Once in a while one encounters something in the world of British home education which makes one feel like shouting; 'For fuck's sake! What is wrong with these people?' Readers will be relieved to hear that, as usual, they will be spared such vulgarity here. Instead I intend to discuss this matter in the calm and rational manner which has ever been my trademark; merely limiting myself to offering a few words of wise and good advice.
Staffordshire County Council, whose approach to home education has left somewhat to be desired in the past, has announced that they intend to start a support service for home educating parents. It is described like this in a local newspaper;
'Home-Educated children in Staffordshire will soon be able to get resources, tips and other support with their studies from a new online learning service.
Staffordshire County Council is planning to launch the 'Learning Platform' in the summer, initially through a pilot scheme.
It will also include a forum so young people and parents can chat online to other families who educate youngsters at home instead of school.'
I might remark that I advocate something of this sort in my book, Elective Home Education in the UK (Trentham Books, 2010). I said;
'A good many home educating parents would welcome practical help and advice from experts such as teachers and psychologists. Teaching one's child can be a lonely and on occasion unnerving process. Most parents, even the most confident, need reassurance and support from time to time....
Parents with questions about anything from the legal position surrounding home education to the age at which a child should be reading independently could be sure of hearing views from teachers and from other home educators. However, Several of the most popular existing support groups on the Internet bar professionals from membership. So myths, half truths and outright falsehoods proliferate.'
There now, I couldn't have put it better myself!
The news of Staffordshire's new scheme is being described on the HE-UK list as 'registration through the backdoor'. It is worth pointing out that when people are trying to do something 'through the backdoor', they seldom advertise the fact by sending a press release to the local paper. The person who first posted about this, says that it is a 'carrot and stick'. I am baffled as to what the stick might be. We don't even know that those joining this scheme will have to identify themselves to their local authority. In some areas, Hampshire and North Yorkshire for example, it is possible to join in activities and obtain information from the local authority like this without being officially 'known'. Others commenting on HE-UK express the hope that this will be boycotted.
Try as I might, I am unable to grasp the objection to this, although judging by the response it is certainly regarded as a bad thing by some people, including Mike Fortune-Wood. Here is an opportunity for parents who might be isolated, to ask questions of professionals. Perhaps they might want to know what children the same age as theirs who are at school are studying. They might have questions about GCSEs. Maybe some readers here could help me to get a handle on this and explain why anybody in their senses should oppose this enterprise?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess it all boils down to trust. If a county has a really good relationship with local HE'ers and what they are offering, in terms of support, is what the HE community has been asking for and has been developed after consulting them, I can't see any problem. I don't know if this is the case with Staffs.
ReplyDeleteIf, however, the county has just constructed something that no one wants, based on their own ideas of what HE'ers need, then it's probably a bit silly of them.
Do you know which is the case here?
>>>>'It will also include a forum so young people and parents can chat online to other families who educate youngsters at home instead of school.'<<<<
This bit made me laugh out loud. Is this LA so ignorant that it doesn't realise that these opportunites already exist in abundance?
Possibly because there's scant evidence that there is an age at which a child *should* be reading independently, because many local authorities have a notoriously poor grasp of the legal position surrounding home education and because professionals are themselves not immune to myths, half truths and outright falsehoods?
ReplyDelete'>>>>'It will also include a forum so young people and parents can chat online to other families who educate youngsters at home instead of school.'<<<<
ReplyDeleteThis bit made me laugh out loud. Is this LA so ignorant that it doesn't realise that these opportunites already exist in abundance? '
True, but on some of the lists and forums one is liable to be denounced as a dysfunctional parent if you express the view that children need to be taught! On others, one is apt to be seen as a Quisling for accepting home visits from the local authority. I know of quite a few parents who have been driven off home education Internet lists by bullying and abuse. Sometimes the moderators on these places turn a blind eye to this sort of thing. Perhaps a forum run by education professionals might be a little more calm and balanced.
"Perhaps a forum run by education professionals might be a little more calm and balanced."
