This seemed to be the conclusion of those on the ground and actually in the know in this edition of Panorama, which once again features the admirable Terri Dowty of ARCH, along with Dr. Eileen Munro.
Wouldn't it have helped not to have spent all that money and wasted all those man hours on all these databases? You have to wonder, particularly when you also factor in all the extra trouble the databases cause with the perpetual data leakage. (See here for another example.)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Outstanding Talent = Application
Presumably then, school is an impediment to a world-class degree of success. Interest-driven home education, otoh, would provide plenty of opportunities.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Steiner or Home Education?
...a journalist in the Guardian wonders. The answer of course is that it depends on the child although all the adults I know who were Steiner educated either didn't like it much or simply loathed it and got next to nothing out of it.
And he shouldn't kid himself: plenty of the original Steiner theory, the epistemology, the ethics, the ontology are all completely bats, and many Steiner schools perpetuate the foolishness to this day.
He certainly kids himself on the matter of coerciveness of Steiner schools.
"The children are free to play without their natural curiosity or imagination being stifled by numeracy or literacy lessons. "
OK, so Steiner isn't prescriptive in exactly the same way as a state school but it is nonetheless still highly prescriptive, potentially hugely restrictive and stifling to curiously and imagination, eg: a child is not enabled to read before the age of 7, he won't be aren't allowed to watch MythBusters because he won't be allowed a TV at home. He won't be allowed to listen to music in the car on the way home because this stifles what would otherwise apparently be a far more valuable conversation. He'll be compelled to wear a hat on prescribed occasions because otherwise a child's spirit might wiggle out... or something equally batty. He won't be allowed to draw Buzz Lightyear with a fine pen when he should be drawing little angels with chunky crayons.
Ho hum. Why waste your time, I'd say.
And he shouldn't kid himself: plenty of the original Steiner theory, the epistemology, the ethics, the ontology are all completely bats, and many Steiner schools perpetuate the foolishness to this day.
He certainly kids himself on the matter of coerciveness of Steiner schools.
"The children are free to play without their natural curiosity or imagination being stifled by numeracy or literacy lessons. "
OK, so Steiner isn't prescriptive in exactly the same way as a state school but it is nonetheless still highly prescriptive, potentially hugely restrictive and stifling to curiously and imagination, eg: a child is not enabled to read before the age of 7, he won't be aren't allowed to watch MythBusters because he won't be allowed a TV at home. He won't be allowed to listen to music in the car on the way home because this stifles what would otherwise apparently be a far more valuable conversation. He'll be compelled to wear a hat on prescribed occasions because otherwise a child's spirit might wiggle out... or something equally batty. He won't be allowed to draw Buzz Lightyear with a fine pen when he should be drawing little angels with chunky crayons.
Ho hum. Why waste your time, I'd say.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Lord Kirkwood on JSA
Wow, finally someone understands just how litigious home educators are likely to become:
From Lord Kirkwood, (column GC35)
"In terms of home education, the department is heading straight for a judicial review. Home education used to be a lifestyle choice by people with a kind of hippy way of life. It is not any more. It is worrying that the department does not know how many people this measure will apply to, but I would put money on the fact that the provisions in the regulations will be challenged in the courts by those who home educate. I would support them in doing that because someone needs to test the fairness of the regulations as they currently stand."
From Lord Kirkwood, (column GC35)
"In terms of home education, the department is heading straight for a judicial review. Home education used to be a lifestyle choice by people with a kind of hippy way of life. It is not any more. It is worrying that the department does not know how many people this measure will apply to, but I would put money on the fact that the provisions in the regulations will be challenged in the courts by those who home educate. I would support them in doing that because someone needs to test the fairness of the regulations as they currently stand."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
What is Exploitation?
