Only One Way

When you're looking at life on the brim
And trying to figure out if you remember how to swim
You only find out if you jump right in
That there's only one way, only one way

When the writing on the road says slow
And the people in the back seat ask which way to go
The truth is they already know
That there's only one way, only one way

CHORUS
We have to break all the rules they make
And take all the risks they say we won't take
We have to make all the trouble we can
Only one way
Only one way

And when every single sound you hear makes no sense
And your arse is sore with sitting on the fence
And the scale of the problem is larger than immense
There's only one way

And when a genocidal maniac talks about grief
And you kinda get the feeling that there's nothing underneath
But you can't believe a man would lie through such nice teeth
Only one way

CHORUS X 2
And when you're thinking that there's nothing you can do
But eat what they feed you like a monkey in the zoo
Just remember that they want you to believe that's true
And there's only one way, only one way

CHORUS X 3

No! Non! Nein!

And if those 3 aren't enough, here are 520 more ways of saying NO!

Lisa has written one of the best blog posts I think I have ever read, there is no way I could ever hope to emulate it, so I will quote a small section right from the end and urge you to bob over and read it all, let it soak in, let it rouse you, then make a stand.

"Brown, Balls, Badman, Morgan, Atkinson and every single other one of you - you have a serious fight on your hands. We are not just a vociferous minority - we are everyperson, everywhere."

Jem has also written an excellent blog on the submissions to the Select Committee - read the two blog posts pointed to here in conjunction with each other if you can't understand exactly why it is that we are all so pissed off.

Then wander over to The Ministry and be horrified at just what is happening before our very eyes to this once great country. This once strong, defiant country, the country that took on the might of the fascists so that our children and our children's children might know freedom. Not the kind of freedom that Brown nauseatingly waxed lyrical about in front of the Brandenburg Gate last night though, real, true freedom.

"Let me first say to the people of Berlin, you tore down the wall and you changed the world - the wall that for a third of a century imprisoned half a city, half a country, half a continent, half a world and because of your courage two Berlins are one, two Germanies are one, and now two Europes are one. And no one can ever again imprison a people who know what it is to be free.

This wall was torn down not by the demands of political leaders, not by dictat from on high, not by the force of military might but by the greatest force of all — the unbreakable spirit of the men and women of Berlin. You dared to dream in the darkness. You know that while force has temporary power to dominate, it can never ultimately decide. You proved that there is nothing that cannot be achieved by people inspired by the power of common purpose.

And let me thank you, the people of Berlin, for sending a message to every continent that no abuse, no crime, no injury need endure for ever.

Let me thank you, the people of Berlin for demonstrating that injustice is not "the final word on the human condition."

Dave Cameron made an interesting comment yesterday too:

"It is to their courage and their determination that we pay tribute today - not least as we remember all those who still struggle for their freedom and their rights in so many parts of the world."

Are they serious? Hypocrites the pair of them. Well, at least we can stand and say that we have the countenance of our Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader as we stand and say NO! Even MPs are starting to stand up and make a noise about the loss of our freedoms, so it's clearly not just a vociferous minority.

To end I will point back to yesterday's post about Home Educators being *secretive*. In the comments section Su made this point:

"A significant number of home educators are vociferous bloggers, eloquent writers and spirited supporters of freedom and liberty. No hiding there! We're risking our families, not just hiding behind a title, job or role. We're actually giving of ourselves, the real us.

Home educators are crawling all over the media, responding to consultations and reviews, turning up at the Houses of Parliament, writing to MPs, DCSF officials, the press, each other... and we're secretive?"

She is quite right. *They* know where I live - I respond to consultations, I submit evidence to the Select Committee, I lobby my MP via letter and in person, I travel to London to talk to the Select Committee, I appear in national and local newspapers, I blog, I twitter, I facebook, I boycott my LA in protest against the Badman Review. My name is unusual, I am all over the internet. I am not secretive, far from it. Others might be too scared to stand up and be counted, perhaps I should be too, but I cannot stand by and say and do nothing when my children's freedom is at stake. I sincerely hope others will decide that the risks of speaking out are worth taking too.

