I recently wrote a bout the unitary authority in Poole and their attempts to doorstep parents in order to catch sight of their home educated children. I expressed the view that no matter how annoying and intrusive such actions were, they were almost certainly motivated ultimately by concern for the children's welfare. Of course, this was a little optimistic. I tend to assume that most people have good will and good intentions. While leafing through the transcript of the select committee hearing on Graham Badman's review of elective home education and the Children, Schools and Families Bill; I came across this gem. Peter Traves of the Association of Directors of Children's Services is speaking about the reasons for anxiety among some education professionals around home education. He said:
'If something happens to a child in terms of any of those five outcomes,
we are held directly to account. This is not some kind of button
counting. We have seen recently what happens to directors of children's
services when things go seriously wrong. It is not only a case of sacking;
it is public humiliation. It is a very serious matter.'
This was presumably a reference to the treatment of Sharon Shoesmith, former Director of Children's Services for the London Borough of Haringey. Ms Shoesmith was peremptorily sacked following the case of Baby P, the little boy killed in the appalling circumstances. Of course, a toddler having his back broken by sadistic maniacs is also a 'very serious matter', although not apparently in the same league as the public humiliation and loss of pension of a Director of Children's Services. In short, Traves is expressing here a fear that some professionals will lose their jobs if a home educated child comes to harm. This is very revealing.
There is also a nagging fear at the back of the minds of some local authorities that an adult who was home educated will pursue a legal claim against them in later life on the grounds that the education which he received from his parents was inadequate. If the local authority were supposed to be monitoring the education, it is not inconceivable that they could be held liable.
Both these things could provide reasons for lcoal authority officers to make a nuisance of themselves, quite apart from the more obvious motive of the welfare of the children involved.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Reasons for alarm at the actions of the 'Secret Group'
I have had an email from somebody who seems to be quite well informed about what is going on with the new guidelines which are being drawn up. I am told that these new guidelines are not the only area of concern. There is still pressure from many sources, not least in the department for Education itself, for a system which will enable local authorities to identify every home educated child. It has been suggested that once these guidelines are finished, then the next step will be to negotiate with everybody to see how far it will be possible actually to change the law.
Something which a number of people have noticed is that Kelley Green, the home, a well known American home educator living in Canada, is very keen on compulsory registration. She does not call it that; she talks of a law about notification of intent, but it amounts to the same thing. She claims that this would be a good thing, if all home educators were legally obliged to tell the local authority that they are home educating. She says in her book, A Matter of Conscience;
'A notification-only law is not the same as registration. It is not a licensing scheme. It implies no power on the part of the state to refuse permission to home educate.
At the same time, the family would be notifying the state of its intent to maintain complete control and administration of the child’s education. This could, possibly, benefit home educators in several ways.
By making such an intent official, home-educated children could never be confused with those classified as “missing education,” or “excluded,” or “truant.” Those terms would be restricted to students whose relationship with public school has broken down, not those who have chosen to have no relationship with public school whatsoever'
It is no secret that Kelley Green has had quite a bit of contact with both Alison Sauer and Imran Shah and has been urging them to adopt this idea. I don't doubt that she means well by this, but as my correspondent points out, once they have been notified of the intention to home educate, local authorities ion this country are very unlikely simply to ignore the family in the future. In other words, this might work well enough in Canada, but there would be huge problems implementing such a scheme in this country. For one thing, it would have the result of criminalising any family which declined to send in such a notification.
I do not know whether this is why so many people are uneasy about the activities of Imran Shah, Alsion Sauer, Tania Berlow and so on. It really is strange that all those involved refuse resolutely to speak on any of the lists or forums. Even Tania seems to have become very shy lately. If the idea is that the law could be changed, perhaps by some Statutory Instrument requiring simple notification, then I can foresee trouble ahead.
