what are my kids missing by not attending mainstream school

[redberries]

I have a four and six year old I'm constantly being told they are deprived because I home ed

Show the education to whom? We show it to people every single day. All home educators do, every single time they interact beyond the nuclear family, and they/we DO celebrate. We DO show off, we ARE proud, and we express that pride and that joy to the people who support us (families, friends, local community) and the people who can offer us practical help and advice (other home educators, local, national and international).

Why would we want to be proud and show off to a Local Authority employee? I just don't get it. (S)he has no practical help to offer (no budget for home educators), and is very unlikely to have as much knowledge of what opportunities there are locally and nationally as the HE groups we are all networked with nowadays. On the other hand, (s)he DOES have the power, on a whim, if we let him/her into our home, to say "no, I don't think this education is suitable". And then we find ourselves in court arguing against a school attendance order not on the basis of concrete evidence but on the "expert testimony" of someone who we let into our homes intending to celebrate, show off and be proud of our educational provision with.

It's a power imbalance - can you see that, and appreciate how dangerous that is for the people (HEers) with less power in the scenario? Even if 80% of LA employees were kindly disposed towards home education, think about the severity of the consequences if the person visiting my house is one of the other 20%. That's the 20% who thinks that school is ideal for almost every child, who thinks that autonomous home education is lunacy, who thinks that children with invisible disabilities just need stronger discipline. It just isn't worth the risk. Do you see that?

I don't support the idea of home-edding at all so you have to view my comments in the light of that stance. I think it is actually ludicrous and harmful unless you have a child with severe difficulties who could not cope with mainstream ed and whose needs would not be catered for adequately elsewhere.

The reasons that I think it is harmful are as follows:

1. Children do not get to interact with a wide number of peers on a daily basis. That stuff is important. It is vitally significant in personal development. Learning to interact with others who are not in your comfort zone, who might snatch your ball away from you, who will tease you for whatever. Children need that stuff.

1. No parent can provide enough variety of input. I am a graduate with a professional background, multiple languages and varied skills. But I just do not know enough to teach my children. Mine are teenagers now. I could do a better job than their English teachers and their French teachers. I could do an adequate job at History. Forget about the other ten or so subjects. I would be useless. And I suspect that most home-edders are similarly placed.

1. Even in the early years, home-edding is questionable academically, unless the parent is a primary school teacher. And even then I have doubts. You just don't know enough to help them over their blocks.

1. What about sport? What are home-edders doing on that front? Outsourcing it all?

1. What about music? What are home-edders doing on that front? Outsourcing it all?

I don't mind a bit of lentil-weaving. But when lentil-weaving turns into disadvantaging children, then I start worrying.

I see that every child should have the safeguard of someone checking that their parents are adequate to the task. Wanting to do it isn't enough. You only have to see the threads on here about 'we took you to stately homes' to realise that there are plenty of toxic parents around,and at the moment you can HE whether toxic or not. Anyone can do it if they are a parent, and they want to do it, and some of them are not fit.
The LEA chap that I mentioned, who gets lunch, is very sympathetic to HE and helpful. Most of the parents don't know this because they don't bother to find out!

I agree that LEAs should appoint someone who believes in HE and has a budget to offer a support service.

Oh ommmward, you are wonderful
And of course, absolutely right.
Fab posts.

Therefore the wonderful ones ought to be happy to share to avoid a child with toxic parents slipping through the net.
I think that more checking will come. HEers want their choice to be on equal footing and all parents to be clearly told their rights. With rights come responsibilities and if they are an equally valid choice the child needs safeguards in place. You can't have it all ways- equal rights but unequal in accountability to the child.

ommmward is spot on.

I don't need to invite an LA employee to come "celebrate" my children's education. Nor do I need to invite the police to come "celebrate" the fact that I'm not manufacturing illegal drugs in my kitchen.

If there is good reason to suppose I am breaking the law either by failing to educate my children or by selling drugs, I will do my best to provide evidence to indicate I am innocent of what I've been accused of doing.

That is the limit of the involvement I need to have with government officials. I have real friends with whom to celebrate my achievements. I'd rather save the taxpayer the expense of sending professional "friends" round to assess me for no particular reason.

I don't want to share my child's successful education with LA representatives who don't 'get' HE and are often operating outside of the law. As ommmward said, these people have powers that they don't always use properly. They too have responsibilities but can't be guaranteed to behave responsibly. In our early days of HE we were treated hideously by LA representatives who had no idea of the law and were rude, defensive and critical, even though our provision was excellent and my son thriving. Why would anyone want to open their homes and lives to such negativity and potential harm?

And Saracen is right too. Particularly in these times of budget cuts and reduced services, why waste public money on intrusive visits for no valid reason? Home educators can prove they are providing an education in report form and it costs nothing. Where LAs insist (illegally) on home visits, inspections and evidence of work there is usually another agenda going on. They are not always acting in the best interests of the public, unfortunately.

SatinSandals: THAT SAFEGUARD IS IN PLACE. IF THERE ARE WELFARE CONCERNS, SOCIAL SERVICES GET INVOLVED. IF THERE ARE EDUCATIONAL CONCERNS, THE EDUCATION TEAM GETS INVOLVED. BOTH LOTS OF PEOPLE (WHO WORK IN THE SAME OFFICES USUALLY) ARE LEGALLY OBLIGED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AND TO ACT ON THEM IF THEY THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG.

