its not blowing the right way! thank goodness none of it will affect us as Peter will be to old! but something is going on its going to be a lot harder to home educate in furture your have to go though a lot of hoops! meeting with the fool from the council just in case your abusing your child will the officer ask this question outright or wait for child to say something? indeed Graham Stuart M.P a said he agrees with 20 day rule which will start in september! this new item has not been released for the fun of it! you need to do a post on what Graham been saying Webb?
Webb right about the way things are going and we dont like agreeing with him but on these issues he been spot on
"The report found educating children at home could sometimes be used as a means of concealing abuse.
In another case two girls were sexually abused by their father. The two sisters and two other siblings had been withdrawn from school to be home educated.
"It was clear that the children had been withdrawn from school to avoid the scrutiny of the authorities," it said."
Very concerning. If sick and twisted people want to do awful things to children they will regardless. However, as HE becomes more of a mainstream option, (in the sense that it becomes more widely heard of) there's little to stop such individuals from choosing to HE in an attempt to cover up what they're doing and prevent others from learning about it. Such people are capable of quite devious thinking and can go to extreme lengths to prevent being caught. I don't say that this actually happens very often, just that theres little that can be done to prevent them doing so.
I would like to know who takes responsibility in a case like the above is it the LA or social services? Were these families previously known to social services?
'Were these families previously known to social services?'
I'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions.
Webb says-I'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions.
but social services have plenty of power to act if a child who their already had concerns about is in danger! why did thier not use these powers?
"I'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions."
I think it is wrong that people should develop the idea that if they home educate this will enable them to evade questions or strutiny from authorities about whatever despicable actions they might be up to. However I'm not sure what exactly the solution to that might be. Even an obligatory one off visit by some local authority personnel would not necessarily pick up on abuse of the type mentioned in this article. Such intrusive srutiny would have to be regular and on-going, which would not be fair on those who are completely innocent of doing anything to their children and are just happily home educating. On the other hand, if social services had prior concerns of such a serious nature, this individual should not have been able to home educate in the first place.
There is nothing to stop social services continuing to be involved with a family just because the family is home educating. I know that they do often stay just as (if not more) involved if a family de-registers their children.
Samantha says,
"I would like to know who takes responsibility in a case like the above is it the LA or social services?"
In an LA like ours, the LA and social services are all pretty much the same thing as we have a children's services section that brings together education, health and social care. There is certainly information sharing between the different parts and if a family has pre-existing social services involvement this would be known by the EOTAS staff. I don't see that making a decision to home educate would be a good way to avoid further scrutiny in those circumstances - though perhaps this is different in other areas.
' I don't see that making a decision to home educate would be a good way to avoid further scrutiny in those circumstances - though perhaps this is different in other areas.'
It's easy enough. You tell the school that you are moving to another area. Say that you will be staying with friends and therefore have no permanent address yet and deregister the child. Chances are, nobody will ever come looking. I know some bona fide home educating parents who did not want a visit to use this tactic and it worked just fine. Social services will sometimes just close the file and then send a note to the local authority where the family have supposedly moved to, asking them to keep an eye out for them.
"It's easy enough. You tell the school that you are moving to another area. Say that you will be staying with friends and therefore have no permanent address yet and deregister the child. Chances are, nobody will ever come looking."
Yes, I see. But I don't think there's any suggestion that this happened in the case OFSTED mention in that report. I can't seem to find much detail about the case but I think it happened in Crawley in West Sussex and the family stayed in that location. If that is so then there was nothing to stop social services being just as involved - or even stepping up their involvement.
' If that is so then there was nothing to stop social services being just as involved - or even stepping up their involvement.'
True, but if they believe that the family have moved elsewhere then they sometimes stop looking for them. As somebody who has carried out many home visits, I can assure you that it is quite possible for families to give every indication of having moved while still living in the same place. If they are in social housing, one can sometimes get a handle on the situation; otherwise it is a dead loss. After knocking on the door a few times and asking the neighbours, many people give up and mark the family as having moved on. Neighbours in certain areas cover for each other. After all, they don't want anybody putting thei authorities on their tail, when somebody is asking after them. In some districts, bailiffs, local authority officers, social workers and the police are constantly given the runaround in this way. Even when the door is opened, unless the social worker actually knows the person, it is easy enough for the person at the door to deny being the one who is being looked for. This happens a lot as well; the door is opened by a woman who says, 'I am Mrs Smith. Mrs Jones has moved out'. Unless you have met Mrs Jones yourself, you are unlikely to be confident enough to call the woman at the door a liar.
"True, but if they believe that the family have moved elsewhere then they sometimes stop looking for them."
