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?????????????

Oh, absolutely. So we must all be monitored. Because monitoring by SS is a cast-iron method of protecting vulnerable children from abuse.

That has been my experience too, Sidge, but there are a number of posters on here who simply refuse to believe it.

Oh, actually, no it isn't, is it?

I'm with EO on this in being infuriated. This whole thing is making HE itself a 'red flag', and there's no other way to put it.

Well of course not Kay. Recent cases have shown us that. But what are we to do? Say fuck it?
We have to look for new ways to protect children, especially those whose aprents will not do it for them. Don't we owe them that collective responsibility?

In my past experience in an inner city school it was more likely that those from a bengali background were more likely to be physically, sexually or emotionally abused than those of other cultural backgrounds.

Just becuase that was the case statistically in that school would that have given the LEA the right to investigate ALL bengali families in a disproportionate manner to all the other cultural backgrounds in school?

No - in My opinion it would not have done - again its tarring with the same brush.

But HE can be a red flag, KayHarker. Just as school staff have a responsibility to ensure the physical and emotional wellbeing of their pupils, EOTAS have a responsibility to be alert to those families with children being home educated that are at risk of abuse.

Of course we don't say 'fuck it'. We demand that the authorities use and apply the existing legislation effectively. We don't decide that a minority group is automatically under suspicion.

litchick I do not suggest for a minute we say "fuck it" but the issue I have with the review is that it is a review of HOME EDUCATION with the express purpose of protecting certain children at risk.

Put it together and no matter how you dress it up it sounds like the govnm are reviewing HE BECAUSE they think children are more likely to be at risk in that particular group.

The media are not helping your cause unfortunately in the way this is being presented.....

The best way I can describe how I feel about it is to cast back to the hoohar about stop and search on young black males because statistically they were more likely to be up to no good.....does that make sense?

kay thats a very succinct way of putting what I have been trying to say! thank you and well done you! I'm just hopeless at trying to explain what I mean!

But this can be achieved by the school, if they have concerns, highlighting them to SS at the point when the child is deregistered.

Most of the time when a child is deregistered from school, the school and the family have a long history of meetings and discussions about the issues - if those are that the school is not addressing bullying or lack of SEN provision, then the school should not express surprise or concern to SS when the family decide to HE.

If the history is of unexplained absences which the family have made no effort to explain, then the school should report that.

If there is no history of meetings, but the child is an Asian girl of 14, they should highlight that.

Adding all HE children to the list of children who have to be "monitored" does not make it easier for SS to see the ones who need help, if anything it will acually hide the problem families in a huge sea of paperwork about HE families who have never done anything to warrant concern.

But Kay, the existing legislation and case law is quite specific - if a child is removed from school and de- registered then the LA cannot insist on a meeting with that child. They can request but not insist.
The parents can put them off for quite some time.
There are threads about how to avoid meeting with the LA all the time on MN and other fora. Now mostly this is about perfectly genuine parents not wanting to meet with an LA that has let them down.
But in the absence of face to face contact with the child hwo can the LA decide who is legitimate and who is not?

nomore, I thought you were doing very well

AMIS, indeed. It's not like the SS are a bit bored and could do with the extra work.

thats a good point muminscot - surely SS don't advocate even more people to see and even more paperwork to file - they have enough to do already and because of their too heavy woprkloads they are missing enough at risk children as it is???!!!

thats a good point muminscot - surely SS don't advocate even more people to see and even more paperwork to file - they have enough to do already and because of their too heavy woprkloads they are missing enough at risk children as it is???!!!

The LA cannot insist on a meeting with the child. But SS can. The LA is not responsible for the welfare issues, they are responsible for making sure the child gets a suitable education. If they have reason to believe that is not happening, they can take the family to court. If they have reason to believe there are welfare concerns, they can report those to SS, who do have authority to take action.

Litchick - so? If a child is removed from school, there are all the issues that AMIS just mentioned that add to a bigger picture anyway, and if the school genuinely has concerns for the safety of the child, they contact the Child protection team just like anyone else.

Well you guys obviously know so much more about the law relating to child protection than the panel of child care lawyers, the Family Division, the Social services, the police, the NSPCC, Kids Company, The Voice of the Child in Care...

