Declaration: At the next general election I intend to vote for a candidate who opposes the DCSF’s proposed legislation relating to intrusive educational monitoring and welfare surveillance of Home Educators. This proposed legislation would:
- give Local Authority staff right of access to our homes without reason to suspect any wrong doing (even the police do not have this power!)
- give Local Authority staff the right to interview our children whether they are willing to be interviewed or not, without anyone supportive present, and without reason to suspect that any harm is being done to them (even social services do not have this power!)
- give Local Authority staff power of veto over who is allowed to register as a home educator, placing those who home educate in unconventional yet effective ways (Christian curriculum? Waldorf- or Steiner-inspired? Summerhill-inspired? Autonomous?) or in unconventional circumstances (Family on benefits? Single parent family? Wrong religion? Roma or travellers? Child with special needs? Parent with illness or disability?) at the mercy of what the LA staffer considers to be an appropriate approach and suitable family circumstances.
The proposed legislation is disproportionate, uncosted and inconsistent.
[insert pretty table with following columns:]
NAME
POSTCODE
HAVE YOU VOTED IN A UK GENERAL ELECTION BEFORE?
HAVE YOU VOTED LABOUR IN THE PAST?
SIGNATURE
You can signal your opposition by
- signing Early Day Motion 1785 if you are a sitting MP
- issuing a press statement
- writing to your party HQ to register your opposition to the proposed legislation.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Marginal constituencies
Place sitting Lab MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Oxford East Andrew Smith LD 963
Chester, City of Christine Russell CON 915
Finchley & Golders Green Rudi Vis CON 741
South Thanet Stephen Ladyman CON 664
Islington South & Finsbury Emily Thornberry LD 484
Dartford Howard Stoate CON 706
(Ochil & South Perthshire Gordon Banks SNP 688)
High Peak Tom Levitt CON 735
Stourbridge Lynda Waltho CON 407
(Edinburgh South Nigel Griffiths LD 405)
Hove Celia Barlow CON 420
Selby John Grogan CON 467
Stroud David Drew CON 350
Gillingham Paul Clark CON 254
Medway Robert Marshall-Andrews CON 213
Warwick & Leamington James Plaskitt CON 266
Battersea Martin Linton CON 163
Harlow Bill Rammell CON 97
Sittingbourne & Sheppey Derek Wyatt CON 79
Crawley Laura Moffatt CON 37
Place sitting LD MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Hereford Keetch, P.S. CON 962
Manchester, Withington Leech, J. LAB 667
Somerton & Frome Heath, D.W.St.J. CON 812
Eastleigh Huhne, C.M.P. CON 568
Rochdale Rowen, P.J. LAB 442
Taunton Browne, J.R. CON 573
Ceredigion Williams, M.F. PC 219
Westmorland & Lonsdale Farron, T.J. CON 267
Solihull Burt, L.J. CON 279
Romsey Gidley, S.J. CON 125
Place sitting CON MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Wrekin, The Pritchard, M.A. LAB 942
Harwich Carswell, J.D.W. LAB 920
Preseli Pembrokeshire Crabb, S. LAB 607
Gravesham Holloway, A.J.H. LAB 654
Wellingborough Bone, P.W. LAB 687
Hornchurch Brokenshire, J.P. LAB 480
Reading East Wilson, R. LAB 475
Hemel Hempstead Penning, M.A. LAB 499
Shipley Davies, P.A. LAB 422
Guildford Milton, A.F. LD 347
Clwyd West Jones, D.I. LAB 133
Croydon Central Pelling, A.J. LAB 75
Oxford East Andrew Smith LD 963
Chester, City of Christine Russell CON 915
Finchley & Golders Green Rudi Vis CON 741
South Thanet Stephen Ladyman CON 664
Islington South & Finsbury Emily Thornberry LD 484
Dartford Howard Stoate CON 706
(Ochil & South Perthshire Gordon Banks SNP 688)
High Peak Tom Levitt CON 735
Stourbridge Lynda Waltho CON 407
(Edinburgh South Nigel Griffiths LD 405)
Hove Celia Barlow CON 420
Selby John Grogan CON 467
Stroud David Drew CON 350
Gillingham Paul Clark CON 254
Medway Robert Marshall-Andrews CON 213
Warwick & Leamington James Plaskitt CON 266
Battersea Martin Linton CON 163
Harlow Bill Rammell CON 97
Sittingbourne & Sheppey Derek Wyatt CON 79
Crawley Laura Moffatt CON 37
Place sitting LD MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Hereford Keetch, P.S. CON 962
Manchester, Withington Leech, J. LAB 667
Somerton & Frome Heath, D.W.St.J. CON 812
Eastleigh Huhne, C.M.P. CON 568
Rochdale Rowen, P.J. LAB 442
Taunton Browne, J.R. CON 573
Ceredigion Williams, M.F. PC 219
Westmorland & Lonsdale Farron, T.J. CON 267
Solihull Burt, L.J. CON 279
Romsey Gidley, S.J. CON 125
Place sitting CON MP 2nd in 2005 size of majority
Wrekin, The Pritchard, M.A. LAB 942
Harwich Carswell, J.D.W. LAB 920
Preseli Pembrokeshire Crabb, S. LAB 607
Gravesham Holloway, A.J.H. LAB 654
Wellingborough Bone, P.W. LAB 687
Hornchurch Brokenshire, J.P. LAB 480
Reading East Wilson, R. LAB 475
Hemel Hempstead Penning, M.A. LAB 499
Shipley Davies, P.A. LAB 422
Guildford Milton, A.F. LD 347
Clwyd West Jones, D.I. LAB 133
Croydon Central Pelling, A.J. LAB 75
Do you live in a marginal constituency????
