Letter from School Health Service - wwyd?

[noodle6]

I received a letter from the School Health Service. I'm not quite sure how to respond but clearly the LA had informed the Health Services (or the other way round?). Only my eldest DD is "known" so far - I withdrew her from school 2 years ago, and I now have another DD who turned 5 last Sept so I am guessing they are writing that because of my younger DD. This is so stupid because we have been using the GP services for any queries and health-related matters for the 2 years we have been home educating. We have had no need for any further meet-ups with health staff. Why would anything need to change now??

The letter, which is sent from a neighbouring Children's Centre which we never used, says :

"I am a Child Health Practitioner working within the Integrated Children's Team, working with children aged 0 - 19 years. I understand that your child/children is/are being homeschooled.

I would like to visit you and your child/ren at home on 09/07/12 at 14:00.

This will be an opportunity to discuss our service, offer any screenings and provide support with any health-related issues.

If this appointment is inconvenient I would be grateful if you could contact mee on the above telephone number so I can arrange a more suitable time.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXX
Child Health Practitioner

(signed) XXXXXX - Assistant Practitioner"

How should I respond? I think I'd better respond in writing. I just need some ideas. Should I say "Thank you for your offer, but we have been using the GP's services for support in health-related issues and are very happy to continue as such. I do not see the need for any additional health-related services."?? Or is there a better way to put it?

Any suggestions or thoughts about this appreciated. TIA.

They do it because part of our health screening program is to do some tests when a child is at reception age.

DD has had height / weight, vision and hearing tested at school in reception recently.

The screening program is there to check that any potential problems are picked up early so that treatment can start.

What a song and dance about checking children in the UK can hear and see properly, I mean honestly.

Sidge That seems to differ around the country then - here, they all work out of one of the health clinics and are happy to arrange appointments there (but then, all the tests and SALT care go through the clinics as well and not through the schools here, except the special needs ones). And no one has asked me for home visits based on that being where their education is based (as someone else said, it may be based there, but it can be a small part of it for many families, for some being at home is a rarity) but based on ease of usage and increasing the uptake. Either way, school nurses don't have remit over education, they have remit over health.

Cailin A home visit can be very helpful for some children, but the option to have it elsewhere is and should be available. For example, my HE kids went to the health clinic with their father for their check as I had a new baby and was not willing to have even more visitors. She is watching out for signs of neglect as well as their health and writes reports on their cleanliness and everything else (seriously, each child's degree of body odour was discussed in her report as was how much she thought my American accent was affecting each child's speech patterns). The things are already well in place, they don't have to happen at home though. Many people find that to be an intrusion too far and we deal with that, but more people take up when it's from the comfort of their homes so it's the default.

Hi noodle, I personally would just write and say thank you for their letter but you don't need their services at the moment, and if you do, you will contact them. You're right, it's a complete waste of their resources and of taxpayer's money.

I don't know where some people on here get their facts about home educated children, I'm guessing through hearsay!

My DD2, nearly 13, has not been to the doctor since she was 2. I suppose it might look suspicious if anyone questioned, but it isn't. She's never ill. But if I had any worries about her, I would take her. We've never had anything like your letter, although we are known to the LA who are very supportive.

IMO a person who keeps their children at home to prevent them from mixing with children of other religions is a source of concern noodle and I would expect the LA to monitor that situation closely.

But CailinDana many strict Muslims for instance, who choose to put their children in school, also do not like their children to socialise with those same classmates after school for that reason. Should they have home visits in the holidays then? In case they are abusing their children?

You've read ReallyTired's post selectively anyway, Noodle. She said "cut their children off from the rest of the world so they don't mix with others of different beliefs". Different thing entirely.

No, not necessarily because they are not isolating their children, as they will mix with other children at school. However, if the parent is known by the school to be isolating their child or abusing them in another way during the summer then they will be monitored.

The danger is that a HE parent with that attitude will prevent a child from having interaction with any other children besides their own siblings (depending on the religion) which would be seriously detrimental to the child.

