Just a rant

I have been crocheting like a madwoman lately, in preparation for the stall I have booked. This morning I woke up and sat in my chair to continue with crocheting some hats while listening to the Today programme on Radio 4. I listen to Radio 4 pretty much constantly, and although I think John Humphries has become a caricature of his former self, and I sometimes avoid the news in the morning if I want to have a happy day, I still rate the programming as superior to the networks I grew up with in America.

But this morning was one of those mornings when I just shook my head in disbelief and got a bit more opinionated with every news story. So my opinions are coming out...

Firstly, there was a news story about Network Rail. Apparently their profits are up by about 10 %, while their efficiency is down by about the same. They are 'slimming down' and 'devolving' some areas of the running of the network, but the spokesmen was adamant that they are not being broken up. The 'slimming down' is because of a report which says that rail costs in Britain are about 30% more than they have to be, and regularly more than our European counterparts. When asked by the reporter if the problems were because of the separation of train companies and network companies, he dodged answering successfully...while I sat there thinking, "Of course it bloody is!"

Then came yet another story on the proposed changes to the NHS. Andrew Lansley and the Conservatives want to make significant changes to the NHS. One of the phrases we keep hearing is 'Increasing competition in order to improve services to patients." Of course, I do think that there could be some changes to the NHS that would increase efficiency and patient care, but these are not them. As GPs keep pointing out, if you allow them to contract private health care providers, then those private companies are going to opt for providing the most common and cost effective treatments. The 'cherry-picking' that we keep hearing about in the news. That is the business model.  That is how profit is made, and why shops selling jeans have lots of pairs with 32 and 34 inch waists, but fewer pairs (if any) that fit if you are a 26 or 44. It is supply and demand and pretty bloody basic. So why don't the Tories understand that?

But then I was angered that no connection was made between these two stories. National Rail was privatised by the last Conservative government, in order to "increase competition and improve services to travellers." my quotes Breaking things up in order that several private companies can attempt to generate profit by providing services is madness. Services are services and should not be run on any business model. Network Rail are struggling, (although not financially) rail companies have done away with services to remote areas that cannot generate profit and travellers are being left stranded. Even booking tickets is mad because there are 20 options. It can cost you £100 to get to London from Manchester. Myself and friends have shown up at railway stations with tickets for trains that don't exist!  What happens when these things are happening when people's health and lives are at risk? Competition does not improve services!

Then I log onto Yahoo to see a story about the privatisation of the Royal Mail.  (I missed yesterday's You and Yours which had an piece about it so must go and listen to that.) But all I can feel, again, is that the business model is the wrong model for the Royal Mail.

It seems to me that their are certain services that are necessary for a population to be productive and efficient and for things to run smoothly. These are 1) an efficient and integrated transport system, 2) an efficient and regular postal service 3) and an efficient and anti-discriminatory health service. 

All of these things run better when they do not run at full capacity,(which is necessary for maximum profit) and workers are not stressed, and resources are available to deal with emergencies, and employees can trust their managers to make decisions on what is best for them and their 'customer' rather than what is best for their shareholders.People need to be able to travel, to get to work, to visit family, to live their live. People need to communicate and be able to receive and send goods. People need to be healthy, and to be treated with respect within all of these area.

Any society (even the Prime Minister's Big Society) needs these services to be run by itself and managed by itself in order for it to be of service to itself. How simple is that?

EEEEk!

Eeeek! for so many reasons. Ok, so I am really having to curb my desire to buy yarn. I sit and look at patterns, and yarn, and just want to gobble it all up. 15 year old R has said she actually wants me to knit her something, Owls, which can be found on Ravelry or here and I just want to get started. But of, course, I have several other things that I shuold be doing/finishing, and I also want to do some summery stuff, work with cotton and bamboo and linen for a while as long as the weather inspires me.