The Badman issue could make the difference between a sitting MP losing or retaining his/her seat at the next election. I believe we need to tell them so.
1. Do you live in a marginal constituency?
a) The marginal Labour constituencies, with majorities of less than 1000 are:
Oxford East; Chester, City of; Finchley & Golders Green; South Thanet ; Islington South & Finsbury; Dartford; High Peak, Stourbridge; Hove; Selby ; Stroud; Gillingham; Medway ; Warwick & Leamington; Battersea; Harlow; Sittingbourne & Sheppey; Crawley.
The further along the list you go, the more vulnerable the MP (the MP for Crawley has a majority of only 37!!!)
I can post a list of marginal lib dem and conservative MPs if wanted, but I personally think the labour ones near the end of the list above are the ones to focus on for now.
I have a word document with full details of the majorities. Post a comment if you want me to send it to you.
b) I have made a petition document. I will post it in a minute, and you can leave a comment if you want me to email you the Word document. If you like my wording go straight ahead and use it. If not, change at will, of course. NB note that noone is being asked to reveal what they voted in 2005, just whether they’ve voted labour in the past. Also that noone is signing up to vote in a particular way next time, just signalling their intentions at this point.
c) Are you prepared to coordinate the local petition? If not, please think of an efficient type who might be able to!
2. What the petition organiser could do:
a) Add your address at the bottom of the petition as the place to send signed copies to.
b) send the petition around the local HE lists and get copies of it to all the local HE meet ups in the next week or so.
c) get as many HEers as possible not only to sign it but also to take copies, or get you to forward the Word document by email so that they can ask friends, family and colleagues in the constituency to sign it. If you have a big number to aim at, then get them to take the petition along to all their clubs, societies, and other regular places they go, to get as many people to sign as possible – mums and dads, Akela, the vicar, the man at the Sainsbury’s checkout – everyone.
d) email the national lists to ask if anyone has friends or relations in these marginal constituencies. Get them to print off a copy of the petition and force said friends and relations to sign it and return to you.
e) here comes the maths part. If the signatory has not voted before, then a guaranteed vote away from the sitting MP is – 1 from their majority. If the signatory has voted before and has voted Labour before, then a vote away counts – 2 from their majority (minus one for them and plus one for the person in second place last time, who you may well be planning to vote for if they make the right supportive noises). If someone has voted before but has never voted labour then their signature will be nice and supportive, but won’t make any difference to the sitting MP and won’t scare them. If it’s manageable (I’d say Gillingham onwards in the list above), try to get enough signatures that the petition sheets themselves say “if you do not support us in this, you are going to guarantee to lose 155 votes in the next election. Your current majority is 154”. You don’t need to rub it in. They’ll do the maths themselves.
f) once you have the majority-killing signatures, or as many as you think you can get, photocopy all the petition sheets. Keep the originals. Send the copies to: the MP, the local constituency office of whoever was 2nd last time, the DCSF, and maybe the local and national papers. When you get near to that stage, I am happy to help draft a press release and a covering letter. I’m happy to do it and then you can alter it, if the idea of writing it from scratch is scary. Just post a comment somewhere on my blog to ask for help.
Oh, and please spread the word about this plan! Linkage much appreciated.
1. Do you live in a marginal constituency?
a) The marginal Labour constituencies, with majorities of less than 1000 are:
Oxford East; Chester, City of; Finchley & Golders Green; South Thanet ; Islington South & Finsbury; Dartford; High Peak, Stourbridge; Hove; Selby ; Stroud; Gillingham; Medway ; Warwick & Leamington; Battersea; Harlow; Sittingbourne & Sheppey; Crawley.
The further along the list you go, the more vulnerable the MP (the MP for Crawley has a majority of only 37!!!)
I can post a list of marginal lib dem and conservative MPs if wanted, but I personally think the labour ones near the end of the list above are the ones to focus on for now.
I have a word document with full details of the majorities. Post a comment if you want me to send it to you.
b) I have made a petition document. I will post it in a minute, and you can leave a comment if you want me to email you the Word document. If you like my wording go straight ahead and use it. If not, change at will, of course. NB note that noone is being asked to reveal what they voted in 2005, just whether they’ve voted labour in the past. Also that noone is signing up to vote in a particular way next time, just signalling their intentions at this point.
c) Are you prepared to coordinate the local petition? If not, please think of an efficient type who might be able to!
