Registering home educators

[Pipestheghost]

A discussion on 'The Wright Stuff' coming up on this topic.
I wandered what home educators views are on this subject.

Until the proposals are announced, then there's only so far you can go to establish if they are likely to be any good.

I am hoping it will be set up in such a way that it becomes impossible for children to go off the radar for 7 years.

I don't think anyone is proposing (expensive) monthly checks of the type you appear to be recommending here.

I am not making proposals, I am awaiting the ones the Welsh government appear to intend to put forward. The only information I've seen on them is that there should be a comprehensive register of children in Wales, and that there should be a mechanism whereby in certain circumstances the child must be produced.

(Under 5s are already covered by the health visitor system. I'm sure that could be improved too, but the mechanisms at least exist).

"Until the proposals are announced, then there's only so far you can go to establish if they are likely to be any good."

Not if the fundamental concept is unworkable, as I maintain it is. Look, this particular debate seems to be new to you, but some of us have discussed it at considerable length for over a decade. This is not the first time anyone has ever suggested that a register of home educators was necessary and would help to prevent abuse. Oddly, nobody has yet been able to produce any evidence to support the notion that HE children are easier to "hide" than schoolchildren, and suffer more abuse and neglect as a result. (You appear to think it is self-evident, but the statistics don't support that.) Nor has anyone been able to describe a system in which mandatory universal welfare checks seem likely to do more good than harm.

This may sound like I am accusing you of teaching grandma to suck eggs. But I'm more than happy to hear new ideas. However, I find it a little hard to take you seriously if, when I invite you to come up with specific ideas for how this could conceivably work, you wave your hands around and declare that wiser heads than ours will doubtless come up with something.

"Under 5s are already covered by the health visitor system." Not mandatory either, thank goodness. Or do you think it should be? Should parents who find their HVs less than helpful be required to "produce" their children, as you put it, for inspection by Social Services?

"Having your DC be registered and seen might not make any difference to them, because you are not abusive parents." I'm afraid the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra is very naive. There are many ways in which inspections can do harm. Here's an example. Three examples in one, actually: a nearly identical story has been played out with three separate children just among my own acquaintance!

Child with high functioning autism finds school overwhelming and becomes very distressed. Desperate parent removes child from school to home educate. Child soon shows clear signs of finding life more manageable. Self-styled home ed inspector from the LA invites himself for a series of home visits, implying they are compulsory. Not knowing they have a choice, family agree. Child is very stressed at having a stranger in what he thought was his safe space, and fears that he may be sent back to school where he was so unhappy. He behaves accordingly. Perhaps he hides or says rude things. Or, when asked, "Wouldn't you rather go back to school?" maybe he gives the answer he thinks the LA chap wants to hear. The visitor asks to see the child's "work" but there isn't any because the child loathes writing and usually learns in other ways which don't resemble school.

LA report says that child's social skills are suffering through being home educated ("he hid under the table when I came!") and that they'd like to see some written work. Parent tries desperately to force child to write, in order to get the LA off their back so they can carry on home educating. This backfires, and the parent-child relationship becomes strained. In due course, LA starts to imply that legal action against the family is imminent. This is probably bluff, but the family don't know that. The parent (and sometimes the child if he's old enough to know) live in fear of prosecution. They cave in and send child back to school.

...where, predictably, things go from bad to worse over the following months or years until child has a complete breakdown (self harm and/or suicide attempt) and is withdrawn from school again. This time around, as luck would have it, the parent discovers that the LA had been misleading them and that they can decline home visits. The freedom from this intrusion makes all the difference. Now they can get on with giving the child what they know he needs, and he can start to make a proper recovery.

I know other children who've been harmed by LA home visits. Most have suffered far less than the three I mentioned above. But it's apparent to me that bringing external assessors in WILL cause harm to a proportion of children. I am sufficiently worried about this to keep them at arms' length, at least where it concerns the more vulnerable of my two children. This is a risk I am not prepared to take.

I assure you that this debate is not new to me.

I do not agree about the the relative difficulty of hiding a child, for one who is at school is not hidden (one who should be in school but isn't is of course a totally separate indicator). That much is self-evident.

I have not said, and would never say, that families who do not use school are any more likely to be abusers.

I am not coming up with ideas because I am discussing an issue that is in the news and the proposals speared shortly from that. I do not mind whether people find this serious enough or not.

And actually yes, all children born in UK are mandatorily assigned an HV. And those who arrive in the country and register with an NHS GP. How far it is used of course varies. But it is, amongst other things, a register of all under fives and provides routes to seeing a child when there is a need.

I agree about quality of some HV, and would definitely support initiatives to improve performance.

"I do not agree about the the relative difficulty of hiding a child"

But do you have any evidence that this is the case and that it has ever caused a problem? It doesn't seem to have been the case for Dylan Seabridge, as a referral was made to SS.

In some ways it seems to me that HE children are particularly visible, because people's attention is attracted by children who aren't in school during usual school hours. Certainly every busybody in my neighbourhood knows about my kids, and would even if the children weren't so chatty. In the one case I have personally known where a home educated child genuinely needed intervention from Social Services, referrals were made by the parent's GP, a neighbour, and another home ed parent. True, I have no more evidence to support my notion that HE kids are extra-visible than you have to support your notion that they are hidden. A few specific cases don't prove anything.

