On one of the home education Internet lists, a lively debate is taking place about the vexed question of accepting monitoring visits from the local authority. The list owner, Mike Fortune-Wood, has expressed the view that the only reason for such visits is to judge parents and then perhaps issue a School Attendance Order if they decide that the educational provision isn't up to scratch. This seems unlikely. The issuing of School Attendance Orders to home educating families is very rare and usually they are issued only when there are additional welfare concerns. It is exceedingly rare to hear of an SAO being sent purely because the education provided for the child is not of a high enough quality. In a survey conducted by Ofsted at the end of 2009, two thirds of the local authorities had issued no School Attendance Orders at all relating to home education in the previous year and the rest had each issued just one. If the real purpose of home visits was to catch parents out, one would expect SAOs to be flying around all over the shop. This is certainly not the case.
Some parents are vehemently opposed to allowing visits to their home by local authority officers. They feel that what is happening with their children is nobody's business and that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there should be a general assumption that their children are safe and receiving a suitable education. Others are less bothered about such things and do not mind discussing their ideas with others. I always saw such visits as a chance to be evangelical about home education and to criticise the maintained sector. There are also quite a few parents who actively welcome visits, because they want help and advice.
What is the real purpose of home visits to home educating families? Firstly of course, they wish to check whether the parent seems mad or is keeping the kid at home to work. This is not uncommon in the Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community. Girls past puberty tend to help their mothers and the boys are often learning the lifestyle of their community, rather than studying algebra and writing essays. Since in some counties, this group of home educators amount to a third or a half of known home educators, this is a concern for the local authority officers making visits. Apart from those above categories, local authority officers are also on the lookout for signs that a child is scared of the parent, undernourished or covered in bruises.
Of course it will not be possible to make any certain pronouncement about the mental health of parents or the welfare of children based upon one short visit a year. In cases where there are definite concerns, other agencies often become involved.
A surprisingly large proportion of parents actually welcome visits. They want information from the local authority, advice about examinations, admission to college when the child is sixteen; all sorts of things in fact. Despite the fact that nobody is obliged to have visits and that most local authorities mention this on their websites, it is relatively rare for parents to refuse point blank to have anybody visit their home. This can of course be tricky, because if everybody else is allowing the local authority to come round, one does appear a little out of the ordinary if one refuses to allow it even once. I have no doubt at all that although they shouldn't draw any conclusion from such a stance, some local authority officers will make a note that Mrs Smith, unlike all the other parents in such and such an area, refuses let anybody into her home to see her child. This is regrettable, but is simply human nature.
Of course no parent is forced to permit access to her children, whether or not she is home educating. Most of us do, for various reasons. Most mothers and fathers send their children off to school, invite the Health Visitor in to see their new baby, take the child to clinics and visit the doctor. Some parents on the list where the debate on visits is currently taking place are not registered with doctors because they are worried that their local authority will find out that they are home educating. This sort of behaviour would arouse anybody's suspicions and is practically guaranteed to bring attention in the long run and make it look as though there is something to hide!
I did not invite the local authority to visit us, but nor did I actively discourage them from doing so. It was their time and is they wanted to get somebody to make a round journey of a hundred miles from Colchester just to hear my kid play the guitar or read her poetry, well that's their business. I honestly have never understood this obsession with hiding, fear of truancy patrols and avoidance of doctors and hospitals; the desire in other words to stay 'under the radar'. Why would anybody bother to do that, unless they had a strong motive?
Apropos of School Attendance Orders, I wonder if anybody knows of any which have been issued to home educating parents on purely educational grounds? I am thinking of families who are not known to social services and where there is not other concern than that of the suitability of the education being provided. Such cases would be very interesting to look at.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"It was their time and is they wanted to get somebody to make a round journey of a hundred miles from Colchester just to hear my kid play the guitar or read her poetry, well that's their business."
