Many home educators have been discussing these terms in various arenas recently, primarily in the context of the writing of draft elective home education guidance/guidelines. Here I will explore the meanings of those terms and how they may apply in this case.
Private is the opposite of public. Private information is revealed only selectively, by the persons from whom it originates. Public input is not sought on private documents. Some possible reasons why the first draft of a government document might be produced in private could be:
- Legislators often draw upon the information they can access through a variety of sources and then assign the writing of a first draft to a small group, knowing that the draft can subsequently be discussed openly. This is a tried and tested approach. As we know, many legislators draft documents in house, without even consulting the population that will be affected. Legislators who wish to work more collaboratively with the affected population will sometimes consult with a small group on the first draft, knowing, again that the better the draft is, the more likely the document is to meet the needs of both the population at large and those government bodies that must implement any regulatory changes.
- When it is public knowledge that a potentially controversial document may be forthcoming, both the legislators and the authors are often inundated with (often conflicting) enquiries, recommendations and demands that make the drafting of the document an unreasonably unwieldy and time-consuming process. Also, having a great number of people involved in producing the initial draft may mean that the result is incoherent, incohesive or even contradictory.
Secrecy is the act of concealment; it is complete denial of the topic at hand. It differs from privacy, which is polite refusal to discuss the topic. For example a private meeting is one which may be known about but which one has to be invited to whereas a secret meeting simply “does not exist”.
Some reasons why a draft document might be produced in secret could include:
- The author is trying to introduce procedures and policies with a particular agenda, and has no intention of asking for or listening to anybody else’s views. He or she might wish to get something all the way through the process without debate.
- The author might be attempting to control a particular population.
- The author might realize that “secrecy” would create so much controversy that the affected population would divide itself into opposing groups and thus be easier to “conquer.”
Anonymity is where names and identifying information are withheld. This means people involved in something either private or secret would be anonymous. Anonymity in and of itself should not be used to imply secrecy or guilt.
Reasons why a document’s author(s) might wish to be anonymous include:
- To keep people’s focus on the content of the document rather than the name, position or perceived motivations of the author(s).
- To protect their child(ren), close friends and family from any fall out.
Transparency is the opposite of secrecy. With transparency one is supposed to disclose everything. Of course the danger is that transparency is in the eye of the beholder – one person’s transparency is another’s partial secrecy, particularly if one is found not to have actively disclosed information that the other party considers relevant.
Would anything justify a lack of absolute transparency about the drafting or authorship of a regulatory document?
- Legislators might wish to present a document that is in some reasonable shape before its release.
- Regulatory documents are expected to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than those of author(s).
- Authors of government documents are very seldom identified, beyond the legislators that initiate and take responsibility for them. This protects both the process and its contributors – i.e. it allows people to make mistakes which can then be spotted and corrected before documents are finalized.
One point that seems to have been lost in the debate about home education regulatory documents, and whether they should be revisited or not, is that private is not the same as secret. There are some cultural pressures to consider nothing private and to label refusal to disclose private information as secretive.
An example of the difference between private and secret that home educators might identify with can be found in the concept of the privacy of a family home. Home educators have shown great resistance toward demands for home visits by local authority officials. But why is that? After all, if one has nothing to hide why wouldn’t one invite them in? Maybe one wouldn’t let them in because one might be afraid of unfair treatment. Home educators recognize that one’s home is private property, a concept long respected by the law. Information that individuals are not yet ready to exhibit to the public can also be considered private property. This doesn’t make it secret.
An example of the difference between private and secret that home educators might identify with can be found in the concept of the privacy of a family home. Home educators have shown great resistance toward demands for home visits by local authority officials. But why is that? After all, if one has nothing to hide why wouldn’t one invite them in? Maybe one wouldn’t let them in because one might be afraid of unfair treatment. Home educators recognize that one’s home is private property, a concept long respected by the law. Information that individuals are not yet ready to exhibit to the public can also be considered private property. This doesn’t make it secret.
One ironic aspect of the debate over any changes to to guidelines for elective home education is that a focus on absolute transparency regarding draft documents, with concomitant allegations of secrecy if demands for information are not met, can overshadow the opportunity to actually examine any draft document that may be presented.
Graham Stuart, MP, has assured the home education community that a period of complete transparency will follow his private consultation/drafting process of any draft home education guidelines. This should allow for comment in the most open way possible. It is also a good faith effort from a legislator that the home education community has seldom enjoyed.
