Lets face it, there is and always has been a class divide in this country. (I know it occurs in other countries, but I live in this one so I'll concentrate on that for now).
Generally speaking, it is the articulate, literate and middle class sections of society which appear to fare better when it comes to attaining an education and eventual high earning employment. Most would jump to the natural conclusion that this is largely because of more readily available finances.
Take the LA for example. It has been mentioned in other blogs that some more loose-tongued LA officers will happily admit that those who fall into the above category do not pose as much of a concern to them when accessing their suitability as Home Educators, as those who perhaps fall into lower categories, ie; those who are on benefits, living in social housing or who are single parents etc.
Now, I am the first to admit that I am a closet snob. I like to speak well, to dress well, and to give the overall impression that I herald from a middle class background. However, I am sure my own parents will not be too offended if I happen to mention that I in fact come from far more humble beginnings.
Yes, I grew up in a council flat, then a council house. Yes my mother cleaned the houses of the middle class in order to afford the things she wanted for us as a family. Sacrifices were made. We often went without. But at no point did the absence of a fully paid for five bedroom property, or fancy fortnights away in DisneyLand, and the obligatory nanny living in the downstairs quarters, make my parents incapable of providing for me 100%.
It is thanks to them and their extraordinary ability to improve upon what they had (and they certainly have done so, now very much able to stake claim to middle class) and their tenacity to not sit back, grow fat and lazy and expect society to provide for them, that I am what I am today.
Yes, I live in a HA house. But everything inside it is mine. I own my car. I have no debts. I pay my taxes but still claim what I am eligible for from the government for being a working parent of 4 children.
Also, being an HE family, we too have to make sacrifices; so no expensive holidays here either. Nevertheless, I am still able to give the impression to those who do not know my postcode, that I am middle class.
I am sure that when the EHE Officer first came to review my sons statement of SEN, she had her initial thoughts about us as she walked in through my front door.
It was with this in mind that I made absolutely sure she left with an entirely different opinion of us, and not one based upon where we lived.
I have said in the past that I am against stereotyping, and I uphold that statement now. I do not judge a person by where they live, what they wear, what religion they have or whether they use Aquafresh or Colgate toothpaste. None of that superficial stuff concerns me in the least. But I am aware of what impact such things have on a LA visit.
Now I am completely prepared for the comments which will no doubt say things like; 'why do we have to pretend to be something we are not,just for the LA?'
And I agree, you shouldn't have to do such things. However, there is nothing in the rules which states one cannot bend the rules of engagement. If you have been obliging enough to allow them into your home, then surely what happens in your home is very much under your control, not theirs. If you feel it happens the other way round, then you should not have invited them in.
If it is known that the LA are looking for articulate literate and middle class individuals to HE their children, as opposed to benefit dependant, council housed individuals, then that already gives us one up on them, doesn't it?
you don't have to 'become' what they are looking for. Only 'appear' more like what they are looking for.
You don't have to change your entire house, or the way you speak, but string a few papers together and pop them neatly into a file, offer a cup of tea and a biscuit (or slice of homemade cake) and voila...you might be surprised at how the human psyche can suddenly become very accepting of such gestures.
It's already very obvious what happens when you try to fight against it.
I believe the saying is...if you can't beat them..join them??
Loz
I see where you're coming from. I'm on benefits, live in a council house, etc etc. But the LA officer obviously carried certain prejudices against us. He was greeted with friendly smiles, cakes, an unusually tidy house! Yet his report, despite giving us a 'pass', betrays what he thought he would find!
ReplyDeleteThere's no point in hiding stuff from anyone, it will come across as false and end up only confirming the prejudice that some people have. I know how to speak well, I can even remove my accent at times. I know me and my children are intelligent. All of my belongings are mine. Most are second hand, some are worn. But why should I pander to another's prejudice? I will make an effort to present my family in the best possible light, but I will not change the essence of who we are. I want to challenge prejudice, not re-inforce it.
Hi there.
ReplyDeleteIt's always nice to see someone new. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. :)
I knew that some would find what I had to say a bit offensive, and this certainly isn't what I intended. I know and agree that one shouldn't have to change themself in order to be found acceptable by anyone, let alone a government body. So in that sense, I totally agree with you, and yes, sometimes, it doesn't matter how hard you try, some people will form an opinion of you - often before ever having met you - and there is little you can do to change that opinion.
I really enjoyed this post. I am torn by being what they want me to be, and trying to be different and still ok and I think there is a fine line.
ReplyDeleteFor us, we try to beat them at their own game just as Loz suggests. We try and have a nice house, speak the right way and come across as together as possible. However, if someone is going to have a prejudice they will have it regardless and I think there is something to be said for being yourself and others just having to live with it.
