Part2 - Reading Through Children Missing Education Document by ISOS Partnership November 2020

HERE is the link to the document I am reading through.

HERE is the link to Part 1.

Yesterday I got as far as halfway down Page9 of this 58 page document, so now we start the section entitled “Who is responsible for ensuring children do not miss education?”.

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 clearly puts this responsibility on the parents. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/7)

The CME report by ISOS Partnership has a blue box detailing the responsibilities of LAs and schools, and that is all correct. The following paragraph says:

“The Department for Education has consulted on the regulations and guidance relating to elective home education and has acknowledged explicitly that “a number of problems arise from lacunae or shortcomings in the current legislation which have been drawn to the department’s attention by local authorities and by local children’s safeguarding boards”. They describe the current legislative arrangement pertaining to home education as ‘designed for a different age’. Indeed, a common theme that has emerged from this research, both in the local authority workshops and the literature review, is that the way that the range of existing policies and guidance around pupil registration, attendance, admissions, exclusions and education otherwise than at school comes together is not seamless.”

I would like to know what specifically has been said, and whether they have differentiated between EOTAS (ie the LA providing the materials) and Home Education (where parents facilitate the education)? My guess is they didn’t even know there was a difference.

And yet again, it is interesting to note that in attempting to determine whether the regulations and guidance relating to elective home education works or whether there are any short-comings, they have failed to consult with home educators – current, past, or any national organisations.

“Parents are not currently required to notify the local authority if they decide to home educate their child or make provision for education at an institution other than a registered school.”

Because HE is the default position. Parents are always responsible for their child’s education, and it’s only if they decide to outsource this education then the need to apply for a place at a school.

“But this provides no visibility for children who have never been registered at a school or may move local authorities while being educated other than at school.”

“No visibility” is a red herring here. Graham Stuart MP said, when he was Chair of the Education Committee, that home educate children are “peculiarly visible”. HE children who have never been to school are still registered at birth, registered with a GP, with an Optician, with a Dentist – and that’s the bare minimum. My children have attended (and therefore are registered with) Dance schools, Gymnastics Clubs, Swimming Clubs, Play groups, social meets, Science clubs, Computer Clubs, to name a few.

“In April 2019 the Department for Education consulted on primary legislation that would introduce 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. However, no legislation has yet been brought before parliament to make these proposed changes.”

Good. There is no benefit to having a register of home educators.

“In terms of the quality of education being offered other than at school, there is no statutory definition of what constitutes ‘suitable’ education either in terms of curriculum, content, taught hours, progress or outcomes.”

A suitable education is defined as one that is suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special needs, and enables that child to live in their community as an adult.

‘How’ that education takes place is entirely different, and should not be regimented. Even looking at schooled children (who are schooled throughout their education), there is such variation in outcomes, despite having been taught the same curriculum, content and taught hours, that it is obvious that not all children learn the same way. It is far better to enable children to be taught according to their interests and abilities, so that they grow up still loving to learn, rather than being desperate to leave school and learning behind them, and then pass on to the next generation that learning is boring or difficult and generally not cool.

“Furthermore, local authorities have no express power to monitor on a routine basis the educational provision being made for a home educated child.”

Good. Given that, despite every schooled child being monitored to within an inch of their lives, some children leave school without basic numeracy or literacy, I fail to see on what basis the LA should be able to routinely monitor the education of HE children. Not to mention that the individual EHEOs have received little training in HE at all, have little to no understanding of the differing styles of HE – as demonstrated by LAs calling for this research.

The third bullet point is about schools and their registers. My only thought about this is that there should be a specific code for flexischoolers because it is wrong that they may be considered CME because they don’t attend school full time, despite an agreement with the school to attend on a part time basis. Similarly, by having a specific code, it may enable schools to allow more flexischoolers without it impacting various league tables or Ofsted reports. That said, this isn’t my area of expertise, so these are just some general thoughts.

“What are the routes whereby children can miss out on a formal full-time education?”

