Sunday 3 March 2013
Stupendous hypocrisy, possibly combined with racism, on the part of Education Otherwise, Home Education UK, Action for Home Education and various other major home education organisations in the United Kingdom.
I was accused yesterday of not expressing my views openly and it is to be hoped that the title of this post clears that up. As I said a couple of days ago, I was talking to a local authority officer who was irritated about the suggestion being made by some home educators that there was something racist about the attempts to get more Gypsy and Roma children into school. She asked me if I could see the difference between this and the line that the big home education groups took about Victoria Climbie a few years ago. I could not and when I asked about the subject here, nobody could give a plain answer. Let me explain why this is at best dreadful hypocrisy and at worst out and out racism.
Let us begin with what is practically an article of faith at the large home education support organisations and that is that just because a child is not at school, that does not mean that she is not receiving an education. I am sure that we have all read of the outraged cries from home educating parents when their children get mixed in with those who are ‘missing from education’. Surely, parents should be innocent until proven guilty? We ought to assume that parents and carers are providing children with a suitable education, unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. So far, so good; nothing controversial here, I fancy.
With some groups in society; these assumptions are reversed. As readers know, there was a huge fuss when organisations such as the NSPCC said that Victoria Climbie was home educated. Education Otherwise, Home Education UK and so on all went mad and asserted that this was not the case. Why were they so sure that this child was not being home educated? We will allow Mike Fortune-Wood of Home Education UK to explain. His is the standard explanation for believing that Victoria Climbie was not a home educated child. Be prepared though for a shock:
http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-victoria-climbie.pdf
Have we all read it? We know that the child was not receiving an education because;
‘the reason that Victoria was not attending school was that there was a failure to provide sufficient school places in her locality. Both the LEA and Social Services knew of her existence and her lack of education’
How do we know that she was lacking an education? Because of course, she was not at school! Incidentally, it is not true that she could not get a school place; her carer did not apply for one. Now we know that Mike Fortune-Wood, Education Otherwise and other groups are all in favour of children not attending school. We know that they believe passionately that the fact that a child is not in school does not mean that the child is lacking an education. Except perhaps, as in this case, when we are talking about working class, black foreigners.
Perhaps I am wrong? Let us imagine that we are talking now of a white, Welsh family. Does anybody think for a moment that Mike Fortune-Wood or Education Otherwise would say something along the lines of, ‘The local authority knew that this child was lacking an education because she was not at school’? Hard to believe, no? The only conclusion which I can reach is that either these organisations are guilty of massive hypocrisy about this or that they have one set of assumptions for white, British families and a completely different set for black foreigners. These two cases are not, of course, mutually exclusive!
The suggestion was advanced here yesterday that Victoria Climbie was not being home educated because her main carer did not say that she was. What this means is that a woman whose first language is Senoufo and second language is French, should be judged because she might not be familiar with an English expression such as ‘home education’. Sounds as though those special rules for foreigners are coming into play again!
There is a widely held assumption among many British home educators that a child, particularly a young child, should be able to receive an informal education at home. In some countries, schooling and formal education do not start until the age of seven or eight. Victoria Climbie was eight. The idea that a child of this age should be regarded as ‘lacking an education’, as Mike Fortune-Wood puts it, simply because she is not at school is not one that I feel is commonly held among British home educators. Out of interest, how many readers feel that an eight year-old who is not at school should be treated as ‘lacking an education’? What, nobody? Here’s an easier question then. How many of you think that the children of black foreigners should be assumed to be lacking an education if they are not at school? Ah, that’s better! Nice to see that so many of you are in agreement with Mike Fortune-Wood and Education Otherwise about this.
A child who is being home educated, by whatever method and of whatever ethnicity, is being educated by parents and carers who wish them to HAVE an education.
ReplyDeleteThat education can and should take place in many different ways, and does, even in schools. I believe that people learn in different ways, and all that matters is that the child does learn. I respect all cultures. I do not feel that a child from any ethnic group is more or less deserving of an education.
It is not, however, up to me, or any other home educator, to decide whether an education provided to someone else's child is suitable, especially when that child is someone we have never met, and whose circumstances we know nothing of.
The law makes it clear that it is a parent's responsibility to provide a suitable education and the state's responsiblility to intervene if they have reason to believe that the parent is not doing so.
