as Diana Johnson and others keep insisting, why do they continually use the phrase “safe and learning”? Why keep pushing the almost subliminal message that it’s also about protecting children from abuse when we know there’s no case to answer, no evidence of greater risk?

I think the answer is fairly simple. Public opinion. Joe Public is perfectly aware that not half of state school pupils manage the magical 5 ‘good’ GCSEs so he’s not going to be keen on millions of his tax money being spent making sure a handful of home educated kids get them. The DCSF simply isn’t going to be able to SELL their plan on the basis of improved educational outcomes when their own schools are failing so spectacularly to meet the same target.

Child abuse on the other hand is a PR winner. Say the magic phrase “if it saves just one child” and all debate, all critical thought, is meant to come to an end. People aren’t expected to ask if it’s true, if there’s any proof that whatever-it-is really is a genuine welfare issue and the suggested response proportionate.

If “saving just one child” really was worth any price wouldn’t cars be banned? They won’t be of course because people accept, even if they won’t talk about it, the trade off between lives lost against the convenience and economic benefits of widespread car ownership. However when it isn’t YOU being asked to give something up it’s much easier to get up on your moral high horse and tell other people that what is being taken from THEM is a small price to pay, and it will save a child’s life because the government wouldn’t lie about a thing like that … would they?

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 @ 18:04