Social services onto me about not having child in nursery! Advice needed

nickyhutch

quinechinoise wrote: »

Don't let it worry you too much. If a child's legal guardian is not providing an appropriate education, the state can intervene and take measures e.g. compulsory enrolment at a state school. I would guess the... fraud rate, for want of the correct term, is no worse than for anything else.

Only if they are aware.

quinechinoise

trevorsminted wrote: »

most of the skanky kind like their 8 hours to watch Jezza with their fags, booze and baggie of class A's, so on occasion send their kids to school.

Who are the "skanky kind", in the quote? People who claim to flexi-school but stick their kids in front of the tv, during homeschool time; people who treat their local state school, with wrap-around care, as free/subsidised childcare; or, people who use boarding schools and guardians all year round and thus have 24 hours/365 days of child-free time?

Saturnalia

I've read on forums etc. that Home-School parents are visited and the child(ren)'s learning assessed. And that is from Home Ed parents who have had this happen. So I assumed this was the case for all. I.e. that you had to opt-out of the state school option and you had to be checked to make sure your child was learning adequately.

But now it sounds, from reading this thread, that anyone can keep their child away from society entirely in any way they choose and nothing is monitored?

If that is true it is terrifying.

bestpud

Saturnalia wrote: »

I've read on forums etc. that Home-School parents are visited and the child(ren)'s learning assessed. And that is from Home Ed parents who have had this happen. So I assumed this was the case for all. I.e. that you had to opt-out of the state school option and you had to be checked to make sure your child was learning adequately.

But now it sounds, from reading this thread, that anyone can keep their child away from society entirely in any way they choose and nothing is monitored?

If that is true it is terrifying.

Why is it terrifying?

The rates of abuse within home ed are way lower than for school children.

For a start, bad parents don't want their children hanging around all day.

moneysaymoneydo

I would be up in arms if my child was attending school and being educated by a non qualified teacher just as i have now read can happen if a parent cant be bothered to put their child to school, home education is fine if the parent is a qualified teacher i suppose except child would not get the interaction it would have in a school environment, but you do have that handful of parents that no better and want to rebel with the norm.

daisiegg

johnnyl wrote: »

IIRC I only replied to one person. That said, if you look at the linguistics of the phrase, it at no points says that all teachers "cant do"

Oh no, we have had this argument before, and you didn't understand it then, either.

You do not understand the 'linguistics' of the phrase. Saying 'those who can't do, teach' is NOT referring to 'one' person. 'Those' is plural. 'Teachers' is plural. If you do not say 'SOME teachers' or 'A FEW teachers' then just saying 'teachers', or 'those', means 'all', because you have not expressed otherwise.

If I say 'aeroplanes fly in the sky', my listener (or reader) would not assume I was referring to just one or a few aeroplanes. That plural 'aeroplanes' means all, because I have not put 'some' or 'those' or 'functional' or any other word or phrase before it. I also haven't said 'aeroplanes fly in the sky, except those that are broken'.

Therefore saying 'those who can't do, teach' really isn't referring to just one poster.

mrcow

bestpud wrote: »

For a start, bad parents don't want their children hanging around all day.

In my experience, bad parents register them with a school and let them attend, but don't enforce it or care whether the child actually turns up or not. So their offspring are out and about causing havoc in the community, or staying at home doing nothing in particular (or are off school "sick" at the drop of a hat) whilst officially they are in state education.

johnnyl

daisiegg wrote: »

Oh no, we have had this argument before, and you didn't understand it then, either.

You do not understand the 'linguistics' of the phrase. Saying 'those who can't do, teach' is NOT referring to 'one' person. 'Those' is plural. 'Teachers' is plural.

I wasnt talking about the plural part of it.

The statements

"those who cant do, teach"

is not the same as

"everyone who teaches, cant do".

They quite simply do not mean the same thing. If you dont believe me then look at the following.

"those who cant drive, walk"

"everyone who walks, cant drive"

HTH

quinechinoise

Saturnalia wrote: »

I've read on forums etc. that Home-School parents are visited and the child(ren)'s learning assessed. And that is from Home Ed parents who have had this happen. So I assumed this was the case for all. I.e. that you had to opt-out of the state school option and you had to be checked to make sure your child was learning adequately.

But now it sounds, from reading this thread, that anyone can keep their child away from society entirely in any way they choose and nothing is monitored?

If that is true it is terrifying.

I have many homeschooling acquaintances. You have to opt-in to the state school system. You only "opt-out" if you are already in the system i.e. your child has attended state school. That is why you must apply for a state school place - they are not automatically doled out, even if you forget to apply on time.

You are generally allowed to legally decline any and all home visits from the local council because the burden of proof is on the council, not the parents. In the same way that you are allowed to decline visits from the Health Visitor (a-ha! tying this back to the OP).

However, I really do not see how you can completely hide a child from society. Everyone goes to the doctor, dentist, hairdresser, etc. People do stop and chat to you - even strangers - and talk about/to your kids. Police do conduct random truancy sweeps. Not everyone will join homeschool societies and/or take up educational discounts but if they do, that requires notifying someone that their kids are homeschooled. (For example: the National Trust has term time discounts for homeschoolers and, if you don't attend nursery, you can get your free Bookstart pack from the library by showing your red book.) And so on. The reason why some tragic social work cases make the news headlines is because so many instances of contact have been wasted - not because society was unaware of the child.

If you are going to worry about anything, worry about Child Benefit. Now, if a parent earns over 60k and the mom has no antenatal care and an unassisted home birth, that child could potentially be unidentified for years. Technically, I suppose the allegedly rich could now keep a host of Harry Potters under their stairs. No NHS number (hospital), no NI number (child benefit), no red book (HV)... But maybe the amount you earn affects how well people think you can parent/school.

Saturnalia

bestpud wrote: »

Why is it terrifying?

The rates of abuse within home ed are way lower than for school children.

For a start, bad parents don't want their children hanging around all day.

That proves my point entirely. If a child were being abused within its family, how would anyone know if no-one outside the family ever saw the kid? Of course the abuse wouldn't show up in statistics - how could it?

But just as scary again IMO, if a child's learning and parent's teaching isn't assessed in any way, what happens if they reach working age and have no exam passes and are incapable of performing at the necessary level?