Sunday 5 December 2010

Doorstepped in Dorset; Part 2

Two people in particular raised very good points about yesterday's post. One of these was Margaret, the other was somebody who lives in the area and upon whose word I rely.

Margaret posed a number of hypothetical cases and asked if I would still have been so welcoming had the house been in uproar or chaos for various reasons. I suppose that the answer to that is that as long as I was surte that the person demanding my attention and wishing to to speak to me was genuinely there because she was concerned about my daughter's welfare, then I would, albeit with a bad grace, probably allow them to see the child. If we were on the way out, I might suggest that she walk with us to the bus stop and ask her questions on the way. if the house were a mess, I might insist that she remain on the doorstep. I would certainly make it plain that she was only on my property by my permission.

I have actually had some irritating experiences of this sort myself and so this is not at all theoretical. when a new 'advisor' started work in Essex, she wanted to rush round and see every child in a hurry. I had been visited a few months previously and suddenly got a letter suggesting that this person would come round shortly. I made my annoyance clear when I replied, but allowed the visit anyway. An even better example is when my daughter started to complain of mysterious tummy aches. She was otherwise healthy, eleven years of age and with pronounced breast development. I did not really need a medical practitioner to tell me the most likely explanation for these pains, but thought it best to be on the safe side. It was late September. The doctor, an elderly man, associated September with back to school. Noting my daughter's age, he began asking about starting secondary school and whether she had any problems at school. The implication was plain; psychosomatic problem caused by a desire to avoid school. When he discovered that she did not attend school, the direction changed at once. He moved seamlessly from attributing these tummy aches to starting secondary school, to suggesting that they were caused by not starting secondary school. Questions about wanting to be with her friends were asked and the hint was that I was keeping her at home for reasons of my own. (Quite true; I wanted to provide her with a decent education!) I have no doubt that he marked down in her notes that here was an anxious and isolated child suffering from psychological disturbance. readers will be relieved to know that my own diagnosis proved more accurate and that her periods began a few days later.

In the above case, I tolerated the ill informed views of a bloody fool, because he clearly meant well. This is the principle by which I have always worked when I come across people who don't really know about home education.

In Poole, my informant tells me that those monitoring home education are turning up unannounced at people's homes and trying to bluff their way into the house by claiming to have legal powers which they do not possess. Apparently, they literally put their foot in the door in order to prevent the parent from shutting the door in their faces. I am told that despite what I say, these people do not mean well at all. If this is so and their motives go beyond the welfare of the children, I suppose that I must ask what other reason there could be for their behaviour? I do not doubt for a moment that these individuals are claiming to have powers which they do not have. Neither do I doubt for a moment that they are behaving like door to door salesmen and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is unfortunate. Another complaint is that despite the availability of funding from central government for children with special educational needs who are being educated at home, Poole takes the line that those who home educate have chosen to do the thing alone and without assistance. This is the line which other local authorities are also taking.

As I have said, I have experienced irritation from the local authority and Health Service myself on this front. Nothing which I came across stemmed from anything other than concern for my daughter, however misplaced. I wonder if any readers can suggest another motive for all these actions down in Dorset? I suppose that senior managers covering their arses against a re-run of the Khyra Ishaq case is one; are there any others?

33 comments:

  1. "Nothing which I came across stemmed from anything other than concern for my daughter, however misplaced."

    Even if we assume that nobody in this line of work does things just through bloody mindedness and it's always 'for the sake of the children', can you not see the possibilities for this 'care' for the child leading to great harm to the child and their family? Especially if everyone reacts as though they are perfectly right to have concerns about HE children and that it's perfectly normal and necessary to have regular spot checks to make sure they are still alive?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "if the house were a mess, I might insist that she remain on the doorstep. I would certainly make it plain that she was only on my property by my permission."

    And what if this was interpreted as you having something sinister to hide? This, after all, is exactly how Khyra's mother behaved when the social worker came calling. If we allow 'them' to see HE as an automatic cause of concern that requires spot checks to be sure children are safe, how would you expect someone to react if they are treated in the same way as social workers in a notorious child abuse case?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The implication was plain; psychosomatic problem caused by a desire to avoid school. When he discovered that she did not attend school, the direction changed at once."

