Thursday 17 December 2009

Every Child Matters

After Victoria Climbie's death at the hand of her aunt, an enquiry was set up with Lord Laming at its head. Victoria Climbie had been known to practically every service provided for children, from social services to the police, from her local hospital to the London Borough of Haringey's education department. Despite this, she had fallen between the cracks and nobody prevented her murder. At the same time that Lord Laming published his report, the Government brought out a Green Paper called Every Child Matters. This was intended to give an outline of what every child in the country should be entitled to; the so-called five outcomes. These are to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and to achieve economic wellbeing. These outcomes were underpinned by new legislation, the Children Act 2004.

Now we come to the problem as far as some parents of home educated children are concerned. Local authorities had responsibilities, via new Children's Trusts, for seeing to it that all the children in their area were being given the chance to achieve the five outcomes listed above. All the children. Not just all the children at school, but every child, including those educated at home. This of course put local authorities into a bit of a tricky position, because as we all know many parents don't trouble to notify their local authority or Children's Trust that they are educating their children at home. Nor do they tell anybody when they move to another local authority area. Never the less, the local authority is still technically responsible for the wellbeing and safety of all those children who they never see and do not even know about. This is a regular conundrum! If one of these children should be murdered or abused, the local authority will still be held to account, just as they will for any such children who are not achieving the five outcomes.

The solution for local authorities was a simple one; to agitate for new legislation to enable them to keep track of the children in their district. ContactPoint will help, as will the lists of rising fives that they have. These are not infallible though. I can think of half a dozen ways of evading these measures if I had a child and wished to do so. The answer was, as far as local authorities were concerned, compulsory registration of all children in their area who were not at school. Once they were registered, then people could pop round their homes and see what was happening to them.

None of this has anything at all to do with education. It is purely safeguarding and also, of course, local authority officers covering their backs. Peter Traves, from the Association of Directors of Children's Services, summed this up rather neatly when he gave evidence before the Department of Children, Schools and Families select committee in October. He said;

"We have seen recently what happens to director's of Children's Services when things go seriously wrong. It is not only a case of sacking; it is public humiliation. It is a very serious matter."

Of course in the case to which he was referring here, a little boy had his back broken by a homicidal maniac. This is also a very serious matter, but not presumably in the same league as a director of Children's Services being humiliated!

There is not the remotest chance of the current situation with regard to elective home education remaining as it has for the last century or two. Ironically, the main concern is not the standard of education being provided, but the extent to which the children can meet the outcomes of Every Child matters. This is quite irrespective of my view on the matter or what Education Otherwise says or how passionately some parents may feel on the subject. There is going to be a change and by my way of thinking it would make sense for home educators to be part of that change and influence its direction. If they opt out and refuse all co-operation, then the changes will still come, but without the input of the parents themselves. I cannot think that this would be a good or desirable outcome.

The safety of kiddies is a very emotive topic and trumps all else. By playing this card, the Government has ensured that the law on home education will not remain the same. My own concern is purely educational, but this is becoming sidelined by the whole child protection thing. I seriously wonder whether or not a lot of home educators are in tune with the public mood on this. If they were, then I suspect that more of them would be bending with the wind, instead of digging in and taking to the barricades!

21 comments:

  1. Why cave-in now? DCSF has yet to make any change in its stance, despite the select committee report.

    The new laws still aim to get inspectors into homes, in spite of the vague wording, so don't assume that the public will side with government on kiddie safety. Say "Ed Balls child abuser" enough times and a fickle public might decide they're not keen on allowing CRB-checked child molesters and murderers over the doorstep.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Si

    Persoally I will be taking to those barricades and digging even deeper in to keep, the goverment and co away from my child. My child is far safer with me, than in school, where my child so called teacher would call my child stupid if he did not do as all the others, yet, educationally my child is naw working a year ahead of all the others, at home with me. I will never allow anyone off them over my door step, I am quite happy submitting work yearly via the post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could you cite the exact requirement you refer to in the Children Act 2004, Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is part 2 of the Children Act 2004, Suzyg;

    10 Co-operation to improve well-being (1) Each children’s services authority in England must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—
    (a) the authority;
    (b) each of the authority’s relevant partners; and
    (c) such other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to children in the authority’s area.
    (2) The arrangements are to be made with a view to improving the well-being of children in the authority’s area so far as relating to—
    (a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
    (b) protection from harm and neglect;
    (c) education, training and recreation;
    (d) the contribution made by them to society;
    (e) social and economic well-being.

