Tuesday, January 30, 2007

One Very Big Reason to be Cross

If we thought we could sit back and relax for a bit, what with the consultation on "light touch changes to the monitoring of home educators" aka "an Examination of the Statutory Framework for Home Education" being delayed, I suspect we should think again. The reason? Well, some of us had, before yesterday, allowed ourselves to hope that the delay may have had at least something to do with the wide response from individual home educators detailing their objections to the possible proposals in the consultation, but it seems, (OK predictably, but nonetheless still SHAMEFULLY), that the DfES are not going to take such responses seriously.

This because we heard yesterday from Adrian Thompson of the DfES, that the DfES regard local authorities, Home Education Advisory Service, Education Otherwise and another organisation that isn't even a home ed org at all, ie: the Family Education Trust as the stakeholders in this affair. Nothing about the real stakeholders here at all, ie: home educating families.

Complaints about failure to observe Cabinet Office Guidelines on how to conduct consultations are being sent from at least one organisation. Might not hurt to write your own and cc it to the Cabinet Office, the DfES, their legal department, your MP, you name it.


Rachel Reed said...

Excuse my ignorance, but who/what are the Family Educatio Trust? Why on earth would they only think this group is the oly stakeholder?


Carlotta said...

Don't blame you for not knowing! I hadn't until a few hours ago. Have added a link. It rather looks as if they may have chosen to focus upon one of their other titles in order to get included as stakeholders in this consultation.

Anonymous said...

I hadn't heard of them either. What I briefly looked at yesterday was pretty good stuff - respect for parents - but they are certainly not *stakeholders* IMO.

Anonymous said...

This Family Education Trust looks dangerous to me. They apparently think parents need to have
"official disapproval of effective methods of discipline" removed. This sounds like a return to beating children to get them to behave.

They are right that parents need more control, but not to infringe the rights of their children!

Rachel Reed said...

They look ok (had a quick look), but since having my child, I have completely decided that smacking children is wrong, however much he winds me up!

So, I agree they could be dodgy.

Why on earth do they think that this organisation are stakeholders? It's beyond belief really.

Mumble mumble, Taxpayers money being wasted on people who don't know what they are doing...etc etc

Dani said...

Family and Youth Concern (aka Family Education Trust) are old enemies of mine - they were prime movers behind Section 28, which sought to prohibit "teaching ... of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". Some families are definitely more worthy of respect than others, from their point of view.

Carlotta said...


Thanks for filling us in. Do you think the Cabinet Office should be told about this separately, in the form of another complaint about how this consultation is being undertaken?

Carlotta said...

Particularly given the latest spat with the Catholic church?

Anonymous said...

Eugh, yack :-( Thanks for pointing that out Dani.