to wonder why teachers are so sure school is better than home Ed for all children?

[IceBeing]

An acquaintance is thinking of removing her 5 yo from school as he has started self-harming due to anxiety about going.

The school seem to be all over themselves to tell the parent that there is no way home ed would be preferable to carrying on in school.

What makes schools so very certain on this point and what would it take for a school to admit a child might be better off being taught at home for a spell or even entirely?

I think progressing at the pace of the child is great if you're just teaching one child or even two. Thirty children, not so much.

iguana oh dear....have I been 'found out'? Actually I have been on this name for ages...so unless this is a real life spot I am almost certainly not who you think I am...

Ah. My mistake! No I don't know anyone here in RL (I don't think!) but there was someone else who used to put loads of ellipses in her writing and had a different name. Mustn't be you. Can't remember the name either.

I would have to question anyone choosing Home Ed, for one reason: what will you do when they are older, want/need qualifications for university or a profession?

If you have that one worked out, all well and good. But sadly, I have only spoken to parents of 16 year olds with no GCSEs etc, who want to do A levels and are shocked that an FE college cannot say yes, do come in, choose whatever subjects you like, in whatever order you want them!

So I am biased, jaded, and inclined to be a little bit dismissive of the 'I only have a class of 1, how hard can that be?' attitude when they are 5, because I always leap to when they are 16... how will you ensure progression then?

I know it can be done, and done very well. But I have yet to meet anyone who has.

I can see the issue if only 1 or 2 get 'left behind' but if it was more widespread and maybe subject specific then I don't think people would be so worried. Surely it is dispiriting to sit through endless lessons you can't follow because your reading is far to slow?

And there is actually no shame in learning more slowly...surely it is where you end up that matters not how many attempts it took to get there? We have big cultural baggage about this (as a visit to G & T will indicate). We value quickness over thoroughness and it does us no favours at all....particularly when it comes to the gender balance of physics departments.

M..u..s..t g..o...t..o..b..e...d.

Some enlightening view points though - so thank you!

'Home education can trigger safeguarding issues. Some parents are abusive and would prefer their kids not to have daily contact with interested adults who could spot the bruises. Those people, horrifying thought it may seem, are out there.'

I don't think there is any evidence out there ANYWHERE that could support this statement.

Completely dispiriting. But the "stage not age" approach is incredibly expensive and schools are having to do jumble sales to pay for boilers. They can't afford it.

I worry about how compatible GCSEs are with home ed tbh. I wonder if I would pass GSCE physics given I don't have all that 'use key word y in response to key word x' intel that seems necessary to get the marks these days.

I don't know how someone who has leaned by personal exploration is going to adapt to a test that requires set answers to set questions.

'sadly, I have only spoken to parents of 16 year olds with no GCSEs etc, who want to do A levels and are shocked that an FE college cannot say yes, do come in, choose whatever subjects you like, in whatever order you want them!'

There are colleges out there who have different rules for children who have been HE who recognise that they have still achieved the required pre-skills to take their courses.

Many still don't, but that is imo an issue with the system and not with HE.

My dyslexic child would not appreciate being left with the five year olds until his literacy "caught up"! Interests change as much as skills and children need to be with others who are socially on their level more than on their reading level imo.

ig yup I understand the expense issue - another fuck you very much to the government for that too.

but hey it isn't like education is important or anything....

QueenStarlight

Sadly, it forms a part of every safeguarding training I have been on. Here's a paragraph from the Newcastle Home Education info

Safeguarding
The LA has the statutory duty to make arrangements to establish the identities of children in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school role but does not apply to children who are being educated at home.
The LA has responsibility to bring together agencies and individuals to be proactive in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Concerns regarding child protection should be immediately referred to the LA using established protocols. The LA must take action to enable cases of suspected or identified abuse to be properly considered or pursued. Child abuse can include physical injury, neglect, including emotional neglect, continued ill- treatment and sexual abuse. It cannot be discounted that a parent might choose to educate their child at home in order to confine them to the home and prevent disclosure about abuse

rain I can't comment on what would be most appropriate for children with dyslexia at all..however I don't think the whole 'need to be with age group' thing is important at all...as I said up thread the home ed gang is 3-15 (plus the adults obviously) and seems to thrive on inter-age group communication.

I realise that is't the same as being the only 8 yo in a class of 5 yo...but over all if kids were with average age group or ahead in some classes and years behind in others I think it would make school socialization less horribly stratified and stilted.

communicating outside your direct peer group is a transferable skill of value no?

Home education can trigger safeguarding issues. Some parents are abusive and would prefer their kids not to have daily contact with interested adults who could spot the bruises. Those people, horrifying thought it may seem, are out there.'

