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

i'm still working on my reponse - the difficulty is getting it to not sound like a rant

At the moment, it's reading like this -

Bodies - "We think there is a problem with HE being used as a cover for abuse. We haven't proved this, but we think it sounds very plausible, so we propose that we enforce face to face interviews with HE children, just to make sure."

HE Families - "Um, actually, we don't think that's acceptable if you don't have any other reason to suspect abuse, apart from HE"

Bodies - "Well, are you denying that it's conceivable that abusers might use HE as a cover?"

HE Families - "No, they may well claim it, and HE parents are no less likely to abuse their children than parents who outsource their children's education."

Bodies - "Ah, so, to stop this, we should insist on face to face interviews"

HE Families "Not unless you're also going to insist on specific 'abuse-check' interviews with school children, too."

Bodies - "Look, do you want children to be abused?"

HE Families "Of course not."

Bodies - "Then you must tell us how to stop it happening."

HE Families "Why do we have to tell you how to stop abuse?"

So, in a nutshell, it's reading a lot like 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

I agree with AMIS in almost every point. This is not about being inconvenienced, this is about objecting to having to 'prove' I am not abusing my children.

Incidently, I have not de-registered my children because they have never been registered to begin with.

Except arguably the 'abuse-check interviews' are happening in a manner of speaking with schoolchildren already - by definition they are having that exposure to other adults and have the opportunity both to seek help from them and simply to be spoken to by them, through school (whether or not it works!). Now obviously the majority of HEd children also have plenty of opportunities to speak to or by spoken to by other adults, but it's not universal, it's not guaranteed, and presumably that's where this concern comes from. The idea that something special would be needed for schoolchildren to make this fair doesn't really make sense - the schoolchildren already have more involvement from 'official' adults in the community, whether it's effective or not - if anything this is more like catching up for HEd children, not something special being applied unfairly only to them, surely.

And as for "why do we have to tell you how to stop abuse?" - well presumably because if you don't then whatever clunking solution seems best to officialdom will happen, whether you like it or not. So it's entirely up to you - you can shrug your shoulders and say "just don't do the thing I don't like, I've nothing more to offer to the debate", or you can recognise that this is a difficult situation that needs working out and get stuck in.

And actually, to some extent, you have some responsibility for working at trying to stop abuse simply through being normal citizens, nothing to do with HE. In that sense, it's everyone's job.

What about under-5s? They are home with their parents, and often more isolated than HEd children. Should they be having regular interviews too?

but why should the HE community have to work harder than any other group in society to try to stop abuse? We're being told that because of our educational provision our children need more welfare checks. Try substituting "ethnic origin" or "religious beliefs" for "educational provision" and see how it sounds then.

Kay - that's avery defensive way of looking at it.
The otherway could be.

Bodies: We've come across a number of cases where HE is being used as a cover for HE.

HEers: We're sorry to hear that.

Bodies: We've talked to lots of child protection bods and one suggestion is that when a child is de-reged we take a look at them to ensure the cliam of HE is genuine. What do you think?

HEers : We don't like that at all.

Bodies: So what do you suggest?

HEers: Use your current powers.

Bodies: They 're not enough in certain situations so any suggestions?

HEers: It's not for us to tell you how to do your job.

and what about children at private schools - they usually have longer holidays, so less contact with teachers - perhaps they should have welfare checks during the holidays too.

Litchick - the LAs haven't been able to come up with any actual evidence that HE is being used as a cover for abuse or forced marriage, it's all just hearsay (as far as we know)

Really? School-children already have face-to-face interviews with the express purpose of checking whether or not they're being abused, do they?

Because 'Oh, well, school-children see other adults' isn't actually the same as saying 'HE children need to have specific intervention to protect them'.

As to you second post, in particular this -

-------
And as for "why do we have to tell you how to stop abuse?" - well presumably because if you don't then whatever clunking solution seems best to officialdom will happen, whether you like it or not. So it's entirely up to you - you can shrug your shoulders and say "just don't do the thing I don't like, I've nothing more to offer to the debate", or you can recognise that this is a difficult situation that needs working out and get stuck in.

-------

I refer you to the loaded question. This whole premise of 'you must do something about it!' is starting from the presumption that the use of HE as a 'cover' for abuse, with no other indicating factors, is a problem that needs a specific remedy in legislation. That particular part of the case has not been made.

Although I do have a nice sign I can sell you which will keep giant man-eating pink rabbits away from your front lawn - never known to fail.

Litchick - yes, your version is much less defensive (and probably better, I approve).

I admit, I am a tad defensive about this, given that I'm the one being told I must prove I'm not abusing my children.

"So why an interview like this would lead automatically to government requiring 'school at home', I don't know"

Just this morning experienced home educators are trying to help a new home educator who says

"My first LEA visit was 2 days after I deregistered her from school and I was
promptly told that I had gone about it all the wrong way and should have seen him first. I have another visit next week on the 29th were he wants to see my daughter and ask her questions about the education I have been providing for her"

Once more this is ultra vires (beyond the law)
This is a family where there are no welfare concerns.
A parent deregistering a child has no responsibility to contact the LA at all.
That is a schools job, on receiving a dereg letter.
The choice on how to give information about the home based education is the parents-not the LAs.
Families do not have to have a home visit at all. Children do not have to be seen by the LAW at all if they do not wish to.

If this is how LAs act now (and this is very mild compared to some)then I for one expect that it will be so much worse if they get the right to visit a child in the home?

Remember none of us is objecting to a visit from SS if there is a welfare concern.
None of us is objecting to the LA asking for more information if the have a legitimate educational concern.

They already have the power to do exactly as AMIS suggests-right now!
If ANYONE has a welfare concern about a child, then they should report it to SS.
EO even has a independent social worker, working with them, making it easier to talk through welfare concerns and decide what to do.

