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?

Nicky we're in London too, having moved here recently. I agree, the home ed community is thriving.

Some really backwards arguments here. We don't monitor people and their parenting unless there is good reason. Parents have every right to refuse entry to their homes unless a legal compulsion (warrant) exists, as has always been the case.

So true.

Ok, so to all the people who don't think there should be checks what should have happened in squirrel's situation? Should the government have done more to keep them safe or did they so enough?

The vast vast majority of people who home school will be doing it for the right reasons. Two people on this thread have told personal stories of how monitoring HE would have stopped awful abuse. How do we know more isn't happening? Those parents aren't going to be posting on here are they but it is likely there are children in the UK now that are in similar situations.

Most people who want monitoring on this thread are not saying HE is bad and the posters on here are anyway abusive but we need to try and find those children who need help, it might work or it might not but surely we have to try?

What about the children in illegal religious schools? What kinds of checks are being done to prevent that? What about the girls who disappear from schools around the age of 14 to be married abroad? They may not be about to die of scurvy, but I'm unconvinced that these are tiny numbers.

There are, but it's been explained so many times on here the words are starting to lose all meaning. I'm just going to start referring you back to read previous posts.
Nope, all you've done is parrot "you need to find the info yourself, but take my word for it, it definitely exists!" (And there are a lot of statements that are not factually correct on this thread.) Sorry but if you're this obsessed with 'winning' an argument then the onus is on you to provide proof. If you want to convince me that my first hand experience is wrong, I'm going to need more than your word.

This is tiresome. You're going in circles, you're inaccurately quoting people, and you're too lazy to look up your own facts. Pffffft.

Why should HEers be the exception, and be free from any form of monitoring?

Asked and answered already. Numerous times. Find a new schtick.

Children that do not have SEN or disabilities? Likely less GP/paed contact, but still dentist every 6 months, eye doctor every 6 months to a year, and GP undoubtedly occasionally.
Crikey, how many teenagers do you know who vigilantly make dental appointments twice a year? Are you saying SS monitors dentists, and that existing safeguarding laws state that a teenager not visiting the dentist every year should trigger a welfare check?

Oh, so those parents are not keeping up with their dental health. Well, there's another handy crusade for you then. "SS monitors dentists" You're aware that a dentist has a telephone that they can actually contact SS on if they have concerns, right?

Meh. All the same arguments you keep raising. Asked and answered. Hysterical alarmist comments. I'd recommend again that you take the time to do some research so you actually understand HE and the law, but it's pretty clear you're not willing to do so, and frankly, I'm not interested in spoon feeding it to you anymore.

I agree Kr1stina that Nicky and Ginger and others had done a fantastic job of educating me at least. I was never against home education (really wish people would stop calling it home schooling) but I didn't realise just how many people had basically been forced into it due to the utter shite system they've come up against. I get the feeling one of the reasons many of you who do home educated get so defensive is because you come up against a lot of the types on this thread who lump you in with the religious fanatics and child abusers.

"There is a large group of children in the traveller community in home ed after primary age.This seems troubling as very often they appear to receive little in the way of education."

Lack of access to education is often given as a reason why travellers are so underprivileged.

Ginger, do you have anything to contribute to the debate at all other than lies, misquoting people, personal attacks, and a refusal to answer questions?

And yet still not a single answer or piece of proof from you.

If this crusade to convince me that my firsthand experience is wrong and that existing child abuse safeguards are perfectly fine, then you need to say more than "find the proof yourself."

You're aware that a dentist has a telephone that they can actually contact SS on if they have concerns, right? hmm
Are you seriously claiming that a dentists call SS anytime teenagers stop having regular checkups???

You are not the only one with "firsthand experience" so you can stop waving that flag, thanks. Sympathies, it must have been awful, but that does not make you an expert in safeguarding and the law.

I actually don't need to say more than "find the proof yourself." People have quoted it, pointed out where it is, and mentioned it numerous times. If you cannot take it from there, then I don't see why I should knock myself out digging it up for you. Find the proof yourself.

Re the dentists. No, as usual, you're being utterly ridiculous and over -dramatising it all. That's not what I said, as I suspect you are well aware.

