Friday, 26 March 2010

Blood on my hands!

I posted a few days ago about the way that those in favour of new legislation for home education were being accused of having blood on their hands. I now find that I too am in this category. On a blog called Dare to Know, some fool has put the following;

"Wednesday, March 17, 2010
To all supporters of Schedule 1
...of
the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands"

It is not, as readers of this blog will be aware, my habit to be insulting about others, but I cannot help saying that this ill-informed idiot should be set in the pillory and pelted with offal. I have never read such rubbish in my life. Let's examine her claims.

Firstly she says, 'without any chance to offer a defence in court'. This is sheer nonsense. The mechanism for compelling a child to attend school will remain precisely the same as it is now; the issuing of a School Attendance Order. If this is ignored, then the local authority will have to bring a prosecution to enforce it. This is as a result of the case of Bevan V Shears in 1911, a key case of binding precedent which should be familiar to all home educators. Lord Alverstone, in delivering his judgement said,

"In the absence of anything in the bye-laws providing that a child of a
given age shall receive instruction in given subjects, in my view it cannot be said that there is a standard of education by which the child must be taught. The court has to decide whether in their opinion the child is being taught efficiently so far as that particular child is concerned."


It is as a result of Lord Alverstone's judgement that schools and local authorities cannot just force a child to go to school. they must go through the courts. This will not change. Indeed, under the new law another layer of protection is added to the parent who does not wish her child to attend school. They will initially, before a School Attendance Order is even issued, be able to appeal against the refusal or revocation of registration as home educators. See,

" 19 G
Appeal against authority’s decision
(1)
Regulations made under this section shall—
(a)
confer a right of appeal on a parent to whom a local authority
in England have given notice under section 19B(5)(b) or (c) or
19F(3)"



This is from Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009.

As far as the suicide rate among young people aged between eleven and seventeen is concerned, the suggestion is made that this might rise as a result of the passage of this bill. I suppose that this is possible, although it would be very hard to make a direct causal link between the passing of an Act of Parliament and the subsequent suicide of a disturbed adolescent. According to the Office of National Statistics eleven young people a year kill themselves in this country. I suppose that another one or two might commit suicide if they were forced to go to school, but this would probably be countered by saving the lives of children who might kill themselves as a result of abuse suffered at the hands of their parents while being kept away from school. In other words, increasing regulation of home education would probably not increase the overall death rate among young people; simply alter the categories in which the deaths occurred. Actually, the numbers are so tiny that it is unlikely that any noticeable difference would be made. One can never reduce rates of suicide, homicide or abuse to zero.

The fact is that whatever we do or don't do, a certain number of children and young people will be murdered and abused. A small number will also commit suicide. If we tightened the regulations of home education or relaxed them, the overall death rate would be unlikely to change. (There is a booby prize waiting for the first person to either use the expression "Bullycide" or cite the figure of sixteen suicides a year caused by bullying).

48 comments:

  1. "I suppose that another one or two might commit suicide if they were forced to go to school, but this would probably be countered by saving the lives of children who might kill themselves as a result of abuse suffered at the hands of their parents while being kept away from school."

    Does the Office of National Statistics have figures for the number of children in the latter category?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No motives for suicide are recorded. this is because such deaths are usually due to a constellation of causes. This has not stopped the author of the blog Dare to Know from citing cases of suicide and near suicide and attributing them to schooling. I suppose that this is as likely as a child committing or attempting suicide due to home education. One of Eunice Spry's foster children falls into this latter catiegory.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simon says-They will initially, before a School Attendance Order is even issued, be able to appeal against the refusal or revocation of registration as home educators

    We all know that an appeals system will be a waste of time.The staff doing the appeals will be supporters of children should be in school ex LA staff? teachers? or civil servants who in the main tend to agree with government and do not want to rock the boat! i can see a lot of people earning money out of this appeal system maybe your get to go on it Simon 200 pound a day do you?