Something which a number of people have noticed is that Kelley Green, the home, a well known American home educator living in Canada, is very keen on compulsory registration. She does not call it that; she talks of a law about notification of intent, but it amounts to the same thing. She claims that this would be a good thing, if all home educators were legally obliged to tell the local authority that they are home educating. She says in her book, A Matter of Conscience;
'A notification-only law is not the same as registration. It is not a licensing scheme. It implies no power on the part of the state to refuse permission to home educate.
At the same time, the family would be notifying the state of its intent to maintain complete control and administration of the child’s education. This could, possibly, benefit home educators in several ways.
By making such an intent official, home-educated children could never be confused with those classified as “missing education,” or “excluded,” or “truant.” Those terms would be restricted to students whose relationship with public school has broken down, not those who have chosen to have no relationship with public school whatsoever'
It is no secret that Kelley Green has had quite a bit of contact with both Alison Sauer and Imran Shah and has been urging them to adopt this idea. I don't doubt that she means well by this, but as my correspondent points out, once they have been notified of the intention to home educate, local authorities ion this country are very unlikely simply to ignore the family in the future. In other words, this might work well enough in Canada, but there would be huge problems implementing such a scheme in this country. For one thing, it would have the result of criminalising any family which declined to send in such a notification.
I do not know whether this is why so many people are uneasy about the activities of Imran Shah, Alsion Sauer, Tania Berlow and so on. It really is strange that all those involved refuse resolutely to speak on any of the lists or forums. Even Tania seems to have become very shy lately. If the idea is that the law could be changed, perhaps by some Statutory Instrument requiring simple notification, then I can foresee trouble ahead.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Encouraging news
It is always good to read something encouraging in the mass media about home education. Here is a piece from from the USA;
http://oregonfaithreport.com/2010/12/homeschooling-results-continue-to-shine/
http://oregonfaithreport.com/2010/12/homeschooling-results-continue-to-shine/
Sunday, 5 December 2010
Doorstepped in Dorset; Part 2
Two people in particular raised very good points about yesterday's post. One of these was Margaret, the other was somebody who lives in the area and upon whose word I rely.
Margaret posed a number of hypothetical cases and asked if I would still have been so welcoming had the house been in uproar or chaos for various reasons. I suppose that the answer to that is that as long as I was surte that the person demanding my attention and wishing to to speak to me was genuinely there because she was concerned about my daughter's welfare, then I would, albeit with a bad grace, probably allow them to see the child. If we were on the way out, I might suggest that she walk with us to the bus stop and ask her questions on the way. if the house were a mess, I might insist that she remain on the doorstep. I would certainly make it plain that she was only on my property by my permission.
I have actually had some irritating experiences of this sort myself and so this is not at all theoretical. when a new 'advisor' started work in Essex, she wanted to rush round and see every child in a hurry. I had been visited a few months previously and suddenly got a letter suggesting that this person would come round shortly. I made my annoyance clear when I replied, but allowed the visit anyway. An even better example is when my daughter started to complain of mysterious tummy aches. She was otherwise healthy, eleven years of age and with pronounced breast development. I did not really need a medical practitioner to tell me the most likely explanation for these pains, but thought it best to be on the safe side. It was late September. The doctor, an elderly man, associated September with back to school. Noting my daughter's age, he began asking about starting secondary school and whether she had any problems at school. The implication was plain; psychosomatic problem caused by a desire to avoid school. When he discovered that she did not attend school, the direction changed at once. He moved seamlessly from attributing these tummy aches to starting secondary school, to suggesting that they were caused by not starting secondary school. Questions about wanting to be with her friends were asked and the hint was that I was keeping her at home for reasons of my own. (Quite true; I wanted to provide her with a decent education!) I have no doubt that he marked down in her notes that here was an anxious and isolated child suffering from psychological disturbance. readers will be relieved to know that my own diagnosis proved more accurate and that her periods began a few days later.
In the above case, I tolerated the ill informed views of a bloody fool, because he clearly meant well. This is the principle by which I have always worked when I come across people who don't really know about home education.
