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?

*Abused HE kids can go years without anyone outside the family laying eyes on them.

And they can go to school 5 days a week, activities and church over the weekend, seen daily, and still be abused.

I would say that the problem isn't home ed. It's a lack of appropriate communication between authorities. A lack of support for parents and children. A lack of funding for those programmes that provide the support.*

Yes, this.

The whole threads gone hysterical now. I bet most abusers send their kids to school as they can be arsed with them

So we should just ignore the abused HE kids then?

I really don't understand how MNers of all people can condone child abuse.

Portfolios can get you on to some courses. If you want to do some degrees, only qualifications will be accepted. You can't get on to a medical degree with a portfolio.

Squirrel, your analogy is deeply flawed.

If there's some reason to be suspicious of abuse, then let SS do their job. It's hysterical to assume that all HErs are more likely to be child abusers and frame regulation accordingly.

No one objects to basic HE checks, but consider the possibility that these families might consider it their right to lead their lives without excessive government interference into their private matters without reasonable cause.

You'd be surprised how you can get a medical degree. Porfolio gets you into a chemistry degree. 2.1 in chemistry, you're in to do medicine.

Squirrel First of all, I did not say there should be zero monitoring. I have said repeatedly that I am in contact with both the EHE and SEN departments of the LA.

Secondly, your cancer analogy is apples and oranges. Sorry for your loss, but honestly, this kind of argument never really works. It just looks like reactive straw-grasping and makes no sense.

No, the problem is the fact that parents and guardians can legally remove their children from school and from society in general with zero monitoring, and that this is very easy for abusers to exploit.

No. There are safeguards in place (check the law, I'm not interested in doing the research for someone who is simply regurgitating without taking time to educate themselves). If they are not followed by the school/medical/social authorities, then that's a failing of those particular authorities and needs to be addressed with them.

I get that this is personal for you. It's personal for a lot of us. But while a lot of us have been in both camps and done the research, done the work on both sides of the argument, some on here are clinging tightly without bothering to take the time address the real problems. The real problem is not home ed.

The real problems are the causes.... what causes people to turn to home ed in order to help their child that isn't getting support in school? what causes people to be unable to cope, possibly struggle with mental health, substance abuse, and things like that, because they don't have the appropriate mental health care, or respite, or child care, or money because they cannot afford child care and transport and work, or simply someone to help them because they are isolated for various reasons and find themselves falling apart and taking it out on their child. All these things could be helped by funding programmes that the government has either axed or stripped back funding so much that the programme has closed. And yes, there are predators out there that will be abusive to their own children, but more programmes may make it so some of these children are actually seen more. Better communication between authorities will mean less children slip between the cracks.

Monitoring home educators more closely is not going to solve the problem.

HEing young children is different from HE teenagers. By 13/14 most kids have at least a vague idea of what they want to do and whether academia is right for them. It's very easy to sit exams as an external candidate, and I'm sure any decent home educator would facilitate those opportunities for an academic HE teenager who wanted to be a doctor or engineer.

My analogy is not flawed. Several posters have argued against safeguarding in principle because of incidences where safeguarding failed.

If there's some reason to be suspicious of abuse, then let SS do their job. It's hysterical to assume that all HErs are more likely to be child abusers and frame regulation accordingly.
But how is SS supposed to do their jobs, if monitoring is banned and there are no red flags and the family is not previously known to SS? No one is assuming all HEers are abusers (I've repeatedly stated the opposite) but the fact is, allowing parents to remove children from society completely with zero monitoring has potential to be exploited by abusers.

No one objects to basic HE checks
Some posters have. That's the entire point. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument at all.

these families might consider it their right to lead their lives without excessive government interference into their private matters without reasonable cause.
The occasional 5-minute check is not "excessive government interference"!

No one is assuming all HEers are abusers (I've repeatedly stated the opposite) but the fact is, allowing parents to remove children from society completely with zero monitoring has potential to be exploited by abusers.

I guess the flaw here is that you assume parents are removing their children from society completely with zero monitoring. I would venture to say that's relatively rare. Children that are withdrawn from school are not "invisible" anymore. They are already "on the radar." Even children that have never attended school but were born in the UK are on the radar now. I would say the ones that are most likely to be off radar are those that have come in illegally or perhaps immigrants as I'm assuming paperwork is more complicated and they weren't born in the UK, so not already on the record.

Assuming this happened to you a number of years ago, things have changed since then. More safeguarding has been put into place in recent years.

It is not an assumption it is a fact.

I really don't give a shit how "rare" it is because I don't measure morality in terms of numbers.

If a 5-minute check can save the life of even ONE child then it is worth it. Period.

the wrong tree is being barked up here, kids being abused to the point where their lives need saving are the ones that aren't on the radar, so kids in the uk that weren't born here. There's limited money like it or not so that's where the resources go I say. Massive massive difference between a home edder and a parent that doesn't send a child to school. Like oceans apart.

kids being abused to the point where their lives need saving are the ones that aren't on the radar, so kids in the uk that weren't born here.

