A libertarian leaning, common preference seeking, pro-science, pro-critical rationalism, humanist blog, which is mainly, but by no means exclusively, about home educating in the UK.
This could be a good resource. However I am a bit concerned that the Hall of Shame contains names who have not received votes. Surely a 0 is awaiting info and is neutral until someone speaks out. Assuming they should be part of the hall of shame until proved innocent sounds much like what has been done to those of us who EHE and I think we should be more careful of using such tactics.
I agree. For example, I have heard good things of Sue Bates of Glos. Am hoping that more votes will sort this problem out, but unless it does, will have to mail the site, and ask about this.
I agree there needs to be a little more care over the hall of shame; maybe some minimum number of negative votes to qualify, although that's by no means perfect, even with identity such as an email address.Nevertheless, a great idea; after all, if the LAs have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
I also think that the site should check whether the person has provided insurance documents, health and safety assessments, an up to date CRB check, and whether the LA has paid the HEing parent for the time that they take up. I will be wasting a lot of my time that I would otherwise be using in paid employment or HEing my children, dealing with LA staff, so they can cough up to cover the cost of my lost hours of work. A private medical consultant friend of ours who HEs will be asking £120 for 30 mins. He has quite a number of children, so am guessing this could be an expensive exercise for the LA.
Point taken re: hall of shame. It was a quirk of the code rather than intentional. Rating system has been completely rewritten now and staff with no votes are excluded from the rating calculations. Any other suggestions for improvements please email me: email@example.com
Post a Comment