Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be outraged about this!

107 replies

BlessThisMess · 12/06/2009 10:50

(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?

OP posts:
Sharonladskjff · 14/06/2009 17:36

If the LEA felt the only way to gain enough evidence of a suitable education is through contact with the child they could ask the parent. If this failed they could decide that they do not have enough evidence of a suitable education and go through the process. Ultimately the court would decide if contact with the child is reasonably required to establish that an education is being provided. I believe in one case, the mother was disabled I think, it was decided that contact was necessary.

Sharonladskjff · 14/06/2009 17:41

"Under the new proposals parents would no longer have that opportunity. (Although they could bring it to court in some other way I believe)"

But if registration has been refused and the child is not sent to school they will officially be truanting (according to the recommendations) and the parent could be taken to court for this. We will have cases (as has happened in Scotland where permission to de-register is required) of children who are being bullied or are school phobic being forced to attend school until the parent is able to obtain permission to home educate and this could potentially take months or even years. What a choice to have to make for any parent, send your child into an unsafe environment (for that child) or risk prison.

Peachy · 14/06/2009 19:12

See, the post from Sharon makes sense; if a parent refuses to cooperate with the LEA then next step action could be taken.

it's just- I read so many posts on here and other fora when ds3 was HE saying parents wer refusing LEA contact for all sorts of reasons- to allow for deschooling, none of their business, many reasons.

I'm not sure those people would cooperate, and the next step would then be too formal and cause antagonism.

KathyBrown · 14/06/2009 19:39

This is typical the majority suffer for the criminal few who wouldn't register anyway.

SolidGoldBrass · 14/06/2009 22:36

What is disturbing about this is that it is another aspect of a massive change in the relationship between the individual and the state that started with the fucking Blair Government. Slowly but steadily they are changing the mindset from 'autonymous, innocent until proven guilty' to 'everyone is a criminal until they have got a certificate to say they are not'. And don't forget that the state 'care' for children is all being done on fuck all money and abuse and neglect are far more common in children's homes than in private homes...

ChippingIn · 15/06/2009 01:19

SGB - couldn't agree more.

IF it is to make children safer, I don't understand why HE children (or rather the parents of HE children) are being targeted when they are not in an at risk group?

When was the last time anyone heard of a HE REGISTERED child (as opposed to a child just not going to school, being kept in a basement or whatever) being abused or killed? The children that are routinely in the news are either pre-schoolers or at school.

FFS the majority of children abused/killed are already on a fucking at risk register. Why can they not just deal with that??????????????

Why - because this is not the real reason to bring in this new legislation. Be careful what you don't protest against now, because when it gets to the stage that officials can enter your home when they like, when innocent until proven guilty is a thing of the past and when the police can search your home anytime they like, without needing a warrant - don't start complaining about govt intervention - it will be too late.

As I said before - another nudge down the slippery slope....

anastaisia · 15/06/2009 15:32

"Why - because this is not the real reason to bring in this new legislation. Be careful what you don't protest against now, because when it gets to the stage that officials can enter your home when they like, when innocent until proven guilty is a thing of the past and when the police can search your home anytime they like, without needing a warrant - don't start complaining about govt intervention - it will be too late."

A key thing here is that even if you think we're over reacting now legislation that is made shouldn't be open to abuse by FUTURE governments either. Imagine for one second that a fringe party did get in, not necessarily at the next election but in 20/30/40 years even. Imagine the BNP, for example, coming into power and without even a pretence at consultation the right to educate your children in accordance with your own beliefs is gone. Instead they must follow the state curriculum, and education is a welfare issue - so if they don't then they can be removed from you. Its not impossible, that's the situation in Germany even today after state education was made compulsory by the Nazi party in the 1930s.

So do think about it, and how changes like this don't just effect us here and now, but set precendents for future changes as well.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page