Tuesday, 15 September 2009

"This is going to make a lot of happy, intelligent, sensible young people, become unhappy, fearful and insecure."

The above words are from the comments page in the Times on Monday and they were written by a parent apropos of the Badman Report and its proposals for regular visits from the local authority to check up on home education. I have to say, I find this a truly extraordinary assertion and cannot help but wonder what sort of young people the writer associates with! I mean, really.

The overwhelming majority of happy, intelligent, sensible and well balanced young people are used to meeting a wide variety of strangers on a regular basis. If they are home educated, then they are probably also used to at least some of these strangers asking them fatheaded questions like, "Do you know your nine times table?" or "What will you do about GCSEs?" The idea that a stranger coming to the house once a year will precipitate stable and well balanced young people to lapse into a state of fearful insecurity by asking questions like this, is a very odd one. It might have that effect upon their parents, I suppose, particularly if they are anxious about the impending visit because they have not been educating their child. This anxiety could then transmit itself to the child. In such a case though, it is the parents who are responsible for the resultant unhappiness and insecurity, not the local authority.

I have only encountered one case of this sort of behaviour personally. This was a home educating family a few miles away whom we visited when my daughter was nine. The daughter was so timid and shy that she hid upstairs during our visit and communicated by calling downstairs to her mother. Even at the age of nine, my daughter found this very peculiar. Without wishing to appear judgemental or pejorative, both the child's parents were mad as Hatters, which I think had some bearing on the behaviour of the child herself.

In general, it seems to be parents who are upset about children being questioned, rather than the children themselves. One of the mothers who was present, told me what happened when Graham Badman visited a home education group in Kent. A child expressed the desire to be a vet when she grew up. Graham Badman very pleasantly enquired if she knew that she would need a high level of mathematics for such an ambition to be feasible. He asked her casually if she was familiar with, say, the concept of square roots. Upon which, several parents intervened indignantly and the whole incident has passed into legend as showing Badman in his true colours as a villainous character like the Childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

I suppose that there may exist children who are so pathologically shy and nervous that they would be traumatised by the presence of an unfamiliar adult, particularly one who spoke to them. Such children are surely rare and I have no doubt at all that this degree of neurosis would qualify as a special educational need in itself and be taken into account and catered for sensitively under any new regulations. Most normal children and young people are however a little more robust. Many actually enjoy showing off and talking about their achievements. This was certainly the case with my own daughter and I used to pity the officer from our local authority who had to sit through my daughter's playing of the guitar, recorder and piano and then feign pleasure at the sight of her paintings before reading long passages of her creative writing! What a hideous job, spending the day watching other people's ghastly kids showing off!

I may perhaps be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that many of the parents who are getting worked up about this issue are themselves somewhat highly strung and emotional. As I said above, anxiety can easily be transmitted to their children and the result could be that the whole family are in a state of profound nervous excitement as the day approaches for a visit from the LA. The remedy surely lies in the parents relaxing a bit and reassuring their child that there is really nothing to be worried about.

63 comments:

  1. what a load of crap that is.but i think Simon knows that.No visits here no meeting nothing is that not good news Simon Hampshire County have been blocked by us!and now have given up any one out there do feel free to contact them and see if you can get them to have the balls to go for it! but sadly there just not up to it all talk and no action like some men i know! Obe other thing how would an officer answer when a child said i dont want you here in my house go away i refuse to answer your question what would he say? but tell us how much you get paid?
    its all good fun and dont forget to ask you LEA how much the officer gets in wages there do like that question! how much do you think there get in wages per officer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again Simon I can see where you're coming from, but it's not always that clear cut. My daughter would be very much like yours - a chatty girl who would like nothing more than a chance to show off her talents and show anybody her skills at editing videos, oil painting, flute, creative writing blah blah blah and then get into an in-depth discussion with the LA officer about the merits of Home Education.

    But my son, who is exposed to the same opportunities as my daughter, is shy and comes across as quite awkward and even miserable when he's talking to strangers. (However, he recently asked me to let him do the talking in shops as he wants to 'get over his shyness with strangers'.)

    It has nothing to do with how he's educated or his home environment, it's just who he is and I wouldn't like his education or ability to socialise to be judged on the basis that he's shy in front of strangers, especially when compared to his naturally more gregarious and older sister.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Government going to run out of time and not be able to pass this law on hom education and dont forget the deep cutbacks Gordon was talking about england is broke uncle Badman ideas are pie in the school see that pig flying!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can see this and I do wonder why parents worry so much about their children talking to officials. The local group we attend, the children are extremely chatty and love to show off with the exception of two or three.
    My two are complete opposites, I have one who is a complete show off , academic and love’s to be with people the other loves his own company and more practical with his skills. Our LEA recognizes the different skills and his happy for the youngest to show his model making and woodwork etc
    I think it’s the parents who worry, maybe the fear that the child might be asked a leading question?
    The fear, they will be judged?
    Maybe some parents know they’re not up to the job and fear their child will drop them in it?