ReplyDeleteOr, judging by the TES forum, just as vitriolic, ranty and with equally bad spelling.
'"Perhaps a forum run by education professionals might be a little more calm and balanced."
ReplyDeleteOr, judging by the TES forum, just as vitriolic, ranty and with equally bad spelling.'
Explains an education professional...
I read the post about Staffordshire with interest, and also a long thread about the desirability ( or rather not) of home visits. All the comments boil down to a single theme- LAs aren't to be trusted and should be avoided at all costs. Furthermore, the theory goes, anything that LAs seek to "offer" should also be left well alone.
ReplyDeleteNow I am the first to admit that LAs often get things wrong. They may (or rather some of their employees may) go beyond what the law states and make life complicated/unpleasant for home educators. Surely the response to that though is to challenge all the examples of where that is happening and make LAs get it right. That doesn't mean all LAs are like that, or that things can't be improved.
Secondly, a lot of people in the HE internet world seem to assume that they are typical of all home educators. They are often not at all representative; I meet lots and lots of families who would never belong to an internet list, and who want more support from LAs. So whilst all those already on a internet list for Staffordshire might have no interest in joining the proposed LA forum, I bet there are quite a few families who will - because it is an "official" thing and isn't run by a group of supposedly middle class hippie home ed types (which is the view of a whole lot of home educators about the sort of home educator they find in local groups). I don't know if people can remember the furore about a video of a group run by the LA/Connexions in ?North Yorks, (I think) - everyone was horrified that families would join in with this and couldn't understand why they didn't join local groups instead; yet the families themselves commented how this (LA run activity) was far more to their liking than the casual meetings of the local group.
Whatever the true facts about the numbers of home educators in the UK, Simon is correct when he harps on about the fact that most don't take part in any internet activity or belongs to any HE organisation. We can't therefore be totally clear of the views of all those families who don't have a public voice, but I am sure that those who are saying now "steer clear of your LA" may well not be representing what many of those families think.
Blogger just ate my reply - and I hate typing so can't do it all again (need to get children out of bed to do some revision... exams, exams...) - but what it boils down to is
ReplyDeletea) home educators on list etc are not at all representative of all home educators
b) many of the non-internet list sort will welcome any "support" from the LAs
c) some families will join an "offical" LA activity but avoid all us middle class home ed hippies (often their description) like the plague. ( Remember all the hoohah about some LA group in N Yorks for families??)
'( Remember all the hoohah about some LA group in N Yorks for families??)'
ReplyDeleteNo, what was that all about?
I'm so sick of the middle class hippy myth...
Ok, well here are reasons I wouldn't sign up to such a service:
ReplyDeleteFirstly the offer of "resources, tips and other support with their studies" is not something I feel I need. Resources and tips are likely to be based on the National Curriculum which we dont follow. Support with studies isnt something I could envisage us needing, unless it involved paying for courses which isnt going to be available through an online platform.
Secondly, I have an issue with the bit that says they will offer "a forum so young people and parents can chat online to other families who educate youngsters at home instead of school." I am not going to use a forum set up by an LA because I dont trust them not to use information gleaned for their own benefit.
And lastly, I dont want to undertake any scheme run by government officials becuase I dont trust their motives.
'Or, judging by the TES forum, just as vitriolic, ranty and with equally bad spelling. '
ReplyDeleteSure. Horrible place with such nasty people. Exactly like most HE forums.
These LA-run groups would simply end up as 'clients' asking questions of 'professionals'. The same professionals, (or types of professionals) which parents pulled their kids out of school to avoid because of their incompetence.
Trust me, Simon, no HE'ing parent who has been enraged by bad teaching in a school (or whose child has had unmet SEN's or whose life was made a misery by undealt-with bullying) is then going to ask an LA employee what age their child 'should be reading by'.
Simon said.....
ReplyDeleteTrue, but on some of the lists and forums one is liable to be denounced as a dysfunctional parent if you express the view that children need to be taught! On others, one is apt to be seen as a Quisling for accepting home visits from the local authority. I know of quite a few parents who have been driven off home education Internet lists by bullying and abuse.