    An example of sloppy thinking at its worst given your description of your daughter. Occam's razor clearly suggests the conclusion you reached. Clearly far more 11 year old girls are about to start their periods than are being abused. Why do you accept sloppy thinking so happily, even to the extent of suggesting we encourage it by treating these visits in Devon as 'normal' and to be expected when you profess to dislike sloppy thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Why do you accept sloppy thinking so happily,'

    I said of this incident,

    'In the above case, I tolerated the ill informed views of a bloody fool, '

    I am not at all sure that this suggests that I accepted the doctor's sloppy thinking happily!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you make your 'toleration' obvious to the doctor, or did you behave as though he was perfectly justified to suspect abuse and appear happy and unconcerned?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The point is that there is no need for these LA people; if there is a problem, they won't detect it or act on it, if there is no problem they are a waste of time/money and an intrusion.

    It's all over for these state workers and they know it. Like any dying beast they become more dangerous and desperate in their final hours.

    Everyone unfortunate enough to be dealing with them must stay brave and know their rights - it will all be over soon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our advice is NEVER answer the door unless you know who it is! that way no one can get a foot in the door!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is lazy to simply quote Thoreau at this point, but it is Sunday night after all.

    "If you see a man approaching you
    with the obvious intent of doing you good,
    you should run for your life."

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'It is lazy to simply quote Thoreau at this point, but it is Sunday night after all.'

    Which puts me in mind of something which Ronald Reagan once said:

    'The nine most frightening words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government; I'm here to help you'"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Blimey, Simon - did you check with your daughter before blogging about when she started her periods? Just goes to show that we all have different ideas about privacy!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Blimey, Simon - did you check with your daughter before blogging about when she started her periods? Just goes to show that we all have different ideas about privacy!'

    I suppose this depends upon whether you subscribe to a Victorian set of taboos around the subject of menstruation. We do not in this household and it is a matter of ordinary conversation. I am aware that for the more genteel of my readers, this is not a topic which should be broached publicly and I apologise for offending any of the more sensitive among you. In future, expressions like 'periods' or menstruation' will be delicately referred to in an oblique fashion as 'being indisposed', 'a certain time of the month' or similar euphemisms. I can only again apologise. I suppose because my daughter is an ardent feminist and is happy to discuss this matter at any time and place, regarding the suppression of all mention in polite society of the subject as being an attempt to render an essential part of her nature as a woman invisible, I assumed that most other people feel the same. This is evidently not the case.

    I cannot help but wonder if it would be thought an invasion of a teenage boy's privacy to mention the age at which he started shaving? Probably not, because male sexual maturity is a matter of pride, not of shame.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So, that's a no then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tee hee! Simon the feminist... We talk about periods in our house too. (I got over any reservations about periods when I was eleven or twelve and used to visit Greenham, where the women sometimes tied their tampons to the fence.) Sanitary protection has always littered the bathroom and we've always been completely open about it with our children. It doesn't, however, follow that I would blog about a family member's menstruation - any more than any other biological details. I wouldn't mention a son having started to shave or a daughter's breast development - certainly not without a discussion first. In my book this is not prudery but respect of personal information. But I guess we all have different concepts of that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I checked with my daughter this morning and I regret to say that used a very bad word! I am aware that some of those who comment here are quite maidenly modest and so shall not offend their sensibilities by printing the word here. The gist of what she said was, 'What the unmentionable in polite society is wrong with people?' She gave me to suppose that she would have been surprised had I asked for her permission to talk of this on my blog. There followed a long rant about the taboos surrounding mentruation and the fact that the whole subject is regarded by the more genteel as being 'not quite nice'. I shall respect these delicate feelings in future and steer clear of the topic entirely. I shall also refer to pregnancy as 'being in a certain condition' and bulls will always be called gentleman cows from now on. And I'll cover up the chair legs with frilly bits of material in case anybody is upset by the sight of naked legs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh, good, she's happy and we're all happy :-) Please tell her that I'll go back to reading aloud to my children from my early 80s copy of "Our bodies Ourselves" ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I cannot help but wonder if it would be thought an invasion of a teenage boy's privacy to mention the age at which he started shaving?"

    Or wet dreams? When did yours start Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Or wet dreams? When did yours start Simon? '

    Round about fourteen, I suppose. Why do you ask?

    ReplyDelete
  18. No reason, just thought it was a more appropriate comparison than shaving.

    We've always talked openly about this sort of thing at home, but I'm not sure how they would feel about me discussing things like this on-line, especially as it is likely to be searchable many years into the future long after they've forgotten it's here. Overall you've put a great deal of information about Simone life. Just not sure how wise that is. May be fine, but I'm just not sure. Probably not so bad now that she's virtually an adult. Probably much less of a good idea with younger children.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mind you, I suppose it goes some way to explain why you are happy to throw you doors open to strangers and allow them to question your child alone. You don't appear to value privacy, so maybe this is why you struggle to understand those who do?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Overall you've put a great deal of information about Simone life"

    should have been,

    Overall you've put a great deal of information about Simone's life on your blog (and in newspapers).