Are Home Educators *Secretive*?

Apparently this is one of our *problems*, we are too secretive.

What does *secretive* mean?

one definition says: "inclined to secrecy or reticence about divulging information"

Why would many home educators be reticent about divulging information I wonder?

Apart from the fact that we are just getting on with our lives; happily and lawfully, and the minutiae of people's everyday lives is really nothing to do with anyone else, there are a multitude of reasons for being reticent about divulging information.

I'll blog some of my thoughts, but would be grateful if others would add theirs in the comments box.

The old postcode lottery cliché. Yes this is definitely in play across the country. Some LAs are understanding and even respectful, but many are anything but. They can and do make people's lives a never ending battle over the course of many years, and so quite understandably people who live in such an LA would be quite sensible to avoid contact. I have heard some really horrible tales over the years from families who are horribly bullied by LA officials, many of these families have fled to other counties to get away from the stress they are put under by officious officials. What is so frustrating is that these cases aren't rare, and if the Badman recommendations become law, these same officious LA folk will be in seventh heaven with the legal right to lord it over families who are doing nothing wrong.

The problem is that many people who take on the HE *inspector* roles come from school backgrounds. Often they are former headteachers - just like Mr Badman. I don't know what the headteachers were like when you were at school, but the ones I knew were mainly very authoritarian, and brooked no dissent. The problem with people like this is that they take this attitude into all other areas of their work, and many treat HEing parents as recalcitrant children who must be broken to fit their mold.

As their only experience of education is the school model, they simply cannot (and often will not) understand that there are other models of education that are equally (I might say more) successful and far more sustainable than the school one. Many see it as a personal affront to a lifetime's professional position to find that unqualified parents can and do as good (or better) a job than they ever did for all their years of chasing academic qualifications.

Then there are the *inspectors* who allow personal prejudices to influence the treatment of individual families. Some don't like religious families, some don't like single parent or same sex families, some don't like coloured families, some don't like those who live in council houses, some don't like those who don't use computers, some don't like those who paint their toe nails pink. Ok, the last one was me being flippant, but you get my point. They make personal value judgements about families that can have far reaching effects. This happens even in *good* authorities, and is more likely to happen when the family loses control of the information they provide - for instance by allowing home visits.

Now that last sentence might bring out the *if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear* brigade, but just stop and think before trotting that one out. Do you have a disapproving mother in law who will find fault and criticise every little thing about your home? (Thankfully mine isn't like that, in case she's reading!) If you do then take the thought of how that feels and give it the power of a local authority employee who can bring the threat of social services to your door. Then you might be some of the way to understanding why we wouldn't want someone coming into our homes making judgements about us and the way we as a family live.

Right now i need to go and enjoy the sunshine with my children, so I will stop there and hope that others will put forward their reasoning in the comments box.

The Geezer's Got Previous Mate

No we haven't turned into a bad episode of the Sweeney.

An interesting little exchange occurs:

"Graham Badman: 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.

Q179 Paul Holmes: Surely you cannot direct admissions to Academies. You can ask them to take the children; you cannot direct them.

Graham Badman: Under the new code, they would find it very hard to refuse the admission of a looked-after child, for example.

Q180 Paul Holmes: None the less, even under the new code, you cannot direct Academies. You can ask but not direct, whereas you can direct mainstream schools.

Graham Badman: Well, please do not tell them in that case."

February 2008 - giving evidence to the Select Committee

Fast forward to October 2009 and we find Mr Badman writing to the Select Committee to apologise for providing them with incorrect information.

Hmm, is it just me, or is this providing of incorrect information becoming something of a habit? Rather like his habit of creating expensive and unnecessary schemes.

Incidentally, I wonder when Home Educators can expect their apology for all the slanderous and misleading statistics and comments Mr Badman has made. My feeling is that it will be a very snowy day in hell, but I'm happy to be mistaken.

Clutching at Straws

From an old proverb: *Drowning men will grasp at straws"

Definition: "depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something."

