Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Why are home educated children in the United Kingdom more likely to be neglected or abused than those at school?
I have had a couple of emails over the last few days, from home educating parents wanting to know what grounds I have for suggesting that their children are more at risk of neglect and abuse than those attending school. There are of course a number of factors involved here, but today I wish to examine just one of these.
When Ofsted conducted their survey of home education in late 2009, the inspectors spoke to the parents of 130 children. A quarter of these either had a statement of special educational needs or, when deregistered, had been at the stage known as ‘school action plus’; meaning that they needed extra support to cope with a special educational need (Ofsted, 2010). Other surveys have similarly found a high proportion of home educated children with special needs (Hopwood et al, 2007).
I think that most home educating parents will be aware that these figures reflect accurately the situation today. Let us work with the figure of 25% of home educated children having special needs or disabilities for the time being and see what the implications are for the risk of neglect and abuse of home educated children as a group.
Children with disabilities and special educational needs are at greatly increased risk of being physically, sexually or emotionally abused and/or being neglected. The largest survey conducted of this phenomenon was undertaken in the United States almost fifteen years ago. 40,000 children with disabilities or special educational needs were involved and such children were found to be about four times as likely to be neglected or physically abused as children without such difficulties (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000). The great majority of this neglect and abuse took place in the home.
There are many imponderables here, but if we use the figures provided by such research as that cited above, then we find that that 25% of home educated children, those with disabilities or special needs, are likely to contain four times as many incidents of neglect or physical abuse, compared with children who do not have their special needs. Looking at home educated children as a group, this has the effect of increasing the likely incidence of neglect and abuse by 75% overall. This means that taking a home educated child at random, that child is 75% more likely to be the victim of neglect or abuse than a child at school, purely as a result of this one factor. In reality, of course, the risk to home educated children is greater than this, for various other reasons at which I shall be looking in the future. For now though, it is enough to say that the chance of a home educated child being abused or neglected is at least 75% higher than for children at school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am extremely sad to read stats. but thanks for sharing it.
ReplyDeleteScraping the bottom of the argument barrel.
ReplyDelete'Scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.'
ReplyDeleteMeaning, presumably, that you believe either my figures or reasoning to be faulty. If this is the case, please feel free to point out the flaws in the argument.
Hmm, still thinking. Although I agree with 2 things - that children with SEN are a significant % of all HE children, and that bringing up a disabled child brings it own sorts of problems
ReplyDelete( been there!) I can also remember you arguing that many of the disabled HE children have learning issues rather than major disabilities - wouldn't that mean they are less likely to be at additional risk?
''I can also remember you arguing that many of the disabled HE children have learning issues rather than major disabilities - wouldn't that mean they are less likely to be at additional risk?'
ReplyDeleteThe research above includes children with learning difficulties, as well as physical problems. here is a summary:
Sullivan and Knutson identified 4,503 maltreated children, 1,012 of whom also had an identified disability. The overall rate of maltreatment for children without disabilities was 11%. For children with disabilities, the overall rate was 31%. They found that children with disabilities were 3.4 times more likely to be neglected, and physically, emotionally, or sexually abused compared with children who do not have disabilities.
Sullivan and Knutson’s study was the first that had sufficient numbers of children with disabilities that allowed for analysis by disability type. Risk was not equal for all types of disabilities. Each of these findings compared the children with disabilities to children in their sample that do not have disabilities. Deaf and hard of hearing children have twice the risk for neglect and emotional abuse, and almost four times the risk for physical abuse than non-disabled counterparts. Children with speech and language difficulties have five times the risk for neglect and physical abuse, and three times the risk for sexual abuse. Children who are mentally retarded have four times the risk for all four types of maltreatment. Children with learning or orthopedic disabilities have twice the risk for all types of maltreatment. 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.
'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.'
ReplyDeleteThis is perhaps significant, when we bear in mind the high numbers of home educated children in this country who are on the autistic spectrum.
Thanks, Simon. This sort of scare story based on American evidence which is 13 years old is exactly what 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.
ReplyDeleteWould you not agree that even within those groups the overwhelming majority of children were not abused?
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.
http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10516840.Anger_of_parents_as_school_at_centre_of_sex_abuse_claims_is_to_shut/
I won't be around for a while, because I find this subject both offensive and upsetting because my children have autism, amongst other disabilities, and THERE IS NO EDUCATIONAL PROVISION FOR THEM THAT WOULDN'T INVOLVE A RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL. (And the one that was recommended to me is the one I have just referred to.)
And yes, those capitals are because I am shouting. Maybe all the professionals who are so concerned should look at showing a little concern for providing the educational settings and social support these children need rather than looking for abuse amongst those who are left to pick up the pieces.
Yours
Anne B
'Would you not agree that even within those groups the overwhelming majority of children were not abused? '
ReplyDeleteYes, this of course goes without saying. Never the less, I did say it when answering a comment the following day:
'The first thing to consider is that those who neglect or harm their autistic children will always be a minority; despite the fact that the rates of abuse are so much higher than for children without special needs. Most parents do not neglect or abuse their children.'
'This sort of scare story based on American evidence which is 13 years old is exactly what 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.'
It was not based upon a single American study from 2000. The quotation in a comment above, for instance:
'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.'
is from 2009. There has been similar research in this country, but I mentioned the American figures because they involved tens of thousands of children.
'school situations that constituted neglect, physical abuse and emotional abuse need to hear.'
While neglect and abuse certainly does happen at school, they take place primarily in a domestic setting. It is in homes that most neglect and abuse takes place and the vast majority is undertaken by parents and other family members. These are certainly a minority of parents, but to pretend that this is not the situation means that it is impossible to discuss abuse.
'I would suggest that before the professionals turn their attention to a group where there is no evidence of abuse, '
Repeating a popular myth doesn't really help matters. There is a great deal of evidence of the abuse of children with special needs and disabilities. Over a quarter of home educated children are in this category.