Warning, bit of a jumping-about stream of consciousness ramble, this one. LMK if it's utterly intelligable and I'll see if I can clarify. But don't expect miracles ;)
Late last night, much later than I 'should' have done, cos I was sleepy at midnight, ahem, I was reading Gill's blog and came across the stuff about home-ed blogging = evidence for the LEA and the idea that it looked bad for those who don't blog. There's the obvious parallel here, for those who know home-ed politics, with the home visit issue. Except for a couple of things.
People blog because they want to. They provide evidence for the LEA because they are compelled to by law when the LEA make informal enquiries.
I'm not a fan of home visits, or, in fact, of any kind of regular monitoring. But if you're in a situation where you find yourself needing to meet the LEA's informal enquiries, and the most appropriate way for you is a home visit, then that's what you do, isn't it? The problems arise when LEA officials *insist* on home visits and don't accept other forms of evidence. I really can't see the day when blogging becomes the favoured form of evidence in that way!
So... why do home-edders blog?
For me it's because I like being on the 'net, and I have good friends who blog, and I'm trying to be in with the in-crowd, lol. And also because I like having a good old soapbox. But then I guess I can't be accused here of providing evidence for the LEA.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, nothing really. Just that I hoped it might provide a less-well-travelled space to generate a bit of clarity on the issue. kwim?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your position entirely. Fine to spread evidence about whereever you like if you want to, but horrible to have to do it when you don't.
Yes that was good 'n' clear - thanks!
makes sense!
I likes me soap box too ....
:)
Sarah, soapbox? You? nahhh...
Post a Comment