In Poole, my informant tells me that those monitoring home education are turning up unannounced at people's homes and trying to bluff their way into the house by claiming to have legal powers which they do not possess. Apparently, they literally put their foot in the door in order to prevent the parent from shutting the door in their faces. I am told that despite what I say, these people do not mean well at all. If this is so and their motives go beyond the welfare of the children, I suppose that I must ask what other reason there could be for their behaviour? I do not doubt for a moment that these individuals are claiming to have powers which they do not have. Neither do I doubt for a moment that they are behaving like door to door salesmen and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is unfortunate. Another complaint is that despite the availability of funding from central government for children with special educational needs who are being educated at home, Poole takes the line that those who home educate have chosen to do the thing alone and without assistance. This is the line which other local authorities are also taking.
As I have said, I have experienced irritation from the local authority and Health Service myself on this front. Nothing which I came across stemmed from anything other than concern for my daughter, however misplaced. I wonder if any readers can suggest another motive for all these actions down in Dorset? I suppose that senior managers covering their arses against a re-run of the Khyra Ishaq case is one; are there any others?
Margaret posed a number of hypothetical cases and asked if I would still have been so welcoming had the house been in uproar or chaos for various reasons. I suppose that the answer to that is that as long as I was surte that the person demanding my attention and wishing to to speak to me was genuinely there because she was concerned about my daughter's welfare, then I would, albeit with a bad grace, probably allow them to see the child. If we were on the way out, I might suggest that she walk with us to the bus stop and ask her questions on the way. if the house were a mess, I might insist that she remain on the doorstep. I would certainly make it plain that she was only on my property by my permission.
I have actually had some irritating experiences of this sort myself and so this is not at all theoretical. when a new 'advisor' started work in Essex, she wanted to rush round and see every child in a hurry. I had been visited a few months previously and suddenly got a letter suggesting that this person would come round shortly. I made my annoyance clear when I replied, but allowed the visit anyway. An even better example is when my daughter started to complain of mysterious tummy aches. She was otherwise healthy, eleven years of age and with pronounced breast development. I did not really need a medical practitioner to tell me the most likely explanation for these pains, but thought it best to be on the safe side. It was late September. The doctor, an elderly man, associated September with back to school. Noting my daughter's age, he began asking about starting secondary school and whether she had any problems at school. The implication was plain; psychosomatic problem caused by a desire to avoid school. When he discovered that she did not attend school, the direction changed at once. He moved seamlessly from attributing these tummy aches to starting secondary school, to suggesting that they were caused by not starting secondary school. Questions about wanting to be with her friends were asked and the hint was that I was keeping her at home for reasons of my own. (Quite true; I wanted to provide her with a decent education!) I have no doubt that he marked down in her notes that here was an anxious and isolated child suffering from psychological disturbance. readers will be relieved to know that my own diagnosis proved more accurate and that her periods began a few days later.
In the above case, I tolerated the ill informed views of a bloody fool, because he clearly meant well. This is the principle by which I have always worked when I come across people who don't really know about home education.
In Poole, my informant tells me that those monitoring home education are turning up unannounced at people's homes and trying to bluff their way into the house by claiming to have legal powers which they do not possess. Apparently, they literally put their foot in the door in order to prevent the parent from shutting the door in their faces. I am told that despite what I say, these people do not mean well at all. If this is so and their motives go beyond the welfare of the children, I suppose that I must ask what other reason there could be for their behaviour? I do not doubt for a moment that these individuals are claiming to have powers which they do not have. Neither do I doubt for a moment that they are behaving like door to door salesmen and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is unfortunate. Another complaint is that despite the availability of funding from central government for children with special educational needs who are being educated at home, Poole takes the line that those who home educate have chosen to do the thing alone and without assistance. This is the line which other local authorities are also taking.
