If the ability of parents in this country to educate their own children were to be under threat, then nobody would be more concerned than the present writer. Fortunately, no such threat is apparent, at least at the moment. What has happened over the last few years, as home education has become increasingly popular, is that it has grown clear that a small number of parents are using the pretext of home education as a cover for other things. Just what those "other things" are is a matter of lively debate. I believe them to be, for example, neglecting the education of a child, sometimes in order to avoid prosecution for truancy; some think that these "other things" include physical and sexual abuse. What nobody disputes, nor have ever disputed, is that such cases are a small number. Small, but perhaps significant enough to make it necessary to take some sort of action. The aim of any new action is not and never has been home educating parents per se. There is a good deal of evidence to support this thesis.
Here is Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College leaders, speaking about home education shortly after the Graham Badman review was launched, "However, there have been concerns about a small number of cases where this option has been exercised to the detriment of the child.". He went on to defend the right of parents to educate their children. His views were echoed by others during and after the review. On the day that Graham Badman's report was published on June 11th this year, Ed Balls said, "The review also found evidence that there are a small number of cases where home educated children have suffered harm because safeguarding concerns were not picked up, or not treated with sufficient urgency, particularly where parents were uncooperative or obstructed local authority investigations."
All along, everybody concerned in the review of elective home education conducted by Graham Badman has been at pains to emphasise that they are not against home eduction, but simply want the powers to cope with a small number of cases where the right to home educate is being abused. Here is Baroness Morgan, answering a written question about any new powers which local authorities may acquire, on June 29th, "We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education, and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch." Once again, a small number of cases. And finally, here is Graham Badman himself writing on September 16th., "a small but significant
proportion of home educated children are receiving no, or an inadequate,
education."
There can be little doubt that any new law will be directed not at home educators in general, but at those who are using home education as a cover or excuse. Nobody has any idea what percentage of supposedly home educating parents this is likely to affect, not least because nobody knows to within a few score of thousands how many parents in this country are educating their children. Of course, any new regulation will cause irritation and inconvenience to a certain number of genuine home educators, although for most there will be no discernible difference. This inconvenience might however be a price worth paying if it rescues even a small number of children from neglect and possible danger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How do you see them finding the few problem cases without visiting all home educators and their children? They say they cannot find the problem cases without access to the home and child. You have said yourself that it's easy to lie by post and the only way to judge for sure is a home visit and access to the child. Balls has said children must be seen regularly, in their home, so that the LA can verify that the evidence provide by a parent is accurate. He obviously has the same view of parents as you and does not believe that written evidence can be taken at face value; the child must be questioned and must exhibit their work so that the LA can see that they really have done the work the parent says they have.
ReplyDeleteIf all home educators have a home visit where the inspector has a duty to check on the safety and welfare of the child (as proposed in the current consultation) there will be false positives. Research suggests that there will be more false positives than true positives when looking at a normal risk population as opposed to a high risk population. Experts agree that false positives can cause harm. Furthermore, experts around the world have concluded that screening a general population in this way is likely to cause more harm than it prevents.
Sharon you are, perhaps unintentionally, muddling up two entirely different things here. Screening a general population for something will certainly throw up an awful lot of false positives. This is usually thought of in a medical context. For instance, one might take every adult over the age of thirty and look for signs of prostate cancer or cancer of the cervix. This will really throw up a lot of false positives, screeing a large group of people most of whom are displaying no symptoms.
ReplyDeleteThe case of home educators is quite different. Firstly, this is a fairly small, self selected group. It is not a randomly chosen bunch of people of varying ages, social classes, gender and so on, but a selection of people many of whom share a lot of characteristics. Secondly, the target group, the people we are really looking for are a very small subset of this group. A profile for this subset exists and it will really just be question of aiming any new regime mainly at them. Of course, a few of the main group outside those parameters will end up being examined closely, but that is unlikely to result in harm.
The closest analogy I can think of is insurance claims. If you make a claim on your insurance, the loss adjusters have profiles which enable them to spot whether there is likely to be something dodgy about a claim. These are the ones they look at closely. Sometimes they are wrong and a perfectly ordinary person's claim is treated with suspicion. This does not really matter, it just means that an honest claimant has to answer a few more questions and give a little more information than usual. We all of us put up with this as we know it is probably necessary in order to detect and deter fraud.
Talking about screening general populations makes your arguments sound academic and scholarly, but are wholly irrelevant to this particular case.
"Screening a general population for something will certainly throw up an awful lot of false positives. This is usually thought of in a medical context...
ReplyDeleteThe case of home educators is quite different. Firstly, this is a fairly small, self selected group. It is not a randomly chosen bunch of people of varying ages, social classes, gender and so on, but a selection of people many of whom share a lot of characteristics."