There are lists for structured/semi structured home educators - I belong to one and it is one of the most respectful lists I have ever belonged too.
I dont think a list run by LA officials will encourage inclusion for those who wish to use a little more structure. It will merely be a breeding ground for them to see all the divisions that exist within home education and use these divisions to divide and conquer.
Anon above "Remember all the hoohah about some LA group in N Yorks for families??"
ReplyDelete_ the LA ran a schme for families with Connexions. The video is on You ube somewhere. Many on list HErs were horrified, but the families on the scheme said they preferred what was on offer to informal stuff from local groups. My point is that whatever "we" ( ie those on the lists/in home ed support orgs etc may think is or isn't a "good thing" - there seemt be lots of families out there who welcome LA "support."
C said "There are lists for structured/semi structured home educators - I belong to one and it is one of the most respectful lists I have ever belonged to."
ReplyDeleteTotally agree - but I think my point is that some families only seem to welcome what they consider to be "official support" - and so we shouldn't underestimate that; - some families will welcome initiatives like Staffs.
In addition, I know a few years ago I met a couple of home educators from Stafford, whose children were taking exams. At that time, the LA funded a few GCSE courses for know home educators in the 14-16 age group. I don't know if that still happens, but I expect that families who could gain that benefit will welcome this initiative too.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteTrust me, Simon, no HE'ing parent who has been enraged by bad teaching in a school (or whose child has had unmet SEN's or whose life was made a misery by undealt-with bullying) is then going to ask an LA employee what age their child 'should be reading by'."
I didn't masquerade as Anonymous and write this, but I might as well have done. The last paragraph sums up my feelings exactly.
"I'm so sick of the middle class hippy myth... "
ReplyDeletedepends where the myth is - we may not actually be like that, but many of the home educators I meet who have been given my details by the LA, or who have asked to be passed on to me feel exactly that. Eeven when they attend a home ed group meeting, they may still go away with that impression - and not go back.
It may depend on geography - a lot of home educators around here in the south would perhaps fall into the "middle class" category and quite a few use "alternative small schools" for at least part of their HE experience, so that may well push them into a type which others find a bit hmmm... "different"??
They are reaping what has been sown by all those years of nanny-state government. Home educators are home educating because they don't like the state offering for some reason, and many resent the continued intrusion of the state and view it with suspicion.
ReplyDeleteEven now, with a change of government, a lot are not convinced that it has filtered down to LA level, and are aware that in another four and a bit years it could all change direction again, hence exercising caution and scepticism. We need a significant culture shift in the country as a whole before the attitude of distrust can be dispelled.
Until that time, those who wish to join in can do so, but they should go in with their eyes open, and understand why many of us are keeping clear.
"I am baffled as to what the stick might be. We don't even know that those joining this scheme will have to identify themselves to their local authority."
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously not seen Staffordshire's announcement:
"Advance notice! In the summer of 2011 SCC will make available a "Learning Platform" to support those famillies (sic) that are Electively Home Educated and registered with the EHE service."
http://education.staffordshire.gov.uk/Curriculum/Services/HomeEducation/Learning+Platform+-+SLN2+and+EHE.htm
Simon asked why anyone would turn down such an opportunity and I just wanted to express why I personally wouldnt want to join any such scheme. It doesnt make me right or someone who uses the scheme wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think choice is the key and families should have the option to use such a scheme if they wish. I hope that it is the tentative start of successful relations between LAs and HEers - its sorely needed, thats for sure.
"The person who first posted about this, says that it is a 'carrot and stick'. I am baffled as to what the stick might be. We don't even know that those joining this scheme will have to identify themselves to their local authority."
ReplyDeleteSimon, Simon, Simon. Re-read the post someone forwarded to you against list rules. Directly above the 'carrot and stick' comment is a quote from Staffordshire:
"The learning platform will be available to families who are registered with the county council as home educators."
