Commenting here yesterday, some mischievous fool wrote;
'if the LAs can claim control of >90% of HE kids, they'll have big bragging rights - and that translates into power, glory and money.'
This must surely be the most stupid thing that anybody has ever said on this blog and the competition for that unenviable distinction is pretty stiff! Let us try to see why local authorities really appear to be hounding certain home educators and what those parents can do to avoid being, as they see it, harassed.
I mentioned a case of abuse yesterday that involved home educated children. Predictably, most of those commenting here could not see the problem. This is in stark contrast to everybody who is not a home educator; that is to say the other 99.9% of the population. Every parent of a child at school who reads that story can see precisely why some professionals are concerned about home education. Let me give another example and see if readers will get the point. On some home education lists, parents who do not want to be known to their local authority have said that one way they avoid this is by not registering their children with a GP. Some talk of moving from one area to another and leaving no forwarding address for their old LA. Combining this with not registering with a doctor, means that they can stay ‘under the radar’, as home educating parents call it. Here is an experiment that any reader can try. Tell some parent with a child at school that you know somebody who keeps their child at home, not sending her to school. Now explain that this parent is so desperately keen that nobody find out about this, that she refuses to register her child at a GP. What do you suppose that any ordinary parent will make of this? Try it and see. I have so far found 100% rate of parents who think that the parent behaving in this strange way must be trying to conceal something that is going on with her child. Why else would she jeopardise her child’s health in this way?
This is an instance of what I am talking about. To many home educators, this sort of thing is perfectly normal and understandable; to the rest of the world, it is sheer lunacy and probably indicates something very wrong in a family. Things get even worse when you ask social workers and health professionals about this kind of profile. Unfortunately, moving from one area to another with a child and then trying to lose the kid’s records by not leaving a forwarding address for a local authority education department, combined with keeping the child from school and failing to register with a GP is classic behaviour of an abusive parent. It is textbook stuff, which would set alarm bells ringing all over the place if it came to light. I don’t want to debate the rights and wrongs of this; I am simply telling readers that this is the unmistakable footprint of an abuser.
The problem here of course is that those home educators who carry on in this mad way are almost certainly not abusers. However, if you set out to mimic the lifestyle and behaviour of a certain type of criminal, then you really cannot be surprised if you are mistaken for the real thing! If I put on a mask to conceal my face and start prowling around back streets in the small hours, then I can hardly complain when the police mistake me for a genuine burglar or potential rapist.
Essentially, what is happening is this. A group of people, most of whom are quite innocent, are deliberately setting out to imitate the lifestyle and adopt the actions of abusive parents. In the process, they waste everybody’s time by generating hundreds, perhaps thousands of false positives; each of which must be investigated. Having set out in this way to do their best to fit into the classic profile of serious abusers, they squeal their heads off when those coming into contact with them sometimes mistake them for the real thing. Idiots! They are the architects of their own misfortune and I have little sympathy for them. I have a great deal of sympathy for the poor devils whose professional duty entails sifting through all this chaff to find the wheat. Their job is made immeasurably more difficult by these antics and then on top of it, some clown suggests that they are checking these silly parents for the ‘power, glory and money’! Why, you damned fool, they are doing their job and attempting to find out who is the real abuser among these identical cases and which are just irritating, middle class parents playing silly buggers.
No, I don't think I want to waste time trying to dissect this... except to say that your descriptions of home educators say a lot more about yourself than about them.
ReplyDeleteI'll be back when you stop using a young woman's suffering to push your own agenda.
Anne
Agreed. I've met many home educators over the years and this description does not tally at all. Disagreeing about the effectiveness of a proposed solution does not equate to a refusal to accept that abuse exists either.
Delete'Agreed. I've met many home educators over the years and this description does not tally at all. '
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying here that you have not heard that a considerable number of home educating parents are keen to remain, 'under the radar' and that there has been discussion about not registering with a GP in case this leads to the local authority hearing about them.
