Don't be silly
Second: here's what I think about the Ivatts report:
Reports do not get commissioned and published by government departments for fun, or because the government is genuinely curious about what the report might recommend IMO. Anyone who thinks they do is being gullible. Reports are commissioned and published by government departments in order to specifically recommend the changes in the law that the government wanted in the first place. This is how the government 'drives change'.
Laming was 'supposed' to be all about Victoria Climbie. It ended up being about compelling the indiscriminate storing and sharing of information about families and children. In my view and the view of many other people, this was the aim all along and is standard practice in politics throughout the Western world.
Why, for example, has DfES not commissioned a report into the monitoring of home education from EO, HEAS or AHEd? Or from any of the individuals who publicly represent, speak about and advise us on what we do? Because such a report would not contain the recommendations that the powers that be wished to enact.
This isn't rocket science, or even conspiracy theory. It's just simple logic and common knowledge.
So the Ivatts report, which happens to have been commissioned and published by the DfES, makes the following recommendations:
"Legislation should apply uniformly to all families with children currently being educated at home and those wishing to elect for home education in the future. It is suggest that the legislation should ensure that: a) a standardised national system of registration be implemented by each local education authority in terms of assessment criteria; monitoring/inspection visits; and the time sequence related to these events b) the wishes of children are established and taken into account in the assessment process."
"A clear curriculum entitlement is defined which is broad and balanced. All children to be registered (irrespective of whether they have ever been registered with a school), and that all children registered under EHE are seen initially and in the teaching and learning situation on a regular basis defined in law and a standard format for post visit reports and their distribution all children registered under EHE are assessed on a regular basis in relation to expectations of educational progress."
- carefully enmeshed in a confusing mass of information about School Census data on the attainment of Gypsy/Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage. I feel to be stating the obvious here but will say it anyway. These are the recommendations Ivatts was expected to make, and DfES wanted him to make them because it wants to use them.
Given this fact, I do feel entitled to express my alarm about the apparent raising of the EHE Traveller issue in the national press by an official HE spokesperson. I don't personally know any of the people concerned or anything about them. I'd be querying this, whoever had said it.
There is - stating the blatantly obvious again - a reason why the recommendations above were 'hidden' in the Traveller issue rather than simply commissioned from someone like Tony Mooney, who (I assume) would have gladly supplied the required conclusions. The Gypsy/Roma/Traveller issue is complicated and requires the kind of delicate handling which conveniently confuses everything. We could confidently argue against a Mooney report with a reasonable chance of success. An Ivatts report - making the same recommendations - is much harder.
So what I wanted to know is, given all this, why are some of us - in key positions - (trying my best to be non-personal here!) appearing to publicly sanction Ivatts?
If it was an accident, I'd just like to urgently request more caution, for all our sakes.
If it was deliberate, I think the home education community needs an explanation.