One of the objections raised to the regular monitoring of tens of thousands of home educated children is that large scale operations of this sort are bound to generate many false positives. What are false positives? Really, they are no more than mistakes; thinking that something exists or is happening when it is not. This expression is more commonly used in medicine and the consequences there can be horrific. Suppose that I am screening ten thousand women for breast cancer and I have a rate of false positives of around 1%. This would mean that a hundred women would be wrongly diagnosed with cancer. In a worst case scenario, this could lead to their having unnecessary mastectomies.
Another field where false positives could have terrible results is in the investigation of child abuse. If I look at hundreds of children using a discredited method like the anal dilation test, then I will be claiming that I have found evidence of sexual abuse in children where none exists. The consequence here might be for children to be removed from their families.
There is always a risk of false positives with mass screening and the larger the programme; the more likely are we to generate false positives. If we look at forty thousand home educated children, it is a racing certainty that we shall wrongly decide that a fair few of them are not receiving an efficient, fulltime education. This has been put forward as a good reason to avoid the routine monitoring of home education in this country.
The question which we need to ask about this idea is this; would it matter? In other words, if this mass screening resulted in local authority officers wrongly deciding that some of the children whom they saw were not being educated efficiently, what would happen? We saw earlier that in medicine, the result might be a breast or lung being removed unnecessarily, but what would happen in this case? What do local authority officers do if they find a home educated child whom they think is not being properly educated? The answer is of course, that they generally do nothing at all. The issuing of School Attendance Orders to the parents of home educated children is as rare as hen's teeth. Many local authorities never issue them and those that do might manage one or two in a typical year. The worst thing that a parent whose child has been wrongly diagnosed as being uneducated will have to endure is the disapproval of some minor apparatchik from the town hall. This is hardly a disaster!
I keep an eye out for cases of home educated children being forced to attend school and if it were happening, then I think that we would know about it. We know that some local authorities believe that they have a substantial number of children in their district who are not receiving an education, this at least as what they told Graham Badman. They do not however do anything about it.
I do not think that the danger of false positives is a good reason for avoiding the regular monitoring of children who are being educated at home. The consequences are usually non-existent and so I think that we can leave this particular worry out of the equation. I am sure that if every child were to be visited in her home, that some fairly shocking cases would be unearthed, which are currently hidden from view, but for the vast majority of families, it would be business as usual. The obvious question then is this. If there will be no practical consequences when a child is found to be inadequately educated, what is the point of conducting such mass screening in the first place? For one thing, parents may not in general know that there is little chance of legal action. It may be possible to bluff them into action merely by making empty threats. this would be a good thing for their children's education. Another point is that parents currently know that they can take their kids from school and avoid the local authority; refusing even a visit in many areas. if this were no longer possible, it might make them think twice about taking their child out in the first place. Regular monitoring visits of this sort might go some way towards abolishing what Graham Badman called 'home education by default', where parents de-register a child simply because they see no other option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When parents 'see no other option' what is most likely to deter them from the step of de-registration is not the prospect of regular monitoring visits. It would be ...more options!Margaret
ReplyDelete' It would be ...more options!Margaret'
ReplyDeleteYou have hit the nail bang on the head here and no mistake, Margaret. What is needed are certainly more options; more effective dealing with bullying, more sensitive handling of school refusal, greater sensitivity to relatively minor sepcial educational needs such as dyspraxia, more alternatives to school for disaffected fourteen adn fifteen year-olds. If we were to combine tackling such things more robustly while at the same time making it clear that de-registering a child from school was not a soft option, then we might be able to get somewhere.
Gosh - we are all going to agree (with the more options bit anyway!!)
ReplyDeleteAs for your bit about whether home educated children being forced to attend school; it seems to me that the cases where this happens isn't to do with the LA but family courts; there is nothing like a marital break up to suddenly divide parents on all sorts of key issues they apparently once held in common. In fact that is the reason why some families are so keen on having LA visits in the first place - it can be a a way of placating an absent father who is determined to get his own way on principle (ie unrelated to the quality of the education the mother is providing). As I said yesterday our LA is very uninclined to issue SAO's to HE families - PW of Alton will disagree with me - but his case was in 2002 and never actually went to court once he had produced the evidence of an education.