    These parent have no fear on day trips of their children talking to tour guides or even members of the public with regards Home Education so why are they worried about officials ?
    What LEA’s will need to recognizes is that not every child is an academic or a gifted learner some children develop skills later than others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amy-Its because of the way parents/children have been treated by there LEA that there do not want anything to do with them if lies have been told or half truths or sly phone calls between school by an LEA officer your going to not want to have anything to do with them. peope lhave bee ntreated bladly by LEA and its no good you or simon just brushing it under the carpet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can see what you mean. There's always going to be people in a job who are beyond useless. The problem is these guide lines are going to be rushed through before the governments out and regardless what other party's say once rules have been passed they tend to stay regardless of party.
    Is there a way around it ?? I don’t know, the only thing I can think of is a new department with an understanding of home education but it’s not like that’s going to happen.
    I personal feel that many LEA’s won’t have the time or the budget to follow the Badman report so very little will change for us who already Home Educated. The only problem I foresee is people who wish to remove children from school due to bulling etc after the rule's go through.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amy-many of them are not only unseless but tell lies and half truths about a family this is why famliy will not meet with them.Something Simon ingores if a lie was or half truth was told about his daughter by an LEA would he say dont worry its ok? this is whats at the heart of the problem many parents have been let down by there LEA and will not allow them into the house because of this.
    Im not so sure it go though who knows? we do know this government is running out of time and where is the money to pay for it all almost 2 and half million out of work and still going up the money is just not they to waste on crazy Badmam and his weird view of parents!
    i stil think it be all talk and no action it be fun any way i hope HCC try again with us but i dont think there will shame maybe simon could give them the balls to go for it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon wrote,
    "...they are probably also used to at least some of these strangers asking them fatheaded questions like...The idea that a stranger coming to the house once a year will precipitate stable and well balanced young people to lapse into a state of fearful insecurity by asking questions like this, is a very odd one."

    There's a difference between an irrelevant stranger asking questions like this and someone with the power to change the way you and your family live your life and potentially force your parents to send you to school.

    Amy said,
    "I think it’s the parents who worry, maybe the fear that the child might be asked a leading question?"

    Part of the problem stems from the safety and welfare aspects of the current plans. Even well trained social workers make mistakes with leading questions that have resulted in enormous miscarriages of justice with families being separated for months or years (Cleveland, Orkney, Rochdale, etc). Obviously these are the extreme cases that reach the newspapers, but there will be large numbers of false positive situations that result in further investigations that cause huge stress to the family even if the concerns are eventually dismissed (and they still have to deal with the lingering doubts in others minds; 'no smoke without fire', etc).

    Health authorities around the world have dismissed the idea of screening all children for child maltreatment as something that could well do more harm than good. There is no evidence that screening is effective and good reasons to suppose that it will harm more children than it will help.

    Here's an example from the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care:
    http://www.ctfphc.org/Full_Text/Ch29full.htm

    "The main problem with the available approaches is the high false positive rate. For example, assuming a high prevalence rate for child maltreatment of 20%, screening 1,000 children with an instrument whose sensitivity is 80% and specificity 90% would result in 33% of the positive test results being false positive. With a lower prevalence rate of abuse, the number of false-positive results would be even higher. A sizeable number of individuals identified by such techniques as being "at risk for child maltreatment" would never go on to commit abuse. Such labelling may put people under increased stress and interfere with their ability to function as parents. Further, the validity of many of the screening approaches has not been adequately evaluated.

    Overall, screening may do more harm than good. Nevertheless, knowledge of risk indicators for child maltreatment can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding the provision of preventive interventions to individuals and families in high-risk populations. Although screening of individuals is not recommended, interventions can be targeted at all members of high-risk communities.
    "

    The example figures in the quote above are also optimistic in the extreme. One study looking at screening the general population for predictive signs for child maltreatment found a false positive rate of 50.7%; half of the predicted cases of maltreatment were actually not found to involve child abuse or neglect. There is a lot of scope for causing harm to many families if this goes ahead.

