However, the problem in my mind, is not really one of speaking to strangers, but one of intent and pre-conceived ideas. For example, I had a house full of policemen yesterday because I'm concerned about my elderly neighbour whose post is mounting up and who I haven't seen for days. I didn't expect them to come in (I hadn't actually thought about it) and the house was a mess with fimo on the floor mid project, lego in another corner, mid project, my son on the laptop doing maths in his pj's and messy hair, my daughter had just finished her flute practise, so the music stand was out with music everywhere, plus the general chaos of the house because I hadn't got around to tidying yet.
I asked the police officers to excuse the mess as we're a very busy household. They came in, and eventually commented on "oh, do you teach the children at home?", and I replied that I did. Then one said "all the time?". Which I thought was a very funny question. And that led onto the discussion of homed ed, which the police officer didn't know was legal. (Here we go again right!) She asked about socialisation, so I handed her over to my daughter to fill her in while I went and sorted my son out on the pc.
Eventually my son piped up, "enough about us, what about Pat next door!" Now, both children had no problem speaking to strangers. One child is gregarious, one child is more reserved. My son didn't say much, mainly because he was busy and had better things to do, and thought that the police officers should deal with the more pressing matter at hand than waste their time talking to us.
I had no problem letting them into my home, although I confess that I'd hate to let an LA officer come in the way the house was at that moment in time, even though that has no bearing on my educational provision, nor on their attainment. In fact, it's precisely because they had been busy all morning on 'educational' activities that caused the mess! (My daughter hastily tidied it all up when the policemen were in the back garden looking for a way into the neighbour's house.)
But, the police had no agenda with regard to home ed. They didn't come to judge me. (Although they may have made some judgments in their minds, but they didn't say, and they appeared to be favourable.)
However, had I appeared nervous and worried that they were in my house, or refused to let them in, this may have set off alarm bells for them. Had the children appeared nervous and worried, instead of naturally interested in what they were doing and why, I think it would have looked strange. Children normally are fairly chatty and interested, at least after initial shyness. Besides, I thought home educated children were supposed to be far better socialised and able to deal with a wide variety of people and age ranges. That's what we're always told.
So I think most children (although there are exceptions) would cope very well with a local officer visiting, IF they had any real idea about the diversity of approaches available to a home educator.
HOWEVER, the problem is the pre-conceived ideas about what education should look like and complete lack of training in different educational models and their efficiency. Many families HAVE been harmed by ill-informed and school biased local education officers and until these officers have been fully trained and they understand that we are not all doing 'school at home', I'd be a bit reluctant to meet with them to be honest. I think I'd spend most of the meeting asking them questions about what they know about home ed and verifying their credentials before I would be telling them anything about my provision.
And besides, given that we are given no money to home educate, what exactly are they trying to assess? Against what criteria? Are we told what this criteria is? What if we disagree with the criteria? Where is the money to help us attain this criteria as it seems a bit off to expect us to provide anything to their expectations without resources.
The question is far deeper than letting our children meet strangers or not, but rather, what is the intent of that stranger, and is it safe for the protection of our children, to do so.
There are several points to consider here. I have no idea how any family could actually be harmed by a school biased local authority officer. I can see that they might be irritated; that has certainly happened to my family! But harmed? How exactly?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that those new powers are intended to be used for run of the mill home educating families. Indeed, Baroness Morgan said as much on June 29th. In a written answer she said of the recommendations about visits,
"We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education, and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch."
Those powers are intended for "a small number of cases".
Finally, children are only likely to get upset about visits from the local authority if their parents wind them up, telling them that these people are going to force them back to school and so on. Put it like this, I doubt that even the most sensitive and timid child gets hysterical when the guy comes round to read the gas meter. Nor when the milkman knocks at the door. If parents just treated a visit from the local authority in the same way, I shouldn't think that children would mind particularly. It seems often to be the parents with the problem about LA officers and the children pick this up and become nervous.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"There are several points to consider here. I have no idea how any family could actually be harmed by a school biased local authority officer."
Our family was harmed. The coming visits caused a change in the way I approached home education. I knew they would want to see more written work than my children produced so I put pressure on my children to produce it. This was totally the wrong approach and caused much stress and upset in the month or so leading up to the visit, and we were also stressed for a couple of months afterwards whilst waiting for the report. It was fine when it arrived (though ages, names and other details were wrong) but as, I've said before, I don't think we could have continued with autonomous education if we had stayed in that area, so I don't think we would have continued home educating. Only autonomous education seemed to work for us.
