Why do people fear Home Educators so much?

[sebumfillaments]

Not a TAAT but inspired by the other thread, I was stunned by the level of vitriol aimed at home education. Is it all borne from fear and ignorance?

Home Ed isn't about replicating school. And education isn't (in our case) about gaining qualifications from an institution to increase their value in the workforce!

So why so much animosity?

zzzz, I think the difference is, perhaps, that the children from a low income family who are schooled will, in the vast majority of cases, access "a basic level of education" free - they will have equipment, books, a teacher, access to computers in school. Expensive kit, private education, non-curriculum trips (schools i have dealt with use PP money to make curriculum trips free for low income students) are extras.

On the other hand, low income HE families may not be able to access even the basics of an education for their children - books, a computer, stationary, possibly not an adult who can help them when they are stuck or prepare them for a particular qualification, visits or groups that require transport etc etc.

The playing field is not equal in either sector, I agree. The worst school experience is significantly worse than good HE experiences, but the worst HE experiences can be worse - in the sense of being more dangerous to the child's progress in all areas of their life, including abuse - than the worst school experiences. The quality range of HE is wider than the quality range of school - it can be better, and it can also be worse.

Witsender why are you so blasé about child protection? What if you were a home educated child with little or no input from anyone outside of that and you were abused and isolated? Or just given a substandard education, limiting your life choices later on? Whether it's a 'tiny minority' or not is frankly irrelevant.

I can't help but think that a group of people who choose to remove their children from the mainstream and the care of other adults, are likely to have a higher percentage of questionable practices going on. Maybe that's a slur on the home educating parents who do a fantastic job but the fact is there ARE abusive, crap parents out there and what better way to escape the attention of the authorities than pulling their kids out of school? Surely you can see that's a risk? What's more important, protecting a child or possibly putting some people's noses out of joint?

I would like to see stats for the numbers of pupil premium students who have been withdrawn from school aged 14 jto be "home educated"

I suspect that results for some LEAs in the NW and NE of England would be illuminating.

They are having to employ specialist teachers to get them through exams, which to my mind rather negates the purpose of HE in the first place.

People HE for a hugely variety of reasons, they don't just decide they are better at teaching than the teachers. You don't seem to have read the thread.

@Fudgit, you are so right. It's the reason why the foster cater, Eunice Spry, got away with it for 20 years! It might be a minuscule number, but for that minuscule number it's hell on Earth. I've suffered abuse that wasn't spotted. It's no help for the abused child that they're a tiny minority.

"Ummmmgogo, why would penalising the majority to protect a tiny minority be sensible or fair?"

The thing is, that's how child protection works - in that universal processes / training are put in place so that the (statistically) very small number of child protection issues are more likely to be detected.

In a school, every member of staff is updated on child protection every year, mandatory refresher courses are held etc etc. This is not because we expect that there are a large number of CP issues within the school each year - but it acknowledges that the harm is so significant (even where the probability within any given cohort is small) that it is worth training absolutely everyone to detect this very small number.

Equally, having CP arrangements that cover HE families would not be about 'penalising' anyone, any more than everyone in school being trained in CP and everyone being alert to its possibility at all times is 'penalising' that school's staff or students.

Obviously sensitivity is necessary - many HE families have had poor experiences with authority as individual families or as a marginalised community. However, extending to HE families the oversight that applies to all schooled children - however imperfect we know even that safety net to be - when it comes to CP, should be something that is of no concern whatever to those families who have nothing to hide, in the same way that the CP processes in school are of no concern to those families who have nothing to hide.

Of course it is a risk. By statistically more children who do attend school are abused than those who aren't...so what is being done? Should all parents submit to statutory home inspections? Monitoring? Because school alone obviously isn't enough.

And it's not just the extremes of physically abused children. It's the children stuck in unlicensed religious schools. It's the girls being educated to be wives and skivvies. It's the teenagers simply left to play XBox all day with the curtains closed because it's too difficult to get them to do anything else. It's the children being "protected" from learning about sex, evolution, music or art. Each group is small probably, but it's a significant number all together, and none of them are going to be represented at your local Home Edders meet ups, so of course reputable HEers don't see them as a significant issue.

I'd consider home education during infants for my own children because as a teacher I'm not a fan of the early primary curriculum and emphasis on testing.

But, I still think there's a lot of potential issues with home educating. Personally, I would like to see home educators have to keep some kind of evidence of the education they're providing and be subject to audits.

Near me there's a school with a reasonable number of travellers. Friends of mine work there are most are withdrawn from school by 14 and are home educated (already having attendance issues due to being kept off when mum/dad needs an extra pair of hands). I don't for one minute believe those kids are being given a real chance at education.

How do you know it is a significant number altogether?

IME schooled children who are at risk when not in school are slightly more likely to be detected - simply because the signs of abuse, and clues as to the abuse, are slightly more likely to be spotted or be mentioned by the child to the larger circle of CP trained adults that a schooled child may come into contact with than a more enclosed HE family.

As I have said before, it does HE no service for HEdders to deny that there is some less than fantastic - and in some cases very damaging indeed - behaviour within a small proportion of the HE world. In the same way, it does schools no favours for teachers to deny that some pupils are failed by the school system. it is only by admitting failures and looking at ways to eradicate them - in the same way as the worst abuses in boarding schools have been significantly reduced by modern reporting / inspection arrangements - that we can move forward to achieve better for all children.

Witsender presumably the same way you know that statistically more children who do attend school are abused than those who aren't...i.e. they've pulled that statistic out their arse.