    The US Prevention Services Task Force (USPSTF) suggests that false results can result in:

    http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/2/2/161

    "...inappropriate labeling and punitive attitudes. Additional possible harms include psychological distress, escalation of abuse and family tension, loss of personal residence and financial resources, erosion of family structure, loss of autonomy for the victim, and lost time from work. Children could lose contact with established support systems including neighbors, siblings, school contacts, and peer groups."

    The USPSTF also state:

    "No studies were identified that provide data about adverse effects of screening or interventions. False-negative tests may hinder identification of those who are truly at risk."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sure Gisela, that most LA officers are well aware that some children are shy and ill at ease with strangers. A lot of them are ex-teachers and there are many shy children at school as well. I seriously doubt if any local authority will be issuing a School Attendance Order because a child was somewaht reserved when a visit was made. You seem to have got round this difficulty OK and I am sure that others have as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are right Sharon about there being a difference between an irrelevant stranger and somebody with the power to force your parents to send you to school. Children only know this if you try and wind them up.

    When we came to the attention of Essex LEA after we encountered a truancy patrol when my daughter was eight, they decided to send somebody round. I did not even mention it to my daughter until the morning the woman was due round. I told her that some fool from the council was coming to see if I was keeping her locked in the cellar all day. We laughed about it and the actual visit was the most casual and relaxed event imaginable. After the woman had been, I made a few caustic remarks about her, but Simone defended her and said that she was nice!

    In contrast, the family that I mentioned in my post were told to expect a visit. They spent a fortnight psyching the kid up with stories that she would be forced back to the school from which she had been withdrawn due to bullying. By the time the visit came, everybody was in a state of near hysteria. Which of these two approaches do you think is better, both for the child herself and the LAs point of view?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You are right Sharon about there being a difference between an irrelevant stranger and somebody with the power to force your parents to send you to school. Children only know this if you try and wind them up."

    Maybe if the child never reads the newspapers, does not have access to the internet, never talks to other home educating children, or come into contact with school going children whose parents have discussed the issue with their child when they ask to be home educated, etc. If they live in a vacuum you may be right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simon is still not thinking about the parents/child who have had lies told about them by an LEA officer or does Simon belive that LEA officers are always in the right? if parents are let down by there council there will NEVER allow the LEA to interview child on it own.or force entry into house. why do you distrust parents so much but love LEA officers? why do you suck up to them?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Simon, you say that I've got around that problem, but I haven't, because LA officers have never been in contact with us. Despite the fact my daughter was in school for three years.

    If they can't follow up on a clear cut case of deregistration, how on earth will they manage with extra duties?

    The current level of incompetence is astounding, and trusting them with more powers, when they can't use the ones they've got adequately, is downright dangerous to decent, law abiding families.

    I wouldn't have had a problem meeting them when I deregistered my children, but seeing as it's been over four years now, and I've not heard from them, I would not be very much inclined to respect them now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry, Gisela, I rather assumed that you did have dealings with your LA. I know somebody in Palmers Green who deregistered their child and was not followed up by Enfleld. However, that was ten years ago and I though that they would have tightened up a bit since then. I do see your point, but the law is not certain to be changed yet. There is still along way to go. I would not be the least bit surprised if in the end, nothing at all happened. I am a little shocked at Enfield, though. We used to live in Haringey and Heaven knows they were slack and ineffective. I had no idea that Enfield were as bad!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm surprised that you know so little about how LAs operate currently yet feel that they should be trusted with more power over families.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From what I've heard, Enfield LA isn't actually 'bad' when it comes to giving people grief. But it's just if they can't manage now, how on earth will they cope with more!

    That's when mistakes and false positives occur.

    Like I said, I'm fairly confident that I can jump through any necessary hoops, but I don't think they can cope with the extra duties and without the carrots, I don't see why I should.

    In all honesty, I can't see this all going through. Surely there are bigger fish to fry!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hampshire LEA is crap Simon and some of the officers tell lies about the family/child.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A good point indeed, Sharon! I think that local authorities vary tremendously. I can hardly be expected to be up to date with all the hundred and fifty odd councils in the country. I used to have dealings with Haringey and Enfield, but am now a bit out of touch.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think that you are right, Gisela. I don't think that all this will ultimately come to much anyway. Like there aren't a million other important things to be dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A few thoughts....

    The interviewing thingy bit is the proposal that attracts most critcism from home educating families; partly because of the fear of getting an intrusive know-it-all who does damage either to the child's self esteem or the whole home ed sat up by getting it wrong. Partly too because of the high numbers of children with special needs who may be more upset by such contacts. So I am not in favour of this part of the legislation - because it will cause more trouble than it is worth...and what will it actually achieve (will any home educated child suddenly confess to a stranger they are being abused??)