    I would advise people not to appeal as it would be a complete waste of time!

    it looks now like the bill will fail and with the dee pcuts in public spending that are coming home education will drop down the list to forgoten for a long time!

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's not true at all, Anonymous. The appeals will almost certainly be held by the same panels who currently hear appeals against schools admissions. These are completely independent and have a high success rate. Of course these panels do not consist of local authority staff, teachers and civil servants! Where on earth do people get these silly ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Simon says the appeals will almost certainly be held by the same panels who currently hear appeals against schools admissions. These are completely independent and have a high success rate. Of course these panels do not consist of local authority staff, teachers and civil servants! Where on earth do people get these silly ideas?

    I dont belive it will be independent look at welfare appeals panels they for default always find against and wait for you to appeal again!
    I think it will just be a rubber stamp job agreeing with LA and how do we know it wont be staffed with people who think state schools are where children should be? because according to you most people in England think this to.
    DCSF work like this they always agree in most cases with the Local authorthy i have emails/letters that say we have to agree with LA cos LA said this!
    your be one in front of this panel like a naughty school child with 3 people looking down on you LA will send EWS/lawyer who knows how it works your not stand a chance!

    Peopel have been so let down that there have no faith in these people my advice if the bill becomes law is do not appeal do not take part in the final act!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It is as a result of Lord Alverstone's judgement that schools and local authorities cannot just force a child to go to school."

    But this is because statue provides that providing a suitable education is a defence against a SAO. The new law states that the suitability of the education is not to be considered when issuing a school attendance order and, as statute takes precedence over case law, magistrates will also have to ignore the education provided when they decide if the issue of the SAO is lawful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no idea about the interpretation of the laws if they happen, but I do know that in my experience of schools appeal panels (for a foster child) they seemed very fair - in fact possibly biased aginst the school - who they made looked rather stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I too have noticed this Julie. I have helped prepare and present cases to take to appeal and am sometimes amazed at how inept the local authority can appear. Those on the panel often seem to bend over backwards to be fair to parents. If and it is a big if, these will deal with appeals against refusal or revocation of registration for home educators, I think it would certainly add another layer of protection before any children were forced back to school.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is not, as readers of this blog will be aware, my habit to be insulting about others,"

    Can we safely assume this is an ironic comment and not one you believe?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your point about Bevan V Shears is debatable, Anonymous, but even so any new legislation will not remove the necessity for local authorities to go to court in order to force a child to attend school. This was the practical result of the judgement and the DCSF have indicated that they will be retaining the School Attendance Order as the method to achieve this. This will inevitably mean a hearing in court. The author of the Dare to Know blog said, "without any chance to offer a defence in court," and I was pointing ot that this is not correct. I have a terrible problem when thinking of the Dare to Know blog, because it is written by a woman called Carlotta. This name always brings to mind Carlotta the circus girl from the St. Clare's school stories by Enid Blyton. I have a vision of her walking on her hands or turning somersaults or something. Anybody else here ever read those books?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You must, I think, use your own judgement Anonymous, when deciding upon my use of irony!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The other possible cause of 'blood on their hands' is the drawing away of funding from where it is really needed and also increasing numbers of false positive referrals to social services making it more difficult for them to spot genuine problems.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1082/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Simon wrote,
    "The author of the Dare to Know blog said, "without any chance to offer a defence in court," and I was pointing ot that this is not correct."

    Yes, I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that you will not be able to use the provision of a suitable education as a defence in court if the new law comes into effect. This effectively means our only defence would be a technical problem with the issue of a SAO. For instance, if a child is registered as EHE in another authority and the LA has missed this and issued a SAO in error or they didn't use the correct wording in the order. This is very different to the situation today and a significant reduction in our rights in court which was the main thrust of the point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You must, I think, use your own judgement Anonymous, when deciding upon my use of irony!"

    I'll take the kinder route and assume irony rather than psychosis then.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous, you say,

    "The other possible cause of 'blood on their hands' is the drawing away of funding from where it is really needed and also increasing numbers of false positive referrals to social services making it more difficult for them to spot genuine problems."