CailinDana But they will not be mixing with other children of different beliefs during the school holidays, which in the summer, can be 6 weeks long. Anything can happen in 6 weeks. Why would home visits not be necessary then?

I already said in my previous post "if the parent is known by the school to be isolating their child...during the summer, then they will be monitored." I know this because a couple of Muslim girls that I taught were monitored in that way due to worrying comments they made at school.

You seem to be happy that children are safe as long as they go to school for a period of time in the year, even if there will be other periods of time where the children will not have to attend school and will not be "seen" by professionals. But anything can happen during the times they are not "seen".
By your reasoning let's just have home visits whenever children are not "seen" by any school or health professionals, i.e. school. In the evenings, in the weekends, etc...
Why don't we just go the whole hog. Install CCTVs in every parents' home. Employ staff to watch these CCTV footage for any instance of abuse when children are at home and out of sight of school or healthcare staff.
That would be the best way to address your concerns CailinDana.

Not some slipshod, neither-here-nor-there way of arbitrarily choosing a tiny percentage of the population (i.e. HEors) to spend lots of money on to "monitor" by way of regular home visits which are 20 minutes long every couple of months say, and are probably not going to be very useful at spotting potential signs of abuse anyway.

Overall I think it's better that only has periods of six weeks where possible abuse could be missed rather than a whole lifetime.

I don't think a healthcare professional seeing a child in their home environment once every couple of years is anywhere near installing CCTV. You come across as quite paranoid noodle. No one is out to get you. Visits are for the good of children. Not to catch you out. You don't need to worry.

It is better that a child is seen perhaps once a year than never seen at all. At least it's something. Otherwise abuse could go undetected for years, which is just awful. A child who goes to school every day stands a good chance of abuse being detected, a child who doesn't stands less of a chance so a home visit helps to rectify that somewhat. It's a good thing in my book. I'm not saying children should be monitored at all times, I'm just saying contact should be maintained to pick up any possible problems. If no contact is maintained the possibility of abuse being missed goes up and that's not a good thing IMO.

It's not better if a child dies within those 6 weeks isn't it? You already said yourself that to you, if all this monitoring means only 1 child can be saved, it'd be worth it. Why now saying something along the lines of... "ho hum... 6 weeks is okay. Too bad if a child dies within that 6 weeks. It's still "better"."

I'm just trying to understand your line of reasoning here. It seems wobbly.

In my 17:58 post it should say "I think it's better that a child..."

I am not paranoid and I do not think anyone is out to get me. Which is why I have just typed a perfectly reasonable letter back to the healthcare professional in question now, informing them that I am happy with my current arrangements and would contact them in future should I need their services, since I now have their contact details at hand. I also asked them to provide me with a list of services they do offer so I know what I can ask from them. What's so paranoid about that?
So if I don't agree to a meet-up at my home at the first instance, then I am paranoid??

noodle6,saying this very gently.you are not coming across on here as being very rational.perhaps you need to visit your GP for yourself,because if you have the meeting with the CHP,and you talk like you are doing on here,I am not sure what will happen.

You said if a professional visits to monitor a child, then we might as well install CCTV. The two aren't comparable, which makes me wonder why you think they are. Why not allow the visit, let your children have the checks they need and let it go? What are you afraid of?

sigh I give up. If I question the system, I am called hostile, paranoid, irrational, etc. My previous experiences with the shoddy service of the HCPs and the LAs and schools apparently should not affect the way I deal with them now. I shall leave the thread now since I've already typed my letter out.

You really are choosing to feel victimised, aren't you Noodle?

The reason they're picking on this tiny percentage of the population (ie. HEer's) to visit at home is because they can't access them at school, no other reason.

If you display this attitude to the school healthy service, you may well make them feel suspicious and possibly think further investigation is warranted in your case.
That'd be a nice bit of irony, eh?

