The idea that the CSF Bill would be wholly bad news for bullied children who have been taken out of school is so bizarre that I have not yet bothered to deal with it. However, since it has been suggested that I shall be personally responsible for any ensuing suicides, anorexia or sterility, perhaps I should say a few words on the subject!
Let us start by looking at a genuine bullied child who was withdrawn from school due to bullying. She is, I imagine, typical of many. Since the Summer I have been approached by a number of home educating parents locally. They have seen my daughter's picture in the local paper and are very impressed with her IGCSEs. Four parents have stopped me in the street and told me that they have removed their children from school and two of them have solicited my help. I want to look at one particular case.
Kirsty is thirteen years old. She was bullied unmercifully at her secondary school, partly because she has ginger hair and partly because she suffers from rhinitis. This gives her voice an adenoidal sound which apparently irritated the other pupils. In the end, her father took her out of school last June. Now the hope of her parents is that she will take GCSEs in the ordinary way while studying at home. Neither of her parents, both of whom are on incapacity benefit, know anything at all about the National Curriculum, GCSEs or anything else much. They knew only that their daughter was suffering and felt that life was not worth living and so took her from school. Now they simply want her to get the GCSEs while staying at home. A pretty typical example of the situation, I would imagine.
The guy asked me to come and talk to him and his daughter, which I did. First problem; he is very hard up. In order for the child to study IGCSE mathematics, she will need two textbooks costing £15 each. He will also need to download the specification from the Edexcel site. They could not afford a new cartridge for the printer. Apart from the two standard textbooks, he will really need at least one other book on calculus; the textbooks do not cover this well. That's another £15. They will also need to buy paper, pens and so on. Just for this one subject, the bill is already up to £70. Since they are wholly reliant upon state benefits, this is not realistic.
They also want and need plenty of advice on how to go about doing things. I put him in touch with a few HE lists, but he really wants somebody to talk to in person. He joined a group, but they were in the main middle class autonomous educators. He is very working class and did not feel at ease. What he ideally wants is for somebody 'From the council' as he puts it, to come round regularly to help him plan his daughter's education. People moan about the requirement for one visit a year; this man would welcome weekly visits if they were available! Essex County Council has three part-time workers handling EHE. If he is lucky, he will be able to have a brief chat on the phone as well as an annual visit, but that's his lot. Apart from that, he is on his own. There simply isn't the money for the council to provide any sort of effective service for parents like this.
At this point, I can imagine readers getting tetchy with this fellow. After all, the people who comment here are in the main pushy and articulate middle class types who are used to getting what they want and fighting for things. Not a few are actually teachers themselves. The problem is that this man, like other parents I have met is not a rebel or campaigner; he simply wants his child to have a decent education without suffering bullying. He would also, as well as the carrot of funding, welcome the stick of coercion. Why do I say this?
Like many teenagers, his daughter's default setting consists of spending hours on the computer, chatting on MSN, listening to pop music and looking at photographs of other teenagers on Facebook. When not doing this, she watches a lot of television. What her mother and father want is a timetable for her and also a structured curriculum. Like many families, education is something which has always taken place at school and the child is not particularly amenable to the idea of her parents telling her what to read and write. Her father told me that what he really wants is "A lady from the education" to come to the house and put the frighteners on the kid and tell her that unless she follows a strict timetable then she will have to go back to school. The girl would accept such a statement more readily from a teacher or local authority officer than she would from her own parents. Because this has not happened, the child has gradually settled into a routine of spending hours on the computer and only doing any academic work under protest. As things stand, she will be lucky to get one GCSE, let alone five. She wanted to study A levels when she was older, but without GCSEs this prospect is not realistic.
The Children, Schools and Families Bill would be a Godsend to this family. They actually want masses of support which they cannot currently obtain. They also need that 0.1 of the AWPU which would pay for books and so on. I do not say that all bullied children who have been deregistered from school are like this, only that quite a few are. As things stand, this child's prospects are dismal. With the right help, they would be dramatically improved.
