Growing a sidebar, joining the dots
I don't know if you've been keeping up with my growing list of sidebar quotes relating to the review, but there are some absolute peaches in there. I've just added one from Tom Paine this morning: "Fake charities, among which I am disappointed to suspect I must now number the NSPCC, are instruments of government policy and patronage. They are used to 'astroturf' (create fake 'grass roots' support for) government policies." Actually his whole post, about the NSPCC, is well worth a read in conjunction with the one by Bishop Hill ("Once the NSPCC starts getting involved with actual prevention then they cross the line into becoming Big Brother, or at least of encouraging facilitating the creation of a Big Brother state. At this point they start to become a danger to a liberal society.") in which he explains that the NSPCC is on the receiving end of £14m a year of government money.
I'm also adding excerpts of responses to the review questions, as well as any useful soundbites from online commentary or debate about the issue. Please let me know if you spot anything - or have posted anything yourself - that you think I should include.
When you read all the quotes in conjunction with one another, a picture starts to emerge and I think this background picture is most important, because it gives us the best chance of working out what's really going on. I know some people ascribe DCSF's behaviour towards us to incompetence rather than an organised, preplanned agenda and I agree, it does look disorganised from the perspective of the receiving end.
It's only when you start to scratch the surface, penetrate the camouflage of chaos and connect the dots that the usual strategy emerges: problem-reaction-solution.
The 'problem' (as not-so-mysteriously set out by the NSPCC): Home educated children aren't seen by a school teacher every day, so [tenuous link but fits with the whole 'parents can't be trusted' agenda] are therefore at extra risk of abuse.
The reaction hasn't gone all their way, but is still sufficiently hysterical, despite the fact that there is no statistical evidence to back up the insinuation.
and the solution?
I wonder.
I'm also adding excerpts of responses to the review questions, as well as any useful soundbites from online commentary or debate about the issue. Please let me know if you spot anything - or have posted anything yourself - that you think I should include.
When you read all the quotes in conjunction with one another, a picture starts to emerge and I think this background picture is most important, because it gives us the best chance of working out what's really going on. I know some people ascribe DCSF's behaviour towards us to incompetence rather than an organised, preplanned agenda and I agree, it does look disorganised from the perspective of the receiving end.
It's only when you start to scratch the surface, penetrate the camouflage of chaos and connect the dots that the usual strategy emerges: problem-reaction-solution.
The 'problem' (as not-so-mysteriously set out by the NSPCC): Home educated children aren't seen by a school teacher every day, so [tenuous link but fits with the whole 'parents can't be trusted' agenda] are therefore at extra risk of abuse.
The reaction hasn't gone all their way, but is still sufficiently hysterical, despite the fact that there is no statistical evidence to back up the insinuation.
and the solution?
I wonder.
posted by Gill at 7:07 am
2 Comments:
On the basis that not only do they not have proof that home education places a child a greater risk of abuse, they have no reason to believe that it could and it is entirely reasonable to believe that risk is reduced.
The problem is that they have an ever growing community of families who have rejected the offer of free education and local authorities realising that this could be seen as a reflection of the educational provision that they provide .
''The tribunal ruled that "the failure to follow the care plan and adequately monitor Joel placed him at an increased risk of behavioural difficulties and at a serious risk of seizure or death.''
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/School-diabetes-boy/article-650342-detail/article.html
This is not a one off there are many many parents out there whose children are not receiving care due to gov ruling that schools do not have an obligation to provide medical care, in this case the parents hoped that by going to tribunal they would raise awareness and help all the other families .
One problem ... there is only the local paper would take the story, a few years ago a Type 1 child was refused a place on a school trip and won a case against his school and it made headlines.
The media are nowadays controlled in what they print by the threat of them being left out when news stories are 'leaked' from gov and by the threatened loss of advertising revenue (dont forget that not only gov but major 'charities' which are funded by gov for public education advertising would favour the 'toe the line' media) so they no longer print stories that are critical of our administration.
The above illustrates why we are now in a position where headlines illegally accuse us of being abusers but fail to inform the public of real abuse within the system.
The solution? I aint got the foggiest.
Thanks Elaine - a masterful explanation! I wonder if it will always work all that well for them, as people increasingly look to alternative sources for their news.
Post a Comment
<< Home