Review of Evidence from Children's Commissioner Office HED0970

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 the Children's Commissioner Office. I have coloured the background of their words in pale blue, and will keep them in quotation marks.

There is no initial summary here, so I presume the submitted evidence is under 3000 words.

Introduction

"The Commissioner has long had concerns that some home educated children may receive insufficient support and that there is little formal oversight of their educational progress or wellbeing."
And this report continues how it means to go on...  This first paragraph links to several reports (including Invisible Children which I reviewed the TV report of the same name HERE) but would take too long for me to go through each of these in detail now.

"The Commissioner welcomed the Government’s commitment to introduce a compulsory register of children in home education and looks forward to it being introduced at the earliest opportunity."
Has the government made such a commitment? When? How has this information been passed to home educators?

"It is thought that much of this increase is accounted for by families for whom home education is a last resort" - as I stated repeatedly in my read-through of Unicef's evidence, just because something is a last resort does not mean it is an uninformed choice.  Improve schools, definitely, that will improve things for many many children, but don't try to prevent people from home educating, just because you don't want to admit schools are failing.

"Often families make the decision without knowing what home education entails and receive little support to make a success of it, putting parents under immense strain and children missing out on education." I would like to see some stats here please.  Where is the evidence?

"In other cases, we have heard of families who have chosen to remove their children from school in order to go under the radar." Within the current guidance and law, this should already be impossible.  Any child who is removed from a school roll, the school should promptly inform the LA.  Children who are being home educated are not invisible nor hidden.

What the data shows us

Numbers of children being home educated has increased.  Good.  Parents are exercising their duty to educate their children otherwise than at school.  That alone should not be considered a bad thing.  If schools are failing, sort the schools out.  But it could just be because numbers are increasing, information is more available, and the number of people who have been home educated and are now adults are talking about their experiences, showing that HErs are not weird, but are well educated and fit right into society.

"The fact that many children come off the school roll into home education from a small group of schools suggests that the school itself is a key factor in that process. It might be that the parents are dissatisfied with the school and share their knowledge about home education as an alternative option. Or it could be that these schools are somehow encouraging, or perhaps even pressuring parents into making the decision to home educate. Our data does not allow us to tease apart these two explanations."
And in both of these scenarios, it is the school that needs to be further investigated, and not those who choose home education.

"On average, the rate of children being taken out of school into home education in schools rated ‘Inadequate’ in their most recent inspection13 was twice that of schools rated ‘Good’, and over three times the rate of schools rated ‘Outstanding’."
So in schools that are deemed inadequate, parents are doing their legal responsibility and ensure their children get a good education by removing them from the inadequate school? I don't know whether to simply reply 'good' or 'no shit, Sherlock!'.

What needs to happen now

"But children should only be in home education if it is for the right reasons. And it is clear that some children end up in home education because school isn’t working for them. In some cases they have been denied the educational and pastoral support they need to thrive at school, leading to delayed educational progress at home, poor mental health and wellbeing and increased familial stress."
As opposed to all those children who are in school who are not making educational progress there, have poor mental health and wellbeing and increased familial and academic stress?

"Home education is an enormous undertaking for any family, especially those who may have struggled with school themselves."
Evidence Please.

"Parents often do not receive the support they need to make an informed choice before making the decision to home educate. Where proper advice and information is available, it is clear to see that most parents choose to keep their children in school."
Evidence Please.

"Furthermore, it is unacceptable that there is currently so little oversight of children being educated at home. Without this, there can be no guarantee that all home educated children are safe and getting the education they need and deserve."
Why? Education and welfare should never be conflated.

"A statutory register of children not in school must be introduced without delay. The Government announced plans to create a register following the publication of the Commissioner’s previous report on home education and consulted on its proposals last year. However no Government response has yet been published."
Search this blog if you want to see my thoughts why a register is not a good idea.

"Termly visits" No, just no.
"In October 2019 a Serious Case Review found that there is very little local authorities can do when they suspect problems with a home educated child’s welfare or education" This isn't actually true.  If LAs suspect problems with a child's education, they can serve a Notice to Satisfy s437, and if they are still not satisfied, they can give a School Attendance Order.  As for welfare, again, there are things that can be done.  If you look at the SCR referenced, it says that the child was not taken to medical appointments nor to CAHMS, and because of the missed appointment, rather than being chased up, the child was simply removed from these lists.  It is these protocols that are of concern to a child's welfare.