2. What the petition organiser could do:
a) Add your address at the bottom of the petition as the place to send signed copies to.
b) send the petition around the local HE lists and get copies of it to all the local HE meet ups in the next week or so.
c) get as many HEers as possible not only to sign it but also to take copies, or get you to forward the Word document by email so that they can ask friends, family and colleagues in the constituency to sign it. If you have a big number to aim at, then get them to take the petition along to all their clubs, societies, and other regular places they go, to get as many people to sign as possible – mums and dads, Akela, the vicar, the man at the Sainsbury’s checkout – everyone.
d) email the national lists to ask if anyone has friends or relations in these marginal constituencies. Get them to print off a copy of the petition and force said friends and relations to sign it and return to you.
e) here comes the maths part. If the signatory has not voted before, then a guaranteed vote away from the sitting MP is – 1 from their majority. If the signatory has voted before and has voted Labour before, then a vote away counts – 2 from their majority (minus one for them and plus one for the person in second place last time, who you may well be planning to vote for if they make the right supportive noises). If someone has voted before but has never voted labour then their signature will be nice and supportive, but won’t make any difference to the sitting MP and won’t scare them. If it’s manageable (I’d say Gillingham onwards in the list above), try to get enough signatures that the petition sheets themselves say “if you do not support us in this, you are going to guarantee to lose 155 votes in the next election. Your current majority is 154”. You don’t need to rub it in. They’ll do the maths themselves.
f) once you have the majority-killing signatures, or as many as you think you can get, photocopy all the petition sheets. Keep the originals. Send the copies to: the MP, the local constituency office of whoever was 2nd last time, the DCSF, and maybe the local and national papers. When you get near to that stage, I am happy to help draft a press release and a covering letter. I’m happy to do it and then you can alter it, if the idea of writing it from scratch is scary. Just post a comment somewhere on my blog to ask for help.
Oh, and please spread the word about this plan! Linkage much appreciated.
Friday, July 03, 2009
another route - commons select committee on children schools and families
sent to csfcom@parliament.uk
I was interested to read in the Independent today that Barry Sheerman "said it was important not to have a knee-jerk reaction following a case like Baby P. Mr Sheerman told MPs: "There is sometimes a danger that all the resources, after a tragic death, are rushed into child protection and can actually starve the resources for the support of families and good quality social work." "
Is the committee aware that just such a knee-jerk reaction appears to be under way with regard to Elective Home Education?
Graham Badman's report, welcomed by Ed Balls, has been greeted with shock and fury by the Home Educating community. The report itself is enormously problematic - selective and misleading quotation, failure to represent or reflect the views of Home Educators, acknowledgement that there is no evidence that Home Education is used as a cover for child abuse, and then putting forward a series of proposals which are already under consultation that not only call for the imposition of an intrusive monitoring regime, but also (unjustifiably) conflate the question of educational provision with the question of safeguarding.
The process of the report, consultation and proposed legislation falls short of the standards the electorate expects. How can a plan to "improve monitoring of Home Education" be in a white paper when the public consultation about whether such monitoring should be introduced - NB you can't 'improve' something before you've introduced it - is still under way? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be 'improved', then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?
The proposed legislation stems from a concern that HEed children are more at risk of abuse than those who attend school. It is hardly surprising that Badman did not publish the relevant figures since they seem to show that the converse is the case... here
Given the lack of figures supporting the central premise of the Badman review, the proposed legislation as outlined in the consultation here
and already predetermined outcome at least to some extent, as evidenced by the draft improving schools and safeguarding children bill here
I consider the government's policy and proposed legislation on this matter to be disproportionate - compulsory safe-and-well checks and vastly increased powers to LA staff to approve (or not) the educational provision of families where the responsibility for the education of a child has, until now, rested with the parents.
I am also concerned about the lack of an impact assessment of this area of proposed legislation: here
If LA staff are to be given powers of intrusion into private homes without probable cause, and the power to demand interviews alone with children without probable cause (neither of these are powers which either the police or Social Services have), then what will be the costs of the new regime? Staff training in different forms of elective home education (continuation of the current situation, where the LA staff are usually retired teachers or OFSTED inspectors would obviously not be acceptable - those assessing EHE provision would have to be expert practitioners themselves)? Staff training in recognising abuse on a single annual meeting with uncooperative and unwelcoming children (you might be interested in this extensive survey of Home Educated children's opinions - would that Mr Badman had listened to them so carefully - here )? Increased budgets for training, recruiting and retaining social workers to cope with the flood of false positives referred by anxious LA education workers? Proper training for the LA staff in communicating with children with complex special needs of many different kinds?
Can any price be put on the cost in anxiety for the Home Educating parents and children? Our families are frightened that our - perfectly valid - ways of living and educating our children are about to be the hostage of LA staff who, in a perfect world would be rational and reasonable and open minded. But we do not live in a perfect world, and LA staff already fail to follow the law as it stands - we do not trust them with more power. Our children are frightened that some person from the council will have the power to come and see what they have been doing and judge it wanting, send them back to the school which failed them and where they failed, where they were bullied, perhaps, and were certainly failing to achieve the five outcomes.