Who exploits whom? ...a lecture by Professor Hoppe via the Oxford Libertarian Society.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Safeguarding Reforms Not Working
...from the Guardian:
"Lynne Featherstone, the local MP, said Baby P had fallen through "safety net after safety net. The Children's Act was borne out of tragedy in Haringey after the death of Victoria Climbié,'' she said. "Yet eight years after her death the law created to stop this happening again has failed to prevent a similar tragedy in the same borough. We must therefore have a fully independent investigation by the children's commissioner into what went so terribly wrong.""
Isn't it simply the case that with parents as appalling as this, nothing will prevent this terrible situation? 60 + visits from health and social services and they still didn't stop it.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Anyone Read Any More...
..of this? The first few pages look intriguingly spot on but am not sure whether the rest will be worth shelling out for.
Irdial
...on the latest NuLabour spin on ID cards. Phew, that's cathartic.
This story was also rather cheering.
This story was also rather cheering.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Proposed Welfare Reforms Challenged
From the Guardian:
'On the one hand the government is saying it wants parents to stop their children becoming vandals, on the other it is saying to lone parents "go out to work". It has got to resolve that,' Rooney said.
'On the one hand the government is saying it wants parents to stop their children becoming vandals, on the other it is saying to lone parents "go out to work". It has got to resolve that,' Rooney said.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
It isn't just Home Educators...
who think that the "Every Child Matters" agenda is worthy of serious critique. Dr. David Hoyle expresses many similar concerns, eg:
"A further set of questions surround the extent to which the processes and procedures associated with the Every Child Matters agenda seriously invade and undermine the rights of children to privacy set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The concern with 'joined-up services', monitoring the behaviours of children and young people, and to the sharing of information has led to both to the construction of databases that often unknown to them, contain intimate material on a scale that has been deemed disproportionate by the Information Commissioner; and to the ability of a wide range of people to access that information. In addition, it has drawn a range of practitioners (including many informal educators) into the formal surveillance process. There has been a fundamental cost to this. Children and young people are being denied spaces to explore feelings, experiences and worries away from the gaze of the state. A visit by a child or young person to a third sector advice agency, for example, to talk about sexual activity can quickly trigger police intervention. The loss of this space is very significant and the Office of the Information Commissioner has found that children themselves were concerned about invasions of their privacy, and that they would be reluctant to use 'sensitive services' – and may turn away from ‘official’ agencies and rely more heavily on other sources of help and information (Hilton & Mills, 2006)."
"A further set of questions surround the extent to which the processes and procedures associated with the Every Child Matters agenda seriously invade and undermine the rights of children to privacy set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The concern with 'joined-up services', monitoring the behaviours of children and young people, and to the sharing of information has led to both to the construction of databases that often unknown to them, contain intimate material on a scale that has been deemed disproportionate by the Information Commissioner; and to the ability of a wide range of people to access that information. In addition, it has drawn a range of practitioners (including many informal educators) into the formal surveillance process. There has been a fundamental cost to this. Children and young people are being denied spaces to explore feelings, experiences and worries away from the gaze of the state. A visit by a child or young person to a third sector advice agency, for example, to talk about sexual activity can quickly trigger police intervention. The loss of this space is very significant and the Office of the Information Commissioner has found that children themselves were concerned about invasions of their privacy, and that they would be reluctant to use 'sensitive services' – and may turn away from ‘official’ agencies and rely more heavily on other sources of help and information (Hilton & Mills, 2006)."
Lone Parent Home Educators' Benefits Update
From the second page of the report on the Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee (Thursday 30th October 2008), Kitty Ussher, the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions:
"The Conservative and the Liberal Democrat spokespeople rightly raised the issue of home educators. That gives me an opportunity to clarify our views in that regard, which is important. We completely respect the right of parents to home educate their children; however, we do not pay for them to do so. They carry on receiving income support if they wish to home educate their children. When I say that we accept the right of parents to home educate their children, that is as long as the local authorities consider the education to be suitable. That was tested through the courts; the case was Phillips v. Brown in 1980. If the education is not suitable, the local authority has the power to issue a school attendance order, but none of that is relevant in this case. I am simply clarifying that we are not attempting to make it harder for lone parents to home educate their children if that is what they seek to do and the provision is suitable.