Here is a discussion which makes mention of avoiding having your child registered with a doctor so that nobody knows that he is not being sent to school:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/children-parenting-190/general-parenting-192/816377-interferring-right-educate-your-own-children-7-print.html
It is talked about freely on some home education lists and forums; not a figment of my diseased imagination!
Do you mean on that particular page? I can only see non-home educators talking about people going off the radar. People who should have contacted the authorities but failed to, as far as I can see.
DeleteI'm sure being under the radar is discussed occasionally, but you give the impression that it's a huge problem and very common. I've met many home educators and read various email lists. It isn't common. And I'm not sure how failing to register with a GP harms the health of a child. The child can still be taken to a GP or A&E if they are ill.
'Do you mean on that particular page? I can only see non-home educators talking about people going off the radar.'
DeleteYes, it shows that this is commonly known about. I can put up stuff from places like the HE-UK and EO lists where people discuss this in detail, but that would only irritate people. When somebody on the thread that I mentioned says:
I am not remotely against home educating, however with everything there are people who take advantage of the system.
It is very worrying to me that some children go under the radar no Dr, Hv, then home educated it provides opportunity or abuse/neglect to go unnoticed.
It suggest to me that this kind of behaviour is well known.
'I'm sure being under the radar is discussed occasionally, but you give the impression that it's a huge problem and very common. I've met many home educators and read various email lists. It isn't common.'
This depends what you mean by keeping under the radar. You know as well as I do that this is often discussed. Not all those who wish to remain concealed from the local authority go to the full length of refusing to take their children to doctors and dentists, but I do not think it that uncommon. I am making the point here that this is just what you typically see with parents who are abusing their children and it can be hard to distinguish from those who are just a little cranky. You might like to consider the case of Domenic Johannson, where it was precisely this desire to avoid doctors and dentists that persuaded the Swedish authorities that something was wrong and that the child was being neglected.
"Yes, it shows that this is commonly known about."
ReplyDeleteHardly. One person whose relative may have done this but who didn't bother to report them to social services or education authorities despite believing the children were at risk. Hardly a reliable witness in my view. But even she says, "I in no way think that all home educators or even many of them need to be checked".
"You know as well as I do that this is often discussed. Not all those who wish to remain concealed from the local authority go to the full length of refusing to take their children to doctors and dentists, but I do not think it that uncommon."
Remaining unknown to the LA is usually what is meant when people talk about being 'under the radar'. I've not seen evidence that people also avoid registering with doctors and dentists just to avoid detection by the LA.
'Remaining unknown to the LA is usually what is meant when people talk about being 'under the radar'. I've not seen evidence that people also avoid registering with doctors and dentists just to avoid detection by the LA.'
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a matter of degree. Anybody who uses the expression 'under the radar' in relation to home education knows what is going on though. It means a desire to avoid local authorities and many other people knowing that your child is not attending school. It is common enough, although not all those up to this game go as far as to prevent their children from being registered with a doctor or dentist. Sometimes when this happens, it is as part of a crank health system, where the parents do not approve of vaccinations and find it easier to drop out of the medical system entirely to avoid being pestered about whether their children have had these.
'I'm sure being under the radar is discussed occasionally, but you give the impression that it's a huge problem and very common. I've met many home educators and read various email lists. It isn't common.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. According to one of the main home education sites in this country, Home Education UK, there are some sixty thousand home educated children in the UK. We know, from recent Freedom of Information requests, that only twenty thousand home educated children are known to local authorities in England and Wales. This suggests that the great majority of home educated children in this country are indeed 'under the radar'. Of course, not all these tens of thousands of parents will be avoiding having their children registered at GPs and dentists, but so strong is the desire to remain hidden that quite a few of them are bound to do this.
This almost pathological desire to remain 'under the radar' or hidden from the sight of the local authority and various other people is a major trend in British home education; one embraced, apparently, by perhaps two thirds of home educating parents in this country. To suggest that it is uncommon makes me feel that those commenting here are being less than open.
