You're not seeing things. Or not not seeing things. There was a post about Humphrey's visit to a home education group meeting, but I shouldn't be writing late at night or early in the morning, and I posted it instead of saving it as a draft.
I made a mistake.
Not a big mistake.
I suppose the world won't end. Not your world. Not mine.
Instead I will apologise. It wasn't ready though. The blog post entry wasn't ready. It was a draft. I was experimenting. I was thinking and writing. And I wasn't satisfied with the writing. It didn't inspire me. If it doesn't inspire me it might not inspire you. I want you to be inspired. I want me to be inspired.
My children always inspire me. They do. They've made me more me. I have had their company in the home educating journey for years and they've taught me every day.
They are inspiring. The young people. They are.
I like my children. I like spending time with them. I like learning about them and with them. I like them, and I'm so grateful to have had all this precious quality time with them to enjoy them and to enjoy seeing them change and grow.
I know they've been happy at home base. I know they've chosen to educate themselves about things they find interesting. I know they've been more themselves, instead of the false selves that school forced them to construct for protection. I know that they've never been stuffed into small pigeon holes because you cannot pigeon hole a human spirit.
We've been happy. We are happy. What better way to educate your child than to inspire them to be happy?
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Death of a thousand cuts
The cut of constant consultations.
The cut of negative media 'reports'.
The cut of governmental reports.
The cut of bad men who masquerade as good men in politics.
The cut of people who 'allow' us slaves our freedom.
The cut of offering 'help and support'.
The cut of universities demanding x number of A levels.
The cut of numpties from local councils offering to monitor home educators even though the real meaning of education escapes them.
The cut of 'no funding' for home educators.
The cut of being made to search for non-existent jobs and not assigned benefits even though we are doing vitally important facilitation work with our children's education.
The cut of home educators accepting monitoring because they think the lady from the council is 'nice'.
The cut of local authorities Education Welfare Officers shouting at a new home educator that she MUST let them into her home.
The cut of local authority officers being told of the agony of your daughter having been bullied to within a few degrees of the death of her sensitive spirit and telling you that "you should have come to us for help".
The cut of some MPs 'getting' it, but never being able to trust them because we don't trust MPs because they've let us down before.
The cut of being suspected child abusers, over and over and over.
The cut of people who say they want to check our children because some home educators might be abusing their kids and not seeing that they are defaming our good names, our reputations and sinking our hearts into the black hole of distrust and hurt because they are really accusing us of damaging our children.
The cut of schooled people not understanding that we understand that children learn independently and freely and not through coercion and pain.
The cut of local councils saying you should be on a special database because you love your child enough to give up your usual life for him.
The cut of turning to the possible apparent sources of help in society when you are falsely accusing of hurting your child and find that they all agree with your accusers.
The cut of ignorant people who don't understand and won't understand admonishing you about socialisation for your children when their kids are out desecrating public spaces and ripping off elderly neighbours.
The cut of everyone thinking that schooling is education.
The cut of local councils putting your child in a database of NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) because you don't think it's their business to know what your young person is doing.
The cut of local council assigning your child to a list of NEETS because they are home educated.
The cut of Child Benefit losing your form, that you carefully and tenderly filled in, and cutting you off Child Benefit.
The cut of the government 'helplines' not recognising home education as a legitimate alternative to school, and cutting off your Child Tax Credit or Child Benefit.
The cut of not knowing whether you will be able to see your grandchildren home educating.
The cut of other countries falling to the demands of anti-home education lobbies.
The cut of thousands of hours of work by home educating parents in re-analysing incorrect statistics (Badman) promulgated as an excuse for radically changing home education.
The cut of having friends and families and neighbours think that you are nuts for choosing to home educate.
The cut of having nothing in common with people in wider society when they complain about the terrible job schools are doing and you say "home educate" and they look at you like you are a freak.
The cut of telling people who are ranting about the school's reaction to little Royston being bullied and you suggest home education, and they say, "Is it legal?"
The cut of trying to tell someone about home education to have them say, "Do you have safe and well checks?"