As I have said, I have experienced irritation from the local authority and Health Service myself on this front. Nothing which I came across stemmed from anything other than concern for my daughter, however misplaced. I wonder if any readers can suggest another motive for all these actions down in Dorset? I suppose that senior managers covering their arses against a re-run of the Khyra Ishaq case is one; are there any others?
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Meanwhile, down in Dorset...
I have been trying to put myself in the position of some home educating parents in Dorset. Apparently, Education Welfare Officers have been turning up out of the blue, with requests to speak to the parents and see their children. I would guess that this is part of the aftermath of the Khyra Ishaq business, with the local authority making sure that they actually have sight of home educated children. They clearly want to know that the children on their books as being electively home educated are still in their area and alive. Predictably, a few people are complaining about this process and threatening to denounce the unitary authority in Poole to Nick Gibb.
Now I was never over keen on having any local authority check up on my child. Haringey were vaguely aware of her existence when we lived in Tottenham, but on moving here, she fell from sight entirely. I meant to notify Essex that we had moved here and that my daughter was being home educated, but somehow never got around to doing so. She finally came to their notice when we were stopped by a truancy patrol. I was happy to give my name and address, we were not hiding, and the result was more or less annual visits from then on.
Here is the question. if, in addition to those visits, an EWO from Essex had turned up on my doorstep, would I have been angry and refused her entry? Almost certainly not. I would most probably have been mildly irritated and I am sure that my daughter and I would have had a bit of fun at her expense, but I would have had no difficulty in allowing her into my home to see that my daughter was still alive and living in Essex. Why actually would I have objected? The local authority try to keep track of children coming in and out of their county and this is quite right and proper. I am not over concerned about the legal niceties of this; Section 436a or CME and so on. It just seems sensible to me that if Essex know of a child who is not at school, they might pop round and see the kid from time to time. if nothing else, this assures them that the child is still in the area and to some extent their responsibility.
I do get the impression sometimes that some home educating parents spend a lot of time looking for ways to be offended or discriminated against. It is as though they have hair triggers and the slightest thing sends them into a rage. Most of us try to rub along with officialdom as best we can, even if it means meeting and engaging with complete idiots. It is very rare for those working for hospitals, the police and local authorities to be actuated by malice. They may be blundering fools, but they usually mean well. Where children are involved, I think that everybody tries to do their best. I am sure that it might be slightly irritating to find an EWO on your doorstep, asking about your child. I am not quite so sure that an appropriate response is to contact a Minister of the Crown to complain about it!
Now I was never over keen on having any local authority check up on my child. Haringey were vaguely aware of her existence when we lived in Tottenham, but on moving here, she fell from sight entirely. I meant to notify Essex that we had moved here and that my daughter was being home educated, but somehow never got around to doing so. She finally came to their notice when we were stopped by a truancy patrol. I was happy to give my name and address, we were not hiding, and the result was more or less annual visits from then on.
Here is the question. if, in addition to those visits, an EWO from Essex had turned up on my doorstep, would I have been angry and refused her entry? Almost certainly not. I would most probably have been mildly irritated and I am sure that my daughter and I would have had a bit of fun at her expense, but I would have had no difficulty in allowing her into my home to see that my daughter was still alive and living in Essex. Why actually would I have objected? The local authority try to keep track of children coming in and out of their county and this is quite right and proper. I am not over concerned about the legal niceties of this; Section 436a or CME and so on. It just seems sensible to me that if Essex know of a child who is not at school, they might pop round and see the kid from time to time. if nothing else, this assures them that the child is still in the area and to some extent their responsibility.
I do get the impression sometimes that some home educating parents spend a lot of time looking for ways to be offended or discriminated against. It is as though they have hair triggers and the slightest thing sends them into a rage. Most of us try to rub along with officialdom as best we can, even if it means meeting and engaging with complete idiots. It is very rare for those working for hospitals, the police and local authorities to be actuated by malice. They may be blundering fools, but they usually mean well. Where children are involved, I think that everybody tries to do their best. I am sure that it might be slightly irritating to find an EWO on your doorstep, asking about your child. I am not quite so sure that an appropriate response is to contact a Minister of the Crown to complain about it!
