Monday 14 October 2013

The abuse of home educated children




Over the last week or so, I have been pointing out that abuse rates for home educated children are far higher than those for children at school. I have also been discussing one factor which causes this to be so; the high proportion of home educated children with learning difficulties and behavioral problems. Inevitably, this has caused offence to some, but since I find the abuse of children with special educational needs offensive, I don’t think I need worry unduly about any offence I might have caused by drawing attention to the scale of the problem.

One of those commenting here trotted out a few of the hoary old myths associated with home education and I propose today to tackle these and lay the ground for looking tomorrow at some actual figures about the abuse of home educated children. First though, let’s look at what was suggested yesterday. The first concerns the abuse of children with special educational needs, which is relevant for reasons at which I have already looked:

I would suggest that before the professionals turn their attention to a group where there is no evidence of abuse, they look at residential school settings where, sadly, there is such evidence, including one school where OFSTED gave it a glowing report, then rapidly downgraded it to 'unsatisfactory' when it realised that the safeguarding was so brilliant that a girl was excluded for being raped because it was against school policy to have sex.

those of us who are home educating because we removed our children from school situations that constituted neglect, physical abuse and emotional abuse need to hear.


This was by a mother who has children with special needs and is hinting that the abuse and neglect of such children is primarily a problem in schools and residential units. This ties in neatly with the mythology adopted by many home educators, that schools are dangerous and unsafe places for their children; rife with abuse and neglect. This is utterly untrue. I am using research mainly from America here, simply because that undertaken in this country has been patchy and small-scale. Looking at the question of abuse and neglect in general, who are the perpetrators? One study, (NCANDS, 2005) found that the figures were as follows;

79.4% parents
6.8% other relatives
3.8% unmarried partners of a parent

The rest were nearly all friends and neighbours of the family.  Abuse and neglect in schools and residential settings was completely insignificant. How insignificant? Another study looked at this, (USDHHS, 2007), and found that less than 1% of cases of abuse were by residential staff, teachers or other professionals. Yes, that’s right; less than 1%. What research there has been in this country tends to confirm these findings.

Neglect and abuse, whether sexual, physical or emotional, are domestic problems. They almost invariably take place in the home. The idea that removing a child from school will make him or her less likely to be abused is, generally speaking, nonsense. 

Another thing which the person commenting here yesterday said was this:

Would you not agree that even within those groups the overwhelming majority of children were not abused? 

If we are talking about children with special educational needs and disabilities, then this is tricky to answer. It depends what you mean by an overwhelming majority. In studies both here and the USA, some of them enormous, it was found time and time again that children with special needs were neglected and abused far more than children without such difficulties. How much more likely was they to be abused or neglected? Thinking now about those with learning difficulties and behavioral problems, one piece of research, (Sullivan & Knutson, 2009) found that:

The children at highest risk were those with behavioral disorders. Their risk is seven times higher for neglect, physical abuse and emotional abuse, and 5.5 times higher for sexual abuse than are children without disabilities.

Consider that statistic carefully;  a child with behavioral difficulties is seven times as likely to be neglected or physically abused. What is truly horrifying is that in the largest of such studies, of over 50,000 children in Nebraska, (Sullivan, 2000), it was found that overall, a third of children with special needs and disabilities had been neglected and/or abused. Returning then to the comment made yesterday, in which I was invited to agree that the overwhelming majority of children were not abused, then we must ask ourselves if we view 66% as an overwhelming majority? Around 33% of children with special educational needs are abused by their family and friends, while about 66% are not. I'm not sure that I would call 66%, an 'overwhelming majority'.

Here then is the implication for home education. If we assume, and I guess that most home educating parents will do so, that home educators  are no more likely to be wicked or abusive than other parents, then it is also fair to say that they are no more virtuous than other parents. That is to say that the levels of neglect and abuse inflicted by home educating parents are likely to be similar to those carried out by parents with children at school. What this means in plain terms is that a third of home educated children with behavioral difficulties are likely to be neglected or abused by their parents. 