The make-up of the group is irrelevant in this context, it's the level of risk that's significant. The type of screening suggested by Badman and Balls is exactly the type of screening discussed in the research I've referenced before, it had nothing to do with medical conditions, the only medical link was the staff that were to carry out the screening. It discussed screening for child maltreatment and concluded that it might be appropriate for high risk groups but not normal or low risk groups, and this was with medical professionals carrying out the screening process. Screening carried out by poorly trained LA staff is likely to produce even worse results. Unless you are suggesting that home educators are a high risk group for child maltreatment, it is you that is muddled.
"Secondly, the target group, the people we are really looking for are a very small subset of this group. A profile for this subset exists and it will really just be question of aiming any new regime mainly at them."
In that case, there will be no difficulty in defining the group and limiting any new legislation to them. There is no need for it to apply to the entire home educating population. How would you define this group?
"Of course, a few of the main group outside those parameters will end up being examined closely, but that is unlikely to result in harm."
The experts in the field disagree with you, why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-questionsanswers#screen
"Should you screen for child abuse?
There is currently no sensitive, specific, validated screening instrument for child abuse.
The Family Violence Intervention Guidelines: Child and Partner Abuse (Ministry of Health 2002) recommends that a comprehensive risk assessment of child abuse and neglect be completed for high-risk groups and/or if signs and symptoms suggest abuse."
US Prevention Services Task Force looking at screening by health professionals
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/2/2/161
"BACKGROUND We wanted to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening children in primary health care settings for abuse and neglect resulting from family violence by examining the evidence on the performance of screening instruments and the effectiveness of interventions....
Harms of Screening and Interventions
No studies were identified that provide data about adverse effects of screening or interventions. False-negative tests may hinder identification of those who are truly at risk. False-positive tests could lead to inappropriate labeling and punitive attitudes. Additional possible harms include psychological distress, escalation of abuse and family tension, loss of personal residence and financial resources, erosion of family structure, loss of autonomy for the victim, and lost time from work. Children could lose contact with established support systems including neighbors, siblings, school contacts, and peer groups."
BTW, even with medical screening they take into account the risk of harms from false positives and do not screen a population if the risk of harm from false positives is higher than the benefit of finding true positives, as I think is currently the position with prostate cancer (unlike cervical cancer).
The reason that it would be impossible to frame a new law to cover some specific group in this way should be obvious. Profiling takes place all the time and is a very valuable tool which saves a lot of time for everybody. One cannot legislate though, because of the exceptions which are bound to come up. If intelligence warned of an imminent attack by a suicide bomber in the UK then there would be little point in searching an elderly old woman boarding a bus in a small Scottish village. You would be better off watching tube stations in London. Young men would be a better bet than old men. Those with rucksacks are more likely than others. Obviously, you would be ill advised to pass a law limiting searches under the Prevention of Terrorism Act to men under thirty in London. As we have seen in the past, women too on occasion might be worth looking at, as may be people in smaller towns in the North of England. What possible advantage would there be to limiting one's options in this way. We typically frame laws to cover all bases as it were.
ReplyDeleteI could easily write a profile of the sort of home educating parent who would probably be worth a second look, Sharon, but I don't think it would make me very popular!
You've discussed but not really answered a minor non-issue in my comment (as the plan appears to apply to all home educators and we know that some LAs will apply it to all) and conveniently ignored the rest.
ReplyDeleteI chose that aspect of your post because I wished to avoid being dragged into a debate which is currently unresolved. You end your first point by saying, " unless you are suggesting that home educators are a high risk group for child maltreatment". Two points should be borne in mind. Firstly, without being a little more specific this is meaningless. In other words, what sort of child maltreatment are you talking about? Sexual abuse? Physical abuse? Lack of stimulation? Higher risk of failing educationally? As it stands, this is so vague as to be impossible to answer. Secondly of course, this is precisely the allegation which is at the moment being made in some quarters about the general population of home educators. There is some evidence for this view and there is some against. It is an open question.
ReplyDeleteIt is less a matter of my conveniently ignoring points which you make and more a question of not having unlimited time at my disposal to rebut each and every point as you raise it. For this reason, I tend to focus upon the most obvious fallacies in the arguments which you put forward. You must forgive me if this makes it appear that I am being discourteous and disregarding the other points. I feel bound to observe that we all, you included, do this. Like everybody else, I have a living to make and much as I enjoy debating the pros and cons of home education, I am also compelled to earn enough to pay my mortgage! By the way, I was enchanted to see you claiming that "the experts in the field disagree with you". Some experts, certainly. I am sure that you, like the rest of us, disregard many experts when it suits you. An appeal to authority in this way does not lead me to suppose that I must be wrong.
"I chose that aspect of your post because I wished to avoid being dragged into a debate which is currently unresolved. You end your first point by saying, " unless you are suggesting that home educators are a high risk group for child maltreatment". Two points should be borne in mind. Firstly, without being a little more specific this is meaningless. In other words, what sort of child maltreatment are you talking about? Sexual abuse? Physical abuse? Lack of stimulation? Higher risk of failing educationally?"