    Never the less I do agree with Simon about two things- firstly it probably won't be a widespread practice anyway - due to time and money constraints and the fact that what most LA advisors are more interested in is whether there is evidence of a real education taking place and that should be able to get that impression by seeing the set up rather than interogating the child. (LA boss who came to see me today about various things said he was only concerned with access for children where there were child welfare concerns and he also saw that as needing a joint initiative from all aspects of Childrens services, rather than turning LA advisors into pseudo social workers.)

    My second point of agreement is that whether or not this clause gets passed (and I hope it won't) all HE parents should be seeking to protect their children from the fear of change. Change may provoke tricky reactions in some children (my autistic dd comes to mind) but we work to try to calm her fears and prepare her for the challenges that she faces, not whipping up her fears by worrying about events which maght nver happen anyway. Since most parents have neurotypical children, there is no reason for them to be fearful at all about all this...it may not happen anyway and if it does then sensible responses from parents will go a long way to helping the children. I recongise that older children might want to be involved in the campaign but some of the comments I have heard from younger children is causing them needless anxiety of the "Badman will make you go back to school" variety.

    ReplyDelete
  21. you wanna keep away from Hmpshire LEA it is rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Julie- what LA boss come to see you today? not that fool Jack Cawthra was it? Hampshire LEA belive that if there do not see the child it is a welfare conern so who ever you saw was not following HCC policy set down by the cabinet Of HCC under David Kirk(he the councilor for children.service) this is the policy of HCC so that LA boss is breaking set down rules and he must know what the policy is as it is set to all officers of HCC. so he had no right to say this to you!

    ReplyDelete
  23. No, it was our local boss (south East area). Lots of families in our area don't have LA visits and they( the LA) are very happy to receive reports (in fact I have just checked the HCC policy documents and it does clearly state "You will be asked to show that your child is receiving a full-time suitable and efficient education. You can do this in various ways" so if that is what the HCC guidelines say, I can't see that what is happening is anything different to that. If that isn't what happened to you is it because they did have a welfare concern?
    Anyway, the meeting was actually about resources- ie exam centre access, access to a school lab for my science GCSE class, funding for college courses - all of which is coming along nicely, thanks. (I know you don't want any of these things, but many parents do, hence my efforts on their behalf)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "LA boss who came to see me today about various things said he was only concerned with access for children where there were child welfare concerns and he also saw that as needing a joint initiative from all aspects of Childrens services, rather than turning LA advisors into pseudo social workers."

    So do you think the person you spoke to would be against adding the responsibility to check specifically on the safety and welfare of home educated children to the inspector's job description? The current consultation suggests that LA employees will have to establish that the child is safe and well during their visits.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "due to time and money constraints and the fact that what most LA advisors are more interested in is whether there is evidence of a real education taking place and that should be able to get that impression by seeing the set up rather than interogating the child."

    One of the comments LA inspectors have made about written reports with examples of work in the past is that it's impossible for them to know if the work is the child's. They have said that they need to speak to the child and ask them questions about the work to be sure they have actually done the work themselves and understand it. The government consultation on the currently planned changes makes much the same point:

    "The current arrangements allow parents to submit evidence that a ‘suitable education' is being provided, which could be mainly written evidence. Local authorities have no powers to interview home educated children to establish that sample material provided is representative of their work, nor to establish that they are safe and well."

