Part3 - 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.

“Destinations of children missing out on a formal full-time education

From the evidence provided by local authorities we have been able to identify eight main ‘destinations’ where children missing out on formal, full-time education might be found.”

I am only going to quote the ones directly linked to home education, rather than going through all the nuances of each of the statements.

“*Receiving long-term tuition at home, either through an internet-based provider or through in-person tuition, when that tuition does not constitute formal full-time education in either duration or content.

*Elective home education where the parent is not able or not willing to provide education that would constitute formal full-time education in either duration or content;

*Unknown to children’s services where the child or family is not previously known in any way by the local authority responsible for providing an education place.”

Again with the ‘formal’. <eyeroll>

Why is a child being unknown to children’s services an automatic red flag? If a family decide to home educate their children from the start, there is no need to inform the LA (and there are many reasons why it’s not a good idea), so why would a family want to?

I am not entirely sure that these eight ‘destinations’ are the only possible destinations, and I’m certainly not convinced they are all bad.

Next comes another diagram supposedly linking the causes and destinations. Elective Home Education is listed amongst all the other negative things.

“What this diagram makes clear is that understanding the full extent of children missing out on their entitlement to a formal full-time education is not a straightforward task.”

No shit. It’s especially ‘not straightforward’ when you don’t understand the terms you are using, misrepresent them, and generally seem to purposely confuse everything.

“Chapter 2: What are the numbers and trends in children missing formal education?

The Children’s Commissioner referred to children missing out on their education as ‘invisible’. This is a powerful descriptor.”

It is indeed a powerful descriptor. It is, also, unnecessarily emotive and designed to give a negative emotion. Not least is it untrue for elective home educators – as Graham Stuart MP said, we’re “peculiarly visible”.

“Available trends from published data

Although there is limited national published data about this cohort of children as a whole, there have been several insightful publications which demonstrate the rising trend in numbers of children being electively home educated and numbers of children leaving schools at times other than normal points of transition.”

All children who are removed from the school roll for home education should be known to the LA. This is the responsibility of schools to pass the information on, and there is no reason whatsoever why these children should become missing.

“The Associated Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) annual survey on home education provides the most comprehensive estimate of the number of children and young people currently being electively home educated in England.4 The survey, which is completed by local authorities every year, suggests that 55,000 children and young people were electively home educated on census day in 2018/19.”

ADCS ‘About Us’ section says (https://adcs.org.uk/general/about-us): “ADCS is a membership organisation. Our members hold leadership roles in children’s services departments in local authorities in England. They specialise in developing, commissioning and leading the delivery of services to children, young people and their families, including education, health, youth, early years and social care services. Working in partnership with other agencies our members work to achieve tailored and joined-up services for children, whatever their identified needs.”

The ADCS have recently published their EHE Survey 2020 (https://adcs.org.uk/assets/documentation/ADCS_EHE_Survey_2020_FINALweb.pdf) stating “we estimate that a total of 75,668 children and young people were being electively home educated on the first school census day, 1 October 2020.”

Maybe when I have more time, I’ll get to go through this document too (or if someone else has done the work, let me know and I’ll put the link here).

“The Associated Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) annual survey on home education provides the most comprehensive estimate of the number of children and young people currently being electively home educated in England.4 The survey, which is completed by local authorities every year, suggests that 55,000 children and young people were electively home educated on census day in 2018/19. This has grown from 37,500 in 2015/16. As shown in the chart below, the numbers climbed dramatically between 2016/17 and 2017/18 and have since plateaued. The ADCS survey also shows that 79,000 children were home educated at any point during 2018/19. This in-year variation suggests that a relatively high number of children and young people may be moving in and out of home education within an academic year. It is worth noting that this data is based on voluntary local authority returns. As parents are not currently required to notify their local authority of a decision to home educate it may be an underestimate. Other sources, including the Schools Adjudicator (December 2018) and the Call for Evidence (July 2019) suggest that between 53,000 and 58,000 children are home educated. 5 6 Although there is some variation on exact numbers, they all point to sharp increases, with the Call for Evidence (2019) suggesting a rise of 40% since 2014/15.

The ADCS survey also sheds some light on the reasons why parents are deciding to home educate their children. While ‘philosophical or lifestyle choice’ remains the most commonly cited factor, the chart below also shows that health or emotional reasons are one of the fastest growing factors for parents choosing to home educate their children. This reflects some of the issues and concerns voiced by parents in our survey and by the school leaders who engaged with this research.”

All these children are known to their LA as being EHE, therefore by definition they are not CME.

“Where the ADCS survey charts the growth in the number of children in home education (one of the eight destinations we identified for children missing education), the Education Policy Institute (EPI) provides some compelling analysis on the number of children leaving their current school for an unknown destination.”

