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

jayII

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.

I also think it is terrifying. Many (possibly most) of the children who are severely abused, neglected and murdured by their 'carers' have been kept hidden away from society.

Keeping children away from society does not necessarily equate to them being home educated. Those children who are genuinely cared for and home educated in these circumstances, are the lucky ones.

Truly bad parents don't care if their children are hanging around, as their children are too scared to move or make a sound without permission, regardless of how cold, dirty, hungry etc, they are.

thegirlintheattic

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.

The authority have the right to check that the child is receiving an appropriate education (pretty much no definition of what this is). The vast majority of home schoolers are not checked. There is also no 'register' of homeschoolers.

quinechinoise

daisiegg wrote: »

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.

johnnyl wrote: »

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

You are both correct, for a given value of correct.

"Those" refers to more than one person. "Those who can't do" refers to a limited subset of people.

You are both also picking at semantics and arguing like siblings.

daisiegg

johnnyl wrote: »

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

Ok, I see your point, fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding.

Nonetheless it is still insulting to say 'those who are rubbish at everything else, do the job that you chose to do'. Kind of devalues the job if all those rubbish people who can't do anything else do it!

I know, I know, it is an old joke, etc, and I know I am being over sensitive, but it still isn't nice to hear people having that opinion of the career that I have a passion and a vocation for.

johnnyl

quinechinoise wrote: »

You are both correct, for a given value of correct.

"Those" refers to more than one person. "Those who can't do" refers to a limited subset of people.

You are both also picking at semantics and arguing like siblings.

but she started it :rotfl:

johnnyl

daisiegg wrote: »

Ok, I see your point, fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding.

Nonetheless it is still insulting to say 'those who are rubbish at everything else, do the job that you chose to do'. Kind of devalues the job if all those rubbish people who can't do anything else do it!

I know, I know, it is an old joke, etc, and I know I am being over sensitive, but it still isn't nice to hear people having that opinion of the career that I have a passion and a vocation for.

And I apologise if you feel as if Im having a go at you because Im not. There are teachers that I do have respect for but my default status is not respecting teachers just because they are teachers. Of those that I respect, they are ones who want to do the job, praise it rather than moan about it and (as you have described) has a passion for doing it.

Nicki

johnnyl wrote: »

And I apologise if you feel as if Im having a go at you because Im not. There are teachers that I do have respect for but my default status is not respecting teachers just because they are teachers. Of those that I respect, they are ones who want to do the job, praise it rather than moan about it and (as you have described) has a passion for doing it.

Actually johnny, I have read a number of threads now where you have pontificated about schools and teachers and this is NOT your default position.

Your default position is to be DISrespectful of teachers, because they are teachers, until you feel they have either justified to you that they can be treated neutrally or with respect. However, I can't recall a single post where you have spoken with respect about ANY teacher so I think in all honesty, the highest they get in your estimation is neutral.

I just genuinely do not get why you are so uniformly rude to and about all teachers, and why if, as appears from your posts to be the case, you really do think they are mostly all inept, inexperienced and lazy, that you even consider sending your children to school.

MY default position about teachers and any other professional is to assume that they can do the job they are qualified to do, unless there is evidence that they cannot, and that everyone deserves respect in professional life, again unless there is a reason why not. That isn't to say I won't choose professionals carefully - I would not expect a primary school trained teacher with a degree in art to be teaching my secondary school child A level physics for example and would speak up if that were the case, I wouldn't instruct a rural solicitor who specialises in conveyancing to advise on a complex corporate takeover, or ask a GP to do open heart surgery - but even knowing that all of these examples could not do things outside of their competencies, I would still respect them for what they could do, and do do.

johnnyl

Nicki wrote: »

. However, I can't recall a single post where you have spoken with respect about ANY teacher so I think in all honesty,

My last post in t'other thread will help you with finding that

Nicki wrote: »

I just genuinely do not get why you are so uniformly rude to and about all teachers, and why if, as appears from your posts to be the case, you really do think they are mostly all inept, inexperienced and lazy, that you even consider sending your children to school.

Not "all"

it is you that is using such quantifiers I am not. Of the things that I dislike about the school system or teachers I have justified why based on experiences. They arent made up or fabricated, these are things that I have experienced. I havent told anyone that every teacher / school is like that.

Dunroamin

johnnyl wrote: »

And I apologise if you feel as if Im having a go at you because Im not. There are teachers that I do have respect for but my default status is not respecting teachers just because they are teachers. Of those that I respect, they are ones who want to do the job, praise it rather than moan about it and (as you have described) has a passion for doing it.

And I have greater respect for people who teach (or do any other job) despite not having a passion for it or sometimes even being deeply unhappy, as long as they do the job efficiently.

It's easy to do a job you love and have a passion for, far more worthy of respect are those who do a good job without having either.

daisiegg

johnnyl wrote: »

And I apologise if you feel as if Im having a go at you because Im not. There are teachers that I do have respect for but my default status is not respecting teachers just because they are teachers. Of those that I respect, they are ones who want to do the job, praise it rather than moan about it and (as you have described) has a passion for doing it.

See, I think that is where we differ, because my default status is respecting all human beings until they give me a reason not to.