tenth grades. Caesar was offered to us not as some historical relic but as a workshop in dividing and conquering superior enemies. We read The Odyssey as an aid to thinking about the role of family in a good life, as the beating heart of meaning.

Monongahela’s education integrated students, from first grade on, into the intimate life and culture of the town. Its classrooms were free of the familiar tools of official pedagogy—dumbed-down textbooks, massively irrelevant standardized tests, insanely slowed-down sequences. It was an education rich in relationships, tradition, and respect for the best that’s been written. It was a growing-up that demanded real achievement.

The admissions director at Harvard College told The New York Times a few years ago that Harvard admits only students with a record of distinctive accomplishment. I instantly thought of the Orwellian newspeak at my own Manhattan school where achievement tests were the order of the day. What achievement? Like the noisy royalty who intimidated Alice until her head cleared and she realized they were only a pack of cards, school achievement is just a pack of words.

A Deliberate Saboteur

As a schoolteacher, I was determined to act as a deliberate saboteur, and so for 30 years I woke up committed to making the system hurt in some small way and to changing the destiny of children in my orbit in a large way.

Without the eclectic grounding in classical training that I had partially absorbed, neither goal would have been possible. I set out to use the classical emphasis on qualities and specific powers. I collected from every kid a list of three powers they felt they already possessed and three weaknesses they might like to remedy in the course of the school year.

I pledged to them that I’d do my level best inside the limitations the institution imposed to make time, advice, and support available toward everyone’s private goals. There would be group lessons as worthwhile as I could come up with, but my priorities were the opportunities outside the room, outside the school, even outside the city, to strengthen a power or work on a weakness.

I let a 13-year-old boy who dreamed of being a comic-book writer spend a week in the public library—with the assistance of the librarian—to learn the tricks of graphic storytelling. I sent a shy 13-year-old girl in the company of a loudmouth classmate to the state capitol—she to speak to her local legislator, he to teach her how to be fearless. Today, that shy girl is a trial attorney.

If you understand where a kid wants to go—the kid has to understand that first—it isn’t hard to devise exercises, complete with academics, that can take them there.

But school often acts as an obstacle to success. To go from the confinement of early childhood to the confinement of the classroom to the confinement of homework, working to amass a record entitling you to a “good” college, where the radical reduction of your spirit will continue, isn’t likely to build character or prepare you for a good life.

I quit teaching in 1991 and set out to discover where this destructive institution had come from, why it had taken the shape it had, how it managed to beat back its many critics for a century while growing bigger and more intrusive, and what we might do about it.

School does exactly what it was created to do: It solves, or at least mitigates, the problem of a restless, ambitious labor pool, so deadly for capitalist economies; and it confronts democracy’s other deadly problem—that ordinary people might one day learn to un-divide themselves, band together in the common interest, and take control of the institutions that shape their lives.

The present system of institutionalized schooling is a product of two or three centuries of economic and political thinking that spread primarily from a militaristic state in the disunited Germanies known as Prussia. That philosophy destroyed classical training for the common people, reserving it for those who were expected to become leaders. Education, in the words of famous economists (such as William Playfair), captains of industry (Andrew Carnegie), and even a man who would be president (Woodrow Wilson), was a means of keeping the middle and lower classes in line and of keeping the engines of capitalism running.

In a 1909 address to New York City teachers, Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said, “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity to forgo the privilege of a liberal education.”

My job isn’t to indict Woodrow or anyone else, only to show you how inevitable the schools you hate must be in the economy and social order we’re stuck with. Liberal education served the ancient Greeks well until they got too rich to allow it, just as it served America the same way until we got too rich to allow it.

What Can You Do About All This? A lot.

You can make the system an offer it can’t refuse by doing small things, individually.

You can publicly oppose—in writing, in speech, in actions—anything that will perpetuate the institution as it is. The accumulated weight of your resistance and disapproval, together with that of thousands more, will erode the energy of any bureaucracy.

You can calmly refuse to take standardized tests. Follow the lead of Melville’s moral genius in Bartleby, the Scrivener, and ask everyone, politely, to write: “I prefer not to take this test” on the face of the test packet.

You can, of course, homeschool or unschool. You can inform your kids that bad grades won’t hurt them at all in life, if they actually learn to master valuable skills and put them on offer to the world at large. And you can begin to free yourself from the conditioned fear that not being accepted at a “good” college will preclude you from a comfortable life. If the lack of a college degree didn’t stop Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Michael Dell (Dell Computer), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA), Warren Avis (Avis Rent-a-Car), Ted Turner (CNN), and so many others, then it shouldn’t be too hard for you to see that you’ve been bamboozled, flummoxed, played for a sap by the propaganda mills of schooling. Get rid of your assumptions.

If you are interested in education, I’ve tried to show you a little about how that’s done, and I have faith you can learn the rest on your own. Schooling operates out of an assumption that ordinary people are biologically or psychologically or politically inferior; education assumes that individuals are sovereign spirits. Societies that don’t know that need to be changed or broken.

Once you take responsibility for your own education, you’ll join a growing army of men and women all across America who are waking up to the mismatch schools inflict on the young—a mismatch between what common sense tells you they’ll need to know, and what is actually taught. You’ll have the exquisite luxury of being able to adapt to conditions, to opportunities, to the particular spirits of your kids. With you as educational czar or czarina, feedback becomes your friend and guide.

I’ve traveled 3 million miles to every corner of this country and 12 others, and believe me, people everywhere are gradually waking up and striking out in new directions. Don’t wait for the government to say it’s OK, just come on in—the water’s fine.

John Taylor Gatto wrote this article for Learn as You Go, the Fall 2009 issue of YES! Magazine. Gatto was a New York State Teacher of the Year. An advocate for school reform, Gatto’s books include Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling and Weapons of Mass Instruction.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Incensed

2010-02-04T18:02:00.011Z

Call me a glutton for punishment, but today I watched the final sitting of the CSF Bill Committee.

I'm rather glad that I did because it confirmed something that I have always asserted: Local Authority Officers make prejudicial assessments of Home Educating families based on their own value systems.

Caroline Flint stood up and spoke about a report, written about a home educating family's educational provision, in which the officer saw fit to note that the family burned incense.

She went on to comment that perhaps the officer saw the family as a bit *brown rice and sandals* but that such personal prejudice had no place in a report into educational provision, and that this is the type of thing that Home Educators experience across the country. [I am paraphrasing the gist of her speech, and will add links in to the relevant sections of Hansard when they are available.]

I have always warned families against accepting home visits from LA officers precisely because of this kind of personal prejudice. Our homes are, by definition, incredibly personal spaces. People have very individual tastes and preferences, which is precisely as it should be. When we invite people into our homes we should not expect to be judged on our belongings or whether we use plug in air freshners or incense to fragrance our private spaces.

Human beings make judgements incredibly quickly:

“We know from carefully controlled laboratory studies that we form opinions very rapidly and dramatically based on appearance,” says Alexander Todorov, an assistant professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University. “In only about 100 milliseconds, a person will determine whether they like or don’t like another person based on their face.”

If a human being can make an arbitrary judgement so quickly, based merely on a person's face, then imagine what judgements they could jump to when allowed into the home of a stranger. The scope for all kinds of personal value judgements is enormous. What if they have an aversion to the colour red and your front room is painted red? What if they have bad memories associated with the smell of lemons and you have just cleaned your home with a lemon scented product? What if they have deep seated anxieties about large dogs and you own a couple of great danes?

Previously people would laugh at the idea that someone in a position of power would act in such an unprofessional manner as to allow such things to influence their decisions, but we now have it as a matter of public record (or we will when the Hansard entry has been published) that this is exactly the kind of thing that *professionals* do. Currently such things are irritating but generally not a huge cause for concern, however if the CSF Bill becomes law, these are the kinds of personal prejudices that many home educators will have to face, and I am in no doubt that many perfectly good home educators will have their license refused because of such prejudices.

ETA: Caroline Flint's speech can be read here at column 493.

Disconnected

2010-02-02T15:20:00.003Z

That is how I feel about the political shenanigans over home ed. I've been watching bits of the committee meetings and it just strikes me as utterly farcical. The opposition are outnumbered, the labour members have clearly been whipped to take the party line in all votes, and so each amendment gets voted down. Quelle surprise.

So what is the point of it all? All those hours spent poring over documents, helping to come up with amendments that are just steam rolled by the control freaks that are NuLiebour? As far as I'm concerned, there is no point, because no matter the outcome, we will not be bound by it.

The pathetic, nasty, undemocratic workings of those who would govern us have been laid out for all to see, and this family is not remotely impressed.

Why should we be bound to follow rules and laws created by people with no honour? People who feel it is ok to use their positions of power to lie and cheat those that they work for?

Ultimately we have to follow our consciences, and mine is shouting out very loudly that I will not submit to things that I KNOW will damage my children, just because someone who sits in a palace in London says I have to.

What some of these people might find scary is that I'm not the only one that feels like this.

Seeing the Bigger Picture

2010-01-24T20:09:00.006Z

I posted this photo on twitter earlier with the title *Hot Sugar*. A dear old friend of mine pointed out that it looked *a bit dodgy*, and that perhaps in the wrong hands it wouldn't do the image of Home Ed any good (I know I'm paraphrasing A). When I posted it, it never occurred to me that it looked like someone *chasing the dragon* - a phrase I hadn't heard of until today! It was just a picture of my 6 year old son doing some experiments from the chemistry kit. Ok, I did think it was a bit of a #DCSF Alert as the age on the box says 10+, but that was as far as my imagination went.

Later on, when I was cooking tea, the same son was messing about with some flour left over from pastry rolling. I'm a child of the 80's so I've heard of White Lines!

Of course it reminded me of Grandmaster & Melle Mel so I bobbed over to youtube to have a listen.

Listening to the words I realised that *sugar* was possibly slang, so I went looking and goodness me, what a wealth of drug slang there is! Low and behold, sugar is indeed slang for cocaine, LSD, crack and heroin. So I have posted a photo of my son, titled *Hot Sugar* (because that is exactly what the picture showed), where it looks like he is indulging in some drugs related behaviour. Marvellous.

Incidentally, we also have several syringes in the kitchen drawers. One is left over from feeding the tongue tied baby, the others are from a hydraulics kit.

Oh dear.

We would have to hope that the Local Authority inspector was able to look and see the bigger picture wouldn't we?

The devil, they say, is in the detail. Which brings me, in a round about sort of way, to my point.

We all need to learn to look at the bigger picture, rather than making snap judgements based on first appearances.

The Government and Mr Badman presumably hoped that no one would bother looking for the devil in the detail in their HE statistics, and they would presumably *have gotten away with it too, but for those pesky home educators* who are very used to looking at the bigger picture and teasing out the truth of a matter. Like Dani, who has produced this rather attention grabbing document which lays the lies bare. Have a look, dare to see the bigger picture for yourself, and then the next time you hear or see something that makes Home Educators seem like a dodgy bunch, ask yourself if you're really seeing all there is to see.

Sharing The Glad Tidings

2010-01-23T13:31:00.003Z

I don't have anything to say at the moment because others do it so much better. So I will just pass along these links because they really are worth reading.

Gill does an excellent job de-constructing the evidence presented to the Bill Committee here.

Kelly has blogged about the differences between the internal and public consultation statements from the DCSF here.

As for us; we're getting on with living and not giving much thought to the likes of Balls and Badman as they are, quite frankly, an irrelevance which we will not allow to impinge any further on our lives.

Definitely time to reclaim HE for ourselves again, and what better way to celebrate doing so than with a little challenge.

Home Educators are Racist, Child Abusing, Religious Extremists

2010-01-12T14:43:00.013Z

No this picture is not of a home educating family having a jolly little BNP stylee knees up, this is a photo of that rational, intelligent, family guy who is head of the department which is now resorting to using the BNP smear card against us, because we dare to SAY NO. How to say NO is something dear old Ed could learn from us. That is of course if the truth of the matter is that he *only wore the uniform so as not to upset his friends* - sounds a bit similar to that old nazi war criminal defence of *I woz only doin' me job mate*....

