Normally not very political but...

[sheas]

I am horrified by the fact that if Labour get back into power they are desperate to take control of home ed children. How can they possibly force a happily and well home educated child into school??? I don't know what I would do if someone was trying to force my DS to attend the local thug academy school. Don't they realise that not all children are suitable for battery farming style schooling and respond better to free-range schooling?

[SDeuchars]

Are you confusing them with people who care about something other than their own need to control, sheas?

[ommmward]

butterflyeffect

how about hoping for a very weak conservative government with a sufficiently strong lib dem presence that they are the opposition? That would do it for me.

Oh, and Ed Balls doing a Portillo. I have been visualizing that so hard I'm getting pressure headaches...

[sheas]

Butterfly I am not saying all schools are bad, absolutely not, what I am balking at is not having the freedom to chose how my child is educated.
SDeuchars Sorry if I am being thick but what do you mean??

[Ewe]

They aren't proposing forcing them into schools are they? Just compulsory registration for home educating parents.

[ommmward]

Nope. They weren't proposing to force all HEed children into school. They were only proposing to force back into school HEed children who do not fit a not-clearly-defined LA staffer's idea of what a home educating family should look like, or of what "education" should look like.

In order to get registered, one would have to submit annual plans in advance, on which one would be measured at the end of the year. Completely incompatible with child-led flexible (and autonomous) education. Oh, and submit to compulsory visits, including interviews alone with our children at the LA staffer's discretion. Even if that would severely traumatise children with SEN or who had been bullied by teachers in the past etc etc

catch 22 - if we refused to register because protecting our children from these incursions was so important, the courts would be instructed to issue a school attendance order REGARDLESS OF THE QUALITY OF THE EDUCATION WE WERE PROVIDING.

It was a horrible horrible bill, Ewe.

[sheas]

Ewe It is my understanding that they they want to have the power to force a child into school if they think the child isn't getting a 'suitable' education, now I am sure there are perfectly happy and well educated children out there that a labour Government would consider 'not suitably educated'. I am sure there are cases that do merit intervention but in my personal experience, home ed children are well rounded individuals who are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to learn outside the formal constrictions of school.

[Ewe]

Hadn't read the specifics, only the spin overview, interesting to know.

It seems to be one of those bills which are unnecessary and restrictive for the majority in an attempt to protect a very small proportion of children.

Is there a middle ground that could keep everyone happy? I can't really think of one.

[ommmward]

The existing legislation is already fine.

You might be interested in this little time line...

January 2009: massively hasty review into Elective HE commissioned by Balls from Graham Badman (whose Baby P review has just this last week or so turned up as part of Sharon Shoesmith's claim that she was made the fall guy in the Haringay scandal: guardian article, with the explicit brief of looking at child protection concerns

Home Ed "more likely to link with child abuse" said all the newspapers.

June: the report comes out. It recommends massive draconian changes to the law, but with no evidence. Very odd. Home Edders wheel into action, and our pressure leads to a commons select committee inquiry, which slammed Badman's home ed report. The government continues with the proposed legislation anyway, but HEers efforts make it so visible it has to get properly debated and runs out of time.

It's all so inexplicable until you realise the missing link:

The Khyra not-home-educated-but-illegally-kept-out-of-school Ishaq trial was scheduled for June 2009. It was meant to hit the papers at the same time as Badman's report. The DCSF were supposed to be able to say "it's all under control, it's all because LAs don't have enough powers to act, looked, we've commissioned a report, we've drafted legisl;ation, nothing like this Will Ever Happen Again and Lessons Have Been Learned". Only the trial got delayed soon after starting - I don't remember why - jury illness or something? - and the timing all went to pot. Instead of the Badman report coming out at the same time as the trial ending, Home Edders had six months to pull the report to the tiny pieces it deserved to be pulled into. By the time the Khyra Ishaq trial ended, the report was discredited, hundreds of MPs had been briefed by HEers, also many Lords, and the outcome of teh Ishaq trial was instead to point the finger of blame firmly at Birmingham Childrens Services (as well as at her evil parent/step parent, obviously).

I believe the whole thing was an attempted smokescreen for the DCSF to avoid another Haringay, which they'd tried to cover up by scapegoating Sharon Shoesmith (and that cover up is now unravelling as well). It failed, largely because of the dumb luck that the Ishaq trial got delayed from June 2009, which was when the DCSF propaganda was all timed for.