    That is a perfectly reasonable point. What carlotta is suggesting though is that a friend of hers was made sterile due to anorexia caused by school. She also mentions suicides and attempted suicides. The idea that my supporting the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 will somehow make me responsible for the sterility of an anorectic teenager is a little much to swallow. Nor can I be readily persuaded that I should share in responsibility for the suicides of children who dislike school.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous, when deciding upon my use of irony, you really must be careful to distinguish between psychosis and psychopathy!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The idea that my supporting the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 will somehow make me responsible for the sterility of an anorectic teenager is a little much to swallow. Nor can I be readily persuaded that I should share in responsibility for the suicides of children who dislike school."

    So whilst you believe that the CSF Bill is likely to draw funding away from the front line and increase the number of false positive referrals to social services, these problems will not result in harm to children as a result of them remaining in dangerous situations for longer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Anonymous, when deciding upon my use of irony, you really must be careful to distinguish between psychosis and psychopathy!"

    I suppose the comment could demonstrate an abnormal lack of empathy with strongly amoral conduct but that seems a little strong. Loss of contact with reality seems more likely. Diagnosis from a single comment is obviously impossible but if you really believed that it is not your habit to insult others on your blog it would obviously indicate some kind of dislocation from reality. But as I've decided that you meant it ironically the point is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. testing, testing, posted at 12.41pm - posts are either delayed or not appearing - test only, please ignore this message.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is the point you are trying to make this.....

    Using examples of a few children who will suffer as the result of legislation is the same as using the argument that there are a few children who will suffer if there is no legislation?

    ReplyDelete
  21. julie i have found out how many meeting Kirk has had with home educated children as i thought it was only with your group!

    You requested:
    How many meetings has County Councillor David Kirk had with home educated children from 2009 to 2010(to date)

    From Cllr Kirk’s diary it can be seen that he has had one formal meeting with a group of home educating parents and children since the start of 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It wasn't my group at all ( in fact I thnk there was only three members from my group there in all) - it was from all of Hampshire - most people were from N Hants I think! ( I didn't know them all)

    ReplyDelete
  23. You apprehend my meaning perfectly, Tania. It is possible that increased regulation might result in the odd case of suicide or sterility. It is equally possible that leaving the situation as it is might result in the odd death like Scarlett Keeling or Khyra Ishaq. In both cases, the numbers are likely to be tiny. I do not think that you have Scarlett Keeling's blood on your hands, any more than I am likely to have anybody's on mine were the Children, Schools and Families Bill to pass into law.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Julie- We put in a complaint about that Jan Lewis to.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous, you said,

    "So whilst you believe that the CSF Bill is likely to draw funding away from the front line and increase the number of false positive referrals to social services,"

    I don't believe anything of the sort, nor did I say so! When you raised the subject I responded by saying,

    "That is a perfectly reasonable point"

    This does not mean at all that I agree with you, only that your point is reasonable in comparison with Carlotta's, which is raving mad. People often make reasonable points in debates; this does not mean that one agrees with them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "In both cases, the numbers are likely to be tiny. I do not think that you have Scarlett Keeling's blood on your hands, any more than I am likely to have anybody's on mine were the Children, Schools and Families Bill to pass into law."

    The difference is that it is very unlikely that the proposed laws would have helped Khyra or Scarlett, but they are very likely to lead to harm to additional children.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not sure what you are basing that on, Anonymous. Only eleven children a year kill themselves; far more are murdered by their parents. How are you calculating the relative risks here?

    ReplyDelete
  28. It is known (through research) that false positives are harmful to children and families and increase stress. We know that harm to children increases with stress either within the family (abuse) or for a child (suicide risk). We know that reduced privacy causes stress and this bill reduces privacy. We have no evidence that any of the measures in the Bill will reduce harm or risk.

    ReplyDelete
  29. While it is true that the powers that already existed were not used to help and almost all serious case reviews end up criticising 'implementation and follow up 'rather than a lack of powers, there are far more cases of abuse and neglect that are picked up in the general population than there are screw ups and indeed those dreadful false positives.