Regardless of ethnicity, I would expect a local authority to ask a simple question of a parent or carer where concerns are drawn to their attention. 'How is this child being educated?' Or, if you like 'Where do they go to school?' as a first question, and if the answer is 'they don't' move on to 'then how are they educated?'
If the person to whom they are speaking does not answer because they do not understand, they should bring in a translator and ask again. Still no answer? Well, isn't that what SAO's are for?
If, as you say, there were school places available, then it makes it all the more tragic that no one asked those questions. But it was not the fault of the HE community, because the people involved were not part of the HE community.
If I became aware of a home educated child locally who was covered in bruises and constantly hungry then yes, it would become my responsibility. It is also my responsibility if I see a schooled child in the same circumstances.
But people did report these children. Repeatedly. To the same type of professionals how now profess 'not to understand'. Those professionals did not use powers they had and children died. While the final responsibility lies with those who tortured, starved and abused them, society had mechanisms in place to stop that. Those mechanisms were activated and failed, miserably.
And to answer your question about the eight year old, it depends on the circumstances. If they are out of school because they are between placements because they have been excluded, then yes. If they are registered at a school and playing truant, then again, yes. If they are not registered at a school and appear to be being mistreated or the LA has reason to believe there is no education being provided, then questions should be asked and a SAO should be instituted if no evidence of education is being provided and then the court can decide. If none of those apply, then there are no reasons to doubt that an education is happening, and 'innocent until proven guilty' applies.
As for your implication of prejudice, that interests me. Would you also accept that some LA staff are prejudiced against anyone who does not accept that LA services are the best option for their children? Would you also accept that many LA's turn blind eyes to abuse when it happens in school? Particularly when those children have SEN or disabilities?
Rant over. Off to make scones for tea. With cheese, and chopped onion. (And please, could we talk about something that doesn't leave me comfort baking? I'm trying to diet here.)
Anne
"and a SAO should be instituted if no evidence of education is being provided and then the court can decide."
DeleteOr as more commonly happens according to various Freedom of Information requests, the child is sent to school without going anywhere near a court.
She was lacking an education and her carers did not claim that they were home educating her. Maybe Mike and others made the mistake of missing that part out because it seems so obvious to them.
ReplyDeleteAs Anne so clearly says, LAs can and should ask parents how they are providing their child with a suitable education. If they claim to be home educating the child then informal enquiries are provided for in case law and, if the LA does not receive enough information to convince them that there is not a failure to provide a suitable education, they have the power to compel the parent to satisfy them that they are educating their child properly, just by writing a letter using the correct legal wording.
If Social Services and Local Authorities had asked these questions about Victoria, she may well have been given a school place. Whether it would have saved her life is another question entirely, but they had plenty of opportunities to save her life without school becoming involved.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Let us begin with what is practically an article of faith at the large home education support organisations and that is that just because a child is not at school, that does not mean that she is not receiving an education. I am sure that we have all read of the outraged cries from home educating parents when their children get mixed in with those who are ‘missing from education’. Surely, parents should be innocent until proven guilty?"
You appear to be suggesting that Mike and the HE organisations believe that the LA should just believe the bold assertion that a parent is providing a suitable education or not even dare to ask because this should be assumed. But this is not what they say. They all agree that the LA can make informal enquiries and issue an SAO if not satisfied with the response. For instance, on Mike's site he says:
"However if you don’t respond [to requests for information about provision] the LA are allowed to infer that you are not providing an education and may subsequently issue you with a School Attendance order (SAO)...Providing your response is reasonable under the circumstances. The LA may not insist on any particular form of response and must look at any reasonable evidence you offer them."
Similar quotes can be found on all the HE organisation sites as far as I’m aware.
If these actions had been carried out appropriately in the cases you describe, the children would have been receiving an education at school or elsewhere by the end of the process. But they didn't use the powers they have, so they did not receive a suitable education.
'She was lacking an education and her carers did not claim that they were home educating her. Maybe Mike and others made the mistake of missing that part out because it seems so obvious to them. '
ReplyDeleteSorry, I must have missed this bit. How did you know that she was lacking an education?
By reading the descriptions of her life.
Delete'"However if you don’t respond [to requests for information about provision] the LA are allowed to infer that you are not providing an education and may subsequently issue you with a School Attendance order (SAO)...Providing your response is '
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing to do with the case! Nobody asked about the child's education.
