Perhaps my myth should have been: The majority believe that education, welfare and health should be inextricably linked. And this is one myth that is seriously in need of debunking, before we’re all processed through a massive, institutional machine that defines our educational, social, physical and mental normality for us.

We can see that, in the quest for well educated, fully protected children we have fallen for the promise of joined up working and seamless service delivery, because, of course every child matters. Education and welfare are becoming one; health is not far behind.

There is the DCSF. There are the integrated Children’s Services within local authorities. There is the Children and Young People’s Plan. There is my friend the PE teacher, who has been instructed to make sure all children have at least one shower at week so he can inspect their bodies for bruises. There is my health visitor, my supposed single point of contact for any concerns I might have, until my child reaches the age of 5.

And, of course, to join up the many diverse practitioners and the notes they keep upon our children, a management information system such as ContactPoint seems a wholly sensible, contemporary solution. If, of course, you accept that ContactPoint is not fatally flawed. And if, of course, you believe that these practitioners and the notes they keep upon our children should indeed be joined up in the first place.  

Bishop Hill, in his aforementioned post, had this to say about such logic [my emphases]:

“Do you see where this leads? In the not-so-very-distant future, you will pack little Jonny or little Jill off to school and you will be handing them over to a surrogate parent. Suddenly real parents will start to look rather peripheral to their children's upbringing. In this brave new world, every aspect of their lives will be interfered with by the school: they will be inspected by social services, they will be examined by doctors and nurses and dentists and opticians and child welfare officers and the NSPCC, every detail being written down and recorded on the database from where it can never be removed. Your children will grow up the state knowing everything about them. The school will become the foundation upon which the database state will be built.”

I agree. As I commented on his post, joined up working is a concept that is difficult to argue rationally against, because most people are so emotive and irrational on this topic ("What? You think it's OK for those poor children to slip through the net and be abused?")

But here are my rational concerns, nonetheless:

1. The cultures of education, health and welfare are utterly different (I have worked in or with all of them at one time or another). This kind of cross-cultural working often leads to even more confusion around responsibilities and accountability than is usual even for the public sector. This obviously puts children at increased risk. We have seen this already – professional altruism exists, but no-one cares for and loves children more than their parents, in the vast majority of cases.
2. If such a "surrogate parent "system takes shape, parents (especially the more vulnerable) have no incentive to assume full responsibility for their child and engage with either their education or their welfare adequately. Again, we have seen this already – professional altruism exists, but no-one cares for and loves children more than their parents, in the vast majority of cases.
3. If children themselves are brought up in such a removed and artificial setting, they have no way of learning about individuality, strong familial relationships, responsibilities and accountability either. Yet again, we have seen this already. We know the sad truth about likely outcomes for institutionalised children already (although I note that Martin Narey in his new role, is already arguing that these outcomes are due to the child’s original family situation rather than the care system, contrary to his previous beliefs. He is also arguing for an increase in numbers of children taken into care). Do not underestimate it: the 21st century is going demand far more from individuals than a state-managed, homogenous population will ever be able to offer.  

In “Bound to be Free”, Jan Fortune-Wood has this to say on the subject [my emphases again]:

"Far from being innocuous, it [joined up government] allows burgeoning systems of control to erode privacy and autonomy. It is true that areas of human activity and need clearly overlap. This does not justify the philosophical confusion of boundaries between welfare and education, particularly when education is defined by a state system that labels a range of individuals dysfunctional because their individual learning styles and preferences do not fit in...

...State education has, in many senses, blurred the distinctions and boundaries between education and welfare provision. This may appear to be good common sense and to serve the holistic interest of the child rather than seeing her piecemeal as a mind to be filled in an educational setting, a body to be treated in a medical or welfare setting etc. Unfortunately, the outcomes may be very less benevolent...

...In this view education ... is a package to be consumed in order to mould the child. The product, at all stages of production, must be controllable within the framework of the production environment. This control is best achieved when the child is taught not only what to learn, but also how to fit in with particular behavioural, social, medical and other models that best serve the environment. Behavioural traits become redefined as diseases to be treated by psychological intervention, or medication, or both."

In other words, the very priority of the system means that every child matters less and less.

When a system of joined up services has already become accepted as the correct approach for all children, it is little wonder that bureaucrats can be touchy if parents choose to opt out their lovingly created, state-controlled, duplicate world. But there’s the important word: choice. Parents should be able to choose the best options for each child’s education, health and welfare. These choices should not be removed from them. They have primary legal responsibility for their children. They pay their taxes to public servants, not public dictators. They should be able to choose to what degree they participate in any kind of service, joined up or otherwise: state controlled education should not be the starting point for entry into a comprehensive state monopoly on every aspect of a child’s life. This is simply too high a cost for a false promise of better protection. 

The minority of children who are abused and the majority of children who are let down by the current system in regard to their education, health and welfare would be far better served by:

• Individuals and communities that worked together, did not fear or mistrust each other, took personal responsibility, stopped shifting the blame, cared about others, and rejected the prevailing trends of bullying, segregation and coercion
• Well-informed professionals who had less to fear from blame and litigation, demonstrating integrity and taking personal as well as professional responsibility in their clearly defined areas of expertise
  
• Parents and professionals who had a better understanding of the adequacy of existing legislation that clearly defines roles, responsibilities, powers, and consequences to effectively safeguard children where appropriate

This is only realistically achievable by individuals working together voluntarily, rather than the state attempting to deliver a mandatory, one-size-fits-all-solution, yet again. So let's get working together, voluntarily, and show the government what we actually want from them. Remember, the review into home education was supposedly triggered by concerns about child welfare; already it's become clear that comprehensive control of education is the real issue at stake. This blurring of boundaries must stop.