Tautology of the Day

Despite the bashing he gets from the less thoughtful bloggers, Tim Ireland does some sterling work attempting to clear the Augean stables of the UK's public sphere (as in Habermas, not (just) blogo-). Actually, strike my first sentence - I'm sure much of the malice and slander comes directly as a result of his calls for high ethical standards among bloggers. It baffles me that the bloggertarians, especially, cannot see the merit in his arguments. Look what LabourList has done for the quality of political blogging in this country, and where do you think Draper took the template from?

But there's little less interesting than meta-blogging. Tim has been watching the newspapers for a while now; he's created the Sun Lies project, and now looks to be casting his net wider. It needs to be done. Tim has proved conclusively how both the Sun and the Daily Mail dishonestly manipulate their comments to imply unanimity with the papers' view. You might think that neither tabloid is any better than it ought to be; at least the broadsheets don't play that game.

Well, the Independent ran this travesty of an article today, which harmonises nicely with the mood music playing from the DCSF's open windows that tries to conflate Home Education with child abuse. Incidentally, the Victoria Climbié Foundation have emphatically distanced themselves from the NSPCC's attempts to link Victoria to Home Education:

VCF - The Victoria Climbié Foundation UK is genuinely concerned about the link being made between Victoria Climbié and home education, and Victoria as a hidden child. Victoria was neither home-educated nor hidden.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a 'hidden' child, only children who are allowed to fall through the gaps. The key issue here is how statutory services interact with children that are known within the child protection system. [Front page, 26.02.09]

Quite. I know from mailing lists that a number of people have protested about the Independent's coverage. Numbers of comments published as of going to press? Well, take a wild guess, why don't you. Yet, just as with the dodgy tabloids Tim highlights, the comments box remains ostensibly open, luring the casual reader into thinking there is nothing controversial (let alone plain wrong) in the article on the site. It's dishonest journalism, and there's your tautology for the day.

Twitter ye not!

God bless Frankie Howerd for the obvious headline. Probably later than I should have, I'm switching Loudtwitter off. Let's face it, if you can't live without my 140 character doses of wisdom, you'll be following me already. Apologies for cluttering up your RSS feeds.

I'm leaving the updates in the sidebar, though...

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

14:19 @therealsin_o I saw a flasher the morning of the day we went to see Mamma Mia. To this day, I am not sure which was the more disturbing. #

14:20 @therealsim_o I saw a flasher the morning of the day we went to see Mamma Mia. To this day, I am not sure which was the more disturbing. #

15:25 @robmanuel Be a dear and RT the likeliest suggestions, would you? I've just this minute got TD going on Debian, and reached same conclusion. #

15:46 @Goforth4halifax Linda. hi from further up the valley. If you put the http:// in front of the www, Twitter will recognise it as a hyperlink. #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

13:34 Great exposition of Home Educators' current concerns at Liberal Conspiracy - tinyurl.com/dl7hke #

13:38 Semple replies: "since when are parents more qualified than teachers to choose what their children can and can't learn?" bit.ly/2cFO2 #

14:19 @therealsim_o I dunno, it could catch on: "Steptoe and Son front Boris's flagship sustainable transport policy for London. Hercules unsure." #

15:00 @ourman Are they casting the Sound of Music? If so, you're right to be scared. #

15:07 @ourman Regretting my levity, then. Sounds like you'd really value some safety and reassurance right now. Anything we can do? #

16:41 Working in a university office, why would I possibly need a stable internet connection or a working PC? All hail the Eee PC. #

16:41 10 mins to get the 16.51 Leeds train. Oxford Rd to Manchester Victoria. What are the chances? #

19:40 Twitux won't let me click-thru URLs. What's a good client to install on Debian Lenny? Tweetdeck? Gwibber? Any thoughts? #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

18:26 Shamelessly stealing a meme from @chickyog, I give you your groove for today: tinyurl.com/8w9ah4 #

18:32 Strike that, @derekdraper has stopped following me. *drags needle uncaringly from vinyl* #

19:00 Coincidentally enough, as I tweet, the younger generation is watching a Russian adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz." The Heroine's name? Dolly. #

19:05 Right, time to introduce Lenny to that spare partition. Maybe I should liveblog it - what better way to show @derekdraper what he's missing? #

