I have been trying, not for the first time, to try and make sense of what is happening in the world of home education by putting myself in the place of the participants and thinking how I would feel and act. In Suffolk, at least one parent has received a letter from the local authority, saying that because they have not seen the home educated child for five years, they wish to pop round and assure themselves that the child is still physically alive and well and in the county. There have been predictable howls of outrage about this.
Let me first try and put myself in the place of the parent and see what I would do in a similar situation. This should not be hard. I was never overenthusiastic about having apparatchiks from local government poking into my affairs. I am still not. It should not be difficult for me to put myself in this person's place, because exactly the same thing happened to me when I was home educating. The local authority told me that I had been living and home educating in their county for years and that they wouldn't mind seeing the kid, just to make sure everything was OK.
The first thing to say at once is that I found this irritating. I knew the child was safe, well and receiving a far better education that she was ever likely to get at the local maintained school. What the Devil business was it of these people? Judging by what has been said on the lists, this was not the initial reaction of the parent to whom Suffolk sent a letter. Apparently the family were 'traumatised'. This sounds a bit rummy to me. What on earth is going on in their house that they would be traumatised at the prospect of a knock on the door from a local authority officer? Their child was apparently in tears. Now call me Mr Oldfashioned, but if I got a letter through the post that I thought might upset my child, I would not even mention it to her. Why would I? I'm the adult, it is for me to tackle things like that. What would I actually do in such a circumstance? To begin with of course, the bit about the unannounced visit is just designed to encourage the family to engage with their local authority. I might allow such a person into my home; I might not, depending upon how I was feeling that day. I would be inclined to ring Suffolk County Council and say something to the following effect;
'I have your letter and quite honestly it's a bit of a sauce. There's no point at all in your coming round at random like that, because you won't get into the house or see my child. If you want to meet her and see that she is alive and well, then I don't mind arranging to meet you in the library. What about next Thursday lunchtime? I don't mind doing this once in a while, although it's a great nuisance. If you pester me too much though, I shall make such a fuss to MPs and so on that you will think that you would better have stuck your head in a hornets' nest'.
Everybody is now happy. The parent and his family are freed from the fear of an unannounced knock on the door and the local authority are able to satisfy themselves that the child is alive and well.
Looking at the matter now from the point of view of Suffolk; it is possible to have some sympathy for them. Some home education advisors employed by local authorities behave as though they are running semi-autonomous fiefdoms. They play their cards close to their chests and often nobody actually sees their files and records from one year to the next. When somebody moves on or dies without handing on the caseload with plenty of notice, it can be discovered that everything is in a terrible state and it is impossible to know who has been seen and who not or even who is still being home educated. The last thing any local authority wants is for it to come to light that some kid in their area has died or is being cruelly mistreated without their knowing about it. It looks lousy when that sort of thing turns up in the papers. The easiest thing would be to trawl through the jumbled up files and then physically visit every one of those families just to make sure that they are still in the local authority area. Again, a very similar thing happened to me when a new officer started work in Essex and wanted to visit every family on the books, even though I had just allowed a visit six months earlier.
It strikes me that with a little bit of give and take, it should be possible to resolve these difficulties without recourse to the Human Rights Act!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The fact that a police offer is going to be accompanying the LA officer didn't bother you at all? That's normal, is it? Nothing to worry about?
ReplyDeleteMargaret
'The fact that a police offer is going to be accompanying the LA officer didn't bother you at all? That's normal, is it? Nothing to worry about?'
ReplyDeleteIt is normal to the extent that when EWOs are engaged in routine duties on things like truancy sweeps, they are regularly accompanied by police officers. It seems a sensible precaution, just in case some parents cut up rough at being asked questions.
Old Webb says-they are regularly accompanied by police officers. It seems a sensible precaution, just in case some parents cut up rough at being asked questions.