Simon said "The Children, Schools and Families Bill would be a Godsend to this family. They actually want masses of support which they cannot currently obtain."
ReplyDeleteyep - that won't be a popular view - but that is the sort of response from the families that I come across too!
Adding though- that is where good home ed groups come in - if the girl lived down here, someone would have lent her the textbooks, done the printing for them and probably taught the maths, or at least encouraged her!
ReplyDeleteGood point, Julie. The only thing is, I believe that parents like this should not be dependent upon the help of others given as a favour. They have a right to textbooks and all the assistence that they require. Some people simply want their children to get the same education as everybody else, except not at school. As things stand, they are more or less cast into the outer darkness for wanting this. It's alright for somebody like me; I never wanted nor needed any help, but I do not think that I should then say that nobody should want or need help or that those who both want and need help are fools and Quislings to the cause of home education!
ReplyDeleteSimon, I guess this false dichotomy you've created in that last sentence is another of your famous rhetorical devices. I don't think anyone is arguing that people who want help from the LA should be unable to get it. Indeed, it's frequently been pointed out that the less time and resources they spend 'monitoring' people who don't want or need their interference, the more they will have for those who do require their services.
ReplyDeleteJulie says yep - that won't be a popular view - but that is the sort of response from the families that I come across too!
ReplyDeletebut the help there will get from a council will not be what the family wants such as The right to textbooks and all the assistence that they require.all your get is tick boxer from the council and when you dont fill in the right box your get a school attendance order!
Simon says A lady from the education" to come to the house and put the frighteners on the kid and tell her that unless she follows a strict timetable then she will have to go back to school.
ReplyDeleteso the kid will be sent back to a school that failed it? what sort of timetable? one the lady from the education would make up?it sounds to late to do anything about her best bet is to leave kid alone!
Your implication is that if the CSF bill passed, all costs of home educating would be paid by the State. Even if this was desirable, which it isn't, this is a false assumption. This is political trickery.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing that could happen to this child is that she gets NO 'help and support' from Nanny State. Just maybe she will break the cycle of infantile dependence, that is the sickness of our culture. And if not, so what? If she uses MSM/Facebook all day, so what? The outcome could be no worse than if she had continued at school. At least this way, she is not being bullied and brainwashed.
Finally and most importantly. What has this family got to do with me? Just because you believe THEY 'need support', why does that mean MY family should be subjected to registration and monitoring? It is absurd. If one person has a need of medication, must we all be medicated?
How very weak.
You miss my point entirely, Anonymous. It has been suggested that if the CSF Bill becomes law that there will be suicides among bullied children and that the bill will therefore be bad thing. I was drawing attention to a case where far from causing harm, it had the potential to do good. My implication was not that all the costs of home educating would be met by the state, rather that 0.1 of the AWPU would be made available by central government. Your remark, "If she uses MSM/Facebook all day, so what?" renders all comment from me superfluous.
ReplyDelete"I believe that parents like this should not be dependent upon the help of others given as a favour."
ReplyDeleteThe very best help and support is readily available and given VOLUNTARILY and FREELY by other HEs. I have seen this EVERY time someone has asked for help. I have personally helped many, many people source materials, devise timetables, find exam centres and solve all of the problems in between.
"They have a right to textbooks and all the assistence that they require."
They do not have 'a right to textbooks and all the assistence that they require.' It is clear you do not understand the meaning of 'rights'.
"Some people simply want their children to get the same education as everybody else, except not at school. As things stand, they are more or less cast into the outer darkness for wanting this."
Again, another fiction, devised to to mislead. The HEs who want to follow the National Curriculum and take exams are not 'cast into the outer darkness' in any way. The HE-exams list has almost 900 members! I suggest, instead of trying to undermine this voluntary community, you simply pass on its URL to your needy friends. But then again, you need these 'lost souls' cast into the darkness to illustrate all your falsehoods.
"It's alright for somebody like me; I never wanted nor needed any help, but I do not think that I should then say that nobody should want or need help or that those who both want and need help are fools and Quislings to the cause of home education!"