'If these actions had been carried out appropriately in the cases you describe, the children would have been receiving an education at school or elsewhere by the end of the process. But they didn't use the powers they have, so they did not receive a suitable education.'
Why do you think that the child was not receiving an education?
I probably have not made myself clear. I am not asking what actions local authorities should take when they believe that a child is not being educated. I am asking why Mike Fortune-Wood, Education Otherwise, Aspie Home Education, Action for Home Education and two people commenting here are so sure that this child was not receiving an education. It is a simple enough question. The local authority did not express any anxieties. They did not make any informal enquiries and yet everybody in the home education organisations seems to have been convinced that this child was not being educated. What has led people to this belief; apart from the fact that she was not at school?
ReplyDeleteIf the simple fact that a child is not at school is enough to make people think that she is lacking an education, what are the implications for home educating parents? If even Mike Fortune-Wood works from this perspective, can we blame local authorities if their minds work in the same way?
"If the simple fact that a child is not at school is enough to make people think that she is lacking an education"
DeleteHave you read the reports? If you have and can still ask this, then, well, I'm (nearly) speechless. The fact that she was not in school was clearly not the only reason that caused people to say she was lacking an education.
I do hope that readers understand the problems of making different assumptions about the ability of parents and carers to furnish their children with an education; basing these assumptions only upon things like skin colour, race and so on. In this case, an assumption was made about a black family which would probably not have been made about a white one; that is to say that the fact that the child was not at school seemed to indicate that an education was not taking place. With the attempts by the
ReplyDeleteDepartment for Education to insist on Gypsy and Roma children attending school more often, you have to wonder if different assumptions will be similarly made on the grounds of race. This is not a trivial question.
"With the attempts by the Department for Education to insist on Gypsy and Roma children attending school more often, you have to wonder if different assumptions will be similarly made on the grounds of race. This is not a trivial question."
DeleteWhy would you think this when the Government aims to bring GRT pupils (children registered with a school) within the same laws as other pupils? Nothing the Government has said so far would prevent GRT families from home educating and never setting foot in a school.
You're right, assumptions should not be made. The usual rules should apply to everyone.
ReplyDeleteI'm just wondering if your own children will still have the option to home educate, with the freedom you took advantage of, when it's their turn Simon. If future governments insist on making bad laws based on hard cases like this, they won't.
ReplyDeleteSimon asked,
ReplyDelete"Why do you think that the child was not receiving an education?"
Victoria was sent to Europe by her parents partly in order to receive a better education and was initially enrolled at a school in France. Victoria had a history of truancy in France to the extent that the school issued a Child at Risk of Emergency Notification. Victoria arrived in England at the end of April – no effort was made to enrol her in school by her aunt or Ealing SS. From June and for at least 5 weeks she was with a childminder from 7am to 10pm most days. During her first visit the social worker knew that Victoria was not enrolled at a school but did not ask about her education. During her second she did ask about school and no claim of home education was made at that point. No mention of home education is made in the report by Laming.
A recommendation from the Government as a result of Laming included a measure to, "ensure that all households placed in temporary accommodation by housing authorities receive support to ensure their health, education and social care needs are met."
Clearly, if you read the report and the Government’s responses to the report, Laming and the Government concluded that Victoria did not receive an education.
Can you say why you or anyone would assume she did receive an education?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"In this case, an assumption was made about a black family which would probably not have been made about a white one; that is to say that the fact that the child was not at school seemed to indicate that an education was not taking place."
Not at all. The evidence given in the Laming report and elsewhere tells us that Victoria did not receive an education.
Simon wrote,
" With the attempts by the Department for Education to insist on Gypsy and Roma children attending school more often, you have to wonder if different assumptions will be similarly made on the grounds of race."
The DoE want Gypsy children who are registered at a school to be required to attend school for the same number of days as other children. Currently they can avoid truancy charges for various reasons given in part 444(6) of the Education Act 1996. These reasons are not available to parents with fixed addresses, so currently GRT families are treated differently from other families with children registered at schools.
GRT families can currently home educate in the same way as anyone else, and these changes will not affect this.
'Can you say why you or anyone would assume she did receive an education?'
