Part1 - Reading Through Children Missing Education Document by ISOS Partnership November 2020

 

Reading Through Children Missing Education Document by ISOS Partnership

November 2020

Here is a link to the document: HERE
Apologies to those with visual impairments, I have coloured quoted sections of the document purple, but have endeavoured to also make it clear in the text to which documents I am refering.

ISOS Partnership (https://www.isospartnership.com/) states in their Who We Are section:

“We have in-depth experience of working with the public sector, in the UK and overseas, in education, local government, health and social care. We have expertise and a proven track record in developing policy and strategy, solving delivery problems, undertaking national evaluations and writing influential research reports, advising on organisational reform, and facilitating workshops and conferences.”

As such, you would expect them to be experienced and unbiased when conducting research and influencing policy. Given that “Home Education” is written 30 times in this document, and “home educated” a further 37 times, it is worthy of note that they have not listed a single Home Education organisation in their Bibliography! I have emailed them to ask what authorities of home education they have used, if any, and will update this when they reply.

From the Executive Summary, p2, “This research was commissioned by the Local Government Association in December 2019”. The Local Government Association (LGA, https://www.local.gov.uk/) describes itself as “The LGA is the national membership body for local authorities and we work on behalf of our member councils to support, promote and improve local government.

…

We are a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.”

So, the LGA follows the agendas of Local Authorities (LA) and tries to influence government accordingly. Unfortunately, it is well known that not all LA’s have Home Educator’s best interests in mind, and whether they adhere to EHE guidance is a bit of a “postcode lottery”. (Support for Home Education, Fifth Report, 2012-13, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/559/559.pdf)

However, giving the benefit of the doubt, just because the organisation asking for the research may be biased, the company conducting the research should be neutral and look at all sources of information…

The document starts with the Executive Summary, and does succinctly summarise their bias against Home Educators:

“The statutory definition for Children Missing Education states that “Children missing education are children of compulsory school age who are not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.” However, one of the clear conclusions of this research is that this relatively narrow definition risks some significant blind-spots in our collective understanding of the cohort of children missing education. We are therefore proposing, for this research, a wider definition of children missing education – any child of statutory school age who is missing out on a formal, full-time education. By ‘formal’, we mean an education that is well-structured, contains significant taught input, pursues learning goals that are appropriate to a child or young person’s age and ability and which supports them to access their next stage in education, learning or employment. By full-time we mean an education for at least 18 hours per week.”

Basically, this report is saying that they only consider Home Education valid if it recreates school-at-home. This is NOT what the law says. The is NOT what the EHE Departmental Guidance for LAs (EHE DGfLA) nor Parents (EHE DGfP) say. It is extremely discriminatory of all the other style of Home Education that are legal.

Not only that, there is no legal definition of full-time education. It is easily arguable that Home Educators who are autonomous in their approach are actually educating for far longer than 18 hours, as according to the EHE DgfLAs Home Education is not limited to school times, school days nor school hours.

The next paragraph follows in the same vein: “Children missing education do not form a homogenous group and are not always easy to identify. Our research has suggested that there are multiple routes whereby children may end up missing out on a formal full-time education,... These include ... at home receiving different forms of educational input…”

Again, they are saying that if you do not recreate school-at-home, then the education is not suitable or efficient. Totally wrong. There is much literature, not to mention anecdotes, about outcomes for Home Educators who do not follow a formal curriculum nor structured learning. It seems incredible that an experienced research company would fail to come across any of it…

“Without a clear sense of how many children in England might be missing out on their entitlement to a formal full time education it is very difficult to be precise about the scale or nature of intervention that might be needed either locally or nationally to address the issue.”

Just because somebody is entitled to a formal education does NOT mean that is the best education. Many people are entitled to things that they do not wish to claim, and it should not be forced upon them, and the same goes for a schooled education.
[Edited to clarify: I mean this paragraph in the hypothetical sense. "Unknown" has rightly commented below that legally, there is no distinction between formal or informal education.]

Now, this next bit is not HE related, but still interesting nonetheless: “The large majority of these included those with social and behavioural needs; those with complex needs and no suitable school place available; those with medical or mental health needs; and of those with mental health needs, those accessing CAMHS either as an inpatient or through services in the community. … Put simply, wider societal factors have meant that children are arriving in schools with a combination of needs, often linked to disruption in their family lives…” In other words, if your child has complex needs, medical or mental health needs, they are blaming the child’s family life.

Back to HE…

There is much talk about the detriment to children who are missing education, and I would quite agree – except that Home Educated children are NOT missing education, they are simply being educated otherwise than at school, as per the law.