Friday, 3 December 2010
The EO Internet list
I was interested to observe that the EO Yahoo list is closing down on December 17th. This is a popular list, although not nearly as many people use it these days as did in its heyday. I have an idea that it was seen by some of the trustees at Education Otherwise as something of a hotbed of sedition. There has been some pretty heavy handed moderation over the last year or so, especially when people ask awkward questions about the accounts and AGM.
This threat to close down the list looks like the first test of the ability of the new trustees to make a difference to EO. An attempt is being made to shift the centre of gravity of the organisation from the North to the South. Until last month, Fiona Nicholson and Annette Taberner, both of whom live in Sheffield, held the levers of power and showed a marked reluctance to allow anybody else near them. Now Shena Deuchars and Heidi de Wet, both in Swindon, are trying to wrest control of some aspects of Education otherwise from the Old Guard. I think it would be unwise to bet on the eventual outcome of this struggle. Some of those who took over EO in 2007/2008 have shown a dogged determination to hang on in there, even when many of the members are displaying a marked lack of enthusiasm for their leadership. I have great faith in Fiona Nicholson's ability to remain put and not surrender any of her power to a bunch of upstarts. She is at any rate a force to be reckoned with. Only recently, she was rumoured to have been instrumental in getting rid of Linda Hitchman, who has been keeping the books at Education otherwise for some time. Apparently Fiona felt that there was room for only one strong leader in EO.
It will be interesting to see what develops over the next few weeks. This business about closing down the list will provide something of an indication as to how strong the Swindon faction are and whether they really have the determination and tenacity to take on Sheffield. If the EO list closes on December 17th, it will be a good sign that Sheffield is winning the power struggle.
On an unrelated note, what has happened to Tania Berlow these days? She has gone from posting on various lists at least fifty times day to nothing at all. Perhaps she found being the public face of the 'Secret Group' a little too lively for her?
This threat to close down the list looks like the first test of the ability of the new trustees to make a difference to EO. An attempt is being made to shift the centre of gravity of the organisation from the North to the South. Until last month, Fiona Nicholson and Annette Taberner, both of whom live in Sheffield, held the levers of power and showed a marked reluctance to allow anybody else near them. Now Shena Deuchars and Heidi de Wet, both in Swindon, are trying to wrest control of some aspects of Education otherwise from the Old Guard. I think it would be unwise to bet on the eventual outcome of this struggle. Some of those who took over EO in 2007/2008 have shown a dogged determination to hang on in there, even when many of the members are displaying a marked lack of enthusiasm for their leadership. I have great faith in Fiona Nicholson's ability to remain put and not surrender any of her power to a bunch of upstarts. She is at any rate a force to be reckoned with. Only recently, she was rumoured to have been instrumental in getting rid of Linda Hitchman, who has been keeping the books at Education otherwise for some time. Apparently Fiona felt that there was room for only one strong leader in EO.
It will be interesting to see what develops over the next few weeks. This business about closing down the list will provide something of an indication as to how strong the Swindon faction are and whether they really have the determination and tenacity to take on Sheffield. If the EO list closes on December 17th, it will be a good sign that Sheffield is winning the power struggle.
On an unrelated note, what has happened to Tania Berlow these days? She has gone from posting on various lists at least fifty times day to nothing at all. Perhaps she found being the public face of the 'Secret Group' a little too lively for her?
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Having our children at home
The position of home educating parents is very plain. They like their children, enjoy their company and want to spend as much time with them as they possibly can. Unfortunately, in today's society, this sounds pretty weird!
