Can HE be a cover cfor child abuse? discussion on Radio 2 today.......

[Yurtgirl]

I know I know Jeremy Vine and his show not what everybody enjoys but...........

He has just announced that todays show will feature a discussion called "Can HE be a cover for child abuse?"

Anyone confident enough to phone up and have a rant?????????????

Well it could be a cover for abuse couldn't it? But then so could a lot of things.

what is the situation?

I dont know as it hasnt aired yet - sometime between now and 2

well it depends what they're talking about. can what be a cover for abuce..?

Can't wait to hear this? How about if the state kept an eye on all children, especially the under threes then we'd all be safe!
Goodness me in my area there is no check after eight months until a child goes to school.

In fairness my friend, a teacher, has recognised abuse that may have gone unchecked if HE. But we must be careful about demonising HE.... maybe the state should run obligatory monthly meet ups for HE childrren.

Anything could be a cover for abuse! My children don't go to dancing or gym club - that could be becasue we're not keen or it could be because I'm beating them black and blue Honestly - I love JV but sometimes he goes way over the top!

I reckon almost anything could be used as a cover for child abuse - No reason to single out HE in particular

Persumably there is some particular case they are going to refer too.......

Well it's perfectly possible that seriously abusive parents would want to minimize any contact between their victims and the wider world, so they might home-ed. But that's no reason to demonize home-edders any more than it would be to demonize people whose DC don't join the Brownies.

People who don't let their children join the Brownies are evil

I am a huge supporter of HE and am seriously considering it for mine but I was a lawyer who represented kids and I have to say that I did come across some parents who were claiming to HE their kids in order to keep them out of the system to cover up abuse.
I also came across parents who claimed to HE but in fact were simply ignoring them.
I think the point here is that these parents were not HEers they were simply claiming to be.
Does that make sense?

I have seen cases in which art cupboards in schools have been used for assignations between pupils and teachers. Clearly art lessons in schools are just a cover for abuse.

I hate JV's show. I really doubt that Steve the taxi drivers from Essex has thought of a solution to the banking crisis that hasn't occurred to say, Mervyn King.

1. they're mixing up education and welfare - HE is not a reason to automatically suppose your children are at risk.
2. there are plenty of routes an LA can take if they suspect that a child is either a) at risk or b) not receiving a suitable and appropiate education.

How can DD3 be more at risk just becasue a teacher doesn't see her everyday? How are DD1 and DD2s teacher supposed to "check" that they're not beign abused? I'd be incredibly angry if DD2's (male) teacher was checking for bruises as she changed for PE (only time he'd see her legs, and arms other than in the summer). And in any cae, how is a teacher supposed to distinguish between red grip marks on DD2s arm caused by me beatign her up, adn red grip markes caused by her trampoline coaches as they caught her while learning a new move? And is the lA goign to send round inspectors to every family during the summer holidays to check the children are "safe and well" while not at school? This makes me really as I think you can tell! It's the third similar "consultation" in the space of two years becasue the previous ones didn't go the way the Govt wanted; the comsultation period (which is supposed otbe 12 weeks) has been reduced to four: and they haven't contacted all stakeholders, in particular, HE parents and groups.

(can spell and do grammar, just not at speed while incensed )

There was a case in Gloucester a couple of years ago where a foster mother home educated 4-5 of her foster children and also abused them horribly. However, this was a failing of social services and nothing to do with HE. The children's complaints had been ignored by their case officers I seem to recall.

From the research I have done, I would say that HE children are probably far less likely to suffer from abuse.

Was that the child c case Callisto? I read his book recently, an awful story but hardly a typical experience of a HE child

Its on next folks

All to do with the opinions of an MP apparently

The Eunice Spry case is the one, I think

ShrinkingViolet - (although I agree that HE and abuse is possible, but only as possible as many other situations) part of teacher training is recognising possible signs of abuse. Which includes not leaping to stupid assumptions about isolated incidents, but being aware of changes in character and behaviour that might indicate a problem. Do you really take issue with one more person looking out for the welfare of your children?

Home Ed Wannabe.

Yay! Merry Raymond is on now - from puddlepatch
Fabulous voice of reason hooray for you Merry

Arrghhhhh to the previous caller who was talking gibberish - 6 or 7 years to train to be a teacher, where did she get that number from

Gosh listening to this makes me nore and more keen to HE

There's also an article in the Times this morning link here which is presumably connected if an MP is raising the issue again.

Of course there's a risk that parents could claim to HE to cover up abuse/neglect but there are lots of avenues for anyone who thinks a child is at risk to alert Social Services, just as they would with a pre-schooler.

To be fair school is often the first reporter of risk to SS, particularly among older children.

No suprise that the government thinks this: "Thousands of children supposedly educated at home by their parents are at risk of abuse, neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude, the Government said yesterday" I think they would be much happier if women handed their babies over at birth and no children were raised by their parents.

youknownothing no, I don't object to soemone looking out for my children. I do object though to being singled out as a more likely than the next person to need "the authorities" to make sure that I'm not mistreating them, simply becasue I've chosen to take responsibility myself for my DDs education for the time being.
Yes, I was being a touch over-simpistic about teachers recognising and reporting potential abuse (both my parents were teachers so have some experience of what's invovled), but really, if it's the case that teachers are looking for more than everyday bumps and bruises, how on earth is an LA inspector visiting once a year for ten minutes going to be able to make that judgement?
Welfare and education are two seperate things, and shouldn't be mixed up like this.