We watched the *debate* in the Commons yesterday, and I can honestly say that it made me ashamed to be English. If that is the kind of behaviour those who run our country think is acceptable (and consider that all but maybe one of them are the result of the school system) then you can take your school system and shove it where the sun never shines. My children are better behaved, and have more respect for others than the lot of you. You do not have any right to tell us how to run our lives. Consider yourselves fired.

previous related articles:

Aren't you all hippies, weirdos and religious nutcases?

Home Education Diversity Survey Results

ETA: This tickled me as a concept - Cromwell your MP it's anonymous, incase that makes a difference ;)

And again ETA: Gill has, as ever, written an excellent post on yesterday's events here.

And another ETA: BillySu has done a fabulous collection of graphs - great visuals.

Ah, and Grit, dear Grit, tells it as only she can. Bravo!

Oh Lord Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz

2010-01-07T15:21:00.001Z

Well, actually I'll give the merc a miss, but the where with all to attend this would do nicely, thank you :)

No Smoke Without Fire

2010-01-03T20:00:00.008Z

So the saying goes. It's not always true though is it, as we frequently find out when trying to light our stove!

I've read in a few places recently, that the reason the government's idea of a licensing scheme won't work to save home educated children at risk, is because those who have something to hide will just move home and go underground, and it will be the innocents who suffer most from the unwarranted intrusion of the state into their lives.

I have to say that I am really rather affronted by this type of attempt to argue the case against licensing. However, if memory serves me correctly, I shouldn't really be surprised, considering the source.

We are currently in the process of preparing our house for the market, but that doesn't mean that we have *something to hide*, it just means that we don't want to stay in a country which shows such distrust in us, and which is quite happy to sanction the abuse of our children by the state. We know that we aren't alone in wanting to leave this country, we know many people who don't home educate who wish to leave the sinking ship that is England. Will they find themselves hunted down by interpol* for daring to find a better place to bring up their children? Not yet, perhaps.

What irks me is that our children have been consulted, their opinions have been listened to, and they will be acted on. This is how our family has always worked, much to the horror of quite a few people, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable way to operate a family to us. Now if the government would only take a leaf out of the books of those of us who parent in this way, perhaps articles like this one (from whence the following apposite quote comes) wouldn't be being written in today's press.

"Labour made a disastrous mistake when it abandoned its own tradition of self-help and mutual assistance for a distrustful bureaucratic state. We are not willing to be the helpless observers of our lives."

And this is exactly why we plan on moving, not because we are the foul,child abusing people who aren't giving their children a *decent* education that some sections of our own community seem to be painting, but because we believe that we are responsible people, who deserve to be trusted to do the right thing for our family, and we wish our children to be brought up to believe the same of themselves.

* this has actually happened to a Home Educating family I know, who moved from the UK to another European country.

We Wish You A Snowy Christmas

2009-12-24T10:54:00.002Z

And a happy, peaceful and fun New Year

Balls Recommends Licensing as a Result of Incestuous Amplification

2009-12-23T14:40:00.006Z

Synchronicity is a funny thing. You can be happily reading a book about one of the greatest medical cons of our time, when BANG, a phrase hits you right between the eyes, and you suddenly have a diagnosis for all the troubles of the past year.

Incestuous Amplification.

This is a military term, which is in itself interesting, considering it feels as though we have been fighting in a dirty battle since January 19th.

In psychological circles it is known as *group polarisation*, but I prefer the military term myself, it fits far better with our government's propensity for the *sexing up* of documents, don't you think?

"In a nutshell: Like-minded people, talking only with one another, usually end up believing a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk."

—Cass R. Sunstein, "The Power of Dissent," Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2003

It certainly seems to have worked in the most incredibly powerful way as this tale of a Home Educator and her young child who were doorstepped only this week, shows: they were left shaken and distressed after suffering various threats, and were told (presumably as justification for such appalling treatment) that:

"Home Educators are more likely to abuse their children."

We have the stats that totally disprove this, but if a BAD MAN repeats the lie often enough, and to groups of people who really want to believe it to be true, then the lie becomes a truth - in the eyes of those who have been guilty of incestuous amplification at least.

Remember, incestuous amplification means: The observer sees what he wants to see rather than what is. When this happens, the Decisions and Actions flowing from that Orientation become progressively disconnected from reality.

Wishing you all a New Year free from Balls, Bad Men and Incestuous Amplification.

Dreams and beliefs

2009-12-18T11:34:00.006Z

Once upon a time there was a little English girl who grew up believing that those people who worked in the big palace in London, and all the people who worked for the councils, were something called Civil Servants.

She had this notion that a servant was a person who worked for another person; a person who did the bidding of the person who employed them in return for monetary reward.

The little girl continued to believe that this was true until she had almost reached her forties, when she was brutally disabused of this foolish, childish notion.

The same little girl grew up believing that her parents were the people who were there to take care of her, and who were the ones who chose if, when and where to delegate her care. The same little girl grew up believing that her parents were seen as responsible adults by those people who worked for them, and as such were quite able to make the decisions that needed to be made for her, until such time as she was able to make them herself.

The little girl continued to believe that this was true until she had almost reached her forties (and was a parent to four children of her own), when she was brutally disabused of this foolish, childish notion.

The little girl spent some of her teenage years living within a walled city, surrounded by a country who believed its citizens were not able to make decisions for themselves or their children; who believed they must be protected from the horrors of the west and those beyond the wall; who believed it was acceptable and right to keep detailed files on its citizens; who believed it was acceptable and right that children should report on their parents, that neighbours should report on neighbours, that family and friends should report on each other; who believed it was right to control education and religion, freedom of thought and association; who believed it was acceptable to shoot and kill those who could not live under such conditions and who tried to escape to freedom.

The little girl watched students being gunned down in a square in the east for daring to voice their opinions.

The little girl believed that one day these things would stop, and that everyone would be free to live a life like hers. A life where she was free to think what she wanted; free to associate with whosoever she chose; free to protest against injustice; free to take care of herself and her future children in the way she felt best; free to live free of interference; free to be trusted to do the right thing unless she showed otherwise by breaking the law; free to question; free to take photographs without being considered a terrorist; free.

One day the little girl's dream came true, or so it seemed.

She was brutally disabused of this dream when she had almost reached her forties and realised that the country she had always thought was a beacon of freedom; a place where difference or eccentricity was a cherished part of the fabric of society, was actually moving ever faster towards the country the walled city had sat in during her teenage years, and she cried for the loss of her innocent, childhood dream, and for the loss of her children's freedom, but she dared to dream a new dream of the old dream, all the same.

ETA this link which is well worth reading.

Money Money Money

2009-12-10T20:05:00.008Z

Here we go, the dreaded bill hasn't been passed, but already people see the opportunities for a nice little earner.

On the agenda:

1. The case for a compulsory registration system for children educated at home.
2. Balancing the rights of the parents and the rights of the child
3. What is a ‘suitable’ and ‘efficient’ education in the 21st Century?
4. More tailored support for home educated children with special educational needs.
5. Financial support for home educators and implications for local authorities.
6. The educational attainments of children educated at home.
7. Improved access to facilities in schools and colleges, including libraries, sport & music.
8. Should local authority staff have the right to speak to home educated children alone?
9. How should local authority staff be trained to monitor home education?
10. Is there a role for Ofsted in respect of children educated at home?
11. What is the role of the proposed Consultative Forum on home education?

1. This made me laugh out loud. First thing the delegates will do at the session is register. I wonder, will they see the difference between the type of registering they will be doing and the LICENSING that they are proposing for us?

2. There is NO balancing of rights in the proposed bill, because the only people who will have any rights are the local authorities.

3. I have to wonder about the timing of this as the government will have just, or will be about to, publish a consultation into this very matter. So is the idea to get all the LAs singing from the same song sheet?

Suitable and efficient for the 21st century, should, as my friend Su pointed out a few days ago, have been sorted out before we were nearly 10 years into the 21st century.

Suitable and efficient in the 21st century is the same as it was in the last century - that is it achieves that which is sets out to achieve. What that is differs from person to person, and a one size fits all system is the absolute antithesis of what 21st, or any other century, education ought to look like.

4. Oh don't make me laugh! I know plenty of home educators who have children with SEN, and they are home educated because they couldn't get that tailored support in school. I have it on good authority that LAs are not even starting the statementing process on school children, preferring to shift the money into other areas such as *safeguarding*. So how are these same LAs going to suddenly find all this extra cash, and the extra staff, to support these HE children when they can't, or won't, support the SEN children who are already in their clutches? Do these people have money trees growing in their local parks? Well at over £200 per delegate attending this course, which will come out of the LA budgets, I reckon they must have.

5. I don't want any of your dirty cash thank you very much. If you have so much money to throw around supporting people like me, who have been getting along JUST FINE these past 14 years, does this mean that my children and potential grand children won't be worked into the ground to pay for all the excesses of this government? Thought not. Doesn't it all sound so friendly and *supportive* though? Does it heck as like, it's an aspartame coating on arsenic pill.

6. Is this the bit where they suggest yearly SATs tests for HE children? Or is this the bit where they want to come round and interrogate the children for several hours at a time? People who have trained for years, who have gained a PhD and practise as Clinical Psychologists, ie those much lauded professionals this government so loves, think this is not wise practise, so which nasty, vindictive, unqualified idiot in the DCSF came up with that corker? Why do they so despise our children that they want them to be treated worse than young offenders?

7. All very laudable, but this could already be done if the LAs wanted to. My LA has given HEers access to the schools library service, without any legislation or arm twisting, just because they thought it was something that could easily be offered to us.

8. I can't believe they even need to ask this question. NO. Why should the LA staff member have a RIGHT to talk to my child alone, when me and my child won't have the RIGHT to continue to choose the form of education my child receives? This is what I mean about their being no balancing of rights of parent and child, the scales are all tipped towards the rights of the LA. The LA is not a person. It has no RIGHTS. How can it be right that a government can remove what are considered to be human rights from humans and hand them to an official body? Do these people who come up with these ideas have no humanity? No conscience? Clearly not.

9. They shouldn't be monitoring home education. It is not their role. There, just saved the LAs a whole heap of money!

10. Ahhhhhh now this one is no surprise given the interest HEers have been getting from Ofsted of late. The simple answer is No. Ofsted have no place in Home Education, they have done enough damage to schools, they will not damage our homes. Perhaps this little graphic might get the message across in a succinct manner:

11. At last, a good question, and one that I'm sure many of us would like to know the answer to. Having been involved in *bridge building* meetings with my LA, I can say that if the *Consultative Forum* is going to work on similar lines, it will be nothing but a talking shop, oh and a box ticking exercise, of course. No substance, no benefit, just a waste of time and.. yes, money.

Education is big business, and this is a prime example. They say that Home Educators are welcome to take part in this course, but they charge exorbitant fees knowing full well that we can't get a chit signed for the cost of attending, and so we are priced out of the market. This is just a modern take on the age old feudal system - those in positions of power deciding how the little people's lives will be run. These people don't care about the children, they care about protecting their mortgages, and pensions, and pretty little arses. Well my children are NOT their pension fund.

ETA: Oh look, it seems that the dear old DCSF have been told to rein in their spending. Funnily enough, I know exactly where they can start!

A Lawyer's POV

2009-12-09T18:21:00.003Z

Following on from the monopoly post, here is how a lawyer breaks down the proposed CSF Bill:

Summary of the Bill’s Violations of the Right to Home Educate and Human Rights, and Sheer Illogic and Inequity

The right of parents to
home educate their children is established under Section 7 of EA 1996. In fact, Section 7 puts the
responsibility to provide education to children upon the parent, notthe
authority:

The parent of every child
of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time
education suitable to
(a) his age, ability and
aptitude, and
(b) to any special
educational needs he may have,
either by regular
attendance at school or otherwise.