Eeeek! also because of the ongoing election stuff. Of course, my personal Eeeek! does not have to do with wanting GB out, or thinking they should all hurry up, or being dismayed at the fact that it is taking a while to sort out any coalition. My Eeeek! is with the pathetic media coverage. I am sick of people saying GB should get out, when there is as yet nobody in a position to replace him. I am sick of reporters giving us all their interpretations rather than the NEWS. Why isn't it called OPINIONS rather than NEWS anymore? I am sick of people assuming that Nick Clegg is giving his party away whatever he chooses. And I am sick of news that isn't news, but just fillers because there really isn't that much to report at the moment. Maybe if we lived in a country that trusted its leaders a bit more, the leaders would meet our higher standards, instead of living in a country where we automatically criticize, and so bring everybody down to the lower standard of trying to keep us happy. Or maybe I just need to drink more gin.

I am rather comforted by the fact that politicians are talking to each other, having to negotiate, and taking the time to try to make the right decision. It may be the only thing I am optimistic about, and I know it won't last long. :-o

And now for a happy Eeeek! I have finished a few things. Been inspired by the weather to make things in cotton for the baby. And here they are.

The photo isn't that good. It actually looks really sweet, if a bit 1970's which I like. ;-) It is the Ruffle hat, crocheted in Sirdar Calico.

And this a cardy that I started before baby was born, thinking I had plenty of time. Fogot about it for a while, and then realized that she is nearly 7 months old and I had better finish it. Left off the pockets, as I cannot for the life of me fathom why babies need pockets. And left off the flowers I was going to crochet, as she has a habit of grabbing things on her clothes and eating them. Why go to the bother of flowers that are only going to get sucked. :-)  And the buttons are a boring brown, because they were in my sewing box and didn't cost me a penny. A practical garment that can get messy without me caring too much. All in all a nice cotton cardy for sunny weather. So come on sunny weather.

And since waiting around for sunny weather may take longer than waiting for a coalition government, here is a little warm bonnet, although only in acrylic, that I have made up. It doesn't fit very well, but I like the stitch, called Peacock stitch in the crochet book I have. I think I will have to play around with it a bit, and see if I can come up with a nice pattern. I keep thinking I would like to write up patterns for some of the things I crochet, but I never get around to it. I shall try to do it as I make another summer halter top for M, in some Louisa Harding cotton that I have from a trip to Shipston last year. Hey Martine, comment please on the name of that lovely shop?!


Happy Eeeeek day!

People are Stupid :-(

That's about the extent of my ability to analyze election results this morning...except for people in Brighton Pavilion. :-) Well done them!

Election day!

Wonder what kind of world we will wake up to tomorrow. Will have to spend the night listening to Radio 4 - this is the first time since giving up telly I wish we had it!
I really hope our Lib Dem MP John Leech gets re-elected. He is a good man, and has helped us out quite a bit. I am not a diehard Lib Dem supporter, but I really like him. Good Luck!

Proud mummy moment!

Had a few proud mummy moments... first words, first steps, gymnastics competitions, musical productions, shows, good exam grades, getting into college on the basis of a portfolio, but yesterday was pretty damn good. Some poor disillusioned bloke happened by our house to put a 'Vote Labour' leaflet through our door. Sadie, who is 19 and reading Politics at Bristol, took the leaflet, chased him up the road and said, 'You can have this back, 'cause I'm not voting Labour!'  :-)

The government sucks

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=6667

At some point I hope to have the energy to produce a more articulate argument, but since nobody is listening anyway, why bother to expend the energy. I am furious.

Home Ed Review

It's funny how this blog, in spite of it being about my life, actually is often completely separate from my life. In spite of all of the yarn and wool and knitting and reading of books, I am a rather political person.

The big thing that has been happening lately is the Badman Review of Home Education which was published in June. Home education is the most important thing in our family. It is our choice. It is the way we live our lives. It is our family. And the government wants to police us for our choice. They want access to our home and our children, not because there is any 'cause for concern' - but because I don't send my kids to school.

Our whole way of life is under threat.

I am talking to my MP, along with other home edders locally, and hoping that Labour is ousted before they do away with more of our civil liberties. I cannot believe how a government that appears so socially liberal, can be so politically facsist.

So here are my problems with the Review, taken from a letter to my MP. You will have to know what the recommendations in order to make sense of the last bit. But you can always read those here - and get as angry as me.

"

Statutory Duty and Background

From a legislative point of view, there are currently no monitoring duties placed on local authorities concerning home educators. The law clearly states that it is a parent's duty to ensure that their children are educated. Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act states that;

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

Section 437(1) of the same act states that LAs have a duty to act “If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise,...”