The cut of your child going to Harvard at the age of fifteen because he is so ready for the challenge and everyone saying that you 'hot-housed' him and that you've abused him by not letting him be a child.
The cut of seeing the 'inspector' calling at your door when you haven't made an appointment when the dog has been sick on the cat and you're late getting up because you took your youngsters to see a London show and you all slept in and you know she's going to report that she 'saw no evidence of an education going on'.
The cut of assuming that, as the local council person doesn't like what you do, he will issue a School Attendance Order which assumes that SCHOOL IS BEST.
The cut of knowing that complete strangers can demand that you jump through lots of hoops which can still end in a School Attendance Order, just because they don't 'approve' of your educating habits.
The cut of having a school fail your child and being forced to accommodate the prejudices of someone who thinks school is best.
The cut of Education Welfare Officers asking what sort of socialisation you give your child and frowning when you tell them that young Lisle goes to home educating groups, and then asking if he sees any 'normal' children.
The cut of everyone thinking that you're a bad parent for being so stupid as to think you can educate your child because don't experts do that?
The cut of having local authorities tell you what they believe is the law and what their policy is, but you know what the law really says and you have to tell them that they don't know their job, but they don't care because they believe what they say is right and, anyway, they have a policy that says they can do whatever they say they wish to do.
The cut of.... (insert your own. If you're a home educator, I'm sure you'll have more)
The cut of negative media 'reports'.
The cut of governmental reports.
The cut of bad men who masquerade as good men in politics.
The cut of people who 'allow' us slaves our freedom.
The cut of offering 'help and support'.
The cut of universities demanding x number of A levels.
The cut of numpties from local councils offering to monitor home educators even though the real meaning of education escapes them.
The cut of 'no funding' for home educators.
The cut of being made to search for non-existent jobs and not assigned benefits even though we are doing vitally important facilitation work with our children's education.
The cut of home educators accepting monitoring because they think the lady from the council is 'nice'.
The cut of local authorities Education Welfare Officers shouting at a new home educator that she MUST let them into her home.
The cut of local authority officers being told of the agony of your daughter having been bullied to within a few degrees of the death of her sensitive spirit and telling you that "you should have come to us for help".
The cut of some MPs 'getting' it, but never being able to trust them because we don't trust MPs because they've let us down before.
The cut of being suspected child abusers, over and over and over.
The cut of people who say they want to check our children because some home educators might be abusing their kids and not seeing that they are defaming our good names, our reputations and sinking our hearts into the black hole of distrust and hurt because they are really accusing us of damaging our children.
The cut of schooled people not understanding that we understand that children learn independently and freely and not through coercion and pain.
The cut of local councils saying you should be on a special database because you love your child enough to give up your usual life for him.
The cut of turning to the possible apparent sources of help in society when you are falsely accusing of hurting your child and find that they all agree with your accusers.
The cut of ignorant people who don't understand and won't understand admonishing you about socialisation for your children when their kids are out desecrating public spaces and ripping off elderly neighbours.
The cut of everyone thinking that schooling is education.
The cut of local councils putting your child in a database of NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) because you don't think it's their business to know what your young person is doing.
The cut of local council assigning your child to a list of NEETS because they are home educated.
The cut of Child Benefit losing your form, that you carefully and tenderly filled in, and cutting you off Child Benefit.
The cut of the government 'helplines' not recognising home education as a legitimate alternative to school, and cutting off your Child Tax Credit or Child Benefit.
The cut of not knowing whether you will be able to see your grandchildren home educating.
The cut of other countries falling to the demands of anti-home education lobbies.
The cut of thousands of hours of work by home educating parents in re-analysing incorrect statistics (Badman) promulgated as an excuse for radically changing home education.
The cut of having friends and families and neighbours think that you are nuts for choosing to home educate.
The cut of having nothing in common with people in wider society when they complain about the terrible job schools are doing and you say "home educate" and they look at you like you are a freak.
The cut of telling people who are ranting about the school's reaction to little Royston being bullied and you suggest home education, and they say, "Is it legal?"
The cut of trying to tell someone about home education to have them say, "Do you have safe and well checks?"