ReplyDeleteWe talking about a private house people dont want police offers comign to there door just because they home educate.
your going about it the wrong way again! anyone visiting you with police offers is inplying that force will be used! you dont nothing wrong yet you want police offers to force there way in with the EWO behind them? y
<>
ReplyDeleteSo you honestly believe that an unannounced visit with a police officer in tow is to encourage families to engage?
WHAT PIFFLE!
If an LA wishes to make a visit they can ask in writing for one at a set time and date and a family can respond in writing either accepting or declining.
If a family declines , they are well within their rights and an LA may ask for further information about the continuing education of the child/ children.
This is how it should work whether with a new family or in this case, with a known family where a new HE officer has taken over the job of an old one.
This is not a child protection issue and the LA have no right in law to make it into one
Even if someone does report that they think a child is at risk, Social Services will writeor phone the family and make an appointment.The only reason to show up unannounced and with a police officer is if they believe a child is in immediate danger.Plus a Social Worker should be taking on the case if there was a child protection issue- not an Education Welfare Officer.
Everything in current law , within The Childrens Act and guidance and within the Education Act and guidance/ guidelines backs up the above position.When Local Authorities start acting like Fifedoms and above the current law then famileis have every right to use the current law , even the Human Rights Act to bring that LA back into line.
Suffolk do not have a leg to stand on and I hope that other families in Suffolk join forces and expose the actions and possible written policy behind the actions of their LA.
'So you honestly believe that an unannounced visit with a police officer in tow is to encourage families to engage?
ReplyDeleteWHAT PIFFLE!'
Well I don't really know what else one can assume. The letter here is directed towards somebody who has refused visits for five years. There is no suggestion that every home educating parent in Suffolk has received one. I have spoken to two of the home educating advisors in Suffolk and they have confirmed what I suspected. Anybody wishing to do the same can ring Barry Darch on 01502405269, mobile; 07738887908, Helena Bowen on 01473584785 or Mark Darwin on 01284758758.
If the recipient of the letter telephones any of these three people to arrange a mutually convenient visit in a neutral location, then the idea of an unannounced welfare visit will be dropped.
Perhaps we can look forward to police officers accompanying health visitors when someone declines a visit too?
ReplyDeleteMargaret
Suffolk have asked the person to whom they wrote, whether the child concerned will be taking up a secondary school place for September 2011. They also ask whether the child is still being home educated. The parent refuses to talk on the telephone and the local authority do not know if the child is even still in the county. In a similar position, I would ring the people concerned and explain the situation. I would then arrange to meet in the library or Macdonald's or somewhere. If people dealing with their local authority decide to do things the hard way, then their lives will be a little less easy than the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that Suffolk LA could have asked for a response in writing from the parents to the questions as a point of first resort and offered a visit. Instead they chose to inform the parents they would be sending an EWO and a police officer unannounced to the home. Completely unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteSuffolk LAs actions need to be addressed in writing not on the phone.
I think I missed something - in your post I dont see the police mentioned, but in the comments a police presence is mentioned by yourself and and the other commenters.
ReplyDeleteReceieving a letter informing me of unannounced visits, with accompanying policemen would indeed get my back up. I wouldnt be 'traumatised' though - unless I was a completely neurotic nervous wreck (which thankfully I am not) or had something to hide.
I would be ringing someone quick-smart to clarify their concerns, make my points of view clear and to negotiate acceptable terms.
I still wouldnt want a visit and would rather attempt to submit a report. If a visit and 'proof of life' were still required I would allow a visit in a convenient location, though I would be unlikely to allow further visits.
I can see why LAs are feeling they need to be on top of this. They last thing they want is to be accused of missing a child who was being abused, refused an education or was simply not in the area. They want to be seen to be trying to do a good job. If something went wrong society would be so quick to blame them and pick apart their faults, why not at least try to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'.
I think letters like this are a way of dealing with parents who arent acting honourably or within the law. It prompts them to consider the serious nature of keeping a child off school unlawfully. I dont think it is meant to scare home educators because after all, why be afraid if you aren't doing anything wrong - you simply tell them you're home educating and they move to procedures for dealing with that situation. Obviously all LAs deal with HE'ers differently and this is another matter.