The parenthas the
obligation to secure the child’s education, and the right to provide that
education at home. The parent can
choose to delegatethe provision of their child’s education to a
school. The Bill treats the law
as the opposite, as if it were the authority’s right to choose whether a
parent can provide their child’s education otherwise than at school

The
Bill imposes no direct duty upon parents to register their home educated
children with the authority. It
gives the authority a duty to maintain a register of EHE children. Nonetheless the Bill provides that,
ultimately, parents will be held criminally liable if their child is not shown
on the register and they continue to home educate.

Use of the term
“registration” in the Bill is a misnomer and inaccurate terminology. The term to “register” implies a
ministerial task of making an entry in a register; “to record automatically”
according to Merriam-Webster online. “Registration” as set forth in the Bill is in fact a
requirement that parents receive permissionfrom their authority in
order to exercise their Section 7 right to home educate.

While the parent has no
obligation to register, as soon as the authority learns of an unregistered EHE
child, it can serve a school attendance order (SAO) with respect to that child.
The authority has no obligation to try to get a child registered, or to make
any inquiries about the child’s education, before serving the SAO.

An application to register
does not automatically ensure a place on the register. The authority has
discretion to refuse or revoke registration for many reasons that have nothing
to do with whether or not the education is suitable.

The Bill empowers authorities to refuse
registration
· if the authority thinks the
parents violated specific requirements for providing information to the
authority, to include an educational plan for the forthcoming year;
· if the
authority thinks the parents made it too difficult for the authority to monitor;
· if the
parents provided wholly accurate and adequate information but circumstances
changed; or
· if the
parents did not adhere to an education plan they projected for the forthcoming
year, even if the education they provided was as good as or better than the
plan proposed.

An authority can therefore refuse to
register an EHE child, then serve an SAO because the child is not registered.

An authority can issue an
SAO because a child is not registered. And it can deny registration because there is an outstanding SAO.

Once an authority has
refused a parent’s application to register, the authority has the power to
refuse anyor all further
applications from that parent, just because they were refused in the past.

Regulations will prohibit
parents from filing another application to register within a certain time period, with
the same or any other authority, unless the authority decides circumstances
have changed sufficiently.

The Bill not only gives
the authority substantial leeway to prevent parents from home educating, it
also removes all prospect of judicial review with respect to whether elective
home education provided by parents is suitable-- whether the home
education is in accordance with the legal standard that assures the right to
home educate.

The only thing a court can
consider with respect to an EHE child is whether or not the child is listed on
the authority’s register of home educated children. The court may notconsider anything about the
child’s actual education in an enforcement proceeding upon an SAO issued by an
authority. If the child is not
registered, or was refused registration by the authority, an SAO will be
enforced, and if a parent refuses to comply with to the order, the parent will
be guilty of a criminal offence.

Each year, the authority
must meet at least once with every home educated child, with the parent, and
with any other adult who may have primary responsibility for the
education, giving two weeks' notice. The authority must make at least one
visit to "the place (or at least one of the places)" where education
is provided. The bill does not specify the home, but nor does it specify
who decides where a visit takes place. If a parent suggests meeting
outside the home, the authority might also demand a home visit. If the
parent refuses a home visit, the authority may revoke registration, because it
has power to revoke registration if the parent "fails to co-operate with
the authority in [monitoring] arrangements made by them."

Huge controversy arose
from the suggestion in the Badman Report that authorities be granted the power
to question children apart from their parent or carer. Nonetheless the Bill suggests that
authorities interview children without the parent or carer present. The Bill includes a token gesture of
protection, providing that such meetings should not take place if the parent or
child objects. Yet the Bill
empowers the authority to use the very fact that an objection was made to
revoke the registration of the child, and thereafter enter an SAO, if the
authority thinks that without the interview it is difficult to ascertain the
child’s feelings on the home education or the child’s educational achievements.
This position would be almost impossible to disprove, especially given the
evident bias in the Bill and in the Badman Report against trusting the parent,
and prioritising the government’s view over the parent’s.

With huge thanks to Betsy for sharing.

Anyone for Monopoly?

2009-12-04T20:41:00.003Z

I used to love playing monopoly, and spent many happy (and not so happy when I was losing!) hours playing. I used to find the *go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £200* part of it rather irritating, but the chances of landing that one were fairly small so it wasn't a big deal.

Imagine for a minute if every other space was a *straight to jail* one. I don't think many people would have bothered playing, and the game would never have become the world wide success it is today. It's quite amazing the number of different monopoly boards out there on the market now - Star Wars to Simpsons with many international cities having their very own boards. Would you believe you can even get a *make your own* board for real personalisation.

I never in my wildest flights of imagination thought that I would ever compare Home Education to monopoly, but this is what I am doing.

The latest government proposals regarding Home Education equate to the *straight to jail* space on every other square of the board.

If anything deviates from your plan -- SAO
If your circumstances change -- SAO
If your child doesn't want to meet, his/her opinion doesn't count -- SAO
If you don't make the meeting because you are away for more than 2 weeks and miss the notification -- SAO
If you are educating brilliantly, your child has 99 GCSES but you are unregistered -- SAO (they must not consider your provision)
If you have been refused registration once you can always be refused-- SAO

What is this SAO? It is a School Attendance Order, which basically means that you must send your child to the school named by the local authority otherwise you are breaking the law. SAOs can be used already, but local authorities rarely bother, partly, I think, because they are expensive and ineffective. Why? Well as the law stands, if a parent is issued with a School Attendance Order, they can take their case to court and it is up to the judge to decide if, on the balance of probabilities, an education suitable to the child's age, aptitude and ability is being provided by the parent. If the Judge decides it is, the SAO does not stand.

What this government proposes doing beggars belief. They are suggesting that what should happen is that if a School Attendance Order is issued, the court CANNOT look at the parent's provision.

Damned every which way.

For many years government and local authorities have wittered on about the *loop hole* that is Home Education. Of course Home Education is nothing of the sort, it is the default position, all others are imposters. Clearly though government wishes to shut off every possible *loop hole*, and yet, it says that it supports a parent's right to home educate?

This is not benign legislation, anyone who thinks it is is quite frankly deluded.

Thanks to Karen for the bullet points.

Irony

2009-11-30T11:58:00.005Z

Lately I can't help but chuckle at the irony of the words of our *esteemed leaders* (or do I mean *running out of steam*?)

Take for instance this quote from the Telegraph:

"If we bandy around accusations regardless of the facts, and take action regardless of the evidence, we will just end up alienating the very communities we need to help us tackle extremism."

Oh, right, so we can safely assume then that this level headed person would never over see the eradication of a community based on flawed evidence? Ah, no, silly me, of course not, because this is the same person who supported the Badman review in its entirety, and who has now commissioned the most shocking piece of anti parent and anti child legislation that this country has ever seen.

It's ok though, because Ed also says:

"We all have a duty to stand up for the values that underpin our society.

That does mean challenging those who actively seek to undermine them and influence others to do the same - on the streets, on the Internet or behind closed doors."

Which is exactly what we're doing Ed, so perhaps you might have a word in the shell like of your laccies over at DCSF central and get them to stop issuing nasty letters to people who are just *doing what you told us to*.

Inspiration

2009-11-28T13:44:00.011Z

It's been a while since I've felt compelled to blog anything much, but this morning I woke up with a seed of an idea in my head. The morning and family life seem to have sent it off into the four winds though, so I shall scrabble about trying to catch that pesky seed and see if I can help it grow! I suspect it won't turn out to be quite what I thought it would be this morning, but isn't that just like life?

It's been a bit of a bumpy ride around here the past couple of weeks. We've have had the most horrendously stressful year, thanks to the government and a certain Bad Man. Whilst we have generally been hopeful of a positive outcome, the truly shocking news of just what is planned for home ed, should that wretched children, schools and families bill become law, really knocked us for six - one blogger really summed it up when she called it vindictive legislation and Kelly sums up the abusiveness to a T.

We have had long conversations about our options. We have had tears; we have had anger and raging fury; we have had shock, dismay and disgust and we have had a feeling of total impotence in the face of forces stronger than us.

Thankfully, as we have plumbed the depths of despair, other home educating friends have been feeling their strength and power; their joy and sense of wonder; their dogged determination and that has lifted us once more. It's a constant ebb and flow, up and down existence that we are living right now, but living it we are - an organic experience if ever there was one!

A friend of mine wrote this as her facebook status this morning:

"She will reach higher than the mire they spread :) Have a great day !!"

I didn't manage to catch hold of that seed from this morning, but I seem to have found a different one, one that seems more fitting for us right now. I am going to plant it, and I hope to watch it grow into something strong and beautiful, something that will inspire us to look around and find all the joy and beauty that DOES still exist in our world, if we would only see it and nurture it through the dying days of the strangling, ugly weeds that would see us shrink and shrivel with them into the mire.

ETA this wonderful poem, found over here:

RISKS

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool,
To weep is to risk being called sentimental.
To reach out to another is to riskinvolvement.
To expose feelings is to risk showing your true self.
To place your ideas and your dreams before the crowd is to
risk being called naive.
To love is to risk not being loved in return,
To live is to risk dying,
To hope is to risk despair,
To try is to risk failure

But risks must be taken, because the greatest risk in life is to risk nothing.
The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing.
He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn, feel, change, grow or love.
Chained by his certitude, he is a slave; he has forfeited his
freedom.
Only the person who risks is truly free.

Often attributed to the poet and thinker, Leo Buscaglia, the real author of this inspirational verse is Janet Rand.

Notice to Parliament

2009-11-18T16:29:00.004Z

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” William Pitt the elder

"Following the Queen's speech this notice is rapidly making the rounds. I have cross-posted it here as it is something that everyone can use to register their protest directly with parliament. A refusal to co-operate means anything from, saying no to demands, to time wasting, to absolute refusal to obey their law."

This is a Declaration to Parliament.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Notice of refusal to co-operate

This is urgent, and requires active participation by all Home Educators. Please read and forward to all Home Educators and Home Ed lists that you belong to.

This act is not in competition with or an attack against any Home educated person or Home Education organisation. Now is not the time for an Home Education civil war. We need to deal with the real threat first, then try to resolve conflict within the Home Ed community later. OUR STRENGTH IS NOT ONLY IN OUR CONVICTIONS IT IS ALSO IN OUR NUMBERS.

The Badman recommendations have generated a great deal of fear within the Home Education community; but the threat is an illusion. If we ALL refuse to cooperate nothing will happen - they will NOT come for you and your children. Their power over us is based on our own fear.

This is a declaration to parliament, putting them on notice that they should not add the recommendations of the Graham Badman Report into new law, and that we will not co-operate with any such law should they dare to enact it.

If you agree with what it says, select all the text between the dividers, copy the text to a new document, print it, sign it or otherwise make your mark on it, and then send it to your MP. Then forward this entire message to any Home Educators and parents that you know and urge them to do the same. You may disseminate this public notice to anyone and any place you think will help it gain momentum.

Whether you are involved in the petition or any other initiative makes no odds. Use this to deluge your MPs and show them once and for all that we are united!

To find your MP's address use this site: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notice of Refusal to Co-operate

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

WHEREAS the recommendations of the GRAHAM BADMAN REVIEW OF ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION have been accepted in full by the Secretary of State.

AND that these grossly disproportionate recommendations hold serious implications for the civil liberties of parents, children and families in this country.

AND that these recommendations place primary responsibility for assessing the suitability of education and the welfare of the child on the state, rather than the parent - with no prior evidence that either is unsatisfactory prior to this grossly intrusive intervention.