    I think you may be underestimating the thoroughness of some education departments with responsibility for home educators. In some areas even now, every known home educator has an annual visit, or a fight on their hands if they want to provide evidence in another way.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Julie-no the policy is to have a meeting with the family if the family refuse it brings up a red flag for welfare conerns you ask David Kirk? he set the policy.and if Badman mad ideas come in it wil lmake it worse and as sharon points out that LA employees will have to establish that the child is safe and well during their visits.
    no it was becuse we would not meet with them no welfare conern if a famoly Hampshire does not meet with LA it is refered to the Welfare department you check that Julie with the David kirk he will confrm to you so that LA boss who come to see you was wrong he would be going against HCC policy and i dont think David Kirk would let him do that do you?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think he is not in favour of adding that to his staffs' burdens - although it is a bit complicated here because (like in many areas) the actual "inspection/advisor" bit is contracted out to an agency - what happens now is if the LA bod gets a report that he is happy with, they family never get referred to the agency in the first place. Each deregging family does get an EWO visit (which they consider to be the safe and well check) but if families refuse the EWO visit and just submit the educational provision report then that is ok with them too. So technically they probably don't want much of a status change - it is only the very few families who refuse both visits and won't submit a report that gets them twitched. But the danger - and I freely admit it, is that whatever they do now will be undermined by the change in legislation ie then if they don't actaully do "safe and well" checks - and a child dies, they will be the ones in the dock for failure to keep to the rules!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mr Anon, There are dozens of families in our group who never have meetings - and if they submit a good ed report then that is fine...honestly read the bit from the HCC own guidelines. It clearly says "in various ways" and that is exactly what happens in south-east Hants.!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Julie no it is not ok with HCC to refuse a visit and just submit an educational report if you do this it flags up a welfare conern. and actio nwill be attempted such as a school attendance order.if you refuse a visit for an EWO it will flag up a further red flag for welfare and is refered to a senior EWO.This is the policy of HCC you check with David Kirk.
    who ever you spoke was wrong about this matte.You may not like it but HCC and it was quite clear in its answer to Badman that it wanted home forced home visits this was wrote by Jack Cawthra and signed off by David Kirk i see if i can paste some of the answer HCC give.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "But the danger - and I freely admit it, is that whatever they do now will be undermined by the change in legislation ie then if they don't actaully do "safe and well" checks - and a child dies, they will be the ones in the dock for failure to keep to the rules!"

    Exactly, and I think that this fear will push LA to follow the new laws even if they don't inspect now. I think anyone who thinks things will carry on as now, with a few zealots taking all the power they can but most just jogging along as they do now are being complacent. Easy to do if like Simon, you and I you are past or near the end of compulsory school years, but much more alarming and difficult to ignore for those at the beginning of the journey.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 24. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families and ensuring that home educated children are able to achieve the five outcomes?

    Yes What should they be?


    1. Improved safeguarding, LA given statutory power to enter the home of home educated children periodically to ensure the child is safe.

    2. Statutory power for the LA to enter the environment to determine the suitability of the education (evaluate against five outcomes of every child matters).

    3. More positive/supportive approach to home educating families will result in improved communications and dialogue and few families going under the radar.

    4. Improved protocols nationally and locally to ensure that children do not slip through the net. For example those who have never been educated in the state system and are therefore not known to the LA.

    5. Improved protocols to ensure cross-LA cooperation in terms of tracking children and young people.

    ReplyDelete
  32. the above was wrote by HCC and i belive it was wrote Jack Cawthra(he will not admit he wrote it but he did) and signed off by David Kirk

    ReplyDelete
  33. see below again wrote by HCC sent to Badman
    23. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting home educated families?

    Yes X What should they be?


    Statutory powers giving the right of access to the LA to evaluate the suitability of the education.

    LA’s should develop more positive/supportive approach to home educating families which will result in improved communications and dialogue and few families going under the radar.

    ReplyDelete
  34. wrote by HCC see Below

    Currently we do not have the statutory power to enter the household to evaluate suitability of education. We have no power should the family refuse to interact with the LA. This means that any referral concerning the child’s safety must come from other sources.

    Where parents do not cooperate with the LA it is very difficult to assess on the basis of a short visit to the home whether the child is truly safe. Parents can be very convincing and children are very loyal to their parents.

    Too often the option of home education masks unresolved issues relating to schooling and parents who are wholly unable to provide adequately for this child.

    ReplyDelete
  35. wrote by HCC see below
    We believe that the outcomes are not achievable for a significant minority of families within the LA.

    Be healthy – Only through school nurse information.
    Stay safe – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Enjoy and achieve – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Make a positive contribution – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Achieve economic well-being – Resistant parents make this impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sharon ...."One of the comments LA inspectors have made about written reports with examples of work in the past is that it's impossible for them to know if the work is the child's"

    I know, that is obvious - but so far we seem to have managed to not have that suggestion made...it is all a matter of developing some trust, and I have had no evidence that abuse of that process (ie fabricating evidence of an education) has happened around here. But it might - and then the LA might take a different stance - but not at the moment.

    However I am not saying that this part of Hamsphire is a shining example of how an LA should do it- there have been a few terrible problems in the past - but we are working to improve relationships. For example, as a result of a meeting last term we have had the letters the local office sent out altered from
    "you will receive two visits" to " "you will be offered two visits" which I hope puts more control in the hands of the parents and less on the LA. That is another reason why I am anti Badman - it may damge positive changes and cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mr Anon, I so know what the HCC wrote in response to the enquiry - I am just telling you what we are actually doing now!! ( and what the current HCC guidelines say!!)