Dealing with one's local authority is often a matter of making the best of a bad job. Some of the officers can be awkward and rude; but then the same might be said of some of those with whom they deal! I cannot personally see why anybody would refuse to speak on the telephone to their local authority and a conversation in this way can often clear up misunderstandings fairly quickly. I was not on the most cordial terms with Essex County Council at times regarding their interest in my daughter's education, but it would have been a bit odd had I refused to speak to them in order to clear up any problem. It sounds to me like a recipe for trouble.
ReplyDelete"Dealing with one's local authority is often a matter of making the best of a bad job. Some of the officers can be awkward and rude; but then the same might be said of some of those with whom they deal!"
ReplyDeleteYou are purposely missing the point here. The LA is the offending party. They are being intrusive and acting illegally, in that there is no reason to suspect 'suitable education' is not being provided. They have no right being 'awkward and rude' - these people a public servants.
"I cannot personally see why anybody would refuse to speak on the telephone to their local authority and a conversation in this way can often clear up misunderstandings fairly quickly."
I can personally see why everybody would refuse to speak on the telephone with their LA. Why should they have to speak on the phone to their LA? We are not servants of the state. We a parents fulfilling our parental rights and duties.
"I was not on the most cordial terms with Essex County Council at times regarding their interest in my daughter's education, but it would have been a bit odd had I refused to speak to them in order to clear up any problem. It sounds to me like a recipe for trouble."
Clear up what problem? There was no problem. That is the point - there was/is no problem. ECC should not have been bothering you and as such you should have reacted accordingly.
"I think letters like this are a way of dealing with parents who arent acting honourably or within the law. It prompts them to consider the serious nature of keeping a child off school unlawfully. I dont think it is meant to scare home educators because after all, why be afraid if you aren't doing anything wrong - you simply tell them you're home educating and they move to procedures for dealing with that situation."
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem though. They already know they are home educating because they have had previous contact in writing. This family has acted honourably and within the law and they are not keeping their child off school unlawfully.
Local Authorities seem to be under the misapprehension that they have a legal duty to ensure the safety of all children in their area. This is not the case. The law states that they should carry out existing functions with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. So they should keep an eye out for problems and not cause any themselves whilst doing their job. They have not been given extra duties to go out and find children to check up on. The law does not required them to visit home educators as part of their normal job so they are not required to make special efforts to check on their safety. There must be reasonable cause to suspect that a child is or is likely to suffer significant harm before a local authority is able to insist upon this sort of action.
One reason why people may well object to this type of visit is the often stated view that, 'there's no smoke without fire'. Certainly this seems to be the impression give by some on here already.
It also seems an incredible waste of money as people are likely to be out when they call. Suffolk is quite a large rural county so visits are likely to involve quite distant and time consuming trips with no guarantee of success first time. Why not just write and ask for the cost of a stamp? All they need to know is how the child is being educated and then make informal enquiries if the answer is HE.
our advice is never answer the door to any one you dont know! The EDW have no legal right of entry so relax if there come round dont answer make you yourself a nice cup of hot choclate and have a good laugh at them knocking on the door!
ReplyDeleteWe never had a visit or meeting anyway you dont have to! no legal requirement for a home visit or a meeting! thats the bit Webb forgets to tell everyone!
Didnt you write a post a few weeks ago that was almost identical to this one?
ReplyDeleteDarren
darren says-Didnt you write a post a few weeks ago that was almost identical to this one?
ReplyDeleteso what if we did what you going to do about it? who are you any way some leading light in the home educating world? cos we never heard of you!
you have nice visits do you from your nice LA do you wait in anther room like webb did while your children are interviewed for abuse you may have carried out?
"darren says-Didnt you write a post a few weeks ago that was almost identical to this one?
ReplyDeleteso what if we did what you going to do about it? who are you any way some leading light in the home educating world? cos we never heard of you!"
He's not talking to you D&C - he's obviously talking to Webb. And yes Darren, SW only sings one tune:
I want to work for the LA,
A consultancy job with pay.
