Articles

Not For Your Own Good:

>Menu>Articles>Not For Your Own Good:

Not For Your Own Good: Why we can't protect all of the children all of the time. In July 2002, the tragic case of Charlotte Collett, the 12 year old girl from East Cowes who died shortly after being admitted to hospital weighing around three and half stone only a few weeks after being withdrawn from school brought cries for more state intervention in the lives of families. This is just one in a list of possible examples, most not so tragic, of home educators being automatically suspect when it comes to the welfare of their children. The calls for tighter monitoring and outright intervention are predictable, but mistaken; all the intervention in the world is not going to save every last child, but it could destroy many in the attempt. One Isle of Wight councilor has been particularly vociferous in demanding rigorous checks on home educators, in the form of termly visits to monitor their children. It sounds so reasonable, but it is not. It is intrusive, educationally destructive, smacks of a nanny state run riot and may well be a violation of human rights. Neither would it achieve the end it is meant to achieve. Before we get caught up in the latest moral panic about whether parents are the right people to care for and educate their own children it is worth noting that we don't yet know all the facts of Charlotte's sad and untimely death, but for all that the case has caused us to ask again what are the boundaries of assessing the provision of home based education? It should be safe to assume that both parents and professionals have the best interests of children at heart. Sadly, this may not always be the case, but this is a very far cry from ever imagining that the pursuit of home based education in and of itself is a prima facie signal of possible abuse. LEA officers, in seeking to make inquiries about the suitability of education, have no right of access to the children or the home of home educating families. Families can and do choose ways of giving educational evidence that involves neither access to their homes nor to their children and this in itself should not be a cause for any alarm. Far from being a signal that a family has 'something to hide' there can be a range of valid educational and philosophical reasons for such a choice. Many home -educating families have a particular view of their children's privacy or follow a particular kind of autonomous education or have particular religious views or simply prefer to find other means of giving evidence. It is of the essence of a tolerant liberal democracy that we respect people's freedom to present evidence in any reasonable form and do not form unsubstantiated views as to why they might make particular choices. Some professionals clearly feel uneasy with this stance, but they have to ask themselves whether, even if an LEA could legally insist on home visits with the children present, such visits would consistently or even regularly 'save' abused children? After all many school going children are suffering abuse that goes undetected despite years of exposure to caring professionals. Moreover, it is quite possible that visits conducted with welfare rather than education in mind would only result in an increase in trauma and wrongful suspicion. Amongst the home educating community there already exists a vast catalogue of stories of patent injustice from families who have magnanimously opened up their homes to educational professionals as a way of supplying evidence of their educational provision, only to become prey to an array of bogus 'big brother' attitudes.

There is a danger that if we were to expect the home educating community to accept visits on welfare grounds they would have to start worrying about conforming their lifestyles to the visits - not to hide abuse, but simply to be seen to be 'normal'. Expecting home educators to give evidence via home visits to appease general concerns over welfare when there are no specific indicators for such concerns is simply opening up home based educators to a whole range of spurious problems which other members of society are not subject to. LEAs have to satisfy themselves of suitable education (if it appears that such an education might not be taking place or if it chooses to make informal inquiries) according to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. However, it is for the home educating families to choose how to reply and to set out their definitions of what education is for their families. LEAs have no statutory duty to define education or to see it as a prima facie welfare concern. The repost to this is always - but who will look out for those children who are being abused - if they are not in an institutional framework somewhere anything could be happening to them?

Sadly, one of the first reasons for LEAs wanting access to children is not so much for the children's own good, but for the authorities' defense. If they don't visit and something goes wrong, will they be held responsible? It hardly seems likely. LEAs only need make informal enquiries of home educators where it appears that there may be no educational provision. Most home educators aren't even known to their LEAs and there is no registration required. LEAs have very limited powers in this area and correspondingly little responsibility. When we hear of children who have been bullied for years at school failing to get legal redress from LEAs it hardly seems feasible that home-educated children could make any claims against them. Self defense aside, we do not have any national consensus that children need to be in some sort of institutional catch all in order to be safe; pre-school children for example are not assumed to be in potential danger simply by virtue of being in their families full time. Additionally, how many children go through the whole of their school life with abuse undetected or grow up in government funded care homes with abuse undetected? Worst still how many children suffer abuse precisely because they are within some institutional setting? Having an institution with an overview of the child is absolutely no guarantee of safety. Things go wrong wherever human beings are together.

Most importantly, what kind of welfare checks would actually be needed to pick up real abuse in home educating households? Relying on rapidly formed impressions is simply not good enough. Picking up on peripheral issues (such as hazards on the stairs, smoke in the air, a dirty toilet) is clearly discriminatory because these checks are not made on non-home educating homes. It is not enough to say that it is because home educated children spend more time in the home than school children - this may or may not be true - home education is in reality home based education and much of it takes place in libraries, museums, streets, parks and so on. The crux of this is that if we were to concede the validity of welfare checks on home educated then we would have to allow welfare checks of sufficient scope to really catch the serious cases! What would that mean? Routine interviews with psychologists or full body examinations? Would any of this be consistent with the tolerant liberal democracy in which we live? Could such an abuse of civil liberties ever be out-balanced by the outside possibility of rarely revealing a real case of abuse? Furthermore, what would be the equally, if not more abusive consequences to the home educated children enduring the immense trauma of such routine invasion?

This leaves the uncomfortable possibility that a very few home educated children will be abused and that this will go undetected, at least until it is too late. We must remember that the same is true of many more schooled children or pre-school children. This has never prompted any government to imagine it should impose sweeping welfare checks of the level of intrusion that would be needed to make all abuse impossible. Sad though it is to admit that we cannot save all of the children all of the time, the consequences to civil liberties of trying to do so are too appalling to contemplate. The real answer is that there is no foolproof system of monitoring the welfare of every child unless all sectors of the community agree to forfeit privacy and civil liberties. Even if this where to happen, we would simply have a new form of abuse in the form of traumatic 'abuse checks.' This is not an acceptable price to pay for the minimal extra detection that could arise and neither is it acceptable to expect home educators to submit to lesser, discriminatory checks that will actually have little or no effect or even produce false accusations.

In a recent ruling, Customs and Excise discovered that they couldn't anymore conduct random checks on travelers returning from Europe and seize goods without any prior and sufficient grounds for believing that a crime might be being committed. If such an action contravenes European human rights legislation, how much more is the right to a family life contravened if LEAs simply assume that the act of home education is grounds for suspecting that a crime might be being committed? It is not, and nor is it grounds for suspicion that a family chooses to submit a written report on its educational provision rather than allow strangers, often with a very poor understanding of alternative educational philosophy and delivery, to come into their homes.

We are left with an imperfect society, but the home education community presents no prima facie welfare concern and there are no supportable reasons to discriminate against it on these grounds as a matter of general policy. Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most frightening words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." They are words that home educators don't need to hear; not because of what they might be hiding, but simply because family life demands privacy, liberty and even risk if it is to flourish. However lofty the motive, routine intrusion is not for your own good.


Not For Your Own Good:	>Menu>Articles>Not For Your Own Good:
Not For Your Own Good: Why we can't protect all of the children all of the time. In July 2002, the tragic case of Charlotte Collett, the 12 year old girl from East Cowes who died shortly after being admitted to hospital weighing around three and half stone only a few weeks after being withdrawn from school brought cries for more state intervention in the lives of families. This is just one in a list of possible examples, most not so tragic, of home educators being automatically suspect when it comes to the welfare of their children. The calls for tighter monitoring and outright intervention are predictable, but mistaken; all the intervention in the world is not going to save every last child, but it could destroy many in the attempt. One Isle of Wight councilor has been particularly vociferous in demanding rigorous checks on home educators, in the form of termly visits to monitor their children. It sounds so reasonable, but it is not. It is intrusive, educationally destructive, smacks of a nanny state run riot and may well be a violation of human rights. Neither would it achieve the end it is meant to achieve. Before we get caught up in the latest moral panic about whether parents are the right people to care for and educate their own children it is worth noting that we don't yet know all the facts of Charlotte's sad and untimely death, but for all that the case has caused us to ask again what are the boundaries of assessing the provision of home based education? It should be safe to assume that both parents and professionals have the best interests of children at heart. Sadly, this may not always be the case, but this is a very far cry from ever imagining that the pursuit of home based education in and of itself is a prima facie signal of possible abuse. LEA officers, in seeking to make inquiries about the suitability of education, have no right of access to the children or the home of home educating families. Families can and do choose ways of giving educational evidence that involves neither access to their homes nor to their children and this in itself should not be a cause for any alarm. Far from being a signal that a family has 'something to hide' there can be a range of valid educational and philosophical reasons for such a choice. Many home -educating families have a particular view of their children's privacy or follow a particular kind of autonomous education or have particular religious views or simply prefer to find other means of giving evidence. It is of the essence of a tolerant liberal democracy that we respect people's freedom to present evidence in any reasonable form and do not form unsubstantiated views as to why they might make particular choices. Some professionals clearly feel uneasy with this stance, but they have to ask themselves whether, even if an LEA could legally insist on home visits with the children present, such visits would consistently or even regularly 'save' abused children? After all many school going children are suffering abuse that goes undetected despite years of exposure to caring professionals. Moreover, it is quite possible that visits conducted with welfare rather than education in mind would only result in an increase in trauma and wrongful suspicion. Amongst the home educating community there already exists a vast catalogue of stories of patent injustice from families who have magnanimously opened up their homes to educational professionals as a way of supplying evidence of their educational provision, only to become prey to an array of bogus 'big brother' attitudes. We all know that abuse can take place in households that are spotlessly clean or where parents can pleasantly charm any stranger, including experienced professionals. We also know that children virtually never disclose to strangers (unless there is some anonymity as with phone lines), so even if they had ten minutes alone with a very friendly Educational Welfare Officer they're unlikely to give anything away! It would then come down to pressurized EWOs to 'spot' something. Are homes where children wear pyjamas at 10.30 in the morning or where no one remembers to open the curtains some days 'suspicious'? Strange lifestyles many be strange, but they are not necessarily abusive - the spectrum of lifestyles is really quite enormous. We also have to hold in mind that the only alternative to these 'strange' homes is institutional care which has it's own phenomenal statistics of abuse and very high rates of tragic outcomes (prostitution, substance abuse, criminality) There is a danger that if we were to expect the home educating community to accept visits on welfare grounds they would have to start worrying about conforming their lifestyles to the visits - not to hide abuse, but simply to be seen to be 'normal'. Expecting home educators to give evidence via home visits to appease general concerns over welfare when there are no specific indicators for such concerns is simply opening up home based educators to a whole range of spurious problems which other members of society are not subject to. LEAs have to satisfy themselves of suitable education (if it appears that such an education might not be taking place or if it chooses to make informal inquiries) according to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. However, it is for the home educating families to choose how to reply and to set out their definitions of what education is for their families. LEAs have no statutory duty to define education or to see it as a prima facie welfare concern. The repost to this is always - but who will look out for those children who are being abused - if they are not in an institutional framework somewhere anything could be happening to them? Sadly, one of the first reasons for LEAs wanting access to children is not so much for the children's own good, but for the authorities' defense. If they don't visit and something goes wrong, will they be held responsible? It hardly seems likely. LEAs only need make informal enquiries of home educators where it appears that there may be no educational provision. Most home educators aren't even known to their LEAs and there is no registration required. LEAs have very limited powers in this area and correspondingly little responsibility. When we hear of children who have been bullied for years at school failing to get legal redress from LEAs it hardly seems feasible that home-educated children could make any claims against them. Self defense aside, we do not have any national consensus that children need to be in some sort of institutional catch all in order to be safe; pre-school children for example are not assumed to be in potential danger simply by virtue of being in their families full time. Additionally, how many children go through the whole of their school life with abuse undetected or grow up in government funded care homes with abuse undetected? Worst still how many children suffer abuse precisely because they are within some institutional setting? Having an institution with an overview of the child is absolutely no guarantee of safety. Things go wrong wherever human beings are together. Most importantly, what kind of welfare checks would actually be needed to pick up real abuse in home educating households? Relying on rapidly formed impressions is simply not good enough. Picking up on peripheral issues (such as hazards on the stairs, smoke in the air, a dirty toilet) is clearly discriminatory because these checks are not made on non-home educating homes. It is not enough to say that it is because home educated children spend more time in the home than school children - this may or may not be true - home education is in reality home based education and much of it takes place in libraries, museums, streets, parks and so on. The crux of this is that if we were to concede the validity of welfare checks on home educated then we would have to allow welfare checks of sufficient scope to really catch the serious cases! What would that mean? Routine interviews with psychologists or full body examinations? Would any of this be consistent with the tolerant liberal democracy in which we live? Could such an abuse of civil liberties ever be out-balanced by the outside possibility of rarely revealing a real case of abuse? Furthermore, what would be the equally, if not more abusive consequences to the home educated children enduring the immense trauma of such routine invasion? This leaves the uncomfortable possibility that a very few home educated children will be abused and that this will go undetected, at least until it is too late. We must remember that the same is true of many more schooled children or pre-school children. This has never prompted any government to imagine it should impose sweeping welfare checks of the level of intrusion that would be needed to make all abuse impossible. Sad though it is to admit that we cannot save all of the children all of the time, the consequences to civil liberties of trying to do so are too appalling to contemplate. The real answer is that there is no foolproof system of monitoring the welfare of every child unless all sectors of the community agree to forfeit privacy and civil liberties. Even if this where to happen, we would simply have a new form of abuse in the form of traumatic 'abuse checks.' This is not an acceptable price to pay for the minimal extra detection that could arise and neither is it acceptable to expect home educators to submit to lesser, discriminatory checks that will actually have little or no effect or even produce false accusations. In a recent ruling, Customs and Excise discovered that they couldn't anymore conduct random checks on travelers returning from Europe and seize goods without any prior and sufficient grounds for believing that a crime might be being committed. If such an action contravenes European human rights legislation, how much more is the right to a family life contravened if LEAs simply assume that the act of home education is grounds for suspecting that a crime might be being committed? It is not, and nor is it grounds for suspicion that a family chooses to submit a written report on its educational provision rather than allow strangers, often with a very poor understanding of alternative educational philosophy and delivery, to come into their homes. We are left with an imperfect society, but the home education community presents no prima facie welfare concern and there are no supportable reasons to discriminate against it on these grounds as a matter of general policy. Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most frightening words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." They are words that home educators don't need to hear; not because of what they might be hiding, but simply because family life demands privacy, liberty and even risk if it is to flourish. However lofty the motive, routine intrusion is not for your own good.

Not For Your Own Good:

Not For Your Own Good: Why we can't protect all of the children all of the time.

Not For Your Own Good:
Why we can't protect all of the children all of the time.