    Lets say I can suspend some of my own 'stuff' and look at this from a different angle.....
    Simon , do you not think it would have been a dreadful waste of precious resources to have someone visit you and your daughter 4 times a year when someone like Khyra Ishaq was left floundering because there were not enough resources to get the 'act together' ?

    Do you not think that visiting the Webb household that often would also be diverting resources from the minority of families who do need some input on the education side?

    'Some' families could do with plenty visits (Obviously I absolutely disagree with the numbers touted by the government) Some LAs could do with plenty training too- but what is not in dispute is that any reasonable person could tell in the vast majority of cases that they were wasting resources visiting the Webb household or cafe of choice four times every year ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry tania, I'm a bit puzzled. Who is suggesting four visits a year? Secondly, I agree with you to a certain extent. I thought that once the truancy patrol had alerted Essex County Council to the existence of a child who was not attending school, it was very right and proper they came to visit and just check us out. I didn't really see much harm in seeing the LA annually after that, although it could probably have been every two years rather than annually. Also, however wonderful we might have looked when first we made contact, when my daughter was eight, it is quite possible that our education was not up to scratch when she was thirteen or fourteen. So I think thaey were jsutified in wanting to make occasional checks. Where does you idea that these might have been every three months come from?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous, it is also known that for children, their parents are by far the most likely people to abuse, rape or murder them. There must be an increased hazard of this happening, the greater the number of children spending all day and night with their families. The problem is that we are obsessed with "Stranger danger" The real threat to children is their mothers; it would make more sense to mount a campaign called "Mummy Danger"!

    Secondly of course, proportionally more accidents happen to children in the home compared with school. The more time that a child spends at home, the greater the chance of injury through accidental means. This is a statistical thing, nothing to do with careless parents. At school, all activities are risk assessed, how different from the average home!

    You say that reduced privacy causes stress, but homes can be among the least private places on earth! In our house when the kids were little, I couldn't even have a shit in peace. Some children are actually more stressed by the lack of privacy at home, especially when they share a bedroom, than by being at school.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "proportionally more accidents happen to children in the home compared with school. The more time that a child spends at home, the greater the chance of injury through accidental means. This is a statistical thing, nothing to do with careless parents. At school, all activities are risk assessed, how different from the average home!"

    This has been covered here before. Hour for hour, more accidents and injuries happen at school despite risk assessments that should make school safer.

    "You say that reduced privacy causes stress, but homes can be among the least private places on earth! In our house when the kids were little, I couldn't even have a shit in peace. Some children are actually more stressed by the lack of privacy at home, especially when they share a bedroom, than by being at school."

    When talking about privacy in this context people usually mean privacy from officials of the state and others who they cannot just ask to leave whenever they want to.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Anonymous, it is also known that for children, their parents are by far the most likely people to abuse, rape or murder them."

    This would only be relevant if anything in the Bill would prevent these harms; it wouldn't but it would divert resources from where they are desperately needed as demonstrated time and time again in serious care reviews. In all of the examples they have produced in support of the Bill so far the child could helped adequately using existing legislation. The deaths are a direct result of underinvestment in front line social services staff and this Bill can only exacerbate this problem. It will do more harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Julie complant sent to HCC about Jan Lewis!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simon- It was Baroness Deech who mentioned the quarterly visits at the Lords APPG. Maybe she was joking just to see the reaction?

    However the annual visit in the CSF bill equates to 30,000 plus visits each and every year? Seems a bit silly really. BTW the 30,000 figure is probably the minimum everyone can agree on even if 5000 decide to ignore the law.