    You can see a variation of the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters Green paper, embedded here. I would need to give you the whole text of the act in order to make it obvious, but the bottom line is that the local authorities have a statutory duty to promote these outcomes and see that all children in their area are able to achieve them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So you are suggesting that parents fall within group c, such other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to children in the authority’s area?

    If this is the case, aren't they breaking their own law as they are supposed to promote co-operation but appear to be doing the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thought as much. Section 10 requires LAs to make arrangements to promote co-operation between agencies with a view to improving the well-being of children. That is rather different from 'seeing to it' that all children get a chance to achieve the five outcomes. Are you (or the government) seriously suggesting that parents qualify as 'such other persons or bodies ...engaged in activities relation to children?' If so, why are home educating parents being singled out? All parents would come under this definition. Either that or the local authority (people paid by us to provide services on our behalf and accountable to us via the ballot box) have been given powers to pick and choose who they deem appropriate for scrutiny.

    Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 gives a list of organisations required to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (forgotten how to paste on this thingy). The list doesn't include parents. Nor should it. We are not accountable to LAs, they are accountable to us.

    Again, if LAs were properly resourced, so that they could carry out their current duties in relation to safeguarding, none of this sticking plaster legislation would be necessary. It is patently obvious that the government and local authorities need to get their own house in order, before poking about in other people's. Motes and beams spring to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, I'm suggesting that Group A, the authority itself, feels that it is their duty to improve the wellbeing of chldren by promoting the five outcomes. As part of that duty, or the duty as they see it, they wish to see home educated children and look at their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, silly me. I was labouring under the impression that you also thought the LAs had such a duty.

    We're back to this again, aren't we? One of the services provided by local authorities is law enforcement. As enforcers of the law, you'd think the least they could do would be to clarify what duties the law actually gave them. Or that the government would clarify it for them. Save a lot of hassle and expense.

    What have home educators' complaints got to do with 'public mood'? The most vociferous complainants appear to be concerned about being put in a position where they are being made accountable to local authorities for the quality of their children's education. This is clearly a legally and constitutionally anomalous position regardless of what Joe Public happens to feel like.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My understanding of part Simon's argument is that LAs and the government wish to cover themselves to avoid embarassing incidents - I think he has hit the nail on the head with that - and that by playing the child safety card, they will have public backing. I don't agree on the latter point. LAs have a poor record on child safety, either for children in their own care or for those in danger of which they are aware.

    Given that the number of HE children that may be in danger is miniscule - as DCSF admit - then there is nothing to be gained by the new laws. However, and here is where the public could be influenced in support of the HE side, any minute gains could arguably be outweighed by the small chance that LAs will endanger HE children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. suzyg, I hope that I am mistaken, but I am beginning to think that one or the other of us must be a little obtuse. The LAs do indeed have this duty to make arrangements which will ensure that all the children in their area have access to the five outcomes from the Every Child Matters agenda. They cannot fulfill this duty though, if they do not see the child and know nothing about her! Whether they should have this duty is another question entirely and one upon which I do not feel myself competent to offer an opinion. That they do have it is indisputable; read the entire text of the Children Act 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous, you say that the number of home educated children in danger is miniscule, but that is not really true. Every single home educated child in the country may be at risk of failing to be healthy, safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic wellbeing. You may well say that this is more like socail engineering than anything else and I might very well agree with you. This does not however alter the fact that the Children Act 2004 lays a resonsibility upon local authoties and others to see that children in their areas do have access to these five outcomes. That is why the Badman Report is full of mention of them; they have a legal significance and people have legal duties to ensure that all children can achieve these outcomes. I have nothing to say on this. My concern is only about education and I don't believe it to be any business of the Government to find out whether my child is enjoying herself or not!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The LAs do indeed have this duty to make arrangements which will ensure that all the children in their area have access to the five outcomes from the Every Child Matters agenda."