I still want to see evidence of these child abusers/forced marriage arrangers supposedly abounding under the name of HE. I am not saying it has never happened, but someone must have some real information to show us-and to demonstrate that the powers they have -IF THEY WERE USED, didn't work.

'HEers: Use your current powers.

Bodies: They 're not enough in certain situations so any suggestions?'

HEers:What additional powers do you want?

Bodies: We want the power to see the child if we have any concerns.

HEers: You have the powers to see the child if there are any welfare concerns!

Ach, julienoshoes is miles better at this than me any way.

"It's not for us to tell you how to do your job"

But surely when you're feeling under attack you'd be mad not to have an interest in diverting it?!

Beepspirits, We do keep trying to work with them!

We do keep trying to suggest ways forward.

And don't forget this is the third consultation we have answered in about 18 months!

I have spent hours and hours personally on this. Answering blooming consultations, writing letters, to the DCFS/Mp etc.
I have been to numerous meetings with different bodies to do with home education from the Minister at the DCFS down.
I have asked them all for evidence or research-actual figures.
No-one have been able to give us any.
Several groups have had to retract statements and accusations when they have been proved to be wrong/ misleading.

The home ed support groups are doing their best as well. TBH I don't see what else we can do-but we'll keep on trying.

He ers "Its not for us to tell you how to do your job"

authorities: If you don't cooperate by acknowledging a problem that we dont have any proof that exists, then we're afraid we'll have to go ahead and use the powers we already have anyway!

There's 'acknowledging the problem' and there's 'engaging with the idea that there is a problem'. You can do the latter without automatically doing the former, if you're not convinced it exists at all.

Yes it is difficult, but who said that anything to do with the interface of private lives and society was ever going to be easy?? My natural sympathies for what it's worth lie more with the civil libertarian argument that we should all be able to disengage from any outside interaction if we choose (e.g. no ID cards) and never be interfered with. So I think the more we go for solutions that avoid big brother, the better.

But, I do have a problem with some of the arguments I've seen on here tbh. The idea that this is an extra intrusion schooling families don't have to put up with is daft. Once you sign up for school as your education route the contact with authority, the response if you don't turn up, the intervention, effectively, is huge. That's one of the reasons people HE, after all! One interview is relatively small compared to that. It is still a clunky solution to a problem that some would argue doesn't exist (and it doesn't solve the civil liberties argument), but in terms of quantity of authority involvement it's not huge, it's not extra, it's still less than the authorities' involvement in the lives of schooled children.

And secondly the idea that it's just not HEers' problem. I see that in practice HEers are doing loads as listed by julienoshoes, but that's not implied by the sort of shrugging 'why should we tell you how to do your job' answers some people were giving to hypothetical questions above. The abuse problem does not belong to HEers more than to anyone else (or less, though!), but its proposed existence is currently a problem for them. So shrugging it off seems counterproductive (and also massively self-centred and a bit antisocial).

I can see it's a difficult issue and I can understand the paranoia. But having dificulties fighting off interfering LAs is not the same as having children dragged off back to school, people being arrested for HEing or whatever. Avoiding the risk of LAs getting worse may or may not justify certain stances on things like legislation, abuse and so on. It doesn't automatically justify opposing everything that might cause LAs to get more interfery - sometimes an issue like catching abusers might mean having to work to overcome that getting worse is the lesser of two evils (and sometimes it won't). The civil liberties argument is stronger as a principle, but I still think that if you're going to defend that as a principle (and have a chance of defending it) you need to go all out for finding the alternatives, not just leave that up to other people.

beep - I'm not arguing with you about a simple interview - it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. To be honest if they just wrote to me to say - "look sorry to be a pain and this in no way reflects you as a parent but due to a worrying increase in abused children who are not in the system we need to do a short interview with your DC to check all is well and they are safe" - I'd say ok fine - I'm not abusing my children so I have no problem with being transparent about it.

The issue I (I think we..?) has is that they want to do a whole bloody review of HE for the sake of one poxy interview - which they alreay have the power to do anyway. So use the power they have, do the interview and then but out! Why "review" the law and HE as a genre when that isn't actually necessary to do the thing they want to do anyway!

nomore, and others who have said this, are right. The powers already exist. Why a particular subset of parents are being harrassed by 'official review' after 'official review' when the neccessary safeguards already exist is one of the reason people get so testy about this.

I'm going to leave the discussion here, though, as I'm also discussing this in RL with anti-HE relatives, and I get quite enough accusations of 'paranoia' and nonsense about 'possible' child abuse from people who actually can see quite clearly that my children are safe and well, without having to argue the toss with people for whom I am just type on a screen.

When the suggestion is essentially that if HE families don't suggest measures to deal with child abuse they perhaps don't actually care about it enough and are self-centred and anti-social, I kind of know I've come to the end of my ability to participate moderately.

Gosh, can't move for the straw men round here now, can we?!

You have not followed my argument at all - fine if you don't want to, but don't misrepresent what I said.

Oh, go on then, give it another try. If you could do it without chucking in little parentheses with the words 'paranoid' and 'anti-social', it might flow better for me to follow.

If you're going to react in a knee-jerk way to words you don't like, and not read the context properly, then I think I would rather not try to re-explain.

I'm sorry, but I do actually think it's rather important to prove that a particular problem exists before discussing which intrusive and prejudicial measures are introduced in law, when the already existing law is adequate when used appropriately, if such a problem was proved to exist in the first place. This does not preclude me from participating, as I do, in every flamin consultation that comes down the pike.

This is what you termed 'shrugging it off', which you then deemed 'self-centred and anti-social'.

Did I misunderstand?