    I am just trying to get your bottom line on this...
    I know you think compulsory registration and a monitoring system ought to be brought in but
    you do not think a one off initial visit would suffice as it is possible that your provision was 'not up to scratch at a later date' - Can you agree that if they see an active and involved parent then there ought not to be a concern that this parent would stop being active and involved. Seeing as there is no 'scratch' to 'come up to' i.e. no National Curriculum standard and a firm ruling that gives parents the right to decide what their educational goals are for their children , would it not be enough to know that it does indeed appear that this parent is providing a suitable education and there was no reason after that to suspect that this would change and to go on spending money on this visit which could be invested in families who maybe do need or even want visits (as is current practice in good practice LAs)?

    Seeing as it is probable that this Bill will fall by the wayside but that any new government will be addressing Home Education again at some point.....

    Why don't you blog as though you are the incoming Minister for Education so you can lay out your own vision as to what would be the best outcome for the future of Home Education in the UK. Start from scratch as though this review had not taken place.....leave as many or as few years as you think beneficial for the dust to settle and other measures to be put in place as you see fit-but keep in mind what happened with Maggie and Poll Tax where only 1% of the uk population took to the streets in protest-how do you get a big enough percentage of Home Educators on board with your vision? Or at least how do you get small enough percentage which can be 'ignored' when they protest or end up costing your local governments an awful lot in extra paperwork and officialdom and court cases?

    oh this should be fun........

    ReplyDelete
  36. "However the annual visit in the CSF bill equates to 30,000 plus visits each and every year? Seems a bit silly really. BTW the 30,000 figure is probably the minimum everyone can agree on even if 5000 decide to ignore the law."

    I think the plan is for two visits in the first year, annual visits after that plus extra visits if provision isn't up to scratch - they estimated that around 50% will need an extra visit each year in the impact assessment. Research has found quite a high turnover of home educators with many returning to the school system after a year or less so this, combined with the extra visits because provision isn't up to scratch, suggests a likely average of two visits a year for per EHE child. A fair minimum estimate of HE children would be 40,000 making 80,000 visits per year at £200 per visit (though this figure was calculated by LA staff a few years ago so it's probably higher with inflation). £16,000,000 that could be spent employing and training more social workers so that stupid mistakes that lead to deaths like Peter and Khyra will be significantly reduced.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Anonymous, it is also known that for children, their parents are by far the most likely people to abuse, rape or murder them. There must be an increased hazard of this happening, the greater the number of children spending all day and night with their families. The problem is that we are obsessed with "Stranger danger" The real threat to children is their mothers; it would make more sense to mount a campaign called "Mummy Danger"!"

    Children are most at risk from the people who look after them - as you say this is more likely simply because the children spend more time with these people; they are not always parents. A significant threat from those in the parental role is from step-parents. In the UK currently this tends to be step-fathers, because mothers tend to get custody of their children. Traditionally it has been step-mothers because so many women died in childbirth and fathers re-married.

    What is important, in any individual case, is not what relationship the adult has with the child, but why and how they put the child at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Simon wrote,
    "Secondly of course, proportionally more accidents happen to children in the home compared with school. The more time that a child spends at home, the greater the chance of injury through accidental means. This is a statistical thing, nothing to do with careless parents. At school, all activities are risk assessed, how different from the average home!"

    I'd be interested in seeing the figures that support this claim. If you look at the RoSPA database here, http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/MainSelector.aspx?Reset=T, you can search by place of accident and age range for the years 2000-2002. Using the age range 5-14 (15 and 16 year olds are in the 15-64 age group), adding the figures for the locations 'school, sports' and 'school, ex-sports', and comparing this to 'home, indoors' and 'home, outdoors' the total number of accidents over the 3 years was 1,113,222 at school compared to 1,252,123 at home.

    If you add in the number of hours at school in a year (1260) and the potential maximum waking hours at home (4035 after allowing an hour a day for travel) the hourly accident rates are 884 at school and 310 at home. But of course, children don't just spend time at home and school. If we assume they are only at home for an average of 8 waking hours a day, calculated by subtracting 9 hours sleep (the average according to Lougborough University sleep research centre) and 7 hours per day for activities away from home and school, the home accident rate per hour is still less than school at 846 per hour. This despite spending much of their time whilst at school sitting at a desk studying under the direct supervision of a teacher along with all their risk assessments and health and safety checks of the premises!

