A few days ago I posted a news item about a child who had been taken out of school in Manchester and whose father had subsequently tried to murder her. I gave this post the rather ironic title of 'A far from perfect case of home education'. Here is a link to the case;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340728/Father-carried-knife-attack-teenage-daughter-wanted-to-college-jailed-10-years.html
In retrospect, it was a mistake to use such a title; many of those who comment here are humourless and literal minded individuals who almost certainly do not do irony. However, a couple of the comments were interesting and I am going to take them at face value and see where they lead us. One person said;
'Where does it say she was home educated???????'
Another remarked;
' Typical Webb: No research, no thought, all invention and doing anything to support his own deranged views of the world.
More lies and distortion'
I am assuming that both of these people were meaning to get across the idea that this child had been prevented from attending school but was not really a home educated child. This is a very good point and one which we encounter quite frequently during the debate about home education, especially where safeguarding is concerned.
When a child is deregistered from school, she becomes for most people a 'home educated child'. This is regardless of the sort of education, if any, she is receiving. Local Authorities generally take this to be the case and so too do most home educating parents. Home educators often claim that it should be assumed that parents are educating their children efficiently, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Of course not all children who have been deregistered from school are really being educated. Here is a case of a child who was deregistered from school supposedly for the purposes of home education, but in fact to give sexual satisfaction for her family:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Plymouth-girl-14-sex-toy-paedophile-parents-traded-online/article-2091055-detail/article.html
The truth is, parents take their children out of school for all sorts of different reasons. Some do so because they wish to educate their children, some want an easier life and an end to rows with their children about school, others feel the need to abuse their child, some are insanely jealous of their daughter meeting or talking to boys, there are those who want to avoid prosecution for truancy, parents who want a companion because they get lonely during the day; there are an infinite number of reasons for taking a child from school or not sending her in the first place. Some of these reasons relate to education, others do not.
It is very hard for anybody outside the family to know why a child is not going to school. Some home educators invite us to assume that as soon as a child is deregistered, we should at once take it for granted that her parents are providing her with a suitable education. I cannot for the life of me understand this reasoning. We have seen two teenage girls above who were withdrawn from school for reasons wholly unconnected with education. Presumably, the Local Authorities in those cases were happy to accept that an education was taking place without making any further enquiries. Maybe these parents sent a version of an educational philosophy downloaded from an Internet site and that was sufficient.
Many home educating parents seem to find it very hard to imagine anybody deregistering their child from school for reasons of cruelty and abuse. They seem to take it for granted that parents love their children and want the best for them. This is not always the case at all. There is no doubt that some children are taken out of school for bad reasons which have nothing to do with education. In the case of the child from Manchester, not being at school meant that anything which happened in the family would be likely to remain secret. She had no school friends in whom to confide, no teachers to talk to, her father did not like her to talk to anybody unless he was present. This meant that a bizarre lifestyle could flourish in a way that school might have prevented. I don't think it would have been as all a bad thing for a sympathetic and shrewd adult to drop by that home and try to see what was going on. Obviously, the warning signs might have been missed; they have certainly been missed in other cases. But this does not seem to me to be a good reason simply to give up trying to rescue children of this sort. As I have said many times before; too much emphasis on the 'rights' of the parents and not enough upon the rights of vulnerable children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Plymouth case (which is truly dreadful) surely is complicated. If it was merely a situation where home education was used as a cover for abuse, then it might be easy to argue that "home ed" inspections would have uncovered and prevented it. Reading deeper though what this case is all about is the failure of social services to follow through on a clear abuse case earlier on in the childs life. The child had injuries and asked to be removed from the family - but she was returned from foster care because the carers couldn't cope with her inappropriate sexualised behaviour??- what sort of reasoning is that? I am pretty sure that the child should never have been returned in the first place and deeper investigations about her behaviour would have led to that conclusion, and if she did go home, the case should have not been closed, but the family kept under supervision. That surely would have made it more likely that the girl would have disclosed further abuse, than a random visit from a an unknown education officer once a year? In any case the girl herself was probably already disillusioned by adults - they had continously failed to protect her when she asked for help when younger, so it is even less likely that she would have disclosed any thing to a home ed inspector.
ReplyDeleteHowever terrible all the abuse stories are (Eunice Spry, Kyhra Ishaq, Plymouth, Victoria C) the one over riding theme is that all the cases were ones where there were already professionals involved who had concerns yet who failed to protect the children. Surely this is the real problem; and it is a repeated theme too in most of the under 5 deaths I can think of (eg Baby Peter) where education is not an issue at all. Can you actually think of a serious abuse case in an home ed child where there was not already social services involvement?