Tomorrow, we will look at the implications of these percentages in practical terms when it comes to overall rates of abuse for home educated children. Because as we all know, a very large proportion of home educated children are on the autistic spectrum, have ADHD, or various types of behavioral difficulties. This means of course, that the proportion of home educated children being neglected and abused is likely to be far higher than in the school population as a whole.

12 comments:

  1. CORRECTION
    I am the poster Simon is quoting, and I did not hint that abuse was primarily a problem in residential units. I pointed out that abuse in a residential school that had a glowing OFSTED report which was drastically revised downwards after inconvenient facts came to light has recently led to its closure and suggested that professionals should focus on proven risk rather than supposition, anecdotal evidence or an American study.

    I would like to make it clear that I believe that anyone who neglects or is cruel to a child should be prosecuted, and, if convicted, punished. What I object strongly to is an assumption of guilt by innuendo, particularly after it has been shown that children with autism and behavioural differences are more likely to generate 'false positives' for child abuse because of their conditions.



    ReplyDelete
  2. ‘professionals should focus on proven risk rather than supposition, anecdotal evidence or an American study.’

    There is no supposition in the case, nor any anecdotal evidence. Far from being dependent upon , ‘an American study’, the phenomenon of increased abuse rates for children with special educational needs has been widely documented across the entire world. I would be very surprised indeed if the United Kingdom alone were to be exempt from this unfortunate trend. Those wishing to find out a little more about this could do worse than consult some of the following studies:


    Agnew SE, Powell, MB, Snow PC. 2006. An examination of the questioning
    styles of police officers and caregivers when interviewing children with
    intellectual disabilities. Legal and Criminological Psychology 11: 35-53.
    DOI: 10.1348/135532505X6849.

    Akbas S, Turia A, Karabekirolgu K, Pazvantoglu O, Kekskin T, Boke O. 2009.
    Characteristics of sexual abuse in a sample of Turkish children with and without
    mental retardation, referred for legal appraisal of the psychological
    repercussions. Sexuality and Disability 27: 205-213.
    DOI: 10.1177/1079063208314817

    Alderson P, Morrow V. 2004. Ethics, social research and consulting with
    children and young people. Barnardos: Barkingside, England.

    Aniol K, Mullins LL, Page MC, Boyd ML, Chaney JM. 2004. The relationship
    between respite care and child abuse potential in parents of children with
    developmental disabilities: A preliminary report. Journal of Developmental and
    Physical Disabilities 16: 273-285. DOI: 1056-263X/04/0900-0273/0


    Cooke P, Standen PJ. 2002. Abuse and disabled children: Hidden needs...?
    Child Abuse Review 11: 1-18. DOI: 10.1002/car.710

    Firth H, Balogh R, Berney T, Bretherton K, Graham S, Whibley S. 2001.
    Psychopathology of sexual abuse in young people with intellectual disability.
    Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45: 244-252.

    Giardino AP, Hudson KM, Marsh J. 2003. Providing medical evaluations for
    possible child maltreatment to children with special health care needs. Child
    Abuse and Neglect 27: 1179-1186. DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.005.

    Govindshenoy N, Spencer N. 2007. Abuse of the disabled child: A systematic
    review of population-based studies. Child Care Health and Development 33:
    552-558. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00693.x.

    Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Horowitz D. 2007. Victimization of Children with
    Disabilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77: 629-635.
    DOI: 10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.629.

    Jaudes PK, Mackey-Bilaver L. 2008. Do chronic conditions increase young
    children's risk of being maltreated? Child Abuse and Neglect 32: 671-681.
    DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.007

    Jemta L, Fugl-Meyer KS, Oberg K. 2008. On intimacy, sexual activities and
    exposure to sexual abuse among children and adolescents with mobility
    impairments. Acta Paediatrica 97: 641-646. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.007.