If it would be helpful for the committee to hear from home educating families, I would be delighted to help set that up, or travel to London myself to make a representation to the committee. The proposed legislation is wrong headed on so many counts, and the DCSF are showing themselves committed to a course which possibly breaks various codes of conduct (for consultation and for drafting legislation) and completely fails to listen to the concerns of stakeholders.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
I was interested to read in the Independent today that Barry Sheerman "said it was important not to have a knee-jerk reaction following a case like Baby P. Mr Sheerman told MPs: "There is sometimes a danger that all the resources, after a tragic death, are rushed into child protection and can actually starve the resources for the support of families and good quality social work." "
Is the committee aware that just such a knee-jerk reaction appears to be under way with regard to Elective Home Education?
Graham Badman's report, welcomed by Ed Balls, has been greeted with shock and fury by the Home Educating community. The report itself is enormously problematic - selective and misleading quotation, failure to represent or reflect the views of Home Educators, acknowledgement that there is no evidence that Home Education is used as a cover for child abuse, and then putting forward a series of proposals which are already under consultation that not only call for the imposition of an intrusive monitoring regime, but also (unjustifiably) conflate the question of educational provision with the question of safeguarding.
The process of the report, consultation and proposed legislation falls short of the standards the electorate expects. How can a plan to "improve monitoring of Home Education" be in a white paper when the public consultation about whether such monitoring should be introduced - NB you can't 'improve' something before you've introduced it - is still under way? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be 'improved', then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?
The proposed legislation stems from a concern that HEed children are more at risk of abuse than those who attend school. It is hardly surprising that Badman did not publish the relevant figures since they seem to show that the converse is the case...
Given the lack of figures supporting the central premise of the Badman review, the proposed legislation as outlined in the consultation here
and already predetermined outcome at least to some extent, as evidenced by the draft improving schools and safeguarding children bill here
I consider the government's policy and proposed legislation on this matter to be disproportionate - compulsory safe-and-well checks and vastly increased powers to LA staff to approve (or not) the educational provision of families where the responsibility for the education of a child has, until now, rested with the parents.
I am also concerned about the lack of an impact assessment of this area of proposed legislation: here
If LA staff are to be given powers of intrusion into private homes without probable cause, and the power to demand interviews alone with children without probable cause (neither of these are powers which either the police or Social Services have), then what will be the costs of the new regime? Staff training in different forms of elective home education (continuation of the current situation, where the LA staff are usually retired teachers or OFSTED inspectors would obviously not be acceptable - those assessing EHE provision would have to be expert practitioners themselves)? Staff training in recognising abuse on a single annual meeting with uncooperative and unwelcoming children (you might be interested in this extensive survey of Home Educated children's opinions - would that Mr Badman had listened to them so carefully - here )? Increased budgets for training, recruiting and retaining social workers to cope with the flood of false positives referred by anxious LA education workers? Proper training for the LA staff in communicating with children with complex special needs of many different kinds?
Can any price be put on the cost in anxiety for the Home Educating parents and children? Our families are frightened that our - perfectly valid - ways of living and educating our children are about to be the hostage of LA staff who, in a perfect world would be rational and reasonable and open minded. But we do not live in a perfect world, and LA staff already fail to follow the law as it stands - we do not trust them with more power. Our children are frightened that some person from the council will have the power to come and see what they have been doing and judge it wanting, send them back to the school which failed them and where they failed, where they were bullied, perhaps, and were certainly failing to achieve the five outcomes.
If it would be helpful for the committee to hear from home educating families, I would be delighted to help set that up, or travel to London myself to make a representation to the committee. The proposed legislation is wrong headed on so many counts, and the DCSF are showing themselves committed to a course which possibly breaks various codes of conduct (for consultation and for drafting legislation) and completely fails to listen to the concerns of stakeholders.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
hear the children
survey of HE children.
It will be interesting to see whether the DCSF, to whom this has been sent, disregard this entirely and steamroller on.
It will be interesting to see whether the DCSF, to whom this has been sent, disregard this entirely and steamroller on.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
And all that My Children Aren't Hidden Stuff?
Thank you, Leo, for the wake up in comments. It's sort of comforting to be able to say look look look my children are not hidden, and to be able to think of ways that one might demonstrate that to LA jobsworths if push came to shove.
But after this morning's underhand government bastardliness, I am not going to put the energy into lengthy self-justification. My children are not hidden, Mr Balls. Your proposals are disproportionate. Oh, and I think you are a devious, smearing, disrespectful, nasty stalinist who, I pray, will have his Portillo moment within the year. The end.
[and yes, I deleted an extremely rude word or two before posting]
But after this morning's underhand government bastardliness, I am not going to put the energy into lengthy self-justification. My children are not hidden, Mr Balls. Your proposals are disproportionate. Oh, and I think you are a devious, smearing, disrespectful, nasty stalinist who, I pray, will have his Portillo moment within the year. The end.
[and yes, I deleted an extremely rude word or two before posting]
Back in the Saddle Again
Letter sent to
enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk
dlp@commonsleader.x.gsi.gov.uk
and to my MP
and to Michael Gove c/o
Dear Whoever,
I am astonished to read the draft "improving schools and safeguarding children bill": here
The surprising clause is:
"improving monitoring arrangements for children educated at home".