The Education Policy Institute (https://epi.org.uk/) states: “About us: The aim of the Education Policy Institute is to raise standards in education through rigorous data analysis, research and the exchange of information and knowledge to help inform the public and hold government and decision-makers to account.”

“The report ‘Unexplained Pupil Exits from Schools’ (October 2019) estimates the number and prevalence of young people who experienced an ‘unexplained exit’ from secondary school, particularly through off-rolling or managed moves. 9 EPI defines the term ‘unexplained exits’ as any pupil move between terms when the destination of the pupil is not known, for example, they do not show up on another school roll. The data, compiled and analysed by EPI, shows that unexplained exits grew by 8% over the three years between 2014 and 2017 from 55,686 to 61,123.”

Here is a link to that report: https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/unexplained-pupil-exits-data-multi-academy-trust-local-authority/

“The scale of the issue is similar to those becoming electively home educated and is likely to capture many of the same children.”

No! Children who are removed from schools to be home educated are known by their LAs. If this is not the case, and schools are not fulfilling their legal duty to inform the LA when a child is removed from the school roll, this is bad behaviour by the schools, and electively home educated families should not be made to suffer for this.

“The FFT Education Datalab, in a blog series since 2015 called ‘Who’s Left’, have demonstrated similar trends for children and young people disappearing from school rolls. … They estimate that out of an expected GCSE cohort, the number of young people who left state education during secondary school rose from 20,000 in 2015 to 24,600 in 2019. Though FFT Datalab emphasise that not all those leaving state education are of concern, there is a high number in this cohort that are either not recorded as having sat GCSES or equivalent qualifications or, if they did, whose results did not count towards any establishment.”

The FFT Education Datalab (https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/) says “We produce independent, cutting-edge research that can be used by policymakers to inform education policy, and by schools to improve practice.

We are expert analysts of education data and use these skills to produce impactful reports, visualisations and policy recommendations.”

Let me repeat a bit of the preceding paragraph: “Though FFT Datalab emphasise that not all those leaving state education are of concern, there is a high number in this cohort that are either not recorded as having sat GCSES or equivalent qualifications or, if they did, whose results did not count towards any establishment.”

i.e. There is a strong implication that if a student leaves the state education and sits exams as a private candidate (so their results do not count towards any establishment), then there is cause for concern.

Home Educators are well aware that when they start home educating, they also take on full responsibility for the costs associated with that education, including sitting exams. Sitting exams as a private candidate will mean that those results do not count towards any establishment, and why should they? Why should the hard work that that pupil and their family have put into studying for exams, go towards giving some establishment that has done nothing for them?

“National estimate of ‘children missing education’

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. We have therefore used this research as an opportunity to use existing data published nationally, and complementary data held locally, to develop an estimate for the number of children who may be missing out on a formal fulltime education.”

“Our sample is of 17 local authorities, with varying rates of response per question. For reference, when scaling up the responses for our question on the number of electively home educated children, we reach an estimate of 75,000. which maps well to the ADCS’ figure of 79,000 for children who are electively home educated at any point in the year.”

There is then a diagram which states that 24,000, ie nearly 33% of home educated children, are actually CME. They say that this number comes from Appendix A, so I’ll go through that when I get there.

“Elective Home Education

Not all children who are home educated are missing education. For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed that 75% of the additional children being electively home educated, from a baseline of 2014-15 are those who will be missing out on a formal full-time education. It is these additional children who are more likely to be those whose parents have chosen to home-educate reluctantly due to shortcomings in the education on offer for their child or those who are home-educating as a result of pressure having been applied by the school. In calculating the additional children in home education, above the 2014-15 baseline, we have used the number in elective home education on census day because there is a more secure comparative timeline for this figure. Based on these assumptions we arrive at 24,000 for the number of children educated at home and not receiving formal full-time education.”

Repeating for emphasis: “For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed that 75% of the additional children being electively home educated, from a baseline of 2014-15 are those who will be missing out on a formal full-time education.”

So, after finding out that nearly 74k children are being home educated, they decide to assume that three quarters of the difference between 2015 and 2019 are being failed?? What an outrageous assumption, with seemingly no basis! I hope that Appendix A expands on this reasoning.

“However, it is important to recognise that this is an estimate based on a set of assumptions. By substituting a slightly different set of assumptions we can explore the likely range in children missing formal full-time education.”

So basically, you’re admitting that you can change the assumptions and numbers in order to skew the ‘research’ however you like, in order to get the response you want.

There is then a table, which claims that the number of home educated children who are not receiving a full time education, lies in the range 16k-32k, which is astounding and not at all based on my experience as a home educator in a local group, nor as part of Educational Freedom, nor from any anecdotes I’ve heard. And to repeat myself again, all these children that have been removed from the school roll are, by default, known to the LA, and if there are indeed this many children not receiving an education (which in my mind is patently false), the LAs are not doing their jobs properly.

