To be outraged about this!

[BlessThisMess]

(Thanks to 'Anonymous' on the DareToKnow blogspot for this):

Since the majority of children who die at the hands of their parents are aged under 5, maybe the following regulations ought to be brought in. This seems the next logical step after the Government has accepted these same recommendations for Home Educators. At least there is some evidence of risk for the under 5s!

Recommendation 1
That the government establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children from birth to statutory school age who do not attend a nursery [though this idea seems particularly ironic ATM].

This scheme should be common to all local authorities.

Registration should be renewed annually.

Those who are registering for the first time should be visited by the appropriate local authority officer within one month of registration.... etc

Recommendation 7

The DCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and statutory basis to ensure that in monitoring the safety of infants and young children:

That designated local authority officers should:

• have the right of access to the home;

• have the right to physically examine pre-verbal children [how else could they check for abuse in a pre-verbal child] and speak with older child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer.

In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.... etc.

Honestly, would you accept this level of interference into yours and your children's lives? I think not. I think there would be an absolute public outcry. Why then is it OK for home educators to be subject to this level of intrusion and scrutiny?

Yes Peachy,
Sadly there are freaks in all walks of life BUT we are all, supposedly, innocent until proven guilty NOT the other way round.

Surely, we should all be monitored round the clock then....just in case.

[sarcastic emoticon]

But there 8are freaks out there, and that's the point isn't it?*

So doesn't this just drive them further underground, as in the case in Austria? Plenty of home educators have been reported to SS solely for home educating. The community tends to notice children at home during the school day, take more notice and seem more likely to report them if they are concerned. If they think that they are being checked regularly by the authorities they may feel less need to feel concerned because, well, they've been checked so must be OK. However, it will be a false sense of security because an annual visit is only going to spot gross examples of neglect that are likely to be spotted by the community anyway.

Peachy, if this had been going on for years then presumably it had been going on while she was at school. And nobody had picked up on it? While you think she may have spoken to anyone at that point, that might be true or it might only have been because she trusted you that she sought you out. Obviously I don't know the details and it sounds horrendous but I'm not convinced that the measures being suggested for HE would have helped her.

Peachy, was the child really being home educated or had she just not been enrolled at a school after moving?

How will it really harm anyone? Really?

How might it really help someone? In all the ways described.

I was horrified that my son only got seen once by a HV before he started school. I think that the state should interfere in children's upbringing, as it inconveniences the good parents a bit in order for the crap parents to have to be a little more on their guard or to give the poor kids in their houses a tiny chance to be checked to see that nothing's obviously wrong.

If you saw the shite upbringings that some people round here have, you'd not be advocating so much for parents to be left alone to parent, trust me. Some parents need interference in order to be able to parent and some children need interference to keep them safe or alive.

Givemesleep,

I agree that there are parents who could do with help but there are already measures in place to deal with them. The government should be concentrating on improving these existing procedures not blaming home educators without ANY evidence to show that we are more likey to abuse our dc. It's not just about H.E kids' welfare though. They want to tell us HOW/WHAT/WHERE to educate our dc, which is also an abuse of power imo.

"If you saw the shite upbringings that some people round here have, you'd not be advocating so much for parents to be left alone to parent, trust me. Some parents need interference in order to be able to parent and some children need interference to keep them safe or alive."

And that's a key point there isn't it. It is nothing to do with home education - either a child is safe at home or not. It wont make a difference for the children who are not if they go to a post private school, the worst local comp or are home educated - they are not safe with their parents. But it is not an education issue its a wefare issue. And an expensive registration scheme is not the answer.

posh private school

There is also the issue of the risk of losing the children at real risk in a growing haystack. It already seems difficult for social services to cope with current workloads and there are staff shortages in many areas. How does adding more children, many of whom are at no risk, to their workloads going to help? As Kayteee says, there are procedures already in place that can be used. From the point of view of home educators, they have to prove that they are providing a suitable education to the LEA or the LEA can issue a School Attendance Order.

The ContactPoint database (currently coming on-line) will list all children in the UK, including information about their place of education, so we don't need to be concerned about children being missed. The only reason to spend the money on inspections of all home educators is to check on the safety of the child (because education provision is already covered by existing law). Is there any research evidence to suggest that routine annual visits will find cases of abuse and will it be cost effective? If money is spent on this there will be less to spend elsewhere and I think more children at genuine risk of harm will be missed as a result.

All this aside...I actually believe that this review has been brought about because the Government are worried about the growing numbers of home educators.

Call me a conspiracy theorist (which is hard to type after a few glasses of wine) but I really think there is another agenda here.

Oh, and btw OP YAverydefinitelyNBU!!

To those who have asked about DS's half sibling.

I have and continue to do so.

In context. My DS was on at risk reg prebirth. B.mum was never allowed to care for him on her own. He was removed and put in our care. Two years later she had another. Despite over a years worth of assesment paperwork clearly asserting she was incapable of parenting and putting a child's needs first, social services did a cursory assement and then backed off completely.

