Saturday 20 November 2010

Targeting local authority resources more effectively with regard to elective home education

A couple of people commenting here yesterday made the very sensible suggestion that the way that monitoring of home education in this country is currently carried out is wasteful and inefficient. They asked why visits and so on cannot be more precisely targeted at those who need or would benefit from them, instead of the present scattergun approach, which apart from everything else, risks generating false positives. It is perfectly true that as things stand, over 90% of home visits are a complete waste of everybody's time. Those who deliver a suitable and efficient education often receive just as many visits as those whose children are not receiving any sort of education at all. How can we tackle this problem?

I am assuming that those who commented were not advocating a 'Bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted' kind of system. In other words, I am guessing that they are not saying that visits should only take place once a child has been abused or his education neglected. I imagine that they are really suggesting that local authority resources are directed more effectively so that children can be caught before abuse or educational neglect occurs. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Every year when Essex County Council came to monitor the education which my daughter was receiving, all of us knew that it was a farce and waste of everybody's time. I knew that the education was suitable and that my daughter was safe and well, the local authority officer, who had to make a round trip of sixty miles to come here, knew it, even my daughter knew it. My daughter enjoyed it because it meant that instead of an hour studying mathematics or physics, she had an hour of showing off outrageously to a stranger.

There would be no difficulty about focusing upon those families more likely to be in need of support; I could draw up a list of the 10 or 20 per cent of parents easily enough. I would need to see the children's school records, reasons that they were de-registered, ACORN postcode analysis, anything from social services, Health Visitors records when the kids were small; stuff like that. Sure, I would miss a few cases where there were problems, but I could certainly improve on the way it is currently being done. So why don't local authorities do this? Why do they religiously visit families where they know full well that there are no problems as often as those where they have good reason to suppose that problems do exist?

The system which I outline above is known as profiling and it has a very bad name. Let me give an anecdote from the past. Not long after the 7/7 suicide bombings on the underground, I was stopped by the police as I entered Mile End tube station. I carry a backpack, which by the by is a bit sad for a man of my age; makes me look as though I am trying to be young and with it! The police wanted to search me under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in case I was a suicide bomber planning to blow myself up on a tube train. Just as with the monitoring visits from Essex County Council, everybody involved knew that this was a nonsense. The police knew that they were wasting their time and that I was not a terrorist and so did I. Nevertheless, we wasted twenty minutes or so, time which the police could have spent trying to catch a real terrorist. Why did they do this? The answer is simple. They knew, as did I, that suicide bombers are young men of black, Asian or Arab appearance. However, in order not to appear prejudiced, they were also stopping and searching an equal number of men and women, black and white, young and old. During the same operation, they stopped an old white woman with her shopping trolley!

Obviously, in a case like the above, the logical thing to do is focus the limited resources of the police upon those most likely to be planning to blow up a train. This would be young black and Asian men with backpacks. Rather than cause upset, the police decided to waste their time. this is the same reason that local authorities do not use profiling to aim their limited resources at the families who are more likely to have difficulties with home education. In Essex, for instance, those with difficulties are likely to be living in places like Basildon. There will be more boys than girls and those particularly at risk of receiving an unsuitable education will have been withdrawn from secondary school and probably living in social housing. Many of them will live only with their mothers A family living in a detached house on the outskirts of Chelmsford in a family with two parents, only one of whom works and where the decision to home educate was taken for ideological reasons rather than in response to trouble at school, is less likely to need help and support.

How long would it take for the howls of protest to start if it were discovered that Essex were monitoring more closely the 'at risk' groups? In other words if they were paying more attention to the single parent families in a Basildon tower block than to the nuclear family in the leafy suburb? I can just imagine what would be said on the HE-UK and EO lists. How dare they stigmatise single parents? Why should working class families be penalised? The result is that just as the police do when hunting terrorists, the local authorities play safe and treat everybody equally. They do this although they know that it means wasting a lot of their time. The reasons are political rather than pragmatic.

21 comments:

  1. Simon says: "Why do they religiously visit families where they know full well that there are no problems as often as those where they have good reason to suppose that problems do exist?"

    That is an easy one. It is easier and more pleasant to visit a nice middle-class family for a cup of tea and a bit of a chat then to brave a sink estate. It is a well known phenomena with social services and you only have to look at some of the reports to see that some SWs choose not to visit a family because they 'don't want to catch scabies".