No it isn't their time. We are paying them so it is our time and money that is being wasted. Time and money that would be better spent on children they know are at risk. But then, it must be a far nicer to drive out to families who welcome them with home made cakes, biscuits and guitar recitals than to visit families where the parent's have a history of violence and aggression.
"Why would anybody bother to do that, unless they had a strong motive?"
Maintenance of a lifestyle that suits their family (and is legal) but experience suggests would not be acceptable to LA staff and may result in unacceptable pressure to change isn't a strong enough motive in your view?
'may result in unacceptable pressure to change isn't a strong enough motive in your view?'
ReplyDeleteNot really, no. We are all being pressured in various ways to change our views and lifestyle, every hour of the waking day. Some fool from the local authority telling me that I am pursuing a foolish and wrongheaded course of action would hardly be 'unacceptable pressure'. It certainly would not be grounds for avoiding registering my child with a GP or, as I have heard from others, keeping a child indoors during the day in case a truancy patrol spotted her!
I've found education is never the motive of the LA, life style and social interaction is what concerns them most. Over the year we've bumped into several round the country most recently at the protest in Telford, questions all centred around is this an appropriate lifestyle for children ie living in benders and skipping etc they seemed to think it was an issue that the boys had no Xbox, TV or as was put NO creature comforts BUT by the end and a chat with the boys, concerns and compliments given. Now I can see family's who are not as strong willed who don't fit that traditional lifestyle could end up in problems officials tend to have a preconceived of what Family and life should be for a family.
ReplyDeleteProbably like you, Simon, we have never felt under threat from the local authority. We had one visit, then sent reports for a couple of years and then suggested they leave us alone and (so far) they have. Though the language of their letters "approve your provision" was irritating, we never felt under any threat from them.
ReplyDeleteBut I have always felt that it was easy for us to be pretty confident and assertive with the local authority because we are not likely to face any challenge from them. We are a family with two graduate parents, children who passed 'milestones' at the points 'expected', supportive extended family and a large network of home educating friends. Other people are not in the same position and may have more to be wary about - not because they are not providing an adequate education but because other factors in their lives make them vulnerable to prejudice or likely to face false accusations.
"If the real purpose of home visits was to catch parents out, one would expect SAOs to be flying around all over the shop. This is certainly not the case."
ReplyDeleteOnly if high numbers were considered to be providing an unsuitable education. This is obviously not the case, or SAOs would be flying around all over the shop. More evidence that our money is being wasted.
The New Zealand education department reached just this conclusion. They used to have compulsory annual visits for all home educators but decided that the low number of problems could not justify the continued expense of visits. The old (and now current) system of written evidence with visits in cases of concern identified as many problems as the intensive visits system. And this in a country that pays an allowance to homeschooling families.
The lack of SAOs does not disprove that one of the primary reasons for visits is to collect evidence for their issue, this is faulty logic. It just means that they are not finding that evidence in the vast majority of cases. Of course it's a primary reason for visits. The LAs state often enough that they have to ensure a suitable education is being provided to justify their visits and SAOs are their final recourse if pressure and 'advice' do not get the result they want.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Not really, no. We are all being pressured in various ways to change our views and lifestyle, every hour of the waking day."
But not usually by people who have the power to force us to change our lifestyle.
"Some fool from the local authority telling me that I am pursuing a foolish and wrongheaded course of action would hardly be 'unacceptable pressure'."
To you. I am happy to accept that we are all different. Some are happy to have visits and enjoy showing off and like having their education endorsed by someone from the LA. I am happy to accept that others couldn't be bothered either way, as in your case. Why can you not accept that others find visits to be an unacceptable pressure? If we educated in the same way as you I would probably feel the same way as you about visits.
We are not all the same and some styles are more equal than others in the eyes of LA inspectors (though this varies from inspector to inspector). I've had visits from 3 different inspectors and found the visits of only one of them an 'unacceptable pressure'. How many different inspectors have visited you? How many of them tried to pressure you to change your provision?
"If the real purpose of home visits was to catch parents out, one would expect SAOs to be flying around all over the shop. This is certainly not the case."