Please would you investigate this URGENTLY? The DCSF is currently engaged in a consultation process about the law relating to Elective Home Education, a consultation which does not end until October: here
How, then, can legislation relating to this consultation be in progress? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be improved, then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?
Should the process not be that the consultation takes place, then a report on that consultation is written (I understand that it is expected to be completed in January 2010) and THEN a legislative programme can be planned if appropriate. The phrase "stitch up" comes to mind.
You doubtless know this already, but I would remind you that Elective Home Education has been the subject of consultation after consultation in the last five years. The recent bout is the worst yet: a consultation announced in January which swiftly turned into a "review" once it was pointed out to the DCSF that the code of practice was being broken; a so-called "independent" review undertaken by the anything-but-independent Graham Badman; and, worst of all, a smear campaign in which educational practice and government concerns about safeguarding have been conflated with no justification beyond political expediency.
I protest against this draft legislation in the strongest terms. Please tell me what the procedure is for halting this presumptive draft legislation until the proper consulting process has taken place (and for ever, if the findings of the consultation are that no change to the law is needed).
Yours sincerely,
enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk
dlp@commonsleader.x.gsi.gov.uk
and to my MP
and to Michael Gove c/o
Dear Whoever,
I am astonished to read the draft "improving schools and safeguarding children bill": here
The surprising clause is:
"improving monitoring arrangements for children educated at home".
Please would you investigate this URGENTLY? The DCSF is currently engaged in a consultation process about the law relating to Elective Home Education, a consultation which does not end until October: here
How, then, can legislation relating to this consultation be in progress? Does this not break the code of practice on consultations? e.g. criterion 1: "Consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." If Government policy is that monitoring arrangements for children educated at home should be improved, then what scope do the stakeholders - home educating families - have to influence the policy outcome, please?
Should the process not be that the consultation takes place, then a report on that consultation is written (I understand that it is expected to be completed in January 2010) and THEN a legislative programme can be planned if appropriate. The phrase "stitch up" comes to mind.
You doubtless know this already, but I would remind you that Elective Home Education has been the subject of consultation after consultation in the last five years. The recent bout is the worst yet: a consultation announced in January which swiftly turned into a "review" once it was pointed out to the DCSF that the code of practice was being broken; a so-called "independent" review undertaken by the anything-but-independent Graham Badman; and, worst of all, a smear campaign in which educational practice and government concerns about safeguarding have been conflated with no justification beyond political expediency.
I protest against this draft legislation in the strongest terms. Please tell me what the procedure is for halting this presumptive draft legislation until the proper consulting process has taken place (and for ever, if the findings of the consultation are that no change to the law is needed).
Yours sincerely,
Monday, June 29, 2009
Our "Hidden" children
I am wondering, seriously, whether we might be able to offer community testimonials as proof to the LAs, in the worst-case Badman-prevails scenario, that our children are not hidden, but are instead highly visible in the community and, therefore, that safe-and-well checks are disproportionate (ah yes, word of the month).
I do not usually blog about my family. But I think it is worth experimenting with ways of illustrating how seen we are, without compromising privacy. Perhaps I will keep this up for a week.
A friend visited this morning with her 18 month old, but they couldn't stay long because they had to go for a haircut. So I got my offspring out of the cupboard [joke] and we went too, with a bag of junk to drop off at the charity shop.
The children played "catch" all along the pavements to get to the shops. Cue indulgent smiles from passers by.
It was a big, busy, child friendly salon (a training salon with very cheap prices and friendly staff), and it was fascinating to explore everything in the salon, and see people having their hair washed, and people with curlers in, and people with their heads covered in kitchen foil (what's that all about?!), and children having haircuts. A big contrast to our usual post-bath-cheapskate parental trimming (and yes, that's how my haur gets cut too - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander).
We watched closely while our small friend had a hair cut and then we said goodbye (because we were keen to go and do other things rather than watching my friend have her hair cut) and went to the charity shop where we gave them a bag of stuff and bought a bag of new stuff (for minimal £££age). The lady in the shop welcomed us most warmly and asked how we'd been because she hadn't seen us for a while, and pointed out various items of merchandise in which we might be interested.
Then I walked home with my dangerously "hidden" offspring, now safely locked back in the cupboard [joke] till the next occasion.
I do not usually blog about my family. But I think it is worth experimenting with ways of illustrating how seen we are, without compromising privacy. Perhaps I will keep this up for a week.
A friend visited this morning with her 18 month old, but they couldn't stay long because they had to go for a haircut. So I got my offspring out of the cupboard [joke] and we went too, with a bag of junk to drop off at the charity shop.
The children played "catch" all along the pavements to get to the shops. Cue indulgent smiles from passers by.
It was a big, busy, child friendly salon (a training salon with very cheap prices and friendly staff), and it was fascinating to explore everything in the salon, and see people having their hair washed, and people with curlers in, and people with their heads covered in kitchen foil (what's that all about?!), and children having haircuts. A big contrast to our usual post-bath-cheapskate parental trimming (and yes, that's how my haur gets cut too - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander).
