Wednesday 20 November 2013

Stoke-on-Trent and home education

As readers will know, I am all in favour of local authorities visiting home educating families and meeting the kids, but this seems a bit extreme; even by my standards. Stoke-on-Trent's Safeguarding Children Board appear to regard home educated children automatically as being 'vulnerable'. Here are their guidelines;

http://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/F11_Children_Educated_At_Home.pdf


This part in particular caught my eye;

N.B. If the education at home monitoring officer has concerns for a child’s 
safety or a child’s wellbeing (or if the child has not been seen during a home 
visit) an immediate referral to Children & Young People’s Department 
Vulnerable Children and Corporate Parenting Division will be made and 
confirmed using the Safeguarding Children Board Multi-agency Referral Form 
(see Section K5)). 



In other words, if there is a visit by the local authority and the kid happens not to be present, whatever the reason, it is immediately a safeguarding matter. And what on earth is this expression, 'Corporate Parenting'? This sounds distinctly sinister!

37 comments:

  1. Children aren't the property of their parents - I think you and a number of politician have made that point in the past - but they have to be the property of someone until they reach adulthood....so.. they must be the property of the state!

    Seriously though, and in fairness to some of the decent and hard-working people in many of these organisations (and I'm an anti-registration and monitoring HEor), this creepy name and the fascist policy you've described is the kind of thing that arises when ambitious but idiotic management types end-up in control of a service that has a very difficult and important purpose, and is at the mercy of equally idiotic and ambitious politicians who impose an authoritarian target-driven culture intended to produce "results" and "efficiencies" while they choke funding.

    Then, harassing and abusing home educators seems to them to be any easy way of hitting some targets while avoiding the really difficult stuff that is the reason for their existence.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then, harassing and abusing home educators seems to them to be any easy way of hitting some targets while avoiding the really difficult stuff that is the reason for their existence.

      always refer the LA officer or EWO who wants to come round to visit to your local county councilor

      Delete
    2. "always refer the LA officer or EWO who wants to come round to visit to your local county councilor"

      That's a good point; I think people often forget that they have direct access to some of the political masters of the LA officers. If necessary, use the council's formal complaint process and, failing that, refer to the LA Ombudsman.

      Delete
    3. anon says"That's a good point; I think people often forget that they have direct access to some of the political masters of the LA officers. If necessary, use the council's formal complaint process and, failing that, refer to the LA Ombudsman"

      it is very worth while getting your county councilor involved in any problems you may have with your LA.Many people are unaware that their have direct assess to the political masters of the LA officers it only takes an email to your county councilor to get the ball rolling.Our county councilor Dr Tony Ludow was very helpful and soon sent the LA away with its tail between its legs! people do not realize that LA officer often report back to councilors people who home educate should be informed of this i never knew until by chance a liberal who was standing in town council knocked on our door and i told him about problems with HCC and he said contact councilor Dr ludlow he sort it out and he did! we went round to his house and i learned all sorts about how a council works who it reports to freedom of information act data act as well
      The complaints process of any council rarely works as its just council jobs worth investigating there self and the Ombudsman are often ex council employers so i not hold up much hope of that working but its of course its wroth a try. if anything it give the jobs wroth something to do.

      Delete
  2. This case - and others like it - ought to be something that the APPG looks at. Instead of hiding in their body corporate, the individuals who created this policy should be dragged into public view, preferably for humiliation and elimination - without compensation - from their organisations and any future employment in this field. If they can't see how wrong they are, then no amount of "retraining" is going to help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I too think it is going a bit far but do you think that when these people read things like: people going to hospitals outside your area, raising money to send children to Ireland and giving false names and addresses might make them suspicious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Cheshire Cat. If a LA has information that a specific home educator is visiting hospitals out of the area or giving false names and addresses then of course they should be suspicious. Donating money to someone does seem less of a ground for concern though, and refering a home educator simply because they have made a perfectly legal choice not to produce their child for inspection is not only an abuse of powers but risks diverting attention from cases where there are serious and known concerns which are not being addressed because of a lack of resources.

      Again, if a LA has grounds to suspect that there are concerns about a child's welfare they can go to court and require access to the child. They then provide evidence which can be tested, rather than having a blanket policy which, I would suggest, might make you angry if it was applied to you.

      For instance, if a child at your son or daughter's school had been abused by their parents, would you consider it reasonable and proportionate that you would be expected to produce your child for inspection even though it is not a legal requirement?

      Anne

      Delete
    2. 'do you think that when these people read things like: people going to hospitals outside your area, raising money to send children to Ireland and giving false names and addresses might make them suspicious?'

      Ah, you mean that it might be my fault? A sobering thought indeed! I only report on what is happening in the world of home education. Things like the appeal by various home educators to help relocate one of their number in the Emerald Isle were posted on public sites. I must, I suppose, examine my conscience, and see to what extent Stoke-on-Trent's Safeguarding Children Boardmight be taking their cur from me.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure you're solely responsible for that, Simon, but I do think the relentless negativity of your blog might give a very one sided picture of home education that would reinforce existing prejudices.

      So how about highlighting the positive side of home education one day a week?. There are several things you've touched on that I'd like to hear more about, like your wife's reactions to you teaching biology via roadkill.

      Atb
      Anne

      Delete
    4. Sorry, meant to say 'I'm sure you're not solely responsible...' Otherwise people might think you were some sort of a cross between Svengali and Machiavelli and busily working in the shadows to undermine home education.

      That, of course, is an old, old scandal and had about as much foundation as any of the scandals ever seem to. After all, if you were that capable, wouldn't you be doing something much better paid?

      Anne

      Delete
    5. Cheshire Cat wrote:
      "I too think it is going a bit far but do you think that when these people read things like: people going to hospitals outside your area, raising money to send children to Ireland and giving false names and addresses might make them suspicious?"