AND that the recommendations of the review assumes that the home is an inherently unsafe or unhealthy place for the child to be.

AND that these recommendations undermine the role of the parent and trample over family freedoms in its haste to set parent and child up against each other, bestowing additional and selective "rights" on home educated children that only the government can adequately minister to.

AND that these recommendations destroy the very possibility of true autonomy in learning.

AND that these recommendations operate from a position of requiring proof of parental innocence rather than reasonable suspicion of guilt.

AND that these recommendations discriminatorily use the coercive and interventionist tools of parental licensing, warrantless entry to the home, inspection according to arbitrary external standards, and an unconscionable new power to interrogate the child without the parents present.

AND that the outcome of these recommendations will be horribly discriminatory to a minority community, the measures eventually having to apply to anyone who has their child at home with them: parents with under 5s, those whose children attend private school, and also those with school-aged children who are at home in the evenings, over the weekends, and throughout the summer holidays.

AND that the outcome of these inspections will be based on the very human whim and prejudices of a local authority officer, who will have the power to destroy the life and education that that parent has conceived for his or her child.

AND that if the government is to avoid further discrimination it also stands to reason that each child who attends school must be given the same "rights" as home educated children - to "have their voices heard" regarding whether or not they are happy to be educated in school, whether they are satisfied with their teachers and whether they feel safe in such an environment.

WE ACCEPT that it is right that appropriate and proportionate action, as currently outlined in the law, may be taken to rectify a situation if there are serious concerns about a child's welfare, observing that a child being at home with its parents is not, and never has been, in and of itself a child welfare issue.

AND HEREBY RESOLVE that any such utterly disproportionate legislation if passed will fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and state, and would constitute a fundamental violation of our rights,

AND that any such legislation is illegitimate on its face.

NOW UNDERSTAND that by this declaration, Parliament is PUT ON NOTICE that I and others will not co-operate with any such legislation, and strongly caution you not to consider, debate, or enact any such legislation.

Signed _______________________________

HE and Diversity Survey

2009-11-17T12:48:00.010Z

Results of a recent survey relating to home education and religious diversity. Families were asked to tick all religions/life philosophies that applied to their particular families, hence the % figures totalling more than 100.

The question asking if families taught their children about other religions/life philosophies wasn't terribly well worded, and most of the families who answered *unsure* explained in the comments box how their particular families covered other religions/life philosophies, and whilst they did not *teach* in the traditional sense, they did cover these issues by the use of discussion etc.

No Retreat No Surrender

2009-11-15T14:11:00.002Z

Gill with a good summary of the situation.

Well, we bursted out of class
Had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a 3-minute record, baby
Than we ever learned in school
Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound
I can feel my heart begin to pound
You say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes
And follow your dreams down

Chorus:
Well, we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter's night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender

Well, now young faces grow sad and old
And hearts of fire grow cold
We swore blood brothers against the wind
Now I'm ready to grow young again
And hear your sister's voice calling us home
Across the open yards
Well maybe we'll cut someplace of own
With these drums and these guitars

'Cause we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Blood brothers in the stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender

Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging
You say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath
Peaceful skies in my lover's bed
With a wide open country in my eyes
And these romantic dreams in my head

Once we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Blood brothers in a stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender

Only One Way

2009-11-11T00:58:00.001Z

When you're looking at life on the brim
And trying to figure out if you remember how to swim
You only find out if you jump right in
That there's only one way, only one way

When the writing on the road says slow
And the people in the back seat ask which way to go
The truth is they already know
That there's only one way, only one way

CHORUS
We have to break all the rules they make
And take all the risks they say we won't take
We have to make all the trouble we can
Only one way
Only one way

And when every single sound you hear makes no sense
And your arse is sore with sitting on the fence
And the scale of the problem is larger than immense
There's only one way

And when a genocidal maniac talks about grief
And you kinda get the feeling that there's nothing underneath
But you can't believe a man would lie through such nice teeth
Only one way

CHORUS X 2
And when you're thinking that there's nothing you can do
But eat what they feed you like a monkey in the zoo
Just remember that they want you to believe that's true
And there's only one way, only one way

CHORUS X 3

No! Non! Nein!

2009-11-10T12:39:00.007Z

And if those 3 aren't enough, here are 520 more ways of saying NO!

Lisa has written one of the best blog posts I think I have ever read, there is no way I could ever hope to emulate it, so I will quote a small section right from the end and urge you to bob over and read it all, let it soak in, let it rouse you, then make a stand.

"Brown, Balls, Badman, Morgan, Atkinson and every single other one of you - you have a serious fight on your hands. We are not just a vociferous minority - we are everyperson, everywhere."

Jem has also written an excellent blog on the submissions to the Select Committee - read the two blog posts pointed to here in conjunction with each other if you can't understand exactly why it is that we are all so pissed off.

Then wander over to The Ministry and be horrified at just what is happening before our very eyes to this once great country. This once strong, defiant country, the country that took on the might of the fascists so that our children and our children's children might know freedom. Not the kind of freedom that Brown nauseatingly waxed lyrical about in front of the Brandenburg Gate last night though, real, true freedom.

"Let me first say to the people of Berlin, you tore down the wall and you changed the world - the wall that for a third of a century imprisoned half a city, half a country, half a continent, half a world and because of your courage two Berlins are one, two Germanies are one, and now two Europes are one. And no one can ever again imprison a people who know what it is to be free.

This wall was torn down not by the demands of political leaders, not by dictat from on high, not by the force of military might but by the greatest force of all — the unbreakable spirit of the men and women of Berlin. You dared to dream in the darkness. You know that while force has temporary power to dominate, it can never ultimately decide. You proved that there is nothing that cannot be achieved by people inspired by the power of common purpose.

And let me thank you, the people of Berlin, for sending a message to every continent that no abuse, no crime, no injury need endure for ever.

Let me thank you, the people of Berlin for demonstrating that injustice is not "the final word on the human condition."

Dave Cameron made an interesting comment yesterday too:

"It is to their courage and their determination that we pay tribute today - not least as we remember all those who still struggle for their freedom and their rights in so many parts of the world."

Are they serious? Hypocrites the pair of them. Well, at least we can stand and say that we have the countenance of our Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader as we stand and say NO! Even MPs are starting to stand up and make a noise about the loss of our freedoms, so it's clearly not just a vociferous minority.

To end I will point back to yesterday's post about Home Educators being *secretive*. In the comments section Su made this point:

"A significant number of home educators are vociferous bloggers, eloquent writers and spirited supporters of freedom and liberty. No hiding there! We're risking our families, not just hiding behind a title, job or role. We're actually giving of ourselves, the real us.

Home educators are crawling all over the media, responding to consultations and reviews, turning up at the Houses of Parliament, writing to MPs, DCSF officials, the press, each other... and we're secretive?"

She is quite right. *They* know where I live - I respond to consultations, I submit evidence to the Select Committee, I lobby my MP via letter and in person, I travel to London to talk to the Select Committee, I appear in national and local newspapers, I blog, I twitter, I facebook, I boycott my LA in protest against the Badman Review. My name is unusual, I am all over the internet. I am not secretive, far from it. Others might be too scared to stand up and be counted, perhaps I should be too, but I cannot stand by and say and do nothing when my children's freedom is at stake. I sincerely hope others will decide that the risks of speaking out are worth taking too.

Are Home Educators Secretive?

2009-11-09T12:15:00.009Z

Apparently this is one of our *problems*, we are too secretive.

What does *secretive* mean?

one definition says: "inclined to secrecy or reticence about divulging information"

Why would many home educators be reticent about divulging information I wonder?

Apart from the fact that we are just getting on with our lives; happily and lawfully, and the minutiae of people's everyday lives is really nothing to do with anyone else, there are a multitude of reasons for being reticent about divulging information.

I'll blog some of my thoughts, but would be grateful if others would add theirs in the comments box.

The old postcode lottery cliché. Yes this is definitely in play across the country. Some LAs are understanding and even respectful, but many are anything but. They can and do make people's lives a never ending battle over the course of many years, and so quite understandably people who live in such an LA would be quite sensible to avoid contact. I have heard some really horrible tales over the years from families who are horribly bullied by LA officials, many of these families have fled to other counties to get away from the stress they are put under by officious officials. What is so frustrating is that these cases aren't rare, and if the Badman recommendations become law, these same officious LA folk will be in seventh heaven with the legal right to lord it over families who are doing nothing wrong.

The problem is that many people who take on the HE *inspector* roles come from school backgrounds. Often they are former headteachers - just like Mr Badman. I don't know what the headteachers were like when you were at school, but the ones I knew were mainly very authoritarian, and brooked no dissent. The problem with people like this is that they take this attitude into all other areas of their work, and many treat HEing parents as recalcitrant children who must be broken to fit their mold.

As their only experience of education is the school model, they simply cannot (and often will not) understand that there are other models of education that are equally (I might say more) successful and far more sustainable than the school one. Many see it as a personal affront to a lifetime's professional position to find that unqualified parents can and do as good (or better) a job than they ever did for all their years of chasing academic qualifications.

Then there are the *inspectors* who allow personal prejudices to influence the treatment of individual families. Some don't like religious families, some don't like single parent or same sex families, some don't like coloured families, some don't like those who live in council houses, some don't like those who don't use computers, some don't like those who paint their toe nails pink. Ok, the last one was me being flippant, but you get my point. They make personal value judgements about families that can have far reaching effects. This happens even in *good* authorities, and is more likely to happen when the family loses control of the information they provide - for instance by allowing home visits.

Now that last sentence might bring out the *if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear* brigade, but just stop and think before trotting that one out. Do you have a disapproving mother in law who will find fault and criticise every little thing about your home? (Thankfully mine isn't like that, in case she's reading!) If you do then take the thought of how that feels and give it the power of a local authority employee who can bring the threat of social services to your door. Then you might be some of the way to understanding why we wouldn't want someone coming into our homes making judgements about us and the way we as a family live.

Right now i need to go and enjoy the sunshine with my children, so I will stop there and hope that others will put forward their reasoning in the comments box.

The Geezer's Got Previous Mate

2009-11-08T00:40:00.004Z

No we haven't turned into a bad episode of the Sweeney.

An interesting little exchange occurs:

"Graham Badman: When you have a strong partnership between schools, authorities should not be afraid to use their powers of direction. We can direct admissions where there are special educational needs or looked-after children, and I do. That applies to Academies as well.

Q179 Paul Holmes: Surely you cannot direct admissions to Academies. You can ask them to take the children; you cannot direct them.

Graham Badman: Under the new code, they would find it very hard to refuse the admission of a looked-after child, for example.

Q180 Paul Holmes: None the less, even under the new code, you cannot direct Academies. You can ask but not direct, whereas you can direct mainstream schools.

Graham Badman: Well, please do not tell them in that case."

February 2008 - giving evidence to the Select Committee

Fast forward to October 2009 and we find Mr Badman writing to the Select Committee to apologise for providing them with incorrect information.

Hmm, is it just me, or is this providing of incorrect information becoming something of a habit? Rather like his habit of creating expensive and unnecessary schemes.

Incidentally, I wonder when Home Educators can expect their apology for all the slanderous and misleading statistics and comments Mr Badman has made. My feeling is that it will be a very snowy day in hell, but I'm happy to be mistaken.

Clutching at Straws

2009-11-05T16:14:00.008Z

From an old proverb: *Drowning men will grasp at straws"

Definition: "depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something."

That's what this sorry shower have been doing don't you think? Shall we count some of the ways?

1. Call people you don't like rude names[1] in the press and before the select committee and hope that some of the mud sticks[2].

2. Fall back on tried and tested[3] methods from your past[4], and accuse people you don't like of being mentally ill[5].

3. Tell children[6] that they have to do something because you are from the government and you say so.

1. "However, there are concerns that some children are not receiving the education they need. And in some extreme cases, home education could be used as a cover for abuse. We cannot allow this to happen and are committed to doing all we can to help ensure children are safe, wherever they are educated."