You are coming across as hostile and paranoid because you seem to be reading malicious motivation into a very simple health check which is done for the good of your children. Why not let the health team come to your house? What is the problem? I honestly don't get it.

I am not really a fan of HE for a few reasons but it is a legal choice.
And the fact is that most children who are abused go to school.
I would be interested in seeing some real figures about the comparisons of genuinely HE children v schooled children in serious case reviews (for e.g.)

The default idea seems to be that HE is carried out by weirdos so it doesn't surprise me that HErs are defensive.

As a group on the Internet I have to be perfectly honest and say that they do come across as paranoid BUT I usually see threads where they are being attacked so what came first?

I do know of a couple of cases where disabled children have been HE with no access to services and they were pretty disturbing but again I have seen equally disturbing cases of schooled children.

I have also been flamed to blazes on a thread where I was accused of calling HE neglectful which was nuts because the family in question where most definately not HE, they were not sending their kids to school. That left a bad taste in my mouth and pissed me off.
But I have yet to see a non specialised HE thread where someone doesn't start going on about child abuse. So yet again maybe it was to be expected.

I have nothing at all against HE, I think it can be great but because it is possible for a parent to HE entirely on their own with no supervision (though I know in practice that doesn't happen much) the potential for things to go wrong is far higher than at an ordinary school.

I taught a girl who had to be sent school having been HE for three years. She and her brother who started at the same time were in a terrible condition - rotten teeth, poorly nourished, barely able to read. The progress they made in a year was amazing but that was partly due to the fact that their neglect had been spotted and was rectified. Had they been at school the two years of neglect they had suffered due to problems at home would have been picked up much sooner. As it was, they spent two years barely being fed or washed and no one noticed because they weren't in regular contact with anyone outside the home. That's the danger with HE.

That said I also taught a boy who had been HE until he joined my school in year 6 and he was amazing and I felt school really held him back. He was understandably bored and I think he would have been much better with HE but his mother wasn't able to continue for some reason that I never found out.

When it gets to the point where a standard health check is refused because of the "intrusion" you have to wonder why some HE parents are so closed off and suspicious.

the school nurse service gets pressured if there's an identifiable group which has not been offered access to their service. there is a separate issue of data protection because you weren't asked (it appears) to opt in our out of having your data shared. it's optional. from the conversations i've had with school nurse service in sheffield (invited to local joint home ed and council meeting) they don't spend long crafting the letters, so they will probably sound odd. you can decline, but they've ticked a box by offering.

I don't read noodle as being irrational, or paranoid, or hostile, or anything else untoward. I think she has been remarkable measured in her responses, especially when she's been more-or-less under attack at times.

To go back to the original point - this wasn't a letter saying "hi, this is who we are, this is what we can offer you, call us if you wish", it was a letter saying "we've never contacted you before, but we intend to visit and we've arranged a date/time". That in itself is a very rude and inappropriate approach to take. I can't think of a comparable version that parents who send their children to school would get, but surely most people have enough imagination to think about how they would feel if they got something like that in the post?

From what I've read on HE threads, the kind of reaction that noodle's got here is the same old thing most of them have been on the receiving end of unjustifiably. It's the "what have you got to hide?" type of comments that probably hurt the most.

Many HEdders are right to question whatever missives they get from the local authority, or the local health services, because there are still local authorities who don't understand how home education works, and don't understand Education Law. And there are some local authorities and schools who do a pretty poor job at education the children in their care - a quick look at the Primary Schools and SN topics will give a clue.

Does anyone really think that any HEdder who posts in this section of MN is being casual about their children's welfare?

Parents of children in school get a letter saying "The school nurse will be in on such and such a date..." and there is no option to switch. Noodle was given a set appointment time because that's the best way to ensure take up. Nothing more sinister than that, though it may come across as a little rude, but surely she's grown up enough to look past it?

I don't think any parent on here is being casual about their child's welfare. However, the LA don't know that they post on here, so they don't know how their children are being treated.