Final comments on CES response to Badman Review
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 7, 2009
Interestingly when I came to check out the CES document for further fisking-it has vanished from their site.
They are taking some serious heat from parents at the moment because they are colluding with Ed Balls plans for sex ed for little ones. There’s a lot of stuff around the Catholic blogs on this so I wont write on it at this time. I will however say I believe that this already failed approach being forced on ever younger children is nasty and I am sure that Badman would love home educated children to have their innocence stripped from them too.
But back to the CES on home education. While the document has vanished I have kept back a marvellous little quote I just had to mention:
“We have also been told of parents describing their home schooling
arrangements and curriculum as being “Catholic home schooling”. There is no such
model or programme of which we are aware and it is important that monitoring authorities are aware of this and feel able to revert to diocesan authorities and/or CESEW for advice if such queries arise. We would also find it helpful to be kept informed of the extent of the use of such a term, ie for what numbers of children and in what areas.“
I would have thought it patently obvious that “Catholic home schooling” or as we like to say “home education” was what went on in the Domestic Church of all families who are Catholic whether the children spend half their lives in school or not. To be fair they are talking strictly ‘curriculum’ here but then that too shows an amazing ignorance. There are a whole plethora of Catholic curricula out there (American mainly). I am aware of Seton, Mother of Divine Grace, St Thomas Aquinas and many more. I have bought some excellent Catholic Heritage material for our family.
Many of us don’t use one set curriculum but pick’n'mix among various books and ideas that best suits our children. There used to be a basic right to religious freedom -don’t know what happened to that.
The CES has no right whatsoever to ask what number of children are “Catholic home educated” as that is the business of the family and while I can imagine a situation (very rarely) where a Catholic family may want advice outside of home ed circles on curriculum I would bet they would go to a parish priest rather than have anything to do with the CES who have landed us with All That I Am and the useless Icons books. Are they worried that so many of us have Faith and Life in the house? LOL.
So Home educating mothers have Munchausans by Proxy? Badman actually asked!
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 5, 2009
Some things just make you laugh. Paula Rothermal informs the DCSF of her interviews with Graham Badman in which his opening question was whether home educating mothers have Münchhausen by Proxy.
Don’t laugh-apparently this is true.
The obvious slur was that home educators are of course abusers. I might add at this point that the whole diagnoses of Munchhausen by Proxy is strongly debated in pyschiatric circles. There is serious doubt whether such a disorder exists at all. But that is by the by. Paula Rothermal’s evidence here shows a man determined to see nothing positive in home education and prepared to scrap the bottom of any barrel in search of something foul to throw at us.
I hope all parents are taking note of this.
Fisking Oona Stannards Home Education Review Response Pt 2
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 4, 2009
The next bit, written on the feast of St Charles Borromeo, a man who understood education properly.
Not sure. Failing to register or giving false information should be offences [so parents should face prosecution for refusing to allow their children to be owned by the state; for refusing to be licenced. This is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Parents, not the state have the responsibility and may delegate to schools if they wish. Perhaps Ms Stannard could take a day off to read a Catechism], provided LAs advertise the duty effectively.[This makes me think Ms Stannard is well aware of the shortcomings of so many LAs. Why then does she not spend some time thinking it out instead of her usual 'Govt must be right' approach?} However, criminalising parents for inadequate statements of their approach to education, for example, would be harsh and probably unenforceable. How could it be proved that a statement was wilfully inadequate? So the grounds for considering that deficiencies merit criminalising the parents will need to be clarified rigorously and should only be invoked as a last resort.[All this is moot if parents weren't being undermined and forced to register to gain a 'licence to do what parents do'. She is already starting from the premise that family rights can be removed by the state and then finds the process a bit knotty.]
6b) Do you agree that the school should provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
7. Do you agree that the DCSF should take powers to issue statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home education?Not sure; see 6a). In principle we agree in relation to registration, [in other words; in principle we agree with removing the rights of families and parents to educate their children despite Catholic teaching to the contrary-but we have no god but caesar anyway] but the issue of monitoring is peculiarly sensitive and it is impossible to give blanket approval before seeing draft guidance. The training of staff and quality of communications will be central to success here. [Okay, we all agree LA staff need a lot more training. Of course the money to pay for it is a question and who does the training another one and why we can't leave the home ed community to get on with when countries like the USA do well without this much interference and where both Canada and New Zealand are dropping their unnecessary registration schemes because there hasn't been a single case of abuse in- what was it? 20 years I think.]
9. Do you agree that the local authority should visit the premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks’ notice is given?
Not sure. We are uncertain about LAs in this role for reasons rehearsed above; might an Ofsted inspector not be better placed for this role? [ Not sure why Ofsted who inspect schools would be any better at inspecting parents, and there is no reason given in the response. It just seems to be that LAs don't seem up to much, maybe Ofsted inspectors-equally ignorant of home education-would be better. I really don't know what to make of this.]