Case law clarifies the situation regarding suitability of education and contact between the authority and parents, including LA enquiries to parents about the provision of education.

There are currently Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities which explain all of this and set out good practice in dealing with home educators.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/localauthorities/_documents/content/7373-DCSF-Elective%20Home%20Education.pdf

One of the main problems is that over the past decade there have been more and more responsibilities placed on LAs with regard to safeguarding. LAs are inspected by Ofsted on the monitoring arrangements they make for home educators, in spite of there being no legal duty to monitor. Also, the Education Act 2002 states that “A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.” [s.175(1)]. Some LAs take this to mean to that they must have access to our children in order to 'safeguard' them. We as parents, wish to protect our children from them.

Purpose of the Review of Home Education

The purpose of the review was predominantly to discover if there were safeguarding concerns with regard to home educated children. According to http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/homeeducation/

“The Government has commissioned an independent review of home education to assess whether the current system of supporting and monitoring home education is the right one.” As stated above, there is no duty to monitor and a visit to any of a number of LA websites will illustrate that there are no funds available to offer home educators any amount of support. There is no consistency between LAs.

At the time the Review was announced in the press, the focus was on child abuse and forced marriage. The NSPCC was interviewed linking home educators with well publicized cases of abuse, such as that of Eunice Spry, for which they have had to issue an apology.

Although the questionnaires for individuals and LAs were vastly different, the questions asked of parents concerned mostly the 5 outcomes of Every Child Matters and a specific question relating abuse, “6 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?”

Firstly, the 5 outcomes of Every Child Matters are supposed to relate to services provided by statutory bodies. They are not legally binding on parents, as parents are believed to have the welfare of their children in mind, unless proven otherwise. Secondly, the formation of the final question above assumes that action must be taken to ensure something does not happen, when there is no evidence that it happens. If the purpose of the Review was to discover if there is any evidence of abuse, why does the question assume that the answer is yes?

Validity of the Review

There are several reasons I believe the review to be invalid (see below). The overall tone of the document is prejudicial and I do not think that the Review's author, Mr Graham Badman is capable of objectivity.

1) No evidence was found that home education is used as a cover for abuse, forced marriage, or domestic servitude and yet safeguarding concerns are still being used to press for statutory changes. In the review Mr Badman states that 'the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population.' (8.12)

Firstly, the review finds that the number of children known to be home educated is roughly 20,000, although there are potentially up to 80,000 currently being educated otherwise than at school but who are not known to their LAs (6.1). How can he make a statement about the proportionality of the home educated population known to social care when he does not know what the home educated population is?

Secondly, there is no conclusion to be made about correlation between home education and children known to social care. Several LAs will consider home education itself a trigger for safeguarding concerns and will report families to SS who will not allow them to interview their children, when there is no evidence of child protection issues. There will be several children known to social care departments because of their special needs, and/or other services they or their family members are using. Unfortunately, in the Review, parents were not able to answer any questions on their experiences of their LA.

2)Mr Badman asks the following questions in section 8.2.

“■■ First, if there is abuse of children within the home education community, is it

disproportionally high, relative to the general population?

■■ Secondly where abuse does exist, would a change of regulation with regard to elective

home education have either prevented or ameliorated such abuse?”

The questions are spurious. The first appears to ask if there is abuse of children within the home educating community, but in fact assumes that there is and leaves you considering whether or not home educators abuse more than the general population. The second assumes that the answer to the first is 'Yes'.

In attempting to address these questions, he later states, “despite the small number of

serious case reviews where home education was a feature, the consideration of these reviews

and the data outlined above, suggests that those engaged in the support and monitoring of home education should be alert to the potential additional risk to children.” (8.12) In other words, he sees home education as an 'additional risk to children.'

With questions and assumptions as prejudicial as this, how can there be any claim that this review is objective?

3) Mr Badman uses statements throughout the review to punctuate his points. Almost all of these are from responses made by organisations all saying that LAs should have access to our children and homes in order that they may satisfy themselves that our children are safe. I believe that these statements are sometimes used out of context in order to further his own beliefs.

