Saturday 2 June 2012

Why local authorities must be allowed to visit home educating families



It is time to draw together the threads of the various themes at which we have recently been looking. In the first place, it is clear that some parents are less able than others to provide an education for their children by themselves. A quadraplegic mother, for instance, who is also deaf, blind, unable to speak and has severe learning difficulties, would not be able to educate her own child. An extreme case, but there are plenty of less afflicted individuals who are unable personally to educate their own children in a satisfactory fashion. (It is important though to remember that the child in a similar condition would still have the right to an education, a point to which we shall shortly return.)



I have complained before of the apparent inability of some home educators to distinguish between rights and duties. The unfortunate individual cited above gives us a perfect opportunity to do so. No matter how disabled a person in this country, he or she is entitled to a fair trial. He has a right to a fair trial. Consider now the case of a juror, though. We have a duty to sit on juries if called to do so. A duty, not a right. Jurors must fulfil certain criteria and if they do not do so, they are not allowed to undertake this duty. Think now of the case of the paralysed woman whom I mentioned above. She cannot see, hear, speak or even think clearly and logically. Such a person would still have the right to a fair trial, obviously. She would not though have a right to be in a jury. This is a duty which she is not competent to undertake. I am sure that none of us would want this person to be deciding on our guilt or innocence.


This case is precisely similar to home education. If parents had a right to educate their children at home, then clearly the mother who could not move, hear, speak, see or think properly, would enjoy that right; just as she enjoys the right to a fair trial. If on the other hand, she has a duty to her child, then it would be reasonable for us to assess whether or not she was capable of undertaking that duty. Another way of looking at this is to consider the child with similar problems. He still has a right to an education, no matter what difficulties he has. Rights are not dependent upon any external circumstances; they exist automatically. We test people for their ability to undertake duties though and quite rightly so.


In short, it is both logically and ethically  correct for a local authority to wish to satisfy itself that somebody wishing to undertake the duty of educating their own child is in fact capable of undertaking this duty. The legal situation is a little more complex, but ethically and logically, the case could hardly be clearer. To assess this competence, local authority officers need at the very least to interview the parent and form some judgement of the person's ability to undertake this duty; just as a court will routinely assess the suitability of jurors. Anything less than this would be a gross betrayal of the rights of the children concerned in the matter. To sum up, if we were thinking of checking up on people to decide whether or not they should have certain rights; this would be absolutely dreadful. If we are checking that they are able to fulfill some duty or other, this is not only acceptable; it is necessary. Some home educating parents feel that threats are being made to deprive them of a right. In fact, checks are being made to see if they are able to undertake a duty. The two cases could hardly be more different.

47 comments:

  1. I refer to the many, many, many previous answers to similar articles on your blog over the years...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Children also have the right to be adequately fed, in terms of vitamins, proteins, minerals, fats, fibre etc. However, the Local Authority does not have the duty to assess the suitability of prospective parents to provide the well balanced diet that children need.

    Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, diet and health are more important than education - after all, you need a good diet and health to take full advantage of an education. We are able to take advantage of advice and help from professionals for these duties, but are not required to have our provision checked annually. Why should education be different?

    Innocent until proven guilty, don't have police checking our houses for stolen goods on an annual basis, only need to provide evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probability only, etc, etc. Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have a problem with the state acting to defend the interests of those who, for whatever reason, may be unable to defend those rights for themselves. But, as others have said, we don't impose state checks on other, equally important, aspects of children's lives. Maybe you think we should?

      I know I sound like a stuck record but I think that most people want to do right by their children. If they are failing in some aspect of their duty to care for their children, then the first role of the state (unless there is risk of significant harm) should be to offer support. Local authorities could do that for home educating parents but, by and large, they don't. They choose to spend their limited budgets on sending people out once a year to sit in some sort of unconvincing judgement on home ed families. I think it's likely that they fail to spot dangerous and abusive situations sometimes and I know that they give people needless grief about silly things at other times.

      I'd like to see better dialogue between home educators and the local authorities. I'd like them to start from the idea of providing a service rather than carrying out 'inspections.' That wouldn't mean that no child would ever miss out on their right to an education (plenty of children miss out on that in school after all) but I think it would minimise the number of home educating families struggling and then potentially failing and hiding. No-one knows how many such families their may be. I used to like to think there were none, or maybe only a handful, but over the years I have come to realise that there are some and the truth is that no-one knows how many.

