Is this Home Education, or child labour?

[Legacy]

We used a decorator recently. When we met him, he said it would be 2 people on the job - himself and an assistant. Fine.

When he started, his 14/15 year old son turned up with him.
Next day, his 13 year old.
Day 3, his 11/12 year old (for part of the day).

I asked about them not being at school this week, and he said "Oh no, they're home educated you see, so they each come with me 1-2 days a week and do their work the rest of the week". He'd obviously been asked this before, as he then proceeded to ask his son lots of 'questions' to demonstrate his knowledge of various things.

I'm not at all anti HE, but I was a bit taken aback about this. Mostly because as they worked I heard the interchanges between Dad & son, and they weren't good - the dad berating and shouting at the sons the whole time.
He even publicly humiliated one of the sons in front of me when I complained about something which I felt hadn't been done properly.

Surely this is the sort of thing which gives HE a bad name? Would there be any authority who ought to investigate this sort of thing?

I would guess that the law on this would be the same as it would be for any other child of that age accompanying their father to work on a non-school day - if it had been Saturday, or half-term for instance. I'm not quite sure of the legal position, but I think it's not uncommon for self-employed parents to do that so I assume it would only be considered a legal issue if there were Health & Safety worries about under-16s being around heavy equipment, dangerous chemicals etc. Similar perhaps to a 14-yo on a work experience scheme or apprenticeship - there are limits on what tasks they can do because of safety issues.

Beyond that, it depends on what you think the problem is. So long as each child is getting an education "suitable to their age, ability and aptitudes" then the LEA don't have any power to specify what days or hours the children are being educated or what that involves. Equally, Social Services will only be interested if there are signs of neglect or abuse - if the children were being maltreated by a parent, or forced to work against their will for instance.

So, without any reasons for thinking the children were either being neglected or abused, or not getting a suitable education, then I don't think there is anything to be investigated.

As to whether a "suitable education" for 11 to 15 year olds could be done in only 5 days a week, or could include practical skills like decorating, why not?

There's a limit to children's paid work hours. That's what would worry me. Surely 2 full work days a week is more than the law allows for a 12 year old? - or is it different with family businesses, I have a feeling there's a difference in the law there?

Depends whether the boys were working or accompanying their dad and helping out here and there, I would have thought.

I find this an interesting one. I guess as long as they are keeping within the law, it would be fine. After all, lots of schooled children I know accompany their parents on a Saturday (we know shop owners and dance school teachers who have their children there the whole holidays). This isn't really any different, although I guess if they are actually working there will be limits on the hours they can do.

My eldest is currently working, unpaid, as an apprentice to her dance teacher on Saturday mornings, a very common scenario. She is 13 now but was doing this at 12. She also helps me tutor Maths and English to some 5 and 6 year olds. My youngest is desperate to start teaching piano, and the only reason we don't is because we think people might think it odd having a 9 year old teach them. But our plan is that once she is about 13, that she takes the beginners, under my direction, freeing me up to do the advanced grades (we have pianos in 2 rooms). She can't wait to do this, and would be more than capable already, actually.

In my opinion, this sort of thing is properly equipping your child for the world of work. Sitting in a classroom isn't. It's just we've got so used to our 21st century way of thinking that it's fine for kids to be so bogged down with schoolwork that they don't have a life, but not fine for them to be working in something they genuinely enjoy and which they could one day make a living out of.

My only concern would be if the children in question weren't happy in doing this - it's only the shouting/ humiliation that bothers me....although you can see plenty of that going on in a trip to the supermarket!

I've just looked up the rules on children working, and it does sound like he would have to be careful of the laws on this, particularly where the youngest is concerned. Family business link. Under 13's should not be working at all, though if he is just there with his dad, and learning by watching him, then that is ok.

The older ones are permitted to work for a certain number of hours a week, local bylaws apparently can affect the details, but the laws seem to be worded very much with school hours in mind. But I think if it is only 1 or 2 days a week, and not long shifts or in dangerous conditions then they would probably be fine.

It looks like it's only the 12 year old there is a problem with, then, and it looks like DD2 had better be 13 before she teaches piano, just to make sure I keep on the right side of the law! But interesting that as we are at home she could sit in with me and watch before then to help her learn (she sometimes does this already, in truth).

DD1 is 13 now, so no problem any more, thankfully. But I find the law a bit weird (not that you can disregard it for that reason, of course). Strange that she was not technically allowed to do something that was the highlight of her week and she adored, but school were allowed to take all her life away by giving her so much homework that she had no free time at all.

I think we will look back in years to come when we read the history books and think we had it a bit skewed with regards to children's welfare.

The kids were all there to do half of the work - removing wallpaper, steaming walls, sanding, re-papering, painting and tidying up, so I would definitely classify it as working.

I guess I had various issues with this decorators - some of which are not relevant to the HE discussion.