"The Conservative and the Liberal Democrat spokespeople rightly raised the issue of home educators. That gives me an opportunity to clarify our views in that regard, which is important. We completely respect the right of parents to home educate their children; however, we do not pay for them to do so. They carry on receiving income support if they wish to home educate their children. When I say that we accept the right of parents to home educate their children, that is as long as the local authorities consider the education to be suitable. That was tested through the courts; the case was Phillips v. Brown in 1980. If the education is not suitable, the local authority has the power to issue a school attendance order, but none of that is relevant in this case. I am simply clarifying that we are not attempting to make it harder for lone parents to home educate their children if that is what they seek to do and the provision is suitable.
I see no reason why a parent of a child over seven cannot successfully home educate their child and work part time. It is not common sense to presume that just because a child is at home, they are being educated all the time; nor should one presume that just because a child is home educated, they are unable to be cared for or appropriately looked after in child care when they are not in their lessons at home. That is why the provision applies to home educators.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is something of an anomaly, albeit perhaps an understandable one, that individuals can receive income support when they are working—namely, home educating? If they are taking the home education of their children seriously, that is work, yet they are also drawing income support.
Kitty Ussher: Perhaps the logical conclusion to the direction that the hon. Member for Hertsmere is going in is that someone should be paying the parent to home educate their child. We do not think that appropriate, although we recognise the right of people to home educate their children. An important point, however, is that at the moment appropriate child care may not be available for the hours of the day when home educators seek it in order to be able to take the work that is available. We consider that there will be a feedback loop involving Jobcentre Plus, the child care partnership managers and the local authorities to ensure that suitable child care is available for everyone seeking work, including home educators. I hope that that will lead to local authorities considering what atypical hours of child care they might be able to provide.
Jenny Willott: Will the Minister clarify whether Jobcentre Plus advisers will be given the discretion to take into account the fact that a parent is home educating a child? When considering what would be a reasonable job for them to take, will advisers be able to take into account not just child care issues, but the fact that parents are spending time home educating?
Kitty Ussher: Yes, but advisers will also take into account the fact that home educators have more flexibility in the hours in which they educate their children. However, there is no attempt for Jobcentre Plus advisers to say to people that, because they have to work, they cannot home educate. That is absolutely not the intention of what we are doing. None the less, home educators obviously have some flexibility in the hours that they are teaching compared to other hours when the children are at home and that will be taken into account when a Jobcentre Plus adviser considers the jobs that are available and the working hours for those jobs."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Integrated Children's System
..aka the database for social work cases has already been dubbed not "fit for purpose". Now it is becoming evident that the judiciary agree.
Presumably this won't stop the DCSF from ploughing on with ContactPoint, which will either be accurate but incredibly costly to maintain with the pernickety data input that it will require, or somewhat cheaper but riddled with misinformation.
Presumably this won't stop the DCSF from ploughing on with ContactPoint, which will either be accurate but incredibly costly to maintain with the pernickety data input that it will require, or somewhat cheaper but riddled with misinformation.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Great News for Runners
...in the New Scientist. Unfortunately you have to sub to get the full gist, but the article was based upon research reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Apparently men who run at least 4 hours a week consume 54% more fuel at rest than those men who don't run. At rest, runners will be burning extra fuel as heat. And if I'm right to make this link, it seems that wasting energy like this also means you are likely to live longer.
Altogether it was quite enough to get me jumping out of a nice hot bath, and out into the freezing cold to go for a jog. Now I'm off to slob out and eat pizza.
Apparently men who run at least 4 hours a week consume 54% more fuel at rest than those men who don't run. At rest, runners will be burning extra fuel as heat. And if I'm right to make this link, it seems that wasting energy like this also means you are likely to live longer.
Altogether it was quite enough to get me jumping out of a nice hot bath, and out into the freezing cold to go for a jog. Now I'm off to slob out and eat pizza.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)