19:31 @mrpower Er, rob a train? Strange set of priorities , I agree. #

21:43 OK, that's Lenny installed. No hitches, grub even found the existing Arch partition automatically. So, next question: do I stlll hate Gnome? #

11:07 Hmm, according to sitemeter, visits to my blog have halved since I began loudtwittering. Coincidence or consequence? #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

16:00 Right, crowdsourcing: an hour's worth of material on Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko, in easily digestible 140 character chunks, please. #

18:49 You mean I'll have to write it myself? Hand me the T&Cs, I thought Twitter was supposed to boost productivity. Title: "The Soviet Perineum." #

20:17 Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law that invokes the USSR as the non plus ultra of comparative tyranny. And if not, why not? #

08:05 Ack. Lemsip. Really not my breakfast beverage of choice. #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

13:14 Wish me luck, somehow I ended up agreeing to take a little person to see Madagascar 2 this afternoon. Departure scarily iminent. #

18:48 Is it a fair remark that liberal/left political bloggers seem not to consider children's issues so often, despite many of us being parents? #

18:55 @Paul0Evans1 A caveat first: I've been preoccupied in work until recently, so I'm wanting to explore rather than lay down any laws. #

18:57 So one e.g., there's (rightly, I feel) big concern over the National Identity Register, yet I missed the noise over Contactpoint going live #

19:00 Another e.g. - doubts over the Every Child Matters agenda: what is desirable for children, and potential uses of these criteria. #

19:02 I wonder whether a] this is a consequence of the public/private sphere distinction and b] whether Twitter allows a proper exploration.... #

20:25 Is Graham Badman leveraging unfounded claims of child abuse among home educators just to shill Microsoft? tinyurl.com/ctlwug #

23:06 The Specials covering Dirty Old Town. Spotify or sleep-deprived hallucination? #

23:15 All too real sound - central heating pump wailing like a banshee, suddenly. Announcing imminent demise of system? How worried should we be? #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Not Another Big Technological Fix?

Kevin at the Facebook group "Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home Educators" has been doing more digging around Graham Badman. A picture emerges of Badman's close links to Becta and thence to Microsoft, raising the theory that Badman is using the unfounded abuse claims as leverage to promote his own IT interests. Kevin suggests that the government may welcome a technological solution to deteriorating standards in schools and the associated outflux of children into Home Education. Intertwined with this is a worrying assumption that happiness is linked to income, and the glimmerings of a move to classify the absence of access to the internet as tantamount to child abuse.

My initial response is one of horror, and that despite what I already knew of the review. The government's obsession with huge IT projects has not gone well so far. Added to which, many Home Educators follow approaches that eschew testing, and that LEAs find difficult to understand - most of their education officers come from a schooling background, and are very often closed to the benefits of unschooling approaches. Such philosophies sit uneasily in the existing system, and I can't imagine them being catered for at all in a computerised set-up that will by definition require labelling and assessment. Lastly, and probably leastly, although my inner geek is spitting feathers, if those outside the school system are supposed to be tied into an IT-based way of working, given Badman's associations, what betting it will be, despite the obvious affinities between Home Ed and open-source software, a Microsoft package?

Kevin's piece was first posted in a discussion thread within the Facebook group, and is reposted in full here with permission (and my thanks):

Sorry people this is a bit of a long one.

Have been doing some more research on Mr Badman and his interests.

There is a load of stuff here, I've only scratched the surface of the
possible cross references of name and orgs so if anyone is interested there'
s a bit of googling to do.

I believe that there is a possibility that the tie between Graham Badman and
Becta is very significant. Badman is, IMO, a man with a message and mission
and I feel very influential as a tool of gvt. He is out to prove (sell) his
system of education led by technology to the gvt. The gvt wants an answer to
the disaster that they have created and so will easily be led the next
evangelist guru with a system (backed by Microsoft and Co).

The pieces below are about Badman + Becta and show I think where the drive
for the educational part of this is coming from. I think it highly likely
that Badman may have jumped on the band wagon of abuse following his
involvement with Haringey.

So the abuse issue is being used as the motivator and the educational aspect
is the bit he is actually really interested in. So any surprise that having
found 99% of stakeholders (non parent) agree that safeguarding is the
primary issue he is superficially surprised that HEers would do not place
safeguarding at the top of their priorities.