    Can you quote the relevant part of the act that states this? The part you quote above says they have to co-operate with other departments with this aim, but it doesn't state that they must ensure all children in their area have access. Later in the act it states,

    "(2) Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—

    (a) their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children;"

    Which suggests that the duty to look out for children only applies to children they come into contact with whilst carrying out their normal functions as opposed to routinely examining every child in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's so bizarre, this idea of the Government wanting to know whether a child is enjoying themselves or not, given the amount of bullying that takes place in schools and related self harm and suicide. I've never heard of a home edded child committing suicide.

    And so the debate rolls on.....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here is the relevant part of the Children Act;

    Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare (1) This section applies to each of the following—
    (a) a children’s services authority in England;
    (b) a district council which is not such an authority;
    (c) a Strategic Health Authority;
    (d) a Special Health Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England, designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;
    (e) a Primary Care Trust;
    (f) an NHS trust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities are situated in England;
    (g) an NHS foundation trust;
    (h) the police authority and chief officer of police for a police area in England;
    (i) the British Transport Police Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England;
    (j) a local probation board for an area in England;
    (k) a youth offending team for an area in England;
    (l) the governor of a prison or secure training centre in England (or, in the case of a contracted out prison or secure training centre, its director);
    (m) any person to the extent that he is providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21).
    (2) Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—
    (a) their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and
    (b) any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.
    There is a general duty to promote the five outcomes and poking about in home educating families comes under that heading. Or so local authorities interpret the law. Judicial Review, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why do you believe (if I've understood correctly) that it's no business of the Government to find out if your child is enjoying herself, but it is the business of the Government to find out how you are* educating her, and furthermore to force you to do it their way? (*Or were, in your case, as I understand it's a job already well done, despite the lack of LA interference)

    I don't understand why you to draw a line between those two things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chiefly because an uneducated person is often a bit of a dead loss to society, whereas a person who did not enjoy her childhood can function very well and be an asset.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "(2) Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—
    (a) their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children"

    Again, this only states that they are required to make these arrangements when carrying out their existing functions as defined in elsewhere (providing schools, social services etc.). Where does it say that they have to look at every child in the UK and ensure they are safe, well and meeting the 5 outcomes?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not every child in the UK, only those in their local authority area. Section 10 says,

    " 2) The arrangements are to be made with a view to improving the well-being of children in the authority’s area so far as relating to—
    (a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
    (b) protection from harm and neglect;
    (c) education, training and recreation;
    (d) the contribution made by them to society;
    (e) social and economic well-being.

    Children in the authority's area includes those taught at home. See also Section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002. All these are general duties that the local authority must exercise towards all children in their area. I do not myself agree with some of this stuff, but there is no point pretending that this legislation does not exist and that local authorities do not feel bound by it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, quite Anonymous. This might be what the government wants local authorities to believe, but clearly they haven't actually managed to get it into legislation - yet. Wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "...an uneducated person is often a bit of a dead loss to society..."

    Isn't this the whole point of home education? The schools are churning out plenty of dead losses, at least, that's the point of view of many of those - employers or higher educators - who take the output from schools.

    DCSF seems to be the only one that can't accept this and is trying to turn the argument on its head at the same time as mixing-in nonsensical safety arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The safety of kiddies is a very emotive topic and trumps all else. By playing this card, the Government has ensured that the law on home education will not remain the same. My own concern is purely educational, but this is becoming sidelined by the whole child protection thing."

    Let's just hope things don't deteriorate here as much as they have in Sweden with regard to confusing education and welfare.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119796

    "An appeals-level court in Sweden has affirmed the "kidnapping" of a 7-year-old boy who was snatched by police from a jetliner as it prepared to take his family to their new home in India.

    The days-old decision from the Administrative Court of Stockholm affirms the state custody of Dominic Johansson, who was taken by uniformed police officers on the orders of social workers even though there was no allegation of any crime on the part of the family, nor was there any warrant, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.

    The group, the premiere homeschool advocacy association in the world today, has been alarmed by the case that developed apparently because school and social services officials in Sweden objected to the homeschool program for the child."

    ReplyDelete