Outcome No4: “Strengthen the legislative framework around electively home educated children

In April 2019 the Government consulted on changes to primary legislation that would strengthen the oversight and mechanisms for reassurance around electively home educated children. It proposed a new duty on local authorities to maintain a register of children of compulsory school age who are not at a state funded or registered independent school and a new duty on parents to provide information if their child is not attending a mainstream school. The purpose of these changes would be to enable better registration and visibility of those educated other than at school. The evidence collected through this research suggests that both changes would be beneficial in strengthening the oversight afforded to vulnerable children within this cohort and we therefore recommend that the necessary legislative changes are made at the first opportunity.”

In April 2019 the government produced new guidance for LAs and Parents, and I have gone over that information before HERE and HERE. Yet again, there are calls for a register, and I have gone over that previously HERE. Since Home Educated children ARE educated (it’s kinda in the name), a register will not be of benefit for anyone.

From the Introduction on p6, “This research was commissioned by the Local Government Association in response to a growing concern that more and more children were missing out on their entitlement to a formal full-time education. Previous research, select committee inquiries and independent government reviews have shone a light on various aspects of this issue, be it the rising numbers of pupils permanently excluded, the apparent growth in ‘off-rolling’ and the increasing trend in children being electively home educated. This research tries to look at the issue of children missing education in its entirety.”

I repeat, children who are home educated are NOT missing education, and certainly not in its entirety.

The Purpose and Methodology section starts of well, and shows that Home Education should not be included in the scope of this report.

“In December 2019, Isos Partnership was commissioned by the Local Government Association to carry out a national piece of research looking at children missing out on a formal full-time education. Specifically, the purpose of the research was to: • develop a national picture of trends in numbers and characteristics of children and young people who are missing a formal full-time education; • understand the routes whereby children and young people end up missing education; • assess the factors which are contributing to the increasing numbers of children missing education; • describe the impact of children and young people missing out on education; • identify good practice in how local authorities and their partners can reduce the numbers of children missing education; and • make recommendations for what might need to change nationally.”

However, given that ISOS have elected to include HE within these parameters, it is astonishing that they have not thought to consult with any Home Education organisations. “Thirdly, we conducted individual interviews with a range of professionals and experts able to offer a particular insight into the issues surrounding children missing education. These included headteacher representatives from the executive committees of ASCL and NAHT, Ofsted, a Regional Schools Commissioner and PRUsAP (the National Association for PRUs and Alternative Provision).”

“Finally, with the support of the National Network for Parent Carer Forums we conducted a smallscale survey of parents and carers whose children were currently or had previously been missing education.”

And this explains why no home educators were consulted – because they didn’t think to contact any!

Starting at Chapter 1 on p8, ISOS states “Critically, if children are deemed to be receiving an education “otherwise than at school” then they will not be counted as children missing education.”

If children are receiving an education, then they will not be considered missing education because they are receiving an education! It’s tautologous!

“Similarly, if children are on a school roll but are not attending or not attending full-time, they will also not be counted as children missing education.” Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the nuances of the situation. If a child is registered at school full time and does not attend, they are missing education. If a child is registered at school full time and does not attend full time, they are missing education (usually, there may be temporary medical reasons – I said it’s nuanced!).

However, if a child is registered at school and does not attend full time, it could be because they have agreed with the head teacher that the child will be flexi-schooled. This is another valid and legal education option alongside school or home education.

The report claims that the CME guidance is insufficient: “It does not, for example, acknowledge that there will be children and young people amongst those who are being educated other than at school whose education is neither efficient, full-time or suitable to their age, ability and aptitude.” Yet just the paragraph before it says this, it quotes the CME guidance as “Children missing education are children of compulsory school age who are not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.”

How can they claim that the CME guidance does not acknowledge there will be children whose education is not suitable, when it specifically states that it considers those same children to be missing education? Madness! This from a supposedly experienced research organisation!

At this juncture, I feel I should point out that I have also compared CME to EHE guidance previously HERE.

This is the point where Ofsted gets involved. From the Memorandum of Understanding between Ofsted and the Department for Education

(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571243/MoU_Ofsted_and_DfE_sharing_notifiable_incidents_information.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2mk6GaaL0LBGrT3JE6ZgptxTs-0lJPLsXm-O_AK6u16zGwIK1phhp_jrE)

Paragraphs 4 and 5:

“Role of Ofsted and the Department for Education

4. Ofsted regulates and inspects to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care and inspects the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work-based further education and skills training, adult and community learning and education and training in prisons and other secure
establishments. It assesses local authority children’s services and inspects services for looked after children, safeguarding and child protection.

5. The DfE is a department of the UK government. It is responsible for issues affecting children and young people in England up to the age of 18, including child protection and education, and, within this, regulates academies and free schools in England. The DfE uses safeguarding information received from local authorities by Ofsted to inform development of policy on child protection in England and any action being taken by Government to intervene in the local
authority.”

