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?

p.s. one of the unintended consequences of the Badman saga is that there are rather a lot of previously-wide-eyed home educators out there who have rehearsed the arguments in this area on a regular basis. If I come over a bit aggressive, it'll be because I spent weeks exploring the arguments ready for a select committee hearing (where several of my sentences got incorporated into the subsequent select committee report [which S-L-A-M-M-E-D Badman], fwiw)

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

ommmward yes, the problem is, if they don't know they exist, HOW are they going to prevent abuse?

ommmward - I don't misunderstand you. Your stance is fundamentally selfish. You don't want you and your children to be bothered, even though it may help other children much less fortunate. It doesn't get much more selfish than that.

You'll never see this though and will go round and round in a circular argument forever. I see it from peeps like you all the time on EVERY Home Ed group and forum I am on. People don't bother to challenge this as you and your ilk will go on and on and on and on and on and on, and be agressive and scare others. Doesn't make you right though. It's easier just to let it pass. Sometimes people like you are challenged to make a rational argument and it NEVER happens.

I await a reply to this with eagerness...

I do feel like I've been sucked into a concentric circle on here. I've not said home education is bad, just been treated as if I'm against it. And unfortunately it has ALWAYS been like this on Home ed threads.

I thought ommmward's explanation was great, but will try repeating it in other words in case that helps to hit the mark.

The naive assumption is often made that if you take a large group of ordinary people and do a quick check of all of them for a problem (child abuse, say) then you will correctly identify and help a number of abused children, while all of the non-abused children on whom you checked will not suffer from being checked.

It doesn't work that way.

First, a quick check is very very unlikely to uncover abuse. If the abuse were obvious then the children would already have come to the attention of SS by other means. On the other hand if the parents are able to hide the abuse from relatives, friends and neighbours then what chance does a total stranger have of spotting it in the space of an hour or two? Spot checks of an entire population are not an effective or efficient method of identifying abused children. Far more effective to concentrate resources on those children already known to be at risk - children who have been reported to SS by GPs, neighbours, friends, and relatives.

Second, the children who aren't being abused by their parents do often suffer through routine checks. They may be misidentified as being abused, with terrible consequences. Even when they are not, the whole idea of a stranger coming to their home to evaluate their parents and possibly take them away from their parents is pretty terrifying, and not something to which the average child should be exposed unnecessarily. One of my children is very quick on the uptake and would have sussed out the purpose of the visits, no matter how hard I might try to keep it from her, and it would have worried her hugely. My other child has disabilities which could lead a stranger to think she was being abused (she'd tick a lot of the standard boxes for that), whereas everyone who knows us well would know that abuse was unlikely. It is not selfish to consider the needs of the large number of non-abused children alongside the needs of the few abused children.

'the whole idea of a stranger coming to their home to evaluate their parents and possibly take them away from their parents is pretty terrifying'

Bullshit. If you are a decent parent with decent communication skills it isn't anyways.

"You'll never see this though and will go round and round in a circular argument forever. I see it from peeps like you all the time on EVERY Home Ed group and forum I am on."

Katherine if you read your own words as if said by a home-educator and then examine your own attitude, you will find that they could be very apt when applied to yourself.

As for this remark:
"If you are a decent parent with decent communication skills it isn't anyways."

Most children I know see straight through assessment situations very easily regardless of parental reassurances (sometimes particularly because of parental reassurances).

Imo Saracen and Ommward have been very eloquent in their explanations of the situation.

If there were infinite financial resources for the State

and if compulsory home visits could be robust enough not to throw up false positives

and if there was any evidence whatsoever that compulsory home visits for all members of a particular sub-group within society would identify abused children who would otherwise never come to the attention of the State

and if home visits would not be traumatic for well-looked after children (bearing in mind, in particular, the very high proportion of home educated children with autistic traits)

then sure, bring it on. But those conditions can't be met. So it's a matter of inflicting certain suffering (and legislating for discrimination against) a sub-population of society in order to chase some goal which there is no evidence it will reach. Give me the evidence: how would such a system identify abused children where the current system doesn't? Think of the number of horribly abused children who are seen regularly by social workers for years and finally disclose that they were abused at the age of 30 or 40. Think of the number of children doing their level best to tell social workers they are being abused and the message going unheard (the foster children of that ghastly home educating Eunice whatever her name was come to mind - they had regular visits and did everything they could to persuade the social workers that she was seriously mistreating them. I don't remember how many years of visits it took before anyone listened).

