Tuesday 21 June 2011

Blood on our hands!

During the recent debate about the idea of a twenty day ‘cooling off’ period before a deregistered child’s name was removed from the school roll, one of the stock mythic characters of home education was brought into action once more. This is the bullied child who is forced back to school and then suffers harm either from his persecutors at school or because, unable to bear the agony of school any longer, he kills himself.

Now I am not at the best of times over-keen on claims of this sort, that some action or other will end up costing the lives of innocent children. There is something a little distasteful about resorting to this tactic; effective as propaganda though it may be. It has the effect, doubtless intended, of making those on the other side of the argument look like cruel and heartless wretches who do not care about the suffering of little children, but it does not tell us anything at all about the facts of the matter. Bringing in this hypothetical character simply stifles rational debate and makes people a little uneasy about pressing their points too vigorously, lest they seem unfeeling and callous towards this poor child. Home educators in this country are very fond of using this image, that of the suicidal, home educated child who dies because of some new piece of legislation or other. This imaginary child was brought into play a great deal during the campaign against Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill last year and inevitably I too was named as one of those who would be responsible for the deaths of these children. The following comes from the Dare to Know blog:

'Wednesday, March 17, 2010
To all supporters of Schedule 1
...of the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands'

Strong words indeed! It was this sort of thing, talk of bloodshed and so on, which resulted in the Department for Children, Schools and Families declining to answer any further Freedom of Information requests about the Badman Report, not as somebody suggested here the other day, because of a spoof blog.

What I am trying to establish currently is whether a case of this sort has ever happened in the real world. That is to say a child who has been deregistered from school in this country being forced back into school by a local authority and then suffering harm as a consequence. Is this a real hazard or merely a piece of emotive propaganda used by some home educators whenever anybody suggests changing the law? Let’s face it, School Attendance Orders are raring than rocking-horse shit. When did anybody ever hear of any home educated child being forced to return to school as a result of an SAO being issued? I have been researching hard, trying to identify a single case of this happening and so far I have drawn a blank. I have found plenty of claims that it has happened, but no solid information at all. This is strange, because you would think that such a child would have become a cause celebre of the home educating world. Before I can move on and find a case of a child suffering harm as a result of being forced back to school, I must first find a case of a child who has been made to return to school after having been home educated. Does anybody know of such a child? Does such a person actually exist?

My feeling is that the unfortunate home educated child who is forced back to school and then bullied to death is a figment of some home educators’ imaginations. That being the case, it is pretty shameless of them to trot out this figure every time somebody talks of a change in some minor regulation. It is in any case a pretty primitive argument. Whenever somebody disagrees with home educators about the need for a change in the status quo, they are asked rhetorically:

’Do you want children to die? Do you want their blood on your hands? Because that’s what will happen if you press ahead with this!’

There is still some mileage left in this hoary old myth, as we saw when the Department for Education backed down over the twenty days business recently, but I can’t help wondering when somebody will call time on this strategy. It is wearing a bit thin. In the meantime, can anybody help me to discover any home educated child who has been forced back to school by a local authority or the courts? Does such a child really exist in Britain? The search has been on now for over a month and I am growing increasingly sceptical about the existence of a kid like this! Come on you militant home educators, help me out here. Somebody must know of a verifiable case of this sort!

20 comments:

  1. Disinformation and anti school propaganda, clearly tactics of political activism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It was this sort of thing, talk of bloodshed and so on, which resulted in the Department for Children, Schools and Families declining to answer any further Freedom of Information requests about the Badman Report, not as somebody suggested here the other day, because of a spoof blog."

    The spoof blog was one of the reasons given, along with comments about 'blood on his hands'. They also didn't like the Monty Pythonesk squashing foot cartoon drawn by a child either. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_with_information#comment-5064 It seems that it's fine to accuse home educators of being at higher risk of being child abusers without evidence, but suggest that he might be risking harm to a child by his recommended changes is beyond the pale. They used a law, introduced supposedly to combat stalking, as an excuse to refuse to answer freedom of information requests.

