I sometimes wonder if my wits are slower than those of those around me. Others seem to know things about the world which I cannot quite grasp. The day before yesterday, it was the dangers of the Internet for children; today it is the motives of local authority officers. Now I have not the least doubt that among the staff employed by the hundred and fifty or so local authorities, there are many busybodies and also not a few people who are more concerned with drawing their salaries than they are with helping the citizens in their area. Some of them are probably also scared that a home educated child will come to harm and they will themselves be blamed. This is human nature. However, I also assume that most people who take up careers with children do so because they like children and care about their welfare. That at least has been my experience with the teachers, nursery workers, Ed Psychs and social workers with whom I work and whom I know socially.
Many of the home educating parents who post here and on the lists apparently think that none of the people working for in local authority departments dealing with elective home education are doing this job because they actually care about children. There are dark hints that they have completely different motives. I am puzzled by this. I may be a bit slow on the uptake here, but what other reason do people think that these staff have, apart from the obvious one of being worried about the education and welfare of children? Many of them are former teachers, which suggests to me that they like kids. I dare say they are good people; most people are certainly that. I simply cannot see why they should be doing all the things which some parents are complaining about unless they really thought that their actions were in the best interests of the child?
I hope that somebody can help with this, because I do pick up a definite undercurrent that many parents believe that these people do not have the kids' interests at heart. If they do not; what on earth is driving them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It isn't a case of people being 'good' or 'bad' or of having children's interests at heart or not doing so.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters to most parents is the long-term outcome of education and up-bringing for their child. Just as many factors can have a negative impact on a family's ability to give the child what they might ideally want, many local authority officer are constrained by conflicting factors too.
Organisational policy, culture, recruitment and retention all affect which officers are appointed and how they behave. At the end of the day (as they say) the LA officer can walk away from a child. Most parents can't. There is almost invariably a discrepancy in priorities between the two parties.
'the LA officer can walk away from a child. Most parents can't. There is almost invariably a discrepancy in priorities between the two parties.'
ReplyDeleteThis is true, but equally true of doctors and nurses. I have not seen the same sly hints in connection with doctors though that I have about local authority officers. The assumption seems to be that LA officers are somehow acting in bad faith and do not have the child's interests at heart in the way that we expect of a doctor.
If you frequented forums about medical issues you would find exactly the same assumptions.
ReplyDelete"If you frequented forums about medical issues you would find exactly the same assumptions."
ReplyDeleteSadly only too true. It's often said on forums I frequent that they would never risk leaving their child alone in hospital for any length of time. A quick trip to the hospital shop may be OK but longer trips are timed with other visitors. There are frequent examples on forums of why this is the case, such as incorrect (and dangerous) medication doses, giving allergenic food to children, not giving food or drinks to children, allowing children to wander off, etc, etc... It isn't necessary for a person to be 'bad' or to have dark motives for them to do harm.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"This is true, but equally true of doctors and nurses. I have not seen the same sly hints in connection with doctors though that I have about local authority officers."
This is not my impression from HE forums. As suzyg says, it isn't a case of people being 'good' or 'bad' or of having children's interests at heart or not doing so. The same is true of the medical profession. Harm need not be intentional.
http://ccforum.com/content/CC6813
. Critically ill patients are prescribed twice as many medications as patients outside of the intensive care unit (ICU) and nearly all will suffer a potentially life-threatening error at some point during their stay.
Other research suggests that at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. I'm sure the majority of those causing these deaths were caring people who only wanted the best for their patients. At least medical harm is usually balanced by a need - they do more good than harm on balance. We have no evidence at all that the same is true for LA home visits.
"Missing the obvious" is your speciality Webb
ReplyDelete