    Kapitanoff SH, Lutzker JR, Bigelow K. 2000. Cultural issues in the relation
    between child disabilities and child abuse. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 5:
    227-244.

    Knutson JF, Johnson CR, Sullivan PM. 2004. Disciplinary choices of mothers of
    deaf children and mothers of normally hearing children. Child abuse and
    Neglect 28: 925-937. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.04.005.

    Kvam MH. 2000. Is sexual abuse of children with disabilities disclosed? A
    retrospective analysis of child disability and the likelihood of sexual abuse
    among those attending Norwegian hospitals. Child Abuse and Neglect 24:
    1073-1084.

    Kvam MH. 2004. Sexual abuse of deaf children. A retrospective analysis of the
    prevalence and characteristics of childhood sexual abuse among deaf adults in
    Norway. Child Abuse and Neglect 28: 241-251.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.017

    Kvam MH, Braathen SH. 2008 “I thought…maybe this is my chance”: sexual
    abuse against girls and women with disabilities in Malawi.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'What I object strongly to is an assumption of guilt by innuendo, particularly after it has been shown that children with autism and behavioural differences are more likely to generate 'false positives' for child abuse because of their conditions. '

    Some of the above studies deal extensively with the question of 'false positives' in children with autism. There is no innuendo in the case; I am saying plainly that there is an enormous body of evidence from across the world that children with special needs are many time more likely to be abused than those without such needs. Well over 90% of this abuse is carried out by their family and friends, with a vanishingly small amount being inflicted by teachers, workers in residential homes and so on. Some of the references above relate to America; others are from Norway, Turkey, Malawi and the United Kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is a summary of a typical study into this subject. It suggests that the mothers of deaf children tend to hit their kids more often than mothers with children who have normal hearing:

    Child Abuse Negl. 2004 Sep;28(9):925-37.
    Disciplinary choices of mothers of deaf children and mothers of normally hearing children.
    Knutson JF, Johnson CR, Sullivan PM.
    Source
    Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, E-11 Seashore Hall, Iowa City, IA 52240, USA.
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:
    To assess the disciplinary preferences of mothers of profoundly deaf children and normally hearing children in a test of the hypothesized link between child disabilities and punitive parenting.
    METHOD:
    Disciplinary preferences of mothers seeking a cochlear implant for their profoundly deaf child (n=57), mothers not seeking an implant for their deaf child (n=22), and mothers of normally hearing children (n=27) were assessed using an analog task in which subjects select discipline in response to slide images of children engaging in normative or frankly deviant behaviors that are potentially irritating.
    RESULTS:
    Results indicated that mothers of children with profound hearing impairments were more likely to select physical discipline in response to depicted child transgressions and more likely to escalate to physical discipline when the depicted child was described as persisting in the transgression.

    I am honestly surprised that readers do not know about this problem, into which a lot of research is being conducted. You might think that most people would be keen to reduce the abuse of children with special educational needs, rather than pretend that it is not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Over the last week or so, I have been pointing out that abuse rates for home educated children are far higher than those for children at school.'

    'This means of course, that the proportion of home educated children being neglected and abused is likely to be far higher than in the school population as a whole.'

    Well, which is it? 'Are far higher' or 'are likely to be far higher'?

    Or perhaps there's no evidence at all that such abuse is actually happening on the scale you imply/state?

    ReplyDelete
  6. ''Over the last week or so, I have been pointing out that abuse rates for home educated children are far higher than those for children at school.'

    'This means of course, that the proportion of home educated children being neglected and abused is likely to be far higher than in the school population as a whole.'

    Well, which is it? 'Are far higher' or 'are likely to be far higher'?'

    The one is a statement of fact and the other explains the reasons for that fact.

    'Or perhaps there's no evidence at all that such abuse is actually happening on the scale you imply/state?'