For example, the Church of England Education division is quoted in the Review as saying

“that children and young people not in formal education are missing the benefits and

challenges of learning in community with their peers. Children who do not go to school

may not experience the social and cultural diversity encountered there; they will not learn

how to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life; they may never meet people with

different faith and value systems. All such encounters, even the difficult or painful ones are

enriching. We are concerned not only with the five Every Child Matters outcomes, but also

with the spiritual well-being of all children and young people. Spiritual well-being arises not

only from being cared for in a loving family and/or faith community, but also in encounters

with people of different opinions and backgrounds; in learning to listen to a variety of

opinions; to encounter diversity and the riches and life-enhancement it can bring. Spiritual

well-being depends on living and taking a full part in community life. Children and young

people in schools learn about and from the five major religions. This may be a difficult

part of the curriculum for home educators to provide, yet it is vital for the Government’s

community cohesion agenda that all children learn in a balanced way about the variety

of religious values and practices, and to be encouraged to question their own beliefs and

practices.” (4.8)

This is a selective quote, containing paragraphs 7-9 of the whole of the C of E's response. The final paragraph of their full statement asserts that 'We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children in a home-educating [sic] this should be a matter for Children's Services.'

Furthermore, paragraph 5 of their response also says “Prevention of abuse under the cover of home education seems to be the main reason for this review, and in making it so, has the effect of tarnishing the reputation of the many parents who choose to home educate their children from the best of motives.”

Mr Badman has deceitfully and selectively chosen from the whole of the response in order to further his own argument.

4) The parental questionnaire consisted of 6 questions, almost all of which considered the 5 outcomes, and suggested that home ed could be used as a cover for abuse. There were no questions asking about the relationship that families had with local authorities. There are several LAs which are hostile to elective home education (EHE), refer regularly to Social Services, make statements that they believe children are better off in school, require families to provide evidence in ways that are outside the law, insist on entering the home under threats of referral to SS, and generally bully families.

The questionnaire for LAs consisted of 60 detailed questions. This is more than a slight discrepancy and indeed illustrates the importance of LA responses over parental ones. (Annexes C and D of the review list the questions that were asked of parents and LAs.)

5) Badman has chosen to ignore an increasing amount of research.

He states that “I am not convinced by the existing research studies on the outcomes for home educated children both in this country and elsewhere. Although some (but not all) studies have found that home educated children outperform schooled children on a range of indicators, the results may be attributable to parental characteristics (e.g. better educated parents with higher incomes). Some of the studies were also based on small samples and therefore the ability to generalise is limited. Some were based on self selecting, and therefore biased, samples. The diverse characteristics of home educated children make it difficult to generalise about their academic performance.” (10.2)

This research predominantly shows home educated children to have benefited from their experiences. The research of Alan Thomas and Paula Rothermel is particularly useful but has been discounted here. Considering that this review would not withstand academic peer review, it is laughable that Mr Badman makes that statement about research that has withstood such scrutiny.

6) No evidence was found highlighting safeguarding concerns, and yet Ed Balls and Baroness Morgan issued identical statements on the day the Review was published saying that they accepted the recommendations in full. A consultation was begun on that same day, which suggests that the review process was little more than a step towards fulfilling a predetermined agenda.

Problems with the Recommendations

Below are a few comments on some of the Recommendations put forth by the Review. Some numbers have been skipped as they relate to others already mentioned or discuss procedural aspects of potential legislative changes.

Recommendation 1

LAs already have a statutory duty to seek out children missing education (CME), which would bring all home educators to their attention. The bullet points in the first recommendation for a national compulsory registration scheme do not allow for the time families need to adjust to their new learning experiences, i.e. having plans in place within 8 weeks. Nor do they allow for the flexibility that is so much a part of education outside of school. The idea of 'planned outcomes' does not take into account the longer term goals of many home educators, i.e. to instil a love of learning and the confidence to achieve whatever one wants to achieve. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the child led learning process which many home educators follow. The suggestion that LA officers know anything about home education is laughable as home educators across the country are continually met with LA representatives who do not have any experience of or training in issues relating to home education. I would like to state here that I do believe that Manchester is taking positive steps towards working with home educating families and while I believe my previous point to be the case in many LAs, Manchester may be one of the exceptions.

