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?

DS4 hasn't seen a HV for ages, aprtly due to the fact we're elsewhere (baby gym) the day they do clinic, but also because they were frankly bloody unhelpful.

So actually I am pretty stunned, doubly given that we already have 2 disabled chidlren, that the HV phoned when she took over (ie a new one we have never met) and said 'don't worry, we'll check him at 2 years )

She has nothing to base my competence on apart from the fact that I didnt make the appt she set up becuase it was a snow day from school.

It wuld be too damned easy for anyone who deliberately wanted to slip under the net to do so. The safety net, not the big brother net.

Absolutely I think sending n SS would send a wrong message, I'm hoping to train as a SW so nto anti them but aware of the image they have, and also significantly that they wouldn't have the space in their workload anyway.

But if it's done by somene with a special interest in HE, where's the problem? Surely it'd be useful as as a chance to get advice, pick the brains, network a bit. As the chidlrens disability worker does here, give that person the role of setting up a local network here to boost those run by aprents, some funding for activities.

I know when I was HE'ing ds4 I could well have done with somene to access for advice on local activities for a HE'd ASD reception child, I couldn't find anything anywhere bar HES-fest which wasn't ever going to work for us. E_O looked fine but cost money we didn't really have. If ds1 ends up HE'd (quite likely) then I'dfeel the same no doubt, rather isolated and lacking in support info.

Taht's the otential of the role, in my eyes: CP work is a natural side effect of any job that brings you into contact with kids, and should be seen as that only in this role.

I don't think someone will come and take my child away. I think me and DD would look fantastic in an annual interview.

I do think they would try and make me follow a curriculum when I believe autonomous education is the best option for my DD and many others. And if we didn't teach the things they set out then they would issue a school attendance order against my will.

I also think that many children with special needs willl not test well, and if targets are introduced will not meet them - just as they wouldn't have met them in school I fear that the government will not hesitate to expect more of these families than they do of their own schools, and I don't see how these families will come out of annual checks will do well.

I broadly agree with SGB (except for the smug and dumb comments directed to GMS.. and street disorder point).

My experience of having a child with SN makes me even more determined to avoid unnecessary interference -as support provided by the system has been so patchy, I feel damned if I'm going to let people in on a fishing exhibition.

In the dreadful cases that have hit the news in the last year, the children have all been under the radar of SS/health anyway, which didn't save them.

I also agree with BlessthisMess that the school environment can be very damaging for some children whose needs are not being met either due to SEN or inadequate measures against bullying.

I also agree with the SEN thing, as thats why ds3 was and ds1 may be HE'd

But I wouldn't have a problem with a special HE dept who could advise,and yes by default vhek

Not forcing a curriculum, although p[ersonally I'dfollow onw (choice)- but a specific support agency. Someone who will meet you once a year at least,more if you ask.

Someone who I can approach and say 'look, DS1 can't seem to grasp X, how have other parents approached this?'

I'm not good at getting out into my area neyond the SN system, i'd much rather have someone who can be approached directly rather than have to be at 'X location at X time on the second tuesday of the month, please bring a snack and sorry we can't take siblings' (the local support group)

If this idea is cleverly followed, it will be run by keen former HE'ers with loads knowledge and ideas.

But Peachy, these recommendations don't talk about a special home ed department, only training in safeguarding, CAF and being able to understand the issues of diversity and different approaches to HE.

They do talk about developing a curriculum in recomendation 2:
That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a ?suitable? and ?efficient?
education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum
assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of
the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly
prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated
curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient
information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The
outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.
Home educators should be engaged in this process.

And if the government already have problems dealing with existing cases where children are genuinely at risk - what makes you think that these home ed experts supposedly coming to inspect families would be either expert enough, or appropriately funded to meet what you see as being a good system? Even now, with the 2007 guidence LAs can't seem to produce the same information for Home Educators across the board - with many not following either the Law or the government's own guidence. So how can we expect that things will improve if these recommendations give them more power?

