Tania, please, stop making out that those who hold a different opinion to you are nasty bullies. You yourself are far from innocent in the painting of an unpleasant picture of those who disagree with you as I tried to point out in my earlier post on the tweedledum thread, posted below in case you missed it.
The problem that I see with your posts is, as others have said, they lack any clarity and ramble on seemingly never reaching any kind of point, and there are so many of them! It is incredibly hard not to get frustrated and giving up, instead of keeping on banging ones head against a brick wall, becomes increasingly appealing, but when everyone does this, it leaves you as the lone voice which might give the impression that everyone feels/thinks as you do which is simply not true. If your cohorts really do believe in the validity of their actions, then perhaps it is time one of them grew a pair and stepped forward as the new poster girl/boy because it seems to me that they may need to think about some urgent damage limitation.
post copied from tweedledum thread:
I'm afraid I really cannot be bothered to go through all of the above, but on skimming one point stands out that I really must take issue with:
Tania says that no one has put forward reasons why changing the guidelines before CME is a bad idea, and that all that anyone who wants CME dealt with first has done is to attempt to discredit those who want guidelines changed. This is blatantly untrue, and I'm more than a little sick of this kind of attitude from Tania.
The most important reason that I, and others, have been trying to make, is that whilst we have the current guidelines we have a live government document that clearly shows that HE was never intended to be conflated with CME. If the guidelines are replaced/altered/whatever you want to call it, how is it legally possible to keep within a live document mention of a piece of government documentation (CME 2007 Guidance) which is no longer live/active/legal/whatever you want to call it?
Now, some may say that to worry about this is nothing short of paranoia, because the current government are lovely and wouldn't dream of stitching us up after getting rid of that tiny little *safety net* but why take the risk?
As has been said numerous times already, but it appears to fall on deaf ears (apropo of nothing - funnily enough the old nickname for the former education department) LAs ignore the guidelines when it suits them, they are not stupid, they understand them perfectly well, they just don't like them, and our *job* is not to make life easier for the poor little souls, it is to protect and educate our children. I know of at least one (reasonably well behaved) LA which has argued that the CME Guidance trumps the HE Guidelines because of the fact the the CME Guidance is statutory. Replacing the HE guidelines will not, so far as I can see, alter this position. LAs are referring new HE families to CME departments on, and it would appear before, deregistration. Can you imagine how unnerving it must be to be a new HEer and effectively told that your choice means your child is missing education? I think that this practice alone must be altered ASAP because it has the potential to undermine any confidence parents new to HE may find on discovering HE as an option, and will, without doubt, be enough to persuade some parents to forget HE and keep their child in school, even when that action would be detrimental to the health and well being of their child.
As the recent letter from Nick Gibb has pointed out, and has been the experience of HEers in Lancs, there is change happening already. DoE are already having an impact on LA behaviour, so it seems completely sensible to me to take a watch and wait attitude to that, and whilst watching and waiting, tackle CME first.
Last edited by pendlewitch; 29-10-10 at 12:34.