There is no such thing as missing out on a ‘formal education’, only whether they miss out on an education or not. The only way a child can miss out on a formal education is if the child wants or needs a formal education and are not being provided with one. Please Note, that by ‘need’ I mean in very specific circumstances. In my experience, most children do not need a formal education, and would flourish if they are provided with more autonomy than is provided in most schools. This ‘need’ is prompted by the child, not because some external agency demands it of the child.

“The children who are missing out on a formal full-time education are not a homogenous group and the pathways that have led them there are equally varied.”

Correct. We can help simplify this complexity for you, by removing the children who are receiving a full-time education – ie non-structured home educators and flexischoolers.

“They have been generated through our workshops with local authority officers, conversations with headteacher representatives and evidence provided through parents in our on-line survey.”

Yet again, absolutely no consultation with home educators nor HE organisations.

“In describing these routes, it is important to note that not all the children captured by these descriptions will end up missing out on a formal full-time education. Indeed, none of the pathways that we describe are inherently wrong in themselves. Decisions to remove a child from a school or to place them on a part-time timetable, for example, can all be made for very rational and well-intentioned reasons. When these decisions are taken with the best interests of the child in mind, they may well contribute to that child accessing education more successfully in future.”

This sounds very much like a legal disclaimer, so that when they are called out on their biases, they can say “oh no, we didn’t mean you, we mean those others, over there” and point generally as they try and create division amongst the HE community.

“However, our research has highlighted these are the scenarios in which children can end up missing out on their entitlement to a formal full-time education, and in some of the scenarios described this outcome becomes highly likely.”

You mean your research that, either purposely or ignorantly, has avoided any contact with actual elective home educators, yes?

Then the document has a summary table, and goes on to describe each of these boxes in a bit more detail.

“Children who leave school at the instigation of the parent

There have always been a small proportion of parents who, for a variety of philosophical, cultural, lifestyle or religious reasons decide to remove their children from mainstream schooling and educate them at home, themselves. This is a right, set out in law, which parents are free to exercise. However, there is mounting evidence that more parents than before are choosing to take their children out of the school in which they are enrolled and educate them at home.”

Why is there a ‘However’ at the start of that last sentence? If it is a fact, it is a fact, and doesn’t need to have any negative implications associated with it.

“In our survey, many of the 183 parents who replied had opted to take their child out of school and educate them at home.”

This would be much more interesting if they actually stated how many had withdrawn their children from school. Additionally, I would want to know whether these 183 parents are 183 individual families, or whether there is some double-counting going on, in order to make the research seem more legitimate and statistically accurate.

“Most [of the parents who had withdrawn their children from school] had done so because they were dissatisfied with the ability of the school to meet their child’s learning needs. In the large majority of cases this was because the parent felt that either their child’s special educational needs or their child’s mental health needs were not being met. Most of the parents who replied to our survey and had taken their children out of school described situations in which they felt that they had exhausted all other options, and this was the last resort.”

Again, it is important to note who they have directed these questions to - “with the support of the National Network for Parent Carer Forums we conducted a small scale survey of parents and carers whose children were currently or had previously been missing education.”

The National Network for Parent Carer Forums (NNPCF) state “Our mission is to deliver better outcomes for families living with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).” http://www.nnpcf.org.uk/ Whilst there are many home educators whose children have SEND, they are not representative.

Other things to pull out of the preceding paragraph – if a parent feels that HE is a last resort, this is a huge failing of the school or school system, and home educators should not be made to pay for this. Also, there are plenty of people within the HE community who did indeed pull their children out ‘as a last resort’ only to discover what HE actually is, and wish they had never put their children in school in the first place! Without having seen the questionnaire (and how the questions were worded / whether there were implicit biases in the questions) it is very difficult to objectively do anything with this information.

Finally, given that it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure their child receives an education, if a parent is “dissatisfied with the ability of the school to meet their child’s learning needs”, then they absolutely should remove their child from that school (whether to find a new school or home educate), and it would be neglectful not to!