This is predominantly a story of turning around the UK gvts appalling record
on their treatment of children and the damming reports that place the UK at
the bottom of the table. They are in a trap - they have, in one of their
infamous mission statements said that the UK will be the best place for a
child to grow up in. So far they have embarrassingly failed on a massive
scale to even start to achieve this. They need an answer and they need a
guru to lead that - enter Mr Badman and possibly exit Mr Balls as he will be
needed in No 11 in the fairly near future. Mr Badman is being groomed for
something....

As a starter this is a Badman presentation entitled From Poverty to
Wellbeing.

Some of this I found pretty disturbing in terms of what it is saying and
what he perceives the problems with society to be. The basic message seems
to be that being poor means you will not be happy. The definition of
happiness maybe needs to be challenged given the wealth dominated society
that has been created where unhappiness seems to equate to not being able to
purchase all the love replacement objects to which the rich unhappy are
addicted to satisfy unfulfilled love.

http://www.changeforchildren.co.uk/uploads/Graham_Badman_GOEM_Child_Poverty_
Conf_31Oct08.pdf

A program called Mosaic seems to feature heavily for Badman, just starting
to look at this but any one interested just google "graham badman" MOSAIC
and there are loads of hits.

Then we have:

These three paragraphs seem to be very telling - from
http://foi.becta.org.uk/content_files/corporate/resources/policy_and_strateg
y/board/0801-jan/october_b

oard_minutes.pdf ( also see below for more quotes
and detail)

Minutes of the Becta Board Meeting held at the Manor House Hotel, Nr Bath,
Wiltshire 17 / 18 October 2007
51. It was agreed we needed to know more about informal learning and the way
this was developing outside the formal educational setting.
52. There was a need to ensure that there is more effective use of
technology to impact on standards and to show a move towards higher order
competencies. This evidence and linkage was important to Ministers in the
achievement of their targets.
53. Andrew Pinder finished the discussion saying that we needed to be more
convincing on the argument for using technology to improve the competiveness
and economic wellbeing of the country.




The message in the following links seems to be concerned with the link
between children not having access to computers with being disadvantaged and
therefore in the long term "poor". There is a lot of content here, what I
have read so far is very concerning. What is the definition of abuse?

The basic equation here seems to be that to deny a child access to the
internet is abuse : either on the part of the state or the parent.

I could argue that what we are witnessing is the panic of a political system
that has over a considerable period of history "controlled" it's subjects
via the mechanism of education (aka indoctrination), now those victims are
rebelling and rebelling in greater and greater numbers, this plus what we
are witnessing in almost every facet of our "society" is the turning point
from ordered, controlled and malleable subjects to people who are able to
think for themselves and say NO. This, for me seems an issue of control -
the mouse is on the point of turning and the cat does not know what to do.

http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=oe&catcode=ss_es_hom_02&rid=15
871

"Despite the growing body of evidence for the educational, economic and
wider benefits of home access to technology for learning, the digital divide
is not being narrowed. 1.4 million learners still lack access to the
internet at home and over one million children still do not have a computer
at home. It has been shown that home access can increase learner
achievement, increase motivation and can improve parental engagement, which
in turn raises their children's attainment."

http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=38386
"Initially the programme will be piloted in two local authority areas in
early 2009. This will allow time to trial the purchasing logistics and
eligibility criteria, after which the wider roll-out of the programme is
planned for autumn 2009 with the aim to have universal home access by 2011."
http://schools.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/partners/hom
e_access_report.pdf
"The importance of home access is clearly flagged in the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Children's Plan published in December
2007, which states: There are significant educational benefits associated
with having access to technology at home. This availability of technology
gives learners greater choice about where, when and how they study. Research
shows that this helps to motivate learners and improve attainment. We also
know that learning technologies in the home can serve as a focal point for
parents to become more actively involved in their child's education. This
collaboration between learner and parent can further enhance a pupil's
engagement and their achievement.. At the moment, there are over a million
children with no access to a computer in the home. These children are
disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, and their limited access
to technology reinforces attainment gaps."

There is a considerable amount of information in this document. I am only
just starting to go through it but frankly it is leaving me wondering what
world these experts inhabit. It seems that there is a common thought in this
world that happiness id dependant on wealth - the absence of wealth =
unhappiness - and that the absence of both is as a result of the absence of
digital inclusion. Where in this are these experts gaining their insight
that allows such deformed views of life and happiness?

