Other reasons for professionals to badger home educating parents

I recently wrote a bout the unitary authority in Poole and their attempts to doorstep parents in order to catch sight of their home educated children. I expressed the view that no matter how annoying and intrusive such actions were, they were almost certainly motivated ultimately by concern for the children's welfare. Of course, this was a little optimistic. I tend to assume that most people have good will and good intentions. While leafing through the transcript of the select committee hearing on Graham Badman's review of elective home education and the Children, Schools and Families Bill; I came across this gem. Peter Traves of the Association of Directors of Children's Services is speaking about the reasons for anxiety among some education professionals around home education. He said:

'If something happens to a child in terms of any of those five outcomes,
we are held directly to account. This is not some kind of button
counting. We have seen recently what happens to directors of children's
services when things go seriously wrong. It is not only a case of sacking;
it is public humiliation. It is a very serious matter.'

This was presumably a reference to the treatment of Sharon Shoesmith, former Director of Children's Services for the London Borough of Haringey. Ms Shoesmith was peremptorily sacked following the case of Baby P, the little boy killed in the appalling circumstances. Of course, a toddler having his back broken by sadistic maniacs is also a 'very serious matter', although not apparently in the same league as the public humiliation and loss of pension of a Director of Children's Services. In short, Traves is expressing here a fear that some professionals will lose their jobs if a home educated child comes to harm. This is very revealing.

There is also a nagging fear at the back of the minds of some local authorities that an adult who was home educated will pursue a legal claim against them in later life on the grounds that the education which he received from his parents was inadequate. If the local authority were supposed to be monitoring the education, it is not inconceivable that they could be held liable.

Both these things could provide reasons for lcoal authority officers to make a nuisance of themselves, quite apart from the more obvious motive of the welfare of the children involved.