You wanted nor needed help; you had complete autonomy in your approach to educating your daughter. But by your reckoning, I am not allowed this autonomy. And why? Because Benefits Ben from Benfleet 'needs support'. This is the worst form of dumbing down, using the lowest common denominator as the benchmark for the enforcement of unwanted 'policy'.
I said ""If she uses MSM/Facebook all day, so what?" renders all comment from me superfluous."
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that going to school all day is more beneficial than using Facebook all day? I certainly don't. At least, while using Facebook this girl is enjoying herself and potentially making friends and raising her self esteem. Many children un-school in this way. If she has potential, it is more likely to emerge under these conditions.
Thank you AM. By your use of phrases such as " Benefits Ben from Benfleet" and "needy friends" you expose your true feelings towards working class families trying to do the best for their children. When I say that somebody has "a right" to textbooks, I mean this. Every child in the country does actually have a legal right to an education. Others have a duty to cause the child to receive this. Those at school are given free access to many facilities. This is not charity, they do actually have a "right" to these things. A child whose parents who do not wish her to learn at school have no less a right to these things, yet because they choose not to send her to school, they are deprived of them.
ReplyDeleteI was on the HE Exams list for some years and of course I have passed this information on to my friend. But this list will not pay for the textbooks or the fees for the examinations; this is, or should be, the responsibility of the local authority.
When I said "cast into the outer darkness" I meant that when a child is a registered pupil at a school, there is a menu of support for her. When the child is taken out, much of this support is withdrawn. All that is usually available is the services of a part-time worker who may be based fifty miles form the child's home.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I was drawing attention to a case where far from causing harm, it had the potential to do good. My implication was not that all the costs of home educating would be met by the state, rather that 0.1 of the AWPU would be made available by central government."
But this money has nothing to do with the CSF Bill. The Bill contains no mention of funding to home educators. The Bill could pass and they could change their mind about funding once they look at the budget and decide cuts are necessary. This funding could still be available to anyone that chooses to register voluntarily without the Bill. If the Bill fails there is absolutely nothing to prevent the government offering plenty of support to any home educators that want it.
"I was on the HE Exams list for some years and of course I have passed this information on to my friend. But this list will not pay for the textbooks or the fees for the examinations; this is, or should be, the responsibility of the local authority."
ReplyDeleteLibraries carry text books. And are you suggesting that parents of children at private schools should also have funding from the LA? When we de-register to home educate we take responsibility for our children's education in exactly the same way as a parent of a child in private school. If they want to continue receiving support and direction from the LA there should be other routes, possibly similar to the tutoring provided to sick children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome parents who end up being in the EHE category have made a difficult decision in voting with their feet despite feeling they are cast out to sea. Many of these families would like more input from the LA's. Their 'needs' are as legitimate as those families who neither need nor want any 'help' and have good reason to be wary of LA's being given more powers. I cannot dispute this 'rock and a hard place' scenario exists and it is significant. I think that these families deserve Good Practice LA's and funding.
ReplyDeleteIt is a matter of where this population ends up- if the route does not lead to decent EOTAS programs and well funded, staffed and trained EHE departments who can offer help, then it inevitably leads to problems in EHE.
I have come to the conclusion that the recent 'storm' is all about funding. Possibly it is a red herring to say resources will be diverted from Social Services if this Bill goes through- maybe it is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper to sell the idea of registering and monitoring of all EHE families and offer a limited program of funding than it is to actually operate proper and adequately funded EOTAS programs for the families who really would benefit from this option.
So why the CSF Bill? Why not first properly train the LA's ? Why not first fund better EOTAS programs for the families that want it- then the EHE departments will shrink back down in size? The majority of real issues would be dealt with by CME teams as fewer will de-register as a last option when they feel ill equipped to discharge the duty. Voila! this manufactured problem will be dealt with and the EHE departments will find so few problems that they decide any attempt at monitoring would be a waste of money. As a useful aside the population which feels threatened and angry by the insinuations that somehow 'we' are a higher risk group who 'needs' Nanny's watchful eye will have less reason to be rather 'cheesed off' ;>)
continued...