"I do not believe that those new powers are intended to be used for run of the mill home educating families."
Then appropriate restrictions limiting those powers should be written in to the law. There is no knowing who will take power in future and make full use of any legal powers they have, so any law should be written with this in the back of the mind. There will also be nothing to stop the more active and aggressively anti-home education LAs from using every ounce of power they can lay their hands on and then push the boundaries some more, as they do now.
"Those powers are intended for "a small number of cases".
This has never been suggested by anyone (apart from you). There is no reason why we should expect this to be the case.
"Finally, children are only likely to get upset about visits from the local authority if their parents wind them up, telling them that these people are going to force them back to school and so on."
There would be no need for parents to wind children up. If the parents feel stressed about a situation, the family would have to be very emotionally detached for the children not to pick up on it on some level.
"Put it like this, I doubt that even the most sensitive and timid child gets hysterical when the guy comes round to read the gas meter."
How many gas meter readers can judge your lifestyle as unsuitable, ask you change it, and if your refuse, issue a School Attendance Order? You are not comparing like with like.
My children and I have no fear of our LEA, in fact she rather a pleasant lady. The children refer to her as “dappy” now since the last visit; she locked her keys in the car and ended up staying with us for the entire afternoon.
ReplyDeleteI now understand why people would refuse visits especially for children who have been removed from school due to bullying etc. The very same people you fought for months now wish to inspect you. As for parents of children who have never seen the school system, as yet I don’t understand why they would need to refuse ..
Does it come down to LEA’s/EWO’s have been so vilified due to small minority of inconsiderate and brain dead LEA’s that people have no faith in them?
It’s not like they really inspect your child’s work I find there more interested in activities, friends etc.
Amy said,
ReplyDelete"I now understand why people would refuse visits especially for children who have been removed from school due to bullying etc. The very same people you fought for months now wish to inspect you. As for parents of children who have never seen the school system, as yet I don’t understand why they would need to refuse ."
My children were not removed from school due to bullying, etc, are my concerns (stated above) irrelevant?
"Does it come down to LEA’s/EWO’s have been so vilified due to small minority of inconsiderate and brain dead LEA’s that people have no faith in them?"
My experiences with the LA were before we had internet access.
"It’s not like they really inspect your child’s work I find there more interested in activities, friends etc."
The inspector did inspect my children's work (and suggested that it should be dated and marked), they also used a tick list based on the National Curriculum whilst they questioned the children about their activities specifically to check that each part on their form was covered. They also took one of my children into another room to speak to them alone. They were asked if they really wanted to be home educated. Just because some home educators have good experiences with LA employees doesn't mean that all will, either with the same LA employee or others.
Sharon, you made this comment on what I had said about Gisela's post;
ReplyDelete"Those powers are intended for "a small number of cases".
This has never been suggested by anyone (apart from you). There is no reason why we should expect this to be the case."
On June 29th this year Baroness Morgan, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the DCSF and intimately associated with the review, said,
"and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch."
It is not just me who is saying that these powers are only intended for a small number of cases. It is what Graham Badman has said and also Baroness Morgan.
I am surprised Sharon, that a visit from the local authority should cause unhappiness for your family for three months. I must confess that I have never heard of such an extreme reaction before. You say that autonomous education would have been impossible had you remained in that area, but two things occcur to me. Firstly, you could have done what many others do and decline visits and see what the LA did. Alternatively you could have carried on educating as you saw fit, accepeted the visits and just let them take you as you were, making no preparation other than perhaps tidying up the house a bit. I seriously doubt if the LA would then have issued an SAO against you, simply because you were not educating how they wanted. Did neither of these possibilities occur to you?
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I agree with Amy. Everybody to whom I have spoken personally find visits harmless enough. The worst that happend usually is that the people concerned sometimes try and pretend that parents should be working in a more structured way. They have a right to suggest this, just as parents have a right to decline their advice. what's the problem? A lot of people have given me their views on what I should be doing in respect to my daughter's education. I ignore those who I think are wrong. Surely, that's what we all do? You have to expect a little flak when you decide not to send your kid to school!
ReplyDeleteI found the visits (when we had them) intrusive and annoying and yes, a little stressful. And I had been a teacher, knew what they were looking for, and how to satisfy the visitor, because I was fluent in 'educationese'. So, for me, to have to have them again now, wouldn't really be a problem.
