Dear Dr Atkinson,

I note with some sadness your rather abrupt and indirect response to Mike Fortune Wood. I have read his letter several times. Nowhere does Mr Fortune Wood make reference to you personally* with regard to your comments on elective home education. He commented only on your professional knowledge and conduct and your subsequent suitability for the role of Children's Commissioner.

Specifically he made reference to:

• your understanding (or lack thereof) of the law and general situation regarding elective home education
  
• your misrepresentation of that law and general situation to members of the Children Schools and Families Select Committee
• your misrepresentation of the death of Khyra Ishaq (who was failed by services that were aware of the precariousness of her position and yet could not or did not save her, despite this knowledge) to members of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee
  

I am unclear as to how Mr Fortune Wood's comments could have been construed in any other way. My disappointment at your response lies mainly in your refusal to answer the perfectly legitimate issues he raises.

I feel it necessary to state in no uncertain terms that you and many of the other professionals who appear to have great power at their disposal with regard to children and families are public servants. We fund your very professional existence and it is wholly reasonable to expect accountability in return. It is wholly reasonable to expect some level of constructive dialogue from a public servant when pertinent and evidenced questions regarding his or her professional knowledge and conduct have been respectfully raised.

Such reticence to provide adequate explanations has become somewhat commonplace over recent years. However, that does not make it right. If you are not humble, if you do not listen in sympathy and if you do not respond to the voices of genuine and concerned parents and carers - the people who will always have the biggest stake in the safety and wellbeing of their children - then what hope is there for the children themselves?

It is time to set the agenda straight. This is not about home educated children - this is about every child, wherever they live and however they learn. Each and every child really does matter, and no-one knows this better than their families and communities. It is time for public servants to start listening.

Regards,

Lisa Amphlett

*that is, in a personal capacity

[Also covered by Jax, Maire here and here, the Special Minister of EHE, Irdial and Grit]

Following on from comments on a previous post, here is what Just Say No means for me.

I say no to the legitimacy of the review, the consultation, the select committee and associated processes.

They are all illegitimate. Neither the state nor society owns my children and I do not have to prove my innocence to them - that is the starting point I am making it my business to promote and defend.

However.

Where necessary I will provide my perspective and commentary on those processes. It is important to set out a clear position to counter the incorrect assumptions, logical fallacies and misinformation we are up against as they arise.

I will also use those processes if I can see collateral benefit in doing so. The consultation is a good example of this - it will not persuade a government hell-bent on legislation. And yet sufficient responses just might convince other people to think again. So please do consider whether you can spare some of your time to use the consultation to just say NO.

Similarly, whilst I do not trust the mechanism of the Select Committee to effect any change within the system as it stands, I do trust Tech, Raquel and Ruth to say what needs to be said about our freedoms and this sham review in a public arena.

Now is the time to engage with everyone other than the present government, rather than wasting time with the government itself.

I fully support and stand alongside everyone who is fighting to defend our freedom to parent and educate as we choose. This is a collaborative effort - there are a great many very experienced home educators and civil liberties activists and bloggers out there who are already doing a sterling job.

This is what I say yes to and what I will do:

• Continue engaging with other home educators in real life and online.
• Continue engaging with other parents in real life and online.
• Continue engaging with other people who have an interest in civil liberties in real and online.
  
• Focus on building strong and long-lasting real life and online networks of fantastic people, collaborating where I can and using whatever available resources I have at my disposal.
• Challenge and correct incorrect assumptions, logical fallacies and misinformation where I have the time and opportunity to do so.
• Engage with political processes where I believe it will benefit the advancement of freedom, and refuse to engage where I believe it will not.
• Place a renewed emphasis on securing some kind of commitment from the Conservatives on this issue.
• Consider other allies to engage with on this issue.
• Contribute to a positive PR programme which shows EHE as a first class choice for children, whatever their parent or carers' circumstances, approach, religion or philosophy.
• Offer friendship and support to others.

We all have different beliefs about the best way of protecting our freedoms, but I know that I am amongst people who care about doing so. I'm incredibly grateful for that.

I'll finish off with a quote Bishop Hill made reference to. It's for those of us in that questionable "vociferous minority" who struggle with being pilloried for appearing angry, fanatical, or extremist:

Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. 

I'll second that.

The only other thing I have to say about Monday's oral evidence session to the Select Committee Inquiry is:

What he said.

Quote:

...The only worrying thing here is that these people think they have a right to measure everything. Do they imagine, because ‘they do not have data’ that they should be measuring the amount of food children eat? Perhaps they do, and the only reason why they do not legislate for it is that it is not technically feasible. As a Government, you need to fell confident that you are properly serving the people who are already in your schools. This cannot be overstated. You are FAILING to educate millions of children...

... Call it what it is, licensing. They will not have the ‘right’ to refuse licensing, they will have the POWER to refuse. There is nothing simple about a ‘registration’ (licensing) scheme; only a simple minded person would put it in those terms, or someone who does not want the true nature of this to be revealed too early. Just ask the people who were forced to write down their religion fifty years ago, or the people in South Africa about ’simple registration’ schemes...

...Once again, we see why these people can never be trusted. Anything that is to be licensed must have a sanction that can be imposed on those who refuse to comply, otherwise, there would be no compliance. This is the violence of the state, stated plain as can be said...

...This country does not have the institution of slavery. The children who live in Britain are not the property of this country, and are not subject to the wishes of it, nor are they subject to the wishes and whims of the UN. The UN convention represents the wishes of a small and perverted minority of statist social engineers whose desire is to incrementally dismantle the family world-wide. That is the truth of this matter....

...They do not care about your welfare, the welfare of your children, your children’s education or anything else about you. They all want a pice of you; some desperately want the data, some want to have access to your children so they can be forced to learn what they want them to learn, and still others want your children themselves for their own sinister ends.

This is an extremely important rebuttal by irdial. Do go and read the whole thing.