The cut of your child going to Harvard at the age of fifteen because he is so ready for the challenge and everyone saying that you 'hot-housed' him and that you've abused him by not letting him be a child.
The cut of seeing the 'inspector' calling at your door when you haven't made an appointment when the dog has been sick on the cat and you're late getting up because you took your youngsters to see a London show and you all slept in and you know she's going to report that she 'saw no evidence of an education going on'.
The cut of assuming that, as the local council person doesn't like what you do, he will issue a School Attendance Order which assumes that SCHOOL IS BEST.
The cut of knowing that complete strangers can demand that you jump through lots of hoops which can still end in a School Attendance Order, just because they don't 'approve' of your educating habits.
The cut of having a school fail your child and being forced to accommodate the prejudices of someone who thinks school is best.
The cut of Education Welfare Officers asking what sort of socialisation you give your child and frowning when you tell them that young Lisle goes to home educating groups, and then asking if he sees any 'normal' children.
The cut of everyone thinking that you're a bad parent for being so stupid as to think you can educate your child because don't experts do that?
The cut of having local authorities tell you what they believe is the law and what their policy is, but you know what the law really says and you have to tell them that they don't know their job, but they don't care because they believe what they say is right and, anyway, they have a policy that says they can do whatever they say they wish to do.
The cut of.... (insert your own. If you're a home educator, I'm sure you'll have more)
Monday, 8 October 2012
Ivan the Great
Ivan Illich, that is. Ivan Illich the great.
He says: "Like highways, schools, at first glance, give the impression of being equally open to all comers. They are, in fact, open only to those who consistently renew their credentials. Just as highways create the impression that their present level of cost per year is necessary if people are to move, so schools are presumed essential for attaining the competence required by a society which uses modern technology. We have exposed speedways as spurious public utilities by noting their dependence on private cars. Schools are based upon the equally spurious hypothesis that learning is the result of curricular teaching."
"Highways result from a perversion of the desire and need for mobility into the demand for a private car. Schools themselves pervert the natural inclination to grow and learn into the demand for instruction. Demands for manufactured maturity is a far greater abnegation of self-initiated activity than the demand for manufactured goods. Schools are not only to the right of highways and cars; they belong near the extreme of the institutional spectrum occupied by total asylums. Even the producers of body counts kill only bodies. By making men abdicate the responsibility for their own growth, school leads many to a kind of spiritual suicide."
From Deschooling Society, Ivan Illich, Penguin Books Ltd, 1971
He says: "Like highways, schools, at first glance, give the impression of being equally open to all comers. They are, in fact, open only to those who consistently renew their credentials. Just as highways create the impression that their present level of cost per year is necessary if people are to move, so schools are presumed essential for attaining the competence required by a society which uses modern technology. We have exposed speedways as spurious public utilities by noting their dependence on private cars. Schools are based upon the equally spurious hypothesis that learning is the result of curricular teaching."
"Highways result from a perversion of the desire and need for mobility into the demand for a private car. Schools themselves pervert the natural inclination to grow and learn into the demand for instruction. Demands for manufactured maturity is a far greater abnegation of self-initiated activity than the demand for manufactured goods. Schools are not only to the right of highways and cars; they belong near the extreme of the institutional spectrum occupied by total asylums. Even the producers of body counts kill only bodies. By making men abdicate the responsibility for their own growth, school leads many to a kind of spiritual suicide."
From Deschooling Society, Ivan Illich, Penguin Books Ltd, 1971
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Every Child Safeguarded
Mr.
Humphrey Pumphrey-Carrick-Watson (HPCW) sits in his bureaucratic
office where he thinks up new policies everyday. It is his job.
Ms.
Coleen Clevercogs (CC) is his personal assistant.
HPCW:
"I don't like this business of homeschooling, y'know."
CC:
"I believe that in the United Kingdom it's called home
educating, sir."
HPCW:
"What? Home educating? When it's homeschooling?"
CC
coughs apologetically: "Not everyone sees it as
schooling, sir. Some home educating parents believe that 'schooling'
is what you do with a horse, not a child."