ReplyDeleteIs it because a proper EOTAS program with the LA in loco parentis is much more expensive than the type of help that will be available to EHE families who are not delegating this duty once they sign the de-registration form? After all once a parent has exercised their rights under Section 7 it means that they are wholly responsible and the government can spend a fraction of what it would cost to fully fund alternative provision whilst at the same time making it appear as though it is a concession or a favour?
Is the CSF Bill the only way they can 'sell it' politically and at the same time make it look as though the right box is being ticked when it comes to other legislation.
1)Propose something that the majority of the population considers reasonable because the general population have no grasp of the underlying dynamics , especially after our negative publicity campaign
2)make it look as though children's interests are at heart
3)Inflate the figures so the cost/benefit ratio looks reasonable and not too extortionate to the tax -payer.
4)Better not to mention how the situation came about in the first instance and that money which could have been spent on decent EOTAS programs is being diverted into CME 'back to school regardless' agendas with the resulting families being diverted into EHE with no real funding.
The demographics have been changing in the EHE population since CME legislation decided to put money into identification , 'pushing the school route ' and prosecution rather than actual concrete help in alternative programs. Whether we 'bolshy middle class parents' like it or not , we are not in the majority of the registered population and neither are the families who get harmed by bad practice LA's. I am not at all trying to minimise the major issues that exist already in certain LA's and I am not saying that we 'bolshies' should step forward and increase the registered population's demographics in our favour -but I think Simon is correct to point out that many of the 'registered' newcomers to EHE are not exactly thrilled and do indeed want or need help . I find it disingenuous to denigrate that population just because they do not have the same opinions . Please leave this distasteful tactic to government........continued
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am most interested in the experiences of 'good practice' LA's.
ReplyDeleteWhat good practice LA's know is that most families will take on the responsibility and fulfil their parental duty after a time of adjustment . This means these good practice LA's spend more resources helping those who want help and not wasting resources on those where they neither want nor need it. These good practice LA's are not out looking for the committed and involved autonomous educator so they can say they have seen everyone. The reality is that these LA visitors miss the contact they have with families who are doing a good job and they do not differentiate between active involved autonomous and active involved structured parents. The good practice LA's will say that although they now are seeing a higher percentage of families who come to EHE through necessity not choice, with a few extra meetings and access to resources they become just like the families who they rarely visit and are quite comfortable with a annual letter for their files. They also wish that for the minority of families where nothing will help or those that request it, that the EOTAS option was available or there was funding to follow through with SAO's in the families where it may be a last resort-but that annually they see very few cases that cannot be helped. The good practice LA's also recognise that due to lack of funding for more staff , they only get to spend time with the 'harder' cases.
This is in contrast to the LA's where there are 'issues' with their ideology and methods-who think that because they see 'problems' then everyone is suspected of being problematic until they prove otherwise. These LA's are coming from a completely different angle and may indeed not recognise active and involved parenting and instead spend their resources checking everyone -thus spending limited resources on all which would be better spent taking the time to sit with families who want help and to encourage them to become self sufficient.
I do feel though that Graham Stuart was on the right track to point out that the government have gone about this half-assed backwards- these were not his exact words of course, but you get the drift. ;>). They have alienated the very people that are not the problematic population and facilitated a polarisation which has turned and will indeed further incite this particular demographic within the HE community into becoming a costly group of opponents.
Why would the training of LAs to understand the various forms in the HE paradigm, the set up of regional forums to deal with any issues and the funding of help (when asked for) be made as a condition of universal registration and monitoring- a licensing scheme? What would be the harm in trying another way? A gentler way?
The issues that exist can be addressed without changing the legislative framework if the real issues are talked about reasonably. Funding and training can be made available without the CSF bill.