This document also includes the valuable insight:

"At the National Digital Inclusion Conference the new Minister, Paul Murphy,
called for support from policy makers and service managers, inclusion
practitioners and industry to stop the web "being a great divider in our
country and instead make it a great and powerful equaliser". He was
supported by Jim Knight, who said that "Digital inclusion can translate to
social inclusion and in today's world this is therefore about social
justice".

Thus we can conclude that a parent who, maybe on philosophical grounds says
NO the beige box, is soon to be labelled as abusing their child?

Also:
"The evidence base underpinning the home access initiative is largely
centred around the educational benefits that could be accrued from it.
However, it was also understood that the initiative might also contribute to
a number of other policy agendas, including personalising learning,
narrowing the attainment gap, raising standards to increase the
competitiveness of 'UK plc', and assisting the transition to a
knowledge-based economy, as outlined in the Lisbon Strategy
[http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/lisbon_strategy_en.htm]. Although the
primary beneficiaries of the initiative would be learners aged 5 to 19, it
was understood from very early in the scoping stages that the initiative
could have important spin-off benefits for parents, teachers and the wider
community."

So direct reference to the Lisbon strategy - thanks Neil - and a direct
reference to how our involvement as adults in our children's "learning" can
alter our behaviour perhaps.

Lots, lots more out there re the Badman - end game may be decided by what he
is really wanting for himself - where his own 5 outcomes are destined to
take him?

In the process the definition of abuse may change significantly.

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

17:25 @corpselegs classy username. Is your Feb 14 post chosen for Walter's kiss of the visa stamp? Very romantic. tinyurl.com/afhg3f #

22:14 Education Otherwise have met with Graham Badman to express concerns over his home education review - minutes: tinyurl.com/bw4ekr #

22:39 @chickyog why the long face? You get them delivered by canine mail. Beautifully wrapped, too. #

23:09 @therealsim_o Hi Sim_O, other than plotting supper and murder for the inventors of tiny plastic beads, not so bad. Yourself? #

23:17 @therealsim_o Just realised I must sound like an Agatha Christie villain. To clarify: supper for me, grisly death for plastic bead purveyors #

23:19 @therealsim_o Incidentally, commiserations on the karmic troubles. You're not, by any chance, in the children's toy field? #

23:27 Staircase wit (terms and conditions apply) - plastic bead manufacturers should be strung up, it's the only language they understand. #

23:30 @therealsim_o Perhaps it's some sort of zen koan, or maybe just an overly literal reading of the assembly instructions. #

23:37 @therealsim_o They secrete themselves around the house, waiting for the unwary bared foot. Also, too much bending down in the tidying up act #

23:39 @therealsim_o Picture Donald Pleasance and his pin in the Great Escape. #

10:34 @mrpower Ouch - _less_ talented than Dale or Staines? That's got to hurt. Not saying it's wrong, mind. #

10:40 What panel might experts on prison reform, excluded children, daycare provision and school curriculum all be on? tinyurl.com/d4w7so #

10:47 @mrpower Do you want a bacon sandwich? I'm suddenly not hungry. #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

19:07 Wondering whether to install Debian Lenny onto one of my spare partitions. Need something that contrasts with my current distro Arch. #

21:43 Surprising myself with actual blog content not derived from either Twitter or DCSF nonsense: tinyurl.com/agstfa #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Russian Nostalgia for Communism

If you've been paying attention to the nuggets of wisdom in the sidebar, you'll see I've got distinctly fed up with the Russian lolcats site that so many seem to find hilarious. Pootergeek, for example, has been both decent and gracious explaining to me why I'm wrong, if not physically deficient and Stalinist, to find it all a little, well, distasteful.

Petty disagreements and stylistic differences aside, I am struck by his reference to a poll selecting Stalin as the third most popular figure in Russian history. Granted, one TV poll is hardly a rock-solid source - ye gods, on this reasoning, teh British are all devotees of third-rate Leonard Cohen covers - but it does reflect a fascinating trend among certain sections of Russian society. It is remarkable that such sentiments could possibly be expressed by a population subjected to unimaginably awful treament under Stalin's rule: lest it be forgotten, around twenty million Soviet citizens lost their lives in an intense industrialised war against a state whose leader demanded that Slavs be treated as sub-human. And yet, although the exact figures are naturally uncertain, there's an academic consensus that twenty million is a reasonable estimate for the numbers of Soviet citizens killed by their own state in extrajudicial executions or following travesties of the court system.