The recommendations 3-5 under Improved Support for Home Educators, aren't actually too bad.  I think they should be optional, as 'support' of this kind often has strings attached, but better compared to the rest of this report.

The final section of this report is all about how schools can improve, so should not be listed under a review into EHE, imo.
Paragraph 9 does say "The process for taking a child off the school roll to be home-educated should be aligned with the process for a permanent exclusion, so that it involves the same level of oversight, and safeguards – including a governors’ panel and independent review panel." and as long as this governor's panel and independent review is internal and investigative for the school, it's not an issue, however we need to be careful that this doesn't become a stepping stone to the parents/child needing approval before EHE is granted.

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.

Weekly Update

 It's nearly CHRISTMAS!! Yey!

🎵Four more sleeps to go!
Four more sleeps to Santa!
Four more sleeps 'til the big fat fella comes down our chimney and drinks our beer.
Four more sleeps to Santa!🎶

So this week, we have bought and made DD1's new bed, emptied out her old room (I am yet to start painting), finished working for the year and travelled to a random services on the motorway in order to swap presents before parts of the country go into tier 4.

We're fortunate, in that our plans haven't changed too much as we were going to be home over Christmas itself anyway, but we're unable to see family before and after.  It is for the best, and though I think things could have been done by the government a lot sooner, it is definitely necessary.  

If I don't get the chance to say it, I hope you have the best Christmas you can this year, given the circumstances xx

Weekly Update

You may have noticed that I have not numbered this weekly update. 
I also have not weighed myself recently.  

This is not a weightloss update.

After spending some time thinking about things, I have decided that I am going to use these weekly updates as just that - a way to update you guys with what has been happening this week, and not use it as a stick to beat myself that I am not losing weight.  As such, it doesn't matter if this is weekly update no 1 or no 422.  The date is automatically attached to the blog post, and you can search it by month if you are so inclined.

This week, I have spend a lot of time painting DD1's bedroom. Of course, she didn't want just one colour on her walls, but two.  And she didn't want one colour on each wall, but two - in a diagonal (I can only be glad that she didn't want an actually fade between the two colours, lol). And I had to paint her ceiling, by myself, with a brush because we had run out of new roller thingies. And then, we had to replace her carpet with laminate, which took the whole of Sunday, but I am (and more importantly, DD1 is) pleased with the results.

We have just ordered her a new bed (which should arrive before Christmas!) and I'm starting to move her stuff upstairs today.  Once her current room is empty, I can then start painting that for my study - yey!  I'm sooooo looking forward to that.  Well, not the painting, but it does need to be done, but I'm looking forward to having my own space where I can hide away when I need to. 

This week, we have also been following a local Christmas Lights Trail.  When I purchased the pack, I was expecting there to be 15 or 20 houses to visit - not over 80!  We did a few on Sunday night, but it looks like we won't be finishing in time for the competition this Sunday, lol.

I'm also continuing with the home education stuff. Locally, we've just requested a formal co-production process with the LA for updating their policy and training.  We'll see if that makes any headway!
Nationally, I'm still involved with the EHE Alliance, looking to fight the HE register and keep up the pressure during this HE Inquiry by the Education Select Committee.

Weighty Worries

I've been trying to write this post for the past fortnight, and I keep starting and deleting.  I'm going round in circles in my mind and I don't know what to do.

I am not losing weight.  It's easy enough to see why - I'm not limiting my eating enough and/or not exercising enough.  And I don't want to.  There, I said it.  I've known for a while my mind isn't in the right place to lose weight.

I'm ok with how I look.  Whilst ideally I would like to lose some weight, actually, I'm ok with how I am. I do have moments, especially when I'm on zoom calls, where I notice my double chin is looking more like a triple or quadruple chin, and I would like to be thinner so I have more choice of clothing, but I don't care enough to change for those reasons.

I'm trying to lose weight in order to have DIEP reconstruction when I have my double mastectomy.  I haven't spoken to a GP or surgeon yet, because I've heard that in order to have DIEP your BMI has to be below a certain level. My BMI is currently 34.5 and I've heard it should be a maximum of 27, if not 25 (ie top end of Healthy weight). So, I've started to think about having implants instead.  I've got no issue with implants, but it's not what I wanted, and that thought makes me sad. Yet, surely if I cared enough, I would make the effort to lose weight? Surely I wouldn't be stuffing mince pies in my gob at every opportunity?

