What's the short answer when someone asks 'Won't parents who want to abuse their children just say they're home educating?'

[carolinecordery]

Hi, do you have a short (one or two sentence) answer to when people assume that lots of child-abusers will say they're HEing as a cover?

I had this with a colleague the other day and just mumbled things but I want to have a killer short answer to these sticky points.

I did email the colleague the next day to say a bit more as I was annoyed that i hadn't answered properly. I said (at length):" I didn't answer properly the other day your question 'won't some people say they're home educating as a cover for abuse?'- it seems logical, but it's an important misconception.
Child abuse is caused by abusive parents, not by the education system they're in. The vast majority of abused children in this country are in school, but their situation is not caused by being in the school system.

In the same way, while a tiny proportion of people who say they are home educating might intend to abuse their children instead of providing that education, that is not caused by the home education system. It's an abuse by those parents of the laudable freedom we have in this country to take full responsibility ourselves as parents for our children's education, and not a reasonable argument for more policing or inspecting of home educators who choose to carry on educating their child outside of school beyond the age of 5 without state involvement.
The LEA, when it knows a family is home educating, has a duty to satisfy itself that a suitable education is being provided outside of school, but this is completely separate from safeguarding concerns. There are already safeguarding systems in place, however imperfect, and home educated children are not hidden from view.

It is wrong thinking, caused by the media, as usual, to automatically put home educators as a group under suspicion of being potential abusers. I would bet that child abusers are actually proportionately underrepresented in the home educating community."

What would have been a good short answer?

By the way, does anyone know if child abusers ARE proportionately underrepresented in the HE community?

Thank you

I don't think there is a killer short answer or rather, if you give a short answer, people don't understand what you are saying, so you end up having to explain more and more. And you end up giving the long answer. Which sounds defensive, not from anything you actually say, but because you keep the subject live. ("You" meaning "people")

And the numbers thing doesn't work because when home educators do quote stats to disprove allegations that home educators are disproportionately represented in xyz, the other person can always say "ah, but that's just the tip of the iceberg, the ones we KNOW about" or "even one is too many"

So I think best left alone. Or turned back on the questioner "ah, that's interesting, I wonder why you say that..." type thing. Get them talking about themselves, which many people like to do.

Thanks Fiona, it's true that people like to say things like 'that's just the ones we know about...' etc etc

Is there a difference between being defensive and defending?

Perhaps I could just answer something like 'Oh that's very highly unlikely.' or 'Nah, not an issue!' (breezily with confident happiness), the same answer for 'but won't they miss out on a social life?'.

'do fuck off'?

I know that might be problematic in a professional sense, and possibly not really furthering the discussion, but is probably the most direct answer that gives you the space to move onto something more worthwhile...

madwoman

The short answer for me to "won't parents who want to abuse their children just say they're home educating ?" would be...

"I don't know, would they ?"

Neither defensive or defending.

Considering it means you believe they have a point worth considering.

If you want to be polite, go for the breezy dismissal. If not, direct will do.

I have to say that I get irrationally infuriated by such nonsense. I have been on numerous child protection type courses where the failures of the system are touted in glorious technicolour. Then we are are all painstakingly told that the answer to the problem is more of the same. Tighter rules, tighter regulations, more people involved.

Tragically, the more people involved, the greater the chance of a communication error and a child falling between the gaps. I am extremely sceptical that the answer to child abuse is more intervention by more people.

Community is the answer, not an ever increasingly layered net of professionals.

Ah, mrsv, you win the political crown. same effect (not engaging) but with far more aplomb than I could muster.

My answer:

"If someone takes children out of school to "home educate" as a cover for horrendous abuse, then the fault lies not with allowing people to home educate, but with the school employees who have a duty of care to those children for not raising welfare concerns before the children left school or as they left school. If there are any signals that a child is being abused, and any suspicion that removal from school is related to such abuse, then the culpability for failure to stop that abuse lies 1) with school staff if they don't report it and 2) with social services if they fail to detect it. Do you agree with me yet or do I need to play the Khyra Ishaq card at this point, where the independent enquiry placed blame firmly in the hands of Birmingham Children's Services (not for killing her, obviously, but for failing to act on plentiful evidence)?"

My other answer:

"However child-centred, progressive and advanced a society, and however justifiably important the welfare of children is to us, if some evil person wants to have children and keep them in a cupboard without anyone ever knowing they exist, and abuse them horribly, they will. Treating all home educators as likely abusers, with intrusive compulsory home checks isn't going to stop such twisted and sick people. It might make you feel as if Something Is Being Done, but it has potentially harmful effects on home educators' children without any likelihood of it saving a single child. Were there something that could be done to guarantee safe and happy childhoods for every child, I'd be right there behind you, but this isn't it. Would you like a cup of tea?".

madwoman

Thenk yew.

I agree with what you say in your 2nd post. I get infuriated when people ask these types of questions too. I also completely go along with your theory of more people, more chance of error.

Who knows what makes people abuse children ? And who knows what 'types' of people ? The simple truth is, there are no 'types', and it goes on, sadly, in far too many unsuspecting places every day.

I'd just say "yes you're right, now I must dash home DD is due her next beating"

cockoff

Perhaps Im over sensitive but I would take the original comment personally ie that they were saying I was likely to abuse my child, and so I would be quite likely to 'abuse' the person in question round the face with my handbag.

Actually I dont think its worth a response at all - someone actually said that to you knowing you HEd/intend to?

(for them, not you)

I have plenty of answers. I can't say that any of them has been particularly successful! The idea of parents being a potential danger to their children is fairly deeply entrenched in some quarters.

"Why would they bother? A determined, cunning, evil person is often quite good at hiding abuse and children can spend years in the school system without the abuse being noticed. Keeping kids out of school draws attention to them, so why would an abuser do that?"

"Why should that change my decision about home educating my children? Or are you suggesting I am planning to abuse them?"

"Children are at greatest risk of abuse when they are under five. Does that mean we need to send all kids to school from birth to protect them?"

"Children sometimes get abused at school too. Unless there is particular evidence of parental abuse, the odds are that they're safer being brought up by their parents than in an institution."

I only use that last one when I am fed up and am trying to be provocative. It doesn't win you any friends. People hate it when you refer to school as an institution.

in my view the only reason to engage with this EVER is to get practice with people who don't matter (err that would be nearly everyone) is in case you ever have to have the conversation with people who DO matter (media, local and national politicians, local authorities) because by then (hopefully) you'll have seen which arguments work and which don't.

That's why real people face to face are grist to the mill, even and perhaps especially when they are saying stupid things.

Wow excellent answers saracen and Fiona!

Great answers although I'd probably have to say, "What has that comment got to do with me HE'ing my son?"

I mean, how could they come up with an answer. Mind boggles though as some people have an answer for everything!