2. 'Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. ''

3. "While in Buckinghamshire there were only 540 initial assessments, in Kent the number was 12,510. Even allowing for differences in their populations, parents in Kent were 10 times more likely to be investigated over child protection issues. The report argues this discrepancy may be explained by some areas disregarding the MSBP hypothesis, “whereas in others it is taken as gospel and applied with zeal”"

4. Graham Badman was until recently Managing Director of the Children, Families and Education Directorate for Kent County Council.

5."At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link."

6. JONATHAN PRIOR: I want to read you a section of annex C: “The review will look in particular at if and how far home educated children have access to the five Every Child Matters outcomes.”

PENNY JONES: Ahh, I see, okay.
GARETT ROSS: I don’t want them.
PENNY JONES: Well, want or not, I am a government official, and these five outcomes are government policy."

Some great blogs about covering these issues:

Crystal Balls for Badman

Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy?!

Graham Badman, King of Projection

Go Against the Government? Mentally Ill.

so home-educating mothers have Münchhausens by proxy badman actually asked

Now I have Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy

I'm sure there will be many more to follow.

Thanks to JD for the graphic.

Nektus and Badman

2009-11-04T19:56:00.001Z

DCSF has now released the evidence submitted to the Select Committee Inquiry

This is mine

1. In a letter to the information commissioner just released under the freedom of information act,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_with_information#comment-5064

the DCSF use several examples to show why they are not releasing certain requested information to Home Educators. The first example used is the one I would particularly like to bring to your attention.

"http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=4545... &page=2&hash-Of2a77932b0633fb20f23cc27b7aOb09 The post of 13 June 23.45 suggests that Mr Badman will have a child's blood on his hands."

2. I am the creator/owner of the Facebook group in question, and was astonished to see this discussion being used in this way. This particular comment was made by a Home Educator who has been instrumental in the development of good relations between Home Educators and North Yorkshire County Council's Elective Home Education team. It was in this capacity that she was invited by NYCC to meet with Mr Badman, on two occasions, to talk to him about her experiences. Having met with Mr Badman, and having spent some not inconsiderable time telling him about her own personal experiences of removing a child from school, she was horrified when she read the report recommendations. She left a message on the group wall to the effect that if the recommendations become law, Mr Badman would at some point have a child's blood on his hands. Sally Devlin queried what was meant by this comment, and several people explained that, with the recommendations contained within the report, children who were, or had previously been, unhappy in school would no longer have the same safety net that they currently do, and that in turn could lead to more child suicides. I have used the same phrase myself in a recent blog post about the report.

http://freedomineducationunderthreat.blogspot.com/2009/09/life-line_13.html

3. Conversations on Facebook group walls are very short lived and quickly get pushed out of view. It is therefore curious that such a brief comment in a short lived conversation made it to the notice of the DCSF, as *evidence* of the danger posed to Mr Badman. Until you consider that Sally Devlin is the daughter of Graham Badman. Not once in her time on the group did she disclose her connections, but in her parting comment to the group she admits that she was there to collect information.

4. This in itself might not be of any great interest to the committee; however, further investigation reveals some rather disturbing information which potentially has a bearing on the review report.

5. In his report Mr Badman puts forward Somerset Council as an example of best practice with regard to their Home Education policies and procedures. Many Home Educators were surprised by this, as Somerset is not an authority that has historically been put forward by home educators or the DCSF as either good or bad. Indeed, a consultancy firm specialising in the training of Local Authorities in Elective Home Education law and policy, who Mr Badman met during the course of the review process, was also surprised to see Somerset put forward in this manner.

6. It came to light that Mr Badman's daughter is a SEN Case Work Officer for Somerset Council. During the course of discussions on the Facebook group (hastily deleted when she realised we knew who she was) Mrs Devlin made some quite worrying comments about the home educating clients she has had dealings with. One has to wonder how much weight was given to her opinions by her father, particularly with regard to the considerable sections of the report that deal with HE and SEN, and whether the surprising choice of Somerset as an example of best practice, had anything to do with his daughter's professional position within this authority.

7. During the review process, Home Educators have obviously been very interested in finding out what professional interests Mr Badman holds, especially given that we have been told time and again that he, and therefore his review, are *independent*. Many home educators were surprised to find that an independent review into Home Education could be carried out by a former teacher, former head of children's services, and current chair of BECTA. Whilst looking into Mr Badman's professional interests, it was discovered that he was listed as the director of an Education Management company by the name of Nektus.

8. The company information is readily available from Companies House: Nektus was first registered as a company in October 2008. The directors of the company are Mr and Mrs Badman and Mr and Mrs Devlin. Sally Devlin is listed as company secretary.

9. When the report was made public, a discussion thread was started on the Facebook group asking the question *What happens next?* Sally Devlin got involved in the discussion, and seemed quite eager to convince us that the law would change very quickly, and that we would be best just accepting it. Again, these comments were deleted by Mrs Devlin, but they were cached, and are available to view should you deem it necessary.

10. This eagerness, together with her involvement in Nektus, lead a Home Educator to put in a FOI request for all communications between Nektus and DCSF between October 2008 and June 2009.http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_with_nektus#outgoing-30153

The request was refused under sections 38 and 40 of the FOI Act.

11. What is curious about this is that in the original request, no mention was made of Mr Badman, or of any link to Home Education, and yet the response does. This suggests that the person responding to the request had information that the requester did not give. The responder appeared to know that Graham Badman had a connection to the private company Nektus. So either this is common knowledge at the DCSF or the responders have been given some particular "red flags" to watch for in FOI requests, Nektus being one. Either way, again, it raises questions. Was Nektus involved in the preparation of the Review or the Report? Was there any financial gain to be made by Mr Badman or his daughter from involvement with the review and its outcome?

12. It seems that, regardless of the truth of the allegation that "attempts have been made to vilify and harass the author of the Review of Elective Home Education," the best way to combat such "attempts" would be to tell the truth. If the interactions between the DCSF and Nektus have been completely above board, then it would seem to be in the best interest of everyone to disclose all interactions between the two entities. Not to do so merely raises the question that there might be something the either the DCSF or Nektus does not wish to be disclosed for public scrutiny. Simply complying with the FOI request would have defused the situation and eliminated any question of conflict of interest. Not to comply with the request simply raises these questions again.

13. When all the other issues Home Educators have with this review are taken into consideration, alongside the above information, and the fact that Graham Badman and the DCSF are now, 3 months after the report was published and accepted in its entirety by government, asking Local Authorities to provide evidence to back up the Report's *evidence*, it seems to me not only that the validity of the entire report must surely be called into serious question (and the resulting consultation consigned to the shredder) but also that Mr Badman has questions to answer about the extent to which his family's commercial interests may have influenced the development of his recommendations and the role his daughter's opinions - which are no more impartial than they are independent - may have played in the formation of his own views.

September 2009

Uprising

2009-11-02T10:50:00.002Z

Paranoia is in bloom,
The PR transmissions will resume,
They'll try to push drugs that keep us all dumbed down,
And hope that we will never see the truth around
(So come on)
Another promise, another scene,
Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed,
And all the green belts wrapped around our minds,
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on)

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious
(So come on)

Interchanging mind control,
Come let the revolution take it's toll,
If you could flick a switch and open your third eye,
You'd see that
We should never be afraid to die
(So come on)

Rise up and take the power back,
It's time the fat cats had a heart attack,
You know that their time's coming to an end,
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious
So come on

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious

Just say NO!

Home Education and Religion

2009-10-22T09:59:00.010+01:00

Last week at the second select committee hearing, one Peter Traves of Staffordshire LA made a most incredible public faux pas. Or was it?

Mr Traves said:

"There are also parents who withdraw their children, I have to say, for particular religious view and wanted that religious view incultcating that child. It isn’t just about the rights of parents, it’s also about the rights of children…”

The implication being that to choose to home educate your child for religious reasons is wrong, and must not be allowed.

It seems it's hunting season for religious home educators, as even dear old Aunty have been getting in on the act too.

I don't suppose it would interest the likes of Mr Traves to know that in a recent diversity survey I conducted, of the 3.4% of home educators who said they did NOT include any information about other religions/life philosophies in their child's home education, 50% were atheists and 37% were agnostics!

As it happens, I am not a religious person. Indeed, having spent 3 years in a Catholic boarding school as a non baptised person, I have always been rather anti-religion. However, I have found myself in the position of defending people of faith in the last year or so, as they have come under ever greater attack from the system. This is particularly true for religious home educators. It seems that it is fine for a child to be *inculcated* with a state *religion* but absolutely unforgivable for a parent to want to pass on it's religious views and morals to their child.

This reminds me so very much of the DDR.

"While the DDR didn`t officially ban religion, it adopted social policies that had a devestating impact on religion. DDR policies hindered the free exercise of religion. East Germans who wanted to be profesionally successful didn't attend church. And the children in school, of course, were also observed what the parents wre doing. If a teenager wanted to attend university and persue a professional career, he could not be a Church member or attend Church."

We here in the UK seem to think that our history of freedom means we are immune from the encroachment of an authoritarian, fascist state. We wax lyrical about our grandfathers who fought against such outrages, as though their ghosts offer us protection.

We think that human rights acts will protect us against such outrages.

We think human decency will protect against such outrages.

The only thing that will protect us is people, ordinary people, such as our grandfathers were, standing up and saying enough is enough, and refusing to accept these outrages. If we are employed by government departments we must not fall into saying *but I was just doing my job*, because make no mistake, if allowed, history does repeat itself. Just because we are British doesn't mean we cannot fall under the jackboot of totalitarianism - read the newspapers, we're further along the road than you might like to believe. Where is your line in the sand?

Armed police on the streets?
Children removed from their families because they are *too fat*?
Your 5 year old being taught about masturbation in sex ed lessons?

the Fabian Society have plans for your children, regardless of what you or your child have planned for themselves.

What has this got to do with religion? It's simple really, and I know it's become something of a cliché but things become clichés for a good reason.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

ETA: The unesco document incase the Fox News link is too biased go to pages 48 and 49.

DCSF are just embarrassing themselves now.

2009-10-21T11:20:00.000+01:00

Media Release from Action for Home Education

Media release from Action for Home Education, 20 October 2009

DCSF "just embarrassing themselves now"

Moments before the deadline, a home-educating parent reported that their submission to the latest consultation on home education had received the number 5340, an unusually large public response with the previous record for DCSF being only in the hundreds.

One of the respondents, JK, a fifteen year old supporter of Action for Home Education, declared today that Ed Balls and the DCSF are "just embarrassing themselves now" as he battled to understand how the government can be so short sighted about the opposition to the recommendations in the Badman Report on home education.

This rather gives the lie to Graham Badman's assertion to the Children, Schools and Families Committee (12 October 2009, Q2) that the opposition to his report comes from "a vociferous minority" that he can actually count. But "why", asks JK, "are they still not listening?"

Diana Johnson (to Children, Schools and Families Select Committee hearing 12 October 2009,) promised that consultation responses will be carefully scrutinised and taken into account before policy is made.

"But Ed Balls accepted the widely criticised Badman review in full immediately and dismissed out of hand the Cambridge Review, a long term academic study of education that suggested children should start school at six and sit fewer tests", said Barbara Stark, Chair of the AHEd group.

"We are watching to see if even the large number of responses is going to be taken seriously by Ed Balls who, so far, has ridden rough shod over the wishes and needs of home educated children to push forward his own ideas. We think that the review was not really independent and was used by Ed Balls to make up policy-based evidence biased towards a predetermined agenda to bully us and our children."

AHEd believes most of the consultation responses will have been from ordinary families who see big government threatening their way of life and their family choices.