Hovering constantly on the edge of all the debate about home education is the unspoken assumption that no normal parent could possibly wish to have a toddler or teenager with her all day long. There must be something funny going on. After all, the natural order of things is that almost as soon as children are able to walk and talk, they are packed off to nurseries and then schools, so that strangers may look after them. Going against this trend has the effect of making a parent look anxious, neurotic and possibly abusive. Of course, this idea, that the state should be the ones who takes care of children for a lot of the time, is itself a pretty recent one. But so common is the practice now, that anybody who does not subscribe to this view cannot help but be seen as rebel and a crank, if not actually a potential abuser. It was for this reason that the terms of reference for the Badman review of elective home education had little in them about education as such. The focus was definitely upon the sort of things that parents would be doing with and to their children if they were not safe at school.
Home educators respond to these fears by pointing out that their children are thought to be safe enough with their parents until they are five, safe at weekends, safe during the long Summer holidays. Why on earth should they not be thought to be safe and not at risk of abuse if they are at home at other times; for instance during the day on Monday to Friday? If they are safe with their mother on Saturday and Sunday, why are they suddenly at hazard as soon as Monday arrives? If they are safe at home until their fifth birthday; what changes at that magical age which puts them at increased risk of harm?
Part of the difficulty here is that Health Visitors, social workers and other professionals adopt the prevailing paradigm and then view anybody who does not subscribe to it as a dangerous maniac. The parent who ignores the Health Visitor's advice to take her child to a playgroups is apt to find herself being marked down in the records as neurotic and the phrase 'separation anxiety' making an appearance! When the current wisdom was that babies should be laid to sleep on their faces, lest they choke to death on their own vomit, some parents refused to follow this new fashion. Rightly so, as it greatly increases the chance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. This obstinacy infuriated the Health Visitors and many mothers were noted to be uncooperative, over-anxious and negligent of their baby's welfare.
This position of home educating parents, as regards to wishing to spend all day with their children, my be contrasted with yesterday's piece, which pointed out the fears of education professionals that children would be at risk if not seen regularly. Both sides have valid points of view and both are probably a bit right and a bit wrong.
Hovering constantly on the edge of all the debate about home education is the unspoken assumption that no normal parent could possibly wish to have a toddler or teenager with her all day long. There must be something funny going on. After all, the natural order of things is that almost as soon as children are able to walk and talk, they are packed off to nurseries and then schools, so that strangers may look after them. Going against this trend has the effect of making a parent look anxious, neurotic and possibly abusive. Of course, this idea, that the state should be the ones who takes care of children for a lot of the time, is itself a pretty recent one. But so common is the practice now, that anybody who does not subscribe to this view cannot help but be seen as rebel and a crank, if not actually a potential abuser. It was for this reason that the terms of reference for the Badman review of elective home education had little in them about education as such. The focus was definitely upon the sort of things that parents would be doing with and to their children if they were not safe at school.
Home educators respond to these fears by pointing out that their children are thought to be safe enough with their parents until they are five, safe at weekends, safe during the long Summer holidays. Why on earth should they not be thought to be safe and not at risk of abuse if they are at home at other times; for instance during the day on Monday to Friday? If they are safe with their mother on Saturday and Sunday, why are they suddenly at hazard as soon as Monday arrives? If they are safe at home until their fifth birthday; what changes at that magical age which puts them at increased risk of harm?
Part of the difficulty here is that Health Visitors, social workers and other professionals adopt the prevailing paradigm and then view anybody who does not subscribe to it as a dangerous maniac. The parent who ignores the Health Visitor's advice to take her child to a playgroups is apt to find herself being marked down in the records as neurotic and the phrase 'separation anxiety' making an appearance! When the current wisdom was that babies should be laid to sleep on their faces, lest they choke to death on their own vomit, some parents refused to follow this new fashion. Rightly so, as it greatly increases the chance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. This obstinacy infuriated the Health Visitors and many mothers were noted to be uncooperative, over-anxious and negligent of their baby's welfare.
This position of home educating parents, as regards to wishing to spend all day with their children, my be contrasted with yesterday's piece, which pointed out the fears of education professionals that children would be at risk if not seen regularly. Both sides have valid points of view and both are probably a bit right and a bit wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