Hi Loz
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure class is the issue. Social class is only one way of classifying people and I don't think that's what LA officers are looking at. What they are looking for is indicators of increased risk to children.
There's little doubt that children with single parents, living in social housing and on benefits are at higher risk *for the population as a whole* - for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean that any *individual child or family* in those circumstances is at increased risk, and that's what has worried me about the responses I've seen from LA officers. It's exactly the sort of stereotyping you mentioned earlier, and they, of all people, really should know better than to do it.
The nub of the problem for me is that LA officers are paid to provide (or these days commission) services for the community in their area, not to check up on people, pass judgement on their lifestyles or make assumptions about their behaviour. I don't expect them to be naive, but I do expect them to understand the law, and how to deal with evidence.
Although I take your point about making sure you give the impression you want them to have, their personal opinion shouldn't come into it, and they are behaving pretty unprofessionally if they let it.
Of course Social Workers must pass judgement over people's lifestyles and behaviour. Unreasonable bias must be avoided (easier said than done, I know), but wasn't it a failure to pass judgement over people of a different culture that contributed to Victoria Climbie's death?
ReplyDeleteSocial Workers were afraid to 'judge' the behaviour of Victoria's Aunt for fear of appearing racist, thinking that her treatment of Victoria and Victoria's behaviour in her Aunt's presence were culturally determined. Medical practitioners assumed that a child growing up in Africa would have more marks on their bodies than children growing up in Europe.
why go though all that with an LA when you dont have to allow them into your house or have a meeting!
ReplyDelete'why go though all that with an LA when you dont have to allow them into your house or have a meeting!'
ReplyDeleteIt really wasn't that much of a hardship.
Did you really have that bad an experience with them?
Loz says-Did you really have that bad an experience with them?
ReplyDeleteyes very bad experience with threats/shouting i be coming round to your house! and 2 LA officers telling lies about us! you should see the emails these LA officers write to each other and to schools about us all untrue!(we got hold of all the documents on us via data request and are still trying to get these docunments changed!) our county councillor was very unhappy over this and he is some one who tends to want to side with the LA he was very angry and personally intervined to help stop this nonsense and is now a very good friend to us and Peter.
I have spoken to both Peters and i think i understand their views but i am copying this to them in case i am wrong.
ReplyDeleteMost parents who opt for home education do so beccause they feel let down by the LEA the problem may be academic or bullying or as in Peter's case inflexibility of the school.
A gifted musician or athlete would be allowed time for specialised coaching provided they were among the best in the county but a gifted chess was not in spite of being the best in the COUNTRY.added to that the head teacher at the time failed to recognise Peter's outstanding intelligence which as now been meaured twice as above 170.The breakdown in negotiations led to Peter being withdrawn from school to be educated at home.Since then the only contributions by the LEA to Peter education have been entirely negative.They have consisted of demands for an assessment-meeting laced with threats of court action and occasionally untrue statement(see separate email)
There have been no clear offers of help,very little attempt to correct errors and a presumption that the LEA which FAILED Peter and other home educated children in the first place is to be judge and jury threating to treat Peter as if he where a truant.
it is the right of every parent to educate their children at home if they think it is in the best interests of the child. most parents are well served by the LEA and there are relatively few problems.But it is precisely where the LEA fails that it presumes it knows best.
Against this background Peter and his parents have offered samples of his work but thier have refused to meet LEA officers and this has resulted in a dispute protracted for the last five years.
I welcome your involvement in the discussions because yo are quite clearly puting Petet best interst as the central goal.i am convinced this is true and have said so to both peters i am sure that you will understand they remain somewhat sceptical.
if your intersted i type the rest of the letter by Dr Tony Ludlow?
Brilliant post Loz. I am a single parent, living in a council house, money is extremely tight and we live in a down market postcode too (yippee!) The LA have never contacted us, but I must admit that much as I try to form my own judgements of things based on my experiences as opposed to mere heresay, all the negative reports on the various HE lists in regards to LA visits and the implication that they are more prone to take a hostile or unfavourable view of 'people like me' means that although I wouldn't have ordinarily minded a visit, I won't take the risk now. Which is a shame as I'd like the opportunity to show off!
ReplyDeleteSecondly the government has issued new guidelines to LEA's which cast the LEA in a more supportive role and explains the statutory duties of the LEA more clearly now.