Supporter Clare Murton said, "This government has lost sight of the distinction between public and private to the point where even our youngsters are mystified at their ignorance and arrogance.

"Many parents will recognise the frustration home educators feel with the shortcomings of the state schools, but not many will realise that, if they chose to decline the state's humble offerings in any sphere of life, not just education, they may be forced to expose their homes and children to close scrutiny."

Recently there have been attempts to screen, control, tax and register mums and dads who choose to share their child care arrangements, but things are now thought to be going too far. AHEd believes that Ed Balls and the DCSF have to be made to understand that normally peaceful home educators who just want to get on with their lives are drawing a line in the sand.

Ms Stark said, "The British public are fed up with such interference and we will tolerate it no longer. We will not comply with this disgusting agenda for us and our children. If necessary, many of us will choose to go before the courts to fight any criminal sanctions that government may introduce.

"Does New Labour really want to be remembered as the government that persecuted law-abiding parents doing their best for their families?"

ENDS

For further information, contact AHEd.

Busy Busy

2009-10-17T22:52:00.005+01:00

We are off to meet the SCI people on Monday, so busily preparing for that.

We've all just put in our responses to the consultation that ends on Monday. The numbers are well into the three thousands now, which is bloody fantastic! If you haven't responded yet, please do, ask your children, family, friends, neighbours, butcher, baker and candlestick maker to fill one in. It only takes a minute to JUST SAY NO!

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1643&external=no&menu=1

If you are in any doubt about the importance of this stuggle, have a read of this from Mr Balls. It makes for disturbing reading.

A snippet for your *delectation*.

"But the Education and Skills Bill is a bill of responsibilities as well as a bill of rights.Because if young people fail to take up these opportunities, there will be a system of enforcement - very much a last resort - but necessary to strike the right balance between new rights and new responsibilities.Because when we say everyone will participate, that is what we mean."

NASWE

2009-10-16T16:33:00.013+01:00

Way back in May a fellow home educator and I were at a conference about informal education. During the lunch break we got chatting to a delegate who had attended the NASWE conference earlier that month. She told us how, at conference, Badman had presented his report to the delegates. (It was later denied that the report had been presented.) Interestingly though, one of the things that she told us was that Badman was going to suggest,was that the home educated child be interviewed on their own. My friend and I both laughed at the madness of such a suggestion, and the lady hurriedly told us she may have misheard. Clearly though her hearing was excellent.

The NASWE says this about Badman's speech:

Graham Badman CBE MA – Graham spoke about Elective Home Education and he expressed his concerns about the estimated 80-100,000 children in England who are currently not in any Educational setting. You might be surprised to learn that there are only 8,000 children officially registered with local authorities as being ‘home educated.’

If Badman didn't have an idea of a figure on Monday at the SCI hearing, how did he have one in May for the NASWE delegates?

NASWE made a submission to the original consultation but they refuse to release it to home educators, as does the DCSF.

But we can get an idea of it's contents here.

Now these are the people who will, no doubt, be doing the dirty work our Graham has planned. Interviewing our children alone, probably making the initial decision as to whether or not a parent gets their Home Education Licence, and indeed if they are allowed to renew one year on.

The NASWE website is rather interesting if you have the stomach to click through to some it's articles.

This one, for instance. The article is basically a battle plan for EWOs based on the battle plans of one Sun Tzu. Could this explain Badder's fixation with Oriental history? He expects Home Educated children to have knowledge of Oriental history [scroll to Q38], perhaps he means through experience of EWOs.

ETA: AHEd have a copy of the NASWE response to the guidelines consultation here and suggest that:

"Any guidelines that govt issue are quite likely to be (mis)informed by the information provided by NASWE (among others)."

What's a SAHM then?

2009-10-10T00:13:00.005+01:00

Why dear reader, a Subversive At Home Mum of course.

According to this article, the government sees women who put their families and communities first as... subversives.

Funnily enough I'm not surprised by this, after all this is the same government who likes to file responses from families, who are fighting to protect their way of life from the state boot as *a campaign*.

Subversive, campaigning, stay at home mothers.

Well here's a *campaign* message from one such subversive:

Hell hath no fury like a mother scorned, you would do well to remember that.

Just say NO to the DCSF.

Can You Explain?

2009-10-09T17:03:00.004+01:00

Ok, so it's a very long time since I studied politics, and perhaps my grey cells have become a little withered with time, but would someone please explain to me how this scenario works:

*Democratic* Government decides that it wants to give the governed a say in how legislation is made, so it decides to hold consultations in which it asks for the opinions of the people. Now there are guidelines (opens PDF)which are supposed to be followed when consulting, have a look at number 1:

"Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome."

Ok, so, bearing this in mind, please can someone explain to me why the government department DCSF - known to us as the department of continued and sustained failure -has issued this when there are still 10 days left before a consultation into these matters finishes?

Apparently they are saying that the registration aspect will come into effect September 2011.

Democracy or dictatorship? You decide.

select committee inquiry into HE announces witnesses

2009-10-07T22:27:00.007+01:00

Three things:

This blog post

"I wonder if, as a result of the supposed “harassment and vilification” Mr Badman is suffering from us home educators, he is planning to leave permanently the country where he was born and raised, to become a refugee, taking his family with him, to escape the persecution of a Government that chooses to see something that is his legal duty as an “anomaly” to be got rid of? No, I didn’t think so, but many home educators are doing just that. Because they have been harassed and vilified, you see, and persecuted and libelled against, by the Government and media of their home country."

This blog post

"The list of witnesses contains no established researchers or authors on home education, for example, Paula Rothermerl, Roland Meighan, The Fortune Woods, or Alan Thomas? We understand that some of these people have also asked to appear as witnesses."

and this video

Great British Democracy in action - doesn't it make you proud?

Home Made vs Mass Produced

2009-10-03T23:24:00.011+01:00

We've been making the most of our abundant hedgerows over the last couple of days. Yesterday we took some fellow home educating friends with us, we all had a great time plucking the various berries. Whilst we were gathering sloes, a dog walker stopped to chat asking if I was planning on making some sloe gin. We had a bit of a chat about the methods and different recipes, and as she carried on her walk she said:

"Well I tried it once, but I don't think it was worth all the effort."

We've had gales here today, but when it had calmed down a little we all went out and spent a good hour and a half walking, talking, and stopping to pick berries. We saw a rainbow which prompted one of the girls to tell us about a conversation she had been having with a friend in an online forum about rainbows and how they are actually circular. I had no idea about that, but that's what life here is like - my children teach me an incredible amount. Anyway, that's by the by.

I decided to try making Pontac with some of the elderberries we'd collected yesterday, it looked so rich and delicious in the recipe photo that I just had to give it a try. It's quite a time consuming recipe, and I always knew that it would yield relatively little for the effort, but I thought it was worth trying, even if just once. I was very disappointed when I bottled the finished product and discovered that I had just over half the estimated 350ml that the recipe said it would yield. It's supposed to be best if left to mature for 7 years, but I decided that I would add a small amount to the spaghetti sauce I was making for tea. Oh my goodness! The children noticed a difference to the flavour and commented on how delicious it was. So I guess it was worth the effort and no doubt I will be making it again, but will make sure that next time I double or maybe quadruple the quantity.

As I was pulling today's haul of elderberries off their umbrellas, I got to thinking about what a labour intensive job this was, and about the comment from the dog walker.

Not many people seem to have the patience for making things from scratch any more. We find it easier to nip to the shops and buy things ready made. Yet take a drive and look at the signs outside pubs all shouting *Home Made Food Here* or one we saw on holiday which said *Good Home Made Food Here* as though someone might advertise bad! Watch a few adverts on the telly with Jamie Oliver extolling the virtues of cooking your own food with fresh ingredients. Read in the papers about the drive for more locally produced goods and the over use of that horrible buzz phrase *buy local think global*.

Home made is trendy - look at the success of sites like Etsy, and the many crafting blogs, books and magazines that are about now.

Home made shows that you've put some effort in. Your home made gift shows that you put your heart into making it, that you willingly gave of your time to create something especially for the receiver. That it was made and given with love.

And yet... the *home* in Home Education makes people suspect something not so good, something lacking in effort, something second rate. Why is that? The old saying *home is where the heart is* still rings true, doesn't it? So what has happened to make home suspect when coupled with education? I think it's about time we made more of the *home*. We like being at home, yes, we go out, we enjoy visiting other people and seeing other places, but we are not ashamed to say that we spend plenty of time at home. There is so much to be learned from the simple things in life, so much pleasure to be had, so much experience to be gained. Why do we rush out to be entertained, to buy experiences, why are we so quick to shun expanding a bit of effort?

Enoch Arnold Bennett says:

"Happiness includes chiefly the idea of satisfaction after full honest effort. No one can possibly be satisfied and no one can be happy who feels that in some paramount affairs he failed to take up the challenge of life."

To me, home education is *taking up the challenge of life*. It is living fully, taking responsibility not shrugging it off. It's worth the effort, even when that effort seems awfully hard work for little return, you can guarantee that the rainbow moments are just around the next corner.

Home Ed Protest Song

2009-10-01T23:57:00.001+01:00

We had a ball taking part in this - thanks so much to Allan and Imogen for all their hard work putting it all together!

DCSF Disappears EHE Guidelines down the memory hole

2009-09-26T11:10:00.006+01:00

Well, well, well. It seems that, just before the Select Committee Inquiry into the Home Education review, DCSF disappears their guidelines from their website. How very Orwellian. Thankfully, home educators are not so daft as to rely on the DCSF to retain these things, having experienced other guidelines disappearing in much the same way.

You can still read the full government guidelines online here and here and here. I suggest that we make noise about this - twitter it, facebook it, blog about it, write to your MP about it, and the Select Committee need making aware too.

ETA: HE Forums have blogged about government data loss here.

Isn't it Amazing?

2009-09-24T16:34:00.007+01:00

Have you seen these photos of the incredible find? I'm loving this comment on the BBC article:

"It will take years, or decades, to get answers, and we still won't get all of them.

We can't just ask questions about this hoard, either - we need to ask questions about how this hoard fits in with everything else we know.

Have we made assumptions elsewhere that aren't right?"

We've just come back from a wonderful holiday in Pembrokeshire, the second year running we've gone back to the same place. This year we spent a lot of time visiting some of the amazing neolithic monuments that the area is so incredibly rich in. Each one we visited filled us with awe - how on earth did the ancient people manage to create these incredible structures without all our *wonderful modern technology*?

We don't really know what these structures were used for, how they were built, what they originally looked like. With all our wonderful modern technology, our great modern intelligence, we just don't know. I do so wish we could all remember this, I wish it would filter into the minds of those who think they have all the answers.

Finds like the one that is chronicled in the BBC article teach us that, no matter what we think we know, there is always something new just around the corner, waiting to turn everything we think we know on it's head.

Education has always been a natural, lifelong pursuit. The ability to question, to look afresh at problems, to try out new theories and disguard them when they don't work, has stood the human race in good stead for thousands of years.

When you explore monuments such as Pentre Ifan, when you see such intricate metal work as that above, you can't help wonder (well I can't anyway) just what legacy we will leave the future. Will we have any ounce of creativity left in us to leave behind such treasure troves as the ancients did, when we have been confined to narrow definitions of what a human being should learn; when we have had the joy and natural zest for live squeezed out of us by a tick box system?

According to a recent DCSF FOI release, the government are not going to allow certain information to be released because some home educators are attempting to harass and vilify Mr Badman. You would think there must be some truly awful things being put about on the internet to cause such concern. Prepare to be horrified.

exhibit 1: photoshopped picture showing Mr Badman reading Mein Kampf

exhibit 2: a 12 second animation created by a home educated child

Creativity and gentle satire are now threats to the establishment? I'm old enough to remember Spitting Image - every week the government had to endure the most shocking leg pulling from those puppets.