ReplyDeleteYes, of course I can. She was an eight year-old child. many home educating parents feel that children of this age do not need formal education at school and can learn enough autonomously just through everyday life. I am sure that readers here know children of this age who are not being educated in the sense of being made to sit down and study or being taught by adults. This is all assumed by man home educators in this country to constitute an adequate education. The experience of this child does not appear to me to differ from this type of education.
'no claim of home education was made at that point. No mention of home education is made in the report by Laming. '
See my remarks above about the difficulties involved when English is spoken as a third language. One does not need specifically to claim, 'I am home educating' in order to be providing an education.
"I am sure that readers here know children of this age who are not being educated in the sense of being made to sit down and study or being taught by adults."
DeleteBut they don't just leave them to their own devices or make them spend much of their time in the bathroom, rarely leaving the home. AE involves providing resources, helping the child follow their interests, trips and experiences. This did not happen in either of the cases you are discussing, so we have no reason to believe an education was being provided, especially in hindsight.
"The experience of this child does not appear to me to differ from this type of education."
Then you know little about autonomous education.
'Clearly, if you read the report and the Government’s responses to the report, Laming and the Government concluded that Victoria did not receive an education.'
ReplyDeleteAh, an interesting new perspective from home educators! If the government says that something does not constitute and education, then we must take their word for it! So presumably, if the Government, through the aegis of the Department for Education, decided that such and such a course of action was not a suitable education; we would all accept that? I am pleased to see the 'government''s view being treated with such respect.
The point was, you appear to be the only person claiming that these children could have appeared to be receiving an education. I didn't just take their word for it and believe what they said because they are the Government. I read the evidence that described the life of the children. It is clear from these descriptions that an education was not provided. It is madness in the extreme for you or anyone else to suggest that it could have looked as though an education was provided.
DeleteBut what has her education got to do with anything? Are you saying children whose lives are in danger should be found and saved by means of checks for their education? If so, doesn't that sound strange to you?
ReplyDeleteSimon claims in this blog message that HE organisations think that Local Authorities should take the word of white middle class parents when they say they are providing an education, but should assume that poor black families are not providing an education. He is wrong on both counts as the evidence on various web sites clearly show.
ReplyDeleteSimon claims that HE organisation say that LAs should not ask parents if they are educating their children. Wrong. The web sites clearly state that Local Authorities can make informal enquiries and that it is best for parents to answer.
Simon says,
ReplyDelete"How do we know that she was lacking an education?"
Because her parent's said that she was not home educated and she didn't go to school.
'Simon claims that HE organisation say that LAs should not ask parents if they are educating their children. Wrong. The web sites clearly state that Local Authorities can make informal enquiries and that it is best for parents to answer.'
ReplyDeleteI said nothing of the sort. I said that many home educators feel that the assumption should be made that they are providing a suitable education. Irrelevant in this case, because the local authorities expressed no anxiety about the education being provided for the child.
'But what has her education got to do with anything? Are you saying children whose lives are in danger should be found and saved by means of checks for their education? If so, doesn't that sound strange to you?'
ReplyDeleteI am talking about education, not welfare. It is important not to muddle the two up.
I agree, but you seem to be saying we should rely on education checks to spot welfare problems.
Delete'It is madness in the extreme for you or anyone else to suggest that it could have looked as though an education was provided.'
ReplyDeleteIs it really? This is odd. On one of the major lists is a childminder whose own child is home educated. She also looks after another child who is officially home educated. You seem to be saying that it is madness to call this home education. Do you really not know about the large number of home educating childminders? Your position then is that an eight year-old child spending a lot of time with a childminder cannot be home educated and it is madness to suggest that she is, is that correct?
It is lovely to see Lord Laming being called into play to support views here. This is surely not the same Lord Laming whose work led to the Every Child Matters agenda? For years, he has been castigated by many home educators as a fool who has caused huge problems for home educators. Suddenly, we must take his views as being very important and worth listening to!
ReplyDeleteOk, I can see what you are saying Simon. It is understandable that EHE would want to distance themselves from these cases. However, I think that had these poor children not been abused and murdered, then yes, they would have been defined as home educating by most of the big groups.
ReplyDeleteI think, that the main thing here is that the welfare concerns were flagged (not education concerns) and not followed up. Welfare and education are different, home educating is not a reason for welfare concern on its own, and vice versa home educating and not allowing visits from the LA is not a reason to ignore or pussyfoot around welfare concerns.