"Interesting. According to one of the main home education sites in this country, Home Education UK, there are some sixty thousand home educated children in the UK...This suggests that the great majority of home educated children in this country are indeed 'under the radar'."
ReplyDeleteYou are happy to accept this guess, largely based on a show of hands at a HE conference many years ago, as evidence to support your claims? That's laughable.
"one embraced, apparently, by perhaps two thirds of home educating parents in this country."
If this number is any where near accurate today (which I doubt) many are unknown by accident rather than design. We were unknown to the LA whilst being registered with doctors, dentists and hospitals, we visited A&E departments, had discussions with the local police about HE whilst out and about (they knew where we lived), they attended various local non-HE groups, and enrolled on evening courses at a local college, knowing that they were HE. Obviously we chose not to make ourselves known to the LA, but that's the full extent of our 'efforts' to avoid detection. I know many others in a similar position.
Your post is pure hyperbole and a cruel use of a young woman's suffering to push you own agenda as Anne pointed out earlier. I'll take a leaf out of her book and waste no more time.
'You are happy to accept this guess, largely based on a show of hands at a HE conference many years ago, as evidence to support your claims? That's laughable.'
ReplyDeleteI like this! The numbers of home educated children in this country, which are as Sharon correctly points out, pure guesswork, are often often exaggerated or minimised by home educating parents themselves, according to what they hope to prove.
'a cruel use of a young woman's suffering to push you own agenda '
And yet the only people mentioning the young woman today are those commenting on here. This tactic is Stage 2 in the famous home educating excuse book for not tackling problems of this sort. Stage 1 is of course to deny that such things happen in the world of British home education; Stage 2 is to refuse to discuss them when they do come to light because it is in bad taste.( Stage 3, which I await imminently, is to mount an ad hominem attack on the person who draws attention to the problems. This typically entails accusing me of having blood on my hands, being worse than a child abuser and/or being a relative or former colleague of Graham Badman.)
I have no agenda, other than to point out that professionals dealing with vulnerable children are being put in an invidious position by the behaviour of many home educating parents.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"The numbers of home educated children in this country, which are as Sharon correctly points out, pure guesswork, are often often exaggerated or minimised by home educating parents themselves, according to what they hope to prove."
As you are now?
Simon said,
"Stage 1 is of course to deny that such things happen in the world of British home education"
But this didn't happen. It was accepted that abuse happens, it was only the 'solution' that was disputed. A few people may go to the extreme of not registering with a GP or avoiding Health Visitors, but as you say, you are part of a small minority who do this (does this count as the ad hominem attack?). The majority just don't bother to contact the LA and inform them of their existence, just like you.
Dani In Brighton, whose partner Ali comments on here from time to time, said at a meeting with councillors:
ReplyDeleteSome families go to great lengths to avoid becoming known to the local authority – including staying indoors between 9am and 3pm, or even not registering with a GP.
Believe me, this is not something I have dreamed up; it is common knowledge among home educators and many find it perfectly acceptable. I did not even mention the parents who kept their kids indoors all day to avoid being seen...
Simon you really should avoid hearsay it only leads you to look even more stupid than normal. Just because 1 person said something doesn't mean it's common knowledge. If it is happening then it a very small minority
Delete' If it is happening then it a very small minority'
ReplyDeleteIf? Ah, I take your point. You seem to be hinting that perhaps Dani Ahrens is mistaken or not telling the truth here. Odd, because she is very well known among home educators in that part of the country. Still, if you feel that she is not a reliable witness, then I shall take your word for it. I have masses of material relating to this topic from the HE-UK and EO lists. I do not know whether or not to put it up here, because it might be too shocking to the sensitivities of some of my more delicate readers.
' leads you to look even more stupid than normal.'
A tricky one this, because I have no idea how stupid I normally look!
If you have hard evidence to back up your claims then its only fair you post them for people to make up their own minds. Myself like many courts don't accept hearsay as evidence no matter how reliable the person could be.
