Review of Evidence from Unicef UK HED0434

HERE is a link to the information that I am reading through.  It is the written submission to the Education Select Committee as part of their Home Education Inquiry from Unicef UK. I have coloured the background of their words in pale blue, and will keep them in quotation marks.

I have not yet read through this document, and here are my initial thoughts and opinions.  

"UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, is mandated by the UN General Assembly to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and promote the rights and wellbeing of every child."

If the submission is over 3000 words, you need to provide a summary at the start of the document.  The summary given in full:
"Unicef UK is submitting evidence to the Education Select Committee with the aim of highlighting the role the Government can, and must, play in delivering every child’s right to education, including in the case of elective home education. This submission focusses in particular on the rights of the child and how they relate to the choice, regulation, inspection, delivery, and safety of home education, including in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Unicef UK recommends that the Department for Education take a child rights approach to home education, ensuring that it is upholding its obligation as a duty bearer of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This, in turn, requires strengthened guidance for Local Authorities (LAs) that recognises the rights impacted by home education."

At a high level, that doesn't sound too bad.  However, when talking about the rights of a child to be inspected, have they considered the rights of the child to not be inspected?  We'll see...

Paragraphs 1-5 talk about Education and Child's Rights, and there's nothing to discuss there.
Paragraph 6, within Meaningful Choice in Home Education, states "Home education should not be a last resort and should be elected, not forced upon, any family or child". I do agree that home education should not be a last resort, but it often is and turns out to be the best choice for the children by parents who barely knew about home education initially.  Similarly, just because it is a last choice, does not mean it hasn't been elected by the parents.  They are not mutually exclusive.  However, since we're next looking at off-rolling and exclusions, I will give it some grace as to what they meant.

Paragraph 8 gives an interesting statistic! "Indeed, one quarter of teachers have seen off-rolling happen in their school and 62% reported that ‘schools pressure parents to accept their child being off-rolled’." From This Link

The recommendation after the section about SEN says: "Recommendation: the DfE should continue to undertake special oversight and increase support for children with SEND, ensuring that any move to home education is a choice and not a result of unsuitable provision in school."
However, again, I reiterate that home education can be a choice even if the choice has come about because of unsuitable provision in school.  This should be taken up by Ofsted etc as schools failing their responsibility for their pupils, rather than making things more difficult for home educators.

Paragraph 12 is all about the child's right to be heard, and I totally agree that children should have a voice.  Their recommendation is "Recommendation: the DfE should revisit its approach to Article 12 of the UNCRC, encouraging Local Authorities to meaningfully consult the views of children in home education decisions, regulation, and inspection."  LAs should absolutely not use this as an excuse to meet and monitor home educated children.  Offer a visit, by all means, but it should be voluntary as the child has the right to decline.  Children can always give their views in writing.  Similarly, children in schools should be consulted regarding their education decisions and whether they may prefer to be in a differing school or educated at home.

Then things start to take a turn for the worse...

Paragraph 13 is about learning from the Experiences of Other Countries.  Two of the four cited countries only allow Home Education in "exceptional circumstances", and one only allows it with approval from the local ministry of Education.  Even the final country mentioned, it is often only allowed with approval or if the child is under a local school.  
In the UK, we have a legal right to home educate our children, and we should not be blindly agreeing to have these rights taken away from us.

P.14 says "Notification and approval, inspection, and regulation are the only ways for the Government to satisfy itself that home educated children in England are receiving a quality education." 
Really?  What about all the other ways of life where the government has a duty to its citizens but doesn't go crazy like this.  Is there no realisation that giving LAs and the government powers like this erodes other rights of the child or of family life?

P16. "If parents or guardians were required to not only inform local authorities about their intent to home educate, but in fact seek approval to do so (such as in New Zealand), they would have the opportunity to articulate these challenges and could be offered another opportunity for their child." If parents or guardians were required to seek approval to home educate, then this right will effectively be removed.  Home education is an opportunity for the child to receive an education at least as good as what can be provided in school, and should not be removed on a whim.  The best way for parents and guardians to articulate the challenges mentioned, would be for LAs to stick to their current remit (which they already fail, rather than giving them more powers) which would encourage home educators to maintain a good relationship with the LA.  Until LAs can behave, they are causing home educators to not want to engage with them.

P17 talks about hearing children's voices regarding home education.  I ask again, whether Unicef have asked children (in countries like the UK) whether they want to be in school?

P18 "If parents or guardians should choose to remove their children from mainstream education, these children must not disappear from records. If they do, their education, health, and other rights are at risk." Having a compulsory register of home educators will not solve these disappearing children, because schools already have to inform the LA of children being removed from the roll.

P20, 21 and the recommendation goes a step further and asks for 6monthly inspections of home educators. There is no reason given here.  I'm just in shock and annoyed. EHEOs are not trained in home education, child development, or pedagogy. Given HErs do not have to follow the curriculum or keep up with schooled peers, none of this makes sense.

P23 is talking about minimum standards for HErs - given that there is no evidence that HErs are 'behind' school peers at the end of compulsory education, and that many schooled children come out of school with passes in maths or English GCSEs, this seems a ludicrous suggestion and yet more unneeded and unwarranted state interference.

P24. "When assessing the suitability of home education, it is critical that the view of the child is heard and considered. Seeking the views of children can happen in many forms, but should ideally happen through a home visit, away from parents, and with a known contact." So rather than just giving children a voice, you actually want to question them without their parents present?  Children are not criminals, and neither are their parents.  Unless there is a significant reason why this can be justified, this is totally abhorrent.  I will ask at this point, do they do similar and frequently (let's say every 6 months??) ask schooled children, without parents or teachers present, whether they want to go to school or not?

P26 starts the section about safeguarding and includes "safeguarding is of concern when a child is home educated." Really?  What evidence is there for such a misinformed statement?

(Sorry for starting to skim now.  Family keeps distracting me!)

P32 "Home education should never be a last resort." Home Education should be a first resort, and only if it doesn't work or isn't suitable should schools then be considered.  Somehow I'm guessing that isn't quite what they were meaning.

P33 says there should be another review of the EHE guidance due to Covid19, even though the latest guidance was only published last year.  I hope that suggestion goes with the rest of the document, an is taken with a pinch of salt.

So that's the end of the Unicef submitted evidence.  It shows a deep lack of understanding about home education and home education within UK law.  It goes on about the rights of the child, but all too easy gives excessive rights to the government, and there is no acknowledgement about failings of schools and the government which adds into its concerns.