If there was evidence of home educated children being abused without those children already having access to professionals who might have saved them, then I think home educators in general might have been more symphathetic to the idea of "safe and well" type checks, but since social services can't protect those who are already known to be at risk, general opinion is a long, long way from adding more intervention to all families.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"When a child is deregistered from school, she becomes for most people a 'home educated child'. This is regardless of the sort of education, if any, she is receiving. Local Authorities generally take this to be the case and so too do most home educating parents. "
This depends on how the de-registration happens. If the parent writes to say that they will be home educating, then they are officially home educators, even if they don't go on to provide an education. However, there are many ways in which a child's name can be removed from a school register. If they left school by any of these alternative methods, they are not home educators (though obviously there is a grey area where people intend to, and do home educate, but just de-register incorrectly).
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I cannot for the life of me understand this reasoning. We have seen two teenage girls above who were withdrawn from school for reasons wholly unconnected with education."
We don't know how the first was withdrawn from school and in the second case, the family were well known to social services so there were plenty of reasons to follow up this case more closely (as Julie has already covered so well). I don't think any home educating parent would support the idea that this family should have been left to their own devices as appears to have happened.
Simon wrote,
"Obviously, the warning signs might have been missed;"
They were, repeatedly in the Plymouth case. If Social Services has allowed a child to return home, why would the HE inspector have doubted them given their greater experience of abusive situations? This is potentially an example of the harm caused by a false-negatives. If other people in the community know SS returned the child to the family, they may doubt the need to report future concerns about the family as a direct result. The same could easily happen as a result of compulsory home visits for home educators. Neighbours and other professional who have contact with the family will know they are visited and checked by the authorities, and as a direct result feel that it's not necessary to report any concerns they may have to the authorities.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"they have certainly been missed in other cases. But this does not seem to me to be a good reason simply to give up trying to rescue children of this sort."
But is it a good enough reason to effectively tell all children that their parents cannot be trusted with their care unless an agent of the state checks up on them? Nothing you have said so far convinces me that short, annual home visits by (relatively poorly trained) strangers are the only or even the best way to save these children.
You have still to show that any good (if it exists) will outweigh harm. You know about the research that found that routine screening for abuse and neglect of a normal risk population is likely to cause more harm than good. As a result of this research, the medical profession in many countries have decided not to take this approach, yet you continue to think that an LA official can do better than medically trained professionals.
Also, nothing you have said so far convinces me that adequate evidence of provision of a suitable education cannot be given in writing.
I think that it is perfectly true that in all the high profile cases of the abuse of children who are not at school, social services have been involved and have fallen down on the job. I was pointing out though that parents take their children out of school for various reasons apart from educating them. There seems to be a general assumption that if a parent deregisters a child and says, 'I shall educate the child', that this is the truth. I suspect that it is not always the case and that we need to bear this in mind. The child in Manchseter only came to attention ebcuase the father was a complete maniac. Another year and the fact that she had been kept away from school would not even have been mentioned. I would not be surprised to learn that there are other children in this situation and I think it a good idea to try and look out for them.
ReplyDelete'Also, nothing you have said so far convinces me that adequate evidence of provision of a suitable education cannot be given in writing.'
ReplyDeleteIt is far easier to dowload and adapt an educational philosophy and then send it in to the Local Authority than it is to hold a coherent and sensibly conversation on the subject of education. I rather suspect that if the father in the Manchester case had been required to spend an hour or so discussing his motives for taking his teenage daughter from school, then alarm bells might have started ringing long before she was sixteen.
So you don't think there is a need for the child to attend these meetings?
ReplyDelete"It is far easier to dowload and adapt an educational philosophy and then send it in to the Local Authority"
ReplyDeleteIf the LA have doubts, they should ask more questions. Downloading and adapting an educational philosophy doesn't mean that they do not follow that philosophy, but people usually recommend sending much more than just a philosophy. If the LA accepts just a philosophy, they will not be able to tell if a suitable education is being provided. Evidence of resources and activities are usually provided in our area and I have also known a family who asked a qualified teacher to write a report for the LA as an alternative.
"I rather suspect that if the father in the Manchester case had been required to spend an hour or so discussing his motives for taking his teenage daughter from school, then alarm bells might have started ringing long before she was sixteen."
