Yet another government review of Home Education

[AMumInScotland]

government review

They're just going to keep on at this. We have 4 weeks to respond!

Not read through it yet myself properly, but according to another forum the questions are:

1. Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are

educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.

1. Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the

following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.

1. Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation

to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?. If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system

for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system

for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?

1. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used

as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?

The list of alternative minority groups who might need more careful monitoring than the rest of society that I have been using in conversation in the last few days starts as follows:

Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals...

but I'm sure I'm overreacting and we aren't actually descending into a totalitarian fascist state with our eyes closed...

Yes you are over reacting. To equate home educators with persecuted minorities is crass at best - offensive at worst.

If every parent whose child under 5 but doesn't use professional child care (i.e. the child could, at least in theory, never be seen by anyone outside the family) was being told that they should submit to Childrens Services inspections just to make sure they weren't abusing their children, as well as Home Educators being told that this is the new plan, I think Home Educators would feel less singled out.

Yes, I know we aren't really descending into fascism, but we ARE being discriminated against.

But the main purpose it to make sure you are giving your child an appropriate education.

I was home educated and I was regularly "inspected". in the late 60s. How is this any different?

No. The main purpose the DfCSF are claiming they want the right of access to our homes and children is to make sure our children are not being abused. Just in case.

Trying to imagine the response on MN if the government decided that this was necessary for all Muslim families. Or all families where the parents are homosexual.

The subsidiary purpose for the LAs is that they are SICK AND TIRED of us home educators supposedly educating our children in ways which sure as hell don't look like education to them and they currently don't have the legal powers to do anything about it, but if they can get into our homes they begin to have concrete evidence about how little they can see which looks like the education they are expecting(no sign of a "classroom area" in the house, no sign of timetables, curricula, lesson plans or any of the other schooly paraphernalia). And then they can begin to argue that we are not providing a "suitable" education and take us to court over it. Once State Officials have the right of entry to our homes even if there is NO REASON to suppose that there are any educational or welfare concerns, that opens the door for them to judge our private lives according to their own values, which we may well not share. We are then at the mercy of people with a lot of power over us who may well not be sympathetic to our way of life.

Could you tell me where it says all that?
Did you read theses two points?

"There are no plans to change parents? well established rights to educate their children at home."

"A central part of the Government?s commitment for all children is that, no matter what their background or circumstances, they have the right to achieve the five ?Every Child Matters outcomes?: Be healthy; Stay safe; Enjoy and achieve; Make a positive contribution; Achieve economic wellbeing."

i have no knowledge of home ed and as an "outsider" i have NO IDEA why the govt seem to be picking on you. I am not aware of any evidence that shows that HE is often used as a cover up for abuse? Is there any?

We all take different approaches to education but the one thing we all object to is having our children blanket-described as vulnerable simply because we choose to take responsibility, as is our right, for our children's education.

If the government brought out a consultation to suggest that all children, in Sheffield say, were vulnerable to child abuse simply because they lived in Sheffield there would be absolute outrage and widespread condemnation!!
There always be a few nutters will believe what they are told however

The recent tragic cases of 9 children in Doncaster, BabyP and others are all the more shocking as Social Services had involvement with these children, all were 'mainstream' families. The procedures were in place, some of them had numerous hospital visits and they still were not protected.

The recent Consultation on HE, which produced some rather good guidelines for LA's, left some LA's with a very bitter taste in their mouths because they weren't given more 'authority'.
Many of us predicted that the next step would be to try to use the current ECM legislation to bring in the changes the LA's were demanding.
Even more of us saw that the LA's would attempt to go down the 'child abuse' path in order to scaremonger the powers that be into further regulation of HE families.

I really do think they're missing the point.
The LA's should be forced to adopt the guidelines as good practice and be assessed by Ofsted as to how they're managing to meet their obligations to support their HE community.
In return, I personally believe that there should be registration of all children, no one should be able to 'not be known to the LA'.
No child should be able to disappear out of the system or not enter it at all imho.

The Government ISN"T picking on home educators!

They just want to make sure that children who are educated at home get the same level of protection and at least as good an education as they would get at school. I really cannot see why anyone would have a problem with this.

There does not appear to me to be any suggestion that home educated children are MORE vulnerable than children at school.

However, in the EXTREMELY unlikely event of a home educating parent being an abuser, it is far more likely to go undetected because the child is not being seen regularly by teachers, who might well spot a problem.The child also does not have to opportunity to confide in a teacher and seek help that way. So there need to be strategies in place to make sure children are safe.