That's what this sorry shower have been doing don't you think? Shall we count some of the ways?

1. Call people you don't like rude names[1] in the press and before the select committee and hope that some of the mud sticks[2].

2. Fall back on tried and tested[3] methods from your past[4], and accuse people you don't like of being mentally ill[5].

3. Tell children[6] that they have to do something because you are from the government and you say so.

1. "However, there are concerns that some children are not receiving the education they need. And in some extreme cases, home education could be used as a cover for abuse. We cannot allow this to happen and are committed to doing all we can to help ensure children are safe, wherever they are educated."

2. 'Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. ''

3. "While in Buckinghamshire there were only 540 initial assessments, in Kent the number was 12,510. Even allowing for differences in their populations, parents in Kent were 10 times more likely to be investigated over child protection issues. The report argues this discrepancy may be explained by some areas disregarding the MSBP hypothesis, “whereas in others it is taken as gospel and applied with zeal”"

4. Graham Badman was until recently Managing Director of the Children, Families and Education Directorate for Kent County Council.

5."At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link."

6. JONATHAN PRIOR: I want to read you a section of annex C: “The review will look in particular at if and how far home educated children have access to the five Every Child Matters outcomes.”

PENNY JONES: Ahh, I see, okay.
GARETT ROSS: I don’t want them.
PENNY JONES: Well, want or not, I am a government official, and these five outcomes are government policy."

Some great blogs about covering these issues:

Crystal Balls for Badman

Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy?!

Graham Badman, King of Projection

Go Against the Government? Mentally Ill.

so home-educating mothers have Münchhausens by proxy badman actually asked

Now I have Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy

I'm sure there will be many more to follow.

Thanks to JD for the graphic.

Nektus and Badman

DCSF has now released the evidence submitted to the Select Committee Inquiry

This is mine

1. In a letter to the information commissioner just released under the freedom of information act,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_with_information#comment-5064

the DCSF use several examples to show why they are not releasing certain requested information to Home Educators. The first example used is the one I would particularly like to bring to your attention.

"http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=4545... &page=2&hash-Of2a77932b0633fb20f23cc27b7aOb09 The post of 13 June 23.45 suggests that Mr Badman will have a child's blood on his hands."

2. I am the creator/owner of the Facebook group in question, and was astonished to see this discussion being used in this way. This particular comment was made by a Home Educator who has been instrumental in the development of good relations between Home Educators and North Yorkshire County Council's Elective Home Education team. It was in this capacity that she was invited by NYCC to meet with Mr Badman, on two occasions, to talk to him about her experiences. Having met with Mr Badman, and having spent some not inconsiderable time telling him about her own personal experiences of removing a child from school, she was horrified when she read the report recommendations. She left a message on the group wall to the effect that if the recommendations become law, Mr Badman would at some point have a child's blood on his hands. Sally Devlin queried what was meant by this comment, and several people explained that, with the recommendations contained within the report, children who were, or had previously been, unhappy in school would no longer have the same safety net that they currently do, and that in turn could lead to more child suicides. I have used the same phrase myself in a recent blog post about the report.

http://freedomineducationunderthreat.blogspot.com/2009/09/life-line_13.html

3. Conversations on Facebook group walls are very short lived and quickly get pushed out of view. It is therefore curious that such a brief comment in a short lived conversation made it to the notice of the DCSF, as *evidence* of the danger posed to Mr Badman. Until you consider that Sally Devlin is the daughter of Graham Badman. Not once in her time on the group did she disclose her connections, but in her parting comment to the group she admits that she was there to collect information.

4. This in itself might not be of any great interest to the committee; however, further investigation reveals some rather disturbing information which potentially has a bearing on the review report.

5. In his report Mr Badman puts forward Somerset Council as an example of best practice with regard to their Home Education policies and procedures. Many Home Educators were surprised by this, as Somerset is not an authority that has historically been put forward by home educators or the DCSF as either good or bad. Indeed, a consultancy firm specialising in the training of Local Authorities in Elective Home Education law and policy, who Mr Badman met during the course of the review process, was also surprised to see Somerset put forward in this manner.