I am not sure if the above makes sense, but hopefully you know what I mean.
'home educating is not a reason for welfare concern on its own, and vice versa home educating and not allowing visits from the LA is not a reason to ignore or pussyfoot around welfare concerns.'
ReplyDeleteI agree absolutely with both statements.
"they would have been defined as home educating by most of the big groups"
ReplyDeleteIt's not the job of 'the big groups' to even try to define who is, and who isn't home educating! It's the job of a child's parents to do this and perhaps the local authority if it chooses to make inquiries.
Very true, but if you took out the abuse, no one on any of the lists would have batted an eyelid about the "education" these girls were receiving. The question that was asked was about the big HE groups saying that they were not HE, and asking how they could be so sure. As is quite often the case, a person is intelligent but people are stupid. Also, hindsight allows different conclusions when all the facts are known.
DeleteBut why should they bat an eyelid, when it's not their role to judge? Are you suggesting that home education voluntary organisations should be assessing parents' education provision for their children? If so, I think that's crazy.
Delete'But why should they bat an eyelid, when it's not their role to judge? '
Deletethis looks like a judgement by Home Education UK:
'‘the reason that Victoria was not attending school was that there was a failure to provide sufficient school places in her locality. Both the LEA and Social Services knew of her existence and her lack of education’
It is a judgement partly of the local authority and partly of the child's carers for not registering her at a school.
Forgot to add that I have only recently discovered that you were blogging again after your break. Glad to see it, although I do not always agree with you, your comments are always thought provoking. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteFor newest newѕ уou have to visit internet and on web
ReplyDeleteI found this site аѕ a finеst web page for latest updates.
Feel free to visіt my site; connecticut dumpster rental
'I agree, but you seem to be saying we should rely on education checks to spot welfare problems.'
ReplyDeleteI think that sometimes such checks can reveal welfare problems, but it would be a bad move to rely upon this. Look at Eunice Spry's children. She had regular visits because she was supposedly home educating, but was still able to torture the children in her care. I think that education checks can and do show up welfare problems sometimes, but it would be a bad mistake to think that just because you are making such checks, that means that everything else in the home is OK.
Exactly! So what on earth IS your point? That the home ed orgs should not have distanced themselves from these cases? If so, you may have a point but I think them doing so was perfectly natural and understandable.
DeleteYou cοulԁ definitely see your enthusiasm within the work yоu write.
ReplyDeleteThe sector hoρes for more passionatе ωritеrs like you who аren't afraid to say how they believe. All the time go after your heart.
my web site - dumpster rental maryland
My site :: dumpster rental ct
It is always interesting when people try to disrupt this blog. It generally means that I am on the right track. Observe the comment above this one; the one for dumpsters. i have removed dozens of these posts for different companies involved with dumpsters and the disposal of trash. I will leave a few of them on here, just so that readers can see the tactics used by some of those who do not wish to discuss this topic.
ReplyDelete'So what on earth IS your point? '
ReplyDeleteMy point is a very simple one. Many parents do not send their children to school. Some, like me, did not announce that they were home educating, but merely told people that their children did not go to school. The large home education organisations claim that this sort of behaviour suggests that children are not receiving an education. Mike Fortune Wood of Home Education UK says plainly that because the child in this case was not at school, that meant that the local authority knew that she was lacking an education. I am pointing out that this is greatly at odds with what these people normally say and that the difference might be because when white people home educate and do childminding at the same time, this is acceptable. We see such people on the lists all the time and nobody turns a hair. When, as in the case of Victoria Climbie, a child is not sent to school but spends time at a childminder; the immediate conclusion of these same people is that she was not receiving an education. I am wondering if this is because she came form a working class, black family. If not; what was different about her lifestyle that enables people to make the immediate judgement that she was not being educated?
The difference is that you and other home educators intended to provide a suitable education at home for their children. We know this was not the case for Victoria. Her parents have clarified this point stating clearly that she was not home educated, and the descriptions of her lifestyle (confined to the bath or bathroom for much of the time, for instance) in no way resemble your child's or other home educated children's lifestyles.
DeleteMike did not claim that because Victoria was not at school so therefore she was not receiving an education. It's clear from the page you quote that he believed a school place had been applied for but none were available. He may have been mistaken about this point, but clearly he believed that Victoria wasn't being educated because the LA had failed to provide her with a school place. This, combined with the evidence about how Victoria spent her last few months, is more than enough to suggest that she was not being educated.