    I would support targeted visits as you describe. And before someone says that I am a nice middle-class family, I actually tick several boxes including disabled and single parent, so I would be part of the targetted group. But if a visit to me could eliminate me from the group allowing them to spend more time with others who need that support, then I am all for it.

    When you make a haystack smaller it is easier to find the needle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Long, long ago, when the NHS was still new, and there was no data protection act, midwives and HVs and district nurses used to trundle round on their bicycles to see new mums, the aged and infirm. They would bump into the postman and stop and have a chat. Mrs A at Lilac Cottage, leaning on her gate, would have a comment to make about Mrs B at Honeysuckle House. Mrs B would be worried about the baby's cough at No.3 - would the nurse mind popping in?

    It wasn't all like something out of Enid Blyton, because people did often see HVs as bossy nosey parkers, but public sector community employees had much more of a tendency to be working in the community, to be offering a service, rather than a policing role, and to have access to a vast informal database of word-of-mouth information. Often more reliable than one would expect. And often much more reliable than what gets entered into computer systems.

    Public services are supposed to provide services, not prevent bad behaviour. If they spent their resources on support, rather than policing, they would find, I suspect, an increase in co-operation and would pick up informal information that could identify children who really needed help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Suzyg said "If they spent their resources on support, rather than policing, they would find, I suspect, an increase in co-operation and would pick up informal information that could identify children who really needed help."

    Yes, I still feel that this is the only way that things can ever work with home educators; as everyone agrees that it is too easy for LAs to waste everyones time harrassing the wrong people. Providing a real service(with benefits to those who participate) may not engage with the highly libertarian "no need for the state" folk much, but would attract those who remove their children from school in a crisis, who struggle to HE and who would engage for real options for their child.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Profiling is exactly what happens already though.

    Family A. Mum is an ex-teacher, Dad some sort of professional, nice, tidy house, 2 healthy kids, family with plenty of money and able to afford lots of 'kit', plenty of trips to educational places, loads of books etc.

    Family B. Single mum, house a mess, 6 children, one with special needs, 3 dogs, no money for books and trips.

    Now, tell me, Simon, which family would (under the present system) excite the most interest in the LA visitor, and perhaps be selected for 'targetted support'.

    It already happens. EVEN WHEN Family B is doing a better job of HE'ing.

    And Lord help you if you're using a Christian curriculum or you are Muslim. Because then, there MUST be abuse going on in your family.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  5. We've had exactly this experience Mrs Anon. LA officer on phone officious, bossy, failing to provide info on policy etc. Comes to visit home as in profile A above - completely changes tune - even though nothing relating to children had changed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The system which I outline above is known as profiling and it has a very bad name."

    But research shows that this is the only safe way to approach the issue (check yesterdays links). Even in a high risk group in which 20% of the population are at fault an exceptionally efficient screening instrument results in a 33% rate of false-positives. A third of those accused of abuse were found to be innocent according this research. With lower prevalence rates, the proportion of false-positives rises, eventually resulting in more false-positives than true-positives. That's why various health authorities have decided against routine monitoring of the whole population. If medical professional have decided that they cause more harm than good, why do you think less trained LA officials will do better?

    I'll repeat again the section about the harms caused by screening and interventions:

    False-negative tests may hinder identification of those who are truly at risk. False-positive tests could lead to 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What happened to you on the tube, Simon was a spot check. Maybe you were the token 'whitey with a backpack' for the day.
    This is not how some local authorities conduct their enquiries of home educators.
    I am fairly sure though that should the police stop and search you annually even your usual accomodating ways may change! I could probably hear your howls of protest from 275 miles away.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon wrote,
    "The result is that just as the police do when hunting terrorists, the local authorities play safe and treat everybody equally. They do this although they know that it means wasting a lot of their time. The reasons are political rather than pragmatic."