Peachy, I believe Ed Balls has welcomed the registration, visits, access to homes and children, and control of curriculum aspects of the review but has been lukewarm about the recommendations for support of home educators.

Its a pity the government's concern for child welfare didn't extend to the thousands of Iraqi kids they've orphaned and maimed.Not to mention what has gone on in children's homes in this country not to mention all those children on the 'at risk' register whose horrendous abuse has gone unnoticed.Maybe hen they get their own house in order they can start looking at Home Edders

Does anyone have any thoughts about the dangers of false positives (innocent people being accused of abuse or neglect)? This aspect seems to have been ignored so far. Maybe some of those trained in this area were given this information during their training.

Do people believe that families are never falsely accused and harmed as a result, or is this just collateral damage and considered an acceptable trade-off?

Does anyone know how frequent false positives are in practice? If 1000 routine safe and well home visits are made, how many are likely to result in false accusations of abuse or neglect?

How much more at risk of false accusations of abuse or neglect are families with children with SEN likely to be? Until these questions can be answered, how can we know if routine safe and well visits will save more children than they harm?

Can someone explain why the idea of someone speaking to your child without you being present is being presented as one of the most disturbing points? I'm not being pointed, I think that with three kids at school I'm used to them speaking to adults in an official capacity without me there on a regular basis, which makes it harder to understand why this part is seen as so shocking.

As to the rest of the proposal, it's difficult to emphatically come down one way or the other. Clearly HE could be used as a way to disguise abuse within a family, equally clearly the vast majority of HE families are not at all abusive. Whether the recommendations would work to protect those children who are being abused is impossible to know. Checking up on all HE families does verge on an intrusion of civil liberties, but then a system of registration doesn't seem totally outrageous.

Chessiers, As well as the civil liberties concerns - that we should be considered innocent until proven guilty and access to homes in the UK happens only with probable cause, warrants, etc, so this represents a major change for everyone in the UK (once it's acceptable for one group it's less possible to argue against the same treatment for others), I think that child safety is a concern for many.

Teachers are advised not to speak to children on their own for their own and the child's safety (I've been told, so maybe anyone with direct knowledge can confirm or deny). Currently home education visits are often carried out by one person and the proposal is that the child can be questioned without their parents being present. I realise that people like the nursery worker and headteacher who intimately examined a 5 year old who have made the headlines are relatively rare, but there have been enough news items over the years for this to be a serious concern for some parents.

Chessiers, Registration as a list of home educators is irrelevant. The ContactPoint database will list all children in the UK and this will include their name, address, parents/legal guardian details,school, GP and any other professionals involved with the child. Thee aspects of registration that concern people is that the LEA will be able to refuse permission to home educate. Parents are currently legally responsible for ensuring their child receives a suitable education. Registration, and the ability to refuse registration, is a transfer of this responsibility from the parents to the state. LEAs can currently issue a school attendance order if they believe a child isn't receiving a suitable education. If the parents believe they are providing a suitable education, they can argue against the SAO in court and provide evidence in the form of their choosing. If registration can be refused, parents may not be able to argue their case in court.

Sharonlads, thanks for explaining all of that.

Another question, or two, and sorry to bombard you. Do you think anyone should be able to choose to HE? What if an individual parent is unable to provide the education their child needs yet is unable to recognise or acknowledge this? Clearly there are many incredibly motivated and wonderful HE parents, and I'm not at all against HE, but equally there will be some who are failing their child, or children, either through an inability to provide or, in a very few cases, through neglect. How do we ensure that those children whose parents cannot, or will not, do what you do for yours are recognised and assisted without intruding on those families where there are no issues to be addressed?

Anastasia, by that stage in my posts I was setting out how I would do it

I am not Ed Balls

As sharon said - there is already a way for this to be taken care of. If there is concern THEN investigations can take place - same way as if there was concern for the well-being of an under 5 or school child.

If it appears an education is not suitable the LA can issue a school attendance order. If the parents don't comply it goes to court and if the LA show evidence of no education then the child MUST go school. Its just that it works the same way as suspected abuse, you don't go in and check every household just in case, concerns must be raised first.

