For to be free is not to merely cast off one's chains,
but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
- Nelson Mandela -

Friday, June 19, 2009

B&B - Cheating and lying

I bet my last penny that if the allegations of child abuse in home education could have been substantiated in any way, it would have been not only on the first page of the report, it would also have been blown out of all proportions in the national media.

But the review didn't find any such evidence! **edit** See my next post with the quote from the report where Badman confirms the lack of evidence**** There is only a mention of the opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions of NSPCC, NASWE and LSCB in Chapter 8 [Safeguarding].
Still, that doesn't stop Ed Balls and Baroness Morgan to blatantly lie to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Here's what I found today: [opens website from which the following documents can be downloaded]

**edit** As the site apparently is not always accessible, I will copy the Statement of Ed Balls at the end of this post****

The Written Ministerial Statement (House of Commons), by Ed Balls - and
The Written Ministerial Statement (House of Lords), by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.

The documents are similar, only the second one has an introduction by our dear Baroness Morgan.

The venom is in the tail.
I quote:

"The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations."

And here again, as with the Submission of the Church of England in my previous post, there are no proper references given in Mr Badman's report. Sloppy, to say the least. No college teacher or professor would accept - or grade favourably - this report if it had been done by a student. Yet Ed Balls not only accepts it, but is trying to use it as a foundation for policy and new legislation.

Leading by example is one of the main principles in teaching, I would say.
How can the government even begin to expect me to trust them with anything, let alone the wellbeing, health, safety and - for crying out loud - the education of my children, if the example they're setting is one of low quality, cheating and lying?

Graham Badman and Ed Balls, sorry (well, not really), but both of you failed.

Miserably.

**edit: added - Written Ministerial Statement (House of Commons) by Ed Balls**

DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES


Review of Elective Home Education in England


The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls):

On 19 January 2009 I asked Graham Badman to carry out a review of elective home education in England. The terms of reference for the review emphasised the government's recognition of parents' well established right to educate their children at home. They also set out our commitments to keeping home educated children safe, and ensuring that they receive a suitable education. I am grateful to Graham Badman and the review team for conducting a thorough review which carefully considered extensive evidence provided by home educators; local authorities (LAs); and representatives from a wide range of organisations and individuals working with children and parents involved in home education.

The terms of reference commissioned Graham Badman to investigate the barriers to LAs and other public agencies in carrying out their safeguarding responsibilities; whether LAs were providing effective and appropriate support; and whether there was evidence of home education being used to cover child abuse. From this evidence, he was asked to identify whether any changes were needed to the current regime of monitoring home education.

The review makes a compelling case for substantial changes to the arrangements for supporting and monitoring home education. It recognises the wide range of philosophical and practical reasons that lie behind parents' decisions to home educate. It acknowledges that in some cases home educated children have been withdrawn from school under a range of difficult circumstances: this is reflected in the relatively high proportion of children with special educational needs who are home educated, and other cases where children have been bullied of had other experiences that leave them unable to attend school. These children and families need support from their local authorities in a way that enables them to access appropriate advice and guidance, receive specialist services, and use extended school provision and facilities such as leisure centres and libraries. The review argues for fresh thinking and further consultation with children, their families, local authorities and others involved in home education to identify ways to commission services for this very diverse sector in order to support the best possible outcomes for the children concerned.

The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations. It sets out specific steps that should be taken to address these risks as well as improving the monitoring of the education provided: a compulsory registration scheme; a discretion to local authorities to prohibit home education where there are safeguarding concerns; and the right for LA representatives to interview home educated children to establish whether they are safe and receiving a suitable education. I am today launching a public consultation on these proposals so that they can be introduced to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.

Copies of the review and our initial response have been placed in the House Libraries.

9 comments:

Maire said...

They most certainly did, both breathtakingly badly.

And you are so right if they could have found it we would certainly know about it by now.

Jax said...

He's referring to the small number of serious case reviews where home education was a feature - I think it is utterly wrong that those are not quoted at least in an appendix so that we can review them.

Jax said...

and even if there were 5 or so SCRs where home education featured, let's have a look at how many involved social work failures - so presumably we should get rid of all social workers following his reasoning?

Mieke said...

Yes, Jax, you're right, that's what it is. But it's all very vague, isn't it? Both dh and I have been searching for a good few hours and nowhere does it get any more specific than that "a small number of serious case reviews where home education was a feature". For all we know the feature might be that it was reported by a home educator.
Nah, it just smacks of very manipulative quoting. Why are some excerpts and quotes referenced and others not?
Even if they're not deliberately lying and manipulating, the credibility of this report wouldn't even get Badman a job as a journalist for the Daily Mail.

Ruth said...

The website the documents are on is down now too:(

Mieke said...

You don't say! What coincidental luck that I've got the files on harddisk... and printed. If it's still down tomorrow I'll copy them on here.

Anonymous said...

You've forgotten thieving.

Danae
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com

Mieke said...

I limited myself in the use of negative words, or this post would have been at least twice as long ;).

Elaine said...

There is a FOI request that somebody has put in asking for Badmans sources .
the quote you mention
'"The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations."
Is it does anybody know possible to put an FOI in asking for the source of this information and documentary evidence of ??