    ReplyDelete
  38. You know Sharon, most of this is just relaxed conversation where the LA worker says something to the kid along the lines of, "This is very interesting, Mary. Would you like to tell me a bit more about what you have been writing here?" I don't think that it is like an interrogation! Of course some local authorities would rather visit than rely upon written evidence. When you say that those living in such areas have a fight on their hands, do you mean that they simply have to argue their case, or are threats being made? If so, which local authority is this?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mr Anon, You quoted

    "Be healthy – Only through school nurse information.
    Stay safe – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Enjoy and achieve – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Make a positive contribution – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    Achieve economic well-being – Resistant parents make this impossible."

    but that is the very point - we are not (at least down here...) labeleed "resistant parents". We may not want the Badman changes (and at the risk of being boring - I do keep saying that) but we do want the very best for our children educationally, socially, spiritually ..in every way. So that bit doesn't actually apply to us, because we are neither resistant parents and because we are secure in the beliefs that we are providing the best education for our children. Yes, I do find it vaguely insulting that the govt needs to act like a nanny state and worry about those things - I think I should be trusted to provide them because I have made the sacrifice to provide a good ed for my child; so clearly her welfare is important...but I am not sure what the relevance any ofthishas tothe current relationship between local home educators and the LA under present guidelines - both they and we are keeping to those without it having a big negative impact on our childrens education.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Simon Hampshire are a local authority who make threats if a parent will not allow a home visit this is policy of HCC A parent will have a fight on his hands if he refuses a visit from HCC LEA. you can win against them but you have to be prepared to fight tooth and nail and you can tell how much there hate it when you say no home visit it really hurts them and they put on the welfare voice! and the nmake threats to the family.
    HCC is a friend of Badman the top man in HCC went to work with Badman over Baby p his name is John Couglan he dirctor of children service he fully supports uncle Badman he worked with Badman over Baby P. HCC do and contine to make thrats to parents who refuse a home visits.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Julie HCC have said in answers to Badman Make a positive contribution – Resistant parents make this impossible.
    This is what there thin kof you as a home educator it all wrote down for you to see
    Too often the option of home education masks unresolved issues relating to schooling and parents who are wholly unable to provide adequately for this child.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Too often the option of home education masks unresolved issues relating to schooling and parents who are wholly unable to provide adequately for this child." - well that may be true - especially the first part!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nr Anon said "A parent will have a fight on his hands if he refuses a visit from HCC" but that isn't true... every single person in my local group who was contacted by the LA for an advisor visit this year submitted a report instead of a home visit and every single one of them got a letter thanking them and accepting it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is the same in Essex. In fact, I don't think that they actually wanted to visit us towards the end. The letter sent would offer a visit and then go on to say that if we'd rather send in a written report then that would be fine. It was really sheer bloodymindedness on my part that made me let them trek all the way from Colchester. I think that Essex's unofficial policy is to visit one or twice just to make sure that the family aren't completely barking and then to accept reports from then on. I think that the same policy is used by a number of other LAs, although obviously not all.

    ReplyDelete
  45. By the way Julie, when Mr. Williams says that anybody refusing a visit will have a fight on his hands, he is being less than candid. He actually refused to provide Hampshire with any details at all about his son's education for some time. Hampshire served a Failure of duty regarding education of child notice in July 2004, a year or so after his son had been withdrawn from school. This was a last resort, not a first response. Mr. Williams' point of view was that he did not see that it was any business of the local authority what sort of education he was providing. It was this which was at the root of all his troubles with Hampshire, not his refusal to accept a visit.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Simon your incorrect evidence was provided in writing to HCC who refused to accept it.get your facst right! it was not a last resort who told you that? all the letters from that crap HCC go on about meeting and the only way that HCC can assess education is by visits.It was a first response becuase we would not do as we are told Jack Cawthra thought he was dealing with a child in a class room. HCC also told lies about us and we ahve told them that at least 2 lEA officers tell lies if they dont sue us? you get your fact rights about it. David Kirk himself said home visit in a letter to us it took our county councillor to stop them and was amazed by the foolish of his council,His name is Dr Tony ludlow and he wrote and told them and then there went very quiet!

    ReplyDelete
  47. "You know Sharon, most of this is just relaxed conversation where the LA worker says something to the kid along the lines of, "This is very interesting, Mary. Would you like to tell me a bit more about what you have been writing here?" I don't think that it is like an interrogation!"