We watched closely while our small friend had a hair cut and then we said goodbye (because we were keen to go and do other things rather than watching my friend have her hair cut) and went to the charity shop where we gave them a bag of stuff and bought a bag of new stuff (for minimal £££age). The lady in the shop welcomed us most warmly and asked how we'd been because she hadn't seen us for a while, and pointed out various items of merchandise in which we might be interested.
Then I walked home with my dangerously "hidden" offspring, now safely locked back in the cupboard [joke] till the next occasion.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
a friend in politics
I just spoke with a friend who has many years' experience in government circles (and wishes to remain completely anonymous, of course).
This friend says that lobbying is definitely the way forward as far as the EHE consultation is concerned. And that we need to focus mostly on PROPORTIONALITY. We need to keep asking: How many EHEers have been shown to be child abusers? Are the government's plans a sledgehammer to crack a nut? (to which the answer is yes...). we have to put the onus on the politicians and DCSF to demonstrate that the intrusion into private family life is proportionate to the problem.
If we focus only on the point of principle - that we shouldn't be interfered with - the friend thinks we will LOSE. The friend thinks that we may have to suggest something to say "yes, school children are seen by lots of people outside their families and that is a place where obvious obvious abuse might be spotted. Despite our children not being at school, we are prepared to demonstrate that they have points of contact outside the family". Don't shoot the messenger, and don't take it as gospel, this was just the advice of one person - that maybe a letter from Akela, or maybe a note saying that we are regulars at church X and child is in the sunday school class, or that we have season tickets at this attraction and go once a month and here are some pictures showing us there with the staff or SOMETHING which shows that we aren't hiding our children in cupboards.
And I said "don't we lose the presumption of innocence here?" and the friend said that 'safeguarding' is such a hot topic that although we have to keep saying, and keep saying loudly, that our children are no more at risk than anyone else's, and that we are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the State considers itself responsible for safeguarding all children, and has already given itself the powers and the responsibility for that, and so it wants to be assured that ours are getting their slice of the safeguarding pie.
So. PROPORTIONALITY as the tactical focus, with the principle unswervingly behind it. And keep badgering our MPs.
This friend says that lobbying is definitely the way forward as far as the EHE consultation is concerned. And that we need to focus mostly on PROPORTIONALITY. We need to keep asking: How many EHEers have been shown to be child abusers? Are the government's plans a sledgehammer to crack a nut? (to which the answer is yes...). we have to put the onus on the politicians and DCSF to demonstrate that the intrusion into private family life is proportionate to the problem.
If we focus only on the point of principle - that we shouldn't be interfered with - the friend thinks we will LOSE. The friend thinks that we may have to suggest something to say "yes, school children are seen by lots of people outside their families and that is a place where obvious obvious abuse might be spotted. Despite our children not being at school, we are prepared to demonstrate that they have points of contact outside the family". Don't shoot the messenger, and don't take it as gospel, this was just the advice of one person - that maybe a letter from Akela, or maybe a note saying that we are regulars at church X and child is in the sunday school class, or that we have season tickets at this attraction and go once a month and here are some pictures showing us there with the staff or SOMETHING which shows that we aren't hiding our children in cupboards.
And I said "don't we lose the presumption of innocence here?" and the friend said that 'safeguarding' is such a hot topic that although we have to keep saying, and keep saying loudly, that our children are no more at risk than anyone else's, and that we are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the State considers itself responsible for safeguarding all children, and has already given itself the powers and the responsibility for that, and so it wants to be assured that ours are getting their slice of the safeguarding pie.
So. PROPORTIONALITY as the tactical focus, with the principle unswervingly behind it. And keep badgering our MPs.
more material for Michael Gove
Dear Emma,
Thank you for your email to Michael Gove regarding Home education and
the Badman report. He is away visiting schools at the moment, but he has
asked me to forward you this reply.
Parental choice is a driving principle of Conservative education policy.
I can assure you that this includes the choice to educate your children
at home, and that a future Conservative government would fully respect
your rights in this area.
We want children to enjoy the highest possible level of protection, and
recognise there need to be safeguards. But we do not want to grant
Government intrusive or unnecessarily authoritarian powers.
We will aim to keep this balance at the forefront of our thinking as we
develop policy in this area.
Thank you again for taking the time to email.
Yours
Jamie Martin
Office of Michael Gove MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
0207 219 4829
martinja@parliament.uk
Thank you for this. Please would you pass my response on to Michael Gove? I'm sure that as this issue hots up, he's receiving all kinds of representations (and my goodness me, there are opportunities to distance yourselves from the Ed Balls approach every five minutes at the moment!), so I'll be brief.
When the Conservatives are developing policy in this area, please bear in mind:
HE children are NOT hidden. They need no more safeguarding than any other child - in fact, perhaps less, since many HE children spend a considerable amount of time out and about during the school day - learning in the community rather than in a classroom - they are conspicuously visible and, not being in school when most children are, are subjected to much more watchful (and kindly) scrutiny by the general public. Social services and LA education departments absolutely do not need extra powers - they need to learn to use competently the ones they have. Please remember that this whole thing stems from a smear campaign, using government funded "charities" such as the NSPCC to invent a fake concern (over which they apologised in an obscure specialist magazine, although the smears had been all over the national press), and then an "expert" labour crony to cobble together the (just embarrassingly badly researched and argued) report.
