Why and how do you home educate?

[gabid]

I am quite frustrated with the early school starting age in the UK. When DS was 3 a primary school teacher friend of mine said she would love to home educate if she found a couple of parents who would join and do it together. At that point I had never thought about it and worried about social aspets and being academically behind in later years. In the meantime that friend has moved away.

We asked our local school whether DS could start Reception one year late and were were told yes, but he would then have to join Y1 - we didn't. DS is 6 now and in Y2, aged 4, he went from refusing to read and do maths with his teacher to being an average reluctant reader at age 6. I don't think the system has done him any favours. And I wish I would have been braver and kept him out during the infant years.

How did you get into home ed? How and how long do you do it for?

Julienoshoes, above, stated that 50,000 home ed children are unregistered. I find this terrifying. Rosemary's compound living experience sounds quite healthy, as probably are most home ed situations, but I am worried that she said three children had never left the compound at all.

50,000 children growing up without the LA ever knowing they exist is, as Katherine says above, a bloody scandal.

I think the LAs should seperate the child protection aspect away from the home education.

"50,000 children growing up without the LA ever knowing they exist is, as Katherine says above, a bloody scandal."

Why?

Because nobody knows whether they are being cared for or not juuule. If a child is registered with a school then it can be seen if they are or not. It's fairly basic.

I see, children are invisible to neighbours, shop keepers, librarians until registered with the state.

It does seem that a fair few children are invisible to everyone TimeWasting. I know what you are saying, and have seen this line of argument very many times. It is a circular argument and doesn't say anything in the end.

Put very simply - there are children whose parents don't/can't take adequate care of them. From the age of 5, if these children are in the school system this can be seen and acted on. If they are not in the school system it is unlikely this will be seen and acted upon.

As I stated above, it is solely down to LA's that this situation exists.

There is definitely a big hole in the safety net with home ed. But I don't blame the LAs for not getting involved, in my experience on these threads I have found some of them quite scarily defensive. Easier to walk away really.

The LA's have been the cause of the defensive language from home educators.

You think a LA should 'walk away' from child safety? Seriously?

Of course I don't think that, you misunderstand. It is easier for them to walk away when there is so much defensiveness and that's why they do it. Anyone would be defensive if a CP officer singled them out to check on them, but a blanket checking system would be far more successful.

Also, the services save a lot of money when people home educate.

'It is easier for them to walk away when there is so much defensiveness and that's why they do it'

I don't really understand you. Are you saying that LA's walk away from CP issues when there is defensiveness?

'Anyone would be defensive if a CP officer singled them out to check on them'

Well yes. I'm talking about home education inspectors though. It is the norm in the home education community to be defensive towards these people because their aim on the whole is to stop people home educating. They see it as a second class way of children learning. If LA's hadn't set up this way of working then there wouldn't be such defensiveness towards them.

The most invisible children are the ones you and I see every day.

You know the ones, in hoodies outside shops, the ones sitting on the swings in little kids parks who slouch off when they see a "normal" family approaching, they are the ones who cycle past you on the pavement on bikes that are years too small for them, they are thin, they wont be wearing a decent coat, they are boys and they are 11 - 15 years of age, some younger.

An inner-city problem ? A wealth problem ? A race problem ? - na, Newbury,Berkshire,England, 2011.
So - now you too can see the invisible children - well some of them at least, will you as a neighbour, or a shop worker, or passer-by in the street, do anything ?

Okay steady on, less of the dramatics Rosemary. You sound like an ad for the NSPCC.

Child protection is a red herring. Parents home educate to nurture their offspring. The incidence of neglect or abuse will be far higher among children who attend school. The real issue, perhaps, is whether home schooling can provide an adequate formal education: most often, in my view it cannot, or at least not for children of secondary school age. Yet schools also often fail in this regard.

"You know the ones, in hoodies outside shops, the ones sitting on the swings in little kids parks who slouch off when they see a "normal" family approaching, they are the ones who cycle past you on the pavement on bikes that are years too small for them, they are thin, they wont be wearing a decent coat, they are boys and they are 11 - 15 years of age, some younger."

Oh my goodness. Not much stereotyping going on there

That'll be the three hoodies sitting in the bus station who helped me up when I fell over and carried my shopping to the taxi and used my Iphone to phone my son to come and collect me.
No one else bothered to help me.
And they actually gave me my Iphone back:)

Where does the figure of 50,000 home educated children unknown to the authorities come from? Obviously if children are unknown, you could pluck any number from the air, but 50,000 doesn't sound plausible.

I've done some research on numbers edyourself.org/articles/lalinegraph.php and edyourself.org/articles/latotalnumber.php

Numbers were rising between 2005 and 2007 but appear to be levelling off by 2009.

In 2009 there were 20,000 children known to local authorities. These are mostly children who have been taken out of school.

I'm curious. What are the grounds for saying that for every 2 children who are known, there are 5 more who are unknown?

Julienoshoes gave me the figure - the Government's estimate is 80,000.

In my view (not that you want to hear it), One home ed child not known to services, for the whole of their childhood, is one too many.

Majorview your faith in mainstream educated children/hoodies is heartwarming and very welcome on this thread! Teenagers are always a bit scary, but not as scary as some of the home edders on here.