Her
boss looks at her sideways: "They all have kitchen tables, don't
they? When they let the little bl... er... young people out of the
cupboard under the stairs?"
CC:
“Home educators as a rule don't keep their children in cupboards
under the stairs, sir. The children are quite widely educated in
other places such as museums, the environment, observatories,
friends' homes, church halls, forests... The home edders are quite
well aware that their classrooms are the whole wide world..."
HPCW
holds up a hand. "Humph! But they are lazy, aren't they? I mean
'educating at home' just means you can't be bothered to get up to
force them out of their jammies and into the school uniforms..."
CC:
"Home educating parents are generally opposed to forcing their
children to do anything...sir."
Her
boss raises his eyebrows. "Oh, that kind..."
CC:
“Er, sir, since you don't seem to know any home educators perhaps
you should spend some time talking to them. It smacks of bigotry if
you just condemn people for their views if you don't agree with
them..."
"Dirty
word, at the moment, CC." HPCW shuffles a pile of papers from
one side of the desk to the other. "There's, of course, the
safeguarding issue. The most important matter in hand..."
CC:
"Naturally. But home educators are less likely to hurt their
children than are parents who 'force' their children into school."
HPCW:
“Eh?”
CC:
"Yes, sir. Schooled children are more at risk of harm than are
home educating children."
HPCW:
“Huh? How's that?”
CC:
“Well, Mr. Pumphrey-Carrick-Watson there are more schooled
children so there are more schooled children being abused. Add
to that, the fact that it would be so difficult for home educators to
abuse their children.”
HPCW:
“Ha! They can't wriggle into the cupboards under the stairs, ha! No
exercise 'cos they're too lazy to get their kids to school.”
CC:
“I'll pretend I didn't hear that, sir. It's defamation: you are
harming the home educators' reputation, decreasing the respect in
which they are held and...”
HPCW:
“I knew it was a mistake to send you on one of the Law GCSE
courses.”
CC:
“Home educators are regarded with suspicion by many people in
society so it would be difficult for them to harm their children.
There are a lot of malicious referrals by neighbours and others to
local authorities saying that the children are running wild all day
and not learning anything. It's a basic lack of comprehension of the
true learning process which occurs at all times and in all places...”
HPCW:
“So you're saying that they're all running wild – which is a lack
of care by the parents, isn't it? - but the parents are also keeping
them in stair cupboards so... I mean... It...”
CC:
“Yes, exactly, sir. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions
about home education, sir.”
HPCW:
“I need coffee.”
CC:
(handing him a cup) Of course you cannot treat home educating parents
as a different species.”
HPCW
frowning: “Why not?”
CC:
“Well, we don't do safe and well checks on under-2s as a routine
measure in our quest to safeguard every child. Schoolchildren aren't
visited in the school holidays by local authority 'monitors' and they
aren't checked on if the parent rings in to say the child is sick.”
HPCW:
“Of course not. Those children are safely at school. School means
they are safe...”
CC:
“Not particularly, sir. Do you want to see the statistics on
teachers and other school employees who have been arrested and/or
charged with some kind of abuse against children in their charge?”
HPCW:
“Er, not at the moment, Miss Clevercogs. Do you mean? Well, are
there a lot of... Never mind, schools have a duty of care that... Um,
well, yes, my nephew's arm was broken by bullies last year and the
teachers maintain that it didn't happen at school and yet...
CC:
“Yes, sir.”
HPCW
picks up a pen and twiddles it around his finger. “I think I see
what you are saying, Coleen. We can't treat home educating parents
differently. We can't monitor them because we don't monitor
schoolchildren's parents at times when the children aren't at school.
It's discrimination, is that right?”
CC:
“Right, sir. And it might activate the Human Rights Act. Families
have a right to privacy. Local authorities can enquire about the
education parents are providing to their children, but even that's an
awkward one because local authorities expect school types of
learning.”
HPCW:
“Kitchen tables. Sharpened pencils. Tests. Exams. Qualifications
instead of learning.”
CC:
(smiling) Rather a shame when, if you don't have a qualification you
don't get a job but when you do you're overqualified for it. You
can't win, sir.”