      Delete
  4. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’

    I have grown mightily weary in recent years of seeing this old legal maxim being trotted out by home educators. Those who think in such terms are not likely to be swayed by reason, but let me as least make the attempt.

    To use words such as ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’ in connection with somebody’s ability to carry out a duty is mind-numbingly irrelevant. If a person is called for jury service and found to be incapable of serving on a jury, we would not describe this man or woman as being ’guilty’. Nor would we call somebody who did have the right qualifications for the job, such as having been resident in the country for five years and so on, as ’innocent’. that anybody could think in such a way about civic duties of this sort, really leaves me reeling. A parent who because of some disability was not able to educate her child at home, would not be in any sense at all ’guilty’. I can say no more on this; the whole notion being quite mad.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are an idiot. I stopped reading after the second paragraph as your 'arguement' was so laughable I failed to be able to take it seriously.

      Delete
  5. There is a law that states that we must provide a suitable education. You are either innocent or guilty of breaking that law. What's so difficult to understand about that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. There was a case where a judge or magistrate agreed with an LA who said they needed to visit the home of a disabled mother who home educated her child. The judge agreed but also said that home visits should not be considered essential in all circumstances, so it's clear that *if* there is a good reason to doubt a parent's ability to provide a suitable education (reasonable cause), home visits would be upheld by courts. However, I've been unable to find any details online. Anyone know any more?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The case is, R v Surrey Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Tweedie (1963). As you say, the judge agreed that home visits were necessary in this case, but also added:

      '.....an education authority should not, as a matter of policy, insist on inspection in the home as the only method of satisfying themselves that the children were receiving full time education.'

      Delete
  7. 'Children also have the right to be adequately fed, in terms of vitamins, proteins, minerals, fats, fibre etc. However, the Local Authority does not have the duty to assess the suitability of prospective parents to provide the well balanced diet that children need.'

    Could we have more details about this? You seem to be saying that that somebody has a legal duty to provide a certain number of milligrams of vitamin C and so on to a child. I was not aware of this; is this a parental duty laid down in law? obviously, many children do not receive a balanced diet and exist on most unsuitable diets. Are you really saying that this puts parents in breach of the law? I am intrigued by this and would like to know a little more. I confess that I did not know that children were legally entitles to a certain amount of fibre each day.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'There is a law that states that we must provide a suitable education. You are either innocent or guilty of breaking that law. What's so difficult to understand about that?'

    More muddled thinking; this time hinging around the expression, 'breaking the law'. We use this term when we are considering somebody who is committing an arrestable offence like theft or murder. This is quite a different thing from not causing a child to receive an education. Even if a police officer knew for sure that a child was not being educated, he would have no power to intervene. As I say, there is no question of guilt and innocence; it is not a criminal matter.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's a civil law rather than a criminal law. Either type of law can be broken, but a different agency polices the law. In the case of this particular law, the LA are the policing authority. As with criminal law, we are innocent until proven guilty. What's your point? Do you think the LA should have greater powers to investigate education provision than the police do to investigate, say, murder or theft?

      Delete
  9. 'I know I sound like a stuck record but I think that most people want to do right by their children. '

    I agree completely. The only problem being that not all parents know what is right for their children. Consider the recent incident of the mother who kept feeding her teenage daughter large quantities of food, even though she weighed over sixty stone. I am sure that this woman loved and cared for her daughter as much as anybody else. Unfortunately, she didn't know how to express this love without half killing her child.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, people do get into very confused and damaging states but, by and large, they have looked for help - often many times - and failed to get it. My argument is that local authorities do a poor job of supporting families who are struggling and that this should be how they spend their limited budgets - not in pointless box-ticking exercises like annual visits.

      Delete
    2. Yes, and despite incidents like this that are potentially far more harmful to children than a poor education, our larders and diet plans are not regularly inspected to ensure we are providing a suitable diet for our children.