If they moved to another area and registered at a school, what process would connect them to their previous records? Also, wouldn't they be able to trace them through the NHS as soon as they visited a GP? Victoria Climbie never attended school yet was well known to social services. How was that connection made? It seems a bit of a risk to rely on school registration and attendance to keep track of children.
'If they moved to another area and registered at a school, what process would connect them to their previous records? Also, wouldn't they be able to trace them through the NHS as soon as they visited a GP? '
You misunderstand me. People say that they are going to move and then do not do so. It is very tricky to get to the bottom of the matter. Even when people are registered with GPs, they often do not bother to let the doctor know when they are moving and so this too is not a good way of finding out the truth.
"After knocking on the door a few times and asking the neighbours, many people give up and mark the family as having moved on."
And this couldn't have happened in precisely the same way if Schedule 1 had become law? What do you see as an adequate solution? From reading your description I don't think anything short of tagging or an implanted tracking chip will be sufficient.
'Anonymous said... "Precisely, that was the purpose of ContactPoint."
So your solution is to track all children, not just home educators? You don't see this as a specific HE problem?'
I have remarked before that Charmaine West was removed from school in 1971 by Rosemary West and murdered, after the school was told she was moving to Scotland. I don't think that this case involved home edcuation.
I think, as hard as it seems, we do need to look at cost. If it costs 10 million pounds to save one child's life, is that a good way to spend our money? Wouldn't it be better spent on cancer treatments that have a greater chance of saving lives, for instance?
Also, isn't there a greater chance of saving a child's life if the limited resources are put into taking care of the children we already know are at risk instead of wasting it on monitoring the vast majority who are not at risk? As the article says, 70 of the 93 children who were harmed were already known to social services and others had been known but were no longer considered at risk. If more money had been spent on protecting the 70+ children that were known, only unknown children, less than 23 out of the 93, may have been harmed.
Spending money on monitoring all children could potentially lead to an increase in harmed children as even more thinly spread resources allow more children known to be at risk to be harmed.
'Spending money on monitoring all children could potentially lead to an increase in harmed children as even more thinly spread resources allow more children known to be at risk to be harmed.'
This is true and whatever system you have and however closely you monitor the situation, some people will still harm children. I was not calling for a return to ContactPoint; just explaining how children go missing and why ContactPoint was set up.
it seems that home education was a factor in 3 of the 65 cases they reviewed. It is not clear to me whether these are all the SCRs over a set period but, if they are, then it seems that home educated children are over-represented. Of course, that doesn't mean they are in the longer term - it could simply be a statistical blip. But I think it likely that this will ring some alarm bells in govt and I wouldn't be surprised if there are new proposals on some sort of monitoring soon.
'it seems that home education was a factor in 3 of the 65 '
Yes, I don't think that it is a factor in many of these cases. It is just that it sounds good if you are claiming to be protecting children. It plays well to Sun readers.
W. Webb: This does not indicate the way the wind is blowing for home education.
OFSTED are a failed organisation that were on the list of quango’s to be closed and are struggling to prove some value, hence their attempt to venture into the H.E. scene.. They have presided over a continued decline in educational services.
With regard to the throw away comments that H.E. ’could’ be used as a cover perhaps you should consider this:
A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion.
'A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion'
"A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
this is the kind of thing that makes it worthwhile reading his naff blog:
Anonymous said... "A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
'Anonymous said... "A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
LOL LOL got to laugh'
There are few sadder sights in the world than somebody laughing at his own joke!
Anonymous said... "this is the kind of thing that makes it worthwhile reading his naff blog:
Anonymous said... "A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
Agreed! I don't have any interest in what Si has to say - I am all about the continuous Roman Holiday that this blog is. There is nothing that perks me up so much as Si being lambasted on a daily basis!
its not blowing the right way! thank goodness none of it will affect us as Peter will be to old! but something is going on its going to be a lot harder to home educate in furture your have to go though a lot of hoops! meeting with the fool from the council just in case your abusing your child will the officer ask this question outright or wait for child to say something? indeed Graham Stuart M.P a said he agrees with 20 day rule which will start in september!
ReplyDeletethis new item has not been released for the fun of it!
you need to do a post on what Graham been saying Webb?
Webb right about the way things are going and we dont like agreeing with him but on these issues he been spot on
"The report found educating children at home could sometimes be used as a means of concealing abuse.
ReplyDeleteIn another case two girls were sexually abused by their father. The two sisters and two other siblings had been withdrawn from school to be home educated.
"It was clear that the children had been withdrawn from school to avoid the scrutiny of the authorities," it said."
