Hi
cross posted from another list where it was cross posted over from the EO
Yahoo group. BWS Elaine

THIS IS FROM EO Yahoo list

"Please feel free to x-post

Yesterday I met with Vijay Patel, Policy Adviser for the NSPCC, after exchanging
a few emails of complaint about comments he has made in the press over the last
5 weeks. We spent 2 hours talking about his comments, why the NSPCC seems to
believe that home education is not safe yet offer no substantiating evidence and
what it is exactly that they have a problem with regarding existing law.

I have to start by saying that right at the beginning of the meeting and
throughout, I did keep saying that I could not speak for everyone, only from my
own perspective, which could not possibly represent everyone's viewpoint or
situation. That said, I did say that we all agreed on how outraged we all are
with his and the NSPCC's attitude and comments towards home ed in the press.

He acknowledges that there is a poor experience and relationship between
government and local authorities and home educators. I said that this was caused
by the local authorities using their powers to act outside of their remit and
government's continued attempt toundermine what we have a legal right to do.

He stated that the NSPCC do not have any specific research or evidence linking
home education to child abuse or neglect. They do have a case but couldn't talk
about it - he said it wasn't high profile, but agreed that one case does not
make a substantial link.

He did reiterate what the standard reply letter said - that the NSPCC has no
position on home education, because what they are more concerned with is the
fact that whilst a family does not have to register a child for school, neither
do they have to register them for home education. He said that it was that fact
that concerned them the most - that children could not be known to the LA. I
said that government do know who these children are - they're on the child
benefit file, that with Contactpoint that would no longer be an issue, so it is
not really cause to associate home education with fears of child abuse so
wrecklessly. He said that LAs could not know. I said they could ask government,
but either way, it is not sufficient cause to create and exascerbate a fear that
could lead to legislation against a group who are validly choosing a legal
option to educate their children outside of school system.
(tumbleweed....wind...more tumbleweed)

He asked why we were not in favour of registration. I told him that I couldn't
speak for anyone else, that I wasn't comfortable answering a question that
didn't actually pertain to my situation, however, I did say that with the LAs so
hostile I couldn't see that there was enough trust for families to come forward.
There is no offer of support, finance - and I did add very quickly that these
are not things we are asking for necessarily - or understanding, but instead a
lot of ignorance, confusion and a general lack of respect that will not heal for
a long time. I did say that even if all LAs suddenly, and miraculously, stuck to
the law and respected our individual choices then it would still be difficult to
foster trust amongst home educators.

So then he said 'So what about an independent agency that home educators could
access...' I sort of cut him off. I said I could not possibly answer that, as I
only speak for myself, but that in my opinion it would not be an answer because
it would have to be funded, which meant accountability, which meant strings
attached. We spoke about what the effect of measurement and targets is on
people's motives and behaviour. I said that personally I would not want
something that would cause me to stop thinking about what is best for my child
and instead think how to meet someone's checklist or to placate someone. I
talked about home education in terms of it being something that was specifc and
individual to each child, even if they were part of the same family. I said that
no two children follow the same education. I cannot comment or make judgement on
HE friends because we HE in different ways, which is why monitoring won't work.

He said that NSPCC also stated in their response to the Review questionnaire
that they were concerned that some HE families did not have access to support
and services, that it depended on LAs. I said that it was a loaded statement -
was he talking about people who refused support, or was he talking about LAs
that do nothing to support HE families. I said that governemnt could not make
anyone accept support. That refusing support should not be cuase for concern.
That if support is offered, it should be just that - offered without strings.

We talked at length about legislation, he kept saying that LAs don't have powers
to ensure that children educated at home were safe. I went through the legal
process as per the 2007 Guidelines (I had them with me). I then asked him when
in that process did the LA not have the power to examine further if they were
not happy about the first response from the parent. He then said that based on
the LAs' consultation responses to the 2008 Children Not Receiving a Suitable
Education Guidance, they all said they didn't have enough powers to ensure the
safety and well-being of children educated at home. I related the case of Kent,
who have blatantly and openly given proof that they have not read the 2007
Guidelines or choose to ignore it. I also said that Kent wasn't the only one. He
seemed genuinely surprised. I asked why should they have new powers when they
are not using existing ones - again tumbleweed! He asked if maybe there was a
way of ensuring that children were safe through accessing services of GP etc. I
asked what would he do if a child hadn''t been to a GP in a couple of years
because they were healthy or because his parents preferred using a homeopath? I
asked if he then was going to suggest compulsory annual health checks - he said
'no, of course not.'