      Delete
  10. The subject of childrens' diet seems to crop up frequently when home educators are discussing their duty to provide their children with an education. As far as I can understand, they are saying, 'Many children are malnourished, so what does it matter if they are also ill-educated? What's the difference?' A clue to the difference may be found in the name of this blog. It is called 'Home Education Heretic'. Were it called 'Home Diet Fanatic' or perhaps, 'Home Childhood Nutrition Heretic', then we might reasonably guess that my main concern would be discussing diet and nutrition. Unfortunately, my time is limited and I shall have to restrict myself to education alone. I do not think that because many children are obese or suffering from other ill effects of a poor diet, this provides good grounds for disregarding their need for a suitable education.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is, where do you stop? Diet and health are obviously at least as important as education. If an annual inspection of education is justified, then annual inspections of diet and health are even more important and annual inspection regimens should be introduced before education inspections. Are you happy to pay for this and open up you home (or more accurately, your daughters's homes when/if they have children) to all these inspections? Are you happy for scarce resources to be taken from, say, social service visits that follow reports from concerned members of the public?

      Delete
    2. I think it's helpful to think about an equivalent duty that has not been discussed ad nauseam and about which many people have developed entrenched ideas. Diet and health are of greater importance than education, yet you do not appear to advocate annual inspections of larders, reviews of diet plans and compulsory annual medical examinations. If this is an accurate reflection of your views, you could ask yourself why you think this and why these reasons don't apply equally to education.

      Delete
  11. 'My argument is that local authorities do a poor job of supporting families who are struggling and that this should be how they spend their limited budgets - not in pointless box-ticking exercises like annual visits.'

    I am wondering here how the local authority will know which families are struggling? Will they only be offering this help to those who ask for it? Of course, some of the most disordered families are the last to realise that they have problems. I would like to see a mechanism for identifying families which need help; whether or not they say they need it.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, as I mentioned, there are plenty of people who do ask for help and don't get it - as I'm sure you know. Some of those who become the most isolated and, in your words, 'disordered' might never had followed that path if they'd had a response to earlier requests for help.

    When it comes to setting up a mechanism to identify families which need help but who may not seek it, I think the best option is a responsive and well-trusted local authority to which extended family members, friends and neighbours can report their concerns. Sadly we don't have that. Either people don't report concerns (out of fear that they will make a bad situation worse) or they do report them and effective interventions are not made.

    Do you think a once-a-year visit from an ex-teacher to all home educators is the best way of identifying families who may be at risk of seriously failing their children? I think it unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with your first point that some parents are less able than others to provide an education for their children by themselves. There are circumstances locally where certain parents are not really doing the best job educating their child and the child would be better off in school.

    However I still dont see how inspections of every home educating family would help in these cases.
    At the end of the day if the local authority has concerns they just need to put the law to good use by making informal inquiries and then following them up, going as far as issuing an SAO if necessary.

    I agree with Allie's points:
    "I don't have a problem with the state acting to defend the interests of those who, for whatever reason, may be unable to defend those rights for themselves. But, as others have said, we don't impose state checks on other, equally important, aspects of children's lives."
    and
    "I'd like to see better dialogue between home educators and the local authorities. I'd like them to start from the idea of providing a service rather than carrying out 'inspections.' That wouldn't mean that no child would ever miss out on their right to an education (plenty of children miss out on that in school after all) but I think it would minimise the number of home educating families struggling and then potentially failing and hiding."

    Thinking of home educators in a different way and so engaging with us as people who choose a different but equally ok way of educating would be far more respectful and is much more likely to bring about change. LAs need realise that our duty is to ensure our children are educated by school or otherwise. The law puts both on equal footing so children attending school should be thought of as elective school attendance and home education as elective home education. This way they can offer actual support, not "support" as a disguise for criticism or looking for ways to prevent a family home educating.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'I think the best option is a responsive and well-trusted local authority to which extended family members, friends and neighbours can report their concerns.'

    A very good point. I would not, unless it was a matter of life and death, report any family to the local authority, because the consequences can be appalling. It would eb good if there were a mechanism that would let you do this without the risk of bringing catastrophe upon people.

    'Do you think a once-a-year visit from an ex-teacher to all home educators is the best way of identifying families who may be at risk of seriously failing their children?'

