Friday, September 18, 2009

Graham Badman now requesting further evidence

Well, if that isn't embarrassing, I don't know what is! First he writes a report which makes recommendations on the evidence of a very small self-selecting sample which in all probability contained a high proportion of statistical outliers, the reasons for which were not investigated.

Then home educators set about checking out his stats and find them to be woefully researched and misrepresented both in the review itself and in the media. For example, freedom of information responses from all the LAs reveal that home educated children are actually less than a third less likely to suffer abuse than children in the rest of the population.

Home educators start preparing their submissions for the Children, Schools and Families' Select Committee Inquiry, (NB: responses due in by Tuesday 22nd September, at noon, in four days from now) to include criticism and correction of Mr Badman's evidence along with explanations of how his conclusions could best be described as the poorly targeted use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A universal screen of tens of thousands of well-functioning families that will not reliably unearth abuse will not be a popular move in these days of news that cuts will have to be made in patently useful services such as the NHS and when social work departments are already horrendously under-resourced and over-loaded.

Mr Badman seems to have realised that his figures might need some further examination, and pleads for evidence to support his forgone conclusions. Is that really a good way to make the case for a monumental change in legislation involving massive appropriation of parental rights and intrusion by the state into family lives?

Other related blog posts:
Corvidae Corner
Making it Up
Our Story So Far
Renegade Parent
Patch of Puddles
Home Ed Forums


Anonymous said...

To answer your question - no, it is NO way to make policy.

However, Badman has done us a favour by confessing that he has not provided any evidence which would stand up to scrutiny. He has inadvertently confessed to his crime (while compounding it by asking the pals in local authorities to come up with more goodies).


Elizabeth said...

I've linked this on my blog!

You would think his own admission of not having the right evidence would be enough to have this report thrown in the bin!

Maire said...

In a state of shock, but hope it is a good thing!

John said...

"I've come to my conclusions, now will somebody please support them?"

A first class example of a request for policy based evidence.

Ronnie said...

This may interest you:

This is a Commons select committee; at this stage questions are being asked about whether the intake of kids with Special Educational Needs by the English "Academies" is at an appropriate level, (q176).

After replies by other witnesses, Graham Badman interjects, :
"When you have a strong partnership between schools, authorities should not be afraid to use their powers of direction. We can direct admissions where there are special educational needs or looked-after children, and I do. That applies to Academies as well."

A Committee member corrects him twice.

Mr Badman's response at this point is most interesting, remember , this is in front of a Commons Select Committee.

He does not continue to maintain his position.
He doesn't admit that he is wrong.

Instead he says, "Well, please do not tell them in that case."

Was it said earnestly?
Was this done with a knowing wink?

What we can surmise is that by refusing to argue the point, Mr Badman, has tacitly admitted that he was wrong.

It would be possible at this juncture for Mr Badman to have said, "I'm sorry, I have made a mistake, on my return to my desk I will inform my subordinates and the Academies in my county of my error." He does not.

Instead he asks the others to join him in his subterfuge.
The end of achieving the appropriate intake into the Academies of the "correct" number of SEN pupils, as defined by Mr Badman, is given precedence over the means; which is asking other parties to break the law; in front of a Commons Select Committee.

If it was said in earnest, what can we conclude?
That Mr Badman sees himself as above the law?
That he has been careless in revealing this attitude in front of a Select Committee?

If it was said jokingly, what can we conclude?
That Mr Badman is accustomed to riding roughshod over the law in the privacy of the corridors of power and has revealed this by letting his guard slip and being unable to bring himself to admit to an error in front of a colleague?

What would such a character do in a hypothetical situation where he was looking to marshal evidence in support of a particular argument?

Carlotta said...

Thank you for this, Ronnie. I agree that it doesn't look good for him whether he said it in earnest or in jest. A failure to deal honestly with people and to seek to represent the truth should rule someone out as a researcher for policy change, I would have thought.

yoli said...

nice post