If this is put in place FIRST and a little time added to heal the wounds and regain some trust, then
the EHE departments would not be seeing as many issues as they are currently seeing and would know that they can adequately help families where needed. The logical result would be that those they DO know about are now considered a low risk population. Therefore the amount of families who see no need for any LA contact at all would not be significant enough to cause a political murmer. The population that chooses to keep well away from the LA is neither here nor there- no-one really thinks this is a major issue and that untold numbers of children risk possible abuse- it is just currently convenient to use this population as a 'big question mark'.
Do you think there is any danger of some authorities pushing even more families down the involuntary HE route once they can point to 'support' from the LA?
ReplyDeleteBTW, not sure about the 'bolshy middle class parents' designation. I've been home educating for philosophical reasons for 10 years along with several friends and all of us are either on disability benefits or qualify for working tax credits. My Dad was a HGV driver and my DH is a manual worker, I'm 'bolshy working class', and proud of it! I haven't asked for help from the LA and I don't want it, but I have no objection to others asking for and getting support if that's what they want.
Aren't there all sorts of issues going on here?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, whether you want support or not, or whether you feel that others should have a right to it even if you don't want it (and it seems to me that there are some here who feel there shouldn't be any support available to families who do want it, which I do find a bit remarkable) the problem is at the moment the whole issue has become tangled with the CSF Bill.
Now I am no friend of the whole CSF Bill for a variety of reasons, but I don't think any of us can be really clear that were the Bill to get passed, it would definately lead to more support. The DCSF's proposals in that area are far from obvious.
However, whatever the intentions of the DCSF and the Bill are, is it reasonable to expect any LA to offer support? After all, the argument goes, people who opt for private education don't get that. Personally I think I am somewhere in the middle here- if you choose to HE then it is reasonable to expect families to be able to provide all the basics for any particular child (eg writing equipment ect) but it certainly shouldn't be beyond the ability of the LA's to provide easy access to exam entry, and whatever happens to the Bill, it shouldn't be impossible to make this free.
If the LAs don't get more funding though this last bit (ie free entry) isn't going to happen, although of course a compromise position (which will drive some home educators wild at the thought of it) is to encourage more schemes like the Bedford one (which allows things like part time attendance, free GCSEs and free activities) by drawimg down the money by sticking the children on the school roll. Of course, if you are the sort of home educator who hates all schools then that will never be a satisfactory solution. Our part of (south east) Hants has managed a few benefits for home educators by using other budgets and I think Tania's bit of Somerset is doing the same- but inevitably there is some compromise involved.
yes I think there may be a rise in some LAs due to this IF any 'support' is forthcoming but it will probably not be too much as I reckon nationally the number of parents who would end up making the HE decision as a last resort in cases where the child is desperately unhappy would remain fairly constant. I cannot see how an LA would benefit but certainly unless the issues are addressed with schools possibly more parents will make this decision to avoid prosecution. t could be though that numbers have reached their peak.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about the bolshy middle class designation although it works as a tongue in cheek stereotype- I think everyone reading understood the meaning behind it and I thought I was merely paraphrasing something Simon already wrote...it is probably unhelpful to use stereotypes such as Benefit Ben or Bolshy middle class parents...fact remains there are lots of families who want help and I think this has been 'lost' in the raging debate ...I dare say the majority of 'registered' folks want the option of more access to help and do not much mind the CSF Bill .
"fact remains there are lots of families who want help and I think this has been 'lost' in the raging debate ...I dare say the majority of 'registered' folks want the option of more access to help and do not much mind the CSF Bill."
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be impossible to provide for both choices. Making registration and support compulsory necessarily limits options for some but making them optional allows everyone to choose the route that suits their family. That's the difference between the two approaches to the Bill as far as I can see. If those who are against it succeed it does not foreclose others from accepting support and making themselves known to the LA. Those who are for the Bill are obviously happy to prevent others educating in ways that they consider suitable for their children. I'm not sure what benefit is in the Bill for them that could not be provided in other ways that do not restrict others. The opposite is not the case (unless you decide to move to Scotland or elsewhere, of course).
