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?

Phobias are by definition irrational. But it's not irrational to be scared of the people bullying you, treating you like a freak or excluding you when that's what's happening to you every day, and no teacher is accepting that it's happening no matter how much you and your parents tell them. It's not irrational to be scared of being given work that you are incapable of, which you will sit staring at feeling stupid, when that is what happens every day. Nor is it irrational if you have, say, sensory issues - it's not that you're phobic of the bright lights or the crowd noise in the classroom, if you have something like autism those things are genuinely excruciatingly painful.

Indeed Serf. I've seen the odd post but not a lot. Not only that these things don't tend to last. A friend of mine was evangelical about the support her primary school child was receiving and i was happy and a bit jealous. They really seemed to be getting it right. Two years on, same school, things have changed somewhat and she's as desperate and unhappy as we were

There are home educators who do oppose any sort of official monitoring or oversight. They are always very vocal if anyone in government suggests tighter controls, and generally the person in government looks at the numbers, and puts it into the "this is too difficult and would cost too much" drawer.

zzzzz, I agree with you - in the sense that an effective process for safeguarding / monitoring CP for HE children would have to look different from 'an annual home visit that can be declined, offered to some HE families that the system happens to know about, and variable across local authorities' [which is effectively the current situation].

I think quite a lot of HEers bristle at the idea that there's anything inherently risky about HE Bertrand.

It was right in the middle of the Badman review that I was visiting HE groups and reading up. I was confused by the strength of the hostility to it myself at first, but if you put yourself in the shoes of HEers (MOST of whom feel pushed into it, and probably quite let down by the system, rather than drawn), it's not that hard to see what gives offence.

By far the simplest thing would be to institute a system whereby annual health visiting continues until x age for ALL DC. That would pick up various worrying issues early, most of them in schooled DC.

"I think quite a lot of HEers bristle at the idea that there's anything inherently risky about HE Bertrand"

Yes, I agree. And I can see why. But it's obviously not a logical way of thinking- and I do think that it's a "greater good" situation.

I'm on the Greater Good side of the fence really (writing that makes me want to watch Hot Fuzz :o). I know they aren't saying that they suspect us of anything. But I do feel in the minority as I've seen posts in groups saying things like "but what's the problem with monitoring" get a really hostile response, lots of deletions etc. It's an astoundingly divisive issue but as I said in a previous post most people locally seem happy to just accept it as our LEA is friendly and very pro-HE.

But it's not an illogical way of thinking, given the ignorance and one track thinking regarding how to educate children that has been shown on this thread and many others like it and that in real life many home ed people experience. As I said I accept the visits as it allows me to maintain ds's EHCP, so no axe to grind there.

It certainly isn't illogical. When you see the damage that an over zealous HE rep from the council who plays fast and loose with the rules can do to an innocent family you would see the logic.

When all LAs play by the rules and treat families with respect you will see far fewer complaints and obstructions. Until then, it is a risk to a lot of people who aren't doing anything wrong, but may not be doing things the way an ex-teacher or Oftsed inspector would do it.

I think it is necessary to separate 'monitoring of education' and 'monitoring of safeguarding' in order to make it acceptable to the vast majority of 'good' HEers.

Even then, it is difficult for those whose children have been badly damaged by 'the system' - including physical harm from fellow pupils, for example - to accept why that same system should be able to monitor safeguarding at home.

But it's obviously not a logical way of thinking- and I do think that it's a "greater good" situation.

Well what is the logic?

That parents who deregister correctly are likely to be up to no good?

I don't think the stats bear that out.

It's vanishingly rare for a serious child protection case to concern an electively HEed child. If it happened more, we'd hear about it.

There are DC in the U.K. now who are being hideously abused or neglected despite attending school. Schooled DC regularly feature in horrific cases and major case reviews.

There are DC in the U.K. now who have been trafficked in and are unknown to any professional anywhere.

There are many DC in the U.K. now being radicalised by their schools. Schools that OFSTED have major concerns about but have to proceed circumspectly.

There are still DC in the U.K. now being taken for FGM or forced marriage.

Meanwhile SEN budgets and hospital school services are being cut.

Singling out elective home educators (a generally dedicated and benign bunch) IS illogical. Not least because schools don't actually function too well as a child protection surveillance mechanism (not their primary function after all).