      Those might raise suspicion - whether or not it turns out to be justified is another matter - but we're not talking about anything like that here, are we. We're talking about a local authority that is suspicious without any good reason at all.

      I've been known to be out myself when people visit; does that mean I might be engaged in some terrorist plot?

      Your jump from one, possibly justified, suspicion to another that isn't is the kind of thing that sends us down the route of an authoritarian state where everyone ends-up monitored for something or other.

      Delete
    6. I agree with you and not being in should not be a cause for concern however if an LA is thinking of trying to introduce monitoring then having collections to send families abroad, giving false details and going out of area for medical help do not put home educators in a good light. If you try to hide something then there will always be somebody who wants to find out what it is.

      Delete
    7. Then I think this is where different LAs need to talk to each other and with home educators, to learn about what constitutes suspicious behaviour and what doesn't.

      Home educators also need to learn that some modes of behaviour will generate suspicion, even if there is no real reason for it. An innocent family should not be in so much fear that they have to leave the country, but I don't doubt it can happen.

      Entrenched positions, lack of open communication and growth of suspicion leads to the kind of all-out hostility that we have now between many HEors and LAs.

      Delete
  4. "it is very worth while getting your county councilor involved in any problems you may have with your LA."

    It is even better if you can become a councillor! Our county has always been one of the good guys, but even then, sometimes there can be misunderstandings. A home educator became a councillor in the last elections and now it is ever easier to get things sorted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A home educator became a councillor in the last elections and now it is ever easier to get things sorted."

      Good for them. Being a councillor can be a frustrating and thankless task, but it's a way to get the LA to listen to a point of view.

      Delete
  5. Good grief! A home educator becoming a local councillor? I'm pretty sure that's against the Unwritten Code of Ethics For Home Educators, that some people would like to impose on us. They must be in it for the power, glory and money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A councilor is elected and is subject to public scrutiny and checks and balances. I would prefer a home educator do that then elect him or herself to a position of power and go on to take no notice of the community they pretend to represent and refuse to answer questions.

      Delete
    2. "and refuse to answer questions."

      I'm curious to know what questions have been refused; what could have made them so contentious and what reply was given?

      Delete
    3. 'I'm curious to know what questions have been refused; what could have made them so contentious and what reply was given?'

      I suspect that this is a coded reference to Fiona Nicholson. Some home educators are claiming that she is a little evasive when asked direct questions about the doings of the APPG.

      Delete
    4. "I suspect that this is a coded reference to Fiona Nicholson. Some home educators are claiming that she is a little evasive when asked direct questions about the doings of the APPG."

      Surely, questions about the APPG should go to the chair, who may decide to answer via the secretariat. A secretary may be given a certain amount of discretion and autonomy, but as a default position, I'd ask questions of the chair in the first place.

      I'm still curious about the questions themselves - and the non-answers - though.

      Delete
    5. 'Surely, questions about the APPG should go to the chair,'

      This is probably technically true. However, the suggestion has also been made that questions addressed to Graham Stuart are dextrously fielded and then referred to Fiona, where they are neatly kicked into the long grass. I have no idea if this is true, but it is what is being asserted in some quarters.

      Delete
    6. Until someone presents some substance to these allegations (i.e., questions and responses), then they're just hot air. Even Simon seems to be in the dark.

      Delete
    7. "A councilor is elected and is subject to public scrutiny and checks and balances. I would prefer a home educator do that then elect him or herself to a position of power and go on to take no notice of the community they pretend to represent and refuse to answer questions"

      Then why don't you elect yourself to a position of power?

      Delete
    8. "Then why don't you elect yourself to a position of power?"

      Because it is unethical to do so IMO.

      Delete
    9. "Because it is unethical to do so IMO."

      I don't think it's your ethics preventing you from electing yourself to a position of power!

      Delete
    10. What is it then?

      Delete
    11. Try capability and credibility for starters.

      Delete
    12. That's fairly judgemental and high-handed Anonymous.

      Delete
    13. "That's fairly judgemental and high-handed Anonymous."

      Says another judgemental and high-handed anonymous.

      Besides, unlike the "ethical" brigade I'm not trying the naive piety path to sainthood!

      Delete
    14. You're very angry and you've become insulting. I'm out.

      Delete
    15. "I would prefer a home educator do that then elect him or herself to a position of power and go on to take no notice of the community they pretend to represent and refuse to answer questions"..."it is unethical to do so IMO."

      Instead of all this holier-than-thou claptrap, why don't you post the mysterious unanswered questions - then maybe, as someone said below, someone else can throw some light on this.

      Or are the questions like the location of a certain home-educating grandmother in the north of a Celtic principality - a state secret?

      Delete
    16. "I'm out."

      No, you're rumbled.

      Delete
    17. "You're very angry and you've become insulting"

      No, simply teasing you for your dissembling obfuscation. Accusing me of being insulting is pretty rich coming from someone who's accusing others of being unethical.

      Why do you refuse to reveal these mysterious questions?

      Delete
    18. "Why do you refuse to reveal these mysterious questions?"

      They're probably like the Schleswig-Holstein question, understood by only three people and of those, one was dead, another had gone mad and the remaining one had forgotten about it.

      Delete
  6. Ask the questions here, then. There are people commenting here who have attended the meetings. If you aren't satisfied with the reports of the meetings available online, perhaps someone here can answer you. All these mysterious mutterings about 'unanswered questions' could just be an emotional response to having not been invited to attend, for all anyone knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed; if the questions and responses had been posted as often as the complaints, we would understand rather more about the "issue".

      Delete
  7. just to add to the original post http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/559/559vw42.htm

    ReplyDelete