    I wish you would stop putting words into my mouth, I have never said it is like an interrogation. I know what visits are like, I have had them. It involved testing my children's reading, a check list for national curriculum subjects and taking the child into another room to talk to them alone - this was about 12 years ago. I also know that knowledge of the visits changed my approach to home education in a negative way. For instance, I knew our LA liked to see written work so I put pressure on my children to produce it. From talking to friends in that area things sound very much the same. I've not heard of anyone in that area successfully refusing visits and they are keen on extra visits to check that their 'recommendations' have been followed if there are any doubts about the education. Why shouldn't written/postal evidence be acceptable? Why should home educators be assumed to by lying and falsifying evidence until they prove otherwise? Universities are more trusting with their exams!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sorry, Mr. Williams, I was only going by what you said in 2004;

    "We have refused to allow any member of the council into our home or to meet with them, as their views are biased. We have to provide Peter with an education suitable to his age and ability, which we are doing; we are simply refusing to prove this to the local education authority. Incidentally, we cannot find any law that states that we must provide them with this information."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Get your fact right simon you are wrong about the root of the problem HCC refuesd to accept in writing that Peter was geting a suitable full time education! AND DEMANDED home visits which us as his parents refuesed and wanted the evidence assessed Jack Cawthra refuesed to this with the full support of David Kirk. A school attendance order was served an ingored by us and our county council Dr Tony ludlow wrote to say it was wrong and that Peter was geting a first rate edcuation he also wanted to know about some lies that had been said about us by HCC after this HCC went very shy and we have not heard a thing from them! no visits no meeting never i see them hell first! and they know it! Get your facts right

    ReplyDelete
  50. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, Sharon. I know you didn't say anything about interrogation, but this is the word that a lot of people are using to describe LA officers talking to children during visits. Here is Jeremy Yallop from the TES, replying to my article;

    "What are these proposals that children reject so strongly? One of the most shocking gives local authorities the power to enter the homes of every home-educating family and take children from their parents for interrogation"

    This is the word that a lot of people are bandying about and so I am trying to explain generally that nothing of the sort is envisioned. I know that you don't think this, but a lot of people do.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I've obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick, Mr. Williams. I understood that after the Failure of Duty regarding Education of Child Notice was served on July 7th 2004, a year after you had removed you son from school, you contacted the Ombudsman. I further understood that you made it clear that you would only confirm that your son was being educated at home and refused to provide any detailed account of the education, saying that the LEA was not legally entitled to this information.

    ReplyDelete
  52. So, Mr Williams, trying to get my brain around all this..you did refuse a visit? - but did you send them a report? That is what seems to work just fine for most of those I know in Hampshire. A few do have home visits, but that is normally because they either have a child with SEN and it helps with the maintenance of the statement or because they want some help from the LA or because it is less bother for them that writing a report in the first place, and ultimately that is their own choice. So if you didn't want a home visit, why didn't you do a report then?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "I understood that after the Failure of Duty regarding Education of Child Notice was served on July 7th 2004,"

    Is this something similar to a School Attendance Order? I've not heard of a Failure of Duty regarding Education of Child Notice and cannot find any information about it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It is exactly the same thing, Sharon. Made under Section 437 (1) of the 1996 Education Act. It gives the recipient fifteen days to provide evidence of the child's education. I don't know why Hampshire call thei SAOs by this name. Hampshire took a year to issue this after spending a year making informal enquiries.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Julie, Hampshire spent an entire year trying to get a written report out of Mr. Williams before taking action. All they wanted was some account of the education being provided. His view was that telling them that he was educating his son should be enough and they had no righ to ecpect any further information. So I think that you are right, Hampshire is quite happy with written reports. They will however not accept no information at all!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Simon-you are wrong evidence was given in writing but Jack Cawthra and David Kirk refused to assess it a school attendance order was served on 22nd of March 2007 knowing full well that evidence had been giving including Dr Tony Ludlow writing to confrim "There is no evidence to my knowledge that Peter Williams is not recieving a suitable education.And ther has never been any such evidence.There is considerable evidence that Peter and his parents feel badly let down by the HCC LEA when there first raised the issue of time off for specialist chess coaching.Finally there have been some errors in officers statements.I will deal with these in a separate email"
    Dr Tony ludlow is a strong supporter of the state school system so for him to write the above was not easy for him.He is was amazed by the way HCC LEA treated Peter! dr tony Ludlow was also very worried by the way the ex head of Peter school had dealt with this matter including sly phone calls to the welfare department!
    HCC does not accept writen reports here in this area!

