To think home schooling should be better monitored?

[Mollymoo78]

One of my FB friends from my toddler group days has announced on FB that she's home schooling her four year old. She was always very very attached to him and never had a moment away from him ie a night out. She breast fed him well into his fourth year and carried him in a sling when he got tired. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm genuinely wondering if her decision to home school has more to do with her being reluctant to let him go.

Her comments on FB are "well I have no precise plans as to what I'm going to do but they learn through play at this age anyway so it doesn't matter". I just felt quite uncomfortable reading that. It all sounds very vague. My dd has started school recently and loves it - the socialisation with her peers and older children, the physical activity, getting independence and rewards for her achievements. She's playing yes but she's also being taught to read and write. But what if this boy isn't given these things - who is going to be checking up on the education he's being given?

I don't mean to put a downer on homeschooling - I've no doubt it's the perfect option for those whose children don't gel with school but shouldn't you at least try school first? Am I wrong to question this in my mind?

In Scandinavia most children go to child care before starting school, and their workers are university educated. They are learning there.

nicky
it's pretty self explanatory. We were taught it, it doesn't mean people listen though.

Should people be happy to send their kids to school where they apparently have only 0.5 chance of learning these things?
It depends if that 0.5 chance is due to the quality of teaching or child not bothering to listen. If a parent's knowledge is lacking they do not know if they're teaching correctly

Really? Invisible? Do they not have GPs, dentists? Are they not registered at a surgery?
There's no rules to say children have to visit GP's and dentists. 30% do not go to a dentist annually. Child abuse is more likely to be reported by educators. Something which HE will miss out on.

I don't have visits from the LA either. I turn in a report every year, so they know what we've done in the last year and they've been perfectly happy with that.

No-one is saying ban HE. I'm 100% sure so many people do an amazing job, what I'm saying is it needs monitoring. There needs to be safeguards

There already are safeguards. Everything needed already exists.

A child is born that birth is reported by the person who attends it in order for this not to happen no medical care could have been sought (obviously
it does happen but not in significant volume) after that happens child health teams are notified. The child is then visible.

I haven't checked for awhile but when I worked in social care the group of children considered to be most at risk from harm were under 5's yet we don't force parents of all under 5's to be inspected granted we have health visitors but that is a optional no obligation service

Actually, UK stats show 13% of abuse referrals were from schools.

MindSweeper That doesn't mean that the 30% that don't go to a dentist are necessarily just children that are HE. Or for that matter that children that don't visit GPs are HE. Again, lots of children are neglected and/or abused and still attend school.

^A child is born that birth is reported by the person who attends it in order for this not to happen no medical care could have been sought (obviously
it does happen but not in significant volume) after that happens child health teams are notified. The child is then visible.^

I'm not sure why you've brought this up twice as I have not said they're born invisible. I'm saying there's nothing to monitor them as children and tweens. People can take them to doctors and dentist yes, but as I said 30% of children don;t see a dentist annually, not sure what the doctors stats are and as this is only a 7 minute on average consultation how is this in anyway comparable to a teacher seeing them everyday. And that's if parents take them to these services. Something of which abusers would avoid.

That doesn't mean that the 30% that don't go to a dentist are necessarily just children that are HE. Or for that matter that children that don't visit GPs are HE. Again, lots of children are neglected and/or abused and still attend school.

I didn't say it was, I'm making a point that 30% of children aren't seen annually so this is something that needs to be considered when you're talking about dentists and doctors as being the safeguards.

In the third case the school had raised concerns with Social Services that the children had been withdrawn and were being HE, given a history of neglect. SS did not follow this up. But up until that point, the school had been monitoring what was happening

Yet the SCR found a catalogue of failures spread between the school and social care and I think medical services going back as early as 2006! Monitoring my arse. Nobody was comunicating effectively or promptly social care were ignoring referals from both the school and members of the public. that child was not invisible not by any stretch of the imagination

needs so it's better to not have them at all then? We don't hear the stories in which children were protected. My friends a social worker and there's many many cases. Like I said, 13% reported by schools. Imagine if those children were homeschooled.