So what is the stick?
ReplyDeleteWill those who choose not to register be unable to use this 'learning platform'?
And will those who do not use the platform be treated differently?
Is this a similar initiative to the Bedfordshire scheme where Angus swears up and down that those who choose not to use the services and are AE, are not seen as a possible problem and HE'rs swear up and down that there have been numerous issues for AE families to the point where many families avoid the LA like the plague?
"Simon asked why anyone would turn down such an opportunity and I just wanted to express why I personally wouldnt want to join any such scheme. It doesnt make me right or someone who uses the scheme wrong."
ReplyDeleteI think this kind of misunderstanding is at the root of many claims of people being hounded or attacked for expressing views in support of LAs on internet lists. Often someone will post a calmly worded response to such a post that mentions a positive LA experience, warning that other peoples' experiences may be different and less positive with the same LA or even the same member of LA staff (because this has happened in the past). The original poster will often see this as a personal attack on them and over react in response and things escalate from there.
I have seen this type of dynamic often over the years. I saw an example recently where someone gave their reasons for not accepting home visits though they also mentioned (in another post I think) that many people do have visits without problems. Someone else then jumped to the defence of people who choose to have home visits as thought the original message were attacking them for their choice to have visits. They were not attacking the person and their choice to have visits, they were just offering reasons why they and other readers might consider not having visits, not the same thing at all.
' Directly above the 'carrot and stick' comment is a quote from Staffordshire:
ReplyDelete"The learning platform will be available to families who are registered with the county council as home educators."'
I saw this, but still don't see how it is a stick. Anybody who does not like the sound of the scheme just avoids it. Where is the stick?
Jane says-They were not attacking the person and their choice to have visits, they were just offering reasons why they and other readers might consider not having visits, not the same thing at all.
ReplyDeleteyes i agree we not attacking people who chose to have a home visit its up to each family if it thinks it is right to have home visit we as a family do not have a home vist from our LA but if others want to thats up to them!
A number of people who have commented here seem to be saying that they would not ersonally care to join something like the Staffordshire scheme. I can well understand this and would probably not do so myself; I never felt the need for support of advice from my local authority. There are plenty of parents who do want help, support and advice though and I can see that this sort of thing might appeal. I was really puzzled as to why it might be thought a bad thing for a local authority to offer something of this type. Those who want to have involvement with the LA will sign up to it and those who wish to keep away can do so. How can it be bad simply to offer a service like this?
ReplyDeleteSimon says-I saw this, but still don't see how it is a stick. Anybody who does not like the sound of the scheme just avoids it. Where is the stick?
ReplyDeleteThe stick will be if a school tells the LA your home educating your child and you refuse the learning platform you may well be treated different? with hints that your not home educating your child? others take up platform but this family wont why?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I saw this, but still don't see how it is a stick. Anybody who does not like the sound of the scheme just avoids it. Where is the stick?"
Err, then why did you write:
"We don't even know that those joining this scheme will have to identify themselves to their local authority."
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I was really puzzled as to why it might be thought a bad thing for a local authority to offer something of this type. Those who want to have involvement with the LA will sign up to it and those who wish to keep away can do so. How can it be bad simply to offer a service like this? "
See anonymous' message of 15 January 2011 03:38 and the other at 15 January 2011 04:07. The issue in Bedford appears to be that people who are known to the LA but who choose not to be involved with their scheme are viewed negatively as a result. If Staffordshire believe their scheme is excellent and offering genuine advantages and can also see no reason for families not to register for it, what will they think of people the come accross who have not registered? Will they assume they have something to hide?
It's a bit like you and the health visitor. If the authorities consider they are offering a good and useful service and spotting health issues that parents have missed (and they do claim this), and then they happen across a family like yours that have purposely avoided these advantages, maybe they would conclude that the family has put their child's health at risk by not letting a health visitor check them? Or maybe they have something to hide?