"My point is a very simple one."
ReplyDeleteSeems quite complicated to me. In fact, a very convoluted way of saying Mike Fortune Wood is wrong. I can think of many, more simple ways of doing this!
I do not agree for one minute that there would have been a racist element at play. It is simply not the job of home education organisations to judge suitable education. They were undoubtedly attempting to distance home education from the case because of attacks like the one from the NSPCC at the time, which suggested the children were successfully hidden because of home education laws.
Campaigns like this are insidious, mistaken and often sparked and fuelled by vested interests i.e. those with something to gain from the reforms they are proposing. If home educated children had to be routinely checked by inspectors, abuse could still take place as in the Eunice Spry case you cited yourself. So such reforms would not solve anything anyway.
It's in point of fact a great and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteMy website: yard dumpster
My page > trash dumpster
Hello еvеryone, it's my first pay a visit at this web page, and post is genuinely fruitful in favor of me, keep up posting such articles or reviews.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to surf to my site - dumpster hire
Currently it aρpеaгs like BlogEngine is the top blοgging platfοrm out there
ReplyDeleteright nοw. (from what I've read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
Here is my web-site :: garbage bins rental
Also see my page :: raleigh dumpster rental
Ηello! Do you use Twіtter? I'd like to follow you if that would be okay. I'm absolutely
ReplyDeleteenјoying уouг blοg anԁ
lοоk forwаrd to nеw posts.
my wеbpаge: dumpster-dive for food
Hi theгe cоlleagues, hοw is аll, аnd what уou deѕirе to sаy οn the topic of thiѕ
ReplyDeletepost, in mу ѵіеw іts іn faсt
аwesomе for me.
Check out my ωeb pagе; dumpster-dive for food
Evеrythіng is veгy open wіth a ρrecіse explanatіon of the issues.
ReplyDeleteIt ωas truly infогmatіve. Yοuг site is extгemely helpful.
Thankѕ for sharing!
Look at my site - roll off dumpsters
my site :: raleigh dumpster rental
Grow up. These issues are too important to be trivialised like this.
Deletegreаt іssues altogether, you just received a emblem
ReplyDeletenew гeader. What could yоu ѕuggest about your post that
you just made a few dаys in thе past?
Any sure?
my site; dumpster rental ct
Also see my webpage :: dumpster rental ct
I have removed many advertisements for dumpsters, placed here by people who do not wish this topic to be debated. I am not going to waste my time further on this. I shall not be checking the comments here again.
ReplyDeleteYou removed this below?
ReplyDeleteSimon, I think we can say that quoting one person to implicate many is certainly generalising from the particular even if you were correct about the one.
AHEd members concluded that this poor child was not electively home educated after contact with the Victoria Climbie Foundation resulted in this urgent statement:
“The Victoria Climbié Foundation UK is genuinely concerned about the link being made between Victoria Climbié and home education, and Victoria as a hidden child. Victoria was neither home educated nor hidden.
The reality is that there is no such thing as a 'hidden' child, only children who are allowed to fall through the gaps. The key issue here is how statutory services interact with children that are known within the child protection system."
Victoria Climbie was neither home educated nor hidden and was known within the child protection system.
It was bad enough when Mr Badman and his ghoulish accomplices starting compounding the lifetime abuse of this child by hawking her situation around after her death in an attempt to use her to implicate EHE for political purposes without you following suit to grind your blunted axes now. It is not the sort of resurrection we look forward to at this time of year.
This was *not about* elective home education. Neither is it about xenophobia or racism as you are so keen to shout from your own particular roof top. You can get quite dirty yourself in slinging all this mud at all and sundry. Meanwhile you are so far of any mark as to miss your targets.
He's at it again. It's not the first time he's deleted posts. If he reads this (he says he isn't going to follow this thread any longer), he'll claim it was an accident whilst deleting the spam messages. Heard that one before...
DeleteThe abusers used Home Education as a cover for the abuse and went undetected for those unfamiliar with this. Education should not be questioned if welfare is the primary concern, or do you think both are affected in some cases? Why question everyone home educating in the same way?
ReplyDeletephlebotomy training connecticut