If you want to reach the children most in need, getting hung up on HE makes no sense.

I agree entirely. Checking that a child is not being neglected or abused should be completely separate to educational philosophy

MsGame and witsender,

those are both bjections to 'education' monitoring, that tbh seems to me to be very much less critical than safeguarding monitoring. Would you object to a visit or monitoring in some other way that focused purely on safety, health and wellbeing?

"That parents who deregister correctly are likely to be up to no good?"

Of course not. Any more than parents who use schools.. But the fact is that children at school are being monitored. HE children aren't. And they should be.

Would you object to a visit or monitoring in some other way that focused purely on safety, health and wellbeing?

If I end up HEing one or both of the younger ones, I'll happily accept that, if it's a HV style service that covers ALL DC, schooled or otherwise.

Serf,

In many ways i agree. A critical first step would need to be identifying all children, and creating some kind of record of their existence and place of education, rather than chasing the 'visible' deregistered HE community. It is the fact that children can 'disappear' - or never appear - that is one of the most concerning aspects of child protection.

Every school child is monitored 190 days per year, 6 hours per day, by multiple adults for health, safety and wellbeing.

It's not perfect. But it is a LOT more monitoring than any HE - or simply invisible - child gets.

To say that no HE family should have any monitoring of CP until all schooled families have exactly the same isn't all that sensible - because to bring a HE child up to the schooled standard of CP observation, they would have to have nearly 1000 hours of group and individual observation.

I am exploring the idea of home educating DD when she is old enough and seriously considering it. I have strong concerns regarding the early age at which school starts in this country, also the increase incidence of mental health problems/ self harming behaviour in children (the majority of whom will have been school educated) over recent years.

I was educated the conventional way, primary, comprehensive, school 6th form, bricks and mortar university. I achieved good grades but certainly underachieved for my abilities. I don't have particularly positive memories of any of the stages of my education.

Later in life I completed a second degree with the Open University (Home Education for adults?) I found this a much more enjoyable and positive experience. There was no face to face with lecturers/ tutors, all learning was through printed/online materials and forums. I think this is fairly comparable to the methods used for HE children to achieve GCSE and A'levels. I have met with negative views about it "not being a proper degree" as people with no experience of distance learning find it impossible to understand that you can learn and achieve just as much without being in the same room as others.

Obviously as an adult this was an opportunity I had to access and facilitate myself and self motivate through, I see the role of a HE parent as the facilitator and some times motivator for their child in a similar context.

I understand concerns about socialisation, however the most significant socialisation I had as a child was not within a school context. Brownies, Guides, mixed Guides/ scout camps :-) DofE, Cousins, Neighbours, Sports groups. All of which generally involved smaller groups of mixed ages, not the class of 30 kids your same age that you are thrown in with at school.

But the fact is that children at school are being monitored. HE children aren't. And they should be.

I think that's the unthinking assumption.

But look at the things that befall "monitored" schooled DC. Teachers aren't CP or welfare specialists and schools aren't ideal settings in which to determine these things. There are tragedies such as Daniel Pelka's every year involving schooled children. Real harm to schooled DC much more frequently.

All DC see health professionals but if you want to specifically do safeguarding checks on all children, you need a specific, whole popular, surveillance system. We know by now that "being seen", in or out of school, isn't enough.

(And the fact that schools aren't perfect at this simply indicates that 1000 hours isn't enough to detect determined abusers...)

In many ways i agree. A critical first step would need to be identifying all children, and creating some kind of record of their existence and place of education, rather than chasing the 'visible' deregistered HE community. It is the fact that children can 'disappear' - or never appear - that is one of the most concerning aspects of child protection.

Quite.

I'd been in this house about 18 months when a very smiley WPC turned up enquiring after the (schooled) primary aged DD of the previous owner. One can only speculate what that was all about, but it makes you wonder how the systems work.

By far the simplest thing would be to institute a system whereby annual health visiting continues until x age for ALL DC

I don't see how that would help anything. First of all its completely unnecessary for the large majority, it would be horrendously expensive, you couldn't possibly do it without a lot more HV's, and anyone with anything to hide or who simply couldn't be bothered or who couldn't make the time could just not engage.

Real harm to schooled DC much more frequently.

You need to look at percentages, not absolute numbers, because the schooled community is so much bigger - and also detection bias.