We expressed our concerns via phone and letter. Whenever we witnessed a worrying incident or even heard of one we informed ss. We were pretty much told to mind our own business, we were made to feel that we wanted to steal the baby away from this poor girl.

She has isolated herself from family so we can no longer keep an eye on her. So what am I supposed to do. Call them up and say 'I havent seen her for two years but I just know she isnt looking after that baby properly' ?

Doesent really work like that does it?

When she starts school and b.mother cannot be bothered to take her in on time or at all, when she falls asleep at her desk because they are up all night, when she lets slip what goes on in that house, when she doesnt get picked up cos b.mum cant be arsed. Hopefully SS will begin to listen.

Its not easy to be a relative in these situations. You visit any forum for kinship carers and they will repeat the same story over and over. We get ignored. We get accused of being malicious baby stealers, the birth parents are manipulative and very good at working the system.

What are we suppposed to do? Go and snatch the child? Tell the SS to start an investigation based on no real evidence?

I know b.mum because I spent nearly two years with her. Try and explain that to a sw who has never met her. I think about DS's sibling a lot. I worry about her and how her life will turn out. I hope that one day DS will get to meet her. I know she is loved but I pray she is safe.

"Tell the SS to start an investigation based on no real evidence?"

Basically what's going to be happening to home educators, which you're happy with apparently, so why not?

Oh, ffs, it's not going to be investigations. Nowhere has it been said that that will happen. Unless there's a cause for concern, in which case people should be investigated.

anastisia, you said :"And that's a key point there isn't it. It is nothing to do with home education - either a child is safe at home or not. It wont make a difference for the children who are not if they go to a post private school, the worst local comp or are home educated - they are not safe with their parents. But it is not an education issue its a wefare issue. And an expensive registration scheme is not the answer."

Education is tied up with welfare these days. It's part of the Every Child Matters thing and the joined-up working thing, and is the reason that so many schools now have police officers, social workers, psychologists etc. working on the same site as schools. People are realising that it has to be holistic and people have to work together to help the whole child, rather than compartmentalising education, health and welfare. Hence my belief that schools are well placed to spot abuse and neglect. It's only the hardcore old codgers in teaching these days who mutter bitterly, 'I'm not a fecking social worker', because we know that we are the bridge to one.

sharon, you said "The only reason to spend the money on inspections of all home educators is to check on the safety of the child (because education provision is already covered by existing law)."

Surely that's quite a big reason though?

"Is there any research evidence to suggest that routine annual visits will find cases of abuse and will it be cost effective?"

I doubt that there's any research, but it's common sense to know that a 'home-educated' child who is kept locked in a bedroom, starved, bruised and neglected and never sees anyone other than their 'carer' is unlikely to be saved from that situation. If that same child goes to school, people will notice the bruises and may spot other signs that can at least lead to questions being asked, if not lead to SS being involved if necessary. Chegirl's example is so sad and it will be good when the girl starts school so that any problems can be dealt with. it's awful that she has to wait that long, but imagine if the mum could 'home-educate' without checks indefinitely? Keep everyone away from the home and the child?

Think of that girl in Birmingham. Presumably a starving, emaciated child would have been spotted at school. But no, mum decides to 'home-ed' and it can all be covered up.

Most HE parents are obviously good parents. In fact, I would guess that a high proportion are excellent and very caring, as evidenced by the high level of commitment needed to do what they do instead of sending them to school. I also think that our school system doesn't suit everyone and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that HE wouldn't be allowed. But we have to legislate for those who aren't and put safety systems in to protect those who can't speak for or protect themselves.

An official, unknown to the child, has a right of access to your private home, is entitled to speak with the child (as young as 5) without parental supervision. On an annual basis, with the right to deny the family to exercise a perfectly legal right to home educate for a number of currently undefined reasons. For NO reason other than home educating the family are know to the authorities in a way that is only applied to school children who are classed as 'at risk'. Yes, I'd call that an investigation actually.

Schools are ONE place in which abuse may be spotted, or may occur (seen the news recently about schools and nurseries?) So drawing attention to specific cases can be played both ways and isn't an argument I'd want to get into as a reason for children to be safer at school.

That girl in Birmingham was withdrawn from school and actually visited by a EWO in the 10 weeks from being withdrawn to her death- what good would a yearly visit do when they can miss that? And again, for every case like that there will be as many children missed in school and abused at home.

"But we have to legislate for those who aren't and put safety systems in to protect those who can't speak for or protect themselves."
By that reasoning EVERY child in the UK should be visited in their home environment to ensure they aren't being abused while not at school. Or do you think that's taking it too far?

Have you read my post?

Didnt say I was 'happy' with anything.
Am not anti HE
Dont think HE parents are child abusers

If you want I could phone the duty sw tommorow and explain that I know that B.mum is unlikely to keep her child safe based on psych reports and sw assessments (which were carried out by them and are on their files), several incidents that we have already reported (all on file), family knowledge and concerns (expressed to ss already) and our personal experience of knowing this woman since she was a little girl. And because someone on MNs with seemingly very little idea of how cp systems work thinks we should.