So, rather than simplistically writing off a whole nation for holding views that are, clearly, beyond the pale, a much more interesting approach is to ask why a minority of Russians could possibly look back to Stalin as a positive figure. The Reuters article Pootergeek found alludes to what I think are the two major factors, although does not explore them in any great detail. These factors are both linked to the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991: the diminution of national status, and the economic and social uncertainty.

The USSR, like it or not, was one pole in a bipolar world, it was a force to be reckoned with. The ethnic Russians were the "elder brother" of the other Soviet nationalities. They were able to live and work as Russians throughout the Soviet Union, while the positive discrimination shown by Soviet policies tended to be restricted to specific territories. Indeed, the Communists paid great attention to fostering a sense of national identity within these territories, which were ethnically defined. The RSFSR, by contrast, was never such an ethnic polity. The Russian language has two words that are both rendered as "Russian" in English, only one of which - русский (russkii) - refers to Russian ethnicity. The other - российский (rossiiskii) - has connotations of state and territory as opposed to ethnicity, was the first R in RSFSR, and is also the adjective used in Russian for the Russian Federation.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, then, the other fourteen Union republics had all the trappings of a ready-made nation [update 16/2/09 - duh, I mean nation-state, obviously]- a national elite, a bureaucracy, and a range of cultural institutions - that had been sponsored by the Soviet Union. In contrast, the Russian Federation was, in Geoffrey Hosking's arresting phrase, the "bleeding hulk of Empire." From being the first among equals in the might Soviet Union, Russians were reduced to a territory that many felt not fit to carry the name Russia, not least because so many of them (around twenty-five million) lived outside its borders. This blow to national pride still rankles among certain sections of society.

The other, related, phenomenon was the economic upheavals that followed the political crisis. As the grim joke had it, Russia suddenly found it had the best-educated prostitutes in the world. University professors earned more driving taxis than they did in their day jobs. Under Brezhnev, while life might not have been a bundle of laughs, it was at least predictable. There was no longer the fear of the midnight knock at the door (at least, not for the majority who were not active dissidents). Employment was secure, and, while not exactly well-rewarded, allowed plenty of opportunity for moonlighting: "you pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." And while a doctor might have more social status, he was not enormously better off materially than a tram driver. They were all in it together, and the system of informal favours (блат) and a parallel economy worked to foster a sense of identity. While blat is still important, those other ties have collapsed.

As someone recently said, I can't believe I'm having this argument. It ought to be obvious that there is not actually any real demand for a return to mass state terror. It is, however, a huge reproach to the free-market ideology imposed on the Former Soviet Union by international financial institutions post-1991 that such popular memories of stability under Brezhnev in contrast to the wide discrepancies and social uncertainties in post-Soviet Russia are being expressed in terms of a longing for, of all people, Stalin.

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

19:45 Best hairdresser name evah - Val d'isere. NB Val's establishment is in Leeds. tinyurl.com/cklb93 #

20:56 @mrpower I wowed my other half today with my thoughtful gift: an organic white chocolate... christmas tree, reduction tag intact. #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

140 Character References

Putting the twit into twitter:

16:51 I know I've missed the bus complaining about Leonard Cohen covers, but, blimey, there are some stinkers on the I'm Your Man soundtrack. #

17:10 Oh, and while I remember, that hil-aaa-rious Russian lolcats thing? This comment nails it - tinyurl.com/cbtsdn #

22:54 So, yeah, Russian weirdness without the crude stereotyping (if you don't go trudging through the comment sewers): englishrussia.com/ #

13:42 I could swear the opening line of the DEC ad on Spotify says "The BBC has launched an appeal to help people in Gaza..." #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Watch the Skies, Keep Looking

Stepping out of the Barnes Wallis building, appropriately enough, I heard a gnarly roar that I associate with piston-engined aircraft. Sure enough, quite low overhead was a strange looking plane with rectangular wings, and rectangular tailplanes, both perfectly perpendicular to the fuselage. There were twin propellor engines, one under each wing. The plane was green, and the play of light on its underside suggested that it might have actually been a seaplane, although I couldn't see any floats. It circled at least once more over Manchester city centre. Does anyone know what it actually was, and what it was doing there?