DeleteUnfortunately I must be of a minority who have not come across Dani in the home ed circles so I can't say if she is mistaken or not telling the truth. Hence asking for evidence rather hearsay
A tricky one this, because I have no idea how stupid I normally look!
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough whenever your name is mentioned anywhere they tend to explain about your problem with having verbal Diarrhea
' leads you to look even more stupid than normal.'
ReplyDelete'Funnily enough whenever your name is mentioned anywhere they tend to explain about your problem with having verbal Diarrhea'
And that's two ad hominem attacks! (See prediction above, regarding Stage 3). Depressing when those who disagree with me are so horribly predictable.
I'm sorry I didn't realise your rules on the blog included others not being allowed to state what is said elsewhere. But please do point out where I have disagreed with you. Another anon has already asked for evidence to be posted instead of hearsay but you seem to have failed so what people say about you must be true. That is my observation
Delete
ReplyDelete'Another anon has already asked for evidence to be posted instead of hearsay but you seem to have failed so what people say about you must be true. '
I am not altogether sure that I follow the logic here; but I dare say you know what you mean! As far as evidence is concerned, this is not a court and none of the people who have discussed this on various forums and lists were doing so under oath. More than that, most use pseudonyms. So none of the material relating to this matter could properly be described as evidence. I am quite happy for anybody who wished to do so, to believe that I invented the whole thing. Incidentally, what is it that people are saying about me that must be true? I really am a little curious about this!
Come on Simon you can do better than that. You have claimed that people go to great strength to prevent being detected by the education authorities by not registering with gp's or dentists. Again you are using hearsay to have a go at a possible group of people. You have been challenged to provide evidence for your claims which so far you have failed to do. Why is that Simon? You want people to agree with you when you rant about things (can't see any other reasons why you would be posting about these things) the least you could do is humour us with some sort of evidence other than what someone has maybe said elsewhere
Delete'You want people to agree with you when you rant about things (can't see any other reasons why you would be posting about these things) '
ReplyDeleteWell no, I neither expect, nor do I particularly want, people to agree with me here. As to why I am posting about these things, that is simple enough. It is so that those outside the world of home education can gain some insight into how it operates in this country.
the least you could do is humour us with some sort of evidence other than what someone has maybe said elsewhere'
This is getting a bit loopy. All the evidence is what people have said elsewhere; either to me or on internet lists. Of course, it could be a grand conspiracy, I suppose. Tell me, apart from what people have said elsewhere, what sort of evidence did you have in mind? Do you mean things like phone taps or affidavits attesting to the practice?
From what I know, a fair few Home education family's in and around Pembrokeshire employe some if not all of the above tactics to remain off grid as they say.
ReplyDeleteThese family's range from tree hugers to very structured, several family's I've met over the year refuse to register at doctors for fear of being reported to authorities instead moving from doctor to doctor to avoid detection, I even know of two family's who recently had babies and avoided health care electing to use family and friends for midwifes. Paranoia in the home education world has always been rife.
Simon, as far as I'm concerned is right, ask the average joe on the street about Home education and as far as these people are concerned we as parents are evil and must have alternative motives, many ,many times I have lied to these people just to avoid the judgement and the question and our motives as parents even our doctor questions my 16 year old about his education before his aliments. We live in a suspicious world and when ever news articles appear about Home Ed its never positive.
'several family's I've met over the year refuse to register at doctors for fear of being reported to authorities instead moving from doctor to doctor to avoid detection'
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, Amy, I too know people like this in real life, as well as seeing them on various forums and lists. I'm not sure why those commenting today want to pretend that it does not happen!
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"This must surely be the most stupid thing that anybody has ever said on this blog"
Looks like someone touched a very raw nerve with you and your chums.
. It is so that those outside the world of home education can gain some insight into how it operates in this country.