“However, some school leaders to whom we spoke also identified lower levels of resilience to setbacks in some families, choosing to remove their children from school rather than work through a difficult period in their child’s educational life.”

Can I say Victim Blaming?!

“Several school leaders also identified an increase in the number of parents who decided to take their child out of mainstream schooling in order to evade local authority action or a fine for their child’s non-attendance or if the school raised concerns with local authority children’s services about the well-being of a child. ... some of those families have opted to remove their child from school rather than face a fine or what they deem to be unwarranted state intrusion into their family life. The children removed from full-time formal education where the school had concerns about the child’s wellbeing or where the child was already subject to a protection plan by children’s social care caused the greatest anxiety for school leaders.”

Again, conflating two different issues, namely education and welfare.

Whenever a child is removed from school, it is the school’s responsibility to inform the LA, and the LA should then get in touch with the parents. If a school has raised concerns with the LA about the well-being of a child, and the parent then removes the child from school, the LA should investigate. Why wouldn’t they? If there are genuine concerns for the welfare of a child, no home educator will get in the way.

As for parents who remove their children from school in order to evade a fine, it depends on the individual circumstances. Is the child simply truanting, or school-refusing? Or is the child too young to leave school alone, and it is the parents who are simply not taking their children to school? Maybe the child has family abroad who are ill, so they spend significant amounts of time travelling, and the parents deem is more sensible to simply home educate? Or perhaps there is some illness or disability that means the child finds it difficult to be in school during daytime hours, and would rather be able to sleep or rest then, and be educated in the evenings?

Again, there is too much nuance in these situations to suggest that they all are causes for concern.

“Children who leave school at the instigation of the school”

This section is all about the failure of schools. Off-rolling is not a part of home education, and schools who off-roll pupils should be sanctioned appropriately.

“Successfully electively home educating a child requires dedication, preparation and full-time commitment. A parent who removes a child from mainstream education not through choice but under duress is unlikely to be able to provide that child with the formal full-time education to which they are entitled.”

I find myself agreeing with the first sentence and disagreeing with the second. Again, we have the problem of the word ‘formal’. Whether a parent removes their child from school under duress or not, has absolutely no bearing on the parent’s ability to facilitate home education for their children – it is totally nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

“Children who stay in school but do not access full-time”

This section is also about schools. It does have the sentence “The second group of children who are missing out on a formal full-time education, despite being on a school roll, are those on part-time timetables” and does not mention or account for flexischoolers, who are different to the children being described here.

“Children or families with poor health

A small but very important subset of those children who remain on a school roll but do not attend school all day or every day are those children where either their own poor health or that of their family members makes routine attendance impossible. … many young carers ‘remain hidden from official sight’. Nearly 15,000 children under 17 are providing more than 50 hours care a week and the Children’s Society’s own analysis shows that around 1 in 20 young carers aged 11 to 15 miss school because of their caring responsibilities.”

I don’t understand how a young carer can ‘remain hidden from official sight’ if they are on a school roll but not attending school. Surely there are processes for schools to highlight those children that are missing school to provide 50hrs/week care? Surely these are the people and families that the LA should step-in and help?

“Children who cannot be provided with a school place

The final two pathways out of formal full-time education relate to those children who are not on a school roll. Local authority admissions teams maintain a list of children who are waiting for a school place. ... there are a minority of children who are very hard to place and might remain on a waiting list for a significant period of time.”

So, this is a failing of the LA.

“Highly mobile children and families

Finally, local authorities identified some children who may not be known to services in a local area at all, and when they do become known are often very challenging to find a school place for due to the complex nature of their needs. Within this category are those who meet the DfE’s legal definition of children missing education – they are not and may never have been on a school roll and are not receiving education in any other setting, including at home.”

Again, I want to highlight the word ‘and’ in that final sentence. If a child is not and has never been on a school roll, it does not logically follow that the child is missing education.

I’ll continue with part 3 tomorrow: Click HERE