Howver, I do have all ostr so f efears that " more options" is unlikely to be in line with Govt policy. I will be intrested in seeing the Education Bill today ( even if you are right about no HE stuff in it, Simon) because what has been leaked so far seems to be completely out ofd line with what we were led to belive wasthe new Govt's priorities (ie less Govt interference) - they seem to be taking back political control of exam boards, planning to raise the bench marks so that more schoosl fail, and introduce all sorts ofthings which lead me to suspect that nothing ( even HE) will stay the same for long.
And don't get me started on exams.....off to Ikea, back later when I have read the actual proposals....
oops posted whilst checking typing - middle bit should read
ReplyDelete"However I do have all sorts of fears that " more options" is unlikely to be in line with Govt policy"
Teacher Julie says-As I said yesterday our LA is very uninclined to issue SAO's to HE families - PW of Alton will disagree with me - but his case was in 2002 and never actually went to court once he had produced the evidence of an education.
ReplyDeletethis is incorrect again Julie HCC do issue SAO to parents who refuse a home visit(this policy was approved by the now dead David Kirk) our case was started in June 2003 but a SAO was not issued untill 2007 we did not produce evidence of an education Peter did! you really must get you facts right Julie I am afraid Hampshire County Council has one of the worst records on home education and submited to Graham Badman a long list of things it wanted including forced right of entry into a private house to interview a child on its own just becuse it is home educated. HCC helped shape crazy Badman recommendations and fully aggreed with his weird recommendations HCC pose a real threat to home educators and we would advise you do not get into bed with them!
Peter - apart from yourselves, do you really know any other Hampshire (with home educated child) who has actually had an SAO issued in the last few years? I know NONE - the only current HE family I know of which actually had one was issued for an older truanting school child, nothing to do with HE. I spend a lot of my time involved with families in difficulty - child protection conferences and the like and in each of them, all the hassle has come from social services/police and had nothing at all to do with the LA!
ReplyDeleteTeacher Julie says-Peter - apart from yourselves, do you really know any other Hampshire (with home educated child) who has actually had an SAO issued in the last few years? I know NONE
ReplyDeleteYes i do know of others who have been issued with SAO as i got the infromation from HCC under freedom of information act but of course it does not tell you who there are! a number of SAO have been issued by HCC over the last few years! and one person was taking to court but it does not tell you the outcome!
Im afraid HCC pose a real threat to home education in Hampshire and was helping to shape crazy Badman recommendations over home education.
we have had no dealong with police or child protection conferences so we dont know about them! can only comment about HCC.
But I too have looked at the FOI info and it says no SAO's issued; how old is your FOI?
ReplyDelete2005 2006 2007 Julie
ReplyDeleteYep, proves my point - much less confrontational now!
ReplyDeleteTeacher Julie says-Yep, proves my point - much less confrontational now!
ReplyDeletewell if there are you can thank Peter for that as he was the one who took them on and won! but there never thanked Peter
Actually I suspect it is the work of the home ed groups; memmbers of which have attended endless meetings, challenged the LA when they have got it wrong, encouraged them to use more "HE friendly" inspectors and get involved with training the inspection team.
ReplyDeleteTeacher Julie says-Julie said...
ReplyDeleteActually I suspect it is the work of the home ed groups; memmbers of which have attended endless meetings, challenged the LA when they have got it wrong, encouraged them to use more "HE friendly" inspectors and get involved with training the inspection team.
Dont think so Julie! as proven by what HCC submited to crazy old Badman about home education HCC where very clear that there wanted home visits and to child on its own.
HCC do not use HE friendly inspectors.who doing the training you? should have asked Peter to whip them into shape LOL
Giving up Peter - you don't want to listen - but actually I haven't done most of the work with the LA- who meet regularly with a large number of home educators of all sorts, including highly autonomous ones.....
ReplyDeleteteacher Julie says-Giving up Peter - you don't want to listen - but actually I haven't done most of the work with the LA- who meet regularly with a large number of home educators of all sorts, including highly autonomous ones.....
ReplyDeleteI got in front of me what HCC submited to crazy old Badman and it is very clear that there want forced home visit and to see child on its own! its down here in writing signed off by the now dead david Kirk!