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem Simon you are not giving them a true insight in to how things really operate in this country. You are spouting what you believe to be happening in this country. Evidence could be in the form of true research but then again you wouldn't believe it to be true if it doesn't go the way you think it should
'Looks like someone touched a very raw nerve with you and your chums. '
ReplyDeleteI can't answer for my 'chums' of course, but I always like to give credit where it is due. Some of those commenting here have in the past said some stupendously stupid things and I have duly acknowledged them. The comment I quoted today though, truly reaches the nadir of idiocy and it would have been churlish of me not to give the author of this foolish statement some recognition.
While on this subject, I find when reading many of the comments made on this blog, that I am irresistably reminded of what Schiller said: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. This translates roughly as; against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain!
"the gods"
DeleteAnd therein lies the problem. People like Simon and those who wield power have a somewhat grandiose view of themselves.
I find when reading many of the comments made on this blog, that I am irresistably reminded of what Schiller said: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. This translates roughly as; against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain!
DeleteOh dear mr Webb you obviously don't read what you write as the same could be said about most of what you write
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Commenting here yesterday, some mischievous fool wrote;"
Simon seems to have been rather selective; quoting in full:
"I agree; the obsession with home educators as a target for monitoring would seem bizarre, given that there are richer pickings in the wider community for anyone genuinely concerned about child welfare.
However, none of this is about child welfare; it's simply about protection of the authorities' backsides, and LAs/social workers dealing with easy, tractable problems in a way that looks as though they're achieving success by hitting some targets.
There isn't a hope in hell that they can deal with the wider problem of child abuse, but the HE subset is an easy target for them to latch onto. The rest of the kids can go to hell in a hand cart, but if the LAs can claim control of >90% of HE kids, they'll have big bragging rights - and that translates into power, glory and money."
Is Simon saying he only has a problem with the part he quoted?
I think the argument as to whether home education enabled the abuse misses, or at least only partially gets, the point, which is that the home education was part of the abuse. It isolated the girls from outside sources of support and influences that might have diluted the formative effects of the mother's narcissism or loosened her control over them.
ReplyDeleteIf people read the whole judgement (and I recommend that they do), it's clear that even cursory scrutiny would have shown that something was deeply wrong with the family:
"The children have reacted in different ways. A appears to have adopted a strategy of submissiveness. Her father, who re-established contact with her recently, describes her as timid and notes that she speaks with a very, very quiet voice. He says that she spoke more loudly and confidently when she was aged 6. Mr P, the family friend to whom A eventually spoke, relates that her voice is so exceedingly quiet that he and his wife wondered at first whether she had some vocal disability. As he came to know the mother he found that, when talking to her, "you had to fight your corner". She would talk at A, and it was easier for A to be quiet than to talk."
Had the local authority had more power to intervene with the family would there have been more opportunities to help the girls? I think, yes- more opportunities to drop the ball as well, but nevertheless. Had the local authority had the power to compel school attendance on the basis of the child protection concerns and the mothers worrying behaviour and attitudes, it's possible (although not guaranteed) that the daughters would have had more opportunity to develop relationships with other adults and peers which may have enabled them to disclose what was going on (and it's worth noting that the whole thing began to unravel when outside agencies and adults became involved0. It's also possible (but not guaranteed) that they would have had the space to develop as people, away from there mother's constant malignant influence in a way which would have made them less likely to be as compliant and submissive when faced with her crazy scheme.
I'm also reminded of the post on this blog, last friday, where the forum members were advising the divorced father- about whom they knew nothing- about how to keep statutory agencies at bay. This mother appears to have been an active member of the home education community. Had she posted about her earlier encounters with social services it is highly likely that the same forum members would have happily counselled her on how to ward off agencies that might have helped her daughters, something that ought to give them pause for thought.
Ken roach has been charged with 2 counts of rape of a 15 yr old girl in 1967. No mention of the 'girl' being home educated & so far no mention of her speaking to anyone about it until now. Anyone who reads or watches the news will know there are a lot of historic abuse claims happening at the moment. So far all children involved were schooled children ( the media would have jumped at the chance to mention if HE was involved)
DeleteSo lots of children been abused. Had plenty of chance to disclose to professionals at school etc but never did. Is it only HE children that are likely to disclose anything of professionals were involved but didn't because they weren't involved. Or have I missed something where LA's have a magic wand & are able to get kids to speak out sooner? If so why weren't they involved in school kids who were being abused
Did you even read the post to which you were replying?