I don't imagine Mrs Thatcher spent much time worrying though, do you? Satire has always been a Great British Tradition, and looking at the photos I've posted, so has creativity. And yet, we are in danger of losing both. I shall leave you with a Ken Robinson quote:

"We don't grow into creativity, we get educated out of it."

ETA: and now it looks like Darwin was wrong!

Celebrate International Freedom In Education

2009-09-15T08:32:00.007+01:00

Happy International Freedom In Education Day! Pop along here and enjoy the carnival - but finish reading this post first ;)

I hope that the posts to date have shown how important such freedom is, and why it absolutely must be protected from the grinding state machinery with it's tick box, one size fits all, measurable outcomes, mind set.

We love our life and wouldn't change it for the world. We hope that more and more people will come to see how important it is to maintain freedom in education, not just in this country, but all around the globe. The more restrictive and prescriptive education becomes, the smaller our chances of the world becoming a better place for our children and their children. It really is THAT important.

Even if you don't currently see yourself home educating, you never know what the future might hold, and if a time comes when you find yourself needing to pull your child out of school, I hope the option is still available to you, and you don't regret thinking *it's nothing to do with me*.

Finally, my family and I (ooh get her sounding like the Queen ;) ) would just like to send a heartfelt thank you to Baroness Morgan, The NSPCC, Ed Balls and The Bad Man. You will have taken almost a year from us by the time the Select Committee Report and consultation are done and dusted. You have slandered us in the national press, you have caused us stress beyond measure, you have made us cry, you have made us seriously look at leaving the home and country we love. But, in doing all of this you have made us as a family stronger, you have cemented friendships with home educators around the country, people we would never have met were it not because we wanted to reunite in condemnation of your treatment of us. You may think you can break us, but we are stronger than you will ever know, and that in part is due to your treatment of us.

Why Should I Be Worried About The Badman Recommendations?

2009-09-14T08:31:00.017+01:00

If you haven't already, I would ask you to go to the beginning of this blog and read through all the posts.

When you have done that, and once I have explained just what the Badman Recommendations entail, I think you will understand why you, me and every other person in the country should be worried.

AHEd have produced an incredibly thorough briefing paper which I can highly recommend reading. Gill has also done a painstaking pulling apart of the report which you can read here. I shan't attempt to cover it in nearly as much depth, I shall just offer my personal opinions, and try to explain how our family will be affected.

There are 28 recommendations in the report; some of them could, potentially, be helpful for home educators were they implemented, but of course these are the ones that the government is ignoring.

The main ideas being pushed forward, hurriedly, by government are:

compulsory registration
the parent providing a statement of educational approach against which the child's "performance" will be assessed
annual inspections, with right of access to the home and right of access (alone if necessary) to the child

All of which might sound reasonable, if you are just looking at them superficially. As with everything though, it is always best to read the small print.

Let's take them one by one.

1. Compulsory Registration

Suggests, on the surface, that you just have to tell someone official that you are home educating your child. Sounds reasonable enough, I suppose.

However, what the recommendation actually suggests is a licensing scheme. Parents will have to have their home education assessed and approved, and there after apply annually for approval to renew their licence.

Now just hang on a minute - as we have already seen, section 7 of the education act clearly states that educational provision is the duty of the parent. It is up to the parent to choose whether or not to delegate that responsibility. It is not up to the local authority, or government, to grant permission. To alter the balance in this way will require primary legislation, and it will open the floodgates for children failed by the education system to seek compensation. Remember those statistics we saw in an earlier post: 1 in 6 children leave school unable to read, write or add up. At a time when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy, is this a wise move on the part of government?

All that aside, as I explained in earlier posts, it takes time to find your feet when you start home educating. There is the need for a proper period of deschooling if the child is being withdrawn from school. This needs to be a time with as little external pressure as possible. Having to present yourself and your plans for home education, for official scrutiny BEFORE you are granted permission to home educate, will completely wipe out this very important time for families.

Talking of deregistration, the registration recommendation also plans to tinker with deregistration on demand, something we discussed the importance of in the previous post entitled "A Life Line".

Here is that particular part of the recommendation:

"When parents are thinking of deregistering their child/children from school to home educate, schools should retain such pupils on roll for a period of 20 school days so that should there be a change in circumstances, the child could be readmitted to the school. This period would also allow for the resolution of such difficulties that may have prompted the decision to remove the child from school."

Bye bye dereg on demand, bye bye life line. Especially when you take into account recommendation 15:

"That the DCSF take such action as necessary to prevent schools or local authorities advising parents to consider home education to prevent permanent exclusion or using such a mechanism to deal with educational or behavioural issues."

So perpetuate "The Big Lie" even though to do so may cost a child it's life. As I said in a previous post, these people must accept that they will have children's blood on their hands. This is so tragically twisted when you think that the whole review supposedly came about because of *safeguarding* concerns.

2. The parent providing a statement of educational approach against which the child's performance will be assessed.

Might sound reasonable, possibly, if you don't know anything at all about home education.

The idea with this one is basically that at your annual licensing meeting, sorry, registration, you present your educational plan for the coming year. The following year at your licensing meeting your child is tested and the results measured against the previous year's plan. If the child fails to have reached the targets set for the year, no licence renewal for you.

Why is this a problem? Well, firstly because if you are following a child led approach, you just don't plan a year ahead. You'd be lucky to plan a week or two ahead to be honest. This doesn't mean that following such an approach is slack, it just means that you can follow your child's interests which alter thick and fast - such is the nature of the child.

The other problem is testing. It has been shown that testing children induces stress. That teaching to the test kills their natural love of learning, we have seen this with SATs tests. They are going to scrap SATs tests for school children, and not before time. Many home educators, myself included, are fundamentally opposed to testing, and it is one of the many reasons why we home educate. When you are with your child on a daily basis as we are, you KNOW how they are doing, you KNOW what areas of weakness they have. You do not need a test to tell you these things. Besides which, the law states that a parent has to provide an education, the child is not legally bound to take it up. Can you imagine if they were? For goodness sake, it would be complete bedlam. How do you force anyone to learn anything? You can't, it is impossible. You cannot force feed knowledge in the way you can force feed food. If all children who went to school were to be subject to such penalties for failing their SATs what would we do with them all? Certainly a case of double standards at work here.

Moving on to the piece de resistance ...

3. Annual inspections, with right of access to the home and right of access (alone if necessary) to the child.

This recommendation is just utterly horrific. It flies in the face of human and child rights (don't you love how they separate the child from other humans as though they were a totally different species? Reminds me of the way the government department responsible for this rubbish separates the child from it's family by the use of school - Department of Children, Schools and Families).

Let's get one thing clear; where there are concerns about the safety of a child, there are already laws in place which grant access to the home and to the child. This is as it should be, and is completely fair and reasonable. I doubt anyone would argue with that.

What the Badman recommendations are saying is that just because a family home educates - and let's remember that this is actually the default position because it is the parent's duty to decide how and where their child is educated - that they automatically become suspects. Let's try out an analogy again:

Imagine there is a drug dealer living a few doors away from you. The police have reason to suspect that there are drugs on the premises, and so organise a raid. Perfectly reasonable so far. Now, imagine that just because you happen to live in the same street as the drug dealer; even though you have no previous convictions for drug related crime, there aren't even any suspicions about your good character; the police decide that you could be hiding drugs in your house so they raid you too. Still sound reasonable?

What the Badman recommendations propose will mean that home educated children have fewer rights than juvenile offenders who, under the Beijing Rules, are entitled to have a parent or guardian present when interviewed.

Article 9.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

Remember, we are talking here about children being interviewed, without their parent/s present where there is NO suspicion of any wrong doing.

My own children are horrified at the idea of a stranger coming into their home, taking them off to another room and interrogating them. I can't say that I blame them. It makes me exceptionally angry that even though the government has said time and again that home education is not a welfare issue, here they are saying that actually it is. That our children are to be granted less human dignity and respect than young offenders. No, this is morally corrupt. Apart from anything else, it will leave those doing the interrogating wide open to allegations of abuse. We have a collapsing social care system. Social workers are over burdened as it is, is it really wise,will it really protect children, if we increase their workload by the tens of thousands when there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that these children are anything but loved and well cared for by their parents?

These are just a few of the 28 recommendations. As I said, taken at face value you might wonder why many home educators are so concerned that they are considering leaving the country.

What these recommendations will do, IF they become law, is kill home education as we know it. We have been home educating perfectly well, perfectly legally, perfectly happily for 9 years. Over night that will end. We will become the subject of unwarranted, microscopic scrutiny because we choose to take the responsibility for our children's education seriously, and do not delegate it to someone else. How can this be right or just?

Perhaps, if you don't see a problem with it, you would like to come and explain to my children why they will have to be assessed and interrogated by strangers who will determine whether they can continue with the education that has served them well these 9 years.

Perhaps you would like to come back in a few years and explain to my younger children why they are not allowed the benefits of the type of education their older sisters had.

Perhaps you would like to explain it to me and my husband whilst you're at it.

Perhaps, if you have a child, grandchild, niece, nephew or neighbour whose life might have been saved by home education, you would like to explain to them why there is no alternative, why they have to continue going to the place where they are so miserable that they are considering suicide.

Perhaps you might like to consider how the complete removal of freedom in education will affect the country as a whole.

Perhaps, if none of these things concern you, you might like to consider what the world will be like when parents are no longer allowed to be responsible for their own children. We are already seeing the start of so many social problems that stem from over prescriptive, state interference in family life. These will only get worse if we allow our parental duties to be over ridden by a one size fits all, iron fisted, state machine.

These people do not care about our children, when they say that it is concern for children that is behind this they are lying, and their lie shines through in those report recommendations.

I'll leave the final word to a social worker:

"These changes would effectively put the local authority and home educating parents in opposition to each other and create a great deal of unnecessary stress for home educators. All this would be done for the sake of improved child protection. In reality, the proposed new arrangements would not result in better child protection and may actually cause more harm than good."

A Life Line

2009-09-13T08:24:00.001+01:00

Lots of children become home educated as a last resort, often due to special needs not being met properly, school phobia, stress and bullying.

Many children's lives have been saved because their parents discovered that school is not compulsory. Many others have been lost because they didn't. What is worse, is that often there is a conspiracy of silence among schools and local authorities. Time after time we hear of parents fighting for years with their child's school, desperately asking for help. Hardly any of these parents are told that there is another option. This despicable behaviour continues, even now when home education has a much higher profile than it did a number of years ago. Only the other week there was an example of this on national TV. There is no excuse for it, and the people who refuse to tell parents that there is another way, must accept that they have children's blood on their hands. If you think I'm being overly dramatic have a look at this.

As I said earlier, in the post about the legality of home education, it is the parent who is responsible for ensuring their child receives an education, and it is EDUCATION that is compulsory, not school. Why is this not something that every parent is told when they have a child, or at least when they are being offered places at nurseries and schools? Many home educators refer to this as "The Big Lie" and whilst we are starting to make in roads into it's demolition, it's a painfully slow process, which is a crying shame because whilst parents remain unaware, children will continue to die.

Deregistration on demand is a legal right that parents MUST retain. The Badman recommendations threaten to remove this lifeline, and we must not allow it to happen. The government have tried before to remove it, and failed. We must continue to demand that this life line remains. With children set to stay in compulsory education until they are 18, it is crucially important that there is a safety net for those it does not work for. Parents should not have to jump through hoops imposed by local authorities, especially when these local authorities are failing their child, to enable them to carry out their legally binding parental duties.

Education Theories

2009-09-12T08:30:00.010+01:00

Some people suggest that home educating your child is nothing more than a dangerous experiment.

I was in the first school year to take GCSEs and I can tell you, we felt like guinea pigs. Since then children across the country have been subjected to educational experimentation in the form of the national curriculum, SATs, literacy and numeracy hours, and goodness knows what else. SATs are going to be scrapped, maybe GCSEs will be next, who knows. Governments have always tinkered with education, and if the current one is anything to go by, they will continue to do so until they have completely ruined it for everyone.