Im afraid your the one who will not listen.You ask HCC if there sorry for issuing SAO in past years to Home educators who refused a meeting and there will tell you there are not sorry you ask them Julie? so nothing has changed you have to address the past before you can move on im afraid!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"The question which we need to ask about this idea is this; would it matter? In other words, if this mass screening resulted in local authority officers wrongly deciding that some of the children whom they saw were not being educated efficiently, what would happen?"
But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. Why did you think the quoted research related to child abuse and neglect? Have you forgotten headlines so soon?
'Home education a cover for abuse?'
'Get tough on home tuition to weed out abuse, says review.'
'Home schooling 'could be a cover for child abuse and sexual exploitation''
'Home education 'can be cover for abuse and forced marriage''
'Study claims that children educated at home are at severe disadvantage - Children educated at home are twice as likely to be known to social services and four times more likely to be NEET.'
'But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
ReplyDeleteThis idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. He said;
'I can find no evidence that elective home education is a particular factor in the remval of children to forced marriage, servitude or trafficking or for inappropriate abusive activities.'
Schedule 1 of the Children Schools and Families Bill was drawn up on purely educational terms; child abuse did not enter into it at all.
"I keep an eye out for cases of home educated children being forced to attend school and if it were happening, then I think that we would know about it."
ReplyDeleteWell I know of one in our area, and have spoken to the family on the phone. No SAO has yet been issued because the family has been led gently down the path in the misguided assumption that by complying with all the LA requests, they'd be OK and yet the children have ended up back at school and no one but the LA is happy. I went through the law with the parent on the phone and said that if they're convinced of their case they can pull the children back out of school, drop LA contact to the bare minimum of detailing *provision* with no home visit and be prepared for a court case. However, I did also point out that they might lose and that I'm not a lawyer. I did offer to turn up as a supporting friend if they do have another home visit, which could be interesting.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"'But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
This idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. "
No it wasn't. In his report he said, "the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population."
and also:
"Recommendation 22
That those responsible for monitoring and supporting home education, or commissioned so to do, are suitably qualified and experienced to discharge their duties and responsibilities set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children to refer to social care services children who they believe to be in need of services or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm."
Simon wrote,
"Schedule 1 of the Children Schools and Families Bill was drawn up on purely educational terms; child abuse did not enter into it at all."
One of the justifications listed for revocation of registration is if it would be harmful to the child's welfare for the child to continue to be home educated. This has nothing to do with education provision because the child not receiving a suitable education is listed separately, lower down the list. Therefore the LA visitor would be required to make a judgement on the welfare of the child as well as their education.
"I keep an eye out for cases of home educated children being forced to attend school and if it were happening, then I think that we would know about it."
ReplyDeleteHow can you possibly 'keep an eye out for cases' when we don't even know how many HE children there are, let alone who they are? You've repeatedly said yourself that members of email lists are a small minority of home educators. How are you in contact with the majority so that you can 'keep an eye' on them and their relations with their LA?
Dave H says-I went through the law with the parent on the phone and said that if they're convinced of their case they can pull the children back out of school, drop LA contact to the bare minimum of detailing *provision* with no home visit and be prepared for a court case. However, I did also point out that they might lose and that I'm not a lawyer. I did offer to turn up as a supporting friend if they do have another home visit, which could be interesting.
ReplyDeletethe LA would have to go though the same process as before but this time the parents would Know how to handle them! ie no home visit! get everything in writing ask what information LA want and then we will try our best to help you! letters back wards and forwards can really slow the process down! also there should contact the county counilor for there ward he will be able to help to.
the whole process of issuing a SAO takes a long time and if you keep writing to say your home educating how can i help will stop an SAO being issued SEE LA want to go to court saying you wont provide evidence of the education all you have to show is you are willing to and keep trying to show your LA its them he wont assess it! one other point an SAO can be issued but it does not mean it will be inforced! you also have right of appeal to M.Gove M.P Education Secretary
dont be scared of any LA there all bark and no bite a bit like old Webb talks a good fight but cant follow though!
'You've repeatedly said yourself that members of email lists are a small minority of home educators. How are you in contact with the majority so that you can 'keep an eye' on them and their relations with their LA?'
ReplyDeleteI certainly cannot hear of all cases! But there are Freedom of Information requests, for example, about how many SAOs different local authorities have issued. If an authority has issued none for years, then it means that home educated children are fairly safe from the threat of such a thing.