    Yet many initiatives at least begin by targeting those in most need. Take Sure Start, for instance. It began life in disadvantaged areas but has since been wasted on those who can afford to pay for their own provision. Things may be changing in future though.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/cuts-could-mean-sure-start-will-soon-target-only-the-poorest-families-2093404.html

    Cuts could mean Sure Start will soon target only the poorest families

    "But these children may no longer get the chance to play together if David Cameron has his way. Challenged over the future of Sure Start, which started life as a scheme offering support and childcare to parents in the most disadvantaged areas, Mr Cameron suggested last month that the initiative should return to its original focus on the poorest, and that middle-class parents ought not to be taking up its services. He said: "There is a criticism sometimes of Sure Start that a great new centre is established and the sharp-elbowed middle classes – like my wife and me – get in there and get all the services.""

    ReplyDelete
  9. An Afghan friend of mine travelling to Pakistan was given a thorough search at an airport, he complained that it was unfair.
    However I pointed out to him that Afghans and Pakistan were high on the list for the profile for terrorists, so was it all that unfair?
    I am a white man and I can imagine that if a group of terrorists in Kenya had killed a lot of people and they were all white men, then on travelling to Kenya I wouldnt have a problem being targetted for search ahead of a black woman. It just makes sense doesnt it?
    The problem is when this sort of profiling is abused by those in power.
    As for postcode, I used to live in a Sure Start area, we were husband, wife 4 children, I was working, 4 bedroom house, we had no probems bringing up our family.
    Across the street was a young single mother with three children living in a small flat, she had learning difficulties and was struggling. However she had a different postcode and was not eligible for Sure Starts services.
    Just goes to show you cant always get it right.


    Darren

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Family A. Mum is an ex-teacher, Dad some sort of professional, nice, tidy house, 2 healthy kids, family with plenty of money and able to afford lots of 'kit', plenty of trips to educational places, loads of books etc.

    Family B. Single mum, house a mess, 6 children, one with special needs, 3 dogs, no money for books and trips.

    Now, tell me, Simon, which family would (under the present system) excite the most interest in the LA visitor, and perhaps be selected for 'targetted support'.'

    In many areas, both would receive precisely the same attention; that is to say an annual visit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Obviously, any profiling of home educating parents will not catch all those who are likely to be failing to provide their kids with an education. However, the worst case scenario is that some who are managing OK might get the odd extra visit. This is hardly a disaster. No human system is perfect, but that does not seem to me to be a good argument for not improving the present arrangements.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'And Lord help you if you're using a Christian curriculum or you are Muslim. Because then, there MUST be abuse going on in your family.'

    A little more information needed about this claim. Things like ACE are not as good as GCSEs or A levels, but I have never heard that the use of this curriculum is linked to increased risk of abuse. Which local authority adopts this approach? Similarly, I have not heard that Muslim home educators are regarded anywhere with extra caution. Again, we need to know more about this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I am guessing that they are not saying that visits should only take place once a child has been abused or his education neglected. "

    Well this is just bonkers...

    Lets visit all families just in case a family member might be abusing them.

    Most people have families anyway, so presumably these people visiting to check no-one is being abused will need to be visited themselves.

    Bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, certainly a Muslim HE family in our group had all sorts of hassle when they withdrew their girls from school (accused of planning to send them abroad for forced marriage etc) Police involvement too and they have to do a lot more (paid tutors etc) to allay the LA fears than would a white UK family.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'A little more information needed about this claim. Things like ACE are not as good as GCSEs or A levels, but I have never heard that the use of this curriculum is linked to increased risk of abuse. Which local authority adopts this approach? Similarly, I have not heard that Muslim home educators are regarded anywhere with extra caution. Again, we need to know more about this. '

    Yes, I'd like more information too.

    All I'm doing is referring to the experiences of friends over the years. I don't think there's ever been any research on it. It's an opinion I've come to hold. I can but offer it as such.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'In many areas, both would receive precisely the same attention; that is to say an annual visit.'

    Ah, I didn't explain myself carefully enough. It's what happens during and after the annual visit which would be different.

    Many people like Family A get a glowing report and no more attention for the next year. Many people like Family B get 'advice' to give up HE'ing, get told that 'parents can't teach to exam level', that 'school is much better for children with Special needs' even when said needs weren't being met at school, etc etc etc

    Families like this, even when they are doing a fab job of HE'ing, quite often get so much interference and pressure that they end up having to enlist the support of their local group or EO rep to come to the next meeting with them. It's truly shocking how this sort of profiling works. Prejudice really.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Many people like Family A get a glowing report and no more attention for the next year. Many people like Family B get 'advice' to give up HE'ing, get told that 'parents can't teach to exam level', that 'school is much better for children with Special needs' even when said needs weren't being met at school, etc etc etc'

    I'm not sure how either a 'glowing report' or 'advice' to give up HEing is going to have a good or bad effect upon a family who are home educating. Obviously, many people disapprove of home education and will be negative about it. I have a fund of anecdotes myself of discouraging remarks made by those with whom I have come into contact. If you wish to seek the approval of society, then clearly the best bet is to enroll your child at school. Those of us who choose not to do so can expect negative attitudes.