ReplyDeletefor example section 2.9 of the new guidelines state that a school attendance order may be served if the LEA holds the opinion that it is expedient that the child attends school or if a notice(under section 437(1) of the Education act 1986)has been served requiring the parents to satisfly the LEA that the child is receiving a suitable education. BUT,the notice can only be served IF IT APPEARS THAT THE PARENTS ARE NOT PROVIDING A SUITABLE EDUCATION.
tHERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT PETER IS NOT RECEIVING A SUITABLE EDUCATION AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN.
There is considerable evidence that Peter and his parents feel badly let down by the LEA when they first raised the issue of time off for specialist chess coaching, so their lack of cooperation stems from the FAILURE OF THE LEA not the failure of the parents.
However the LEA did serve a school attendance order so they must have made a presumption that Peter was not recieving a suitable edcuation.I think that presumption would be hard to justifly i teach at universtiy level(imperial college) so i am not am expert on what is appropriate for an 11 year old,but he is expecting to take GCSE maths next year and has submitted examples of his work and is willing to submit more.This does not add up to the presumption made by the LEA and the guidelines state(section 2.7) that "Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis"
To sum up
1 the williams family feel badly let down by the LEA
2 this has reduced their cooperation
3 they lack of cooperation has been taken as evidence that Peter is not receiving a suitable education(which is an unsound argument and an arrogant argument)
so how do we move on from this postion?
The family would welcome a change of attitude by the LEA particulary if it demonstrated practical support eg the provision or loan of educatinal materials software etc discount on sports centre/swimming pool.
they are happy to submit further work although they have not had an assessment of the work submitted so far.
they feeel that officers dealing with home education do not understand the issues.Home educators will explore and generate a variety of models while the LEA officers try to introduce conformity on the assumption that the LEA offers the gold standard and home educators should imitate this standard.A more logical view is that these models have been generated because the LEA has failed and going back to the the LEA model is not a sensible answer.
Finally there have been errors in officers statements.I will deal with these in a separate email
best wishes
County Councillor
Dr Tony Ludlow
well..that's certainly a whole lot of words there peter.
ReplyDelete=P
@samantha Thanks for commenting, and yes, you sound like you have everything well and truly in hand, it would be nice to get some sort of idea from the LA wouldnt it?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I dont have a problem with them as I have only ever had decent dealings with them.But I do understand the concerns others have due to the substantial amount of negative examples they are happy to provide. =P
well..that's certainly a whole lot of words there peter.
ReplyDeleteit sure is but it gives you a better idea of what went on dont belive old Webb about us? Dr Tony Ludlow is a biologist Tony worked at Imperial College for 18 years, on the way that nervous systems control animal behaviour. This led to more and more computer modelling and statistical analysis. He then moved to the Forestry Commission Research Division to build computer models of forest growth so that we can predict the impact of climate change on European forests.
Since taking early retirement in 1997 Tony has set up Model Research: a consultancy using computer models and statistical analyses to solve complex problems in biological research. The site contains references to selected publications to indicate the range of problems that can be tackled
Dr Ludlow was also chairman of the Loddon NHS Commuity Trust for three and a half years and then chairman of the North Hampshire NHS Primary Care Trust for six and a half years until the Trust was dissolved in October 2006 to make way for the Hampshire PCT
He is now a very good friend of Peter and Peter is allowed around to his house any time he wants!
Well, that is a lovely opportunity for him, to socialise with such a clever man. And Mr Ludlow is quite obviously a very patient and accomodating man for kindly entertaining your son. :)
ReplyDelete. And Mr Ludlow is quite obviously a very patient and accomodating man for kindly entertaining your son. :)
ReplyDeletehe is patient but he Likes Peter a lot and could see the injustice from his own council it was not easy from him to write this letter and to complain about LEA officers making errors!
you never said if you like Dr Tony Ludlow letter?
ReplyDeletei take it that you dont like County Councilor Dr Tony Ludlow letter to Hampshire LEA?
ReplyDeleteWe loved the letter and have it framed on our Wall!
actually, I thought it was a very good letter. If I had one like that I would probably have it framed too!
ReplyDeleteLoz says-actually, I thought it was a very good letter. If I had one like that I would probably have it framed too!
ReplyDeleteit sure was a good letter! and we did make sure we sent it to all state schools in our area along with sending it to Ed Balls M.P Graham Badman(those 2 never answered the letter sent to Badman twice by recorded delivey) and many LEA staff just in case their did not get a copy! The letter was done between Peter and Dr Ludlow after a number of meeting between them at his house just Peter and Tony not me there!
the reason Tony wrote it was he could see Peter had been treated very badly by HCC LEA(something that really hurt Tony as he wanted to belive in the system and his LEA) and he could also see that Peter was a well behavied Lad clever smart and really gifted at chess and should have been given real help by HCC not the nonsense Peter did get!
your word verfation said mistress LOL!