ReplyDeleteAbusive parents are well known for being able to mislead social workers. The HE visitor visited the Ishaq family and discussed education, but it didn't help despite plenty of evidence that a suitable education was not being provided. On the abuse side, maybe the HE visitor knew SS had been involved and the false-negative effect became an issue? Why would the HE visitor suspect and report a problem with the family if SS had visited recently and allowed the children to remain in the home? The SS dept. also seemed to believe that the HE visitor would detect a problem - again, a false-negative effect, everyone thinks someone else has checked and OKed the family.
"In the case of the child from Manchester, not being at school meant that anything which happened in the family would be likely to remain secret. She had no school friends in whom to confide, no teachers to talk to, her father did not like her to talk to anybody unless he was present. This meant that a bizarre lifestyle could flourish in a way that school might have prevented."
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of abuse victims never disclose to others and even if they disclose to friends, it more often than not stays with just their friend and the abuse continues.
If he was a drunk (which seems likely from the article) his daughter would have had plenty of opportunities to leave the home and get help. Even at the trial his daughter pleaded in favour of her father. The only reason it came to light was because his behaviour so so extreme on this particular occasion that it spilled out onto the streets and required medical attention. I doubt his daughter would ever have disclosed otherwise.
Webb:
ReplyDeleteAll of this is a typical P.R. distraction techniques to avert peoples attention from the fact that once again, you have been caught in another outrageous lie that falsely besmirches the good repute of home education.
You did not have the decency and moral fibre to simple print a retraction and apologize.
Hence, you are disgraced even further by making bad conduct even worse.
This title was not written as ironic, and today's article is a transparently pathetic attempt to then suggest that people do not have a sense of humour.
.
Little wonder that Simone tells friends that she is embarrassed by you.
ReplyDeleteThe truth will out about you.
Webb distortion again:
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that both of these people were meaning to get across the idea that this child had been prevented from attending school but was not really a home educated child. This is a very good point and one which we encounter quite frequently during the debate about home education, especially where safeguarding is concerned.
No Webb, people were drawing attention to your miserable lies again.
You always pretend to 'assume' something just to distract from the truth.
Webb attempts another master-class in covering up his scurrilous lies.
ReplyDeleteClaire H
'Little wonder that Simone tells friends that she is embarrassed by you.'
ReplyDeleteWhat a mercy that is. Imagine what sort of weird and atypical teenage girl would not be embarrassed by her father!
'You did not have the decency and moral fibre to simple print a retraction and apologize.
ReplyDeleteHence, you are disgraced even further by making bad conduct even worse.
This title was not written as ironic, and today's article is a transparently pathetic attempt to then suggest that people do not have a sense of humour.'
Explains one of the humourless and literal-minded people to whom I referred in the post.
'Webb attempts another master-class in covering up his scurrilous lies.'
ReplyDelete'you have been caught in another outrageous lie'
'people were drawing attention to your miserable lies again.'
Perhaps somebody would care to explain what the lies are?
Very curious. The person commenting above sounds like a mad foreigner. The use of language is stilted and oddly phrased. For example, using repute in this way:
ReplyDelete'the good repute of home education.'
Looking at the document which Alison Sauer has been advertising, we find the same unusual use of 'repute' in this way;
'It spreads bad repute far and wide'
Could there be a connection here; might the person commenting so ferociously be connected in some way to Alison Sauer? I am wondering now about her husband, German born Ralph.
Perhaps, rather than everyone throwing abuse at Simon, or Simon playing guessing games as to who has commented, we could actually talk about the issues?
ReplyDeleteIt is as yet uncertain about whether the poor girl in Manchester was someone who could be technically deemed CME or was supposed to be home educated; so speculation is pointless. The Plymouth girl was deregistered to be home educated, although as I have pointed out in detail above, she should have been protected because of the involvement of social services, even when she was at school, but was not.
Whether other posters hate Simon or not, it is cases like these that are and will be brought up, at least at local authority level if not nationally at the moment, and it would be good to have the opportunity to discuss them without endless posters hurling pointless abuse at Simon getting in the way of real discussion.
Julie, unlike you, people generally do not want to join discussions based up lies as it would merely serve to give credence to Webb' fallacies. Most people ignore him, others choose to expose him for what he is.
ReplyDeleteIt's you choice but don't expect others to support it.
" W Webb says:-
ReplyDeleteVery curious. The person commenting above sounds like a mad foreigner. The use of language is stilted and oddly phrased. For example, using repute in this way:
'the good repute of home education.'"
To any well educated person is sounds and reads, like good English!
To a wanker that thinks he is master of 'Standard English' it might just be beyond his wit.
'To any well educated person is sounds and reads, like good English!'
