I spotted this rather interesting blog post by The Filthy Smoker over at the Devil's Kitchen the other day. Rob Permeable, a charity professional and blogger, had expressed some pretty naive views in support of government funded charities, not to mention some pretty strong criticism of fakecharities.org. It's not my intention to go through Rob's post in detail, much as I would love to, but if you're interested in an additional critique then Longrider has done a pretty good job here. 

I would, however, like to point you in the direction of this little nugget from Mr Permeable:

"What I’d also add is – in my experience – “most people” (I know, scientific, eh?) simply would not be prompted give to charity were it not for the likes of advertising campaigns, celebrity-led endorsements, and yes even ‘chuggers’ spreading awareness of the fantastic work that the third sector does that the public largely doesn’t know about or essentially care very much about in the course of their daily lives. I’m talking apathy here, guys.

And then:

"Experience and cynicism, and a quick staw poll of my friends, indicates that my generation gets worked up about big, fashionable causes or ones that have very personally touched them. So how do smaller, lesser known groups get helped but through statutory grants and Lottery funding streams?"

So Rob thinks that people are not naturally predisposed to give without a helping hand, and that they are incapable of deciding for themselves what constitutes a worthy cause.

If this attitude is in any way representative of others who work in the charitable sector, then we have every reason to continue asking questions. Kicking off her exploration of some of the organisations linked to the illegitimate home education review, Gill pointed out yesterday that Becta has charitable status, although its most recent accounts show that £37m or so of its £38m funding ultimately comes from the taxpayer. According to its website:

"Becta is the government agency leading the national drive to ensure the effective and innovative use of technology throughout learning.

It is our ambition to utilise the benefits of technology to create a more exciting, rewarding and successful experience for learners of all ages and abilities, enabling them to achieve their potential."

We also know that The Inclusion Trust, parent of Notschool, is an "award winning charity", almost entirely funded by government (our) money. From their website:

"We have an international reputation for excellence in education and learning.

We specialise in the reengagement of disenfranchised and marginalised learners of all ages through the effective use of innovative pedagogies and cutting edge technologies."

So their shared technology/learning agenda appears to be clear. Regular readers, or those of you who know me, will know that whilst I am fully respectful of people who choose to avoid it, I am passionate about digital progress - as we move forward into the 21st century there will be no denying its importance in many fundamental aspects of our lives, and I see this as a largely positive and enriching development.

But let me repeat what I have said here previously: fruitful, long-term online engagement is utterly reliant on those very human values of curiosity, authenticity, collaboration, generosity, community - all necessarily underpinned by individual freedom and choice. The evidence? Witness the staggering volume of freely given, quality content (in often highly specialised areas) and open source products and services that are freely available for us all to access.

Nevertheless, the human values I list are those that are most easily (and often best) learnt in real life, in real communities, face-to-face, with real people. Sadly, this real life experience is, all too often, something that the state feels it can and should replicate through ever-increasing intervention, rather than allowing people the freedom to develop and sustain community cohesion organically and independently. 

So, I do not align myself with Becta or the Inclusion Trust in any way - they seek to control, to regulate and to prescribe that which should be left free as a bird. Still not convinced? Well here are some hotly debated words from Stephen Heppell, chair of the Inclusion Trust, world saviour and captain of the global learning ship had to say recently (all typos are his):

"I absolutely believe, with a passion, that one of the most enduring barriers to the remarkable progress we have all seen children achieve through and with new technologies, is our current and enduring inability to use assessment to properly support the progression and continuity that their new learning deserves, or even to offer the celebration of excellence that they themselves deserve. Assessment should be to key that unlocks, accelerates, motivates and challengers our young learners..."

And:

"I'm lucky enough to rush around the world advising governments and corporations. Everywhere, from Brazil to Brunei, from Bangkok to Basildon, there is a hunger for a suite of 21st century assessments that take us forward and address the challenge of personalisation. I obsessively believe that the UK could and should meet that need and could be a key fulcrum in the complex world of global learning that the 21st century will become. Or we could wait for someone else to do it. The choicse, as I sometimes tell govenrments who are smart enought to understand, are only to lead, follow or fail. It is that stark."

Indeed.

Elsewhere online in various lists there has been debate about this article, in which it is claimed that today's Google Generation is living in a "prison-like environment". In a similar vein, Baroness Susan Greenfield regularly despairs of our (supposedly) emotionally stunted, infantilised technology teenagers. But anyone who thinks that these people are at odds with Graham Badman (chairman of Becta) and Stephen Heppell is seriously mistaken. As I have mentioned previously, Graham Badman is actually a staunch supporter of Susan Greenfield. Why?

All of these "doomed generation" arguments are terribly emotive, emphasising the supposedly deadly dangers of the mysterious and unfathomable internet. They are exactly what Badman and Heppell require to justify furthering themselves and their government funded, "charitable" agenda of control, regulation and prescription - all in the name of child protection, wellbeing, and 21st century education, of course. Only they can teach us how to use technology in a super-safe, socially acceptable, economically productive manner.

Or... alternatively, as Rihatsu points out (paraphrasing Cory Doctorow at the Convention on Modern Liberty):

"If you want to keep your children safe from paedophiles, teach them not to submit to authority. If you want them to keep all their information safe, teach them how to use encryption tools. Don't restrict them, because that won't help them learn anything."

That's my preferred option, thank you. 

As taxpayers we are funding the real prisons for our own children and yet many of us are blinded to this fact by virtue of the "charity" or "charitable" label that is bandied about far too easily. We must see this government-funded agenda for what it really is and challenge this authoritarian and dictatorial approach to information, knowledge and learning.

If Rob sees apathy when he looks around, it is because all too often people are trapped, disempowered and controlled in every aspect of their lives. How can anyone give freely when they own so little of themselves in the first place? Little by little, we have been programmed - by a paternalistic state - to assume that an anonymous other always exists to take responsibility for everything in our lives that, not so long ago, we would have been proud to take responsibility for ourselves.

If we were given a little of that power back, many more people would give happily and freely - as they do, for the time being at least, in those real-life and online communities that continue to survive despite the onslaught of government nannying and meddling. Of course individuals would give to causes they cared more for or those in which they had a particular interest - but that's intrinsically motivated altruism and human diversity for you...

Now if you'll excuse me, I am off to finish a website and business plan that G and I have developed for a friend of ours, in order that she can work from home and stay with her children. We've given a week's worth of our billable time for free so far - because we like her, because we love the work we do, and because we believe there is enough to go round for everyone. I would far rather that than a fat donation to any government bed fellow. Or am I not qualified to make that judgement for myself?