Crikey Realhousewife, you sure do scare easily. Are we reading the same thread?? All I have seen are differences of opinion, a bit like the rest of MN.

I my experience the most anti have been teachers. I'm not taking your job away, although many seem to see Home Ed-ers as a threat. It's crap teachers who left my SEN child high and dry who pushed me into Home Education in the first place - and don't be mistaken in thinking I'm alone - take a look at the SEN pages and you'll see dozens of cases of teachers and schools who fail these children day in and day out.
Send your children to school, if that works for you, but please don't insult me by saying that every child will be better cared for and nurtured by the simple act of attending school. The real world just isn't like that, when the doors are closed at a school they can and do, do whatever they see fit - no different from home. Still don't believe me - look at the blogs on the TES site - we use some of these resouces - some of the opinions of the teachers are a bloody discrase. A teacher laughing that one of their SEN children was struggling, and their thoughts were 'how could you be so effing stupid' - wow, how I respect teachers and all they stand for now.

A teacher laughing that one of their SEN children was struggling, and their thoughts were 'how could you be so effing stupid

Is this what the teacher actually thought or what you decided she thought? That's quite an accusation.

This is the kind of statement of non-fact that makes home edders scary.

Crap teaching is the order of the day when it comes to SEN, schools just don't 'get' inclusive education - I agree with you on that one. Hopefully now that they can't get an 'outstanding' ofsted unless they show they are fully inclusive with SEN, I can only hope things change.

"The real issue, perhaps, is whether home schooling can provide an adequate formal education:"

My children have never had any formal education. Not even five minutes of formal education. They are bloody fabulous people - interested, interesting, talented, with brilliant powers of concentration and tenacity. And not a curriculum or an adult-imposed educational agenda in sight.

"formal education" as an ideal, my arse.

Sorry for the tourette's-y post, but threads like this always get me riled up. It's the unquestioning faith in the goodness of The State that really gets my goat. One child not in school and unknown to the authorities is one too many? For me, one child needlessly removed from a loving family by inept social services is one too many. And because there is definitely more than one of THOSE each year, I would do whatever I could to keep all the children I know of in loving families as far away from the grasp of the State as possible, frankly. And in my experience, home ed families are among the most loving and nurturing families there are - because they've actually listened when their children have cried "school is hell" (I know school is not hell for all children. those for whom it is not hell don't cry that it is hell, and don't get home edded).

as for the ghastly families who schools have welfare concerns about - then you school people need to report those welfare concerns to social services pronto, and not dilute the resources of Social Services by faffing about muddling educational welfare and general wellbeing, and wasting time with home edders who, let's be frank, are overwhelmingly NOT the ghastly families you are talking about. "I don't think Social Services work fast enough when we report a child as being in danger, so I think all home educators should be inspected once a year". How precisely is that going to help the children in danger?

Ommward

Ooer, steady on...

ommmward -
'One child not in school and unknown to the authorities is one too many? For me, one child needlessly removed from a loving family by inept social services is one too many.'

Both statements are true. It is so sad that you think everyone parents as well as you. So sad for the children that are not being cared for.

realhousewife - perhaps you could read the comments from teachers on TES sometime? Really really shocking stuff on there.

Please don't misunderstand me, KatherineClifton. I am well aware that there are families who do not treat their children in a manner that is moral or legal. And that some of those are HEing.

'One child not in school and unknown to the authorities is one too many?'

I challenge your claim that this statement is true. My children are not in school and are unknown to the authorities. they are known to a large range of other people, within and outwith the local community but not to state employees by and large (they are registered with a doctor but are in good health, so visit the GP very rarely - for injections, pretty much!) They are loved, nurtured and cared for; there are people who would notice and act if they were being mistreated. Why is the fact that they are not known to the local authority education and/or welfare teams a problem for anyone? Anyone at all? And what about all the other home ed families like mine? Why need our children be on anyone's at risk list? What a nonsense!

There are few enough resources - the State needs to concentrate the ones it has on the families that need them. And it's precisely those cowed children who get removed from school in a flurry of expletives that need the help and need referral to social services or an education welfare officer. If she's busy visiting my family and tens of others like us, completely pointlessly, she will miss the needle of the abused child in the haystack of perfectly adequate family set ups.

And we haven't even started on all the pre-schoolers yet, but exactly the same applies. Thousands and thousands of absolutely fine families. And some ghastly ones - the social workers need to be concentrating on looking after the children in the ghastly families, and the responsibility is on communities to report when things seem awry, not on every family to be considered guilty until decided innocent by some overworked (and with his/her own inevitable prejudices) social worker.

People determined to abuse and neglect their children will find ways of doing so however much the State interferes in the lives of ordinary families. They'll be some ghastly man who keeps his daughter locked in the cellar and impregnates her on a regular basis, killing the grandchildren, or raping them on a daily basis too. None of them are ever registered. None of them will ever be known to the State unless they escape, or someone notices how much food he buys for a one-man household. It's horrible, it's sick-making, but placing an ever-increasing number of non-vaccinating/home-educating/lentil-weaving/select-dissident-characteristic-of-your-choice families under the ever-watchful eye of welfare services isn't going to do anything to help that sick bastard's victims.