I was lucky enough not to have to suffer the national curriculum, and I'm very glad. I had a lot of different teachers; some were good, some were absolutely awful. The ones that stick in my mind, were the ones who had a passion for their subject, who made lessons their own. I was fortunate enough to experience the same subject addressed differently by many different people - my father was in the forces, school changes and different teachers were a part of life.

Had the national curriculum been in place during my childhood I would have been guaranteed never to miss a thing in my school changes, because the tabling of subjects would not have been left to the individual teachers. The content of the lessons would have been very similar where ever I was. Would that have been a good thing? Personally, I don't think so. I'm trying to think where I read the analogy that springs to mind. It went something like this:

The national curriculum is like a fast food *restaurant* - you get the same food, delivered in the same way, for the same price, at every one of the company's establishments. Where ever you go in the world, if you go along to one of these establishments you know exactly what you are going to get.

Now compare it to a restaurant in the Michelin Guide; you never know what you're going to get, but you know it's going to be good.

IMO education should endeavour to belong to the Michelin Guide rather than the fast food chain.

The human race has been getting along OK for thousands of years. We've seen the rise and fall of civilisations. We've seen incredible creations and feats of human ingenuity all around the world. And all without a national curriculum in sight! There are so many differing theories about what constitutes a good education, it's something people have debated for millenia. If great philosophers can disagree, what on earth makes us think that suddenly, at the tail end of the 20th century, a group of politicians and civil servants had an epiphany?

Apparently teacher training used to include learning about different educational theories. These days it's all about classroom management. I brought this up with Ian McGimpsey of the RSA at a recent conference I spoke at. He agreed that it is a problem newly qualified teachers face when taking up posts. The government talks about personalised learning, and other buzz words, but when we have teachers who have themselves known nothing but the national curriculum, and who have never heard of the many and varied theories of education, how on earth can we get back to an education system that is more on a par with Michelin than MacDonalds?

The national curriculum has been the biggest, mass educational experiment since the introduction of compulsory education back in 1870, and it has failed (IMO they both have but that's another issue). Independent education, of which home education is one facet, has steadfastly stayed away from the national curriculum, thank goodness!

I'm not a teacher, yet I would wager I have more education theory books on my bookshelves than most teachers. Home educators are keeping these theories alive because they work, they have been proven to work, often over thousands of years! No, we're not the ones conducting a dangerous experiment.

If the current government gets it's way we are doomed to follow along this failing path; that would be criminal, and it must not happen. Freedom in education is so important, please help us to stop it from going the way of the dinosaurs.

But How Will They Get A Job?

2009-09-11T10:00:00.001+01:00

Another cultural meme seems to be that you will only get a job if you go to school and get x number of GCSEs, if you fail to do that your life is doomed. How very tragic, and no wonder that our young people are among the unhappiest in Europe.

Most of the people I know have altered their career plans many times since leaving school/college/university. There is such a thing as retraining, life long learning - all these buzz words the government like to throw at us adults, apply equally to our young people.

Home Educated children are quite able to take GCSEs if they so wish, they are also free not to. They can go to college or university, if they so wish, they are also free not to. Many home educated children go on to become self employed, and find that they don't necessarily need qualifications. They have no less opportunities than those who go to school.

My eldest two have recently mentioned the possibility of going to college at some point, so that is something we will explore in the coming years. Their options are wide open, just the same as any other child their age. They just have more freedom to choose what those options will be.

But Aren't You All Hippies, Weirdos and Religious Nutcases?

2009-09-10T10:00:00.004+01:00

No more than the rest of society!

The diversity within the HE Community is quite something. I remember being at a Home Ed group the other year, after it had finished we were standing with some HE friends waving goodbye to some other HE friends. As we stood waving, one friend turned and said:

"Well, I never thought the day would come that I would be waving and smiling at a car that had a BASC sticker in it's window!"

This friend was a vegan, and had previously been a hunt saboteur. The friends in the car were meat eating, hunting, shooting, fishing fans.

I think that summed it up for me more than anything has before or since.

We know teachers, doctors, scientists, computer programmers, engineers, drivers, shop assistants, yoga teachers, self employed business people, unemployed people, postal workers, single parents, married parents, cohabiting parents, straight parents, gay parents, vegetarians, vegans, meat eaters, non vaxers, pro vaxers, homeopathy users, alleopathic medicine users, big families, small families, only ones, people with disabilities, people with learning difficulties, step families, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists, Buddhists etc etc etc.

It can be challenging when you meet people who have completely different values to your own, when the only thing you have in common is the fact that you home educate your children, but it makes for a very interesting life, and it certainly exposes the children to a very diverse group of people, people they probably wouldn't have had the chance to know so well were it not for home education.

We are a diverse bunch of people, and long may that continue. You might not agree with the way some people live their lives or the beliefs they hold, but they are as entitled to their beliefs and opinions as you are. We are all within our rights to educate our children according to our conscience, beliefs and personal philosophies - indeed this is a strong sign of a truly free society. The alternative does not bare thinking about.

I recently conducted a survey about religious diversity within the HE community. It was very interesting, notably because many of the families who responded were from multi faith families, which suggests to me a high level of tolerance of differing beliefs. This something that many from outside the community may be surprised by. Once more, it's a case of incorrect cultural memes needing to be dismantled.

But They Need To Learn How To Cope In The Real World

2009-09-09T10:00:00.002+01:00

Now this is one that really does make me cross. Particularly when it's used in relation to bullying.

Let's define what the real world is.

Now this is interesting! I typed "real world definition" into google, and the first definition that came up was this one:

"the practical world as opposed to the academic world"

The practical world. That would be the one in which we all live our daily lives, go about our business. The one where the shops, banks, doctors, dentists, hospitals, libraries, hair dressers, butchers, post offices, market stalls, opticians, fire, police and ambulance stations etc etc are.

The academic world. That would be school, college, university.

So home educators, by being out in the practical world every day aren't enabling their children to cope *in the real world*.... Can you see my point?

Bullying apparently teaches children how to cope in the real world. Now tell me, if you were going into the office every day and one of your work colleagues was thumping you, what would you do? If you had a lecherous colleague with wandering palm disease, what would you do? If a colleague discriminated against you on the grounds of your colour, religion, gender, size, age, what would you do? I'm hoping that you wouldn't put up with it, that you would take steps to stop it happening, and if it didn't that you would walk away and seek help.

Why shouldn't children have the same options in similar circumstances? How does being beaten, abused, threatened, made to feel worthless help anyone? If you can, please do explain the logic of that one to me, because I've yet to find a single adult who was bullied as a child who wasn't damaged by it, who doesn't still hear the words ringing in their ears from time to time. It's well documented that those who have been bullied often go on to bully. If we all want to live in a world where bullying is seen as an acceptable thing to do, then this kind of attitude must be allowed to persist, but most people find bullying abhorrent, so how does it make any kind of sense to say that children need to experience it to cope with it *in the real world*?

It's another of those crazy cultural memes, and we need to make a concerted effort to stop them spreading.

But You Could Be Hiding Your Children And Teaching Them The Wrong Things!

2009-09-08T10:00:00.008+01:00

"Oh but you could all be child abusers, you need checking up on." "Schools have to have inspections, why shouldn't you?" "Who's to know if you're teaching your children the right things?"

Well thanks government and national press for casting home educators as child abusers, and social deviants! We appreciate the slur, it's really helped us and our children feel good for exercising a perfectly reasonable, and lets remember LEGAL, choice.

So, our children are *hidden*. OK, let's break this down, sensibly. If you've read the other posts you'll have realised that home education doesn't mean chaining your child to a desk, never letting them see the light of day. It involves being out and about in the real world - something I want to come back to in another post.

Home Education makes you MORE visible in the community.

"Sorry? MORE visible, but you're all hidden away aren't you?"

No, when you home educate the world and his wife wants to know your business. If we had a pound for every time we've been asked the question "No school today then?" we would be able to afford to pay the fees for Eton by now!

Your neighbours will question you, they will gossip about you, the local children will whisper to their friends about these children they know who don't go to school. Relatives will ask questions, shopkeepers, bus drivers, doctors, dentists, nurses, the milkman, posty, parcel delivery driver, librarian, will all suddenly take a great interest in your life. Yes, being hidden would be a nice option on the days when you really don't want to have to explain your life to A N Other, on the number 52 bus, for the umpteenth time!

Our family had been happily getting on with life for several years when one day a letter dropped through the door:

"We have been informed that your children are being home educated."

How nice, some kind person thought that the local authority needed to know our business. We didn't do a very good job of staying hidden did we? Not that we had ever tried to.

We have friends who have been reported to social services because their children aren't in school, or because the doctor or health visitor didn't like the idea of home education. It's very common for people to think it's their business to inform "someone in authority" about home educated children, so that really blows this hidden lie that the government has propagated out of the water doesn't it? OK, there might be someone somewhere who has totally dropped out of society, isn't seen by anyone at all, ever. I'm struggling to see how in this day and age this is likely though. We have CCTV cameras on practically every street corner. We have databases left right and centre tracking us. Our phone calls and emails are logged. It's becoming ever harder to live without credit/debit cards and bank accounts. Seriously, just think about it for a minute and you will see through the spin.

Now just think for another minute about all the high profile child abuse/murder cases you know of. How many of them were completely unknown?

For the record, AHEd have a piece of research which shows that Home Educated children are actually half as likely to be abused as the general, school going population. Which is hardly surprising when you consider these statistics:

Each week: 450,000 children are bullied in school

Each year: more than 360,000 children injured in schools

Each year: at least 16 children commit suicide as a result of school bullying

Each year: an estimated 1 million children truant

Each year: more than 1 in 6 children leave school unable to read, write or add up

Every Child Matters?

Moving on to the question of inspections. Do you know why schools have to have inspections? To make sure they are doing their job properly. Who needs to know they are doing their job properly? Parents. Why? Because parents are delegating their own section 7 duty to schools - ie they are employing someone to provide their children with a service. Home educating parents are not delegating their section 7 duty, they are not employing a third party to carry out their duties on their behalf.

How much sense does this scenario make?

I decide to paint my front room myself instead of employing the local painter and decorator. When I've finished I write a report to the local decorator, informing them that I have decided to paint my front room myself, that I have used Crown Emulsion in Perky Peach for the walls, and Crown Gloss in Dull as Ditchwater for the woodwork. That I had to use 2 coats to cover the walls, and that I sanded and primed the woodwork before applying 1 coat of gloss.

This is exactly what parents who home educate are doing when they are asked to report on their child's education to the local authority.

"But who's to know if you are teaching your child the right things?"

Who gets to decide what the *right* things are? Well, currently Ed Balls if your child goes to school. Ed Balls.... the same Ed Balls who was caught fraudulently claiming expenses. Ed Balls, married to Yvette Cooper who, in a national newspaper, admitted to putting a telephone call to a radio station above her own toddlers health and safety.

" I was frantically looking for the number of the studio, and I got through just in time. Then I heard a thump. It was my daughter, who had fallen out of bed, and was coming howling down the corridor. I had to leap up and slam the door in her face, and then put the duvet over my head so the listeners couldn't hear her."

Oh yes, these are the kind of people I want to decide what the *right* education for my children is!

In an earlier post you might remember me saying that no one knows everything, so how can anyone decree what is important to learn and what isn't? Surely the only person who ultimately knows what is *right* is the learner? Obviously there are certain things that are standard - the three Rs for instance, but when we are all wired differently, have different interests and skills, how can a one size fits all education system like the national curriculum possibly expect to help parents fulfil their section 7 duties?

In my opinion it can't, and by the seems of things, employers from right across the board are finding that it's not equipping people for the world of work either.