We then talked about child protection, existing powers and the protection that
schools offer. Of course, there was a lot of talk about NSPCC programmes in
schools, but I asked him how he could ensure that every single child at school
was safe. He conceded that the NSPCC could not ensure that. I asked him what
laws would deter a parent/carer/person in authority from abusing or neglecting a
child when they were intent on doing it? He agreed that it could not be
prevented but that it is an aim of the NSPCC. I did point out that it was
irresponsible of the NSPCC to state through horrible campaigns that it is
possible to end child abuse. At this point I was very strong and single-minded
in laying the blame for the paranoid about risk culture and culture of mistrust
of parents at the feet of the NSPCC. The constant undermining of parents in the
minds of children was inexcusable and that this was exactly what they were doing
with this latest attack on home ed. I tolfd him they were insulting,
discriminatory, inflammatory, insensitive, disrespectful and untrue. This is
when he offered his personal and sincere apologies for his comments in the
press.

I asked him why he would - after all the complaints he received in January - do
it again last week in the Independent. What was he thinking? He tried to say it
was taken out of context but admits to the harm that it caused. I did say that
it was unacceptable that a person used to talking to the press and knowing from
experience how they work could not take sufficent care in ensuring it didn't
happen again. I said he and the NSPCC have to rectify the image of home
education that they have created. I asked him if when he met with Baroness
Morgan, this was an intended campaign. I asked him how he could say these things
without evidence. He couldn't really respond. I told him he needs to apologise
publicly and make good the damage he has caused. He said that he couldn't do it
publicly. He did say that there would not be any more cases quoted in the press
with respect to home education.

We moved on (but I wasn't going to let lie).

I then quoted some of the things from the standard letter. I asked him if
policies were informed by practice and views from children and young people, how
many children and young people has the NSPCC talked to. He said they do not
capture that information (but surely they ask about school?) I then asked
whether prior to the Review and during the course of responding to previous
consultations involving home ed whether he/NSPCC had garnered the views of home
educated children. He said they had not - they had no real knowledge of home
education other than information they had gained from LAs and LA responses to
previous guidance.

I asked what other 'interested partner organisations who are directly involved
in the policy area' had they spoken to. He said they have had dealings with EO.
I told him they represent less than 8% of all home educating familes and that
there are other orgs and indviduals who should be consulted should the NSPCC
feel they need to talk about home ed.

We then talked about parenting and home education. I asked him who he thought
was best placed and most motivated to protect a child, care for them, nurture
them. He said parents in most cases but there are a few parents where this is
not the case. I asked him if he was making a distinction between home parents
and parents who send their children to school and he said that there would be no
distinction, in a small minority of society in general children suffer at the
hands of their parents and carers. I asked if he thought that a 'small minority'
was justification of trampling on the majority of law-abiding citizens'
freedoms? He said "no, but then how do we, as a society, ensure that we keep
children safe?" I said that we have to trust. I said that's exactly what we do
for cases of child abuse of children at school, we have to wait until there is
cause for concern (and service refusal is not cause for concern) and then act on
it. We can't ask to see a child just in case he might possibly, maybe, being
abused. I asked him why was it so different for HE? Why should an HE family put
up with unannounced visits, when other familes don't? He asked how HE parents
think we should keep children safe? I said he should ask them. I said from my
pov, you have to presume innocence until you have reason to believe otherwise. I
said there are sufficient powers in law, if people would only use them. I said
in all the cases he quoted and other high profile cases, there is a plethora of
evidence to show that it wasn't the system that failed but the people within
that system. I said that the process of searching and trying to find child abuse
where there wasn't any was in itself abusive. He said it could be.

I asked him what he thought compulsory visits whould achieve? He said they
weren't asking for compulsory visits. He said that in fact they haven't finished
their response and that they had yet to state what could be a solution to the
issue of child protection of 'unknown' children. I asked him whether he was
talking about the response to the Review, he said, yes, that the government had
granted them an extension!!! But he said that as they hadn't yet finished the
response, he welcomes the input of the home ed community as to how to keep
'unknown' children safe? I again said that you have to abide by existing law,
the notion of the presumption of innocence and trust in the family, community to
report any concerns.

We talked about truancy and school and how home ed is different. We talked about
the many ways that the NSPCC could build back trust in the family and ensure
that children and their rights to freedom and natural development are protected.
I asked whether the NSPCC were concerned with those children that were
consistently truanting. I asked if he thought that forcing children to attend
school where they feel disenfranchised or excluded was a safe policy. I asked
him what they were doing about the children whose parents were jailed for their
truancy and why the family wasn't being supported in addressing the reasons for
truancy other than labelling the parents as lazy? I asked him if he knew that
EWOs and schools were offering home ed as a way out of facing prosecution? I
asked him whether anyone was asking why a child would risk his parents going to
jail to avoid going to school? I asked where the children were of the 10000
parents that are currently in jail for truancy and how safe were they? Were they
in care, in school, with family? He said he didn't know any of those answers.