Simone is gone,
I've got nothing to do,
Except keep writing this crap for you.
La la la
"It also seems an incredible waste of money as people are likely to be out when they call. Suffolk is quite a large rural county so visits are likely to involve quite distant and time consuming trips with no guarantee of success first time."
ReplyDeleteThe longer it takes, the better - it's not their money - nice pub on the way back for a ploughmans and a pint - what a life.
The problem with your approach, Simon, is that it teaches LAs that by acting outside their legal powers produces results, so they'll do it again. You wouldn't raise a child that way, it's the equivalent of giving in to a tantrum, encouraging the child to repeat the process whenever he wants his own way.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to deal with an LA that is attempting doorstepping with no legal basis is to make their life even more difficult by complaining and refusing to go along with anything. One day they'll learn that it's not a productive way to behave.
' One day they'll learn that it's not a productive way to behave.'
ReplyDeleteWell, the same might be said of the recipient of their letter. They have written asking for information and tried to speak to the parent. They do not even know if this child is still living in Suffolk. They have actually tried the nice way and it has not worked. Now they have turned to something a little tougher.
'Well, the same might be said of the recipient of their letter. They have written asking for information and tried to speak to the parent. They do not even know if this child is still living in Suffolk. They have actually tried the nice way and it has not worked. Now they have turned to something a little tougher. '
ReplyDeleteWhy do they need to know if the child is still living in Suffolk? What legal right or responsibility do they have to obtain this information? On what grounds are they turning to something a little tougher?
Tim Yeo has previously expressed concern about the way Suffolk Social Services have behaved in relation to child protection cases. Organisational cultures can take on a life of their own.
'Why do they need to know if the child is still living in Suffolk? '
ReplyDeleteWell if the child turned out to be dead or being mistreated hundreds of miles away while on Suffolk's records as being home educated in their district, I think that the average citizen might raise an eyebrow.
People and their children move around all the time, and local authorities do not keep track of them. Nor is there a legal requirement for them to do so.
ReplyDeleteSome citizens raise their eyebrows when the police fail to prevent a major crime. It doesn't follow that our quality of life would improve if we all had to keep the police informed of the location of our fixed abode.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Well, the same might be said of the recipient of their letter. They have written asking for information and tried to speak to the parent. They do not even know if this child is still living in Suffolk. They have actually tried the nice way and it has not worked. Now they have turned to something a little tougher."
As far as I know the family have provided information previously in writing and have not refused contact with the LA. They have just decided to keep contact in writing as is their legal right. Where are you getting this information from that the parents had refused to reply forcing the LA to spring surprise visits on them?
Writing to merely ask if they were still home educating would be reasonable behaviour, and would probably be covered under Donaldson's judgement about informal enquiries. Declaring an intention to turn up unannounced and in the company of a police officer is definitely going too far.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that some parts of Suffolk LA are unhappy about what's going on and have agreed that it's not a good thing, so hopefully sanity will be restored shortly.
Sanity has been restored. Thank you Suffolk.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.suffolk.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/HomeEducation/
Hi, i dont homeschool as my children are still in toddler and baby stage, but i am preparing myself and our home for when we will be home educating. I am also a part time TA in a school, and have experience working with social workers. If, as a member of a professional field checking on homeschooling families, i had a family who refused contact for 5 years, it would be wrong to ignore this and forget it. This is not because this person IS harming their child, but JUST IN CASE they are. as long as they find everyone healthy, thriving and being given an education then they will make good notes in the file and leave the family alone. and personally I would use the opportunity of a police officer attending the home as a reason to allow the children to ask the officer questions in a similar way to an officer who visits the school, it is good for children to interact positively with our local police and services, they may one day need to trust them so showing a fear and mistrust to them is potentially harmful. BUT, as far as Im aware, legally they have no right to attend your home, meeting in a local facility like a library could be fine too, although if youre happy homeschooling and confident, it should be a pleasure to show them your work and environment.
ReplyDelete