Very concerning. If sick and twisted people want to do awful things to children they will regardless. However, as HE becomes more of a mainstream option, (in the sense that it becomes more widely heard of) there's little to stop such individuals from choosing to HE in an attempt to cover up what they're doing and prevent others from learning about it. Such people are capable of quite devious thinking and can go to extreme lengths to prevent being caught. I don't say that this actually happens very often, just that theres little that can be done to prevent them doing so.
I would like to know who takes responsibility in a case like the above is it the LA or social services? Were these families previously known to social services?
'Were these families previously known to social services?'
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions.
Webb says-I'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions.
ReplyDeletebut social services have plenty of power to act if a child who their already had concerns about is in danger!
why did thier not use these powers?
"The report found educating children at home could sometimes be used as a means of concealing abuse."
ReplyDeleteInteresting terminology, The report found educating children at home *could* (not *is* just *could*) sometimes be used as a means of concealing abuse.
"I'm pretty sure that in the case of the father who removed his daughters from school to abuse them that there was social services concern. This was why he did it; to avoid any more questions."
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong that people should develop the idea that if they home educate this will enable them to evade questions or strutiny from authorities about whatever despicable actions they might be up to. However I'm not sure what exactly the solution to that might be. Even an obligatory one off visit by some local authority personnel would not necessarily pick up on abuse of the type mentioned in this article. Such intrusive srutiny would have to be regular and on-going, which would not be fair on those who are completely innocent of doing anything to their children and are just happily home educating. On the other hand, if social services had prior concerns of such a serious nature, this individual should not have been able to home educate in the first place.
There is nothing to stop social services continuing to be involved with a family just because the family is home educating. I know that they do often stay just as (if not more) involved if a family de-registers their children.
ReplyDeleteSamantha says,
"I would like to know who takes responsibility in a case like the above is it the LA or social services?"
In an LA like ours, the LA and social services are all pretty much the same thing as we have a children's services section that brings together education, health and social care. There is certainly information sharing between the different parts and if a family has pre-existing social services involvement this would be known by the EOTAS staff. I don't see that making a decision to home educate would be a good way to avoid further scrutiny in those circumstances - though perhaps this is different in other areas.
' I don't see that making a decision to home educate would be a good way to avoid further scrutiny in those circumstances - though perhaps this is different in other areas.'
ReplyDeleteIt's easy enough. You tell the school that you are moving to another area. Say that you will be staying with friends and therefore have no permanent address yet and deregister the child. Chances are, nobody will ever come looking. I know some bona fide home educating parents who did not want a visit to use this tactic and it worked just fine. Social services will sometimes just close the file and then send a note to the local authority where the family have supposedly moved to, asking them to keep an eye out for them.
Simon says,
ReplyDelete"It's easy enough. You tell the school that you are moving to another area. Say that you will be staying with friends and therefore have no permanent address yet and deregister the child. Chances are, nobody will ever come looking."
Yes, I see. But I don't think there's any suggestion that this happened in the case OFSTED mention in that report. I can't seem to find much detail about the case but I think it happened in Crawley in West Sussex and the family stayed in that location. If that is so then there was nothing to stop social services being just as involved - or even stepping up their involvement.
' If that is so then there was nothing to stop social services being just as involved - or even stepping up their involvement.'
ReplyDeleteTrue, but if they believe that the family have moved elsewhere then they sometimes stop looking for them. As somebody who has carried out many home visits, I can assure you that it is quite possible for families to give every indication of having moved while still living in the same place. If they are in social housing, one can sometimes get a handle on the situation; otherwise it is a dead loss. After knocking on the door a few times and asking the neighbours, many people give up and mark the family as having moved on. Neighbours in certain areas cover for each other. After all, they don't want anybody putting thei authorities on their tail, when somebody is asking after them. In some districts, bailiffs, local authority officers, social workers and the police are constantly given the runaround in this way. Even when the door is opened, unless the social worker actually knows the person, it is easy enough for the person at the door to deny being the one who is being looked for. This happens a lot as well; the door is opened by a woman who says, 'I am Mrs Smith. Mrs Jones has moved out'. Unless you have met Mrs Jones yourself, you are unlikely to be confident enough to call the woman at the door a liar.
"True, but if they believe that the family have moved elsewhere then they sometimes stop looking for them."
ReplyDeleteIf they moved to another area and registered at a school, what process would connect them to their previous records? Also, wouldn't they be able to trace them through the NHS as soon as they visited a GP? Victoria Climbie never attended school yet was well known to social services. How was that connection made? It seems a bit of a risk to rely on school registration and attendance to keep track of children.
"It seems a bit of a risk to rely on school registration and attendance to keep track of children."
ReplyDeleteThat should have been:
It seems a bit of a risk to rely on school registration and attendance to keep track of children who are already known to be at risk.
