That select committee report..
.. is finally here [opens pdf].
It has already been reported (quite favourably) and blogged and blogged and blogged and Twittered (Tweeted... whatever..) and - wow, expertly satirised and will no doubt be blogged and Twittered (Tweeted) and Facebooked and emailed some more.
I've read a bit of it, in and amongst our festive dashing about this week (Isn't the timing of these things masterful?! A whole month after the Queen's Speech, as well! A person could be forgiven for suspecting that the government couldn't care less what the thinking of its Select Committees might be, even when their reports are so carefully phrased as to try to placate all parties and upset none!) and will no doubt be reading it in more detail as and when I get chance. I might even blog something more about it, if anything comes to mind that doesn't seem to have already been said.
But let's face it, even if it had been 100% anti-Badman and pro-us, it wouldn't have made much difference, would it? Says she, pessimistically. As someone else has just Twit/Tweet/Twooted, "Democracy is about being overruled by those voted into power. Not about having your say, facts, or being listened to." H/T: you know who you are, and you speak very good sense IMO :-)
Oh go on then, I've got to say one grumpy thing about one thing I did catch sight of:
Whaaat?? What's all that about?! Shades of Badman, or what? "All but one of the home educators and home education organisations who contacted us were highly critical of the Badman Report and were very resistant to the idea that local authorities should be given new powers in relation to the regulation and monitoring of home education," - therefore the rest of them must be being bullied into silence?! When you consider the scope for making anonymous submissions, that doesn't really add up, does it?
I'm wrong, of course. Two hundred of us are vehemently opposed to the changes whilst the other 15-45,000 are all quietly busy tying on their own blindfolds and rushing to join the queue for the scaffolding. It couldn't possibly be that they're all getting on with the home education of their children, in blissful ignorance of whatever is to come, or feeling already too besieged and/or battle-weary to care or notice much difference. No, they're all calling for more inspections! More controls! Tighter shackles, please! We are a nation of masochists.
I'd better finish this post before I start straying into the realms of sarcasm.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
It has already been reported (quite favourably) and blogged and blogged and blogged and Twittered (Tweeted... whatever..) and - wow, expertly satirised and will no doubt be blogged and Twittered (Tweeted) and Facebooked and emailed some more.
I've read a bit of it, in and amongst our festive dashing about this week (Isn't the timing of these things masterful?! A whole month after the Queen's Speech, as well! A person could be forgiven for suspecting that the government couldn't care less what the thinking of its Select Committees might be, even when their reports are so carefully phrased as to try to placate all parties and upset none!) and will no doubt be reading it in more detail as and when I get chance. I might even blog something more about it, if anything comes to mind that doesn't seem to have already been said.
But let's face it, even if it had been 100% anti-Badman and pro-us, it wouldn't have made much difference, would it? Says she, pessimistically. As someone else has just Twit/Tweet/Twooted, "Democracy is about being overruled by those voted into power. Not about having your say, facts, or being listened to." H/T: you know who you are, and you speak very good sense IMO :-)
Oh go on then, I've got to say one grumpy thing about one thing I did catch sight of:
29. All but one of the home educators and home education organisations who contacted us were highly critical of the Badman Report and were very resistant to the idea that local authorities should be given new powers in relation to the regulation and monitoring of home education. This viewpoint has dominated debate surrounding the Badman Report more generally. On this matter we would note our unease at the reluctance of some to speak publicly on the Badman Report due to fear of harassment from sections of the home educating population.
Whaaat?? What's all that about?! Shades of Badman, or what? "All but one of the home educators and home education organisations who contacted us were highly critical of the Badman Report and were very resistant to the idea that local authorities should be given new powers in relation to the regulation and monitoring of home education," - therefore the rest of them must be being bullied into silence?! When you consider the scope for making anonymous submissions, that doesn't really add up, does it?
I'm wrong, of course. Two hundred of us are vehemently opposed to the changes whilst the other 15-45,000 are all quietly busy tying on their own blindfolds and rushing to join the queue for the scaffolding. It couldn't possibly be that they're all getting on with the home education of their children, in blissful ignorance of whatever is to come, or feeling already too besieged and/or battle-weary to care or notice much difference. No, they're all calling for more inspections! More controls! Tighter shackles, please! We are a nation of masochists.
I'd better finish this post before I start straying into the realms of sarcasm.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
posted by Gill at 6:17 am
6 Comments:
I like this too:
What does the select committee think of the evidence?
Its key finding could be summed up in one diplomatically worded sentence: "Given that the total number of home educated children is not known, making claims about the proportion of these children who are at risk is problematic."
Its summary is more terse: "We are disappointed at the less than robust evidence base that the Badman report and the Department (of Children, Schools and Families) have presented with regard to the relative safeguarding risk to school and home educated children."
And here are some even more cheering thoughts.
You are so right, Gill. That section just made my blood boil. How ironic it is that this report points up the complete failure of school-type education. The people who wrote this report, all highly educated, no doubt, have no ability to use basic logic. Fear of harassment indeed.
But let's face it, even if it had been 100% anti-Badman and pro-us, it wouldn't have made much difference, would it?"
Well quite. This, imho, is a tiny stepping stone in the direction of having our voices heard as reasonable, coherent and rational, not ranty, loony and anti everything.
Someone in government has at least written down some of what we say and agreed with it. Even if not as wholly as we'd like, or as robustly as would have apparently made it easy.
I think the SC know Ed Balls and know if they oppose him too outrightly he'll just do exactly as he did with the new commissioner - reject in full.
What we needed, perhaps got, was to start a process of pulling the middle ground back under our feet and making him appear in the media like the overbearing loony. It is i think very helpful to have it linked to the vetting bill.
None of that means i am pro or happy with the recommendations they've come up with - but i am pleased to have some steady ground under my feet and some positive publicity - this is a good time to have the press see us as the latest victims of an overbearing government - and we stand a chance of that now.
Should that Merry Christmas have been April Fool. You could say that about just everything, the people who responded all said this so all the ones who didn't must think the opposite. Rule by reverse democracy : ( Speechless really even though it doesn't look like it.
"On this matter we would note our unease at the reluctance of some to speak publicly on the Badman Report due to fear of harassment from sections of the home educating population."
This sounds almost verbatim like the crap that SWebb comes out with. Given that he is 'the one' (not in a Keanu Reeves, Matrix kinda way) that they refer to, I guess this must be linked to him.
Perhaps they felt they had to include something that he said as he was called to give evidence, and the rest of his nonsense was too loony to mention. They could have said that all but one of the home educators who contacted us failed to mention they could have buried their daughter under the patio and no one would have known!
Post a Comment
<< Home