The notice period seems generous.[why?] Perhaps two weeks is appropriate for the routine four weeks, six months and annual visits, [ I must have missed something. There are to be a four week visit and six months visit and then annual visits?? Does anyone know anything about this?]but it could be important to provide a right to visit at shorter notice in case of particular concerns. [Oh dear, ignorance of Catholic teaching and now ignorance of the law; If there are particular serious concerns then social services and indeed the police can simply turn up on the doorstep. The law has been around a long time].
More later.
Fisking Oona Stannards Consultation Response. pt 1
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 3, 2009
2. Do you agree that a register should be kept?
Agree. We are aware that this feels draconian to some[most] home educators but good
home education should have no fear. [here her ignorance shines through. Already we know there is plenty for 'good home educators' to fear-not least the blatant anti-religious stand taken by this Government and those who snuggle up with it.We have also been made aware that 'good home educators who us an autonomous approach have a great deal to fear. And that is just the beginning.]It is a necessary step in the protection of children and their right to education.[in what way?}
3. Do you agree with the information to be provided for registration?
Agree.[Weird because the confusion of the select committee meeting suggests no one knows what information is to be provided. I take it she agrees with whatever Badman and Balls say whenever they say it]However, most parents will need considerable guidance on how to describetheir approach to education. LAs will need to exercise discretion in this area:understanding that parents are (mostly) not professional educators and are not familiar with educational language that schools take for granted, [ So Ms Stannard envisions documents of Edu-speak filled with meaningless jargon. Well I wont be doing that for a start] while continuing to ensure that children’s rights to an efficient and suitable education are met. [That, Ms Stannard if you know Catholic teaching and the law of the land is the PARENTs job] A further factor is the dissatisfaction and lack of trust that home educating parents may be feeling towards LAs ie part of their reason for home education,[ you don't say] so Guidance might best come from another source other than LAs. [Interesting eh? Does she envision the CES having a role in dictating to Catholic families? She can't have much idea how much the average Catholic wouldn't trust the CES as far as we could chuck a pascal candlestick].
more to come.
Ye gods not Oona Stannard AGAIN! CES stabs Home Education families in the back {no one surprised of course}
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 3, 2009
For over 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that the family is the domestic church, the bedrock of a healthy society and in the sacrament of marriage, holy. She has taught that parents have a right and duty to the education of their children and She has supported that right and duty through teaching, pastoral care and through schools and universities. (Remember the Catholic Church invented the university). Schools were there to SUPPORT parents, never usurp their role. These teachings were repeated over and over with documents on the rights of families right up to Vat II and after. There is the beautiful document FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO written by Pope John Paul II which encapsulates the whole teaching in a simple way.
But in England we have the CES.
Nothing that comes out of the CES surprises me these days. It has long proved itself no friend to Catholic families, or to real education and to call it a service is stretching a point-although it certainly serves the anti-catholic, anti-family government very well indeed.
Oona Stannard, who has no authority within the Church to dictate to families how we should bring up and educate our children seems to think she can force her views down our throats. She is already considered dangerous to the welfare of children by parents objecting to the appalling “All That I Am” programme. She is blamed as the “chief” who ensures that schools are not allowed to buy in orthodox and well rounded Catholic curricula even for RE (let alone anything else). Despite having absolutely NO CHURCH AUTHORITY whatsoever she insists on barging in on family life at every level even when parents demand otherwise.
It is long past time the bishops of England and Wales acted on this. She should have been sacked a long time ago.
Stannard has now gone on to stab home educators in the back and makes a special effort to twist the knife in those of us who are Catholic. Nice. H/T Maire.
Worse still, I know this will be reported as ‘Bishops’ supporting the Government. On the whole I try not to be harsh to our bishops. They have a tough job and I wouldn’t want to do it. But their silence on this issue is gravely damaging. They have been complicit with Stannard’s bullying behaviour for far too long.
I am going to fisk Stannards document in a while. Then I think Catholic home educators need to get together and write to our bishops and write to Bishop O’Donoghue who seems a good man. We should have turned to him before now I guess.
Happy All Saints
Posted by: mum6kids on: November 2, 2009
H/T to Fr Dwight for posting this painting of the Ghent Altarpiece. If you click onto his blog and click the picture you’ll get a lovely full screen image. I have no idea how to do that. {Fr Dwight, while in England, talked with my dh some time before he converted and gave him a couple of books that helped him a great deal}.
Tomato and Apricot chutney.
Posted by: mum6kids on: October 30, 2009
It’s that time of year again. Getting ready for Halloween and All Saints, starting the Christmas prep and I suppose if I got organised (LOL) I would even get something sorted for 5th November.