    I have no doubt at all that some local authority officers have their own prejudices. My daughter told me once that when the subject of religion came up during a monitoring visit and I began talking of what the Bible has to say about parental duties, she noticed that the woman began glancing round nervously as though seeking an escape route should I turn violent. I am aware that not all that many people in today's world find it normal that somebody should home educate because they have found no scriptural backing for schools!

    I'm afraid that home educating parents just have to get over themselves about this. Home education is seen as a weird and rather odd choice of lifestyle and there is little that can be done about this. It is quite possible I suppose that both Christian and Muslim home educators are viewed with suspicion and this says a good deal about how society today works.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'I'm afraid that home educating parents just have to get over themselves about this. Home education is seen as a weird and rather odd choice of lifestyle and there is little that can be done about this.'

    I don't disagree with you about that.

    The problem comes when the LA representative, who comes to your house, starts putting pressure on you to stop HE'ing, phones up the school and makes an appointment for your kids to start, undermines your confidence in front of your kids and then starts harrassing you on the phone etc after you have complied with their request for a visit.

    I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't have visits if they want to. I'm saying that people who are poor, or have many children or have other profiling issues working against them (Family B) should not be treated differently by the LA than Family A. They ought to be looking at the HE and, if it's fine, they need to butt out.

    You started by saying that such profiling would not be advisable for political reasons. I am saying that it already happens. Now you seem to be saying, 'So what. Get over it!' I'm confused.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'You started by saying that such profiling would not be advisable for political reasons. I am saying that it already happens. Now you seem to be saying, 'So what. Get over it!' I'm confused.'

    No need to be confused! I am saying that generally all families get the same treatment as reagrd visits and requests for information. I also do not think that any official policy of profiling would have a chance of being accepted. At the same time, individual local authority officers probably display their own prejudices. this is unfortunate, but not greatly different from the run-of-the-mill prejudice which HEers face everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "However, the worst case scenario is that some who are managing OK might get the odd extra visit. This is hardly a disaster."

    So you are happy to completely disregard the research evidence posted about the harms false-positives can cause?

    "No human system is perfect, but that does not seem to me to be a good argument for not improving the present arrangements."

    But the posted research suggests that it would not be an improvement and would probably cause more harm than good. Why the lack of interest in research in this area when you are so determined that further research needs to be carried out into HE?

    "I'm not sure how either a 'glowing report' or 'advice' to give up HEing is going to have a good or bad effect upon a family who are home educating."

    I agree the 'glowing report' is irrelevant, but if you are a suitable education for your child but the LA disagrees you either have to change your approach and risk failing in your legal duty to provide a suitable education or you have to waste hours and hours in attempting to prove the LA wrong. How can this fail to have a bad effect upon the HE family? All I can think is that you are working on the assumption that the LA 'advice' would always improve the HE provision. Why would you assume this given your past comments about the usefulness and competency of LA staff with regards your daughter's education?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "My daughter told me once that when the subject of religion came up during a monitoring visit and I began talking of what the Bible has to say about parental duties, she noticed that the woman began glancing round nervously as though seeking an escape route should I turn violent."

    If you had been 'easy prey' there may have been consequences to this unease that you escaped. Imagine the same happening in a single parent home with multiple young children on a poor estate. Even you must see that the LA reaction is likely to be different. You must have observed that the people you help through your charity are treated differently by those in authority than you are?

    "I am saying that generally all families get the same treatment as reagrd visits and requests for information."

    You say this despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary in the comments above. Can you provide any evidence to support your view?

    "At the same time, individual local authority officers probably display their own prejudices. this is unfortunate, but not greatly different from the run-of-the-mill prejudice which HEers face everywhere."

    Who cares what other people think? They have no power over my family, unlike LA officials.

    ReplyDelete