Which, when read in conjunction with House of Commons, Education Committee, Support for Home Education, Fifth Report Session 2012-13

(https://publications.parliament.uk/.../cmeduc/559/559.pdf), Paragraph 24, strongly suggests to me that it is the DfE that should be checking the behaviour of LAs, and is not something Ofsted should be involved in at all.

"We recommend that the Department for Education carry out an audit of local authorities’ performance regarding home education, and the information they make available on their websites and elsewhere, and publish the results, ascertaining which local authorities are performing well with regard to home education. We consider that, far from damaging the Government’s localism agenda, this review would fit well with the Department for Education’s transparency drive"

I have looked at this Fifth Report in more detail in amongst this post HERE.

In Ofsted’s study "Exploring moving to home education in secondary schools" 2019

(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936259/Exploring_moving_into_home_education.pdf) p4 "Ofsted has, for some time, had concerns about off-rolling. We have identified and investigated examples of off-rolling during our inspections".

Off-rolling is indeed a problem, and there should be strict sanctions and penalties on schools that do this, as this behaviour not only impacts the individual child, but as we can see from this document published by ISOS, it damages the HE community as a whole.

Page 5 of the same study says “"Because Ofsted has no remit to inspect home education, the research did not seek to establish the content or quality of what is being taught by home-educators. We have not sought to make a judgement about individual cases nor was our research related to recent government consultations about a register for children who are home educated.”

So, even Ofsted admit here that they have no jurisdiction over home education. However, further within the same study, Ofsted go on to say (paragraphs 15 and 16):

"15. Under the current guidance, parents are only advised that it is ‘sensible’ to inform their school and LA that their child is ‘being withdrawn for home education’.

In our research, we saw that the steps schools, LA and parents went through to officially remove children from school rolls were clear. Withdrawing a child from a school roll to move to home education is a quick and easy process.

16. Often, parents simply wrote a letter to the school to move their child to home
education.”

Withdrawing a child from school absolutely should be a quick and easy process. Upon receipt of the deregistration letter, the child’s name should be removed from the school roll immediately. Because off-rolling is a big issue, I will concede that it is not a bad idea for the school place to remain unfilled until the Elective Home Education Officers (EHEOs) have made contact with the parents (as is their duty anyway) to confirm that the Home Education is indeed elected by the parents, rather than forced by the school. However, this is entirely different to a school ignoring the deregistration letter and keeping the child’s name on the school role for an unspecified amount of time. It is the schools behaving badly, not the parents.

Back to the ISOS report, we next come to a section quoting the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield. “In her report “Skipping School: Invisible children”, the Children’s Commissioner shines a light on those children who have been off-rolled according to Ofsted’s definition but also those children who have been removed from school by parents because the school was unable to meet their child’s needs...”.

Removing your child from school because you think you can meet their needs better is absolutely a valid reason to choose to Home Educate. Again, this document is failing to see the nuances between people choosing home education because it is a better fit for their child or their family, or because of failing schools (even though the parents would rather not take on the responsibility themselves), and as such they need to be categorised separately and distinctly.

The final paragraph in the definitions part of the Introduction says in full:

“A core purpose of this research is to attempt to untangle what is a complex issue and understand the full extent of children and young people in England who may be missing out on their entitlement to education. We are therefore proposing, for this research, a wider definition of children missing education – any child of statutory school age who is missing out on a formal, full-time education. By ‘formal’, we mean an education that is well-structured, contains significant taught input, pursues learning goals that are appropriate to a child or young person’s age and ability and which supports them to access their next stage in education, learning or employment. By full-time we mean an education for at least 18 hours per week, as set out in the DfE’s recent consultation on defining full time education for the purpose of regulating independent educational institutions. Only by framing our definition thus widely can we be confident of raising awareness and understanding of all those children and young people who are missing out on their entitlement to education and learning.”

So they claim to want to “untangle” this “complex issue”, yet instead of doing any untangling, they are actually grouping whole swathes of children who are NOT missing education, and thereby are making the whole thing more incoherent – ie they seem to be purposely ignoring the needs of a large section of home educators, and don’t even have the decency to involve any home educators or home ed organisation to determine the impact it will have on us.

At this point, I’m on page 6 of my rebuttal (I have no idea if that’s the right word? lol) so I’ll stop here and do this in instalments.

I have had some people ask me about who to complain to and whether writing letters will help.

Personally, I think it can’t harm, especially if you are writing from your own point of view. I am happy for you to use bits and pieces from this blog to help you, but try to use your own words as much as possible, or cite me/my website. Thanks.

Edited to add: Part 2 can be found HERE