ReplyDeleteHow many parents send their children back to school under threat of an SAO? For the LA it's problem solved, no need to generate the paperwork. I know of a case locally where pressure was applied in this manner because the LA person was insisting on particular proof (during a home visit...) that did not fit in with the family's approach, and the family is not particularly happy about it. Ever helpful, I offered advice along the lines that if they're convinced that their methods are satisfactory, they should withdraw the children from school again, refuse any more home visits and insist on everything in writing and by the book, and be prepared to go to court. I did also highlight the consequences of losing.
The court threat is often just a bluff, because most people (in areas other than HE as well) will capitulate before getting that far, and the party making the threat knows this and may be unwilling to go to court themselves. Sometimes calling bluff can result in them backing down, but one needs to be prepared. The former head of EHE at my LA said once that he didn't want to have to spend his limited staff time and budget on SAOs because he knew that in may cases the family would turn up at court and present sufficient evidence to win, so he had to make judgements in difficult cases (some where the parents were fanatic about non-cooperation) as to whether to give up and leave them alone or to pursue the SAO.
So, actual SAOs issued is a very poor benchmark.
'How many different inspectors have visited you? How many of them tried to pressure you to change your provision?'
ReplyDeleteThree. I did not get the feeling that any of them were opposed to home education and one of them, Ruma Lacey, actually home educated her own daughter for a while. It would not have bothered me in the least though if they had argued fiercely against home education.
If, before we bumped into the truancy patrol one day, I had been asked if I wanted a visit, I would probably have said that I could do without one. However, I was not so opposed to the idea that I would have refused to give my address to the EWO. I can perfectly well udnerstand people who don't want a visit; I am just a little puzzled at the lengths some will go to to avoid this.
'How many parents send their children back to school under threat of an SAO?'
ReplyDeleteWhich is a very question. Does anybody have any information about this? Are there any local authorities which actually use this technique regularly? Obviously, it will happen from time to time and sometimes it may be justified, but is this actually a policy anywhere?
'I've found education is never the motive of the LA, life style and social interaction is what concerns them most'
ReplyDeleteWhich I dare say is true! I don't think that even the most slapdash and ieffective home educator in this area could be as useless as the maintained schools round here. I have no doubt that the local authority officers know this. I certainly told them so when they came to visit.
Well, I completely disagree with the comment you quote from MFW that the purpose of vists is to get evidence to issue SAOs. One look at the "consultants" who do home visits down here, at any rate, would reveal that this is a ridiculous proposal. For the consultants that my LA now employ, "home visits" are their only job, and I can see no evidence that they all want to commit financial suicide. The county LA liaison officer is also someone whose job depends entirely on there being lots of HE children in the county -if children are forced back to school she too will be unemployed.
ReplyDeleteNow I am not saying that there are no problems with home visits. The two issues that come to mind is firstly the fact that LAs feel a greater degree of responsibility for the education of the children in their patch than perhaps the law actually requires, and this can lead to issues. Secondly the "consultants " themselves may be poorly trained, too school focused and also unaware of all that has gone on before (so may blame a parent for an issue that a school caused in the first place).
All these are things which need tackling. However I do not doubt that the vast majority of "professionals" who carry out home visits have the best interests of children at their heart; they may be misguided and get it wrong, but are certainly not out to stop HE.
( Blogger keeps eating my posts arfter they say they are posted -so will try splitting into 2 bits!)
ReplyDeleteWell, I completely disagree with the comment you quote from MFW that the purpose of vists is to get evidence to issue SAOs. One look at the "consultants" who do home visits down here, at any rate, would reveal that this is a ridiculous proposal. For the consultants that my LA now employ, "home visits" are their only job, and I can see no evidence that they all want to commit financial suicide. The county LA liaison officer is also someone whose job depends entirely on there being lots of HE children in the county -if children are forced back to school she too will be unemployed.
to be contd....
contd from above....