If a sub-group of the population is to be singled out for such invasive treatment, there need to be robust indications that the invasion would be effective. That's not selfish. That's trying to hold a bureacratic State to account where it is spending our money on some idea that sounds sensible at first glance but which, as far as I Can tell, would be as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Please don't think I'm being aggressive. Just explain to me how compulsory visits for home edders would uncover presently invisible abuse.

realhousewife - sorry, I missed your question, the reply to which you await with eagerness. I'll do my best, but I doubt it'll satisfy you.

"the problem is, if they don't know they exist, HOW are they going to prevent abuse?"

If abused children are completely hidden away, they are not going to get known. They are never going to get known unless they escape. Ghastly but true. If it comes to it, the parents just won't register the birth, or they'll move to a different area (or country) without informing anyone. If a person wants to hide a child, planning violence or neglect, they will. It's awful, but there's no way round it. Even if the State removed every child from its birth family on the day it was born, to put it in a State approved nursery, or to place the mother and child in an observation unit for a year, women would gve birth unassisted and hide their children away (and, in that straw man example, it wouldn't always be because they planned to abuse them...) If the family is the basic social unit, sometimes children will be hidden and abused within that unit. Inspecting a large group of families where there is no particular reason to suppose abuse is going to do nothing, zip, nada to save the hidden and abused ones. [or, if you think it will, point out my logical mis-step]

I believe that, short term, abuse cannot be prevented. It's horrid, but it just can't. Some people are awful to other people, and they can be terribly good at hiding it. So the best we can do is to try to shift society's expectations away from it being fine to see a mother giving her children a practised clip around the ear and not say anything, or it being fine for a lone 10 year old in skimpy summer clothes to be playing out in the street in November without making sure they are ok (and not just with sensory processing issues...). There's no "how are THEY going to prevent abuse?". "They" aren't. They can't. The responsibility for fighting child abuse lies with us, the people, not with some abstract State-sponsored or charitable other.

Defend to the end. No compromise, no faint glimmer of possible self-reflection or self-doubt.

No 'but what if I completely lose my marbles and am incapable of looking after my child'

or 'what if I am really crap at maths and think I'm teaching it well but am not',

no 'what if I seek advice from my home ed peers but they all happen to not be very aware of child protection and also view my strictness and obsession with control as my choice, when it is emotionally abusing my childen',

Because you guys (I hate to generalise) are always, always, right. Self-doubt does not enter into your vocabulary.

The responsibility for fighting child abuse lies with us, the people, not with some abstract State-sponsored or charitable

And where do you go when you see this abused child? Who looks after him when he is taken away from home? Home edders social services?

RHW: but what if I completely lose my marbles and am incapable of looking after my child

My relatives, neighbours and friends will help me see it or will report me to the authorities if they cannot.

RHW: what if I am really crap at maths and think I'm teaching it well but am not

This seems a bit off-topic - no child ever died of not being taught maths well (fortunately for many children in school) and I never, ever taught maths (but my DC learned it).

RHW: what if I seek advice from my home ed peers but they all happen to not be very aware of child protection and also view my strictness and obsession with control as my choice, when it is emotionally abusing my childen

My relatives, neighbours and friends (who are not these mythical homogeneous EHE peers) will help me see it or will report me to the authorities if they cannot.

Ommmward: The responsibility for fighting child abuse lies with us, the people, not with some abstract State-sponsored or charitable

RHW: And where do you go when you see this abused child? Who looks after him when he is taken away from home? Home edders social services?

I go to Social Services, just as I would with a schooled child. It is Social Services responsibility to look after him - just as with a schooled child. I'm not understanding your issue here, RHW. Why does society need to treat EHE children any differently from school-going children?

RealH,

There are many intelligent arguments for and against home education that might be explored. But the idea that HE conceals the abuse of children is not among them. It is both offensive and absurd. On the other hand, to many children, being sent to school feels very much like abuse. Parents who home educate seek to protect their children and have their best interests very much at heart.