When I had my hysterectomy, I planned on having mastectomy by the time I'm 40.  I'm 38 now, which means (assuming it takes a year for the process [ignoring coronavirus]), I need to see my GP and request it in less than 6 months time. I lack the self belief, let alone will-power, that I am going to be able to lose weight in that time.

I feel like stopping actively trying to lose weight is quitting.  And that isn't good for my depression.
I feel like continuing with the charade of weekly updates makes me a fraud.  And that isn't good for my depression.

If I could have surgery today and any reconstruction I want, I would choose DIEP, even with the added risks of being overweight and the longer recovery time.  Implants is an option, and I could potentially swap implants for DIEP later in the future.  But I don't want implants.  And I don't like to fail.

Who knows? This could be my depression talking, because it's dark and wintery, I've missed my antidepressants a bit too often recently, and I want an excuse to not have to watch what I'm eating with Christmas coming up.  Or it could be that I'm finally facing up to the truth that I don't have the willpower, energy, or strength of character to lose weight effective.  I'm just too lazy.

Weekly Update Y2w48

 Do you know, it's taken me til nearly the end of the year, before I noticed that I've numbered these weeks wrong?!  According to people in the know, it's actually week 49 this week, and that 2020 has 53 weeks in it.  I'm not going to change it now, but thought it was worth commenting.

I haven't actually weighed myself this morning. Yesterday I was 91.5kg and have been bobbling around there for a while, so still not go below 90kilos.  I don't have any defence, other than the Christmas overeating has already started for me - lebkuchen, iced mince pies, chocolate spread straight from the tub, all the usuals, lol.  If I can get to the other side of Christmas without putting weight on, I'll be happy.  I am trying to eat veggies most still.  My husband and I don't have potatoes or bread often any more with our Sunday dinners, but pile up different types of vegetables, and my tastes are slowly changing.  

I haven't got a graph today either.  I was up all night with my pup (and then DD2 came downstairs in the middle of the night after a nightmare) so between the two of them, I haven't had much sleep), so when I woke up and played on my phone (sorry, the daily challenges of Woodoku, Sudoku and Killer Sudoku won't play themselves, ya know) my phone promptly died, so it's currently charging, disabling me from being able to update my spreadsheet.

The past couple of weeks, most my time has been taken up with HE stuff, which is pretty obvious with what I've been posting recently.  There's still more to do, but I was glad I was able to take a day off and not switch my laptop on at all yesterday.

I've also been busy painting DD1's bedroom! It just needs a second coat of blue, the ceiling painted, and the carpet changed for laminate, then she can move in, and I'll be a step closer to getting my own work room!  I want to paint it before I start working there because I know what I'm like - I'd fill it with all my stuff, then decide it'll be too much of a hassle removing everything to paint it, so it will never get done.

I'm aware I haven't written any book reviews for ages either.  I currently have 1 or 2 that I'm still waiting to write, but haven't yet had the time, but I haven't read as much as usual recently, again because of my time taken up reading through various documents, guidance, and letters from LAs.

Part5 - Reading Through Children Missing Education Document by ISOS Partnership November 2020

Part 5, and hopefully the last part. I quite concede that it would have been quicker for you to read it through yourself last weekend, but we’re here now.

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

HERE is the link to Part 1.

“Chapter 6: Recommendations for National Government

It is vital that, nationally, we have a system of oversight to ensure that all children receive their entitlement to a formal, full-time education.”

A reminder, children are not entitled to a formal, full-time education.

Paragraph 110 from 2009/10 Children, Schools and Families Committee – Second Report:The Review of Elective Home Education - Children, Schools and Families Committee (HERE) states:

“As outlined, under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents have a duty to provide their child with a "full-time", "efficient" and "suitable" education. As the Department's home education guidelines state, there is no legal definition of "full-time". They add: "Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year, but this measurement of "contact time" is not relevant to elective home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal "school hours"". The guidelines also cite the following case law descriptions: an "efficient" education described as one that "achieves that which it sets out to achieve"; a "suitable" education described as one that "primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child's options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so".”

(The case mentioned being Justice Woolf in R v Secetary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust. 1985.)

Back to this report...

“As an outcome from this research, we would therefore recommend that the Department for Education considers the following actions, that would support local government to discharge their duties in respect of ensuring all children are able to access a formal full-time education more comprehensively:

Raise the profile of children missing formal full-time education

Our research has shown that the current statutory definition of children missing education does not capture many of the children who are missing out on a suitable education. … We would therefore recommend that the Government adopts a broader definition of children who are missing out on formal, fulltime education, collects and publishes data on the numbers of children who meet the definition and tracks the long-term destinations and outcomes for children missing formal full-time education.”