I said that the value system of education at school is so far removed from the
value system of education at home that it was just impossible to reconcile the
two. Home educators feel that children should not be coerced to go to school,
school educators feel that they should. Which one is abuse, which one is right?
He couldn't answer but empathised with the situation. We talked about the
outcomes. I asked him if he thought it significant that government outcomes for
children did not include happiness? He said he wasn't familiar with the ins and
outs of ECM! I asked him if he thought government should have an obligation to
ensure that all children meet the outcomes. He said he didn't think government
would have the ability to do that?!! I pointed out that that was one of the
questions in the Review questionnaire. I asked how a visit would show that a
child was achieving the outcomes - surely outcomes come at the end of the
process - but when is the end of the process? He took my point on how it would
be difficult to measure something that might for a few years be internal and
intangible.

We then came back to the issue of public perception of home ed, the general
feeling of measurement and monitoring needing to be compulsory, but mostly that
home ed children could not be deemed safe in a way that school children are. By
this stage, I felt he had grasped the major points of our arguments and I asked
him again about the perception that he and the NSPCC were fuelling with regard
to home education and child protection. I asked why he thought it appropriate
that even without evidence he could talk about home education and give the
impression that he knew what he was talking about? I asked him whether after
listening to what I had to say, he felt that a public apology should be
forthcoming. I said that the NSPCC now had an obligation to protect children who
were home educated from being branded as being abused. He said he could not
commit to me that he will make a public apology and put right what he has done,
but he said that given that he understood more about the issues that he would
talk to his managers about it.

Personal Impressions:
I am very aware that a lot of people will read this with cynism, having heard it
all before. I appreciate that I am in no way as experienced in home ed or in
fighting govt and lackies as much as some of you. But I will give my personal
impressions purely becuase it gives as much information on how he said things as
what he said.

He is defintiely not one of those player-types (I was disappointed as I was up
for a good row!). I have come across many of those, he just didn't seem like he
was paying lip-service. In fact, what took me back was his openness and lack of
excuses, that when I first shut him down after he started talking about what the
NSPCC had done/is doing, he didn't really mention it again. He also appeared to
be sympathetic to what he was hearing, but not in a false way. He was definitely
not placating, he admitted when he did not know things. I felt he was genuine.
But then, I could be naive. I don't know. All I can give you is what I felt, and
unlike my meeting with the LA, he listened. And I guess the proof of all this
lies in what he does next.

He is keen to engage with home educators and groups. When I asked him if he
would be prepared to meet with some, he said yes. So I guess it is now up to the
different groups and home educators. Do you want to engage with him? Personally,
I feel that there is an opportunity to help inform their response - currently it
is being informed by the attitudes and prejudices of LAs. I also feel that if he
does sit on the expert group, then politically it might be good, but that's just
inexperienced, naive me talking!! I did write to the Review team asking for his
removal from the expert group - I do think that if they have no knowledge about
HE they should not be on the panel! I respect the fact that you might not want
to engage with someone who has repeatedly slurred us in the press. He is waiting
to hear from EO with regard to dates, so he will definitely be meeting with
them.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to you, if Ahed and other groups want to meet him,
please let me know.

I hope this was OK, and that you've not felt that I spoke out of turn.

Sarita xx - relieved it's over!"

Well done you. It sounds like you handled the situation perfectly. :-)

Just realised that this was cross posted Doh! Well done Sarita :-)

Well done, I am glad he has met a reasonable, knowledgeable person who gave him no leeway.

you done a good job with Patel but my guess is he say one thing to home educators and say different to DCSF and give them what he thinks they want when he sit on the review panel! Virjay will know what his masters want from hiim!

Excellent points made and it sounds like he's taking them on board. These points need reiterating again and again so they don't get drowned out by the ill informed and prejudicial DCSF/LA views. In the end, like anyone, he'll probably believe the people who shout loudest and longest!

I presume it's okay to send a copy of this to my MP (David Amess)? I've had interesting discussions with him about the NSPCC and this would interest him greatly I think.

It's on an open facebook group...

's what I thought :-)

Just wondering why the NSPCC should be using a lawyer for quoting to the press , did Vijay's malicious attack on us cause ripples do you think?
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/887095/Child-witnesses-need-support/

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7934298.stm

'Public Policy Lawyer for the NSPCC' - Vijay is Policy Advisor isn't he? Looks like his bosses realise he needs a leash!

Well done Sarita, and thank you for doing this.