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

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

Mental Health due to Coronavirus

So far, I have been fine.  Honestly.  I'm quite happy sat at home pottering about.  I do miss seeing people face to face, and giving friends a hug when it's needed, but we do our best using Zoom, Houseparty, Facebook, Skype, Messenger etc.

My family, otoh, suffer more with anxiety so I have been busy supporting them where I can. Everyone is more stressed, and my daughter who is excelling at school, is finding it difficult to learn online. I tell her to take breaks, but she is worried about getting in trouble (thankfully her teachers seem understanding).  DD1 wrote this poem instead of doing her school work the other day, and it has a depth of feeling that amazed me.  DD2 is worried about my husband and me dying.  And my husband is stressing about work and the fact we're trapped in the house.  Yes he can go shopping (he won't go out more than once a week), and yes he goes for a long run daily, but when he's stressed he likes to leave the house and go to the beach or visit someone or go to the cinema or any of the other stuff that we can't do right now.

I've been calm, making the most of the slowing down of daily life and the sunshine in the garden.  I've been reading more than usual, doing a new MosaiCraft, and I have even started doing Pilates on BodyGroove.  Life has been good to me - until this morning.

Due to having the BRCA1+ genetic mutation, I have an annual mammogram and MRI to check I don't have cancer.  This is usually in February, and when I didn't hear anything, I assumed it was because it had been deprioritised due to coronavirus.  Last week I had a call inviting me to screening today, and that I'd get a letter through the post.  Despite having received a letter from the NHS/Council saying that I need to shield myself for 12 weeks, this is important so I accepted the appointment.  My husband wasn't happy, but with everything I have read and seen about coronavirus, I would make sure I took adequate precautions and everything would be ok.  I bought some disposable gloves, have wetwipes to wipe down surfaces in the car, made a face-mask from a bandana and hairbands and have antibac gel.

Then this morning it hits me - I am going to the place they take everybody with coronavirus.  Doctors and nurses who have PPE have died at this hospital after contracting it, and I am willingly walking into this environment.  My rational brain knows that they wouldn't have called me to the appointment if it were dangerous, but that part of my brain went into hiding.  I was worried.  Thankfully a friend talked with me and helped put things into perspective and making me laugh (I don't know if you can see the skulls on the bandana, but it was suggested I carry a scythe too.  I don't have a scythe, but do have a garden hoe, and my husband's scholar's gown from Oxford that would complete the look!). Haha.

In the end, I went to the hospital.  I couldn't wear the mask, as though it didn't when I tried it at home, it kept steaming my glasses up.  I wore gloves going to the appointment (not during the MRI) and antibac-ed my hands every time I went through a door.  And when I returned to the car, I wiped my handbag down, and also the car steering wheel/radio/seatbelt/indicators/doorhandle etc when I returned home again.  Now I'm back home, I'm calm again.  I immediately changed my clothes and put them in the wash, washed my hands and face again.  It may be overkill, but I don't want to be responsible for bringing the virus to my family.

This has made me realise how brave loads of our workers are in this country.  I only had to go to hospital for an appointment that took less than 90min.  There are men and women who daily have to go to hospital to care for others, to treat others, to clean the wards where people have died or are dying, maintenance people who ensure all the equipment is running smoothly, people in the kitchens making sure staff and patients are fed, receptionists who are the first faces you see when you go to the hospital or to the department, and then the morticians who are encountering large numbers of people who are dying from the virus.  God bless you all.

I'm back home and am going to stay safe and stay here until the coronavirus has past.  I know at some point I will encounter the virus (it is inevitable) and I hope initially that I don't suffer badly, but also that it will be after the peak of this pandemic has passed.

Damage Limitation by Roland Meighan

As a home educator with one child now in school I was interested in a book that discusses reducing the harm that schools do to children. 

This book is actually a collection of articles, talks, letters and other writings from a variety of contributors (as indicated by the front cover).  It is split into eight sections: Damage Limitation; Point of View of Learners; Compulsory Mis-education; Point of View of Parents; Grandparents; Teachers; Damage Limitation; and Education for Violence.

This book was first published in 2004, and from my point of view, I would like to read a similar book that included more recent articles and research.  Having said that, I am glad I have read it, and can imagine it prompting thoughts for some readers, whether parents or teachers!  My favourite bit was the post-script at the very end, entitled "Postscript: beyond damage limitation - teaching in the next learning system..." as it consists of a list of points for anyone in the teaching profession to consider whilst moulding the minds of the youngsters in their care.

I'll end with the text given on the Amazon page:

I have to take a deep breath and I have to put on a positive, cheerful demeanour, for I know that 1 will have to look the system full in the face, every visit, and I know that it will make me unutterably sad.
Why? Why will my walk down the corridor and my visit to the classroom and my attendance at a Governors' meeting make me so unhappy? And why has the recent OFSTED inspection of our secondary school - an expensive charade played out before a captive audience - driven me to speechless levels of impotent anger?
Why does my heart sink when I read of the pupils temporarily and permanently excluded? Why can't I rejoice in the school's strategies to improve the exam results? Why can't I rejoice in the school's strategies to improve the attendance rates, and in its strategies to stamp out bullying and in its policies on the wearing of school uniform and the control of litter? Why can't I rejoice in the knowledge that, after a few days' presence, the OFSTED team consulted its tick lists and concluded that a high percentage of the lessons observed were ‘satisfactory’?
I cannot.
As I walk down the corridors now and sit in on lessons and attend Governors' meetings, I see and hear from the imprisoned, the deflected, the exhausted and often the deflated. I find myself particularly studying the Headteacher for any sign of his or her cracking up, or giving up. Amazingly, despite everything, some enthusiasms do survive in small places and small doses.
But all is not well. Almost every week now I read of changes in the educational policy of the government, and these changes add up to an unacknowledged admission that things have gone badly wrong.
As I write, I have on my desk some news of the latest change: national trials are under way, apparently, of a new and less stressful test for seven-year-olds in England. The head of testing at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has said:
"I think this is the future, if we are going to move away from high stakes testing. We want to see if the current system can be improved, above all by valuing the teacher's detailed knowledge of the children in the class."
What words! What sentiments! Shall we weep now, or later? The damage already done to seven-year-olds by key stage one testing is quietly buried beneath another vision of the future for young children in the schools they have to attend. The damage is real. This book makes that abundantly clear; so powerfully clear in fact, that one could be forgiven for doing a Corporal Jones, who, whenever a threatening situation occurs, runs around exhorting people not to panic.

The contributors to Damage Limitation offer an alternative to panic, and an alternative to formal schooling. They are not siren voices. Far from it. They look at the present system of schooling with a clear, unflinching eye, and suggest what should happen to make schools, which are by their very nature authoritarian institutions having to march to a tune not of their own making, far less damaging to children. In addition, they go on to unfold their belief in children, in how children learn and in how they should be treated. They declare their belief in the life-affirming purpose of education, and in doing so they refuse to accept that there is no alternative to what John Taylor Gatto calls the ‘twelve-year jail sentence’.
As a briefing book on how to get educated despite school, this is both a timely exposure and a heart-warming inspiration. It is written by people whose experience in education has touched them deeply and made them think long and hard about what it means, and what it takes, to be educated. It deserves to be read by as wide an audience as possible, and we owe Professor Meighan a debt of gratitude for bringing it to life.
Peter Holt