I think that AMIS does have a good point Litchick. If there are concerns about the welfare of a HE child, then social services already have the authority to take action, just as they do with a child in school.
I know a HE family where this happened - they were reported to social services, who then investigated and visited the family over a period of time.
The LA did also visit the family to discuss their HE, who agreed voluntarily to meet with them and talk through their education but that was always completely separate from the discussions with social services.

Section 47 Of the CA is very clear on this.
The duty for the ss to investigate begins when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer from significant harm.
The fact that a child is de-registered from school do not constitue reasoble grounds. A fact that has been hard faught for in the courts and is now an accepted principle.
Thus, if there are no other reported indicators SS do not have the authority to insist upon an investigation.
This is good news for genuine HEers but has left the SS with no statutory power to investgate in some difficult cases.

This is why the government are seeking to extend the legislation.
My understanding is that there will be no inclusion of HE within the parameters of signicant harm, rather the SS will be given the power to insist upon a face to face interview with a child who is de-registered to assure itself that said child is not suffering significant harm.

If it were really as simple as has been said on here, why would you imagine so many bodies are supporting the proposed changes?
I can understand that folk are nervous of the government's intentions but to what end would the NSPCC or Voice of the Child in Care want to undermine the right to HE?

Litchick, what do you mean 'in some difficult cases'?

Surely it's right that deregistration and HE shouldn't constitute reasonable grounds.

If there are other concerns then wouldn't ss have the reasonable grounds they needed to investigate?

But if they are difficult cases-then there would be reasonable grounds and SS could act.

I have also been told by SS on several occasions that when a referral is made they have a duty to investigate.

I have been present supporting parents when SS have visited to see a parent and child-on the grounds that a referral has been made-sometimes by the LA and sometimes after an annoymous referral.

Again I say if there is a welfare issue SS have the power to act. I have been present on several occasions when they have.

Honest opinion as to why 'bodies' are pushing for a change? Because it's easy. It's a nice quick win that will look great on some stats about 'something being done'. The fact that it's scattershot, intrusive and prejudicial is neither here nor there for them on that score.

(and I'm not really a big fan of the NSPCC, sorry, so I'm not really going to be gung-ho for their opinion on whether or not we should be 'monitored' in a way in which non-HE families are not. According to most of their scare-ads, I'm the one most likely to be abusing them just by virtue of being their parent, never mind how they're educated.)

As to 'difficult cases', I hear tell they make bad law.

(I am coming over as snark-central tonight, apologies, it's a combination of arguing this in real life with relatives and pmt)

Yes litchick I really do appreciate the knowledge and greater standing of the list of people you mention (lawyers, police, SS etc etc) but their views must be balanced out with the views of those "on the street" so to speak - in this case it would be those who are ACTUALLY HEing their children.

I may be new to HE but I am not new to education and frankly this still smacks of lumping a group of people together as being likely candidates for abuse simply because of a lifestyle choice...I don't think I even need to mention any more examples where this practice has caused far more harm than it has done good.

I accept you are (almost single handedly!) trying to support the governments position here and I agree its almost a no win situation as far as they are concerned but just because they have made a balls up of reforming social services doesn't mean its fair for them to gang up on the next likely scapegoat to blame for the abuse suffered by a minority of children.

I don't know what the answer is but I will continue to stand up for our right to HE without interference and nannying from the state. I am more than capable of doing the job well and I object to some suit with no experience in my children to dictate what is and isn't an acceptable way for them to live.

They also going to round on travellers (yet again!) and accuse them of statistically being more likely to abuse their kids? Not all of their children attend school regularly by the very nature of their lifestyle....who else are the government going to flag up as dodgy parents? Ones that work more than 35 hours a week maybe?

"My understanding is that there will be no inclusion of HE within the parameters of signicant harm, rather the SS will be given the power to insist upon a face to face interview with a child who is de-registered to assure itself that said child is not suffering significant harm"

But surely the presumption that a check is required implies mistrust of the parents?

I have every sympathy for those trying to ensure child welfare, but I will vehemently oppose any attempt to define a parent's choice to HE their child as an automatic reason to invoke child welfare procedures.

If that principle was ever brought into legal effect, it would completely undermine the status of home education as an equally valid choice in law.

This is simply yet another attempt by the government to conflate the separate issues of child welfare and monitoring of home education, because they have so far failed to get the control that they want over the ways in which home education is delivered. Well-meaning people who don't understand the background to this will be pushed into support for these aims because they are presented in a superficially convincing way as "protecting vulnerable children", which of course we all support.