His sons were not very good, damaged some of our house/carpets and generally did a poor job of decorating.
Ignoring the fact that they were 'underage', I just addressed that as I would any supplier - by telling the Dad that I wasn't happy.
I was then a bit [shocked] when he started shouting at the kids in front of me about it.

I just had a bad feeling about it all, and wondered if I should be doing anything about it? On one occasion when the Dad went out to get more paint I made the 13 year old a drink and was asking him about when he fitted in the 'school' type work. He sort of said 'dunno' and just looked very uncomfortable. I don't believe they get any education at all. The 13 year old couldn't even measure our walls correctly....

I actually don't see a problem with the 14/15 year old accompanying his father as he works for a day or so. I also don't see a problem with the younger ones helping daddy out for half a day or so either. They will be learning valuable trade skills that they may later be able to fall back on in the future, as well as a strong work ethic Many colleges do courses in painting decorating each year. They are learning them first hand. Sometimes I think there is a tendancy to object more to children helping out in manual/trade occupations as there is an immediate link to the negative connotation of "labour". Had daddy been an IT consultant/businessman showing his children how to fix software or negotiate profitable deals or somesuch, there would be less likelyhood to object to children helping out. I do agree that the father shouting at children/humiliating his son is wrong. But parents are not perfect whether they home educate or not.

tsk - - clearly...

This is why I think that it is essential that the LEA has the powers to visit and check that the needs of the child come first.
If he wants the DCs join him he should wait until they are old enough and enrol them in a apprenticeship scheme with the local college. It is a day release scheme and he would have to be teaching them health and safety, making sure they had a variety of experiences etc. My DS is an apprentice-he is learning on the job-not cheap labour.

We've had work done around the house and the person doing it has asked if we minded if their son/daughter came along. We've said that we don't mind. They have been polite and helpful and dependant on age have helped their dad out to varying degrees. Dad supervised and directed activities. These were not HE children but came during school hols.
I think something like this is a great opportunity for children/young people that isn't available for the majority.
Some of my children would have jumped at the opportunity to do something like that.
Participating in adult work at a level that is suitable for a child is a great learning opportunity and not imo automatically a 'bad thing'. If the child is unhappy with it or if the adult is working them to hard and inappropriately then obviously that is a bad thing and needs addressing.

The op has already said that there were other problems with this decorator unrelated to the HE.
If there are genuine concerns about the children other than the fact that they are learning a trade by watching/participating with their father then contact LA and express those concerns to them. They would have to follow it up. That would be the authority to contact who would investigate.

Otherwise if it's to do with shoddy workmanship on the decorator's part then proceed as you normally would if the children hadn't been involved.

I don't think this situation is automatically a problem, but that doesn't mean that there's not a problem in this specific case, if you see the difference?

For the 13 and 14 yo's, there has to be a balance between education and part-time work. That can be blurred if the work is also training, like in an apprenticeship. But if the work is just "labouring" rather than learning a trade, then it certainly can't be done for many hours/days a week, and they need to be doing other things the rest of the time to get an education. Even if it is training, they should still be getting a mix of other things in their education too at that age.

If it genuinely is just one or two days a week, then I don't think it would interfere with other educational activities, but if they are really doing this all day most days of the week, then it gets very questionable.

For the 11/12 it's more clearly a problem, since the law makes it plain that he shouldn't be working, even if he's not doing it "officially" they're still on dodgy ground.

The LEA do have powers to enquire about how the parents are providing an education, if there are concerns - if you got the impression that they were being used as cheap labour and not getting any education, then you could raise the issue with them.

LIke muminscotland, I would not be worried about this sort of situation automatically, but I might be worried about this particular situation, mainly because of the humiliation, and because it sounds as though the children might not have the choice in this one would hope.

The LEA do have powers to ensure that HE is not being used as a cover for cheap labour. It's drawing the lines that I guess is difficult, deciding when what is beneficial for the child becomes not so any more. If you are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the boys, then raise the issue.

I do disagree, though, that they would necessarily be better off in an apprentice scheme. These sorts of things exist to provide opportunities for young people that are rarely there nowadays. Years ago many people would have learnt by going into the family business, and it was perfectly valid as training. It's just that this happens less so nowadays as most children don't get that chance.

If these kids actually want to be decorators (and I guess that is the main issue), and if the decorator is a good one (which also sounds like it could be an issue here) then the experience will be invaluable to them and they will have a job for life. It can be a very efficient way to learn. But it sounds like this case might not be quite so good, in which case, follow it up.

In some cases it would be OK-if it was for the benefit of the DC.In this particular case I think the LEA ought to check and if I was the OP I would be raising my concerns with them.

I would raise the situation with the LEA (if you know their LEA). If it's legal, then so be it (I suppose). If it's not, then they can use any powers that they may have to intervene. I would also stop using them and explain, in no uncertain terms, why.

It's perhaps one thing for them to have been brought along once or twice because of childcare issues, and to have sat and done their academic work whilst their father worked. However, your description of them doing what is essentially their father's work for him, and at the same time being berated by him for their perceived inadequacies should be ringing alarm bells somewhere.