Recommendation 2

The Rose Review is largely irrelevant since the National Curriculum is only compulsory for state schools. It does not apply to elective home educators, nor to private schools.

As for defining what constitutes educational provision as 'suitable' and 'efficient', case law (Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson) already states that a ‘suitable education’ as one which was such as:

1. to prepare the children for life in modern civilised society, and

2. 
   
   to enable them to achieve their full potential.

Further case law states that “education is ‘suitable’ if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so.” [R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust (1985)]

Mr Badman suggests that there is a statutory change so that education is 'sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers.'

It would seem that he wants a definition of suitability which already exists in case law. It is my opinion that this recommendation is redundant and could potentially lead to a too prescriptive definition of what constitutes education.

Recommendation 3

This is problematic because of the anecdotal evidence to suggest that LAs treat home educators differently based on their reasons for choosing to home ed. They define 'positive' and 'negative' reasons for the choice and treat those who have had problems in school, and withdrawn their child as a last resort, differently to those who have made a philosophical or lifestyle choice to educate otherwise than at school.

Recommendation 4

Several LAs are already doing this. Manchester has begun having meetings with home educators to work towards acceptable and positive policy which will allow us to build workable relationships. I believe that the government has not allowed enough time to pass since the issuance of the DCFS's Elective Home Education Guidelines for LAs previously mentioned to help improve matters.

Recommendation 7

This is the most serious of all of the recommendations and has huge civil liberties implications. LAs want access to our homes and our children, in order “to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.” In other words, this is a complete reversal of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If you choose to educate otherwise than at school, an option which is equal in statute with schooled education, you must prove to the LA that you are not abusing your children.

In what other area of life does anybody have to prove themselves innocent of abusing their children where there exists no evidence or cause for concern? Simply not being admitted to the home is not a cause for concern. Many LAs act from a position of suspicion with regard to home educators.

Current case law has established that "an education authority should not, as a matter of policy, insist on inspection in the homes as the only method of satisfying themselves that children were receiving efficient full time education" {Judge Donaldson (Phillips v Brown, Divisional Court, [20 June 1980, unreported] }

Furthermore, "the Act of 1944 (replaced by the 1996 Education Act) does not provide for or contemplate an intrusion of a parent’s privacy by inspectors coming into the home and that it is quite wrong for a Local Authority to insist on such inspection." [Lord Parker of Waddington (REGINA v. SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE, ex parte TWEEDIE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 61LGR 464 Lord Parker of Waddington C J, Widgery J, and John Stephenson J)]

A family's right to privacy cannot be cancelled, especially when the reason for such a cancellation is because they have made a perfectly legal choice regarding the education of their children.

Recommendation 8

This assumes right of access to the home.

Recommendation 9

Suitable training in issues relating to home education should be mandatory and many home educators have been asking for this for years. Manchester has recently undergone training offered by the Sauer Consultancy and is taking positive steps towards developing a working relationship with the home educating community.

Recommendation 10 and 11

Access to resources and exam centres would benefit home educators, but the access must not be conditional. It is worth noting that this would be the one thing that many home educators would like to see go forward, and that Ed Balls already seems to be distancing himself from this recommendation by stating in his response to Graham Badman that “this is a difficult and sensitive area” and there are “uncertainties over the number of home educated children and the demand for services.” In other words, they don't have the money to offer us anything beneficial to ourselves, only to impinge upon our rights.

Recommendation 12

Where I do not fully understand what is being offered here, it is worth questioning the involvement of BECTA as Graham Badman was announced its interim chair in Jan 2009, and has just been confirmed in this role by Jim Knight.

Recommendation 15

I accept that there has been anecdotal evidence of schools suggesting home education to parents as a way of getting rid of problem pupils. However, the information about the option of home education should be made available to all parents. It should also be recognized that there are parents whose children have severe problems within the school setting, which are addressed by a change of provision to elective home education.

Recommendations 18 and 19

That the choice to home educate be a trigger to conduct a review is prejudicial. As previously stated, current legislation states that “The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

1. 
   to his age, ability and aptitude, and
   
2. 
   to any special educational needs he may have,
   

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.” (s. 7 1996 Education Act)
Statements of SEN relate to provision by an institution and it should not be implied that the statement will be relevant to elective home education. The parents of children with SEN should not be subjected to any procedures which go beyond having to provide an education in accordance with section 7 as outlined above.