DeleteDo you mean did I read: Had the local authority had more power to intervene with the family would there have been more opportunities to help the girls? I think, yes- more opportunities to drop the ball as well, but nevertheless. Had the local authority had the power to compel school attendance on the basis of the child protection concerns and the mothers worrying behaviour and attitudes, it's possible (although not guaranteed) that the daughters would have had more opportunity to develop relationships with other adults and peers which may have enabled them to disclose what was going on (and it's worth noting that the whole thing began to unravel when outside agencies and adults became involved0. It's also possible (but not guaranteed) that they would have had the space to develop as people, away from there mother's constant malignant influence in a way which would have made them less likely to be as compliant and submissive when faced with her crazy scheme.
DeleteIf so then obviously I did
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Essentially, what is happening is this. A group of people, most of whom are quite innocent, are deliberately setting out to imitate the lifestyle and adopt the actions of abusive parents. In the process, they waste everybody’s time by generating hundreds, perhaps thousands of false positives; each of which must be investigated."
It seems remarkable that Simon complains about "stupid" things being written by those that comment on his blog, then he produces asinine drivel like this - but on reflection, it isn't remarkable at all.
"The comment I quoted today"...
ReplyDelete...hit the nail firmly on the head, and that's why you're squealing like a stuck pig, Simon.
"Why, you damned fool, they are doing their job and attempting to find out who is the real abuser among these identical cases and which are just irritating, middle class parents playing silly buggers."
ReplyDeleteStrange, then, isn't it, that when social services do come across cases where they undoubtedly see that something is obviously wrong (like Khyra Ishaq, Victoria Climbié and others), they don't bother to do anything until it's too late.
It isn't strange at all; it's the authorities that are playing "silly buggers", backing-off from difficult cases.
DeleteDealing with some of the rough cases is very unpleasant in many ways, whereas for those with a bureaucratic box-ticking mentality, it would be much easier to spend their days in the homes of nice middle-class parents - if only they could get in - where nasty things are less common and it's easier to hit some spurious targets.
"I find when reading many of the comments made on this blog, that I am irresistably reminded of what Schiller said: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. This translates roughly as; against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain!"
ReplyDeleteI know, it's shocking, isn't it Simon. I don't know what the world is coming to when people don't supplicate to the holy trinity of Balls, Badman and Webb, and all the lesser deities that support them.
''if the LAs can claim control of >90% of HE kids, they'll have big bragging rights - and that translates into power, glory and money.''
ReplyDeleteIf you don't understand why this is correct, Simon, then it's quite clear that you don't understand the way in which middle managers in the modern civil service and LAs - and, for that matter, many private sector organisations - progress up the career ladder.
Anonymous wrote,
ReplyDelete"If people read the whole judgement (and I recommend that they do), it's clear that even cursory scrutiny would have shown that something was deeply wrong with the family"
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that if only we bothered to read the whole judgement we would inevitable agree with your conclusions. Sorry to disappoint but I read the judgement and could not disagree more. Your solution - LA visits to all HE families - would at best have changed nothing. At worst, visits would result in a false sense that HE families have passed an inspection making people less likely to report any concerns, and also potentially divert money and resources from where they could actually help children at risk of harm.
Spend the money on improving follow-up of reported concerns by reducing social worker caseloads or by improved training; this is more likely to help children than spending it on the inspection of tens of thousands of innocent families plus the additional cost of following-up on the many, inevitable, false-positives that the inspections will throw up. Nothing you have said and nothing in the judgement convinces me that blanket surveillance is more effective than social surveillance, quite the reverse in fact. Social surveillance worked very effectively in this case; concerns about the family were reported to the authorities on four separate occasions. It was the response of the authorities that failed* so this is where the money needs to be spent.