SDeuchars answered all of RealH's actual points in a similar way to how I would.

I tried to answer your questions. Would you be willing to answer mine? Here it is again: how would compulsory welfare+education inspections of home ed children help social services to identify abused children who are currently under the radar?

That's the crux, for me. If there's no clear answer to that, then there's no ethical, moral, financial or practical justification for compulsory welfare+education inspections of HE children.

I'm ready for self-reflection and self-doubt, believe me, and you don't have to go ad hominem to prompt me in such a direction. You just have to present some compelling arguments that compulsory inspections of home educated children would be a Good Thing rather than (at best) a pointless waste of money.

RHW - to reply to you those comments were on the TES blog - I have no idea if the teacher said or thought them, as of course I wasn't there - and it also depends if you think people say inflamitory things on blogs just to provoke a reaction don't you think?
As for inspections my sons books and files have just been 'inspected' and they have been returned with a refection that he is doing far better than when he was at school at that his SEN is being catered for above and beyond that which is specified.
Why do you feel us Home Ed-ers are scary - if we are that bad what are you doing here? How can you feel threatened by people who just want the best for their own children. We aren't lobbying for everyone to do it. It's personal choice, and in a democracy why should this be such a problem?
It comes accross that you have a strong opinion against, we are obviously feeling that we are doing the right thing for our children - what makes you qualified to say this is so wrong?

mycars - I've got nothing against home education per se. Never have done, never will do. As I've said - you guys save the taxpayer a lot of money. I'm very happy your child is doing so well at home, and believe me I'm tempted to do the same for my SEN dd.

ommmward - how would compulsory welfare+education inspections of home ed children help social services to identify abused children who are currently under the radar I don't know, because they are not registered. But any new children would be kept (whether abused or thriving happily) in the radar. It's not rocket science.

Having worked in the foundation stage and key stage 1 I have to disagree that school meets all the moral and educational needs fir every child.

Some children thrive in school. Others spend the day overwhelmed and bewildered by what is actually quite a chaotic environment.

I have even seen the occasional child who struggles so much at school that it's probably emotionally damaging for them.

I have seen some of the most wonderful, inspiring lessons take place in schools but sadly I have also (far too often) seen appalling teaching.

I absolutely would HE if it was possible for us but unfortunately it isn't.

Hats off to those of you who do HE

realhousewife, so the ones under the radar would continue to be under the radar and the ones who registered would be pointlessly observed by people in the business of getting kids back into school.

It's not rocket science, it's bleeding obviously a futile, and potentially harmful exercise.

You seem concerned with the cost to the taxpayer, well registering and inspecting HEdders will cost the taxpayer lots of money and produce nothing of benefit to anyone, apart from those who wish to be seen to be doing something anything, regardless of how effective in practice that would be.

"I don't know, because they are not registered. But any new children would be kept (whether abused or thriving happily) in the radar. It's not rocket science."

At the risk of repeating myself, I think this is a very naive view of child protection. I have never known a social worker to say that they wish they could have a large number of extra children added to their caseload who are not known to be at risk or that this would help to protect children.

Keeping as many people "in the radar" as possible is not a good thing. It is counterproductive. If an air traffic controller is made to track the movements of hundreds of seagulls in addition to airplanes, he is bound to be overloaded and distracted. The result is that planes will crash. Leave the seagulls off the radar so he can concentrate on the planes.

Why don't you just listen to yourselves? Read your own words and consider whether there is any logic here. This narrow-mindedness and lack of self-reflection is PRECISELY why home-edders need outside views as to how well they are doing with their children.

The services will NEVER know if children are at risk if they are invisible.

I think we've illustrated the logic of our argument very well.

How would a local authority employee with a background in mainstream education who is in the business of getting children back into school give a useful opinion on home education?

The children who are at risk will remain invisible.

But, RHW, EHE children are not invisible. They are simply not in school. They have friends, relatives, neighbours, doctors, dentists, leaders at clubs, etc. Just like school-going children. If a child were not to have any of those things, then I agree that they might be at risk and need help. But I do not see how an EHE register would help. An EHE register means that one person might enquire after the child's education once a year.