Unless of course you meant in absolute terms? In which case yes, of course they are, given that there are many, many thousands more of them than HE children - rendering your statistic completely meaningless.

Why would you want to create another group that has no oversight. The fact that pre schoolers are a concern does not mean we should create another group with no monitoring. I have explained repeatedly what agencies do to mitigate the risk to pre schoolers. Those who dont work in safeguarding wouldn't even be aware it is happening. Why create another group when there are ways to safeguard these children.

zzzzz as I said, I'd rather put a few noses out of joint than leave a child at risk. So I don't really care if it's a slur, it just stands to reason that abusers like to isolate their victims. It stops them being found out. So I would support more oversight of the HE community for that reason, it's a loophole that some abusers will take advantage of. Nowhere did I suggest that this would be anything other than a minority of home edders.

I do think potentially preschoolers are being exposed to more risk yes, because there is no compulsory schooling and of course their understanding and communication skills are that much less too. This has been discussed by others in the thread.

@Witsender how can you possibly have accurate statistics about abuse of home educated children? By your own admission there is very little real oversight.

By statistically more children who do attend school are abused than those who aren't...so what is being done?

It would probably be more informative to look at percentages within each group (because the HE group is so much smaller than the schooled group, yes the raw number in the schooled group may be larger, but the percentage much lower)

Also bear in mind that there may be reporting bias, in that more school-attending abused children may be detected, because they attend school, while more non-school-attending children may not have their abuse detected and may not report it.

The whole thing is difficult to analyse because there is so little proper information we can guess that because the opportunity f undetected abuse is higher, the incidence may also be higher, but there is no way to prove this one way or another until there is some valid large-scale randomised statistical information about the HE community - which there isn't.

To clarify, my problem isn't necessarily with home educating. In some cases perhaps it's necessary for a particular child who has been let down by mainstream education but I think it should be far more rigorously vetted, perhaps in partnership with a local school. It's not just about the potential abuse, it's to ensure that children receive their right to a proper education. While some parents may do a wonderful job I'm sure others just think they do...

I suppose i would turn the question round the other way - why would those who HE be against a level of light-touch scrutiny that at the very least tried to ensure child safety?

I can understand why families hurt by the education system do not want scrutiny of educational provision, especially not by the very establishment / system that has hurt their children (if someone involved in the school which rendered DS a selective mute had come asking about his education, I might well have been very obstructive).

However, a level of scrutiny that had a focus on health and wellbeing, and which as far as possible tried to detect the most egregious abuse - what would be the objection to that, AS LONG AS the person / people involved had a proper understanding of that community and of HE?

you can attend college to gain qualifications at any age

But why should you have to? And what if your home ed experience has told you you will never be able to do some basic subjects?

It's limiting a child's choices if, at a secondary school stage, you decide for them they are not going to gain university level entrance qualifications.

My nieces and nephews are all on FSM and get many school trips, music lessons and musical instruments for free. They would have far less opportunities if HE.

Lots of HE families team up with others in groups or individually and trade lessons/skills/experiences/resources/equipment.

Yes, there's a lot of misunderstanding.

Sometimes I can't be bothered to explain as fed up with judgements.

I have one child in secondary school, in a grammar, who I home educated when he was in year 6 because the school was shockingly shit.

I have home educated DD from the beginning and she is 6. No intention of sending her yet either. She is very happy. Not being tested. Not suffering from the shitness of state schools around here.

She also isn't socially inept.

I actually do very little 'teaching' - she does it all herself, I just provide the answers and various resources for her, and she learns whatever she wants to. She can read anything. Write and spell most things. Has a good grasp of grammar. Today she asked about the different 'there' 'their' and 'they're' as she noticed when reading it's the same sound. So I explained.

Yesterday she wanted to learn about the planets/sun/moon etc.

We learn all the time, school holidays or not.

My DD is definitely happier than DS is at school, but DS is in an excellent school, and I don't feel I can teach a teen and work as well.

DS agrees DD wouldn't be happier at school.

I think in circumstances where mainstream schools have failed a child, for whatever reason, HE is valid.

I wouldn't personally want to be home educated myself. I don't think a parent, even a highly educated teacher parent, can possibly replicate the rounded experience of a variety of teachers, and pupil input that schools provide.

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be stuck at home with my mother (who was a teacher before she became an academic and is very good at it). And to be fair to her, she wouldn't have felt comfortable teaching subjects that were not her speciality.

To HE my own children I would only consider a group of children with specialist teachers, and even then, I think they'd probably be better off at tutorial college.

I knew a couple of families who HEd back in the 70s. Both were under the thumb of a very controlling parent.

My kids are mixed race, never caused a problem with the HE community. A mother who I was friends with in the HE group was Jewish, again no problem. Our children weren't isolated, we met once or twice a week, did various activities e.g. one mum was a professional artist and she did some lovely projects with the children, we also did things like cooking which is great with reading and following recipes, weighing ingredients etc. The only thing we paid a tutor for was French, none of us felt up to that so we clubbed together and they all came to my house once a week and a French woman came and taught them songs, brought French food and they learned some vocabulary and various things about France. My kids also went to Cubs/Brownies/dancing/swimming and music lessons.
I have to say I thought someone would enquire about them but in 5 years we had no contact with anyone checking up on what we were doing.

Our local library let you have extra books if you were HE and it didn't cost much, lots of the extra curricular stuff we would have done, and did do, when they were at school. In fact they carried on with all of it when they started school.