11% were LA referals. But as we can see from upthread I didn't allow visits from the LA because there is no legal necessity for them. Perfect for abusers.

mind it's relivant because a child who does not recieve medical attention or observation inc dental and is also not registered in school is already considered to be a child with potential welfare issues.

The authorities know these children exist and they know if they are registered in school or not. That one of the ways the LA know a child is potentially a CME or a EHE and the current rukes allow the pm to identify a possible CME by any means possible.

So they know child exists, they know child does not attend school they can know if child has ever seen a professional and a combo of not seeing one and not attending school should trigger a response from the LA

Half of British women cannot identify where the vagina is.

Half of Britons can't spell simple words

Half of Britons struggle with the apostrophe

And where were those people "educated"?

mind'I was a social worker for years. I don't need to imagine. And when you compare numbers like for like HE kids have a higher rate of referals to social care but a lower amount of them have action taken.

Home education in itself is not a safeguarding issue and shouldnt be treated as such.

I think home ed is fine for primary but does a disservice to secondary school children and that a lot of home eders overestimate their abilities.

How do the children access science labs every day?

I'm fairly smart, I am a doctor and I could teach high school science to one of my DC. However, I'm not intrinsically mathy, I did well enough in secondary school exams by being hard-working and smart and memorising the equations but when friends of mine showed me their 2nd and 3rd year maths papers they were like a different language. One of my DC is very good at maths already and has an instrinic comprehension of numbers that I never had (could count to 100 at 2 and at 7 is comfortable with negative numbers, fractions etc and is working 2 years ahead in class. She genuinely thinks it's hilarious that 2 is a prime number. When she works calculations out in her head she's already faster than I am).

There's no way I could teach maths to a high school child who was good at maths.

I agree that a lot of home edders over-estimate their abilities.

I studied History English and French for my A levels, followed by Archaeology degree. DP did Biology, Chemistry and Geography followed by Agriculture.

One of our daughters has proved to be an utter whizz at maths and physics. She's applying for Uni places now, she's predicted a perfect set of As. There's no way that either DP or I could have educated her. And if we'd home educated, we would never have spotted her facility for maths.*

Not sure what your point is. You weren't suited to HE. Many aren't. Many are.

nolongersurprised I don't see the issue. If you were a home educator and you could not teach your child a subject (or were not comfortable teaching your child a subject), you always have the option of hiring a tutor or finding someone within your HE support groups that does have that skill.

So they know child exists, they know child does not attend school they can know if child has ever seen a professional and a combo of not seeing one and not attending school should trigger a response from the LA
The same LA who people have said have no legal authority so do not allow them into their home?

And thats good needs, then you'll also know that social workers are currently struggling with and concentrating on their caseloads of reported incidents and children under their care rather than having time to monitor children educated at home. It's the monitoring issue that bothers me as I have said. Children in school have that monitoring. HE do not. HE kids having a higher rate of referrals does not change the fact that they have the potential to be invisible, especially considering what I've just read he government estimates that around 20,000 children are registered with local authorities as receiving home tuition, but the real number could be closer to 50,000 because parents are obligated to inform the authorities only if they withdraw a child from school, not if they have never been to school, so we don;t even know how many children are actually being HE.

Surely you have to have the money to pay for a tutor? And obviously at least one parent can't work outside the house if they're HE'ddng, so it's inevitable not everyone could afford that.

Molly I am sure this little by will be fine.

IB I'll repost that as clearly you've missed part of the sentence.

If you were a home educator and you could not teach your child a subject (or were not comfortable teaching your child a subject), you always have the option of hiring a tutor or finding someone within your HE support groups that does have that skill.

I firmly believe in the right to home-school without excessive government interference. I've also known some fantastic home-schooled kids. However, a Facebook 'friend' of mine has recently declared that she is home-schooling her three children, despite having no qualifications and barely being able to string a sentence together. Surely it's not fair on the children? I do think that those proposing to home-school should meet basic educational requirements themselves.

I do think that those proposing to home-school should meet basic educational requirements themselves.

I would say most of them already have - by virtue of having attended school themselves. Isn't that a suitable education? Because if school isn't considered suitable to "meet basic educational requirements" then how is that school is the better option?

I don't think I missed anything!

It seems clear that HE will only work if parents have spare income to spend on educating their children.