If you want to demonstrate your concern for HEed children, you could take a stance along the lines of "trusting communities: respecting family life" (if slogans appeal). We are the experts on our children. We are the experts on their education. We are the experts on their welfare needs. If there is reason to believe that we are not caring parents, determined to give our children the best chances in life, then there are already procedures in place to investigate and prosecute us.
"trusting communities: respecting family life" in HE terms could go along with undoing the centralisation and standardisation of state schools, devolving decisions about curricula and budgets back to governing bodies, parents, teachers and the children themselves. The whole thing could be an unclasping of the NuLabour centralising grasp on our children's educations. If communities want grammar schools, let 'em have them... (or is that a bridge too far?!)
There can be no "balance" about whether families are presumed innocent or not. Either agents of the state are not permitted to detain (=interview) civilians or enter their houses without probable cause or they are. If they are, we live in a police state.
As far as NuLabour are concerned, making the unconventional decision that our children will be happier, better socialised and better educated with us, their parents, ourselves explicitly shouldering our legal responsibility for their welfare and education, seems to be "probable cause" for concern that we are, or might be, abusing our children. Please distance yourselves from this - I find it hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't want to.
I am sure you are swamped by offers of this kind, but if it would be helpful for me to come to London to meet with you and discuss how the Conservatives might be able to protect the wellbeing, diversity and richness of the HE community by leaving us alone as far as possible (very cheap...) I would be delighted to travel up from Little Wittering.
Yours sincerely,
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Send a message to Dawn Primarola
http://community.cypnow.co.uk/forums/p/1272/3337.aspx#3337
she's taking questions. What a golden opportunity!
she's taking questions. What a golden opportunity!
Dawn: Please urgently investigate the flawed Badman report into Elective Home Education.
It is hard even to know where to begin with its faults: The report itself goes way beyond its brief, and the recommendations bear no logical relationship to the report findings (there is no evidence that EHE is used as a cover for child abuse, but let's legislate as though it were...). The report is poorly researched - the author clearly has NO understanding of educational philosophies and approaches beyond the conventional, and what he does not understand he has disregarded. The report uses selective misquoting in spinning a particular viewpoint (please compare the CofE quotation in the report with their full submission to the review - I suspect more than a few CofE representatives are not best pleased by the way their views have been misrepresented). It is not evidence-based (hardly can be, given that the phrase "I believe..." 16 times!), is prejudiced, does not represent the responses to the review, and was partially pre-judged, since Badman said publically before he had finished gathering information that the status quo could not remain. It is hardly independent, authored as it is by a chair of BECTA and previuos head of Kent Children's Services, and almost every member of his "expert" panel is also government employed in one way or another. Not even a token HEer among them... (quite how they were regarded as "expert" I do not know).
The recommendations of the report are massively problematic. To mention only the largest problems:
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for EHEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.
- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury if they were in charge of granting or withholding registration. To have the final decision about whether an education provided is within the law or not resting with the courts, as now, grants us a level of protection from the ex-school teachers and ex-OFSTED inspectors who tend to populate LA education departments. There is no reason why they would be able to recognise or appreciate an education which doesn't look like school-at-home, and they absolutely must not be given power over those of us who choose to educate in unconventional, but perfectly reasonable, ways.
Underpinning all of this is the potential overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
I understand that all of this stems from a level of hysteria about child protection. Please, as you formulate policy, keep reciting the mantra that we are innocent until proven guilty, or should be. And that HEed children are MASSIVELY more likely to be known to social services (twice as likely, as Badman says, although he remains curiously silent about the reasons...) than the general population - often because of having a SN and therefore having a case worker, or because of malicious referrals by the LA (standard procedure on learning of a HEing family in some areas - and they wonder why we don't voluntarily engage with them!), by neighbours who do not understand that HE is legal etc etc. There are already responsibilities within the community to report child protection concerns.
Given all this, why on EARTH did Mr Balls accept the report and immediately open a consultation? I suggest that you put pressure on him to withdraw his acceptance of the report and to urgently reconsider the labour party's priorities. Do you really believe that the State should be parent of first rather than last resort? Please talk to your department lawyers about how the proposals fundamentally reconfigure the relationship between the state and the family, and ask yourselves whether going down the route of 1930s Germany (as proudly trumpeted in Badman's report as a precedent!!!) is really something for which your party wishes to be remembered.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Dear Mr Gove
Dear Mr Gove,
I am writing to express to you my concerns over the Badman review of Home Education and the subsequent consultation.
I am sure you have received many other messages detailing the bias, prejudice, poor level of argument, smearing, spin, ill-researched and apparently pre-determined findings of the report, the findings which follow neither from the evidence of the report nor from its brief ('I find no evidence that HE is used as a cover for abuse, but let's pretend I did and legislate accordingly', as it were) lack of independence from the State not only of Badman but of his entire "expert" panel and so on. If there is any way the report can be discredited and the consultation halted because of the poor conduct and poor quality of the review, please let the Home Education community know what we should to do to help!