    No, I don't. i think that most families could be left alone. the difficulty is in working out which need to be left alone and which must have help. It is hard to do this without at least an intitial visit to the home.

    'However I still dont see how inspections of every home educating family would help in these cases. '

    Quite so. I think that a home visit is vital in the first instance and that most families could simply be left to get on with after that. Visiting the home at least once is the best way of spotting who might need help and who would not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No home visits for us thx and there NEVER will be! You just tell your LEA in a letter no home visits thx if you can tell us in writing what area of the child education your intersted in we will see if we can respond to you in writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably can't read your letter, so bin it.

      Delete
  16. Your blog article ditates as if to say school should become a child's carer, that the school looks after a child's welfare/education a 100% of the time.

    Of course, you know this not to be the case. School only represents 50% if the first decade of a child's life (if a child attends from statuory school age), and infact 55% if of the first two decades (if a child doesn't go into Higher Education). Annually if you include holidays, sickness, weekends etc.. a child will attend school for about 10% of it's life. Therefore in first decade schooling will be about 5% of it's entire life. I don't think you can opt to do 95% of Jury Duty? And do you think that severely disabled Mother should have sole care of her child 95% of the time?

    As home-educators they just take that 5% back for themselves, it's a very small percentage of a child's life. Therefore why should Home Educators be persecuted and only have these "assessments" or their standard of welfare and Educated ability. And what should these assessments be based upon?

    And when you take statistically the achievement/welfare etc etc of Home Educated children against those in Education system, then it seems like the threat of assessment is misdirected.

    I think when I personally think about Home Education and these assessments it's a feeling of this persecution, when I feel the LEA has so many children whom are in the Education system and suffering far worse than my children yet they choose to bother with me and mine. It makes no logical sense.

    Yes, I do agree that there should be safe-guards in place to avoid abuse and neglect which is hidden under those pertaining to be Home Educaters. But, I think this is so-so rare it almost seems inplausible (and probably downright ridiculous) to put so much resources into that area when so much abuse and neglect goes on in those that go to school and nothing is done! And surely safe-guards can easily be implemented without such formalities, unneccessary expense and upset - probably in the Early Years before a child begins school.

    This blog to me makes no sense. You make no sense. I'm so confused by it, infact at first I assumed you were being sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'And surely safe-guards can easily be implemented without such formalities, unneccessary expense and upset - probably in the Early Years before a child begins school.'

      That's a very good point. Don't health visitors already have a part to play in protecting vulnerable children under the age of 5?

      Old Mum

      Delete
  17. Hahaha, where do you find your examples? "A quadraplegic mother, for instance, who is also deaf, blind, unable to speak and has severe learning difficulties, would not be able to educate her own child".....I shall hope that the LA and Police would have taken the father, put him in prison and thrown the keys away for the despicable act of taking advantage of such a woman. If that has not been the condition on the outset of her life, but aquired through an accident, then SS should have been aware of children involved, and made alternative arrangements. In any event, every service as the adquate power to step in such situation, and make appropriate arranegments. I think there are plenty of powers available to the authorities to step in even in lesser extreme cases. Honestly Simon, you never fail to amuse me.

    Ubuntu

    ReplyDelete
  18. no he could read it all right if you can explain in writing what it is you wish to know we will do our best to help you? that seemed to put a stop to his letters! LEA are paid by us the tax payer or have you forgotton this fact we are the custmers and demand a far higher level of service! n0t the crap lieing one we get!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't explain yourself clearly here.

      Delete
  19. My suggestion with regard to the monitoring of the home education community may be seen as quite radical, however I believe that it would bring cohesion to the whole debate. Legislation would restrict compulsory monitoring to the confines of the proleteriat and exclude the bourgeoisie. I have read many of the comments put forward by certain groups and it well documented that in no way would the middle and upper classes abuse their children mentally or physically. FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Which 'certain groups' might they be?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Certainly without naming them your group

    ReplyDelete
  22. That middle class, I'm alright jack brigade, that because of their need to assert their insignificant rights (probably because your bored and have no other cause to champion) prevent real dialogue with the LEA that will secure funding for home educators to access services for their children, such as free funding to leisure centres, museums, galleries and public transport. That which at present is afforded to all children in mainstream schooling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "such as free funding to leisure centres, museums, galleries and public transport. That which at present is afforded to all children in mainstream schooling"

      Where do you live? My schooled child gets none of that, maybe we should move? I think it's probably been cheaper to home educate than use school (we've done both). I've always worked part time so income didn't change, and we visit the same museums etc with both children, so no cost saving there. But we don't have to buy school uniform or the various monetary contributions that schools require.