Maybe it's just me and my Porco Rosso fixation - I'm unlikely to get bored of the third floor of the Science Museum anytime soon. No-one else seemed to be paying attention. Mind you, I once stood on the playing field of a well-known Catholic boarding school in the North of England, transfixed by the Lancaster bomber circling overhead. Cloughie would doubtless spin in his grave to have his words corrupted by reference to rugby union - I've got to admit I'm reluctant to mention it myself - but just because the other 29 people on the pitch thought the game was more important doesn't make me wrong.

It struck me that I too was on 40s-era transport as I pushbiked off towards the Oxford Road. Mind you, the concrete campus of the old UMIST - now part of my own august institution - quickly shattered that particular daydream...

NHS forced to turn away women in labour

Women in the final stages of labour were turned away by maternity units because of more than 550 closures last year due to a shortage of staff or beds, NHS figures reveal.

The mothers-to-be were forced to have their babies elsewhere, sometimes many miles away, when hospitals where they had planned to give birth shut their doors for up to 48 hours at a time.

source

"City Academies could be used as a cover for child abuse"

I don't know how much the folk at B3ta are across the ongoing flawed DCSF home education review. They tend to concentrate on off-colour humour (just so as you know), bizarre internet content, and photoshop wizardry. But beneath the provocative bravado, they appear in the main to be a fine, upstanding bunch of people who make the internet a better place. Every week, their question of the week brings out some fine writing, filling the spectrum from genuinely hilarious to gut-wrenchingly sad.

How might the two be linked, you ask? Well, here's question one (of six) from the DCSF consultation for the general public:

1. Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.

And here's an extract from a response to a QotW about schooldays, by HaHa!Snakes!:

I could begin by trying to describe what it feels like to be very, very badly bullied.

The way I walked was funny, the way I spoke was funny, the way I crossed my legs was funny, the bag I carried was funny, the way I ate a sausage roll was funny.
I was funny-looking.

And the bitches just laughed and laughed at me. Every day. For seven years.

This one goes out to all the B3tans who don’t need to be told what that's like. If you are nodding and getting a sick, sad feeling inside – in the place where you would keep your happy memories, if you had any – then this revenge story is for you.

Of course, it's not just your schoolmates who can inflict misery and humiliation, ask FoxyBadger:

And then one day my mind just snapped. It was a damp spring day in 1996, and I was a 9 year old Foxy who had spent the morning frustratingly staring at cards of dots and told to recall the number I saw. I didn't see anything. I saw dots. Lots of little brown dots. After a lot of 'are you sure you can't see anything?'s from the man in the suit, I was diagnosed as colourblind and returned to class with a letter. Handing it over to my teacher, she read it aloud to the class, explaining that as I was now 'too retarded to even see properly', she would no longer address me as a member of this school. I did what every 9 year old would do in that case; I cried in front of a class of 30 laughing children. I ran from the room, slunk in the shadows in the playground and prayed for the day to end.

*THUMP*

Next thing I know, I'm on the floor. I'm bleeding from the back of my head. Maybe this is my punishment for being retarded. Pulled up by my hair, I'm held against the wall while the brains of the operation does a number on my ribs.

'You're a retard Foxy and we all hate you. Your mum hates you. Your dad hates you. Even Dodds hates you.'

Is it just me, or might the DCSF question be better phrased to ask about safeguarding children in schools? What is striking about the B3ta stories is how much they are concerned with the infliction of violence and cruelty on schoolchildren by their peers and those supposedly in charge of them. Existing mechanisms for protecting schoolchildren are clearly insufficient, and many children are home educated directly as a result of schools and Local Education Authorities failing to protect them from bullying and mistreatment. And yet, the LEAs are the ones who are supposed to be widening their remit to monitor these same children. Forgive me for failing to have confidence in this notion.