I'm sorry to shout in block capitals. This is at least the third time I've tried to say the same thing, and you don't seem to be listening.

What, precisely, do you think should be changed in the law?

And what is your response to my post about power imbalances and the risks to home educators of engaging with LA employees when some at least (and I'm being generous with my 20%) are known to be hostile, either to particular kinds of HE or to HE in general? We could perfectly well end up with someone who shares Wulfric's views coming into our homes to judge our educational provision (of course you are perfectly welcome to hold those views, Wulfric, I just mention them because they are just a beautiful encapsulation of the kind of response we face, explicitly or implicitly, on a daily basis). And then we are completely shafted, even though actually we ARE providing a suitable education for our children, because it does't look like what people conventionally assume an education is supposed to look like.

so that's two direct questions for you, SatinSandals. I'd love to hear your responses. Please don't say again that you know of one nice LA home education officer. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

I am not going to answer directly because I think you have a point at the moment and the entire system needs to be changed first.

I think that the fact that you can HE needs to be highlighted because although I haven't come across a single person who is ignorant of this fact it appears that many are. The choice needs to be equally put to parents.
However if it is an equal choice there needs to be an official who is fully supportive of HE and the alternative, some one who doesn't expect to see a school at home. He or she is there to be supportive and not judgemental (I would like to see OFSTED in the same role for schools-supportive)
Parents vary enormously, and some will be excellent and can be left to get on with it, some will be lousy at it and need persuading that it isn't the best thing or need support. Wanting to do it is not enough, if it is going to be damaging.
Many of those people on the stately home thread wouldn't have needed reporting to SS, their parents fully believed they were doing a good job and acting in the best interests. Only the child knows it didn't work. They were lucky, in most cases they had some respite and not stuck at home full time.
Many people on here had dreadful childhoods, ask those with problem MILs if their DH should have been HEed by these people and they would shudder with horror!
Wanting to HE isn't enough, not all are suited and the child deserves some checks and safeguards and doesn't want to wait until someone thinks it bad enough to contact SS.

Therefore-at the moment it isn't a good thing-it needs changing. The child comes first IMO and the parent isn't always the best judge because not all parents are good at being parents.

Let's not forget that there are schools, teachers and LAs who are causing serious harm to children in the belief that they are acting in their best interests. You can't legislate for people being a bit crap at what they do, whether that's parents or professionals.

There are numerous home educators for whom their decision to HE isn't voluntary - they came to it because the system was damaging their children and there was no alternative open to them.

The child doesn't come first in a depressingly high number of schools and LAs. The parent may not always be the best judge in every case, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the LA might consistently do better.

OK, I'm bowing out of this discussion.

I'd prefer to deal with the realities of the situation of HE/State interations, since I'm actually in the situation, rather than dreaming of some utopian situation where State employees always accurately gauge what is in the best interests of other people's children, and are thus legally made responsible for ensuring that every child receives a suitable education. (hint: MPs know perfectly well that to make the State legally responsible for other people's children would be financial suicide)

Learning how to work in groups, learning about other people's needs, extra curricular activities, learning how to share attention, learning how to exist in the real world, learning how to work with other adults, schools probably have resources, equipment your school doesn't have, hearing a wide range of views. Learning how to find your place in a group. Interacting with others.

Learning how to work in groups, learning about other people's needs, extra curricular activities, learning how to share attention, learning how to exist in the real world, learning how to work with other adults, schools probably have resources, equipment your school doesn't have, hearing a wide range of views. Learning how to find your place in a group. Interacting with others.

You're absolutely right Murdermysteryreader. Those are indeed essential skills. My son does all of those things and so do most of the home educated children in our circle.

I will agree that I am being a bit unfair at the moment and since there is no clear, consistent policy by the authorities and because they are not, in many cases, being supportive and they sometimes make the stupid appointment of an inspector who isn't sympathetic to HE and is completely unable to think in an alternative way, I can't blame people for not wanting to co operate.
I would however like a system where HE is a viable alternative to school, but with check for the child that the parent is suited to the task.
There are many people on the 'but we took you to stately home threads' and their parents don't get a voice- if we heard their side I expect at least half would still argue they were good parents. Just wanting to HE doesn't mean you will be adequate.
However, at the moment the system clearly doesn't work and I can see why you don't want to use it.

There IS a clear, consistent policy for local authorities here but many LAs don't adhere to it. For those that do, this is largely as a result of pressure from home educators and HE agencies who encourage them to stick to the law. LAs don't get a specific budget for monitoring EHE so they tend to provide as basic a service as possible, with many focusing on supposed 'safeguarding'. LAs' duty is to identify children missing education and some officers are a bit too gung-ho in their assumptions of what that means in practice. If they were to familiarise themselves with the 2007 Guidelines and adhere to them, they would see that in many cases there is no need to intervene.

It is no help if there is a policy in theory.
My guess is that it is only if numbers have a significant rise that changes will come about.
I can't see that there will be a significant rise. Parents seem to be piling on more pressure for 'wrap around' care and shorter holidays rather than having their children full time.