Have you read A Boy Called It ? Even when he (and his siblings) knew he was being treated badly (and he was attending school), when a social worker came round, Dave Pelzer did not disclose the abuse - his mother had behaved well to him for two weeks and promised him it was all OK now. The worst abusers are very clever at hiding it. In Germany, home education is not legal and yet that man hid his daughter and her children in the basement - even from his own wife. Eunice Spry's children were at school when she started to abuse them and she had home visits while EHEing (including a BBC crew, apparently) but the children did not disclose the abuse. Victoria Climbie was failed on 13 (?) occasions by professionals including the NSPCC. Baby Peter (too young for school or an EHE register) was on the at-risk register and was failed when a social worker believed his mother. Khyra Ishaq had siblings in school who were also a source of concern and the family was reported again 10 days before her death.

As Saracen says, EHE children are in the community and safeguarded like any other child - adding them routinely (without cause for concern) to SS caseload simply makes the haystack bigger. If they are hidden away, they are at the same risk as any other child. There is no evidence that there is any greater risk. About 100 children a year are killed by their parents (NSPCC figures), 50 of them under a year old and 65 of them under five. About 50 were known to social services and 8 were on a child protection register. It is difficult to know how many school-age children are being seriously abused, but let's assume 50% of the 32,000 on the child protection register. Assuming the same rate (0.145%) in the EHE community as in the general population, that would mean fewer than 110 children across the country. I fail to see the logic of routinely checking (however cursorily) on about 75,000 children in the (faint) hope of finding the 110.

Also, RHW, I can assure you that the whole EHE community did a lot of self-reflection during the Badman debacle. And we do it every 2-3 years when another story in the Ishaq, Climbie, Spry mode hit the headlines. In none of those cases would an EHE register have helped.

In the Spry case, one of the girls was kept in a wheelchair, being seen by doctors, for many months after the doctors would have expected her to be out of it. Doctors prescribed medication that Mrs Spry used inappropriately. So these children were seen by professionals but the abuse was not recognised or stopped.

RHW: This narrow-mindedness and lack of self-reflection is PRECISELY why home-edders need outside views as to how well they are doing with their children.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. In what way is our logic faulty? And we need outside views on what (that differs from parents of school-attending children)? We have repeatedly asked "How would a register of all EHE children help identify abused children?" Your answer seems to be "I don't know, but it is bound to." This assertion is no more valid than the Labour government's suggestion that running CRB-equivalent checks on a quarter of the adult population would reduce the access of paedophiles to children. Databases and paperwork do not keep children safe - people do.

"I was thinking and enquiring about was what else HEing a 6 year involved in addition to the things she had listed"

I do agree that there are some things that it's difficult to teach at home, queueing for example. DS and DD flexischool, but on those days when they are at home, I always encourage them to queue outside the kitchen door before I let them collect their packed lunch from the basket. Sometimes I'm a bit old school, and wear a hairnet, and set up a little counter with mash and peas.

Unfortunately it seems that the once wide spread practice of teaching children "fingers on lips", "hands on heads", "heads on desks" and "chairs on desks" has fallen by the wayside in most modern teaching establishments, but being in control of my children's education, I can assure traditionalists (Michael Gove?) that we do not skip these vital areas of school life.

In the garden, I have a few random areas where I like to put up a laminated sign saying "danger, wet grass".

What else? Well obviously, if either of the children asks me a question I say "children, it's time to listen now, (fingers on lips!)" and I ensure they wait the full 20 minutes before I respond." The key thing, I think is to always present them with random facts of my choice, and not to follow any half baked lines of enquiry that they might choose to follow themselves.

I have to say I don't actually listen to my children read, except for perhaps once a fortnight. Usually I grab some random motherly type of the street and get them to do it instead. Don't want to spoil them with too much consistent attention!

If it snows or is a bit rainy, I don't, on any account let them outside. Instead, I go and have a coffee and send them next door to watch a DVD.

It might seem that people who choose to fulfil their responsibilities by educating their children at home are just cherry picking the good bits, but really with a little bit of imagination, you can really provide your child with a more rounded experience!!!

Oh Merrymouse that's wonderful. I shall be taking your ideas on board wholeheartedly. Ps can I share your pearls of wisdom or are they copyrighted?

Feel free to share, but reading over it, you might want to correct the typos. (obviously with a red pen).