HPCW:
“Unless your uncle, Lord Wadgletter, gives you a leg up and you get
a post interning for the Home Office like I did.”
HPCW:
“Coleen, how do you know so much about home educators?”
CC:
“My sister has home educated her four since birth and I was home
educated for five years when my mother took me out of secondary
school because I was suffering from bullying.”
HPCW:
“Get your sister on the phone, would you, Coleen? I'd like to meet
her and her family.”
Friday, 14 September 2012
The Case Against Monitoring Home Education
Exam Results
'The authors of this study find no evidence from their analysis that supports the claim that states should exercise more regulation of homeschool families and students in order to assure better academic success in general or improved higher-education success in particular. On the contrary, the findings of this study are consistent with other research findings that homeschool students perform well academically - typically above national averages on standardized achievement tests and at least on par with others on college-admission tests - and do so regardless of whether they live in a state that applies low, moderate or high governmental regulation of homeschooling.'
(Brian D. Ray, Bruce K. Eagleson, "State Regulation of Homeschooling and Homeschoolers' SAT Scores," Academic Leadership, August 11, 2009)."
The above was quoted in Kelly L. Green's book 'A Matter of Conscience: Education as A Fundamental Freedom' from Rubeus Books.
More from Dr. Brian Ray can be found here:
Safeguarding
And what about the safety of children who may suffer harm in the care of home educating parents (which is always the elephant in the corner in every debating room)?
""As the debate on home education has developed, I have become particularly worried about the way in which various issues have been conflated; I am especially worried about the conflation of safeguarding and child protection with quality of education. I deeply regret the way statistics have been used to suggest somehow that children are intrinsically at greater risk if they are being home educated; I believe I am right in saying that not a single home-educated child has had to be taken into care as a result of a child protection plan, yet there are those who have sedulously spread the myth that somehow children are at greater risk through being home educated."
The above is a quotation from Michael Gove's blog:
January 12, 2010
While debating the non-issue of home education during the Balls-Badman (hellish) period in the continuing struggle between local authorities and legally but alternatively educating parents and children, this was said by Andrew George MP in Parliament on June 9, 2009:
"... there may be public concern about this sector, but having visited a group of home educators in Penzance in my constituency, it was clear to me that in many cases these people have chosen this option precisely because they want to escape abuse and bullying in schools. Some choose it for other reasons. In a letter dated 19 June 2007 that I received from the then Under-Secretary in the Department, Lord Adonis, he made it clear that under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 the powers already exist to intervene in cases in which the state believes that a child may suffer harm. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The state already has the powers to intervene where it suspects that harm may be going on."
Representatives of the state may intercede in any case when they have reason to believe that children are at risk whether those children are educated at home, at a private school, at a state school or anywhere. Home educators live under the same strictures of law as do any other parents. We are accountable to the law for how we treat our children and we are accountable to our children for their safeguarding. We are also accountable to our children for how they are educated. Safeguarding and education are not intertwined. They are separate issues.
So what, exactly, is the problem, Wales?
P.S. Did you know that one synonym of 'intervene' is 'come to school'?
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Party Popper
I'm trying to be a bit more creative with the blogpost titles.
Karl Popper was a philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics, and a cool dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
The cool dude said some sayings that I think apply to our modern day local authorities and general authorities who want to change home education things in Wales and, eventually no doubt, in the rest of this Great Britain.
He said: "The open society is one in which men have learned to be to some extent critical of taboos, and to base decisions on the authority of their own intelligence."
Home educators have learned to be critical of the taboo that protects the ineffable mess that is the school system in England and Wales. The taboo is CRITICISING SCHOOL. Our solemn duty is to believe all the adoring comments by those who love school.
Children at school can be watched and their possible abuse discovered by caring and alert teachers. Rubbish. It is just such rubbish. Thirty kids in a class going in fifty different directions at the speed of light and the decibels of five aeroplanes landing at Heathrow. I don't think so.