    "What I am trying to establish currently is whether a case of this sort has ever happened in the real world. That is to say a child who has been deregistered from school in this country being forced back into school by a local authority and then suffering harm as a consequence."

    Why wouldn't any child suffering harm as a consequence of school attendance/bullying count? Why would it have to be a HE child who has been forced back to school? These were worries about the consequences of *future* legislation based on deaths of school children as a result of bullying in the past. Children have died as a result of bullying. It looked likely that the new legislation would result in more children having to return or remain in a dangerous situation. That's what people campaigned against.

    "Is this a real hazard or merely a piece of emotive propaganda used by some home educators whenever anybody suggests changing the law? Let’s face it, School Attendance Orders are raring than rocking-horse shit."

    Because they are expensive to defend in court and this would have changed if the new law had been introduced. If the new law had been brought in, this would have changed as being unregistered would have been sufficient reason for issue of a SAO and it would have been impossible for the parent to defend themselves against this in court. They would have been either on the register or not - going to court would not have changed that, and registration was to have been in the power of the LA. The current defence of provision of a suitable education would have been irrelevant if the family were not on the register.

    "My feeling is that the unfortunate home educated child who is forced back to school and then bullied to death is a figment of some home educators’ imaginations."

    Nobody claimed that this had already happened. They claimed that school children have been bullied to death, that many home educated children are removed because of bullying, and that increasing the chances of these children being forced back to school (or to stay in school) would increase the chance of more children being bullied to death.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have never heard of a case of this happening but I don't think it was being used as evidence.

    It was supposition and speculation on what could happen given that several HE kids had been removed from school due to bullying, and that bullying in schools has lead to deaths of children.

    I dont think its wrong to suggest that this might happen because potentially it could but we do need to keep it in balance with facts that we do have.

    HE kids that I have known to return to school albeit voluntarily, have coped well with and enjoyed school. I have heard it said that HE kids are more resiliant, better able to stand up for theirselves and generally academically very able when entering or returning to a classroom setting.

    I don't think it made sense for FOI requests to be denied on the basis of this accusation especailly as they get accused of things every day. Reacting so badly made it look like they had something to hide and in the end they did as the stats collected proved their statistics and calculations wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why is this relevant, Simon? The worry was about future legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'It was supposition and speculation on what could happen given that several HE kids had been removed from school due to bullying, and that bullying in schools has lead to deaths of children.

    I dont think its wrong to suggest that this might happen because potentially it could but we do need to keep it in balance with facts that we do have.'

    Slippery slope here. Suppose that I start campaigning against parents being able to home educate their children on the grounds that although it has not yet happened, perhaps a child will be tortured to death at home? Waving dead children about in this way is not a good way of debating. It has been done on both sides in the home education debate and personally, I think it time that it was stopped.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Suppose that I start campaigning against parents being able to home educate their children on the grounds that although it has not yet happened, perhaps a child will be tortured to death at home?"

    But Badman did exactly this in his review, as did various politicians. That's why it was necessary to point out that avoiding one possible risk might cause more harm in a different way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simon said Slippery slope here. Suppose that I start campaigning against parents being able to home educate their children on the grounds that although it has not yet happened, perhaps a child will be tortured to death at home? Waving dead children about in this way is not a good way of debating. It has been done on both sides in the home education debate and personally, I think it time that it was stopped.

    Ok fair point. But if we don't evaluate the risks and look for what might happen how can people decide to make laws or not. Surely it is better to suggest what might happen then look at fact to back it up its likelyhood, than not to consider the possibilities at all.

    When Badman suggested children at home could be a safeguarding risk, it was right that people should then think "ok, lets look at evidence and see if this is true."
    When examined the claim was shown not to be true, but suggesting it wasn't a bad thing in itself as long as it's not passed off as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon wrote,
    "Now I am not at the best of times over-keen on claims of this sort, that some action or other will end up costing the lives of innocent children. There is something a little distasteful about resorting to this tactic; effective as propaganda though it may be."

