The latest piece of paranoia to start a panic among home educators is the Metropolitan Police Child Abuse Investigation Command's tool for detecting the abuse of children and instigating action before a greater tragedy befalls the child, i.e. she is murdered. This document is called the Child Risk Assessment matrix or CRAM for short and it may be seen here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33823946/Real-Risk-Management-the-MPS-CRAM
Now there are two objections to CRAM from the point of view of some home educating parents. Firstly, it gives 'home education' as a risk factor, thus putting a home educated child automatically on a par with one who has a child protection plan or is displaying sexualised behaviour. Secondly, co-sleeping is also suggested as a risk factor. Some people are already becoming hysterical about this and claiming that this is yet another attack upon home education in this country and that the government is now trying to peer into our bedrooms and criticise our sleeping arrangements
I am in two minds about this approach by the police. On the one hand, it does seem outrageous that the simple fact of home education should be regarded as a risk factor when investigating possible cases of child abuse. Similarly co-sleeping, the practice of allowing babies and small children to share the same bedroom as their parents, is usually harmless enough. Why on earth should that be a risk factor? The problem is that many of those who are raising these objections come from comfortable, happy and well educated families. They simply cannot imagine anybody neglecting their children or having sex with a toddler. In short, they have had no experience of the sort of families which CRAM is designed to be used with.
The home education bit is probably more a matter of semantics than anything else. The police do not really think that those educating their children at home are any more at risk than other children. 'Home education' is a convenient, short phrase which means 'not attending school'. It is perfectly true that Victoria Climbie, for example, was not home educated. It is also quite true that she was not at school. It is this which has been identified as being a factor in some of the high profile cases upon which the CRAM document is based. Similarly, nobody is suggesting that co-sleeping is harmful in itself. It can be though, if it were to continue past puberty say or if a four year old were to be in the room regularly while two or three adults were engaging in noisy sex. One can see how this might lead to sexualised behaviour as well.
I think that part of the difficulty here is that a lot of home educators live such respectable and stable lives with their children that they cannot imagine what the police have to deal with. These risk factors are not taken in isolation, but enable the police to build up a picture of a child's overall circumstance. For example, alongside 'home education' as a risk factor is having a disability. this does not of course mean that if the police visit a home where a child is in a wheelchair that they will immediately contact social services and warn that a child is at risk! How could home education or co-sleeping be relevant in this context? Let us suppose that a visit is made to a home where a twelve year-old girl is sharing a bedroom with a man and woman who are having a sexual relationship. Let us further suppose that the man is not related to her and that there are also signs of substance abuse. If on top of that the child were to be displaying sexualised behaviour and not attending school, then eyebrows might certainly be raised. This would certainly be a family where 'home education' and co-sleeping were relevant factors when looking at the lifestyle of a family. It all depends on circumstance.
In short, I can see why the CRAM tool might seem alarming to some parents, but I do not see it so myself. I have a suspicion though that we shall be hearing a good deal more about this document in the near
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem with identifying risks in this way is
ReplyDeletethe assumption that risks in the general population also apply to individual cases.
For example, you have mentioned before that having a step-father is a risk to young children. This might be so in the population as a whole, but isn't necessarily the case for every individual, and the police and other agencies have to deal with individual cases.
It is claimed that the police have 'tested' the CRAM model against high-risk cases like those of Victoria Climbie and Baby P. I'm sure they have. It doesn't follow that any child who shares any features of Victoria Climbie's or Baby P's lifestyle is at any kind of risk.
In the case of home education there is no data about whether it is a risk factor in the general population, never mind for individuals.
This is a misapplication of statistical analysis. What public sector employees need is training in how to effectively assess risk in individual cases. A few stats workshops wouldn't go amiss, either.
'Firstly, it gives 'home education' as a risk factor, thus putting a home educated child automatically on a par with one who has a child protection plan or is displaying sexualised behaviour. Secondly, co-sleeping is also suggested as a risk factor.'
ReplyDeleteBoth home education and co-sleeping are highlighted in red, whereas having a child protection plan and displaying sexualised behaviour are not. I can't find any explanation of the meaning of the red highlighting, but it does suggest to me that home education and co-sleeping are seen as *higher* risk than having a child protection plan or displaying sexualised behaviour. Red usually indicates danger. Whatever the reason, it makes the highlighted factors stand out.
Do you think that perhaps a 'tool' such as this erodes a Common Sense approach in police officers because it encourages reliance on a check-list?
ReplyDeleteMrs Anon
'Similarly co-sleeping, the practice of allowing babies and small children to share the same bedroom as their parents, is usually harmless enough.'
ReplyDeleteNot only is it usually harmless, it's actually recommended for babies as a way of *reducing* the risk of SIDS.
'The police do not really think that those educating their children at home are any more at risk than other children. 'Home education' is a convenient, short phrase which means 'not attending school'.'
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't mean that. Why not use the even shorter and more convenient acronym CME, which is more likely to identify children who may actually be at risk?
'The problem is that many of those who are raising these objections come from comfortable, happy and well educated families. They simply cannot imagine anybody neglecting their children or having sex with a toddler. In short, they have had no experience of the sort of families which CRAM is designed to be used with.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think there can be many people who cannot imagine these things happening, especially given the media coverage given to cases of nelect and abuse.
'It all depends on circumstance.'
Does it? I happen to know two comfortable, happy and well educated families who have been investigated by social services precisely because they co-sleep and home educate. One of these cases is ongoing. The other caused a great deal of distress and disruption to the family, and left them with a permanent record of SS 'concern'.
'In the case of home education there is no data about whether it is a risk factor in the general population, never mind for individuals.'
ReplyDeleteAccording to the evidence gathered by home educators through FOI requests made to local authorities, the risk of abuse to children known to be home educated is significantly lower than that of the general population.
yes why not just use the words CME?