      Delete
  23. An ill thought out 'classist' argument, almost everyone is in debt in case you hadn't heard. and...why is it that more home educators claim to be 'middle class' than claim to be working class? I've met more than one parent who earns almost or around £100000 p/a. I know plenty that own businesses, smallholdings, farms and large houses...they run several cars or have motorhomes to use at home ed gatherings. How come home educators can manage to afford for only one parent to work, benefits?
    Are you claiming benefits that fund your home education?
    You're in cloud cookoo land, councils claim they're strapped for cash so it's more than doubtful you're going to secure funding. Why should your child get free funding for leisure centres, museums, public transport and galleries? It's not always the case that all LEAs fund this for all schoolchildren. So that part of your argument is a sweeping generalisation.
    What makes you qualify for a free ride, admission or meal ticket?
    Why is it you people feel that the world owes you?
    I notice that you fail to mention that libraries are closing, there's a place of learning that you can use for free, perhaps you should campaign to keep one of them open. You might try using it and learning a little bit about the wider community around you before you judge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. What has individual debt have to do with elective home education.
    2. Your assumptions with regard to the middle classes wealth and the working classes reliance on state welfare benefits merely support my argument of a class divide.
    3. My income has no bearing upon my right, under the human rights act, to educate my children at home or by choosing to send them to state school.
    3. The LEA fund schools on a per child basis. I educate my children at no cost to the state in terms of teaching fees and resources etc.
    4. I believe that access to culture is an entitlement rather than a privilege.
    5. During my twenty year career in the library service I have seen a decline in resources and opening hours as a result of decline in service users and the rise in access to the Internet.
    6. I am more than qualified to discuss class, self and society and education.

    My point is that school is as much of a choice as elective home education. Each child is fudged within the school system, why not fund children who are educated at home. If, as research suggests, access to culture is intrinsic to education why not afford it to all regardless of income.
    Oh, and money is not an indicator of class, it is the means by which it can be accessed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is already funded - that's what schools are for. If they fund HE, how could we argue against also funding for private schools?

      Delete
    2. Class divide?
      Hardly, I've met a huge number of 'home educators' on benefits. I've met a significant number on sickness benefit and disability/incapacity benefit.

      Delete
  25. I was asserting that compulsory visits should be limited to the significant number of home educators that were of working class origin. Again, I assert that income does not determine class.
    My original comment referred to the assumptions and assertions that are brandished by both sides of the debate. The high profile cases of abuse by those the media has defined as poor, working class demons who use home education as a smokescreen are quoted by those in favour of visits and the innocent defenders of their human rights fly their ultra vires freedom flags.
    Therefore, if the state is allowed to visit the demonised dole scrounging working class, who have the audacity to think that they are capable of educating their children and leave the lovely, caring middle classes alone with their psuedo freedoms, then a nice comprimise could be reached. Resources would be seen as being channelled where they are needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you serious? With your style of writing it's hard to tell. I hope you are taking the mickey!

      Delete
  26. As the partner of someone who chooses to home educate, and admittedly prior to the past few years having no cognition of elective home education (my children from a previous relationship being brought up within mainstream education). Have entered into the whole debate with regard to EHE vs State Education with an open mind.
    My partner chooses to home educate using an autonomous approach to education, which is considered amongst some circles as "radical" . , you assert that this historically is not "radical" but has historically been the "norm". On this point I agree. But in the context of post modernity can see how it is considered as quite radical. I certainly don't agree with you simon that autonomy within education is either "Sloppy thinking" or "touchy, feely lifestyle". Having been described as almost Vulcan in my application of logic in the past, I hardly think this applies to me. But having read the research and listened to all the arguments, can see the benefits of this approach.