Ginger, do you have anything to contribute to the debate at all other than lies, misquoting people, personal attacks, and a refusal to answer questions? And yet still not a single answer or piece of proof from you.

Bahahahaha. Seriously, you do make me laugh. I've answered loads of questions, not misquoted or lied once, and as far as person attacks are concerned, I've only returned fire as necessary. Oh, and I'll say it again... find your own proof. Look up the law yourself. Do your own research. Rather than just relying on one anecdote.

Personally I think even one child dying needlessly due to lack of monitoring is a tragedy, and I don't know why people are fighting so vociferously against something so quick and simply that could save that child's life

But children are not dying due to a lack of legal ability to monitor, all the ones who have died should have been monitored using the laws we already have and not one of them was actually unknown. A fair few of them died despite being actively monitored.

I've done my level best to rise above all the personal abuse and stick to the facts, and will continue to do so.

So, once again: please state what specific safeguarding laws or policies are supposed to be involved specifically when a teenager from a well-regarded family who have never been on SS radar vanishes from sight under the guise of HE? What specific example would be a red flag in that case (not going to GP? Not going to dentist? Surely neither unusual in teenagers!), and whose job is it to notice with zero monitoring?

There is at least one serious case review that I am aware of where the local authority had absolutely no knowledge of the children until they were of secondary school age and a CP referral was made.

NeedsaSock: Again, what specific laws govern situations involving teenagers who are not previously known to SS and where there are no other red flags?

How is it physically possible for the authorities to know a situation even exists in the first place, with zero HE monitoring?

Again, I fail to see why you are so against something that can save children's lives and won't even affect you, purely as a matter of principle.

I feel sorry for you if you think kids being abused and dying only matter if it's in large numbers.

Right, it's a fact that far more children have been abused in schools than have been by parents using home education to hide their abuse. It's also a fact that more children have been abused in the home and attended school than have been by parents using home education to hide their abuse. If this is still true when proportionality is taken into account I don't know. That's not in anyway to say that the children being abused by parents using home education to help them hide their abuse aren't important. It does however show that 5 minute checks once or twice a year aren't likely to help anyone, because children who regularly see people who could protect them still fail to be protected because abusers are careful about who the choose to abuse, smart in coming up with cover stories and all too often extremely charming and well able to convince those who question them.

it does however show that 5 minute checks once or twice a year aren't likely to help anyone

Exactly, which is why it should be better monitored.

I feel that you're trying to force posters to say that what happened to you or abuse that happens on occasion is just collateral damage that has to be accepted in order for home ed families to be free of inspection. I'm sorry if I am wrong but that's how it seems.

As a previous poster said you cannot arbitrarily demand access to or inspection of people and their homes when they are not accused of doing anything wrong. That is the foundation on which the law of this country is built. You cannot single out a minority group to impose this upon just because they're not availing themselves of an education system that is failing many of them or just in case they might do something wrong. It is completely and utterly legal to home educate - there is no confusion around this, we know this, therefore people must be allowed to do it unhindered until such a point as something goes wrong, exactly like every other person in this country has the right to do in their lives.

Do you feel good about yourself, Ginger, making personal attacks and gaslighting on child abuse victims? And you have lied.

Most of you say you voluntarily do a lot more in terms of reporting to the authorities than is required already, so it's a hypothetical, isn't it? Just a matter of principle. Bit shit to be against any attempt to check up on at-risk kids out of some arbitrary principle of "freedom from government interference."

Where I live people from certain religious backgrounds automatically get home visits if the children miss or are taken out of school due to the risk of forced marriage or FGM. No one complains about that, but the idea that off-grid children and young people should have an annual check is beyond the pale?

Everything is an arbitrary principle on some level, when you have it: freedom from imprisonment without trial, the right to privacy, freedom of religion and conscience, the right to a family life etc. But if you don't have it, you may well feel its loss quite quickly.

Where I live people from certain religious backgrounds automatically get home visits if the children miss or are taken out of school due to the risk of forced marriage or FGM. No one complains about that

So something has happened to trigger these visits then? A concern of a real and likely case of abuse has been raised.

Not the same thing at all.