Home educators base decisions on the authority of their own intelligence which tells them that school teachers have enough to do grading tests and grading children to notice whether or not those children are being abused. There's also the fact (dreadful though it is) that persons in authority over children are not immune to using their positions of power to perpetrate abuse upon children themselves.
Our friend Karl also said: "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
No amount of me telling you, dear local authority, that parents love their children and part of loving a child is wishing to give her the best education tailor-made for that child, and that parents love their children and don't spend their time abusing them even though those children are not in school. I can say it until I'm blue, yellow and orange in the face but my rational arguments won't influence you, local authority people, because you don't want to accept my rational comments and good sense. You want to control my child's education. You want to control my ability to see that my child has the best possible education I can give her.
You cannot see that controlling my child's education means taking responsibility for it. If you take responsibility for it and my child feels that she has been let down by the choices you make for her then she will sue the authority off you.
Sooner or later. Or sue-ner or later.
When you assume responsibility for education you are directly responsible for each and every lack (probably as defined by the subject of that education - the ex-child or consumer of said education). You will be taken to court to face the idea of remedy. In other words, you'll have to pay and you'll have to pay hard, and you'll have millions and millions of adults who will feel that you have let them down and not provided an education suitable to their needs. It's a can of worms. No, it's a can of Lambton worms. That's why PARENTS are responsible for providing an education and who in the statescape gives a toothpick if an aggrieved adult sues his parents for providing him with a lousy education.
But you can't get it, local authority. You just can't get it.
Let's go back to Karl Popper. "I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows."
Yep, it sure is admirable and sound to want to protect our every child who matters from abuse. So you go in to home educating domiciles and you check the child. You could ask the child, but then the child could be protecting the parent so you examine the child medically. Or you grill the child like a sausage on a barbeque. Or maybe you don't because the child might sue your ass-umed authority for torturing him.
Remember those darned inconvenient Human Rights:
"It is an absolute right – in no circumstances will it ever be justifiable to torture someone.
Karl Popper was a philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics, and a cool dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
The cool dude said some sayings that I think apply to our modern day local authorities and general authorities who want to change home education things in Wales and, eventually no doubt, in the rest of this Great Britain.
He said: "The open society is one in which men have learned to be to some extent critical of taboos, and to base decisions on the authority of their own intelligence."
Home educators have learned to be critical of the taboo that protects the ineffable mess that is the school system in England and Wales. The taboo is CRITICISING SCHOOL. Our solemn duty is to believe all the adoring comments by those who love school.
Children at school can be watched and their possible abuse discovered by caring and alert teachers. Rubbish. It is just such rubbish. Thirty kids in a class going in fifty different directions at the speed of light and the decibels of five aeroplanes landing at Heathrow. I don't think so.
Home educators base decisions on the authority of their own intelligence which tells them that school teachers have enough to do grading tests and grading children to notice whether or not those children are being abused. There's also the fact (dreadful though it is) that persons in authority over children are not immune to using their positions of power to perpetrate abuse upon children themselves.
Our friend Karl also said: "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
No amount of me telling you, dear local authority, that parents love their children and part of loving a child is wishing to give her the best education tailor-made for that child, and that parents love their children and don't spend their time abusing them even though those children are not in school. I can say it until I'm blue, yellow and orange in the face but my rational arguments won't influence you, local authority people, because you don't want to accept my rational comments and good sense. You want to control my child's education. You want to control my ability to see that my child has the best possible education I can give her.
You cannot see that controlling my child's education means taking responsibility for it. If you take responsibility for it and my child feels that she has been let down by the choices you make for her then she will sue the authority off you.
Sooner or later. Or sue-ner or later.
When you assume responsibility for education you are directly responsible for each and every lack (probably as defined by the subject of that education - the ex-child or consumer of said education). You will be taken to court to face the idea of remedy. In other words, you'll have to pay and you'll have to pay hard, and you'll have millions and millions of adults who will feel that you have let them down and not provided an education suitable to their needs. It's a can of worms. No, it's a can of Lambton worms. That's why PARENTS are responsible for providing an education and who in the statescape gives a toothpick if an aggrieved adult sues his parents for providing him with a lousy education.
But you can't get it, local authority. You just can't get it.