    Didn't you do this also when you said,

    and Simon wrote,
    "When I gave evidence to the DCSF select committee last month, I made the point that when I moved from Haringey to Essex, nobody had any record of my daughter's existence. Had I murdered her before I moved, buried her on Tottenham marshes and moved to Loughton as a single man, nobody would have been any the wiser. She too, just like Fred West's daughter Charmaine, could have dropped out of sight completely with no questions being asked by anybody about her disappearance."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Why is this relevant, Simon? The worry was about future legislation."

    Whoops. So not only is Blogger not letting you post using your own identity, it's deleting your posts, Simon. The above was in reply to a post of Simon's that has since disappeared, asking for examples of children being forced back into school by LAs using SAOs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really don't like the implication that seems to be being pushed here - that _most_ home educators are 'fleeing' something, rather than choosing HE for the benefits it brings children.

    In the long run, focusing on a tiny minority of children in deathly danger from extreme bulying will just lead to an exclusive focus on providing better 'services' for such children, rather than greater educational freedom and resources for all children, in school or HE.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But the point was, the measures to supposedly protect children at risk would potentially only help a tiny minority (if they were effective which is doubtful) and the number at risk from bullying may well have outweighed that minority. The suggested measures may well have caused more harm than good. A third of parents interviewed my Ofsted mentioned bullying as a reason for HE, so even if deathly danger were not an issue for many, the fear of bullying is still not something to shrug off as unimportant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ' They used a law, introduced supposedly to combat stalking, as an excuse to refuse to answer freedom of information requests.'

    Of course, some might say that involving Graham badman's daughter, who works with children with special educational needs, and accusing her also of having blood on her hands, did amount to stalking!
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The bottom line seems to be that nobody knows of a single case of a home educated child ever being forced back to school. This is much as I suspected. Extrapolating from zero cases in the past gives us zero cases in the future, which is reassuring!
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LOL So do you think this is a safe conclusion from the huge sample of your helpful and responsive readership? And you claim to understand research.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Badman's daughter involved herself, stalking was unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Extrapolating from zero cases in the past gives us zero cases in the future, which is reassuring!"

    Even if the legal situation changed to make SAO cheaper and easier for LAs? You're comparing apples to oranges again...

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Anonymous said...
    LOL So do you think this is a safe conclusion from the huge sample of your helpful and responsive readership? And you claim to understand research.'

    I have been hunting high and low for a case of a home edcuated child being forced back to school for the last four years; Ever since I heard this argument used, in fact. Asking the readers here was just a final check. If you know of such a case, Anonymous, share it with us.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But the argument was that the change in law would cause this problem. So how could you have found a case?

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'But the argument was that the change in law would cause this problem. So how could you have found a case?'

    The idea of the home educated child being forced back to school was not limited to concerns about Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill. It is a recurring leit motif on the home education lists and forums. Nowhere is is explicitly stated that it has never happened; the impression is given that such a thing could occur at any moment, even without a change in the law, by over-zealous action on the part of some local authority.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Simon, nice try. The stats that Tania and I collated - taken directly from FOI information provided by 141 top tier local authorities - showed that over 70 SAOs were issued to home educators.

    Admittedly, not as many as one would expect considering how much the LAs complain about the wrongs of HE. I suspect that number is low because, when LA threats to issues SAOs are challenged, they drop it - the LA would have had to expose its abuse of HE in the courts. Now where would that get them ey?

    What is striking about the stats it this ...

    40 of these LAs were acting blatantly outside of the law in their EHE policy and processes. One third of the SAOs were issued by the same authority on the basis that the families would not allow access to the children.

    Your judgement is a bit off again. I could recommend some super foods to help with that.

    ReplyDelete