ReplyDeleteWell the terms used in the consultation suggest that abuse of all kinds is the issue, they specify 'safe and well' checks and these were the issues covered in the research I referenced so I thought this much would be clear. Very little effort seems to have been taken to look for evidence of lack of stimulation or risk of failing educationally in the report.
"Secondly of course, this is precisely the allegation which is at the moment being made in some quarters about the general population of home educators. There is some evidence for this view and there is some against. It is an open question.
Badman asked LAs to *estimate* the levels of abuse and neglect in their home education population. How can this be considered evidence? Especially when a request for actual numbers revealed that one LA had overestimated numbers by nearly 50% in their response to Badman. Badman's recent action of asking LAs for evidence to support the claims he makes in his report suggest that he knows his previous evidence is weak (at best) too.
"You must forgive me if this makes it appear that I am being discourteous and disregarding the other points. I feel bound to observe that we all, you included, do this. Like everybody else, I have a living to make and much as I enjoy debating the pros and cons of home education...
That's fine if you don't keep repeating the same theories again and again and repeatedly refuse to engage with arguments against those theories. It becomes more a thoughtless rant than a debate when this happens. You have said repeatedly that you intend to go into the issue of screening but seem to use this comment purely to end debate.
"Some experts, certainly. I am sure that you, like the rest of us, disregard many experts when it suits you. An appeal to authority in this way does not lead me to suppose that I must be wrong."
Obviously, you have to consider if the authority is appropriate and worthy of regard. I decided that three national health authorities that came to the same conclusions on this issue might be considered worthy of consideration and brought them into the debate. You seem to prefer ignore this evidence and believe the estimates of a small, self selected group of LA officials when looking for evidence of risk levels in a population and absolutely no evidence for the appropriateness, effectiveness or safety of the recommended measures on the other side of the issue.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Two points should be borne in mind. Firstly, without being a little more specific this is meaningless. In other words, what sort of child maltreatment are you talking about? Sexual abuse? Physical abuse? Lack of stimulation? Higher risk of failing educationally?"
Just noticed that you had already set the terms of reference yourself in the original article when you said, "if it rescues even a small number of children from neglect and possible danger".
You know Sharon, it really is a pity that you won't join up to this Blog as a co-author! I'm sorry if my style appears to verge occasionaly into "thoughtless rant" mode. The topic of screening is an important one and I shall be posting a piece about it on Tuesday or Wednesday. I realise that you came up with some good experts to back up your position. Unfortunately, there are so many experts to choose from that one can always lay hands on one who agrees with practically any position one cares to take. The truth is, as I shall explain in the longer piece, I do not think that the research you have quoted meets the case at all here.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm afraid you've run out of time to convince me. I've tried to limit the time I spend reading and responding to your blog without much success and I don't really have the time to spare any more so I think I'll have to go cold turkey!
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I think you would struggle to convince me on this issue. You would struggle to compete with the resources of three national health authorities when looking for evidence. Your only other option is to convince me that the child maltreatment screening discussed in by the health authority professionals is different to the safety and welfare screening planned by Badman and Balls; or that, by some miracle, the false positives created by Badman and Balls will be different from the false positives discussed in the research and you've tried this approach before. Add to this the experience of the New Zealand education department, who have just ended routine reviews of home educators because it is a waste of money and unnecessary (incidentally their reported rate of concern of 5.4% is a remarkably close match to the rate of 5.5% given by the Local Authority Freedom of Information research in the UK) and I think you are on a losing wicket.
"Add to this the experience of the New Zealand education department, who have just ended routine reviews of home educators because it is a waste of money and unnecessary (incidentally their reported rate of concern of 5.4% is a remarkably close match to the rate of 5.5% given by the Local Authority Freedom of Information research in the UK)"
ReplyDeleteI have seen this research and it is obvious when you think about it. A parent who is so concerned about a child's education that they educate them at home is much less likely to abuse their child than not in my mind.
With so many children receiving a substandard education in schools, I think that the government should not waste their limited resources on trying to catch the exceedingly small number of potential abusers in the home education world, and concentrate their efforts in schools.
Besides, having a social worker on your case won't save you, especially in Harigey. Look at Victoria Climbie and Baby P!
Actually, they were under Badman's watch weren't they?
Why Sharon, I had no idea that you found my Blog so addictive! Gisela, if you are talking about the group consisting of parents who wish to educate their own children then I would in general say that you are right and that such people would be much less likely to abuse their children. If you are talking about the larger group consisting of all those who fail to send their children to school for whatever reason, then some of those parents might be more likely to abuse their children. Imagine a Venn diagram with the large circle consisting of every parent who does not send their child to school. Within that will be the set of parents who wish to educate their children. We are talking here about parents who do not send their children to school, but for whom education is not the primary motive. I think that this is a small group, so does everybody else who knows anything about it. The question is, how small is this group and is it large enough for us to worry about? The next question is, can we do anything about this group without intefering with the legitimate activites of those who simply wish to get on and educate their kids.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I'm one of these sad, sad, people, http://laughingsquid.com/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/
ReplyDeleteI like it, Sharon!
ReplyDelete