    I have cited the evidence for my belief that over 25% of home educated children either have special educational needs or were at the 'school action plus' stage before they were deregistered from school. I have also cited the reasons for believing that such children are many times more likely to be the victims of neglect or abuse. Are you saying that you disagree with either the proportion of home educated children with special needs or the percentage of such children likely to be neglected or abused? If so, may we have your reasons?

    ReplyDelete
  7. But all those are your 'beliefs', Simon and here is why I disagree with them. I've had to split it into 2 to meet your blog criteria.

    You are asserting that 1 in 4 children who are home educated fall into your category of SEN/Disability. I believe this was was extrapolated from a self-selected survey of those who responded to an OFSTED survey of a small number of LA's. I was part of this survey and attended one of the meetings and at the time there was considerable pressure on home educators not to be involved with it, so I would suggest that it may not be an accurate measure.


    No one knows how many home educators there are, but to fit your category of school action plus or statement they would have to be known beforehand, which suggests to me that Fiona Nicholson of Ed Yourself's figure of 20,000 known to be home educated would be a fair one to work from, given that it was obtained via FOI requests. According to Fiona's FOI, approximately 1000 of those children have Statements of Special Educational Need which I believe to be 5%.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2 of 2
    Next, I’m interested in the definition of SEN/disabled that's being used in the research that supports your claim. Again, as far as I'm aware, there is no universal definition of SEN/disabled which would give a clear sample base to work from.

    However, looking at Ofsted's definitions, from which I quote - “Just over one in five pupils – 1.7 million school-age children in England – are identified as having special educational needs. Pupils with special educational needs are categorised, using the 2001 Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, according to the degree of support they require. When pupils are regarded as requiring School Action, this usually means they have additional learning needs and that they should receive additional support from within the school, such as small group tuition. When pupils are defined as requiring School Action Plus, staff working with them should receive advice or support from outside specialists. Those in need of the most intensive support are given a statement of special educational needs. Since 2003, the proportion of pupils with a statement of special educational needs has slightly decreased from 3% to 2.7%, while the proportion identified as needing less intensive additional support at School Action or School Action Plus has increased from 14.0% in 2003 to 18.2% in 2010.
    This report considers all the children and young people that the providers identified as having special educational needs (both with and without a statement of special educational needs) in early years provision and schools, as well as young people aged between 16 and 19 with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. However, we also recognise that as many as half of all pupils identified for School Action would not be identified as having special educational needs if schools focused on improving teaching and learning for all, with individual goals for improvement.”

    So, what OFSTED are saying is that not all children with School Action or School Action plus have learning disabilities or any other sort of disability. They therefore do not necessarily fit the abuse criteria that your research references. Even those with Statements of Special Educational Need do not necessarily fit your criteria because statements can be ceased once a need no longer exists, and are not only issued when a child has a learning disability but when children need help to access education in a specific school format. This is why they have to be reviewed and revised so that they are appropriate to the location where the child is being educated.

    Taking all this into account, the percentage of home educated children who fall into your hypothetical 'at risk' group drops drastically, and so, therefore, does the risk.

    But all this is immaterial. I am sure we agree that one abused child is one too many. Where we differ is that I want to see a system where support is offered rather than needing to be fought for again and again and all those who work with what can be very difficult children whether as parent or ‘professional’ are valued and the pressures on them recognised and mitigated. I believe that this would do far more to reduce abuse than any system of monitoring ever could.

    And I’m sorry this is so long and fact laden, but this matters to me a lot and while I’m happy to debate, I’m not happy with the statistical basis of your analysis.

    Anne

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'Fiona Nicholson of Ed Yourself's figure of 20,000 known to be home educated would be a fair one to work from, given that it was obtained via FOI requests. According to Fiona's FOI, approximately 1000 of those children have Statements of Special Educational Need which I believe to be 5%.'