There are other ways to force a child to attend school than to issue a SAO. Often the threat of an SAO and constant harassment are enough and in David H's example. From what I've heard, this is much more common than the issue of a SAO. How do you 'keep and eye' on these cases?
ReplyDeleteanon says-There are other ways to force a child to attend school than to issue a SAO. Often the threat of an SAO and constant harassment are enough and in David H's example. From what I've heard, this is much more common than the issue of a SAO. How do you 'keep and eye' on these cases?
ReplyDeleteyes this is type of behavior you get from most LA and many people give in or get so worried about SAO and court that there send child back to school this may not be best for the child but the LA dont care as the private brief is to get children into school! you have to be very very strong to withstand this pressure we where by most people cant and so give in!
No comment, Simon?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote...
Simon wrote,
"'But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
This idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. "
No it wasn't. In his report he said, "the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population."
and also:
"Recommendation 22
That those responsible for monitoring and supporting home education, or commissioned so to do, are suitably qualified and experienced to discharge their duties and responsibilities set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children to refer to social care services children who they believe to be in need of services or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm."
Simon wrote,
"Schedule 1 of the Children Schools and Families Bill was drawn up on purely educational terms; child abuse did not enter into it at all."
One of the justifications listed for revocation of registration is if it would be harmful to the child's welfare for the child to continue to be home educated. This has nothing to do with education provision because the child not receiving a suitable education is listed separately, lower down the list. Therefore the LA visitor would be required to make a judgement on the welfare of the child as well as their education.
'Recommendation 22
ReplyDeleteThat those responsible for monitoring and supporting home education, or commissioned so to do, are suitably qualified and experienced to discharge their duties and responsibilities set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children to refer to social care services children who they believe to be in need of services or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm."'
This does not seem to me to be referring to child abuse. Children in need of services are more likely to be those with special needs for example.
'
In his report he said, "the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population."'
This is possibly true. Again it is because of children with special educational needs who are known to children's social care for that reason. I do not think that this is hinting at abuse.
'One of the justifications listed for revocation of registration is if it would be harmful to the child's welfare for the child to continue to be home educated.'
Also nothing to do with child abuse. Unless one assumes that home education could exacerbate the effects of abuse.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This does not seem to me to be referring to child abuse. Children in need of services are more likely to be those with special needs for example."
It says, "in need of services or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.". The document referred to, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is not about provision of SEN services. It's about looking for evidence of harm. It has a section on Victoria Climbie and also information sharing, training, working with children about whom there are child welfare concerns, referrals to social services, child in need but no suspected actual or likely significant harm, child in need and suspected actual or likely significant harm, Immediate protection, Child assessment orders, Recording that a child is the subject of a child protection plan, Fabricated or induced illness (FII), Female genital mutilation, Forced marriage, Allegations of abuse made against a person who works with children, etc...
Simon wrote,
"'One of the justifications listed for revocation of registration is if it would be harmful to the child's welfare for the child to continue to be home educated.'
"Also nothing to do with child abuse. Unless one assumes that home education could exacerbate the effects of abuse."
So if it's not about abuse or neglect and not about the education provision (which obviously includes SEN as that is part of the definition of education and is dealt with elsewhere), what do you think they mean by 'welfare'?
'what do you think they mean by 'welfare'?'
ReplyDeleteI would guess that this refers to children, for example, whose parents might be suffering from mental health problems and are very isolated, seeing few people but the parents. In such cases, even thought there is no question of abuse or neglect, it might be in the child's best interests to attend school.
Badman clearly intended that visits should screen for abuse and neglect, hence the reference to the 'Working Together to Safeguard Children' document. Balls wrote that he intended to implement Badman's report fully. Why wouldn't 'welfare' include abuse and neglect given that it formed part of Badman's recommendations with respect to monitoring visits? Certainly the LA and courts would be forgiven for thinking this so. At best, it was a very poorly written piece of legislation that could easily be used to justify routine screening for abuse and neglect.
ReplyDeleteIf they are concerned about a child's welfare to the extent that 'seeing few people but the parents' is sufficient justification for the state to remove control of a child's education from their parents, why do they do so little about the welfare of bullied children in schools? Shouldn't the parents of these children be forced to home educate as their situation (at school) is clearly worse than that of a HE child who is 'seeing few people but the parents'?