In all honesty, once trust has developed, I think the proportion not registering and accepting help would be small. I'm sure I saw a survey that found that only something like 10% of home educators consider themselves completely autonomous and an even smaller percentage considered themselves as full parent led. The majority fell in the middle with a mixture of parent and child led education and I'm reasonably sure that most of these families would probably welcome support.
Does anyone know what percentage of home educators in the area covered by the Bedford scheme are have stayed outside the system?
ReplyDeleteI don't know the total known HE population in Beds, but according to the TES there are 160 children on the Bedford scheme, so that has to be a considerable percentage.
ReplyDeleteNot sure your figures are correct about the Bedford scheme which is called 'Place'.They have 350 or so children .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.place-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=45:how-it-all-started&Itemid=62&layout=default
Central Bedfordshire and Bedford have about 162 other children registered as EHE who choose not to uptake this pilot project funded by the DCSF.
If you choose the 'virtual school' you are technically not on the EHE books any more as you are enrolled in a school.
I think it is a great idea and wish it success and clearly it has more people accessing it than not.
However there are some risks and fears involved for the community of home educators who choose not be involved in this scheme.As it is a pilot project there are obviously fears that this will become the only 'preferred' alternative and that those who do not choose it will be 'suspect' and then that model will be rolled out Nationwide as the 'best' option for those who are not enrolled in a regular school.
When I spoke to the LA's I was given the impression that there was no issue with parents who chose not to be involved but if I read between the lines here I do think these two LAs now have greater time to focus on the ones who they know about and who choose not to be involved and to want to try and differentiate
from the 'active and involved 'and possibly more on the autonomous spectrum and the 'not active , not involved and also service resistant'.
Speaking to the woman in Bedford I got the impression that she was pro home ed in all its forms and did not make a distinction between active involved parents on the scheme and active involved parents not on the scheme.
I spoke to many LAs and this woman was one of the more understanding of HE and all its variations.Again it may boil down to the ideology of the people in the LA and she just happens to be knowledgeable about AE and a supporter. Comments about central Bedfordshire indicate that Mr Mckormack may not be so thrilled about AE and those who do not choose this 'wonderful' opportunity scheme.
I have heard differing reports about Central Bedfordshire's Mr McKormack.. and as ever most of it boils down to personalities and to the way the scheme is presented to newcomers- as though this is what is expected or more 'desirable'. This of course will not please the section of the HE community who are in the minority and do not choose this scheme.
Another factor is that in order to access this scheme you must be known to the Local Authority and therefore if you decide to de-register you no longer have the option of not being on the their HE list.
If the DCSF do decide this pilot project is a success and that it is a model that they will fund nationwide , the families mentioned in the entire thread would have what they need but I doubt this will happen nationwide for the reasons I put in my first post.
on re-reading the literature about PLACE I now see that it is not clear how many children of compulsory education age are enrolled. It may be 260 or 150- the literature says different things but it may be that one figure is an old figure.
ReplyDeleteThe 350 figure may be because age 4-18 is included.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8081457.stm
ReplyDeleteI can see how the Bedfordshire scheme has polarised the community yet again.
Some rather unfortunate comments in this BBC article (surprise) .
Whilst I am more than prepared to support the idea behind schemes like this, the people in schemes like this need to be aware that they are not intentionally undermining those who do not wish to join. If this is the overwhelming attitude then obviously people who do not need nor want the scheme will get reactionary.If only the benefits can be voiced without the need to put down others.........
And vice versa- those who do not wish to participate in such schemes -it may be best to say 'thanks but no thanks' and concentrate on keeping your way flourishing and a positive choice rather than concentrating on the negative perceived aspects of others choices.
I do not doubt that there is a 'history' behind the Bedfordshire Initiative with personalities clashing....it is such a shame......
The 160 came from the Sept 2009 article in the TES.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly - the TES article (with the same young person interviewed) is much less confrontational - I expect the tone of the supposed comments in the BBC article are an artefact of the BBC method!
ReplyDeleteIt may be 160 families. I am sure someone 'in the know' will get to know this is being discussed here and correct the numbers
ReplyDelete