'If they moved to another area and registered at a school, what process would connect them to their previous records? Also, wouldn't they be able to trace them through the NHS as soon as they visited a GP? '
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand me. People say that they are going to move and then do not do so. It is very tricky to get to the bottom of the matter. Even when people are registered with GPs, they often do not bother to let the doctor know when they are moving and so this too is not a good way of finding out the truth.
"After knocking on the door a few times and asking the neighbours, many people give up and mark the family as having moved on."
ReplyDeleteAnd this couldn't have happened in precisely the same way if Schedule 1 had become law? What do you see as an adequate solution? From reading your description I don't think anything short of tagging or an implanted tracking chip will be sufficient.
'It seems a bit of a risk to rely on school registration and attendance to keep track of children who are already known to be at risk.'
ReplyDeletePrecisely, that was the purpose of ContactPoint.
"Precisely, that was the purpose of ContactPoint."
ReplyDeleteSo your solution is to track all children, not just home educators? You don't see this as a specific HE problem?
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Precisely, that was the purpose of ContactPoint."
So your solution is to track all children, not just home educators? You don't see this as a specific HE problem?'
I have remarked before that Charmaine West was removed from school in 1971 by Rosemary West and murdered, after the school was told she was moving to Scotland. I don't think that this case involved home edcuation.
'"Precisely, that was the purpose of ContactPoint."
ReplyDeleteSo your solution is to track all children, not just home educators?'
I cannot take any credit for ContactPoint! It was not my solution, but one which was devised by others.
I think, as hard as it seems, we do need to look at cost. If it costs 10 million pounds to save one child's life, is that a good way to spend our money? Wouldn't it be better spent on cancer treatments that have a greater chance of saving lives, for instance?
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't there a greater chance of saving a child's life if the limited resources are put into taking care of the children we already know are at risk instead of wasting it on monitoring the vast majority who are not at risk? As the article says, 70 of the 93 children who were harmed were already known to social services and others had been known but were no longer considered at risk. If more money had been spent on protecting the 70+ children that were known, only unknown children, less than 23 out of the 93, may have been harmed.
Spending money on monitoring all children could potentially lead to an increase in harmed children as even more thinly spread resources allow more children known to be at risk to be harmed.
'Spending money on monitoring all children could potentially lead to an increase in harmed children as even more thinly spread resources allow more children known to be at risk to be harmed.'
ReplyDeleteThis is true and whatever system you have and however closely you monitor the situation, some people will still harm children. I was not calling for a return to ContactPoint; just explaining how children go missing and why ContactPoint was set up.
So what is your solution? Or don't you think there is one?
ReplyDeleteLooking at the OFSTED report in more detail here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/The-voice-of-the-child-learning-lessons-from-serious-case-reviews
it seems that home education was a factor in 3 of the 65 cases they reviewed. It is not clear to me whether these are all the SCRs over a set period but, if they are, then it seems that home educated children are over-represented. Of course, that doesn't mean they are in the longer term - it could simply be a statistical blip. But I think it likely that this will ring some alarm bells in govt and I wouldn't be surprised if there are new proposals on some sort of monitoring soon.
'it seems that home education was a factor in 3 of the 65 '
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think that it is a factor in many of these cases. It is just that it sounds good if you are claiming to be protecting children. It plays well to Sun readers.
W. Webb: This does not indicate the way the wind is blowing for home education.
ReplyDeleteOFSTED are a failed organisation that were on the list of quango’s to be closed and are struggling to prove some value, hence their attempt to venture into the H.E. scene.. They have presided over a continued decline in educational services.
With regard to the throw away comments that H.E. ’could’ be used as a cover perhaps you should consider this:
A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion.
'A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion'
ReplyDeleteWhat an unpleasant person you are!
Blimey, anonymous, that's a bit over the top!
ReplyDelete"A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
ReplyDeleteLOL
Hello Pot
ReplyDeleteWhat an unpleasant person you are!
Look in the mirror W. Webb and see yourself as other people see you!
this is the kind of thing that makes it worthwhile reading his naff blog:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
"A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
LOL LOL got to laugh
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
LOL LOL got to laugh'
There are few sadder sights in the world than somebody laughing at his own joke!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"this is the kind of thing that makes it worthwhile reading his naff blog:
Anonymous said...
"A five pound note ‘could’ be an extremely dangerous weapon if it was covered in super-glue and packed into a blog writer’s rectum. So could a blog be dangerous in the hands of loud mouthed disingenuous little man suffering from self delusion."
Agreed! I don't have any interest in what Si has to say - I am all about the continuous Roman Holiday that this blog is. There is nothing that perks me up so much as Si being lambasted on a daily basis!