ReplyDeleteNow I am not saying that there are no problems with home visits. The two issues that come to mind is firstly the fact that LAs feel a greater degree of responsibility for the education of the children in their patch than perhaps the law actually requires, and this can lead to issues. Secondly the "consultants " themselves may be poorly trained, too school focused and also unaware of all that has gone on before (so may blame a parent for an issue that a school caused in the first place).
All thse are things whihch need tackling. However I do not doubt that the vast majority of "professionals" who carry out home visits have the best interests of children at their heart; they may be misguided and get it wrong, but are certainly not out to stop HE.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Three. I did not get the feeling that any of them were opposed to home education and one of them, Ruma Lacey, actually home educated her own daughter for a while."
Do you think they would have behaved in same way if they disapproved of the methods used (methods as opposed to suitability)?
"Obviously, it [threatening to issue an SAO] will happen from time to time and sometimes it may be justified, but is this actually a policy anywhere?"
It's built into the SAO procedure. The first stage is to write requesting evidence of education within a specified time or an SAO will be issued.
Julie says-However I do not doubt that the vast majority of "professionals" who carry out home visits have the best interests of children at their heart; they may be misguided and get it wrong, but are certainly not out to stop HE.
ReplyDeleteDont think that is true a number of so called professionals hate home education indeed the reponse by HCC to Badman questions he sent them shows this! asking for forced home visits seeing child on its own asking if he knows what a full time education is? HCC also said children are to loyal to parents!
"Well, I completely disagree with the comment you quote from MFW that the purpose of vists is to get evidence to issue SAOs. One look at the "consultants" who do home visits down here, at any rate, would reveal that this is a ridiculous proposal. For the consultants that my LA now employ, "home visits" are their only job, and I can see no evidence that they all want to commit financial suicide."
ReplyDeleteIt may not be how they see their job (for all the self-preservation reasons you mention) but it is ultimately their job. They may give advice along the way to try to change what they see, but ultimately, if they do their jobs properly and the family does not change their ways or send their child to school, the evidence they collect would be used to issue an SAO. The fact that many would not choose this route because it would reduce their workload doesn't negate the fact that they could use the evidence in this way and that some LA employees will be less worried about their job and do just this.
We have to assume that all information gathered could be used to support an SAO because we have no way of knowing which cases will go that far.
Anon says "if they do their jobs properly and the family does not ,..."
ReplyDeletebut that is the point I am making - " doing their job properly" should involve offering support to those who want it. Now I know many Hers don't want support but equally lots do; and if the people who visited were in a position to help those in a more positive way, then it would be a win-win situation for both the families and the LA (who could tick the boxes they are worried about at the same time.)
"but that is the point I am making - " doing their job properly" should involve offering support to those who want it."
ReplyDeleteI did mention offering advice along the way but actually, they are not required to do this in law so they are spending taxpayers money on something they are not required to provide. Ultimately though, what should they do if they think a family is not providing a suitable education? They should issue an SAO. That is the job legislation requires of them. It is the only part of their job that is required by legislation.
I agree it would be nice if those that want it receive support and I see nothing wrong with this. But this still does not change the fact that currently the only legally mandatory part of their job is the issue of SAOs when it appears to them that a suitable education is not being provided.
On a slightly different note, Simon claims that one of the reasons for LA visits is safety and welfare checks. This is also something not supported in law. The law requires them to carry out existing duties with the safety and welfare of children in mind. It does not give them extra duties or powers to go into homes and look into the safety and welfare of children. If a family happens to answer informal enquiries by accepting a home visit the LA visitor must carry out the visit with the safety and welfare of children in mind, but they cannot visit just on these grounds. Other laws specify that they must have reasonable cause to suspect there is a problem before they can visit the home and home educating on its own is not such a reasonable cause.
ReplyDeleteJulie says-I agree it would be nice if those that want it receive support and I see nothing wrong with this'
ReplyDeletethey is NO law that says a LA can not offer support to a home educated family this also includes costs towards the education of a child!