No, I don't think for a moment that many children are living in these conditions, home educated or not, but this article gives you some idea of what professionals worry about when children are completely out of sight. It is unlikely that these four would have been unobserved, had they been attending nursery or school. It is also probable that if they had had to register as home educators and accept a visit, it would be hard to disguise the conditions under which they were living:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Boys+seized+from+Denver+home+malnourished+without+speech/9009170/story.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Okay - we know you love digging up these things, Simon....but this is related to HE how? The father said he was going to HE - so then yes, HE may become relevant - but the children were aged 6 and below, and so were quite legally not in education. In a previous post you are ( rightly) against school for 2 year olds - so how would these children be in sight unless that was the law?
ReplyDelete'but this is related to HE how?'
ReplyDeleteIt's relevant in this way. If the family had not drawn any attention to themselves, then their children could have lived in these conditions for years to come. If parents are not obliged to register for home education, then children such as these can become lost. This happens from time to time, when older children, sometimes teenagers, are discovered to be living in very poor conditions and nobody even knew of their existence.
But would people like this register? How would anyone know they were not registered if nobody knows of their existence?
Delete'This happens from time to time, when older children, sometimes teenagers, are discovered to be living in very poor conditions and nobody even knew of their existence.'
ReplyDeleteI'd be really interested to see the evidence for this. In the UK, obviously.
I'm not doubting that it is theoretically possible. If it's does happen 'from time to time', I'd be very keen to know how often.
I only know of one.
'I'd be really interested to see the evidence for this. In the UK, obviously.'
ReplyDeleteI too have only heard of one case in this country, although it does crop up from time to time in the USA. I pointed out that it was one of the things that professionals in Britain worry about, although, as you say, it may very well be no more than a theoretical risk.
So all these professionals are worrying about something that you've admitted may very well be no more than a theoretical risk.
ReplyDeleteI do hope they remember to check under their beds for monsters before they get in each night!
Seriously, is this not another argument for my theory that we should look at what causes the majority of child abuse.
- poverty
-lack of education for the parents
-so-called chaotic lifestyles
-lack of challenge by professionals at an early stage because of a reverence for certain values/cultural norms or a fear of being accused of being racist.
-and, which is a biggy, not enough professionals, and not properly trained and being diverted to hunt monsters under the bed.
Have a good weekend
Atb
Anne
Anne is spot-on.
DeleteIf the authorities really cared about harm to children, they'd tackle the biggest problems first, and Anne identified some of the big ones like poverty and poorly-educated parents (funny though, that most of them went to school).
In addition, (but probably overlapping), two million children are exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke with well-documented ill-effects ranging from respiratory problems to cognitive deficits and sometimes death.
Registration and monitoring of HE children would make sense if it followed-on from registration and monitoring of:
- children in families earning less than the living wage;
- children in households where parental partners have changed;
- children (at least two million) in smoking households;
- children of certain ethnic/religious groups.
Let's see the politicians, social workers and local authority managers tackle registration and monitoring of those first.
Let's get a sense of perspective here. Dealing with these big problems would be politically very difficult and of little practical benefit; a few hundred child deaths per year due to family breakdown, smoking, religious practices etc, is tolerable, but the death of a single hidden child can ruin a career or careers, or at least cause horrible embarrassment.
Delete'but the death of a single hidden child can ruin a career or careers'
DeleteI think that Sharon Shoesmith knows who we're talking about here!