1:1 dumped, New primary curriculum dumped, etc.

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

Post Reply
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:36 pm
Location: Berkshire

1:1 dumped, New primary curriculum dumped, etc.

Post by Hammered » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:02 pm

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/index.cfm?e ... ilies_bill

So with an election looming millions of pounds seem likely to have been spent on stuff that's just going to end up in the recycling bin. This means the end of 1:1 tuition and other government interventions programmes. Anyone got any insight into what this means and where RR might fit in?


Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

Re: 1:1 dumped, New primary curriculum dumped, etc.

Post by Derrie Clark » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:34 pm

It's unlikely these things will now go through as the money will not be there to fund them. I'm not sure what will happen with Reading Recovery as Local Authorities have personnel, structures and processes in place around it. I can't see it continue to be funded by Government. Local Authorities though do appear to be committed until 2011?

Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: 1:1 dumped, New primary curriculum dumped, etc.

Post by kenm » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:58 am

1) Ed Balls packed too much into the CSF bill and started it too late, so there was insufficient time for it to licked into shape.

2) The clauses on Home Education (HE) were based on a so-called "independent" review by Graham Badman. His experience is all in school teaching and he neither learnt enough about HE nor took into account what he was told by experienced and knowledgeable parents and by research workers in the field to do a decent job.

3) The Badman Review included statistical assertions about the quality of HE and the possibility of it being a cover for abuse that were based on data provided by about half of the local authorities (LAs) in England. These data were not published with the Review, so parents doing HE got organised to submit Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) for them. Initially these were sent to DCSF, but their staff appeared to have been briefed to be obstructive to HEers, so FOIs were sent to the LAs and most of them were answered without problems. It then became clear that the Badman statistics had been fudged to make children in HE seem much more at risk of a poor education than is actually so, mainly by incorporating cases in which the LA had no knowledge of the educational provision (present law does not require them to know this) into the figure for unsatisfactory provision. DCSF also published an impact statement for the HE part of the bill with several errors, but refused to amend most of them.

4) The draft CSF contained provisions, based on Badman's recommendations, that would have made it impractical to adopt Autonomous Education, one of the most successful philosophies of HE, somewhat similar to the Montessori method.

5) Home Educators drew the deficiencies of the Badman Review and the CSF Bill to any MPs and members of the House of Lords who were interested, and found several. Some Labour ones were sympathetic, but serious support to their position came mostly from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. On 8 December 2009, petitions against the HE clauses of the CSF bill were presented to the House of Commons from over 120 constituencies, a record number. At Commons second reading (IIRC) Michael Gove opposed the HE clauses, in effect making this opposition Conservative policy.

6) Inadequate time was provided in the Commons committee stage to amend the legislation into an acceptable form and its passage through the Lords never reached the committee stage, so that at the beginning of this week the objectionable HE clauses were still present. This would have prevented any part of the bill being approved in the (high-speed) wash-up discussions that have been taking place today. Baroness Morgan, responsible for this bill in the Lords, therefore proposed their removal, and of the contentious clauses referring to sex education, leaving only clauses on the desirability of which all parties agree. Apparently this is normal wash-up procedure.

7) It is possible that some desirable outcomes were lost because knowledgeable MPs and Lords knew that the bill as drafted would not achieve them, but the committee discussions never got to them, so best was to remove them and not waste money. I don't think this applies to HE. The problem here is that the responsible staff in many LAs (probably the majority) don't understand the law as it stands, and don't know what powers and duties they have. They have therefore been asking for more powers, all unnecessary and some inherently damaging to home educated children. New Zealand has recently tried a scheme to regulate HE similar to the one that was proposed in the bill but stopped it because it was not cost effective.
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests