Home education review

[tessa protheroe]

The review led by Mr Badman has been published. You can read it online via Education Otherwise's Freedom of Education website or other home ed sites (- sorry did try to do a direct link but my hubby and ds have the IT skills and are out atm).

 

It is worth a read. They are calling for yearly registration (permission granted to home ed depends on suitability of parents plans and other factors), compulsory home visits and for local authority officials to have access to children without the parent present. It dismisses autonomous education. Deregistration will be delayed.

 

All this is for "safeguarding children educated at home" (never mind the fact that social services already have these powers).

 

Ed Balls' reply says he wants to press ahead with the safeguarding ideas immediately. Other suggestions (training of local authorities, exam access) are put on the back burner re resources.

 

Not everyone here is pro home ed - fair enough. I think (hope) we are all against child abuse. But bear in mind that if this is passed unchallenged it is giving the state greater rights over the family. We know and love our children but that may count for little in the authorities' view.

 

Tessa

[oxgirl]

I saw this on the news the other day. I home educated for two years and, I must admit, I don't have any problem with the proposal at all. We've all seen recent terrible cases where children have been removed from school and have disappeared from view and ended up being abused in secret and killed. I did initially feel resentful when I was visited at home. I felt school had let down my child and that now they were checking up on me, but the guy who visited was lovely and soon put me at my ease and I ended up looking forward to his visits and telling him all about what we'd been up to and showing him how my lad had progressed. If I was home educating now I wouldn't have any problems at all with being monitored, I would feel reassured that there were people out there looking out for the welfare of my child and others.

 

~ Mel ~

[Cat]

 

There has been one case where a child was removed from school and tragically ended up dead. One case is of course one too many I totally agree with that. But children who attend school on a daily basis are also abused and it goes totally un-noticed. Unless someone moves in with you (or we go the whole 1984 hog and have cameras installed in all of our homes so that the state can see everything) there will continue to be tragedies. The majority of children who are abused are already known to social services. This was certainly the case with Eunice Spry who was abusing her adopted children even before she removed them from school to home educate them. The SS file on Spry goes back to before she even applied to foster her children never mind adopt them. The system failed those children badly.

 

I think the thing that I personally strongly object to is that those of us who home ed are now affectively guilty until proven innocent with regard to safeguarding our children. The monitoring of their education is an entirely separate issue. Our children must be seen by someone who the state is going to decided is suitable to decided if we are safeguarding our children. I do not think that the majority of society understands that this is not only a serious slur on home educators but it is yet another step towards a ‘nanny state’ where the state is deemed to be more capable at bringing up our children than we are.

 

Some children are at risk while they are in the care of those who the state is saying we should be entrusting our children to. Only this week we have seen a horrific example of this splashed all over the news and the papers. A very large percentage of parents who are home educating their SEN children are doing so because their needs were not being met in school. Some of these parents believe that their children were abused by the system and so did what most parents in that position would do and removed their children.

Being a home educator does not make you any more or less likely to abuse your children, which is really what this is all about, the review was wrapped around safeguarding issues which have still not be proven. Home educators are like any other group of people and are made up by a cross section of society and in that cross section you will have people who will abuse the power that they have over children. I personally think that this review has very little to do with home ed and everything to do with the screws being tightened on all parents and as a group home educators had to be brought into line. If it stops one child from being abused and murdered all well and good only time will tell.

 

Carole

[tessa protheroe]

Local authorities already have powers to act if education is insufficient or welfare is at risk. Not all local authorities /inspectors stick to their remit. Some home educators have been misinformed, harrassed and bullied.

 

Autonomous education has a valid role with some kids.

 

Those abuse cases were known to social services.

 

There is a lot of misinformation in the media about home ed.

 

I'm leaving the forum as don't want to get into a debate - just highlighting the review so people were aware.

 

Tessa

 

 

[Kathryn]

Thanks for highlighting this, Tessa.

 

The review and associated documents can be downloaded here:

 

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/e...rhomeeducation/

 

K x

[tessa protheroe]

 

A quote from another home educator -

 

"this is automatic access into all homes and that it could be them (you readers) next and probably will be. Also that in this country there is a presumption of innocence which means that your home is considered sacred and cannot just be stormed into by any person from the council on a whim. Also it is your duty to protect that right for your children. Once presumption of innocence is gone, then the police could come in your house all the time and rifle through your drawers and you could not stop them. That is why we have warrants. There has to be a good deal of suspicion that there has been a crime! We are not automatic child abusers. We are not guilty. We have nothing to hide because we are innocent, so they shouldn't be looking when they have no good reason."

 

I'm really leaving now. Thanks for reading.

Tessa x

 

[Cat]

 

Children go to school to be educated not monitored don’t they? At least that has always been my understanding. The goal posts are moving and as Tessa has said who will be next. This is not scaremongering because this issue facing home edders now goes much further than home education. In fact has very little to do with education at all. Our educational provision is monitored we see someone from our LA and have never had any problems at all. That is the way I would like it to stay. The LA making sure that I am educating my son I am quite happy with. Making sure that we are not abusing him is something else altogether.

 

Cat

 

[dana]

Hi,

my son is not home educated at the moment but I am horrified.

I totally agree with everything what Cat and Tessa have said.

I used to home educate my son and was a member of Education Otherwise but I don't understand why don't they or some other home ed. bodies try harder and in more organised way to fight against that legislation. We can all complain to each other about it ,agree or not agree about some points but that will not help. I was very disappointed when listened to the Radio 4 interview wih representatives with both sides. Ed. other. person was not at all convincing.

I fear that my son(10) will not be able to cope in secondary school. He is unlikely to be statemented and therefore will not be able to go to special school either. For him the home education may be the only option. I wouldn't like as his parent to be treated as a suspect (guilty until proven inocent) of a crime I did not comit when in fact I want what is best for my son.

Going to school or not will not stop child abuse even if the state put cameras in all the rooms (what about parks?) . There is no evidence that the home ed. children are more abused so why is the goverment targeting their parents? Why don't they invest more money in social services? That would be more logical response to child abuse!

 

 

Danaxxx

Edited June 14, 2009 by dana

[Canopus]

Education Otherwise have been discredited as traitors by large sections of the home education community.

[baddad]

I'm more with oxgirl on this one. I think the why's and wherefores of how monitoring is undertaken should be open for discussion, but don't see anything wrong with the principle at all.

There seems to be a double standard applied by home edders to the LA/LEA...many cite their inefficiency within the mainstream education system as the reason for home edding, but seem to be saying that that same inefficient service is the best way of monitoring the activities and education of children being home edded. In the past many posts I have read about home edding have been incredibly critical of the current 'model', but suddenly it seems perfectly acceptable(?)

Similarly social services are criticised left right and centre - if a child is taken from parents that is invariably seen as an injustice against the parents but when they don't act soon enough that is (quite rightly) seen as failure to protect a child. Yet in this thread that same heavily criticised and hugely overburdened service is proposed as a better alternative than a tailored and dedicated monitoring service...

I think 'guilty until proven innocent' is a catchy slogan and from that POV a very effective 'spin', but isn't that true of any form of guidelines and monitoring? Would you want to eat in a restaurant that was exempt from health and safety inspections, or allow our child to go to a day care centre that wasn't inspected to confirm reasonable standards of practice?

I'm not sure about the 'home being considered sacred'(?) I seem to remember a song on 'That's Life' years ago listing all of the agencies etc who have a 'statutory right of entry to your home'...

 

For the record, I have no specific axe to grind with home edders etc and do believe it can be the best or even the only solution for some children, but that said I do have serious reservations about any 'service' (and I do consider education to be a service even if the educators are parents) being able to largely monitor it's own performance. I also do not believe (as i have stated on many occassions) that being a parent neccessarily implies a clarity of judgement about what is and isn't best for the child, and I don't think accepting the reality of that - whether it be in regard of home education or any other aspect of a child's wellbeing - is indicative of a 'Nanny State'.

 

L&P

 

BD

[Kathryn]

I agree with you BD.

 

I deplore the linking of child abuse with home education and I think the original remark has since been retracted. All it has done is whip up hysteria against the Badman report in general, and there are some sensible proposals in there which have been overshadowed.

 

I'm not an expert in home ed but it seems to me it's all or nothing - you're either in the school system or out of it, and if you're out of it there's very little support available and almost no flexibility to assist parents who might still want their children to benefit from some of the resources available to schools. It's as though parents are punished by the LA for opting out, surely that needs to change?

 

I don't see a problem with monitoring if it is done with the aim of supporting rather than policing parents.

 

K x

[baddad]

I'm not an expert in home ed but it seems to me it's all or nothing - you're either in the school system or out of it, and if you're out of it there's very little support available and almost no flexibility to assist parents who might still want their children to benefit from some of the resources available to schools. It's as though parents are punished by the LA for opting out, surely that needs to change?

K x

 

I had a look at the link you posted, and as you say, some very sensible proposals and observations on where current systems can fail. I think if home edding is becoming the choice of more people (which seems to be the case) then anything that leads to a more effective, coherent and better supported model has got to be a good thing.

 

L&P

 

BD

[Canopus]

I agree with you BD.

 

I deplore the linking of child abuse with home education and I think the original remark has since been retracted. All it has done is whip up hysteria against the Badman report in general, and there are some sensible proposals in there which have been overshadowed.

 

I'm not an expert in home ed but it seems to me it's all or nothing - you're either in the school system or out of it, and if you're out of it there's very little support available and almost no flexibility to assist parents who might still want their children to benefit from some of the resources available to schools. It's as though parents are punished by the LA for opting out, surely that needs to change?

 

I don't see a problem with monitoring if it is done with the aim of supporting rather than policing parents.

 

K x

 

The home education community seem to know the twists and turns of this new legislation much better than the AS community. They say it is the start of a slippery slope towards making home education almost impossible unless difficult to comply with criteria can be met - like having facilities at home to teach the best part of the NC before the LA will give the go ahead to home educate.

 

The child abuse issues are a smokescreen based on unfounded allegations. However, a strong possibility exists that home educating parents who don't give their kids the education the government wants will be prosecuted under laws relating to child welfare and not education.

 

I recommend you read the entire report to familiarise yourself with what is going on.

[bid]

I've read Ed Balls response, and some threads on a couple of forums.

 

I do wonder whether this is a missed opportunity through the clumsy use of language? The repeated use of the phrase 'to safeguard' home-educated children has a lot of negative implications, and I can understand why this could upset home-edding parents.

 

It seems to me a pity that things have not been phrased to emphasise the concept of LAs offering greater support and expertise to home-edders, because buried amongst the repeated comments about safeguarding home-edded children were some positive suggestions, such as LAs paying exam fees and providing music tutition, etc.

 

Bid

[Cat]

 

 

Bid Thank you. You have summed up how many of us feel. It's the wording that we have issues with and I have to say that NAS shares those issues so I suppose that that is something to hold onto. I have no problem at all with the LA making sure that we are actually providing our son with an education as defined in section 7 of the Education Act

 

Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

 

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

 

to his age, ability and aptitude, and

 

to any special educational needs he may have,

 

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

 

I actually have no problem with safeguarding children. The vast majority of parents who are home educating children with SEN are already known and are seen on a regular basis. I know that we are. Home Educators are a cross section of society just like any other sub group of society. Within any sub group you will find people who will abuse their children. Home Educators are no more likely to do this than any other sub group. Many of us took our children out of the system because the system was failing our children and some leading professionals are on record as saying that the system is in some cases guilty of abuse. The Children's Commissioner actually said that the system was not fit for purpose.

 

The wording needs to be tighter within the recommendations (the NAS are saying this to) it needs to make sure that 'everyone' is quite sure what their role is when it comes to home education. LAs need to be clear and parents need to be clear. As it stands at the moment there is too much room to manoeuvre.

 

Cat

[keepingmesane]

my biggest worry is that the authorities could deem you not worthy of being able to home educate and actually force your child out and back into school.

 

soon we as parents will have no decisions at all over our children, it will be the government dictating what we should do and if we dont follow they will most likely deem you unworthy parents and take the child.

 

 

edited to add - i guess what im thinking is that local authorities are failing some of our children now, even though they think they are providing everything the child needs, home educating is a saftey net for us parents... so who is to say that the local authorities wouldnt overstep themselves and fail our children by denying them home schooling because they feel the child would be better in a 'proper' school setting

Edited June 16, 2009 by keepingmesane

[Cat]

 

edited to add - i guess what im thinking is that local authorities are failing some of our children now, even though they think they are providing everything the child needs, home educating is a saftey net for us parents... so who is to say that the local authorities wouldnt overstep themselves and fail our children by denying them home schooling because they feel the child would be better in a 'proper' school setting

 

Which is why we must do our best to make sure that the wording in some of the recommendations is altered to ensure that this can not happen unless there are very 'real' concerns.

 

Cat

[baddad]

When I read through the review documentation these two sections struck me:

 

3.3 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young

people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely,

the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to

seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of

signatories to give children a voice:

“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right

to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being

given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the

child to determine or ascertain such views.

[my italics]

 

and:

 

3.10 In addition, in one exchange of emails during the course of this review one parent, in arguing

the case for the freedom of home education, cited the words of A.S. Neill:

“The function of the child is to live his own life – not the life that his anxious parents think he

should live, nor a life according to the purpose of the educator who thinks he knows best.”₁₁

This quotation could equally well be applied to home educating parents as to the schooling

system that A.S. Neill challenged with the curriculum and methodology of Summerhill School.

 

and with reference to both those factors this 'summing up':

 

The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right regulatory regime within

a framework of legislation that protects the rights of all children, even if in transaction such

regulation is only necessary to protect a minority.

[my italics again]

 

---

all of those things, to me, make perfect sense; you can't base a regulatory system on the wishes of those who are doing it 'right' even if that is the majority. As with the other examples I cited in my earlier post - a restaurant that 'hits' the health and safety targets still has to be regulated, because if you don't have regulations that give you that freedom of access you can't know they're getting it right, or know which restaurants aren't meeting the required standards/fulfilling the set criteria...

 

In the case of 3:10 the home edder could be both of those things: the anxious parent who (however well intended) restricts the child's ability to live his/her own life and the educator who thinks he/she knows best...

 

I can see the problem some parents might have with 'safeguard', but what other word would have the same potential to encompass all of the factors involved (education; self-determination; protection; freedom of choice; independent support to comprehend and access that freedom of choice; impartial advocacy once that is established etc etc etc) without being open to (genuine or wilful) misinterpretation or 'spin'?

 

Cat's point is completely valid - that there are people within society who will abuse children and home edders are no more likely to fall within that category than any other subgroup. The major difference is that under current legislation (according to this report) the home ed system offers no 'second line' of defence from abuse, which - however flawed - daily attendance within the usual system should. The other factor is that the state system (again, however flawed) does not give a single individual that degree of control over another individual's life and opportunities. That's relevant to all children, but particularly relevant to the disabled community, where such dynamics can be far more complex than within he non-disabled community, and where 'well intentioned abuse' (in the form of restricted opportunities for self-determination and personal growth) is historically well documented.

 

L&P

 

BD

[Cat]

 

I think parents who home ed a child with a disability would find it difficult to hide - and to be honest with you I personally would never want to. Many of us are seen on a regular basis by professionals like Consultants, SALTs, OT,s Physios etc etc and so in a way are they not our 'second line' of defence from abuse. It's not being seen that I object to I have always operated an open door policy where our sons are concerned because that is the way we wanted it. It's been seen by people who have no understanding of autism and how it can impact on your everyday life that scares many of us. My own LA have always been brilliant with us and I am really hoping that that is not going to change as a result of the recommendations. I do not want to be educating my son wondering is someone is going to come along and pull the plug at anytime simply because they do not understand his autism. That is the reason why he is no longer being educated in a school. Ours was never a lifestyle choice it was something we had to do. It's not easy having a high functioning child who is too bright to tick all of the boxes for a statement, who presents as being too normal to warrant any extra help but who is too autsitic to cope without it, and whose mental health is suffering to the extent that he is almost unable to function at all. Special School was never available to us and so we did what we felt was best for our son at that time and have never regreted the decision to do so.

 

I have been home educating for almost 12 years now and yes I am sad that I am no longer to be trusted to have my sons best interests at heart and yes I know that some parents do not but that does not stop me from being quite cross about this at the moment.

 

Cat

Edited June 16, 2009 by Cat

[baddad]

I have been home educating for almost 12 years now and yes I am sad that I am no longer to be trusted to have my sons best interests at heart and yes I know that some parents do not but that does not stop me from being quite cross about this at the moment.

 

Cat

 

I think those feelings are perfectly natural and understandable, and I think it should be an absolute must of any new system that comes out of this to have clear guidelines that take all of those factors into account.

Having said that, though, I think there would be very few home hedders who didn't have their child's best interests at heart, but that doesn't necessarily mean what they deliver does serve the child's best interests. The legislation will hopefully help to ensure that the small minority of home edded kids who might be at risk (either from exploitative/knowingly abusive parents or from those whose intentions are good but misguided) are protected, and that the ones who are benefiting from home ed will be able to continue to do so and actually get a better deal in terms of access to resources and support that are currently not available to them.

The key thing with this - as it is with mainstream education most of the time - is an absolute commitment from both sides to open, honest communication and to 'service delivery' (seems wrong to use such a businesslike term in relation to parents, but at the end of the day that's the only way you can look at it) that considers all the angles. As with all things politic I'm sure it won't be that neat and tidy, but hopefully it will be a step in the right direction for all concerned.

 

I think another important thing for home edders to consider at this time (and this is a general observation, cat, so please don't think it's in any way directed toward you) is the language and manner in which they deliver their arguments. However heartfelt their sentiments, too much suspicion, too much rhetoric and spin is likely to directly effect the degree of public support they get. On a personal level, how we express strong convictions is something we can make personal choices about ('and hang the consequences!' ), but for a lobbying collective it's a real double-edged sword.

 

L&P

 

BD

[Cat]

I think another important thing for home edders to consider at this time (and this is a general observation, cat, so please don't think it's in any way directed toward you) is the language and manner in which they deliver their arguments. However heartfelt their sentiments, too much suspicion, too much rhetoric and spin is likely to directly effect the degree of public support they get. On a personal level, how we express strong convictions is something we can make personal choices about ('and hang the consequences!' ), but for a lobbying collective it's a real double-edged sword.

L&P

 

I think that you had best lie down before you read this BD because I totally agree with you I am happy to, and do, engage with the DCSF to endeavour to find some common ground and a way forward. Home Edders are not an Island and nor should they be and I will not be popular for saying that but when did that ever stop me But I did believe that it was important that the review were aware that some of us were not home edding as a lifestyle choice. That point was made and accepted. It is also now important that some of the wording in the recommendations is looked at again because some of us are home edding SEN children and I am pretty hopeful that this will be taken on board to - fingers crossed - we do not have a fingers crossed smilie

 

Cat

Edited June 17, 2009 by Cat

[baddad]

Swoon

 

Not quite the same, and not always appropriate but quite often I use this instead of 'fingers crossed':

Mostly, though, i just make the 'everything crossed' noise -

 

Herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......

 

L&P

 

BD

[stressedmum]

Here is something for people to think about with regard to the part of the review report that asks for automatic right of entry to the home and for the right for them to talk to home educated children alone:

 

"We will revise that statutory guidance later in the year to make it absolutely clear that if at any point the parents refuse to allow the child to be seen alone, the local authority has powers under that Act to apply for an emergency protection order to require parents to comply with any request to produce the child. The Act authorises the removal of a child in those circumstances if necessary."

 

The above quote is in relation to the Childrens Acts 1989 and 2004 and was taken from here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../90505-0012.htm

 

You might also be interested in some of the government indicators of child abuse:

 

inappropriate dress, poor hygiene

Inadequate nutrition

Speech disorders

Habit disorder (sucking, rocking, biting)

Antisocial, destructive

Neurotic traits (sleep disorders, inhibition of play)

Passive and aggressive - behavioral extremes

Delinquent behavior (especially adolescents)

Developmentally delayed

 

These were taken from here http://www.nationalcac.org/families/for_wo...indicators.html

 

Some of these things are appropriate to my autistic son and I've already had problems with my local authority (when my son wouldn't engage with them during a home visit they said in the report that followed that he clearly had emotional and psychological issues, they also told me that he would be better off in school even though I explained the serious problems we had had with the school). My son has already told me that he doesn't want to be alone with complete strangers in our home therefore I will defend his choice not to be alone with them but what will happen to us if all of this becomes law? The report keeps mentioning childrens rights but what about the right of the child to decide not to be alone with strangers?

 

Sharon

 

 

[baddad]

Here is something for people to think about with regard to the part of the review report that asks for automatic right of entry to the home and for the right for them to talk to home educated children alone:

 

"We will revise that statutory guidance later in the year to make it absolutely clear that if at any point the parents refuse to allow the child to be seen alone, the local authority has powers under that Act to apply for an emergency protection order to require parents to comply with any request to produce the child. The Act authorises the removal of a child in those circumstances if necessary."

 

The above quote is in relation to the Childrens Acts 1989 and 2004 and was taken from here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../90505-0012.htm

 

You might also be interested in some of the government indicators of child abuse:

 

inappropriate dress, poor hygiene

Inadequate nutrition

Speech disorders

Habit disorder (sucking, rocking, biting)

Antisocial, destructive

Neurotic traits (sleep disorders, inhibition of play)

Passive and aggressive - behavioral extremes

Delinquent behavior (especially adolescents)

Developmentally delayed

 

These were taken from here http://www.nationalcac.org/families/for_wo...indicators.html

 

Some of these things are appropriate to my autistic son and I've already had problems with my local authority (when my son wouldn't engage with them during a home visit they said in the report that followed that he clearly had emotional and psychological issues, they also told me that he would be better off in school even though I explained the serious problems we had had with the school). My son has already told me that he doesn't want to be alone with complete strangers in our home therefore I will defend his choice not to be alone with them but what will happen to us if all of this becomes law? The report keeps mentioning childrens rights but what about the right of the child to decide not to be alone with strangers?

 

Sharon

 

Hi stressed mum -

 

I think what needs to be considered is that however much these things can apply to a child with autism, they would also (and probably more readily) apply to children in abusive situations. Similarly parents of an abused child would seek to conceal signs of abuse from the authorities by denying access to the child. A child expressing the 'right' not to be left alone with complete strangers could equally be doing so because he has been coerced into such a situation, or because he has been told that if he does he might get 'taken away' or for a multitude of other reasons (including the far less sinster one that he/she just gets the idea that mum or dad feels it's intrusive and unnecessary). Abused children are often more scared of the consequences of 'speaking out' (something often cited by home edders when talking about their children being bullied at school) than they are of the abuse itself. When practiced by parents/significant family members children may actually be unable to recognise abuse - it has become the 'norm' for them. There is a huge body of evidence to reflect this, and it's not confined to children - it covers just about every area of domestic abuse and/or situations like kidnapping, prostitution, institutionalised violence or wrongful incarceration...

As I said last night - home edders need to be cautious about the ways they present their views, because if they make what to most people seems reasonable seem like a witch hunt they will not garner much public support. On the other hand, lobbying to ensure that the system works the best way it can and acknowledging the need to fully protect the most vulnerable is something most people, i'm sure, would stand behind.

 

It's hoped that any regulatory body will take any medical condition and/or evidence or professional advice into account and important to make sure that such issues are on the agenda of the people actually formulating the guidelines.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

 

 

[stressedmum]

Hi baddad,

I know where you're coming from but I am genuinely worried about this.

When my son was at school the school refused to accept the various diagnoses that he had (he couldn't be epileptic because he wasn't dropping on the floor and shaking, he couldn't be autistic because he wasn't exactly like the ONE autistic child that his teacher had taught before) and the school's version of information about my son would have been passed to the local authority when I deregistered him.

The advisor/inspector we had was an ex-headteacher who also happened to double up as an education welfare officer and he wasn't fond of home education to say the least (even though he was earning money from it).

There are also LA inspectors who are prejudiced against lone parents, people living on council estates etc. There are also LA inspectors who have reported home educators to social services because they can't get their own way (even if their way involves acting outside of current laws).

I also know there are some very good examples of LAs, Milton Keynes for example, but we aren't all lucky enough to live in those areas where home educators are treated decently. This is why we're worried because it's pretty much pot luck who you end up with.

I genuinely believe that if all local authorities and their inspectors respected the right of parents to home educate then home educators would be a lot more willing to engage with them then there wouldn't have been any need for a review.

Sharon

[Cat]

 

The National Children's Advocacy Center is an American Orginisation. I am amazed that we are using their indictaors especially seeing as the National Autistic Society fought so hard to have a very similar set of indicators published by our own Department of Health removed in 2002. They were successful. I will be checking this one out with the NAS asap.

 

Cat

[NobbyNobbs]

You might also be interested in some of the government indicators of child abuse:

 

inappropriate dress, poor hygiene

Inadequate nutrition

Speech disorders

Habit disorder (sucking, rocking, biting)

Antisocial, destructive

Neurotic traits (sleep disorders, inhibition of play)

Passive and aggressive - behavioral extremes

Delinquent behavior (especially adolescents)

Developmentally delayed

that list pretty much describes every child that has come into our house as a foster child. there is a reason why they are looking for these things, and yes it overlaps with various medical conditions etc, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the people have to know what to look for if they're going to protect vulnerable children

 

a lack of knowledge of child protection issues and exactly what goes on in those cases seems to be a big problem when this sort of guideline is published. the majority of people reading the guidelines are so far removed from that sort of situation (which is a good thing) that it is very difficult to understand why it is necessary to have rules like the access one.

 

i find it confusing that people who complain about regulaltions like this will still be outraged when stories of horrific child abuse that was not detected get into the news.