Recommendation 21

The problem with this is that there are several LAs which consider the choice to home educate to be a cause for concern. Since this annual report is being suggested in order to avoid the “current speculation with regard to the prevalence of child protection concerns amongst home educated children which may well be exaggerated”, it would seem to make sense that something like this occurred BEFORE any legislative changes based on safeguarding were undertaken. However, I would quantify that these reports be subject to academic review, as there is the potential for them to be based on spurious allegations by hostile LAs.

Recommendation 22

LA staff should be trained in issues relating to home education as a whole, not just safeguarding issues.

Recommendation 23 and 24

This is severely problematic as it would effectively remove a parent's responsibility to ensure that their children are educated. This would also be considered a human rights issue as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" (Article 26, para 3). To deny this right to some parents would be prejudicial.

Recommendation 25

The discussion of targets is confusing. It sounds as if they have to identify a certain number of home educated children about whom there are safeguarding concerns. It is unclear and can certainly not be instigated without there being any academic research to suggest what proportion of the home educating community is affected by protection issues.

Recommendation 26

This undermines a parents' responsibilities. There is a growing tendency for any statutory duty placed on LAs regarding their services for children to be placed on parents as well. Parents are not service providers – they are parents.

Recommendation 28

Providing LAs with the resources to act on any new duties given to them is a substantial undertaking. Another local home educating parent has postulated the following;

Assuming;

1. 
   
   there are 80,000 home educated children, as is stated in the review as the high end estimate;
2. 
   
   it takes approximately 2 hours per child for assessment (interviews, travelling, communications, writing of reports, etc.;)
   
   

then 160,000 working hours would need to be covered. In order to do this, it would take 4571 working weeks, if we assume a 35 hour working week. If the average LA case worker works
47 weeks a year (4 weeks holiday plus a week's sick/training days) this would take approximately 97 extra case workers across the country. If each of these case workers cost the LAs about £30,000 this would cost approximately £2,910,000. Is nearly £3 million an acceptable cost for changing legislation when there is no evidence that it is needed or that it would improve children's safety?

Conclusion

Throughout the Review there is reference to balancing the rights of children with the rights of parents. It appears that LAs want to interview our children to find out if they like being home educated. Funnily enough, no mention is made of interviewing schooled children to ascertain their wishes regarding their education and compelling the parents of those children to act accordingly. Many parents do believe that home education is a childrens' rights issue. They wish to take the wishes of their children into account when providing an education. However, until all children have the right to choose their educational setting, those children whose parents choose to educate otherwise than at school should not be subjected to additional scrutiny.

If you wish for any further information, the following may be of interest.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ete/independentreviewofhomeeducation/irhomeeducation/

The Review in full, plus Ministerial statements can be accessed from this page.

http://www.markfieldmp.com/generate.php?page=read_spe&id_spe=146

This is the text of a speech given in the House of Commons by the Rt Hon Mark Fields (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) regarding home education.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_education_and_abuse_statist_116#incoming-28028

Manchester's response to a FOI request stating that there are no cases for concern relating to home educated children.

http://www.natsoc.org.uk/schools/electivehomeeducation.docx

The full response of the Church of England to the Review, as truncated by Mr Badman."

Musings...

Well, it occurs to me that the name of this blog means that I will have to be witty. I actually chose the name because I enjoy wit, and intelligent humour, not because I am particularly witty. But I will try. I will perhaps someday, tell the story of my first attempt at a sock, when I misread 45 more rounds as 15 more rounds. I was all excited to complete grafting my toe, only to find I had a sock that would have perfectly fit somebody whose foot consisted only of a heel.

Of course, I would quickly point out that I now know how to undo grafted stitches. :-) So it was a learning experience.

But I am being serious for a minute today. Although I am living in Manchester, I am originally from America. Springfield, IL to be exact. And, like many Americans, I am proud of my country at the moment, because we have elected Barrack Obama to the office of President of the United States. I wrote to friends in the States that I was feeling proud, and one of them rightly pointed out that I hadn't been that impressed with the president elect during his campaign. So I wrote to her to explain some of my feelings and thought I would post them here.

