Not in my name.

EO has produced a pdf for the review which you can read here

I would like to state for the record that I am not now a member of EO although we were during our first year or so of home ed, as I think many ppl are. My understanding of the organisation and of this particular document is that it is not democratic – there has been no canvassing of membership to produce this response, many members probably do not even know it has been sent in.

Now, you may agree with most of the body of the document, you may not. My first thought was that it was a great shame that it hadn’t been proofread, but as I commented elsewhere, it’ll probably fit in nicely with most government documents anyway.

The central repeating idea appears to be the recommendation for a Committee for Home Education or a Home Education Committee (there isn’t even consistency on the naming!) of approx 10 ppl which will serve to represent the views of all home educators and bridge the gap between government and home educators. Excuse me a moment, I have a really bad cough, and when I laugh, I start coughing. It may be some time before I can type sensibly again.

Can anyone who has met any home educators really imagine the existence of *one* group that could represent all of us? I can’t believe even the government in the form of Mr Badman could be that naive. But just in case they can be, I say again, EO do not speak for me.

About Jax Blunt

I'm the original user, Jax Blunt I've been blogging for 14 years, give or take, and if you want to know me, read me :)

Oh, and if you'd like to support my artistic endeavours, shop my photographs and art at redbubble

Comments

  1. Hi Jax, they don’t speak for me either, and I’m infuriated that they seem to be presuming to. There’s a particular line in the conclusion to the document about them wanting to “come out of the trenches” that made me particularly uncomfortable. That’s a line that Graham Badman used at one of his meet-ups with home educators, that we seemed determined to stay in the trenches or something, and using this exact same terminology, which it’s hard to see as accidental, seems to be saying, to me at least, that EO have taken an ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ attitude towards the Government.

    I want nothing to do with them, and I don’t want them to have anything to do with me.

    Debs x

  2. Hi there,

    It does not in the least surprise me. Since Mr. Badman mentioned that Tasmanian model I have expected this. I knew that EO would be after something like this when they were having a meeting where Mr. B. did not want his comments published.

    It was obvious then.

    Perhaps we should state that we will not exchange LA nosy parkers for EO nosy parkers. I certainly wouldn’t have them in my house.

  3. Still on the first page but dismayed by the typos and slips in punctuation etc. I know it’s not *really* important but it looks so unprofessional… Maybe if they’d put it out for comments/input they’d at least have got those corrected.

  4. yeah, some if it (admittedly I skim read) was ok, one or two bits were even quite good imho. What a shame they didn’t consult on it properly.
    Even more of a shame they didn’t proof read it – nothing rouses my fury quite like the laziness of that!

    As it is – ‘they have an extensive network of 4000 he’ers’ (quoting from memory). Four THOUSAND? I did read that right I hope. Four thousand. Exstensive?! Don’t make me laugh! Do they even know what the population of the Uk is?! (61,612,300 by the 09 estimate, if you’re interested) The population of my modest town is 94,816

    Like 4000 is anywhere NEAR representative of he’ers! there are probably more registered blood drinkers than that.

    ridiculous.

  5. littlepurplegoth says:

    Heck, living here I’d rather have LA nosey parkers than the local EO lot… who are atm trying something akin to this to sell the local group to the LA…

Speak Your Mind

CommentLuv badge
86 queries in 0.562 seconds.