Sorry anastaisia, I'd misread Sharon's post as describing what may happen as opposed to what does happen. Though I think I was also under the impression that the current system depends on the LEA in question.

Sharon your point about false accusations is a ahrd one to asnwer, the system isn't set up so there is an accusation 'moment'. ratherm enquiries are continued until eitehr action is taken or otherwise.

As a family with 2 chidlren with SEN severe enough to require statementsing (autism), I don't think we would be at all exposed to extra risk of false accusation. the rpesence of professionals within our lives is so marked regardl;ess of education that unless you were making a decided stand to remain nchartered, you would have jumped through most hoops in this anyway, and have been assessed during diagnosis, any respite application etc.

A flip side to the concern is that already in order to get SS to assist or take concerns seriously you have to beg and be rather pushy, i've not yet managed it for either of my two, or their carer- registered (with young carers) sibling. Aftr ds1's diagnosis we were assessed fully, but the resultant forms simply have 'intelligent and competent aprent' in eaqch and every box.

Given existing workloads in SS I'd be very surprised if it were administerd by them, but if it was SW are not bogeymen, there are several on MN, indeed I am applying for the post- grad myself next year, subject to childcare.

Ahh, so you'd support some other proposals for some kind of regulation but don't agree with the outcomes of THIS review and THESE proposals.

I think a lot of home educators feel that way too

sorry that was to you Peachy - but before the cross posts

Anastaisia, what sort of regulation or set-up would you support? Is there any kind of consensus among the HE community, that you're aware of, as to what would work or, even, be ideal?

Ah I did wonder Anas , gets busy on these threads at times

Well if contact-point goes ahead then there should be no need for additional registration as each child's entry will give there place of education. So it will be clear who is home educated and who attends school. Why have another data-base at additional expense.

Hi Chessiers, this is one of the complaints people have about LEAs. They often do not understand or use their current powers, yet are asking for more. Yes, some LEAs decide not to make enquiries and issue SAOs, so to a certain extent the current system does depend on the LEA in question, but they all have the same legal powers.

Summary of LEA powers re. home education, hopefully this is the up to date version but I'm sure someone will correct me if it's wrong:

1. If the LEA has evidence that the educational provision appears to be inadequate, the LEA must serve the parents with a notice giving them at least 15 days to satisfy them that they are educating properly.

2. If the parents fail to do this, the LEA then have to consider whether it is expedient for the child to go to school. If they think it is they must serve a 'school attendance order', but before doing so they must serve a notice stating which school they intend to name in the order, and giving the parents a chance to choose an alternative.

1. The LEA serve a school attendance order requiring the parents to register the child as a pupil at the school named in it.

1. The parents can ask the LEA to revoke the order because they are educating 'otherwise'.

1. The LEA can prosecute the parents for not complying with the order, but the action will fail if the parents can show the court that they are educating 'otherwise'.

The evidence a court requires to satisfy it that adequate education is taking place, is such as would convince ?a reasonable person?, ?on the balance of probabilities?. (Under section 447, whether they prosecute or not, the LEA must also consider applying for an education supervision order.)

Isn't the flaw there in the first step though?

How would the LEA get evidence of a chid not being educated properly if it has no ciontact with that child?

I'm wary of LEA's, pretty much everyone with a Sn kid is, but I'd hazard a guess it's that flaw that this is after addressing.

I do think the solution for both aprties is the HE support workers I suggested up th thread a bit.

Same way they become concerned about abuse or neglect in welfare cases - someone makes a complaint, or if a child is removed from school after a period of trouble with work or not attending then they have that on record. Either of these, or other things, give them the right to make informal enquires. Parents do not have to respond but guidance from previous cases suggests that they should.

If the parent's response would convince a reasonable person that they are facilitating an education no further action needs to be taken. If it is not clear they can ask for more information. If no education appears to taking place then they can procede with the following steps. BUT the parents have the chance to put their case forward in court. Under the new proposals parents would no longer have that opportunity. (Although they could bring it to court in some other way I believe)