100% untrue.

And a 5 minute check would not save a life, this is how ridiculous the whole debate has become. If they can't find baby P's situation out and contain it over 2 years what good do you think 5 mins would do fgs

what if you move?
electoral roll is only updated for adults.
and if no cb is claimed children go 'invisible'.

I know for a fact it would have saved me. Because the very first time I had ANY contact with the outside world, was enough to save me. But I had to wait years for it.

Sorry if one life isn't enough for you.

It is not an assumption it is a fact. Would it allow for potential for abusers if parents completely removed their child from society with zero monitoring or checks? Yes, I suppose it would, IF that's what happened. But as I said, I find that as more safeguarding measures are put in place, this is increasingly rare, thankfully.

I really don't give a shit how "rare" it is because I don't measure morality in terms of numbers. I think you may be unable to separate what happened to you on this from logical consideration. Nothing is 100%. Authorities make errors and sometimes the consequences are dire. It's shitty, but it happens. I don't like it, but there it is. The fact that many children are abused while attending school full time shows that nothing is fool proof. Someone could say "gee, I was abused as a child, but if they'd only strip searched every child regularly and checked for bruises under their clothing, it would have been found out, so I think they should do this to all children at schools now." It's not logical, it's flawed.

So we shouldn't bother trying to stop abuse at all? We shouldn't put up any safeguards, because they're fallible?

HE has a clear capacity to be exploited by abusers and sex traffickers. I work with victims of child abuse and volunteer with the NSPCC and I've met a lot of survivors whose abusers exploited HE.

All I am suggesting is the occasional brief check, and the HEers on this forum have claimed they have no problem with that. So not sure what the argument is?

It's not some much that monitoring of home schooling needs to take place but there needs to be more support for home schoolers and there needs to be measures made so that kids don't fall between the cracks - such as the kid in Wales who died of scurvy, and children who might have undiagnosed ASDs/spLDs or aren't keeping up with growth or meeting mile stones. If you don't have anything to compare your child to (I.e. Siblings, friends kids of a similar age, or their classmates) it's easy to not realise they aren't meeting the right mile stones without some kind of yardstick.

I would ban HE
I have been reading HE boards fir years and the posters on there are control freaks who are dellusional about the benefits.
They can never actual say what their children do that school ed children dont.
One claims that her child managed to get into an impressive school,yet most of the other children got in managed to do it by going to school and not being a one trick pony.
Other parents have had severe depression which their children cant escape because they are home all day.
Anyone who has had HE pised on them and didnt like it is shut down. Teachers who have had to pick up the pieces of HE are shut down. The only posters thatvare allowed to post impose HE so you are never going to a full picture.
They share video of a girl who was HE and rave how articulate she is, she was less articulate than all dc friends of the same age

So we shouldn't bother trying to stop abuse at all? We shouldn't put up any safeguards, because they're fallible? I didn't say that. Actually I stated that safeguards have increased in recent years.

HE has a clear capacity to be exploited by abusers and sex traffickers. I work with victims of child abuse and volunteer with the NSPCC and I've met a lot of survivors whose abusers exploited HE. Then I would calmly say that you need to remember that not all people who HE are looking to exploit children.

All I am suggesting is the occasional brief check, and the HEers on this forum have claimed they have no problem with that. So not sure what the argument is? Yes, I'm a bit baffled what your continued argument is as well. There are already safeguards in place for this very thing, allowing checks, follow ups, bringing in SS if needed. There is no need for new laws, new restrictions. They are already in place. If the appropriate authorities do not follow them appropriately, then it is their failing, not a failing of the law, and should be addressed as such, so that the authority does not continue making those errors.

I would ban HE Aren't you open minded then?

Pffffft.

From somebody without a horse in either race here, Squirrel is making total sense.

What if you move and don't update the electroll roll, what if what if what if .... The point is in this country it's innocent until proven guilty so we have to assume that 99.9% of people do HE with the best of intentions and to the best of their ability.
And again, I'm sorry but I doubt very much thick, uneducated people want their child's learning entirely in their hands, it's hard work and as most parents will testify when it's raining the kids will only watch so much Tv before they start demanding you "do something" with them

Yes you can do a chemistry degree through the Open University with a portfolio. No most universities will not let you do hard science degrees with a portfolio.
I certainly didn't know what I wanted to do for a job at 14. So I did a range of qualifications that kept my options open. Surely most don't know what they want to do?
I also read a HE adult bemoaning the fact they did a degree at 14. She said she did a degree that her parents encouraged her into. When she was 18 she had a better idea of what she wanted to do for a job, but as she had already did one degree, was not eligible for any student loans or grants, so could not afford to do it.