    ReplyDelete
  39. The flaw in your reasoning is pretty obvious. Accidents at home are only measured when meddical help is sought at a hospital and so on. In most homes, a child has to have a limb practically severed before parents go to all the bother of trekking to a hospital and spending hours hanging roun A & E. In school, every minor incident, even if it did not result ina hosptial visit is recorded in a special book. So is a child falls over, grazes his knee and has a plaster applied; it is recorded as an accidental injury. This would not make it into the statistics for a home. The great majority of school related injuries are in this category.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Simon wrote,
    "In school, every minor incident, even if it did not result ina hosptial visit is recorded in a special book. So is a child falls over, grazes his knee and has a plaster applied; it is recorded as an accidental injury."

    If you had bothered to follow the link and attempted to understand the statistics you would know that the data came from accident and emergency departments so will not include children with a grazed knee at school. I hope your research for your book was more thorough! You appear to have attended the same research course as Badman.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm suspecting here that you have not worked in a school, Anonymous. The thresholds for taking a child to A & E are very much lower for teachers with children than they are for parents. I did follow the link and nothing there changes this view. If a child twists an ankle at home, then the usual course is to wait and see how it is in the morning. If you are looking after a child at school, you really don't want to take a chance on sending the kid home with a broken ankle. To be on the safe side, take him to hospital. The figures for schools are, as I said greatly inflated.

    ReplyDelete
  42. We obviously move in different circles. I've know several children that probably should have been take to hospital whilst at school, including one with symptoms of concussion and one nearly passing out with hypoglycaemia, but were not taken - they were told to sit in the office and wait for their mum to collect them. I also know several parents who have taken children to hospital and more or less told not to fuss. Can you provide statistics to support your claim or is this just your best guess?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mind you, why are we arguing about accidents? They're hardly a good reason for schools are they? I mean, why not just wrap them in cotton wool and not let them leave bed if accidents are a major concern?

    ReplyDelete
  44. You mean statistics for children not taken to hospital? Collecting such data really would be a curious task! I have quite a colllection of data here which I shall have to sort through. These do support my contentions, but you will have to exercise a little patience.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, I mean why do accident statistics even matter? Unless part of the reason for school is to reduce accidents to children does it really matter if more happen outside schools? But however ever the statistics pan out there do seem to be an extraordinary number of accidents requiring hospital attention at school when you consider that the bulk of time should be spent sitting in a chair directly supervised by a teacher in a risk assessed, health and safety checked environment.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "You mean statistics for children not taken to hospital? Collecting such data really would be a curious task!"

    Sorry, misunderstood this comment earlier, but no. I mean evidence to support your claim that children taken to hospital from school have more trivial injuries than children taken to hospital from home. This should be possible is types and degree of injuries are recorded alongside place of accident.

    In possible support of your view, it's probably more likely that a parent would take a child with a minor injury to their GP compared to the school so more school injuries might be recorded at hospitals than home. Though when a child is taken to their GP by their parent the injury could have happened at either school or home so I'm not sure if it would support your view or not. Again, more data is needed.

    Still, I was surprise by the large number of accidents that happen at school compared to home (even if the school figures suffer a little from over inflation). I would have expected a much higher proportion at home because of differences in supervision, types of activities, risk assessments and health and safety checked school premises, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Simon,

    Go easy on the ad hominems, be a good fellow!

    I think you have made a number of erroneous assumptions in your post which may well have come about as a result of genuine misunderstanding on your part.

    The thing is, if the CSF were passed, the law with regard to SAOs would be re-written, so as I understand it, legal precedent with regard to SAOs would be irrelevant.

    I think others have commented to this effect though am sorry, I don't have time to check just now. I have also tried to explain my reasoning here.

    http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/will-csf-bill-kill-children.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Carlotta, when you accuse somebody by name of having blood on his hands, it ill becomes you then to start reproaching that same person for an ad hominem attack.

    ReplyDelete