I don't think any of this is conspiracy theory or tin hattery. It's on record that Badman wrote a dodgy report after Haringay. It looks very much as if he was called in to do the same job this time.

And the fact that this sort of dodgy dealing is going on is a very clear indication to me that Ed Balls must NEVER hold high office again. And if that means voting tactically to get as many labour MPs out on 6 May, that's what it means. Sorry for any good men and true who get voted out in the process. This isn't like tory affairs-with-call-girls type sleaze. This is truly truly disgusting sleaze, aimed at getting failing Childrens Services departments off the hooks on which they deserve to be impaled.

climbs off soapbox

[nettie]

My greatest wishes for election night is Ed Balls having a Portillo moment.

[Marjoriew]

.............or taking a long walk off a short pier!

[robberbutton]

What's the best way to vote for home education?

I'm swaying more lib dem than Tory, but if I do vote yellow does that just transfer more power to Brown / increase the likelihood of a hung parliament?

This issue has meant I'm properly interested in a general election result for the first time ever, which is exciting, but want to get it right!

Thanks

[catbus]

I came across this today;
homeeducationschool.com/general-election-uk-who-should-home-educators-vote
Looks like Lib Dems aren't that much more helpful..

[ommmward]

We just had a long conversation about it here.

You need to vote for whoever will get labour out in your constituency. Because of the danger of a lib dem/labour coalition, if it's a lib dem constituency, you need to vote for whoever will get the lib dem out (except if it's a lib dem/labour marginal). If it's a safe tory constituency, you can vote with your conscience...

LibDems will bring in registration and monitoring. They might sugar the pill more than dear Ed planned to, but we'd get a very similar end result.

THe Conservatives would do something but they are instinctively less authoritarian, and they have got into the habit of listening to us. Plus, they have Graham Stuart and Lord Lucas in their ranks, who have built up a good relationship with many HEers. I think we are much safer with them than with either of the other two main parties.

UKIP have a good Home Ed policy, unsurprisingly since they are at the libertarian end of the spectrum. So do the BNP actually, and bizarrely (what with the rest of their manifesto being utterly totalitarian). The greens don't really know what they think afaik.

[anastaisia]

I agree we should vote (and support to other people) whoever is most likely to beat Labour to the seat.

But I don't think monitoring is any more certain with the Lib Dems than with Tories.

Apparently Lib Dems make policy at their conferences. And vote on them there. So if you do want to vote Lib Dem you need to be speaking to the PPC and educating them about why the current law is adaquate and talking about alternatives to changing the law - I've been speaking to mine about how our LA (Lib Dem council) is with the law (not bad) and why it works when they do stick to the law and how all LAs ought to be sticking to it and then we could see what the practice is in the places things go wrong.

Actually, I think we should be doing this with all of them - but especially tory and lib dems.

But then I live in a Labour 1st, Lib Dem 2nd, Tories way way way back seat. Thought of as Labour safe seat but am hoping it won't be this time!

[robberbutton]

Thanks for the advice. Will have to do some research as think my seat is pretty much up for grabs (dodgy labour mp not running again after expenses scandal).

Also trying to persuade people to vote at all, I know quite a few who aren't planning to

[anastaisia]

Honestly, if I lived in an up for grabs seat I don't know which way I'd vote. My principles would tell me Lib Dem, but there are concerns about them getting votes in constituencies were the Tories might otherwise get the seat.

What you could do is write to all your PPCs asking them to clarify their party's stance on home ed for you - and ask them what position they would take if the legislation was to be brought back. Make sure they know its an issue for you now and try to get some sort of committment about what they would actually do in that situation. You might want to do a really basic message to send to all of them - or you could tailor it to their party or things you know they have an interest in.

Has the added bonus of being able to tell the people you know who aren't voting that you got a great reply off X and they've been really helpful and wouldn't it be great if they got elected. A personal touch instead of suggusting voting for the party

[robberbutton]

That's great, I will do that. Liked the look of the Tory candidate but contacted him a few days ago via his website with zilch response

Might give him the benefit of the doubt and write to all of them. They can't be any worse than the last guy- I wrote to him once using proper pen and paper and everything, with no reply. Shocking!

Thanks