I disagree.
In a system where a child is one of 30 in a class, it's a big ask for a teacher to spot signs of abuse unless it's blatantly obvious and even then that child is likely to be known to SS anyway.

I do agree that children who have no contact with the outside community are more vulnerable and for that reason I would advocate that all registration with the LA should be compulsory.

However our children, on the whole, come into contact with a wider range of people such as extra-curricular activities, librarians, other HE'ers, shop assistants to name but a few.
Most children have extended families who they could confide in as well.

I have no problem with face-to-face contact in my home. I don't actually believe that my LA's sole purpose is to thwart me (I know plenty who do).

sorry there was a rogue 'all' in that last message.

Actually, you would be surprised by what a teacher sees, even with 30 children in the class

But there is a vanishingly small number of are nutters who may de-register their child for the wrong reasons, or who might be giving their children a wholly inadequate education. Children must be protected in these circumstances. And if it means that the huge majority have to tick a couple of extra boxes, isn't that worth it to help protect the interests of the tiny minority?

Is there evidence that HEed children are more vulnerable? Jeremy Vine asked an NSPCC spokeman this just the other day, and he said "We.. the inf.. We don?t have the evidence there statistically, no." - Vijay Patel (NSPCC spokesman on the Jeremy Vine Show, Radio 2)

(The NSPCC are a big part of the lobby wanting to bring in the changes)

Baroness Delyth Morgan:

?Making sure children are safe, well and receive a good education is our most serious responsibility. Parents are able, quite rightly, to choose whether they want to educate children at home, and a very small number do. I?m sure, the vast majority do a good job. However, there are concerns that some children are not receiving the education they need. And in some extreme cases, home education could be used as a cover for abuse. We cannot allow this to happen and are committed to doing all we can to help ensure children are safe, wherever they are educated."

?This review will look at whether the right systems are in place that allow local authorities and other agencies to ensure that any concerns about the safety, welfare or education of home educated children are addressed quickly and effectively. The review will of course talk to home educating families to ensure their views and experiences are heard.?

This "And in some extreme cases, home education could be used as a cover for abuse." is the red flag to the bull. Unsubstantiated accusation (cf the Vijay Patel quote above).

Seeker "But there is a vanishingly small number of are nutters who may de-register their child for the wrong reasons, or who might be giving their children a wholly inadequate education. Children must be protected in these circumstances. And if it means that the huge majority have to tick a couple of extra boxes, isn't that worth it to help protect the interests of the tiny minority?"

There are ALREADY LEGAL POWERS for the State to intervene if they have any reason to suspect abuse or lack of education. Why don't they learn to use their existing powers properly (in all, or almost all, the big high profile abuse cases, the family were already known to Childrens Services. What is needed is a review of why they have failed so miserably, not an extension of their powers at the expense of the freedoms of perfectly innocent people)

And Seeker again: "They just want to make sure that children who are educated at home get the same level of protection and at least as good an education as they would get at school." As long as a "Home Educating" family doesn't lock its children in a cupboard 24 hours a day, the children get the protection of the community as much as any other child does. You don't have to be in the care of a state employed person for 6 hours a day to be visible. And as for "at least as good an education as they would get at school" yes yes yes - that's the reason lots of people HE - because they think they can do better than the schools on offer to them are managing. But who decides whether the education is at least as good or better? That's the crux. Because the people currently legally responsible for educating their children are parents (whether the children are in a lovely school, a miserably failing special measures school or at home) but the LA officials are wanting to be the ones deciding whether the education is good enough or not (very clear from the LA responses to recent consultations, the questions they are being asked on their private LA only questionnaire (60 questions rather than the 6 the hoi polloi get),and by many anecdotal experiences of HEers who have come into contact with unsympathetic LA employees.

But the thing is Seeker, that's only one professional.
What about GP's, HV's? Do they not see the abuse?
There are systems in place, for all children, HE ones as well, they simply don't work as well as they should.

Saying that a HE child is more vulnerable simply because they don't go to school isn't good enough.

I highly suspect the families they're referring to are those who don't take their children to any professional services, rarely leave the house/engage with the wider community. Even then suppose the LA has a visit with them, is shown 'work', that child can still be abused.

I'm jut trying to see things from the point of view of those HE'ers who are worried about access from the LA, particularly when some of them have a less than favourable opinion of HE per se.

I don't have a problem with my LA, we do welcome them into our home, they are free to converse with the children if everyone is happy with that. I don't want them to be categorised as more vulnerable simply because they are educated outside of the school system.