There are three aspects which I regard as the crux of the report, aspects which should be complete deal breakers for conservatives (and, I hope, Conservatives):
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for EHEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.
- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury if they were in charge of granting or withholding registration. This is a very bad idea because of what I think of as the "numpty" factor. To have the final decision about whether an education provided is within the law or not resting with the courts, as now, grants us a level of protection from the ex-school teachers and ex-OFSTED inspectors who tend to populate LA education departments. There is no reason why they would be able to recognise or appreciate an education which doesn't look like school-at-home, and they absolutely must not be given power over those of us who choose to educate in unconventional ways.
Underpinning all of this is the potential overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
I understand that all of this stems from a level of hysteria about child protection. Please, as you formulate policy, keep reciting the mantra that we are innocent until proven guilty, or should be. And that HEed children are MASSIVELY more likely to be known to social services (twice as likely, as Badman says, although he remains curiously silent about the reasons...) than the general population - often because of having a SN and therefore having a case worker, or because of malicious referrals by the LA (standard procedure on learning of a HEing family in some areas - and they wonder why we don't voluntarily engage with them!), by neighbours who do not understand that HE is legal etc etc. There are already responsibilities within the community to report child protection concerns.
HEers might be prepared to accept making it compulsory to inform the LA of one's intention to HE (very different from registration!) but the rest is and should be in a free country, frankly, unacceptable.
I hope this is helpful to you. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it soon.
Yours sincerely,
I am writing to express to you my concerns over the Badman review of Home Education and the subsequent consultation.
I am sure you have received many other messages detailing the bias, prejudice, poor level of argument, smearing, spin, ill-researched and apparently pre-determined findings of the report, the findings which follow neither from the evidence of the report nor from its brief ('I find no evidence that HE is used as a cover for abuse, but let's pretend I did and legislate accordingly', as it were) lack of independence from the State not only of Badman but of his entire "expert" panel and so on. If there is any way the report can be discredited and the consultation halted because of the poor conduct and poor quality of the review, please let the Home Education community know what we should to do to help!
There are three aspects which I regard as the crux of the report, aspects which should be complete deal breakers for conservatives (and, I hope, Conservatives):
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) HEing families without probable cause. Compulsory interviews are contrary to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are other, well established, ways for EHEers to provide evidence that an education is taking place according to the law, and they are contained in the 2007 guidance for LAs. And, in a recent survey, 77% of HEed children said they do not want to be interviewed by LA staff (http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/results-of-poll.html) - are their preferences to be entirely disregarded? Apparently so.
- Badman suggests giving powers to LA employees to enter private homes without probable cause. As you know, even the police do not have this power.
- Badman suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury if they were in charge of granting or withholding registration. This is a very bad idea because of what I think of as the "numpty" factor. To have the final decision about whether an education provided is within the law or not resting with the courts, as now, grants us a level of protection from the ex-school teachers and ex-OFSTED inspectors who tend to populate LA education departments. There is no reason why they would be able to recognise or appreciate an education which doesn't look like school-at-home, and they absolutely must not be given power over those of us who choose to educate in unconventional ways.
Underpinning all of this is the potential overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
I understand that all of this stems from a level of hysteria about child protection. Please, as you formulate policy, keep reciting the mantra that we are innocent until proven guilty, or should be. And that HEed children are MASSIVELY more likely to be known to social services (twice as likely, as Badman says, although he remains curiously silent about the reasons...) than the general population - often because of having a SN and therefore having a case worker, or because of malicious referrals by the LA (standard procedure on learning of a HEing family in some areas - and they wonder why we don't voluntarily engage with them!), by neighbours who do not understand that HE is legal etc etc. There are already responsibilities within the community to report child protection concerns.
HEers might be prepared to accept making it compulsory to inform the LA of one's intention to HE (very different from registration!) but the rest is and should be in a free country, frankly, unacceptable.
I hope this is helpful to you. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it soon.
Yours sincerely,
The worst things about the badman recommendations
...apart from the report being prejudiced, ill researched, ill informed, poorly argued, way outside its brief and all the rest.
- suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) or enter private homes without probable cause. Massive. Surely should be an immediate deal breaker.
- suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury.
Underpinning both is the overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
These seem to me to be massive enough that all the rest - the smears, the lack of appreciation of Autonomous HE, the spinning, the complete disregard for the views of HEers - is just the cherry on the iced bun.
- suggests giving powers to LA employees to detain (ie insist on interviewing) or enter private homes without probable cause. Massive. Surely should be an immediate deal breaker.
- suggests giving power of veto over HE provision (its style or it happening at all) to LA employees. Rather than them having power to gather evidence and take a HE family to court, they would now have the power to act as prosecutor, judge and jury.
Underpinning both is the overturning of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
These seem to me to be massive enough that all the rest - the smears, the lack of appreciation of Autonomous HE, the spinning, the complete disregard for the views of HEers - is just the cherry on the iced bun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