    The ombudsman was contacted about the issue of time off but he could not do anything about a school refusing t oallow time off for chess coaching it is for the school to allow this.But the Ombudsman did help to delay action by the council! and of course HCC did not like that us having the forsight to be able to contact the Ombudsman and of also did not like it that Dr Tony Ludow was in support to and wrote to 3 nice letters for us! and he is our friend who we can go to his house any time to see him.
    Julie good old Jack cawthra lost some of the written work that had been done by Peter! he must resign at once and allow some one who really does care about our children to do the job!

    ReplyDelete
  57. we also got ALL the emails letters that had been sent by LEA to school between tnem and other offciers everything and then we find the lies and half truths! but it took a lot of work to get all this infromation as there did not want to hand it over! its amazing what is wrote by them! then you have to go though it all and it takes some reading and all the time your home educating as well but we did it and they hated it that we got to see what there wrote about us! it gives very good insight into how there see parents and HCC mistrust parents very much! very sad really to think people look at other parents like this no trust i guess that how there live ther life no trust in anything or any one.

    ReplyDelete
  58. So in short, it is not true that between withdrawing your son from school in 2003 and the issuing of the notice a year later in July 2004, you refused to provide any written information to the local authority? I am curious about this, as you spend a lot of time complaining about Hampshire. It does seem to be at odds with what you have told many other people.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Simon-no it is not true that we refused to porvode any evidence to HCC.Who have you been talking to?
    We are quite entitled to complain about Hampshire LEA and its treatment of Peter and will contine to speak out? including that a school attendance order was was served in 2007 dispite a great deal of written information being giving to the LEA along with Dr Tony Ludlow who give us full support and he is a man he belives very much in his LEA and the state school system! he knows Peter very well we can go to his house any time he likes Peter very much and respect Peter unlike HCC!
    It took us a long time to get all the infromation from that crap council hampshire lies where told and half truth by jack Cawthra and Clare Caffrine.Tony was very unhappy about this matter and was amazed to see the lies down in writing!
    in your world becaise you belive in the LEA you do not realize how many of these officers behave! in Hampshire there mistrust parents a great deal like you do?
    If a lie is told about your daughter what would you do say nothing? let it go say oh never mind nice LEA officer i understand! When these people are caught out there turn nasty because there trying to hang onto there job.We call for Jack Cawthra Clare Caffrine and David kirk to resign at once and allow people who realy do care about out children to do th job. the counclior before David kirk was D Allen who died! he started it!

    ReplyDelete
  60. You ask who I have been talking to. Actually it was you. Back in 2004, when we were still on the chess circuit, I encountered you and your son a couple of times. You were boasting then that you would not allow a visit and nor would you send the local authority a report. You might not remember me and my daughter. If you google Simone Webb and chess, you will come up with some of her old games.

    So, between 2003 and July 7th 2004, you did send Hampshire a written report? It's just that you seemed very sure at the time that you had not, neither were you going to. Just to jog your memory, we were at an event where Sheila Dines was and one of the Hale sisters. You peobably know Georgie O'Toole as well.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Simon- not a report but writen evidence in 2004 was sent no visits took place and your be pleased to know never have it was not a boast no visits took place nor did there every get to see Peter.The writen evidence HCC refused to assess it claiming that you had to see the child which we both know is not true.A school attendance order was served in 2007 dispite evidence being giving to the LEA along with DR tony Ludlow evidence who was more than willing to represnt us in court but HCC lots of balls and we not heard a thing from them at all since 2007!Dr LUdow was very unhappy about the way Peter was treated by LEA officers that you so like! he see the lies in writing and was very unhappy to see LEA officers doing this he made a strong protest about this matter and we ca nsee him any time we want he very much respect Peter unlike HCC abd you?
    you not answered about if lies are told about your family your daughter what would you do just say forget it? i know you would not do that?
    I know Sheila very well and her mum very clever girl. i dont really know the hales only that katie Hale is the better player.Peter does not play junoior chess to weak!I know george peter beat him a while ago at an adult chess event!
    Why are you so in love with LEA? what is it that you hope to get out of it work?
    you also not answered about the HCC not trusting parents like you dont?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "There have been no clear offers of help,very little attempt to correct errors and a presumption that the LEA,which failed Peter and other home educated children in the first place,is the be jugde and jury ,threating to treat Peter as if he were a truant"
    Dr Tony ludlow wrote that and he is some one who supports state schools and his LEA he was very unhappy when he see how peter was treated by HCC!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Admiring the persistence you put into your site and in depth information you present.
    It's good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same old rehashed information.

    Great read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
    My website ... rapid weightloss

    ReplyDelete