This is ridiculous, it is quite unbelievable that a professional research company has written it.

They have chosen their own definition of CME that goes against guidance, law and case law. Then say that loads of home educators are not providing an education and that nobody knows the outcomes of children educated in that way, and don’t even think to contact any Home Education organisations who may be willing to share such information! As you saw from the response to the email I said, they still don’t think they did anything wrong by not contacting nor collaborating with home educators.

“Resource local authorities adequately to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to ensuring all children receive a suitable education

The evidence gathered through this research suggests that the lack of capacity and resources within local authorities is one of the key barriers to ensuring that all children receive a suitable formal, full-time education. ... In the current financial climate, few local authorities have the resources needed for the true scale of that task.”

So why exactly are you trying to expand the definition of CME to include many more children who are receiving a suitable, efficient and full-time education, thereby stretching resources even further? It’s a crazy suggestion!

“Create a learning environment in which more children can succeed”

This suggestion is aimed at schools.

“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.”

The evidence collected suggests it would be beneficial only because you have limited your “research” to those who want a register. You did not attempt to contact the people who would be affected by such a change, ie Home Educators and HE organisations, nor ask whether this proposal would actually achieve what it sets out to? (Using the definition of “efficient” previously given, a register would certainly not be efficient.)

“Epilogue”

“It has become apparent very quickly that schools do not only provide education, essential as that is. Schools are also the eyes and ears of a society that cares about the welfare and safety of children. The first essential line of defence for that very small minority of children who are at risk from their families or the communities in which they live. It is also clear that schools provide advice and support within communities and an eco-system of social interactions that bring families who live in a local area together.”

Rose-tinted glasses! (I won’t say what my first though was on reading this.)

“Appendix A”

Children on a school roll but not attending full-time, may include flexischoolers who have permission from their headteacher to only be in school at certain times, and they should not be grouped with truants, school refusers or any other children in this category who may be missing education.

“Elective Home Education: as shown in Part 1, a parent opting to electively home educate their child can be a route into a child missing formal education. This does not mean, however, that all children who are home educated are missing education. What has been striking in recent years is the rapid increase in the numbers of children being electively home educated and, of those, the high proportion who are vulnerable in some way. Therefore, we have used the 2014/15 EHE figure taken at census (23,000)46 as our baseline for ‘children who are EHE and receiving adequate education’. The uplift from the 2014/15 deadline to 2018/19 is 31,656. Given this high growth, we have made the assumption that 75% of that uplift accounts for ‘children who are EHE but not receiving adequate education’. We have assumed the remaining 25% growth might be accounted for by other factors, including population growth. Therefore, we estimate the number of children who are being EHE but are not receiving adequate education to be 24,000.”

So, between 2014/15 and 2018/19 there was an increase in numbers of home educated children of over 30,000. From these numbers only (I haven’t looked at the original source) this could be an increase of 7,500 children per year; which in turn, spread over 150 LAs (I know there are more than this, I am just keeping the maths simple) that mean each LA has had an increase of 50 children home educated per year. Given the number of schooled children and how accessible information about Home Education and the support on offer from peers and HE organisations, this doesn’t actually sound like an excessive number.

Continuing with their analysis, “we have made the assumption that 75% of that uplift accounts for ‘children who are EHE but not receiving adequate education’”.

Where does this 75% assumption come from? 

I thought it incredible, and looked like it had been plucked out of thin air earlier in this report, but was holding out until Appendix A to find out the rationale behind it. It turns out there is none. They literally pulled it out of thin air, made it up on the spot, and have absolutely zilch to back this figure up. At the very least, I would have hoped there was a slither of analysis – perhaps they contacted LAs and asked them for the number of EHErs and the number of s437 notices issued or SAOs or anything to give a glimmer of a number comparing how many EHE children there are, to how many whose education is unsatisfactory. Or perhaps an indication of the increase in s437s issued in 2014/15 to 2018/19, and applied this number across the 32,000 children who are “newly” home educated? But no, it is totally senseless. Not least because suppose someone took their child out of school in 2015, it seems very odd that you would still consider them “new” in 2019, when a child in Y3 of primary or Y10 of secondary schools, would hardly be considered “new” to school.

So that’s the end of the document and my updates. Sorry it has gone on so long. For a 58 page document, this is page 32 of my rebuttal, and undoubtedly I could have said a lot more.