He has pointed out the advantages for the government brilliantly...and the dangers of removing responsibility for education from the parents. Scary, though, that he thinks the government are going to rush something dreadful through following Badman's recommendations.
I think Lord Lucas is sensible enough to realise that, when the government mess with something, then the something usually turns out to be worse for people concerned. He may be alerting MPs to the fact that he knows what is going on. I think Lord Lucas is great.
"I shall be encouraging the Government to take up the suggestion by Education Otherwise, the principal charity in this area, that there should be a permanent conclave within, I suspect, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, where discussions will take place between officials and home educators about how the regulation and support of home education should evolve. That may be the limit of it, or it may be much more extensive, depending on what the noble Baroness says to me."
I think we should be very careful not to be too harsh on our friends and clearly Lord Lucas is one. I think we can see the dangers in what is described above and we can make those clear.
Such a "conclave" could of course be created to protect Home Ed families from ultra vires LA practice and ensure they keep within the law.
We need to think lateraly to protect ourselves and we need all the friends we can get hold of.
Isn't is unrealistic expect them all to think exactly as we do or see all the dangers we do but we can tell them how we feel while expressing gratitude for the support in no uncertain terms.
While I take your point that we need all the friends we can get, I'm afraid I cannot go along with them putting bridles and reins on us. What they suggest is not only against the law, it is totally unnecessary and absolutely abhorrent. EO itself has not inspired me with confidence as to its own aims, and Lucas has been to meetings with EO and Badman. Nor is EO the only representative of home educators. In fact, quite a few home educators would be appalled at having any truck with a suggestion of EO's (or a small group of people purporting to represent EO members).
Quote: "...where discussions will take place between officials and home educators about how the regulation and support of home education should evolve..." How it should evolve? Should we participate in our own enslavement and that of our children then? I think not.
The fact is that regulation and support (which is merely a tag for something worse than that which the word should mean) is not only unnecessary but is an ugly and vile intrusion into home educators' lives and those of their long-suffering children. School children are not protected from the basest urges of other human beings in school and that fact leads me to believe that Paolo Freire is right and we are being subjected to oppression NOT safeguarding of children and NOT support. The whole review is sinister and ill-conceived. The whole review is hopelessly flawed and absolutely immoral. How can I co-operate with anyone, be he Lord or commoner, who goes along with the obscenity that is the home education review?
Yeah I was a bit disappointed that he thinks the EO quango idea is a good one, BUT he has called the government out on any sneaky moves they're got in mind and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about there.
I hate to disagree with you wise souls, but we cannot let them get away with any of this guff. Thin end of the wedge and all that...
If I were wanting to convert a group, I'd offer them a nice sympathetic person who seems to understand and asks them just to please accept a bit in the mouth (not attached to anything of course) at first. Then I'd talk them into a little more constraint until eventually - voila - they were completely broken.
Someone speaking sweetly to you is always more palatable than someone shouting abuse at you.
9 comments:
He has pointed out the advantages for the government brilliantly...and the dangers of removing responsibility for education from the parents. Scary, though, that he thinks the government are going to rush something dreadful through following Badman's recommendations.
D
I think Lord Lucas is sensible enough to realise that, when the government mess with something, then the something usually turns out to be worse for people concerned. He may be alerting MPs to the fact that he knows what is going on. I think Lord Lucas is great.
Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com
Cancel that comment. I have read the rest of his address in Parliament.
Shameful.
Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com
Shameful?
Why?
Have I missed something?
Diane I guess you are referring to this:
"I shall be encouraging the Government to take up the suggestion by Education Otherwise, the principal charity in this area, that there should be a permanent conclave within, I suspect, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, where discussions will take place between officials and home educators about how the regulation and support of home education should evolve. That may be the limit of it, or it may be much more extensive, depending on what the noble Baroness says to me."
I think we should be very careful not to be too harsh on our friends and clearly Lord Lucas is one. I think we can see the dangers in what is described above and we can make those clear.
Such a "conclave" could of course be created to protect Home Ed families from ultra vires LA practice and ensure they keep within the law.
We need to think lateraly to protect ourselves and we need all the friends we can get hold of.
Isn't is unrealistic expect them all to think exactly as we do or see all the dangers we do but we can tell them how we feel while expressing gratitude for the support in no uncertain terms.
Elizabeth,
While I take your point that we need all the friends we can get, I'm afraid I cannot go along with them putting bridles and reins on us. What they suggest is not only against the law, it is totally unnecessary and absolutely abhorrent. EO itself has not inspired me with confidence as to its own aims, and Lucas has been to meetings with EO and Badman. Nor is EO the only representative of home educators. In fact, quite a few home educators would be appalled at having any truck with a suggestion of EO's (or a small group of people purporting to represent EO members).
Quote: "...where discussions will take place between officials and home educators about how the regulation and support of home education should evolve..." How it should evolve? Should we participate in our own enslavement and that of our children then? I think not.
The fact is that regulation and support (which is merely a tag for something worse than that which the word should mean) is not only unnecessary but is an ugly and vile intrusion into home educators' lives and those of their long-suffering children. School children are not protected from the basest urges of other human beings in school and that fact leads me to believe that Paolo Freire is right and we are being subjected to oppression NOT safeguarding of children and NOT support. The whole review is sinister and ill-conceived. The whole review is hopelessly flawed and absolutely immoral. How can I co-operate with anyone, be he Lord or commoner, who goes along with the obscenity that is the home education review?
Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com
Diane
I agree with much of what you say, certainly about the bridles and reins! I love your metaphors.
Preaching a bit more to the almost converted is so much easier than turning the views of those who just don't get it.
Lord Lucas seems very supportive of HE and so if we need to explain a bit more then that's worth doing.
I can see that the most straightforward way for him to support us is to work with EO the "traditional" Home Ed support group.
Though I agree with your concerns about how representative they are.
He has spotted what the Gov are up to and is raising it as best he can.
Elizabeth
Yeah I was a bit disappointed that he thinks the EO quango idea is a good one, BUT he has called the government out on any sneaky moves they're got in mind and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about there.
I hate to disagree with you wise souls, but we cannot let them get away with any of this guff. Thin end of the wedge and all that...
If I were wanting to convert a group, I'd offer them a nice sympathetic person who seems to understand and asks them just to please accept a bit in the mouth (not attached to anything of course) at first. Then I'd talk them into a little more constraint until eventually - voila - they were completely broken.
Someone speaking sweetly to you is always more palatable than someone shouting abuse at you.
I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, of course.
Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com
Post a Comment