I don't think there is any evidence out there ANYWHERE that could support this statement.

Here you go:

www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/case-reviews/learning/home-education/

Iguana Good grief, that is horrific given there is no evidence-base for it.

Whilst I don't have any difficulties understanding why schools and teachers might be ignorant about HE, Local Authorities really have no excuse as it forms a part of their remit.

I have read that report and am happy to state once again that there is NO EVIDENCE that home education is a risk factor for a child, and certainly none referred to in that piece of rubbish that has ensured I never again donate to the NSPCC.

Too much history of dcs with learning difficulties being "kept back" for that to be a comfortable idea. There are real differences between a project suitable for five year olds and one for nine ten year olds, and no I don't think the 9 year old would be happily picking up transferable skills and not minding being stuck with "the babies". And if a system doesn't work for dcs requiring sfl then it doesn't work, we can't just separate them out or not consider the impact of changes to the system on them. (Which is not to say I find the current system flawless or beyond reproach!)

You know best, Queen.

I am not seeing why it is so controversial (is there another bit I've missed?
Home-education is not, in itself, a risk factor for abuse or neglect. However there is a danger that these children can become invisible to the authorities.

Because the children were removed from education, but they weren't home educated, and before they left school they had all had literally hundreds of contacts with various professional who have a role in safeguarding and who failed them.

They weren't being kept safe in school, at the GPs, at the Hospital, at the Sure Start Centres, during the multidisciplinary meetings that involved a high level of intervention from social services, OR at home.

And yet, it was 'Home Education' that is being considered the 'risk' for that child.

Bollox

Teachers and school staff are also not risk factors in safeguarding as such, but despite enhanced CRB checks, there are still a few who slip through the net. After all, if you happen to be a paedophile, working with children all day would be an attractive proposition. The statement on all job adverts in schools "this school takes its safeguarding responsibilities very seriously and expects all staff to do the same" is put there specifically to put off applicants who hope to find a safe haven.

It's not pleasant that people are under suspicion a lot, but then unquestioning acceptance is far too risky.

I think / hope we'll look back on this attitude and tut, just like we are astounded at the woolly thinking we've applied to children in years gone by.

If you replace the child for an adult it's possible to see how unreasonable it is that we force children to carry on school attendance at all costs.

If an adult was absolutely miserable and traumatised by spending their days in a work environment that was destroying their mental health, we wouldn't force them to carry on regardless. Yes it's better for mental health to carry on doing something productive than give up altogether, but we wouldn't make them keep on being exposed to the same distressing environment (often with no change, help or resolution). There would be many alternatives like moving roles/ teams/ departments, moving jobs altogether, raising a grievance and getting some justice for bad employment practices & bullying etc, going back to retrain or study to find a more suitable career, or downsizing, moving or starting your own business, becoming a consultant/ freelancer etc. And that's in addition to mental health treatments, councelling, medicines, psychologist and psychiatrist intervention etc etc.

Too many times you hear about children unsupported, disbelieved and forced to just get over it/ deal with it and stop bringing school attendance stats down.

I hope one day we look back with incredulity at the way we accepted it as the system 'doing its best'. I admire the parents who successfully home educate. I'd love to be in the position of having alternatives if my child found school a living hell, and unfortuneately im not in a position to home educate so i really hope DS never has problems like some of the desperate families and children you read about on here (& elsewhere too).

For me it comes under the same heading as pain relief and babies. Until far too recently prem babies and even full term poorly babies were routinely given NO pain relief when undergoing procedures that an older child or adult would be tanked up to the eye balls for. It was thought that babies couldn't feel pain. Just because they coyldnt articulate it. I think we all know that's bollocks now, just looking at a baby with nappy rash or colic and I think it's pretty bloody clear babies can feel pain, but it was widely believed for a long time.

Anyway, I know that seems a leap, but I see parallels in the practise of treating children as somehow less able to feel/ react or suffer when we'd never dream of treating an adult in the same way.

I agree that school attendance should not be subject to endless targets.

And for me, being invisible to 'the authorities' is one of the key reasons I chose to Home Educate, as it is for many many others this is also the case.

You know there are more cases of child abuse FROM TEACHERS than there are from parents who home educate?

This is more to do with the massive discrepancy between the numbers of HE parents to teachers, but still.........

Hmmm, I think most children who go through conventional schooling are able to read simple, graded children's texts independently by about the age of 7.

If you believe in no formal education till 7 and then you put him into a class for 7yos at a school, won't that be rather difficult? They will almost all be reading already!