Children are assigned a health visitor, but visits are not compulsary, so many children under five are not seen and could easily be hidden.

As an ex-teacher, I an assure you that being in a school environment has not been of any benefit to the children that I have personally seen failed by the ineptitude of SS, those who have been systematically abused.

I am unaware of ANY of the minority of HE cases where SS were not aware of an underlying issue.

Home educated children are in the same position as under 5's. Most regularly see a dentist, GP, attend social events, attend family functions, shop in the supermarket etc etc etc...so you are again talking about an even smaller minority for whom any kind of register would have the same affect as those who abuse school educated children and children under 5...zero effect.

Most people who HE are fully aware that any discussion of monitoring by way of registration is simply a precursor to educational monitoring (establishing the history on this is easily Google-able), sadly using a comparatively tiny number of cases where government organisations have spectacularly failed, hence the strong reaction.

I fail to see how a HE register would have saved Dylan Seabridge from his tragic death.

The poor soul was registered with a GP: has an investigation into how his parents avoided Health visitors check-ups and into why his GP did not notice his patient absensce?

Aren't children supposed to be under the care of an HV until 5? I remember getting calls from my childrens' HVs as a reminder to check-ups or letters to remind a vaccination booster was coming up.

My husabnd and I are lucky enough to be rarily ill, which means that now again we receive a letter from the NHS asking if we moved or get an invitation from the GP for a 'general check-up', akin to the 'smear test time'.

Statistics point to children under 5 being most at risk of abuse and neglect, I believe GPs and HVs would provide a better platform for prevention than a school/otherwise educated register.

Also, I would like all children that have been 'taught' by Mrs Seabridge to be interviewed and assessed for potential harm, as she worked in a position of trust as a teacher: they, too, have a right to be protected from abuse and negletct.

What lead to yet another tragic death? In brief it appears that 1 or more health visitors failed to do their job; 1 or more GPs failed to act upon HV(s) failure; SS failed to act upon 2 professionals reporting serious concern; SS failed to pass concerns raised to neighbouring county SS (?), but passed the baton to the Education Welfare, who probably viewed the move as a de-escalation of the case; varying department/professionals failed to communicate appropriately... Is yet another level of beaurocracy (eg a HE register) going to resolve the issues of a broken system?

Sorry, Mums - I've just seen your post.

HVs, like HE officers, have no right of entry but can, should and must raise the alarm when concerned about a child, so to allow those whom have the power of entry to assess and address their concerns and safeguard the child/ren referred.

We should perhaps avoid jumping to too many conclusions about the Seabridge case. Health professionals can't win either way, if they miss abuse they aren't doing their job; if they report something unnecessarily they are sticking their nose in - the people involved did not just have Dylan to look after and it seems a little unfair assuming they have personal responsibility. It's always good to learn from any errors, but finger pointing and blaming only increases the amount of overall harm done (not to say that genuine negligence can't occur, but I think it's unlikely any of us know enough about this case to say that has occurred).

Also the parents deny the neglect. I recall a case of a mother who was jailed for killing her children (forgive me, I do not recall her name) and later aquitted as a rare medical cause had been found. Rare diseases are just that, but they do exist. It is possible something will yet come to light to shame our judging.

The finger is being pointed at the lack of compulsory HE registration in a case of child 'missing' since babyhood, before school age. There have been at least 3 programs aired placing the blame on the lack of compulsory HE visits (Jeremy Vine show, hosted by Vaneesa Feltz, The Victoria Derbyshire show and the Wright stuff).

If Dylan was registered with a GP, he should have been under the care of a HV: why did he become invisible from the age of 13 months?

Health Visitors do chase their charges, why wasn't he seen? How likely is a child not be ill and needing the doctor for 7 years? For 4 of those 7 years he should have been on the HV and the practice nurse list, for example missing or refusing a vaccination is flagged.

I agree other information will come to light, the solicitor that has reported the case to SS has already hinted at that and expressed his frustration at not being listened to.

FavadiCacao, why would declining health visitor care or immunizations mean there is cause for concern? Why should opting out of services which are not compulsory indicate a problem? Plenty of families opt out of these, and plenty of families choose not to opt into the school system.
There ARE safeguards in place for home educated children. If any-one has concern over the welfare of a child, this can very easily be reported. The failure comes when this is not correctly or adequately followed up.
I think this tragic case highlights how overstretched SS are and poor communication within local authorities.
If concerns are voiced about the welfare of any child, it must be adequately followed up.

I think I'm not making myself clear, jomid.

In the Vanessa Felz and Victoria Derbshire programs home education, the lack of compulsory registration and visits of HE'd children are being blamed for this tragedy, whereas there might have been plenty of alarm bells before school age, such as the mother's mental health issues, possible feeding problems, never needing medical attention...

As a Home Educator of over 7 years, I am aware that the law is perfectly adequate but as a parent of a child who had mutliple SENs I'm also painfully aware of how broken the system is. (Try getting 4 PCTs to communicate! I don't think communication has improved with the introduction of the CCGs)

But fav, you seem to be saying that compulsory visits by the la shouldn't be necessary because health visitors should be able to force visits. I don't get it I'm afraid. And despite home ed having the finger pointed at it, I hope we can react with more dignity than to just point it back at someone else. The blame game is unproductive and prevents more constructive discussion on how to do things better.