    I shall be tackling some of these questions in a post soon, but for now I would point out that when you quote Fiona Nicholson, she actually says that the proportion of home educated children with special needs is likely to be just as I say; that is 25%. Here is what she says on her site;

    20,000 home educated children in England with 1,000 having a statement of special needs, and only 200 of those having formerly been in a special school. In schools 4 out of 5 of the children who have special needs don't actually have a statement.

    What this amounts to is that the 1000 home educated children with statements will be only 20% of the total number of children with special needs in that larger group of 20,000. If we assume that this is, apart from those with statements, just a random cross-section of children of school age, then according to Fiona this will include another 4000 children with special needs. In other words, the 20,000 home educated children will include around 5000 with special needs or about 25%.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hmmmm, still looking at your favoured source of information on the percentage of home educated children with special needs and I am now quite perplexed. Fiona says:

    How many home educated children have special needs?
    There is no way of establishing this. 20% of children in school are on School Action or School Action Plus but only 3% of pupils with SEN have a statement. However, there is no equivalent data collection to SA and SA+ for home educated children.

    According to this, for every child at school with a statement, there are another 32 children with special educational needs who do not have a statement. Extrapolating from that figure of a thousand home educated children with statements, would mean that the total number of home educated children in this country with special educational needs should be about 33,000. Does that sound right to you, Anne? Or would you rather choose another source, one which isn't Fiona Nicholson?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I share many of your concerns, but I would very strongly dispute that 25% figure. I'd say that a) many of the most outspoken parents in the home ed community have children with special needs and b) some parents whose children have special needs tend (for perfectly understandable reasons) to assume that such special needs are much more common than they really are. (eg some parents whose children are on the autistic spectrum will diagnose pretty much every child they meet as also being autistic.) Certainly there are more chidren with special needs in the home ed community than in the general population but, amongst families I've known, it's nowhere near this figure. Counting on my fingers, I reckon 10% at most, and that's if you count being "gifted" as a special need.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I based my argument on the FOI requests that Fiona made in order to get numbers of home educated children known to LA's and numbers of home educated children with SSEN. I am assuming that these are an accurate snapshot of a moment in time and that LA's would have no reason to provide incorrect information.

    As for your suggestion that we somehow move from 20000 known home ed children to 33000 with SEN then I suppose it all depends on what you define as a SEN/disability.

    Within the school system different schools find they need support at different levels according to the expertise they have available. Within the home education community simple work rounds like using a computer for written work are far easier than they would be at school so a difficulty requiring additional support and a label in school is no hindrance to learning and hence not a cause of stress to the child or the parents. You can also go at the child's speed and an uneven profile where a child excels at some subjects and, to put it kindly, doesn't in others is no problem because they can work at the level they're at and you don't really have to care where it is as long as they are mastering the skills and moving forward. Because you can separate socialisation and education you haven't got the need to keep a child with its age group, or the associated problems that doing that brings when you have developmental delays. So something that might well be a problem in one environment isn't in another, and the term 'special needs' can be replaced, as OFSTED suggested, by the need for individual goal setting.


    I also think 'anonymous' has a valid point. I know that the NAS believe there is a prevalency rate for autism of 1.1% based on the 2011 census (http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/myths-facts-and-statistics/statistics-how-many-people-have-autism-spectrum-disorders.aspx) Whether or not autistic children are over-represented in the HE population I think depends very much on which corner of it you inhabit. Because it's easier for us to hang out with other families whose children have similar needs and interests, my corner is quite definitely autie dominated. Other corners represent other specific interest groups so can equally confidently claim that the home education movement is overwhelmingly autonomous.

    I think it's important when trying to come up with percentages to admit what we don't know. Which, in this case, is how many home educated children there are, how many have special needs and how severe those needs are. Which means that anyone trying to state how much abuse there is based on an extrapolation from research which seems to focus on the most severe disabilities/learning difficulties is going to have a very interesting job coming up with anything reliable.

    I hope that's made it clear

    Anne

    ReplyDelete