Do you feel good about yourself, Ginger, making personal attacks and gaslighting on child abuse victims? And you have lied.

Gaslighting? Nope. Didn't happen. Ever. In fact, I said that it was dreadful that she went through that. I pointed out that I was also a victim of child abuse, even though I attended school. Personal attacks? There've been a number on me, thanks. A few of those were removed. And I have not lied. Kindly stop accusing me of things I have not done.

Exactly Trifle. I am loath, even after having been a victim myself, to see certain freedoms withdrawn. It's a slippery slope. And as I've said repeatedly, there is much more in place now in regards to safeguarding than there was years ago.

Nickie what about the two posters who have posted about their experience on this thread? Nothing would have triggered the authorities in their cases. If monitoring HE isn't going to happen is there any way we can even attempt to stop this happening to other children?

Apologies if this has already been said, but I cannot think of any monitoring, for any child, that could detect many forms of abuse. This goes for a child in the school system and home-educated. There is no fail-safe method of ensuring a child is safe; if going to school made children safe, if would be a wonderful thing. Sadly, our experiences in this country show that there is no magic bullet.

On the face of it, monitoring sounds like a no-brainer. But when you look at how it could possibly achieve what it would be meant to achieve - and indeed whether children in the state school system are receiving and benefiting from this sort of screening - it becomes a bit of a farce. The reality is that we could bring in all sorts of monitoring and it would probably achieve nothing for the children who are at risk, while taking away already non-existent resources for the many children in the country who have been identified at risk and who are waiting for appropriate care.

I have posted about my childhood too, what can we do about that and all the children who are in school who are missed? What about my son who had his head banged repeatedly off a table by a teacher? Again, what about under 5's who aren't in school, who is monitoring them?

People demand this of home educators because they feel justified in doing so because home education does not toe the line of what is generally accepted to be the best way for a child to be educated and that's outside of what they consider to be a "social norm".

See my last post for the legal position HE.

I don't have the answers (although I do think children under 5 should be seen by someone yearly but know that's not popular on here). Children who go to school will slip through the net but I still think that a child should be on someone's radar.

We all know that children's services are stretched and many children are failed by the system. This thread is about monitoring of HE children so I have been discussing how vulnerable HE children could be protected (not the majority whose parents are doing their best for them). I just can't figure out how to attempt to help the few without everyone being seen. Maybe laws need to be changed?

I think home education should be monitored more closely than it is. I know 2 girls who were taken out of school and home educated for a year. The elder one was already behind in English and maths when she was taken out of school but her sister was doing ok.
When they came back into school 12 months later the older girl was even further behind than she had been when she was taken out ,and the other one was now also behind her classmates.
Basically they has just been taken out of school for a year.

As a previous poster said you cannot arbitrarily demand access to or inspection of people and their homes when they are not accused of doing anything wrong. That is the foundation on which the law of this country is built. It is completely and utterly legal to home educate, therefore people must be allowed to do it unhindered exactly like every other person in this country has the right to do in their lives.

I cannot think of any monitoring, for any child, that could detect many forms of abuse. This goes for a child in the school system and home-educated. There is no fail-safe method of ensuring a child is safe; there is no magic bullet. On the face of it, monitoring sounds like a no-brainer. But when you look at how it could possibly achieve what it would be meant to achieve it becomes a bit of a farce. The reality is that we could bring in all sorts of monitoring and it would probably achieve nothing for the children who are at risk, while taking away already non-existent resources for the many children in the country who have been identified at risk and who are waiting for appropriate care.

Can't agree with the above comments enough. Local Authorities do have sufficient duties to take action when home ed families are thought not to be providing a suitable education, but, just like the police and social services, those duties are reactive rather than proactive. Innocent until proven guilty. A one hour visit a few times a year is unlikely to uncover abuse and anything more than that is setting a very dangerous precedent. Where does it end - monthly visits? Weekly? There are families who's children attend school and are known to social services and are being abused right under their noses, don't we need to monitor those families more closely too? It's all well and good talking about monitoring but where is the money coming from to pay for it? The reality is that it's impractical to closely monitor every child, and to attempt to do so takes time and resources away from those children who need it most. The current system isn't perfect but compulsory monitoring isn't the solution.