ReplyDeleteIt is an archaism. The idiomatic English would be to talk of the 'good reputation of home education', rather than the 'good repute'. At one time, this would have been a common way of speaking; we still say things like ' a house of ill repute', but it is usually said facetiously. To talk of good or bad repute in this way is the sort of thing which either a foreigner or somebody living a century ago might say. I doubt that it is the latter.
Discussions based upon the sort of cases which I have cited here are actually taking place in four Local Authorities which I know about. Judging by what Julie says, I imagine that similar things are being said in Hampshire as well. Concerns of this sort will not simply go away if people are rude enough to me. I get the feeling that some people commenting here feel that if they shout 'wanker' or 'liar' loudly and often enough, then that will have the effect of making all those in the Department for Education and various Local Authorities stop asking awkward questions. I doubt that this is the case.
ReplyDeleteWebb says
ReplyDeleteIt is an archaism. The idiomatic English would be to talk of the 'good reputation of home education', rather than the 'good repute'. At one time, this would have been a common way of speaking; we still say things like ' a house of ill repute', but it is usually said facetiously. To talk of good or bad repute in this way is the sort of thing which either a foreigner or somebody living a century ago might say. I doubt that it is the latter.
This is pseudo-intellectual bullshit
'This is pseudo-intellectual bullshit'
ReplyDeleteGosh, a lot of thought went into that rebuttal!
sw thinks:
ReplyDeleteTo talk of good or bad repute in this way is the sort of thing which either a foreigner or somebody living a century ago might say. I doubt that it is the latter.
You cannot recognise good English when you see it Webb
So now your deranged mind is looking for 100 year old mad foreigner
Have fun
[Discussions based upon the sort of cases which I have cited here are actually taking place in four Local Authorities which I know about. Judging by what Julie says, I imagine that similar things are being said in Hampshire as well. Concerns of this sort will not simply go away if people are rude enough to me. I get the feeling that some people commenting here feel that if they shout 'wanker' or 'liar' loudly and often enough, then that will have the effect of making all those in the Department for Education and various Local Authorities stop asking awkward questions. I doubt that this is the case.]
ReplyDeleteThey already know that you cannot be trusted.
"Gosh, a lot of thought went into that rebuttal!"
ReplyDeleteWho wants to argue about something so pathetically insignificant?
"I was pointing out though that parents take their children out of school for various reasons apart from educating them. There seems to be a general assumption that if a parent deregisters a child and says, 'I shall educate the child', that this is the truth."
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is the case. I think most people are aware that not everyone acts from the best of intentions. The majority accept that informal enquiries will be made and expect cases like this to be discovered.
If the LA officer in the Ishaq case had not been so overloaded with families he may have followed up on the extra information the family had promised but was never forthcoming. If he had had more time he may not have passed them as providing a suitable education despite clear evidence that this was not the case and he may have issued a SAO at the very least.
Further increasing the workload of LA officers with unnecessary visits is not going to help. It will make errors of this kind even more likely.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"I am assuming that both of these people were meaning to get across the idea that this child had been prevented from attending school but was not really a home educated child."
Not necessarily. There are many reasons for a child's name to be removed from a school register, only one of which is home education. Unless you are suggesting that if a school decides to remove a child's name because they have moved house, or have failed to return to school within 10 days of a holiday for which they have been granted leave of absence, or the child has been absent from school for over 20 days and cannot be contacted are all being home educated? The parent must at least claim to be home educating before they can be considered to be home educators. Removal from the register alone can never be grounds for reaching this assumption.
Agreeing with Paul above; obviously deregistration for home education can only be a small percentage of the total number of children removed from a school roll each year. In the Manchester case, we have no idea whether the girl concerned was deregistered anyway, for home education or some other reason ("we are moving") or indeed if she was actually still on a school roll but technically a truant. One likes to think that the school may have noticed if she wasn't there,, but given a lot of publicity in a school down here a year of two ago, when a year 7 girl got a report after a term, but had never actually attended in the first place, one wonders! It was, I think that the Victoria Climbe case that brought about all the CME regulations. Victoria was of course never an HE child, she was one that had never been registerd at school when she arrived for completely different reasons, but it doesn't stop various authorities ( eg NSPCC) dragging the case up when talking about HE.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair on Simon though, I think he was always talking aboout "children supposedly deregistered for HE, but actually for a different reason"- and clearly the Plymouth case does come into this category. However I stand by what I said in the first post on this thread; in all the dreadful high profile cases that I know about, social services had plenty of opportunities to save the children, and I can't see that an over worked EHE officer would have done any better(and indeed in the case of Spry and Ishaq they didn't).