Take a look at Milton Keynes Safeguarding web site. One of the reasons they list for, 'hard to engage families', is they 'have something to hide'.
http://www.proceduresonline.com/mkscb/chapters/p_hard_engage_fam.html
'The stick will be if a school tells the LA your home educating your child and you refuse the learning platform you may well be treated different? with hints that your not home educating your child? others take up platform but this family wont why?'
ReplyDeleteNever heard of this happening. has anybody else had experience of this? In Essex, where I live, I never took any notice of any of the events or activities which they layed on for home educators. Nobody ever asked why and I don't think that anybody was even aware of it.
'Err, then why did you write:
ReplyDelete"We don't even know that those joining this scheme will have to identify themselves to their local authority." '
Perhaps it was a simple mistake, made while I was thinking about North Yorkshire? I imagine that you are now going to tell me what the stick is?
Simon says-Never heard of this happening. has anybody else had experience of this? In Essex, where I live, I never took any notice of any of the events or activities which they layed on for home educators. Nobody ever asked why and I don't think that anybody was even aware of it.
ReplyDeleteIt will be recorded on the LA file of any family who refuse to take up this learning platform! Who knows what LA staff will make of a family that is turning down this scheme? i would guess it would not look good?
'It will be recorded on the LA file of any family who refuse to take up this learning platform'
ReplyDeleteSo what? I have no idea at all what Essex wrote on the file which they presumably kept on my daughter when she was being home educated. Why would anybody care and what difference would it make to me or my daughter? I really don't get this!
Simon says-So what? I have no idea at all what Essex wrote on the file which they presumably kept on my daughter when she was being home educated. Why would anybody care and what difference would it make to me or my daughter? I really don't get this!
ReplyDeleteA file kept by an LA can be used as evidence in a court of law to say that family is not giving a good education to the child! A file can be given to social workers as well by LA!
And lack of engagement (with obvious [to them] 'good for the child' provision) can be viewed as a risk factor.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps it was a simple mistake"
Well obviously it was a mistake. I pointed out the mistake because it answered one of your article questions.
why do you have a problem with people expressing why they would not want to take advantage of this offer? They are doing no more or less than you did yourself when you said why you didn't take advantage of health visitors. Why does someone making such a statement merit a blog article? Not sure what point you are making.
ReplyDelete' Not sure what point you are making.'
ReplyDeleteI was making the point that no matter what local authorities do with regard to home education, some people will see it as part of a sinister plot to drive children back to school. This seemed to me an innocuous and well meaning scheme by a local authority which, it was suggested, amounted to registration by the backdoor. This seemed absurd to me.
I think suspicion of those in authority is human nature and in no way restricted to home educators. It's probably a good idea in a democracy. It would be dangerous to be too trusting.
ReplyDeleteThe main concern I've seen about this particular offer is that it amounts to backdoor registration (rather than getting children into school, though maybe some see this as a danger of registration), and the requirement to register to take advantage of the offer would seem to support the possibility. *If* this is combined with LA staff viewing those who do not take advantage of their offer negatively (there must be something wrong with the parent's care of their children if they don't take advantage of something that is obviously good, maybe they have something to hide), then it could lead to everyone feeling pressured to register and take advantage of the offer - registration by the backdoor.
The theory doesn't seem absurd to me, it's the type of thing Government does. When SATS were first introduced people were concerned that children would become stressed by the tests. Government reassured people and claimed that SATS were a test of the school and children would not even know they were being tested. We know how reliable that reassurance was. Then you wonder why people doubt the motives of those in power. Even if they do not intend registration by the backdoor, it could easily be an unintended consequence in the future.
Simon says, 'I was making the point that no matter what local authorities do with regard to home education, some people will see it as part of a sinister plot to drive children back to school.'
ReplyDeleteThere is one reason for that:
Badman
When the stink from that clears, people might have more interest in engagement.
Anonymous said, 'When SATS were first introduced people were concerned that children would become stressed by the tests. Government reassured people and claimed that SATS were a test of the school and children would not even know they were being tested.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember all those assurances.