"I think it is the idea, and the history that is being made, rather than the man himself. The reason I am not as excited as others is that I don't know why we should be happy that there is a man who plays the politics game better than anybody else. He had loads of money, and he is a great orator, and he is charismatic. I like that he seems to actually have a brain working behind that facade, that he seems engaged with the issues, but the fact is that he is an ambitious and polished professional politician. We won't know for a while whether or not there is reason for all of the good will. I'm just caught up in it as well. I am proud to be a part of history. I am proud that so many Americans actually became engaged with the campaigns, that there was such high voter turnout, and that the left actually had somebody to vote for. One of the reasons the right keeps winning in America is that there are no substantial left wing candidates. The left maintain the middle road in order to win politically. What many Americans seem to really want, is SOMETHING to vote FOR. And this election proves that. So I am more excited about the ideology than I am about the man.

Research shows that voter turnout is higher when there are big ideological differences between candidates. Countries who have Socialists, and Conservatives, and Nationalists running in their elections have higher political participation. America doesn't have anything for the left to identify with, so there is a huge portion of the electorate who do not participate in politics, who do not even vote because there is nothing worth voting for. This election there was some to vote for. But I do feel that the thing that we were voting for was America's first black president. The "CHANGE" we voted for was a huge change in our history, it was ideological, but not practical. Barrack Obama played the game that professional politicians play. Usually the Republicans are better at it. Usually they have the pithy answers, they have a handle on the mood of the nation, and play with the symbolism of America being great, and patriotism, and try to make people feel good, without actually doing anything practical. Well, what I see is that the Democrats managed that this time.

But, this is a man who is spouting the same fear inspiring rhetoric about the Middle East, and making sure America is Great in the world, and keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and who voted for anti-privacy legislation in the Senate. The irony is that the reason I voted for him in the end was because of some of his domestic policies, but it is his foreign policy which is going to negatively impact on me the most.

What I want to see in American politics is a complete overhaul of the political machine. Political advertising on television and radio should be banned. You should not be able to buy public office. The national networks should be compelled to offer equal amounts of time to candidates of parties with a certain minimum number of members. That would allow a greater voice to alternatives, but still keep the really marginal (and/or comic) groups at bay. What we have here are Party political broadcasts, the main TV channels have to allow a regular 10 or 15 minute slot to each party before a national campaign. I think that is a brilliant idea, and it could be built on. Debates should be more frequent, and less formal and the audience should be allowed to ask questions of the candidates.

America needs a nationalized health system. I don't understand people's fear about this. As if it is Socialism run amok. Actually, it is a really good idea, and it certainly would not do away with private health care. Gasoline needs to be taxed 5 times as much as it is now. And the money from those taxes can go into developing really good transportation links. Electric Trams and buses, coorporate car sharing schemes, community car sharing schemes, etc. The idea that being American means that you have the right to your freedoms no matter how they impinge on others' rights needs to be challenged. Americans do not have the right to cheap gas at the expense of the environment that we share with other nations. Americans do not have the right to cheap consumer goods at the expense of the health of those in developing nations. Americans do not have the right to act as the world's pompous and ideological leader when we don't even take care of our own citizens. Guantanamo Bay, capital punishment, treating children as adults in the courts, the EXPANSION of poverty WITHIN our borders, the erosion of civil liberties,- these things keep my optimism in check.

Why are we optimistic right now? Because we are hoping for change. But who is willing to pay the price for change? Most of us want the status quo to be maintained. Because we all secretely have, at the back of our minds, this idea of the American Dream. Someday we will make it. If a black man can be elected to the oficce of President of the United States, then it really is true. You can accomplish anything in America. Actually, all that does is maintain the ideology, make people think that those at the bottom of the social hierarchy are there because they haven't got what it takes to make it. After all, anybody with $600,000,000 can make it.

Ok, so maybe I am cynical. But it isn't my natural state - it is a learned state. I am still optimistic. I am still hoping for the change we need. And I am still prouc of my fellow countrymen. For now. "


Right, back to the knitting. Pretty yarn helps me not think about the big bad world.


Peace
Julie