ReplyDeleteBut how about my friend down the road? She's very overweight and pregnant with her 7th child. She lives in a 3 bedroom house which is far too small for their family of 8.
It is totally chaotic round there (that's social worker jargon - 'chaotic' apparently means something bad) to the outsider, yet my friend always knows where everything and everyone is.
The kids are a bit scruffy because there's only one income coming into the house and they can't afford the latest fashions and their 3 year old isn't potty-trained yet.
Mealtimes are a bit random, so is the education the kids are getting, and there are no doubt, some gaps in knowledge compared to their school-educated neighbours.
I am concerned that an LA visitor (with a social work type brief as well as an educational one) might be very concerned about this family.
But guess what? Her kids are healthy and happy and (unlike most of her neighbours' dd's) the 16 yo dd isn't pregnant or on drugs. (Just started FE, on a 5 GCSE course.) They are all learning something most of the time. they love eachother. They go out a lot. They volunteer at the Food Bank. They sing in the church choir. They have plenty of friends.
It's people like my friend that I am concerned for. Can you not see why?
Mrs Anon
Simon said,
ReplyDelete""and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch."
It is not just me who is saying that these powers are only intended for a small number of cases. "
But how will they discover these small number of cases? LAs have claimed that they need to visit the home and see the child in order to do this. Are they lying? Why are they asking for these powers if they have no intention of using them and don't think they need them to do their job? You have said that it's easy for a parent to lie by post so presumably the only way to find the small number of problems home educators will be to visit them. Even a Baroness can make mistakes and we know how wrong government departments can be when estimating budgets.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Firstly, you could have done what many others do and decline visits and see what the LA did."
I didn't know that I could decline visits (as I said, pre-internet), and we are talking about the effect of visits in the future, when we will not be able to decline visits.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"I do not believe that those new powers are intended to be used for run of the mill home educating families. Indeed, Baroness Morgan said as much on June 29th."
Well, we all know the Baroness said too much on June 29th. She is the one who started the as yet unsubstantiated rumours about child abuse and more. And when she said that it was meant to deal "more efficiently with a small number of cases where home education doesn't come up to scratch", she didn't say that only a small number of cases would be subjected to formerly unthinkable measures.
Then Mr Badman said in Recommendation 7 of his report, that he wants LA personnel to >>have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.<<
However, one of the preconceived outcomes of this whole review exercise came to light in Mr Balls' accepting letter dated June 11th, where he says: >>We agree that home educated children must be seen regularly in their educational setting, on their own, or with an independent person present as appropriate.<<
So, we have gone from "speaking with each child alone if deemed appropriate, but in the company of a trusted person" to the unprecedented and invasive right to "speak with every home educated child alone, if appropriate with an independent person".
A masterful play with words, I must admit. Seemingly the same words, but the impact is massively different.
No mention of a probable cause, suspicion or reported concern, just the right to question every child on their own. No mention of possibility to object or appeal, either.
The changes in legislation required to make this non-discriminatory legal practice would most certainly not only affect "a small number of home educating families" but effectively every family in the country.
It is not about what you believe Mr Badman's intentions are or have been, Mr Webb. It is about how the proposed changes to legislations are written down. It is about the extent of the powers these recommendations would give (local) authorities to interfere in families. All families.
Mrs T-G
You are quite right Mrs. T-G, it is not what I beleive Mr. Badman's intentiojns to have been, but how the propsed changes to legislation are written down.But since neither of us have ssen the proposed legislation we are both wholly unable to say anything about this aspect of the case. When Ed Balls said that the child would be seen on their own or with an independent person present, most took him to be referring to their parent. This is still the construction which I place upon his words.
ReplyDelete"When Ed Balls said that the child would be seen on their own or with an independent person present, most took him to be referring to their parent."
ReplyDeleteWhy would people make this assumption? The reason for talking to the child alone is the belief that they will not reveal abuse in front of their parents. Why else would they need to speak to the child alone?
Ed Balls didn't say that children would routinely be seen alone. He said "on their own or with an independent person". I don't think for a moment that the idea is for every child to be seen alone and neither has anybody at the DCSF suggested this.
ReplyDeletePossibly not his intention, but it's unlikely that it was the parent in mind when he said 'independent person' and "home educated children must be seen regularly in their educational setting, on their own, or with an independent person present as appropriate" certainly gives the impression that it would be routine.
ReplyDeleteor even...
ReplyDelete"but it's unlikely that it was the parent *he had* in mind when he said 'independent person'"