I bought “culinary” pumpkins this year to make the lanterns with. I thought maybe there would be enough flesh to make something with once I’d hollowed them out-but there really wasn’t. I do however have a pile of seeds. I’ve washed a few and am leaving them to dry overnight and then I’m going to try roasting them and see how it goes. Apparently they are a lovely snack and very good for you. I am a skeptic on all things pumpkin-but I’ll let you know.
Thank you Graham Badman. Good things from the Review
Posted by: mum6kids on: October 30, 2009
Poor old Graham Badman has been feeling a bit got at after publishing his review on home education. He managed to gain all one star reviews on Amazon and feels that the anger of what he calls a “minority” of home educating parents, just because we believe being treated as guilty until proven innocent of child abuse, is unjustified.
But I have to say the results of Badman’s little Review have not been all bad. I think I have seen some very good results.
To begin with Badman, Balls and pals have stirred up a quiet nest of family life and found it full of stinging hornets all ready to protect our young’uns. We have reached out from group to group, from parent to parent across the internet and around our local communities. We have had the chance to expand the number of home educating families we know and have found that whatever our philosophy of education, political views, religious beliefs or even parenting approaches-that we all believe in the freedom to live as families with the right and duty to the education of our children. Only one or two home ed parents have sided with the idea that the state owns our children and that we are to prove ourselves innocent of abuse and get a licence to parent our children.
The other good outcome is that more parents who have sent their children to school are beginning to realise that they too are threatened by this Government’s drive to break families. There are even some teachers willing and active in writing letters and filling out consultation questions supporting us.
While I certainly don’t think the mainstream media have done us many favours they have, even with the nastier side of their reporting, raised the profile of home education and thanks to the comment section of online papers such as The Times, The Telegraph and even The Guardian and the TES, a more truthful view of home education has been made very public. In doing so I am finding that more people are positive about the notion of home education and as a result I can’t help wondering whether there will be a spike in the numbers of children educated otherwise than school.
Only this morning I spoke to a parent whose children had a dreadful school experience and for her son has led to problems in his adult life. Her first grandchild is to be born soon -perhaps that child will have more choices in life; (unless the Badman recommendations go ahead of course). This mother had heard about home ed on the radio this morning and was fascinated by it. My guess she is not the only one. While Badman admitted that parents felt “despair” at the state of schools I wonder if he has realised that this feeling is common among parents whose children remain in school. Raising the awareness of home education will surely lead more children out of the school gates and to freedom. So thanks for that Mr Badman.
I am also glad to see MPs (mainly Conservative; in fact apart from UKIP has anyone else politically come out for family freedom and home ed?) standing up for the rights of families and the freedom to educate our children as we see fit. It’s good to know some people in the higher echelons do have some grasp of reality. It has also raised awareness that not only Labour but also the LibDems are not so keen on family rights. It’s always good to know where we stand.
So I hope poor old Mr Badman doesn’t feel too bad. Some good has come of all this.
Half term days out: Blists Hill Museum
Posted by: mum6kids on: October 28, 2009
Yesterday we spent the day at Blists Hill Victorian Town Museum. It actually seems to be Victorian and Edwardian and it’s very good.
The little ones enjoyed having some old money. Unfortunately the queues everywhere were so long they didn’t get the chance to spend it. Oh well, we’ll take it with us next time.
They were amazed that their poor ‘old’ mum remembers this kind of money.
Year of the Priest: History of the Priesthood: Jesus chooses 12
Posted by: mum6kids on: October 28, 2009
Jesus went around referring to Himself as “The Bridegroom”. I think it is fair to say that the leaders of the Temple understood Him all too well-and they didn’t like it. He was calling Himself a priest-a priest of the old pre Levitical order-a priest like David and Solomon and a priest like Adam and Abraham. He also went around forgiving sins; something only God can do. Something the High Priest only had the authority to do once a year (remember when Zachariah met the angel and lost his voice so he couldn’t give the absolution blessing?). Jesus offered proof of His authority through His miracles.
He raised the dead, healed the sick, cast out demons and calmed storms. Witnesses could see His power first hand. They were then to decide whether this man Jesus really was the Messiah they had been promised and had been awaiting for generations-or whether he was just another wannabe.
The Messiah would restore Israel. All of it. Not just Judea (in the south) with Judah, Benjamin and some Levites-but the WHOLE of Israel.
Jesus chose 12 men and a lot of them came from the north, Galilee. We are not told what tribes they all hail from, only that they are Galilean. So they were probably a bit of a mix but not many Israelites were around. In choosing 12-Jesus is speaking about the whole of Israel. The men are not all Levites (John was related to the High Priest so he may have been but we are not told). We are also not told how old the men were. While it seems likely most were older, tradition at least tells us John was well under thirty-the age a priest could be ordained.
The question modern people raise is why all men? Where are the women? And the silly answer is that Jesus was tied by the conventions of the time. The men he chose gives the lie to this.
Charlotte Mason