What do you think will happen?

Feck all.

Sorry if I misunderstood chegirl, and I suppose that whatever your thought on annual registration 'happy' wouldn't have been the right word to use anyway.

I don't think though, that home ed would make the little girl any more or less safe than she would be anyway. Either children are at risk, or they are not. If there are issues then its not enough for the government to place the burden of identifying that on to schools. Concerns have been expressed and there is NO excuse for that not to have been followed up now if that child is at risk. Adding an annual monitoring and registration scheme for many thousands of children is pointless if they are already not following up valid recorded concerns at present.

I dont know what the answer is Anastaisia

School attendance should NOT be the only safety net for children but once they are over a certain age, it seems to be.

If a parent doesnt take their child to clinics, GP, church, clubs etc it is the only place where adults can pick up on any concerns.

If school is not in the picture that [patchy] safety net is removed.

I get the impression that lots of HE feel targeted and misunderstood and that must be very difficult. Its obvious to me that HE takes a lot of commitment and care.

But how do we monitor the safety of children who do not go to school? Is this discussed amoung HE ers?

Again - not assuming that HE ers are more likely to abuse or neglect. Maybe it could be compared to orthodox communites such as some of the Jewish communities. They do not tend to engage with mainstream services so do they have their own policies/laws for monitoring the safety of vunerable members?

Is there a HE community? I dont know a huge amount about it. Maybe if there was some involvement from a HE this situation could be resolved in a better way?

Its late and I am tired so may not be posting in a particularly intelligent way.

Givemesleep: are you realy this smug and dumb or are you just posting that way for effect? The consequences of this level of interference being accepted are terrifying. The 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' argument is rank bullshit. Quite a few of the social problems ongoing today are directly attributable to the steadily-increasing, Government-fostered levels of hatred, suspicion and paranoia - everyone is a peedaphil, everyone with dark skin is a member of Al Quaida, everyone with an unusual sexual preference is a serial-killing rapist. Oh well, they might be. So trust no-one. Except the Government, who will throw you in jail on a whim, confiscate your possessions, lose what confidential data they have on you, or flog it to a large corporation the better to get money out of you.
The high levels of street disorder almost certainly have a fair amount to do with the high levels of surveillance: the feeling of being constantly watched is conducive to mental health problems. Unless there is clear evidence of something going badly wrong and someone being harmed it is not the Government's business what we do in our own homes or in any public place.

The recommendation is actually that a person who has (also a recommendation) had training about the different sorts of home education would make an annual pre arranged visit with no less than two weeks notice. Under some circumstances this person would talk to the child either alone or in the presence of a trusted adult (not the home educator). This seems to me to be about protecting the rights of the child.

*School attendance should NOT be the only safety net for children but once they are over a certain age, it seems to be.

If a parent doesnt take their child to clinics, GP, church, clubs etc it is the only place where adults can pick up on any concerns.*

chegirl, given that something like 3/4 of children who die at the hands of their parents or carers are aged under 5, and families of children in this age group are not legally required to be visited or checked in any way, wouldn't this be the obvious group to begin compulsory home visits? How do you and others feel about compulsory annual home visits for all under 5's?

When I lived in the States all children had to have an annual inspection by a peadiatrician in order to attend school or go on any organised event/course. Seemed to me a crazy waste of resources, but most parents thought it was great, and were amazed when I said my children hadn't seen a health care professional for years (nice healthy kids). If your child is healthy, you are not a churchgoer (only 10% go to church even monthly, although there will a further % that go to synagogues, mosques etc) and you don't feel the need to sign up to any clubs etc, then your child could potentially be out of contact with anyone who might notice something wasn't right for years. If you live somewhere like London that doesn't really have a community then you can be very invisible.

I doubt this initiative, even if implemented would be that helpful without a lot of extra resources, but in principle, and with the right safeguards then I would not have a problem with a scheme like this for all children not in regular contact with health/welfare services. And a right of access would be a very good thing to have in reserve. I work in health and have been CRB checked several times. I don't find it intrusive or an abuse of my liberty. If I didn't have the right to see my record, then possibly I would feel differently, but as it is to keep vulnerable people safe I really don't see it as a problem.

Sharon, I would welcome a compulsory home visit for under 5's who are not seen in any other capacity.

Perhaps (and I speak only for myself really) mine and possibly GMS's appraoch are linked to the fact that due to children with the same challenging issues, we've both been 'in the system' for years in varying ways, and have not found ourselves under the sort of investigations and accusations people seem to think will be an inevitable follow on from the idea?

Yes, Peachy, perhaps that's it.

SolidGoldBrass disagreeing with you doesn't make me smug or dumb. I am neither. I'm just not being a selfish sensationalist crying 'help, help, Big Brother wants to take my children away and dictate everything I can say and think!' just because someone's going to come to me house once a year and check that my child looks OK.

I also think there should be HV checks for under-5s.

The level of freedom we have in this country is breathtaking compared to most other countries in the world. Some people abuse that.