6. It came to light that Mr Badman's daughter is a SEN Case Work Officer for Somerset Council. During the course of discussions on the Facebook group (hastily deleted when she realised we knew who she was) Mrs Devlin made some quite worrying comments about the home educating clients she has had dealings with. One has to wonder how much weight was given to her opinions by her father, particularly with regard to the considerable sections of the report that deal with HE and SEN, and whether the surprising choice of Somerset as an example of best practice, had anything to do with his daughter's professional position within this authority.

7. During the review process, Home Educators have obviously been very interested in finding out what professional interests Mr Badman holds, especially given that we have been told time and again that he, and therefore his review, are *independent*. Many home educators were surprised to find that an independent review into Home Education could be carried out by a former teacher, former head of children's services, and current chair of BECTA. Whilst looking into Mr Badman's professional interests, it was discovered that he was listed as the director of an Education Management company by the name of Nektus.

8. The company information is readily available from Companies House: Nektus was first registered as a company in October 2008. The directors of the company are Mr and Mrs Badman and Mr and Mrs Devlin. Sally Devlin is listed as company secretary.

9. When the report was made public, a discussion thread was started on the Facebook group asking the question *What happens next?* Sally Devlin got involved in the discussion, and seemed quite eager to convince us that the law would change very quickly, and that we would be best just accepting it. Again, these comments were deleted by Mrs Devlin, but they were cached, and are available to view should you deem it necessary.

10. This eagerness, together with her involvement in Nektus, lead a Home Educator to put in a FOI request for all communications between Nektus and DCSF between October 2008 and June 2009.http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_with_nektus#outgoing-30153

The request was refused under sections 38 and 40 of the FOI Act.

11. What is curious about this is that in the original request, no mention was made of Mr Badman, or of any link to Home Education, and yet the response does. This suggests that the person responding to the request had information that the requester did not give. The responder appeared to know that Graham Badman had a connection to the private company Nektus. So either this is common knowledge at the DCSF or the responders have been given some particular "red flags" to watch for in FOI requests, Nektus being one. Either way, again, it raises questions. Was Nektus involved in the preparation of the Review or the Report? Was there any financial gain to be made by Mr Badman or his daughter from involvement with the review and its outcome?

12. It seems that, regardless of the truth of the allegation that "attempts have been made to vilify and harass the author of the Review of Elective Home Education," the best way to combat such "attempts" would be to tell the truth. If the interactions between the DCSF and Nektus have been completely above board, then it would seem to be in the best interest of everyone to disclose all interactions between the two entities. Not to do so merely raises the question that there might be something the either the DCSF or Nektus does not wish to be disclosed for public scrutiny. Simply complying with the FOI request would have defused the situation and eliminated any question of conflict of interest. Not to comply with the request simply raises these questions again.

13. When all the other issues Home Educators have with this review are taken into consideration, alongside the above information, and the fact that Graham Badman and the DCSF are now, 3 months after the report was published and accepted in its entirety by government, asking Local Authorities to provide evidence to back up the Report's *evidence*, it seems to me not only that the validity of the entire report must surely be called into serious question (and the resulting consultation consigned to the shredder) but also that Mr Badman has questions to answer about the extent to which his family's commercial interests may have influenced the development of his recommendations and the role his daughter's opinions - which are no more impartial than they are independent - may have played in the formation of his own views.

September 2009

Uprising

Paranoia is in bloom,
The PR transmissions will resume,
They'll try to push drugs that keep us all dumbed down,
And hope that we will never see the truth around
(So come on)
Another promise, another scene,
Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed,
And all the green belts wrapped around our minds,
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on)

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious
(So come on)

Interchanging mind control,
Come let the revolution take it's toll,
If you could flick a switch and open your third eye,
You'd see that
We should never be afraid to die
(So come on)

Rise up and take the power back,
It's time the fat cats had a heart attack,
You know that their time's coming to an end,
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious
So come on

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious




Just say NO!