As Haha!Snakes! makes explicit, many of us have had experiences like this - they are far from rare. And this is not just anecdotal; Childline state that:

• From the ages of five to 16, school is where children spend most of their time - a total of more than 11,000 hours on average.
• Yet few children and young people turn to teachers when they have problems. In one survey, teachers came top of a list of people children would be least likely to speak to if they were worried about something.¹
• 30 per cent of children do not tell anyone that they have been bullied at the time.²
• Just over half (54 per cent) of primary and secondary school children think that bullying is 'a big problem' or 'quite a big problem' in their school.³

[source and footnotes]

So Childline is very keen on evidence, and all credit to it. Childline, of course, is an off-shoot of the NSPCC, which has supported the latest review, despite being unable to point to any evidence whatsoever that home education has ever been used as a pretext by abusive parents. Jeremy Vine asked Vijay Patel of the NSPCC if they had any figures to support the insinuation that HE had been used to conceal abuse:

JEREMY VINE: Vijay, have you got any statistical base at all?

VIJAY PATEL: We.. the inf.. We don’t have the evidence there statistically, no.

So, why start the witch hunt? Bear in mind that the review is headed by Graham Badman. You can supply your own jokes about his surname; I don't find it very funny that simultaneously he is heading the enquiry into the Baby P case... And I don't think that witch hunt is too strong a phrase; I'll leave you with the last question of the DCSF consultation:

Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?

That, I'm sorry, is just risible. Some people think the world is run by a cabal of lizards in human form - what should the government do about that? Bugger all, unless there is actually some evidence of any danger. Likewise, there is no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations.

Education or Schooling?

I know that title begs a number of questions, but I'll leave them aside for today. I was reading this post by Gill Killner, who, incidentally, joins that select band of bloggers I have met in the flesh, which again refers to the desperately flawed and apparently biased DCSF consultation on home education. Inter alia, she had this to say:

In my opinion, the deliberate over-riding of a child's natural curiosity is detrimental to learning, and therefore should be classed as abusive, if anything education-related is. That goes on in schools from day one, of course, and will in homes too if we're all to be required to jump through Local Authority checking and vetting hoops. And then, what sort of a society will we have? An obedient one. A treacherous one. An extremely frustrated, sick one I think. Is that good for business and industry? Yes, I think it probably is.

Never mind the wider issues, I can see what she's trying to say. I definitely concur that obedience is an appalling quality to aspire to, for society. But the narrow point is that, surely such a workforce is a dreadful prospect. Snake oil specialists make a bundle from easily-impressed managerial types seeking the latest motivational techniques. Just how motivated are sick, frustrated employees going to be? I've worked in enough big organisations to see the consequences, and, indeed, been daft enough to stay over a year in the last permanent job I had (come to think of it, I think it was the first permanent contract I ever had), just going through the motions, just like everyone else there. That's hardly gaining a competitive edge, is it? I'm no cheerleader for the corporations, but isn't it obvious that, even on their own terms, such policies are doomed to fail. I'd best shut up, I don't want to encourage them.

Next thing you know, I'll be advocating the spread of local WVO bio-diesel plants...

Never-Ending Story

[If I wasn't having to concentrate on finishing the magnum opus, I think these are the sorts of points I'd be raising. My thanks to this Facebook group for drafting it. Oh, and yes, this is a different "consultation" to this one.]

HE PARENTS WELCOME CHILDREN'S SOCIETY REPORT

----------
Main points:

* Children's Society "Good Childhood Inquiry" states many factors of a happy childhood that home education is shown to provide.

* DCSF review of home education infers that parents will abuse or neglect their children if they are not supervised. DCSF appears to be family-hostile.

* Government attitude seems to be that childhood should be managed by the State at any cost. This is of concern to all parents, however they educate their children.

* DCSF review violates UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and may actually be illegal under equality laws.

* Over-stretched social workers are targeted for added duties.

* NSPCC admits there is no evidence for concern.

* Home educators organise opposition.

The Good Childhood Inquiry by the Children's Society will release the results of its study this week. Home educators have welcomed the review which reports that the children of Britain need more parental attention, more freedom to play, more access to the outdoors, and are harmed by junk food, peer pressure leading to consumerism and experimentation with alcohol and drugs, and the stresses of bullying, academic competition and exam anxiety.

These stresses and strains are some of the reasons why so many parents make the decision to home educate their children. Home educated children have greater familial contact and much less exposure to the negative social and academic pressures endemic in schools. They also have far more access to play and to the outdoors and are free of the rigours of constant testing and standardisation. Recent studies also show that most watch far less television than their schooled peers, and become more self-aware and community minded. [1] All of these are exactly what the Children's Society recommends for a happy, healthy childhood and by extension, a happy, healthy society.