* though it must be said in defence of social workers that it cannot always be possible to tell that a family is abusing it's children. It's not tattooed across their foreheads, after all. There must be occasions where even the best of the best social workers would not recognise a problem. We are talking, often, about highly manipulative and convincing people and children who are highly controlled and also usually love their abusers. Often the fear of what will happen if the authorities find out appears worse than what is happening to them (judging by the research with adult survivors of abuse).
I've read the whole judgement and I agree with Sharon.
DeleteIt's a mystery to me how - apart from more effective follow-up of reported concerns - anything other than 24-hour/day monitoring would have helped in this case.
The Bottoms, Rudnicki & Epstein 2007 study of American college students found that abuse ended in only a quarter of cases after the victim disclosed that they were being abused. I'm stunned and horrified by that figure. They state in their conclusion that, '[victims] disclose in ways that do not lead to formal investigation and do not bring an end to their abuse'. So not only do high numbers of abuse victims not disclose during childhood, disclosure more often than not, fails to end the abuse.
ReplyDeletehttp://tigger.uic.edu/labs/pll/bottoms-rudnicki-epstein-2007.pdf
With the best will in the world, the resources, money, people and capabilities available to protect children from abuse will always be limited. The question underlying the discussion here is how the available resources, etc., should be allocated to minimise the incidence of abuse.
ReplyDeleteConcentrating more resources on home educators seems to be a bizarre choice for child welfare; attendance in school doesn't seem to do very much to help, unless one believes that without the all-seeing eyes of overworked teachers, the abuse rate among school children would be even higher than it appears to be already.
Simon - as usual - is trying to whip up a case for more intrusive monitoring of home educators using another nasty case. One can see this in his language in which he frequently implies that most parents are disturbed or horrified by home educators. In practice, most non-HE parents couldn't care less about things that don't affect them, and certainly wouldn't want to divert resources to such a narrow group.
"In practice, most non-HE parents couldn't care less about things that don't affect them, and certainly wouldn't want to divert resources to such a narrow group."
Deleteyou are right well said
I will be slated for saying this, but perhaps part of the solution is for home educators to be willing to take an interest in children other than their own and, where they have reason to be concerned about a family, to report their concerns. If a child is "off the radar", other home educators may be the only people who know about them.
ReplyDeleteI'm currently going through an immense amount of soul-searching because I have concerns for the welfare of a home educated child and don't know whether to act. Without going into potentially identifying details, I know that if I don't talk to social services there is literally nobody else who can, since the child is completely isolated.
Of course it doesn't help in the decision-making process to know that, even if I do talk to social services, they may take no action anyway.
It may be helpful for you to know that you can talk through a hypothetical situation with social services, get advice and then think through your decision before reporting anyone or not. I did this once. On the basis of the information I received and after having thought it through, I decided against making a complaint.
Delete"I will be slated for saying this, but perhaps part of the solution is for home educators to be willing to take an interest in children other than their own and, where they have reason to be concerned about a family, to report their concerns."
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you even need to suggest this. I would expect this to be the default behaviour of every adult in the country.
"Of course it doesn't help in the decision-making process to know that, even if I do talk to social services, they may take no action anyway."
Even if they take no action this time, your report may still be valuable if other people report concerns at a later date - they may also already been reported before. I am assuming that your difficulty is in judging if harm is taking place at all? Presumably if you knew for sure the child is being harmed you would not hesitate to report them. If I were in your situation I would read all I could lay my hands on about how to recognise abuse. These links may be a good starting point (sorry if you've already seen them).
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/leaflets/leaflets-list_wda83843.html
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/enquiries/frequently-asked-questions_wda83770.html#when
I agree with Sharon it should be the default of all adults. There's only certain people in the home ed community that others seem to have a problem with for even thinking about reporting anyone if they have concerns. You have to do what you think is right at the time of doing it. It is a very hard decision to make especially if your not sure you are right about what's going on.
ReplyDelete+1
Deleteno home visits for us thx
ReplyDeleteNo home visits here either :)
Delete