Friday, 26 April 2013
What is wrong with people???
Today’s post will not be the carefully reasoned and meticulously researched observations on British home education that readers are used to finding on this blog. Instead, it is little more than a mad rant. This is such an unusual occurrence that I feel it necessary to apologise in advance.
On one of the main home education lists, a new member has posted, seeking advice. He is separated from his partner and their child lives with him and is educated at home. The kid’s mother has contacted the local authority and expressed fears about the child’s health and the educational provision being made. Somebody from the local EHE department came round to visit, but was denied sight of the child, because he or she did not wish to see the local authority officer. Now, the superior of the person who visited has insisted on physically seeing the child.
Now to my mind, this is a complete mare’s nest anyway. If the child is fit and healthy, then all the father needed to do was to say to his son or daughter, “Look, I know this is a damned nuisance, but these idiots will not leave us alone until they have checked that I am not beating or starving you. Let’s just humour them and then they will go away.” I speak here as a man who did not notify the local authority of his provision and felt it easier for all concerned just to let them poke their head around the door when we bumped into a truancy patrol. I said something to my eight year old daughter very much along the lines which I suggest above and it worked a treat. It is not a question of rights; it is dealing with an irritating problem in the most straightforward way that one can manage.
What advice did he actually receive? Well, that welfare is not any concern of the team who supervise or inspect elective home education. That in any case, the local authority have no legal right to insist upon seeing the child. That he should write a snotty letter to the local authority and try and put their backs up by quoting the law to them. These are all such appalling ideas that you cannot help wondering if the men who gave them are trying to cause problems for this fellow out of sheer mischief! Here is a child about whom concerns have been raised. Of course it is not the proper business of an EHE advisor to act on welfare or safeguarding concerns; that goes without saying. Ask yourself this though. If the father sticks to his guns and refuses to let them see his child, what do you think the next step will be; bearing in mind that quite apart from any genuine concern, the people dealing with EHE will wish to cover their backs? Yes, that’s right. They will pass the enquiry over to social services. Here is another question. Which would you prefer; to deal informally and on a purely voluntary basis with your local EHE department or to have social services open a file on your child and start sniffing around your house? Anybody prefer the second of these two options?
I cannot believe that anybody could give this poor fellow such awful advice and wait with a sense of horrible anticipation for his next post, which will be along the lines of, “Social services are investigating my family; how can I get them to back off?”
Labels:
EHE,
home education,
local authority,
social services,
UK,
visits
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteI've changed my mind about this after many years of home education.
Do you think that all home educators should show their children to LA education inspectors, or only those with additional issues as in this case? I've always thought the later, but see no justification for the former.
Deletelater -> latter
Delete'Do you think that all home educators should show their children to LA education inspectors, or only those with additional issues as in this case?'
ReplyDeleteI have no feelings either way about it. This is a practical matter; if the parent carries on down this road, then he will find social services investigating his child's welfare. He has two choices. He can invite the local authority officer into his home and make the best of things, or he can cut up rough and arrive at a situation where social services are entering his home without needing permission and causing him and his child to be unhappy. Faced with those two prospects, I think he would be better advised to choose the easy way. I do not say that I approve of this situation; I was not best pleased myself to have my details passed to the County Council by the truancy patrol; it is making the best of a bad job.
In the case you describe I would personally recommend that he have a visit with the child. Child custody issues can complicate things greatly.
DeleteBut assuming there were no welfare concerns in your case, did you consider giving evidence in writing, or did you just accept an appointment for a home visit when offered? This was what we did initially. It was only later that we decided a written report was preferable for us.
Ehe will find any excuse to get into a home. If the mother had real concerns about the child's health then surely she would have gone to ss anyway so pointing the LA to the fact they are to only investigate education then the advice given is correct. The father only has to respond to the education side of it
ReplyDeleteWhich main group is this so we can read the thread ourselves
ReplyDelete'Which main group is this so we can read the thread ourselves'
ReplyDeleteHE-UK
“Look, I know this is a damned nuisance, but these idiots will not leave us alone until they have checked that I am not beating or starving you. Let’s just humour them and then they will go away.”
ReplyDeleteBut we know there would not leave you alone demanding more visits
"then he will find "social services investigating his child's welfare.
ReplyDeleteHome education is not a cause for Social services to look into
HE isn't a cause for Social Services involvement, but health concerns are and they were mentioned too. And once the EHE rep had seen the child you'd be in a much stronger position to say 'look, it's my ex being daft. See how reasonable I am? Now, run along, there are lots of other kids who need you far more than us.'
DeleteNot right, but how it is, I'm afraid, and I'd rather deal with an EHE rep than a social worker with the police behind him or her, especially, again, unfair as it is, if I was a dad with custody because that's unusual, and the bureaucratic mind gets scared of unusual because it doesn't tick any of their boxes.
As for 'they won't leave you alone', we had visits then stopped, we live in a not good area for HE, and my children have statements of SEN. I said that I would prefer to submit a written report in future and they accepted it, because they had no grounds to do anything else.
What he's doing could give them grounds for concern for the child's welfare, which has nothing at all to do with it's education. And things could very quickly go out of control once the lid is off that particular Pandora's box.
Atb
Anne
'unfair as it is, if I was a dad with custody because that's unusual, '
DeleteYes, I thought that as well. Man with child living with him; how long before somebody starts thinking in terms of paedophilia? Another powerful reason for letting the EHE person see and chat to the child.
'But assuming there were no welfare concerns in your case, did you consider giving evidence in writing, or did you just accept an appointment for a home visit when offered? This was what we did initially. It was only later that we decided a written report was preferable for us.'
ReplyDeleteIt honestly wasn't a big thing for us. If I had been that bothered, then I suppose I would have declined to give our address in the first place to the truancy patrol. Of course, later on, I could have insisted on submitting only a written report, but I could see no reason to forbid the people from coming into my home. I suppose that letting them get on with it made everybody happy and harmed nobody.
'But we know there would not leave you alone demanding more visits'
ReplyDeleteI don't recollect their demanding visits! They used to write once a year, asking if they could come round.
Truancy patrols in my area are conducted with police in tow. When my kids were still at school we were stopped by the truancy patrol when I was taking 1 of my kids to the chemist to get the mess he'd just been prescribe at his drs appointment. They asked what school my child went to & by the time I got there they had phoned to check if they knew why the child wasn't in school which they did. I was worried about what to do if I got stopped by them when I 1st started home edding. I was told by a regional rep that in my area you just tell them your home edding & they will contact the LA to check they have a record of us if I decided to give them my details which I now know I only have to give to the police in certain circumstances (contacted the police for advice as well)
DeleteYes, you don't have to give your name and address to a truancy patrol. Their aim is not, or should not be, to catch home educators! Once you have told them that you are home educating, their interest in you should end. They certainly have no right to detain or question you.
DeleteI opposed the Badman proposals on the grounds that existing powers are adequate, and I stand by that view. However, sometimes those powers have to be used, and this unfortunate case may be one where the LA has to resort to its powers to ensure the health and welfare of the child, even though the other parent might simply be trying to cause mischief.
ReplyDeleteOnce a breakdown like this has occurred, I'm afraid the authorities have to be managed. I've seen it happen before, but in that case the parent took every step to deal with false allegations by the other parent, came through with flying colours, and is continuing HE as before.
"Today’s post will not be the carefully reasoned and meticulously researched observations on British home education that readers are used to finding on this blog"
I love the ironic humour here!
"I love the ironic humour here!"
ReplyDeleteIronic humour? I am wholly at a loss to know what you are talking about here; the statement was intended to be taken entirely at face value!