"When I went to school I was bullied and I didn't get any help from the teachers. Now I'm doing home schooling, I get help if I need it and I don't get bullied." - H, aged 12.

"I am loved and cared for and have great fun everyday, exploring, exercising, laughing and talking!" - A, aged 11.


A 'slanderous' review

Home educators were angered on 19th January by the announcement by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of an Independent Review of Home Education [2], the fourth such consultation since 2005. The review was especially surprising as guidelines to Local Authorities on home education have only recently been issued as a result of previous consultations.[3] This review targets home educators as potential abusers, but has nothing to say about the well documented abuse of children within the schools system. Home education organisations have repeatedly asked for statistical evidence to back up these claims, but according to Vijay Patel of the NSPCC there is no such evidence [4] and requests continue to be ignored.

The DCSF is ignoring the problems with their over-worked, under-funded and under-trained social care workers [5] and instead is looking into adding to their workload with the monitoring of a home educating minority, justifying their stance with unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay and little else.


Criticism for the DCSF

The DCSF has been criticised for its methods from the start of this review. Home educating parents in their hundreds have decided to use FaceBook as a tool to organise their protests, contesting the rights of the DCSF to interfere with their freedom to educate at home unmolested by bodies who have a history of hostility towards them and little apparent understanding of them. Several conclusions have been reached:

The branding of home educators by this review as potential child abusers is discriminatory and incites prejudice which actively harms children and their families.

There are concerns that issuing press statements that home education may be a cover for abuse may violate Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [6]

Article 17 says that the Government must not allow the mass media to publish things which harm children, but "the media, with Government backing, has inferred that many children are being abused by dint of the fact they are home educated," says Techla, a home educating mother from North Yorkshire. "My children are hurt and angry at the suggestion, and at the thought that their non-HE friends will think this is the case." Other children have also expressed their feelings that inciting suspicion against mum and dad is causing them distress.

Also, by not considering disabled children or those with Special Educational Needs the review's consultation of Local Authorities may actually be illegal. [7]

In-house Social Services and Local Authority publications have carried letters and articles criticising home education, and reports are that memos have been circulated advising on how the Local Authorities consultation should be answered. This will have undue influence over the results of that consultation.

Many children were removed from school because of bullying, abuse, neglect, or the lack of provision of a suitable education. In many cases the Local Authorities were at best apathetic, at worst openly hostile to the needs of the child. To suggest that these children and their parents should be investigated by the very agencies that failed them is insulting and dangerous.


Home education provides a good childhood

Independent research has shown home education provides many of the qualities that the Good Childhood Inquiry finds essential to a happy, healthy childhood, and therefore to a happy, healthy society. Home educators then ask why the Government is apparently intent on the regulation of HE in the face of yet another indictment of their failing schools system. The DCSF's attitude seems to be that childhood should be managed by the State at any cost. The conclusion seems to be that parents will necessarily abuse or neglect their children if they are not supervised. With their placing of the rights of Local Authorities above those of parents and children, as advocated in this Review of Home Education, it looks like the Children's Society report will fall on deaf ears.

As home educators and parents we support the findings of the Inquiry as outlined above and feel we demonstrate the positive nature of many of their recommendations. Home education should be seen as evidence of a supportive, loving and nurturing home, not as a potential cover for malefactors.


Issued by the Home Educators of FaceBook
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45453211491 - "Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home Educators!"


--------------
Notes for Editors:

[1] "How Children Learn at Home" by Alan Thomas, 2007.

[2] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/homeeducation/

[3] Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, October 2007. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf

[4] Jeremy Vine show, Radio 2, 20th January 2009:
JEREMY VINE: "Vijay, have you got any statistical base at all?"
VIJAY PATEL (NSPCC Child Protection Policy Advisor): "We... the inf... We don't have the evidence there statistically, no."

[5] UNISON report "Still Slipping Through The Net?" See http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8347

[6] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

[7] The LA questionnaire asks about children who are statemented for SEN. This ignores children with other disabilities and those which have SEN but are not statemented (parents of many home educated children with SEN prefer that they not be statemented). Government has a legal duty to consider disabled/SEN children (statemented or not) in all its documentation. http://www.dotheduty.org/