Has anyone ever been told by the authorities that the education they were providing at home wasn't adequate and they had to send their children back to school?

Yes, there has been one case not too long ago where I live, where it was clear that the family had removed the child from school under the auspices of HE to avoid prosecution for truancy by the LA. The child returned to school.

So Big Brother isn't hammering on the doors of home educators demanding that they send their children back to school? Why do you feel like a persecuted minority then?

Sadly not all LA's are the same though Seeker. Some of them are very heavy handed, extremely anti-HE and it is entirely understandable why some parents wish to have nothing to do with them.

If all LA's were to adhere to the guidelines and actually play a supportive, rather than antagonistic, role in the monitoring (because let's face it that's what we're talking about) of the standard of HE, then the community imo would be less defensive as a whole.

I'm not so sure it's an issue for those of us who choose a more structured approach to HE. It seems to be the more autonomous educators who have most issue with pretty much anything the Gov't attempt to introduce.

There was a huge hoo-har about the sex ed stuff recently with some believing that HE'ers shouldn't have been mentioned in that list of children either, but it was more to do with making sure that those children had opportunities to access that info should they wish to, rather than HE'ers being forced to teach sex ed in a particular way. Some people do seem to take ishoo with almost any suggestion that comes along regardless of what it is.
Actually, what's more annoying are those who post up links and c&p info to the local groups which infer that Big Brother is knocking, when in fact if you read the proposals/documents you realise that they cherry-pick what suits them and handily ignore the rest.
It frightens me that some HE'ers aren't inclined or don't have the time to read through the documents and just accept what someone else has posted as gospel

I do sometimes think that we are at risk of shooting ourselves in the feet by the vocal majority being so militant. Sometimes I do wonder whether the state of paranoia that seems to pervade the HE community might be seen as destructive rather than protective iyswim.

So what do the heavy handed ones do, Astarte?

"I do sometimes think that we are at risk of shooting ourselves in the feet by the vocal majority being so militant. Sometimes I do wonder whether the state of paranoia that seems to pervade the HE community might be seen as destructive rather than protective iyswim."

It certainly looks that way to me extremely unexpert eye!

Sorry - here's the rest "and that's why I'd really like to know what it is that the authorities actually DO that upsets people so much. It does look as if some people seem to get a kick out of being "alternative" and ar almost hopingt hat they will be challenged, so that their idea that "the man" is out to get them is justified. IYSWIM!

Aggressive letters telling people of the LA 'rights' to investigate them.

That they will decide whether they will allow parents to home educate.

Bullying about if they aren't satisfied about what's being taught they will take them to court, nothing to do with whether the education is suitable, more whether the NC is being followed.

Insisting that refusal of a home visit, which they have no right to, is a suggestion of an abusive home and would warrant a referral to SS/CP team

God the list goes on....

The thing is when you first decide to HE it's such a huge step that even the most prepared parent would be shocked at those tactics. It takes a very strong person to deal with that and it's completely unnecessary.

If the LA's were to behave as mine does I'm sure most people would be more than open and amenable.

Seeker would you allow someone into your home if you thought they were going to use the visit as an excuse to gather info about you to prevent you from parenting in the way in which you see fit?

It's really no different than a HV insisting on a home visit because she suspects you're co-sleeping/extended bf'ing/BLW'ing and is not happy about it.
She believes that being kept to a schedule and ff with early weaning is the best thing for your child!
Would you let her in?

There is no doubt in my mind that some of the more vocal parents in our community do not want to be told what to do, end of.

They're are the Big Brother types who seriously do believe that the government is consistently spying on them.

There are nutters in all walks of life. HE is no exception.

I personally don't believe there will be legislation to enforce homogenous education in this country. I think the worst it may get is that HE families are inspected by OFSTED and that physical proof will have to be provided by the parents to satisfy the LA's remit to ensure a suitable education.
How the hell they'll do it is another matter entirely

As I say that's as bad as I could see it going.

Astarte I was aked by a local HE group to give them some leal advice on this ( I've represented a number of HE parents against the LA so am 'known'iyswim).
I laid out the law as it currently stands and explained the current porblem that the government are trying to resolve.
Some members accepted the problem and were looking for ways in which it could be solved whilst ensuring this doesn't become an excuse by the governemnt to impose some sort of curriculum on HEers by the back door.
However the more vocal members were so militant that there was no evidence that HE was ever used as a cover that we couldn't get past that. When I told them repeatedly about cases I had personally come across in their LA they just stuck their fingers in their ears.
Frankly, it's playing into the government's hands.