Let's go back to Karl Popper. "I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows."
Yep, it sure is admirable and sound to want to protect our every child who matters from abuse. So you go in to home educating domiciles and you check the child. You could ask the child, but then the child could be protecting the parent so you examine the child medically. Or you grill the child like a sausage on a barbeque. Or maybe you don't because the child might sue your ass-umed authority for torturing him.
Remember those darned inconvenient Human Rights:
"It is an absolute right – in no circumstances will it ever be justifiable to torture someone.
- Inhuman acts will amount to torture when used to deliberately cause serious and cruel suffering.
- Treatment will be considered inhuman when it causes intense physical or mental suffering.
- Treatment or punishment will be degrading if it humiliates and debases a person beyond that which is usual from punishment."
Treating one person (a home educator) differently to another person (schooling child parent) will result in a whole pile of human rights attacks on local authorities. Trust me, I'm a home educator. And it's simply called discrimination. And it's not a proportionate response. It's just like cutting your head off because you have a migraine (although, as a migraine sufferer, sometimes I've felt like it) but it's hardly helpful.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an
inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds
opinions that differ from our own opinions."
Karl again. No, we home educators don't agree that school is just the apple pie dandy thing that most people seem to be convinced that it is. We don't agree that home education should be monitored because it's our responsibility and - let's face it - local authority bods do favour school-type education (it's what they understand). So we'all don't share the same opinions, and we must suspect each other's good faith. Or, basically, we can't agree that they should monitor us because they're bound to be looking for stuff that we aren't providing (in the case of autonomous learners that would be schooly tick boxy examy testy curriculumy stuff) and we're providing stuff we think that they won't understand because they like schooly tick boxy examy testy curriculumy stuff and they understand that. Understand?
So the local authority folk don't like us because we don't want school for our children but the local authority folk DO want school for our children. We don't share the same opinions and neither side thinks the other is right. Some bad faith there, perhaps?
Popper: "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge,
but the refusal to acquire it."
It didn't take home educators long to 'get' the ideas behind the law. It took them a little study to see why the law is as it is. The law safeguards the whole system. It's constructed to allow the children who don't fit the one-size-fits-all (those clothes are always so wrong for me) to fit somewhere. It means the local authorities/government won't go down the pan trying to remedy the foul failings of a dreadful mishmash that the school system can wreak on a youngster. It means that parents have to carry the can and hope that they are good enough providers to have their children win through and get what they want whether or not their kids are home educators or schooled.
It's all carefully constructed. But, if you start messing with it, you introduce instability. It comes crashing down. All of it.
I advise you: don't mess with it. You don't have a system big enough and tough enough to survive this crash.
Home educators have told the authorities over and over and over and over... but it's a case of "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge,
but the refusal to acquire it."
Thanks, Karl.
The torture stuff:
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Welsh dodgy aims
Another Trojan horse? The Welsh government want to monitor home educators.
Why?
Do they want to spend more money on something that doesn't need to be fixed? Do they want to prove to Welsh parents that they don't trust them with their own children? Do they think the local authorities can do better in providing an education?
Nah, can't be that last one..
This blog entry says a lot of things that I would have said:
"The long arm and bottomless wallet of the Welsh Assembly Government" on
http://sprout-and-squidge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-long-arm-and-bottomless-wallet-of.html
Thanks Sprout and Squidge blogspot.
I can't comment at the minute. Cos I've met the dragon inside me and it's pretty pissed. Again.
And I don't mean drunk.
Why?
Do they want to spend more money on something that doesn't need to be fixed? Do they want to prove to Welsh parents that they don't trust them with their own children? Do they think the local authorities can do better in providing an education?
Nah, can't be that last one..
This blog entry says a lot of things that I would have said:
"The long arm and bottomless wallet of the Welsh Assembly Government" on
http://sprout-and-squidge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-long-arm-and-bottomless-wallet-of.html
Thanks Sprout and Squidge blogspot.
I can't comment at the minute. Cos I've met the dragon inside me and it's pretty pissed. Again.
And I don't mean drunk.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