    ReplyDelete
  21. ' You don't appear to value privacy'

    Or perhaps am able to distinguish between that and secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So you are of the mind that if you have nothing to hide, let them in? How far would that extend for you? To termly visits? Medical examinations? After all, if you have nothing to hide...

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Or perhaps am able to distinguish between that and secrecy."

    Why would you consider someone to be clandestine or furtive for not describing their child's life on the internet to millions of strangers? Or for not opening up their home and allowing their children and themselves to be questioned regularly by official strangers? Strange idea.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why would you consider someone to be clandestine or furtive for not describing their child's life on the internet to millions of strangers?"

    Indeed. I think that the technology is so new that most of us are rather unsure about what is appropriate when it comes to what we share about ourselves and others. I certainly don't think it's secretive to take the approach that my children's medical details or emotional states, for example, are their own to divulge as and when they choose. I am frequently astonished by the level and depth of information that people share about their children and have become more cautious about this in recent years.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I notice you are very open about your daughter's education and qualifications, but less so about your own despite having been asked several times on your blog. Does this mean you are being secretive, or is it just that you value your own privacy above your child's?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I am frequently astonished by the level and depth of information that people share about their children and have become more cautious about this in recent years."

    I think it was the Taking Children Seriously list that opened my eyes to this years ago. When I read the list you risked being banned if you gave out information about your child. If you had a question you could anonymise it so nobody on the list knew who you were, or invent a scenario about an imagined child and situation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ' I am frequently astonished by the level and depth of information that people share about their children'

    Fairly breathtaking statement, Allie. It is true that I have mentioned the odd bit of information about my daughter over the last year or two. This is as nothing compare to what you have been putting up during that time. Photographs of your children, details of your personal life and the childrens's developemnt; absolutely every aspect of their lives, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I haven't blogged since March 2010 and I don't think I will ever blog in the same way as I did when the kids were younger. I think that (like many others) I rushed into the technology without thinking hard enough about what information was mine to share. But I can assure you that I've never blogged *every* aspect of my children's lives - or mine, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh, and I wasn't actually thinking of you when I said "I am frequently astonished by the level and depth of information that people share about their children." I wasn't having a dig. I was actually trying to discuss something interesting rather than go to battle but I guess I have been pretty confrontational on here before so I don't blame you for interpreting my comment that way.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ' I guess I have been pretty confrontational on here before so I don't blame you for interpreting my comment that way.'

    I wasn't taking it as confrontative, Allie. It is true that I mentioned the age at which my daughter came to the menarche, but I suspect that Leo will be a good deal more embarrassed in later life by the photograph of him dressed up in a batman costume on his birthday.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "but I suspect that Leo will be a good deal more embarrassed in later life by the photograph of him dressed up in a batman costume on his birthday."

    Why on earth would that be embarrassing? Is Leo a teenager? I agree tights can be very embarrassing in a developed teenage boy or man but not on children, even when it's you as a child. Mind you, I went to a fancy dress party a few months back and several men were wearing tights (batman, spiderman, etc). I didn't know where to look but they didn't seem embarrassed!

    ReplyDelete
  32. It was his 4th birthday party so hardly an unusual costume choice :-) As a matter of fact, he gave the ok to every photo we used for that post before we put it up - for his tenth birthday. The thing is that we don't know each other's children, do we? What bothers one person is nothing to another.

    But how far any of us go in mentioning our children is interesting. It's something I feel the next generation might roll their eyes over rather. For them these things will be learned as they grow up but for us it's been a steep learning curve and I think most of us are still not much beyond the toddler stage of awareness and competence.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Did you gain Simone's consent before or after posting, Simon?

    Presumably, having worked as a teacher, you have some understanding of the legal principles of confidentiality and the value that these principles carry.

    For example, had Simone had not been happy about your posting intimate details about her life, would you have been OK with facing the consequences, say perhaps that she was deeply offended and hurt, and/or that she ceases to confide honestly in you and/or that she take more formal legal action, or that whilst she may be happy that you revealed this information now, but finds that it compromises her in some way in the future, (perhaps she will be teased that her father revealed this here, for example). I think it would be a negligent parent who did not consider such possibilities, and discussed them with their child.

    Altogether I'm thinking it's no wonder you don't get on with autonomous educators. They would be highly unlikely to behave in the way you appear to have done.

    ReplyDelete