Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Home education and abuse; the last post for a while





I am so busy with writing lately, that I really cannot spare any time for this blog; at least for a few months. Before I go, I must answer a point made today by Anne, who comments regularly on here. She said, quite correctly, that:

‘According to the NSPCC in June 2012, there are no collated statistics for actual child abuse in the UK’

This is true. We have no idea at all what the actual rate of abuse is among children in this country. All that we can ever talk about are rates of detected child abuse. Now the thing about child abuse is, the more you look for it, the more you will find. It is like ants in the garden. If you just go into your garden and glance around for a few seconds, you might very easily conclude that there are no ants about. If, on the other hand, you were to get down on your hands and knees in a flower made and peer through a magnifying glass for half and hour; you would see loads of them.  This accounts in part for the high levels of detected abuse among children under three. They are seen and examined more than other age groups. When children roll up their sleeves for their MMR jabs, doctors sometimes notice bruises or burns. When babies are see by Health Visitors, some are noticed to be ’failing to thrive’, as the jargon has it. Because they are seen so often by health professionals, often with some of their clothing removed, the signs of physical abuse and neglect can often be detected.

There is a natural and uncomfortable corollary to this. If seeing children more will lead to more cases of abuse being detected, then seeing them less will result in fewer cases being uncovered. We have no idea at all whether home educated children are more likely to be abused than those at school, but we can be reasonably sure that fewer of those children will be detected as victims of abuse. In fact it is highly likely that in addition to this, different groups of children will suffer different rates of abuse; for cultural,  ethnic, religious or other reasons. It is unlikely that the level of abuse in such a distinct and unusual group as home educating families would be the same as the general population; but we have no way of knowing if it is higher or lower.  All we can assert with confidence is that fewer cases are likely to be detected, for precisely the same reason that more cases are detected among children under three. The more you examine children, the more abuse will be detected; the less you examine them, the less abuse you will find.

All this of course does not tell us anything useful, but it certainly explains the uneasiness of some professionals about home educating families. Such concern is not limited to home educators; although that is the only sort of concern that readers of this bog are likely to be aware of or care about. There is anxiety about orthodox Jewish communities in places like Stamford Hill in London and also in some fringe Christian groups. One such group has a crossover with home education, for its members try to keep themselves separate from ordinary society and do not send their children to school.  

Anyway, fascinating as this topic is, and illogical and  ill informed as those commenting here tend to be,  I must leave it for now and get on with my work. I shall be back in a few months time.

13 comments:

  1. So children under 5 are seen by more professionals capable of recognizing abuse than school age children? None of the health professionals my children saw during routine health checks saw more of their undressed bodies than teachers see during gym class or sports lessons and especially swimming lessons which happens fast more regularly than health checks. So by your reckoning, more abuse should be detected iin school children, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Simon wrote,
    "readers of this bog are likely to be aware of or care about."

    Freudian slip?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simon said "we have no way of knowing if it is higher or lower. All we can assert with confidence is that fewer cases are likely to be detected, for precisely the same reason that more cases are detected among children under three. The more you examine children, the more abuse will be detected; the less you examine them, the less abuse you will find."

    I'm glad you've admitted that you do not know whether the abuse level in children home educated is higher or lower.

    However, I have to take issue with your view about children under 3 being more likely to be picked up as being abused because they are seen more. Could it not also be that they are more likely to be abused because you are looking at sleep-deprived parents, adjusting to a demanding new role, and because those years are the hardest ones? The colicky baby who will not sleep, the adjustment from a life where you could go out at 5 minutes notice and without so much kit that you practically need a porter, the loss of self when you stop being an 'Anne' and become so and so's Mummy and you find that the real baby isn't the cute and cuddly media version... all those are factors which do make it tough on parents.

    This is never excusing abuse, but an acknowledgement that practical support of the sort that lucky ones get from family members could make far more difference than inspections of a group who are being talked up as a risk because they do not fit the norm.

    Atb
    Anne

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Could it not also be that they are more likely to be abused because you are looking at sleep-deprived parents, adjusting to a demanding new role, and because those years are the hardest ones? The colicky baby who will not sleep, the adjustment from a life where you could go out at 5 minutes notice and without so much kit that you practically need a porter, the loss of self when you stop being an 'Anne' and become so and so's Mummy and you find that the real baby isn't the cute and cuddly media version... all those are factors which do make it tough on parents."

      WTF?

      Delete
  4. Anne I think you should start your own blog as people enjoy reading what you write & make more sense than Webb with most things

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I'd love to read it.

      Delete
  5. "I shall be back in a few months time."

    Is that a threat or a promise?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'I shall be back'

    'Is that a threat or a promise?'

    Written, presumably, by somebody unfamiliar with the Terminator!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Come back soon. The irate plebians amuse me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are you an irate plebeian, a non-irate plebeian, or an irate or non-irate patrician?

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Pirates are good. Perhaps a pirate lebeian?

      Delete