ReplyDelete'It is claimed that the police have 'tested' the CRAM model against high-risk cases like those of Victoria Climbie and Baby P. I'm sure they have.'
ReplyDeleteI smelt a rat with this claim, suzyg. I understood this to mean that they had take a few high profile and possibly atypical abuse cases and put some of their features into the checklist. We all have 20/20 hindsight, but what has happened in the past is not always an accurate guide to the future.
'Do you think that perhaps a 'tool' such as this erodes a Common Sense approach in police officers because it encourages reliance on a check-list?'
ReplyDeleteThe whole purpose of the thing is to reduce the Common Sense approach by police, Mrs Anon! In the wake of baby P and Khyra Ishaq, the police have deluged social services departments with referrals of possible abuse. Every time they visited a home where things didn't feel quite right, they would flag up a concern on the MERLIN system. 99% of these cases came to nothing. Social services have asked the police to be a little more selective about the matter and the result is CRAM.
'Not only is it usually harmless, it's actually recommended for babies as a way of *reducing* the risk of SIDS.'
ReplyDeleteI should have said that sometimes it is harmless. It can also be implicated in increased rates of SIDS. On CRAM, co-sleeping is combined with 'chaotic sleeping arrangements'. For those from respectable homes who are baffled by this expression, it means everybody simply falling asleep where they are and spending the night sprawled, in their day clothes, on the floor or sofa. Children becaome entangled in such a lifestyle. Babies sleeping like this, with an adult on a sofa, can fall prey to SIDS. I think that just as 'home education' is used as a shorthand term, so too is 'co-sleeping'. For most of us, it means our baby sharing the same bedroom; for many it might entail the child in the same bed or indeed just crashing on the sofa with the mother. This can be risky.
'But it doesn't mean that. Why not use the even shorter and more convenient acronym CME, which is more likely to identify children who may actually be at risk?'
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty here is that CME has a precise definition. For example, a child of four years and eleven months could not be classified as officially CME. By using the term 'home educated', they are keeping the thing deliberately vague and including three and four year-olds who are not in a school or nursery. I do not say that I agree with this idea, simply that that is the motivation behind using 'home educated' rather than CME.
'On CRAM, co-sleeping is combined with 'chaotic sleeping arrangements'.'
ReplyDeleteThen that's another problem with CRAM.
'By using the term 'home educated', they are keeping the thing deliberately vague and including three and four year-olds who are not in a school or nursery.'
ReplyDeleteYet another problem. Since when has being at home with mum at the age of 3 or 4 been a risk factor for anything? In fact, there has been some media coverage recently of research which indicated that daycare can be damaging for young children.
'there has been some media coverage recently of research which indicated that daycare can be damaging for young children.'
ReplyDeleteAs I am sure you are aware from a few recent posts which I have made, I am not at all in favour of early years childcare. I was just explaining why the expression 'home educated' was used rather than CME. They also had Baby P in mind here. I have to say that if they had used CME, then that would also have brought down the wrath of home educators! Imagine if some home edcuating family found that their kid had been described as CME.
'I have to say that if they had used CME, then that would also have brought down the wrath of home educators! Imagine if some home edcuating family found that their kid had been described as CME.'
ReplyDeleteBetter that being considered at risk because they're home educated. Anyway, since the CME legislation, LA's have a duty to identify all CME, which means eliminating HE children, with the implication that all children known not to be in school are assumed to be CME until information is received to the contrary. So we're used to that.
''By using the term 'home educated', they are keeping the thing deliberately vague'
ReplyDeleteBut 'home educated' is not a vague term. It's a very specific one.
Apropos of co-sleeping, it is worth bearing in mind that there are increased hazards to children from this practice. In the USA during the period 1990 - 1997, 515 deaths were linked to infants and toddlers under 2 years of age sleeping in adult beds. 121 of the deaths were attributed to a parent, caregiver, or sibling rolling on top of or against a baby while sleeping
ReplyDeletemore than 75% of the deaths involved infants younger than 3 months old
Between 1999 and December 2001 more than 100 infant deaths were attributed to hazards for babies on adult beds, including:
suffocation when an infant got trapped or wedged between a mattress and headboard, wall, or other object, suffocation resulting from a baby being face-down on a waterbed, mattress, or on soft bedding such as pillows, blankets, or quilts and strangulation in a bed frame that allowed part of an infant's body to pass through an area while trapping the baby's head
This just goes to show how misleading statistics can be. I would hazard a guess that in almost every case there were other factors at play, such as drug, alcohol or tobacco use by the parents, or inadequate safety precautions.
ReplyDelete' I would hazard a guess that in almost every case there were other factors at play, such as drug, alcohol or tobacco use by the parents, or inadequate safety precautions. '
ReplyDeleteYes, I dare say you are right about this. Smoking and alcohol are certainly implicated in many such cases.
There's also the issue of alternative scenarios. I would be surprised if most co-sleeping arrangements with infants are chosen on a matter of principle; I suspect they are usually adopted for practical reasons. It's much easier to care for a child who is breast-fed, cold or ill if they are in bed with you, than if they are not. My daughter fell asleep much more quickly if she was in bed with me than if she wasn't; my son was just the opposite. I had no strong feelings about the rights and wrongs of the situation - I just wanted us all to have some sleep.
ReplyDeleteCo-sleeping risks have to be compared to non co-sleeping risks, not just examined in isolation.
'Co-sleeping risks have to be compared to non co-sleeping risks, not just examined in isolation.'
ReplyDeleteThis is true enough. I was just explaining how co-sleeping found its way onto the checklist, not saying that I agreed with it!
Like I said, stats workshops required for public sector employees.
ReplyDelete