Having said that, this kind of accusation could be exactly what has caused my local LA to start ignoring due process, and they are issuing s437s to many home educators as a matter of course, even if the EHEOs were satisfied with their educational provision as recently as last month!

“We cannot be certain of the overall scale of this problem. … However, depending on how ‘full-time’ and ‘formal’ are defined it could be as high as 1,140,000. It is unlikely to be lower than 210,000.”

There is no legal definition of ‘Full Time’ and there is no requirement for the education to be ‘formal’.

“The ADCS survey into home education explores this issue in-depth, indicating that in 2019/20, 38 of the 129 responding local authorities estimated that 6-10% of those in elective home education had Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) compared with 3.1% in the general population.”

This is no surprise given that children with SEN, indeed I’d go so far to say all children, work best when the education is tailored to their needs, and home education facilitates this much more easily than education in any establishment or institution.

I reiterate that because a child is home educated, whether they have SEN or not, does not mean the child is missing education.

“Chapter 3: Why are growing numbers missing out on formal, fulltime education?

Factor 1: The changing nature of children’s needs and experiences

Factor 2: Pressures and incentives on schools’ capacity to meet those needs”

“In setting out these pressures, our aim is not to make generalisations about schools’ practice …”

Interestingly, they seem to have not kept to that aim with regards to home education.

“The first issue influencing how schools could respond to changing pupil needs was the curriculum. School leaders and local authority officers argued that changes to the curriculum, with a focus on a narrower range of academic subjects and assessment through end-of-course examinations meant schools were not in a position to offer the breadth of subjects that might provide alternative pathways for children disengaged from academic study or in need of a more personalised curriculum.”

So if school leaders and LAs both admit that schools are not offering a broad and engaging education, why would anyone want their children to go there?

“Equally, however, while not all schools are engaging in these practices, all local authority officers that we engaged agreed that they had come across examples where a minority of schools in their local area had engaged in these practices. The practices described by local authority officers, and in part also recognised by school leaders, included –

• practices designed to manage admissions to the school in the first place – these included practices of changing pupil admission numbers, admitting pupils above that number so reductions through pupil exits would appear less conspicuous, and practices of subtly discouraging parents from sending their child to the school (including by indicating that the school did not support children with additional needs);

• and practices designed to manage children out of the school, including inappropriate use of attendance codes, part-time timetables, informal exclusions, off-rolling, and inappropriate use of permanent exclusion.”

So when schools are engaging in off-rolling and other illegal/dubious activities, there should be suitable sanctions. Home educators nor flexischoolers should be punished for their actions.

“Factor 3: The capacity of the system to ensure appropriate oversight of decisions taken regarding children’s entry to and exit from schools

Where a child is missing from formal, full-time education, in the large majority of cases this will not be the result of a decision that the child has made, but rather the result of decisions about the child’s education made by adults.”

Equally, when a child is enrolled in formal, full-time education at school, in the large majority of cases this will not be the result of a decision that the child has made, but rather the result of decisions about the child’s education made by adults.

“Aside from the instances of illegal removing of children from a school roll, in many of these instances there will be important nuances to unpick in order to understand how decisions about a child leaving school and potentially missing formal, full-time education have been reached.”

Again, there is nothing in law that says the education must be ‘formal’.

“They noted that the statutory framework set out a clear duty for local authorities to ensure that school-age children are receiving a suitable education. The issue was not a lack of clarity within the statutory framework, but rather a lack of capacity within LAs to carry out the sort of detailed checking that is necessary to ensure that where a child is not in school due to illness or has been taken out of school to be home-educated these decisions have been taken appropriately and the child is safe and continuing to receive a suitable education.”

Given that many EHEOs are not adequately trained in home education, are unaware of both the law and the EHE Departmental Guidance for LAs, I fail to see how LAs will be of any benefit to determine whether the decisions were ‘appropriate’ or not.

“Local authority officers argued that this issue had been compounded by two sets of factors. First, they noted that there were some barriers to collecting the right information to enable effective tracking of all children missing out on formal, full-time education. These included the discretion afforded to parents in whether they inform local authorities of elective home education arrangements and the different definitions of children missing education.”

What barriers? Children are removed from school roll. School informs LA. Simples.

Parents don’t have to inform the LA of EHE, because that is the school’s job.

EHE is not CME.

“The fact that there is not an agreed definition of children missing out on formal, full-time education, and an accompanying national dataset collection, helps to perpetuate what the Children’s Commissioner for England has called the invisibility of this cohort of children.”

That could be because EHE is not CME and the Children’s Commissioner is entirely wrong about calling EHE children invisible.

“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…”

So it’s the family’s fault their children have SEN? No.

Next time I’ll start on Chapter 4: HERE

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