    I do, however agree with many points you raise with regard to home education and the role the LEA play within this. I have read many comments on various forums that would label you as an "idiot" or "fool" and whose views are not worthy of consideration.
    I strongly disagree!
    From what I have read from your blogs your put forward a strong, coherent and logical argument for your assertions (with the exception of autonomous education, which I find somewhat anomalous).
    The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that certain individuals within the HE community are so blinkered by the law, their rights and the assertion of their rights within this context that they are not prepared to even entertain the notion of an opposing view, and would rather just ridicule and close their eyes and ears to what would be a rational, logical discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8 June 2012 17:24 said,

      “My partner chooses to home educate using an autonomous approach to education, which is considered amongst some circles as "radical" . , you assert that this historically is not "radical" but has historically been the "norm". On this point I agree.”

      Do you really think that historically, the majority of people followed the autonomous education approach? I would love to be proved wrong but I find that hard to believe. I doubt poorer people would have had the resources, knowledge or access to knowledge. Once the family strips had been farmed and livestock fed, I suppose children may have had time to follow their interests, but I doubt that would have involved trips to libraries and bookshops to find relevant books, or to the nearest Roman Fort, or fossil hunting trips in the hills 20 miles away from the home, or trips across the country to the nearest relevant museum, for instance. Fathers may have instructed their children in the family occupation which would obviously not involve free choice in learning on the part of the child. At best, a better off family might pay for an apprenticeship if the child were particularly interested in a craft or occupation.

      In richer families, the father would probably be too busy, the mother would probably lack knowledge and quite likely spent more time socialising than with her children. Their children’s education would have been left to nursemaids, tutors, governesses and/or schools. I doubt they would have followed the child’s interests to the exclusion of any curriculum presented by the adults.

      If autonomous education were a case of leaving a child to fend for themselves, I might agree with you. But for us, autonomous education involved far more work and effort on the part of the parents than the previously used parent directed, transmissive approach, and I just can’t see people historically having the time or money for this style of education. But as I say, if you know better I'd love to learn more!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 8 June 2012 17:24 said,
      “The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that certain individuals within the HE community are so blinkered by the law, their rights and the assertion of their rights within this context that they are not prepared to even entertain the notion of an opposing view, and would rather just ridicule and close their eyes and ears to what would be a rational, logical discussion.”

      Or they’ve seen and/or experienced directly the effects of LA visits on their education provision and have decided that their children and family fare better without visits? This was certainly our experience.

      Delete
    3. So why not challenge their assertions and beliefs head on? If your so sure of your methods of your educational provision, it will stand the test of any logical argument, and is supported by academic study.

      Our right is to be able to home educate, within the context of the law. With regard to the words "suitable" and " efficient" we have academic papers to support the methods with which we chose to educate our children.

      Any other concerns with regard to the educational provision is met with a simple question "what is your point"?

      Delete
  27. With regard to HE and the autonomous approach. As one of the greatest minds of modern times reputedly said:
    Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, It will live its whole life believing it is stupid

    Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  28. What a blinkered and narrow minded view you have of our history! Where did you read this stuff? GCSE level History? Or maybe your fortunate enough to have a time machine, who knows! Some of the greatest minds in history come from humble beginnings.

    I would start with looking up the difference between intelligent and educated!

    ReplyDelete
  29. anonymous at 9 June 2012 17:05 and 16:37

    I don't know if you are the same person, but either way, your comments seem so general it's difficult to tell who you are replying to. Maybe you could include a snipped of text or give the time of the message you are replying to? Apologies if your intention was to speak generally to the conversation as a whole.

    As to the suggestion at 16:37, you assume a much greater confidence in the face of authority than I had at the time of our visits. I think now I would be fine but that has much to do with age and experience. At the time of the visits I was far more nervous around authority figures (sweating, palpitations, stumbling speech), and our HE changed for the worse for several months as a result of the visit (resulting in much stress and upset within the family).

    So yes, in an ideal world we would feel confident enough to have a visit and not let it affect our HE, but we don't live in an ideal world. Luckily we have the option to accept or reject a home visit, because otherwise I suspect our children would have ended up in school. We would have lost our right to choose HE over school because of a failure in confidence of the parent rather than any lack in education provision. And since they have all done well and entered further/higher education without any problems, it would changed the course of our family life for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete