Friday 1 July 2011

Children’s rights: Part 2

In response to the piece on children's rights which I posted the day before yesterday, somebody commented as follows:

How do you feel about the right my children have to choose what and when to learn? Do you think it should be removed?’

This is an excellent point, although not at all straightforward. My answer is that I do not believe that it should be removed, but enhanced. There are two main points to consider in responding to this. The first of these, the extent to which young children are capable of making informed decisions about the education and medical treatment which they wish to receive, I have covered many times in the past. I wish today to look instead at the question of how we are to know what home educated children are actually choosing. We know of course that in some extreme cases, home educating parents do not respect the choices that their children make. One can hardly believe that Theresa Riggi’s children would choose to be hacked to death. What though of the run-of the-mill home educating family? How may we be sure that the children in such families are choosing what happens to them? Of course, we cannot really conduct a survey and so must be restricted to speculating and examining anecdotal evidence.

When my daughter was little, many people tried to persuade her that she should go to school. For instance, her grandparents told her that it was against the law for her not to go to school, a boy at Sunday School said that she would never get a job when she grew up unless she went to school and one teenager claimed that I would be sent to prison if I did not send her to school! I was always happy for people to express such views and allowed my daughter to deal with the matter as she felt best. There were two reasons for this. First, these opinions made her think about the whole not going to school thing, which was good. Secondly, it gave her a chance to deal with ill informed individuals who were saying things which might upset her; something she is bound to encounter in later life! For the same reason, I always left her alone with the local authority officer who visited each year and I arranged for her to give her views to Graham Badman when he was investigating home education. She had far more to say to Graham Badman than I did.

So far, so good. My daughter was exposed to many people who opposed home education in principle and in most cases, I was not present. This is good. It means that from an early age she was forced to confront the choices she made and ask herself if they really were her choices. At any stage, she could have been swayed by others and have chosen to go to school. I mentioned Graham Badman above. I want to consider how some other home educating parents reacted when their children wished to give their views to him. As part of his review, Badman visited a number of groups running for home educated children. One of these was in Kent and it was connected with Ann Newstead, who at the time was a trustee of Education Otherwise and was there during the scene I describe below.

Graham Badman arrived at the group with his minder from the DfCSF and spoke to the parents, many of whom expressed strong opinions about what their children wanted. At one point, he wandered off while his sidekick was harangued by the parents. It was then noticed that he was asking the views of the children themselves. Horrors, there was no telling what the kids would say to him! In fact he was asking them about how they viewed home education. One child said that she wanted to be a vet and Badman asked whether she had any idea about what qualifications she would need to fulfil this ambition. Everything was very amicable and the children were enjoying being given the chance to express their own views. This ended as soon as some parents saw what was happening. They charged up and ’rescued’ their children. The kids were given the impression that they had narrowly escaped being grabbed by the child-catcher and the overall feeling generated was that this was some sort of stranger danger. So agitated were the parents, that a couple of the children became upset. They did not know what was happening or what they had done wrong. That was the end of Badman actually being able to listen to the views of any home educated children that day; it was made clear to him that the children’s views should be transmitted by the parents and not taken directly from the kids themselves.

This was not an isolated example and whether or not it led to the recommendation in Badman’s report that local authority officers should be allowed to speak alone to children, I don’t know. Does anybody see the nature of the problem here? The person who commented a few days ago asked whether I thought her children should be free to choose how they learn. The difficulty is that she is the one who is telling us about her children’s choices; not her children themselves. Quite a few parents are determined not to allow any local authority officer to visit their homes. Those who do seem reluctant to allow their children to speak alone to such people. I cannot for the life of me see why. I dare say that some of these EHE advisors are opposed to home education and perhaps one or two would try to argue with a child and advise them against home education. So what? Why would any parent object to that? I simply don’t get this. When my daughter told me that her grandmother, the woman in the library, person at church, boy at Woodcraft Folk and so on had criticised home education, I would ask her what she thought about their opinions. What did I know; perhaps she secretly wanted to go to school?

And so in answer to the comment with which I began this piece, I think that up to a point children should be able to choose the content and style of their education. Establishing that they, rather than their parents, have chosen this is likely to prove tricky. As long as so many home educating parents are anxious to prevent their children speaking unguardedly to others about home education, one cannot but have the sneaking suspicion that the education being provided has more to do with an adult’s ideological beliefs, rather than her child’s informed choice.

17 comments:

  1. I get what you're saying but what's always worried me about allowing people to talk to the children alone is that they may try and trick them with questions like, "What do you miss about not going to school?" As nice polite home educated children they will always try and think up an answer to that type of question. They've been asked for a specific something, they want to be polite, so they try and think of a something. It may be not having as many friends, say. Then the LEA bod or whoever it was they were speaking to will then say, see this child wants to go to school because they don't have many friends. The correct answer is to say they don't miss anything but how many of them would come up with that answer on the spot?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an interesting point. It certainly happened to my daughter a number of times. My attitude was that all adversarial questioning of this sort was good for her mentally; gymnastics for the mind. She is very agile now at detecting trick questions and spotting when somebody is trying to catch her out. I have no doubt that being cross examined about home education as a child and needing to justify her decisions was helpful for her in this way.

    I remember my daughter's grandmother telling me triumphantly that Simone had told her that she though she would enjoy school. It turned out that the conversation had actually been about one of the Enid Blyton Mallory Towers school books which my daughter was reading at the time and her grandmother had asked her whether she wouldn't have liked to go to such a school! I don't think that tricksy behaviour by adults of this kind doies children any harm. In my daughter's case, gambits like this tended to reinforce her beliefs and rebound upon the questioner. It was as scripture says; whosoever rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him!

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think my concern is similar to Anonymous above. Particularly dd's who have processing issues often struggle to immediately detect trick questions of this kind. This then leaves them to say something daft until I explain the question very explicitly to them and then they get it.
    Its great if, like my ds' and your daughter, your child is quick to spot things like this, but otherwise it can be inviting trouble.
    That said, were we inspected I am not against my kids talking to LAs and wouldnt interrupt unless it was clear they had misunderstood. At that point I would explain the queston and still let them answer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simon wrote,
    "I think that up to a point children should be able to choose the content and style of their education. Establishing that they, rather than their parents, have chosen this is likely to prove tricky."

    Why should anyone outside the family try to establish this? This is a family decision. They don't ask school children if they are happy being educated at school, so why should they do this for home educated children? Our children did have a free choice and a couple tried school briefly but I don't think that this means that all parents should also give their child a free choice. All families are different and not all choices are possible.

    You were not at the meeting you describe above and your description bears no relation to the description I've heard from people that were there. For instance, a child became upset before parents became involved in the description I heard. Now of course, for all either of us know, your description may be closer to the truth than mine. But why should it matter? When do you think choices should be made within the family and when should someone from outside the family be able to make decisions instead of the parents? Shouldn't this remain within the family unless there is evidence of failure to provide a suitable education, or should other people be able to interfere just because the child wants to go to school? BTW, I'm the person who you quote above so obviously I feel children should have more control than they usually do. However, who do you think should decide how much choice they have, the parents or the state? It sounds as though you think the state should have a say even if a suitable education is being provided.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ' but otherwise it can be inviting trouble.'

    What sort of trouble are we talking of here? As far as I can see, the worst case scenario is the some local government apparatchik will go off with the idea that your child would sooner be in school than be educated at home. This might be irritating, but it is not 'trouble'. No local authority is going to issue a School Attendance Order on the grounds that a child says she would prefer to be in school, rather than learning at home! It seems to me that what parents are really worried about here is the social embarrassment of another adult suspecting a child's views do not coincide exactly with her those of her parents.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'This is a family decision.'

    Neat shift from 'children's rights' to 'family rights'. You have touched here upon the crux of the matter. Children's views do not in most families carry equal weight with those of their parents. Few adults consult children about what sort of mortgage to obtain or which type of car will be bought. Most parents limit their children's choices to trivial questions such as 'Would you like toast or cereal for breakfast?'

    To suggest that questions of education, ethics, morality or medical care should be 'family decisions', as you put it, is usually another way of depriving children of choice. 'Family decisions' in practice mean 'Parents' decisions'.
    I am arguing in favour of children having more choice and steps sometimes being taken to ensure that the children's choice is respected.

    'Family decisions' indeed!

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simon said What sort of trouble are we talking of here? As far as I can see, the worst case scenario is the some local government apparatchik will go off with the idea that your child would sooner be in school than be educated at home. This might be irritating, but it is not 'trouble'. No local authority is going to issue a School Attendance Order on the grounds that a child says she would prefer to be in school, rather than learning at home! It seems to me that what parents are really worried about here is the social embarrassment of another adult suspecting a child's views do not coincide exactly with her those of her parents.
    Yes there is an element of truth in this. I would hate for an LA to assume I was making any of my children stay at home rather than go to school. Its not just socially embarrassing, with the climate of suspicion being what it is there are stronger possibilities than ever before that an LA would feel it were its' duty to look more closely at what the children said and this is where I suspect trouble might start. Once an LA believed a child prefered to go to school, would they then believe the child if they said "No I dont want to school" or would they end up thinking the parent had done something to change the childs mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Once an LA believed a child prefered to go to school, would they then believe the child if they said "No I dont want to school" or would they end up thinking the parent had done something to change the childs mind.'

    I'm sure you're right and the LA would conclude that the parents had pressured the child to change her mind! I have every reason to suppose that this has happened. The question is, does this matter? As I say, no local authority is going to issue an SAO on the grounds that a kid really wants to go to school. It would be laughed out of court if they launched a prosecution based on this. The only practical consequence of this scenario is that some LA officer will regard you as being a scheming and manipulative parent. I can live with that!
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "To suggest that questions of education, ethics, morality or medical care should be 'family decisions', as you put it, is usually another way of depriving children of choice. 'Family decisions' in practice mean 'Parents' decisions'."

    When I say 'family decisions', I mean families making decisions about thinks that affect their day-to-day life as opposed to state or someone outside the family.

    I'd agree that it's the parents who decide how much control a child is able to have over their own lives. Now you have already said that you disagree with the amount of choice we give our children and I think that you deprived your children of choices that were rightfully theirs (brushing teeth, what to eat, where to gain their education, what to learn, etc, etc). Do you think someone outside your family should have been able to change your decision about these issues or should it have remained your families decision? If the choice should remain with your family, why should anyone question the children about those choices? What would be the purpose?

    I'm all for children's rights, probably more so than you going by your past comments here. But this doesn't mean that I think the state should have anything to do with upholding those rights. What is the point in the LA or Badman asking children if they want to go to school?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "When I say 'family decisions', I mean families making decisions about thinks that affect their day-to-day life as opposed to state or someone outside the family."

    or even,

    When I say 'family decisions', I mean families making decisions about things that affect their day-to-day life as opposed to the state or someone outside the family.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Have you moved, Simon? According to your IP address you're in Birmingham! So much for using IP addresses to investigate visitors...

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Do you think someone outside your family should have been able to change your decision about these issues or should it have remained your families decision?"

    That should have been family's I think. Though technically more than one family was involved in your case I think so maybe families' would have been correct? Grammar was never my strong point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Simon wrote: The question is, does this matter? ... The only practical consequence of this scenario is that some LA officer will regard you as being a scheming and manipulative parent. I can live with that!

    To me, yes it does matter. It matters a great deal that someone from an LA doesnt think something of me that isnt true. I want them to see that my children daily choose to be at home and the ones that dont, like my ds, go to school. You are very sure that an SAO wouldn't be issued on the basis of a child appearing to want to go to school. I am not so confident of this fact. I feel that with education/welfare being so intertwined LAs could find it hard to separate the two.
    As I said previously, it doesn't mean I wouldnt let LAs speak to my child if a visit occurred but I would be concerned about it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'You are very sure that an SAO wouldn't be issued on the basis of a child appearing to want to go to school. I am not so confident of this fact. I feel that with education/welfare being so intertwined LAs could find it hard to separate the two.'

    These concepts may well be entwined in the minds of local authorities; they are not entwined in law. A School Attendance Order can be issued if it appears to the LA that a child is not recieiving a full time education appropriate to his age and ability. This is the only question which would be examined in court if the LA issued an SAO and then prosecuted a parent for ignoring it. They could not really issue one if they heard of a child attending an independent school, who wished to go the to local comprehensive or perhaps a child at one local school who wanted his parent to send him to a different one. It is purely about the education; nothing at all to do with the child's wishes.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ah, thank you for clarifying that. I had misunderstood or forgotten the actual law.
    Would it remain purely about education though? Or would it then become a welfare case in some "rights-of-the-child" type way?
    I don't know, but maybe this is what parents fear even if it is an unrealistic fear on our parts.
    I would certainly hope that LAs do stick to the letter of the law but this is where guidelines or clarification may be useful to ensure LAs dont get muddled.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I always left her alone with the local authority officer who visited each year.."

    I may have my wires crossed here, but I thought you only accepted "a couple of visits,at intervals of eighteen months or so" from the LA, whereupon you "had had enough and stopped dealing with them."

    ReplyDelete
  17. "A School Attendance Order can be issued if it appears to the LA that a child is not recieiving a full time education appropriate to his age and ability."

    But there's nothing to stop them issuing a SAO (this is just paperwork, they don't have to prove anything to anyone to issue it) and then not bothering to prosecute if their bluff fails. How many parents would willingly take on the risk and stress of a court case? Something like 90 SAOs are issued against home educators by LAs a year (according to Freedom of Information request information). How many reach court? I've heard of a handful over the years. So the result of the majority of these SAOs is either a child being forced into school against the parent's wishes, or the LA dropped the SAO when their bluff fails.

    An interesting question to ask LAs would be, how many SAOs have you issued, how many resulted in a child attending school, how many parents were taken to court, and how many SAOs were dropped and why?

    ReplyDelete