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.
🎵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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
I
have to admit, I’m getting tired now. In case you didn’t see my
update on facebook yesterday, not only am I reading through this and
watching the Education Select Committee on Parliament.tv, but I am
also trying to help out local HErs, who have been wrongly issued
s437s by our LA. They have since come back and said ‘oops, that’s
meant to be s436a’ but they still want loads of unlawful
information, and for it to be provided by this Friday, and with the
threat of an SAO. I am pleased to see that some HErs are fighting
back, each in their own way, either complaining by letter or email,
or asking for the corrected letters with a new time frame in which to
respond, or by seeking legal action to prevent this from happening to
others. In other news, I have been asked to join a panel of people
who represent HErs, so that is exciting and I’d like to know more
about that. And finally (for this rambly intro, anyway), I had a
response from ISOS to my email that I mentioned in Part 1. I have to
say, I’m not happy with the response, as they seem to want to wash
their hands of the damage and have ignored the affects by
ridiculously grouping HErs with CME.
My
letter:
“Good
morning,
I
have read through your recent publication on Children Missing
Education (Nov 2020) and have noted that you have used the phrase
“home education” 30 times, and “home educated” 37 times.
Given that Home Educated children are not Children Missing
Education, I am interested in why your document seems to fail to make
the distinction between these two separate groups? Similarly,
Off-rolling is not the fault of home educators, but that of schools.
Furthermore,
in your Bibliography, I cannot see a single Home Education
organisation listed has having been used in this research, and there
are many within the UK. Given this document is to influence
policy, and many of these recommendations will have a negative impact
for home educators, I would like to know why our needs have not been
considered?
I hope I am wrong, and I have misread or
overlooked a reference within the document itself. Please can
you point me towards which Home Education sites or organisations you
have used to complete this document?
Kind
Regards,”
Their
response:
“Thank
you for taking the time to read our report and for getting in touch.
In commissioning us to undertake the research the Local Government
Association asked us 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;
Our
focus has therefore, throughout, been on those children who are not
receiving their entitlement to education, rather than those who are.
For the purposes of the research we define ‘formal, full-time
education’ as 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”. We define full-time as 18hrs per week. Under our
definition, we believe children who are successfully educated
at home would be receiving formal full-time education. We do not
equate formal full time education with school-based education and we
try to state as clearly as we can in the report that in the majority
of cases children who are electively home educated are receiving
a formal full time education, in the way that we have defined it for
the research. We state:
“not
all the children who are taken out of school at the instigation of
their parents end up missing out on their entitlement to education.
Far from it. Indeed, many parents provide an excellent education
for their children outside of school. However, the more parents
who opt for this route either out of desperation (because they simply
do not believe that the education they can access is meeting their
child’s needs) or out of fear of or hostility to the actions that
schools and government take to safeguard the well-being and
development of children, the more children are likely to miss out on
their entitlement to education.”
We
believe that we have not conflated the two groups of home educated
children and children missing education. However, we do believe from
the evidence that we have gathered from parents, headteachers and
local authorities that there is a subset of children who are
electively home educated in name, but in practice are receiving very
little education. These may be children
whose
parents have agreed to home-educate under duress (possibly as a
result of an off-rolling action by a school) but are unable or
unwilling to actually provide education,
whose
parents are home educating as a last resort but who do not feel they
have the skills or capacity to undertake this duty successfully
(often in cases where the school system is unable to meet the
special educational needs of a child)
whose
parents are using home education as a way to avoid legitimate action
for non-attendance at school or occasionally even as a means to
hinder safeguarding concerns being followed up.
These
clearly represent a minority of those children currently electively
home educated, but they are a concern. It is also a concern that
there is currently no definitive way of telling what percentage of
home educated children are not receiving a suitable education.
We
do not single out home education as the only possible route whereby
children might be missing out on their entitlement to education. For
example, we also draw attention to children who are currently on a
school roll and missing out on education either because they are
attending part-time, or because they are absent for long periods or
because they have been subject to multiple exclusions. Similarly, we
suggest that a proportion of children in alternative provision may
also be missing out on education.
In
terms of how we carried out our research, our focus on the children
not receiving their entitlement to education guided our choice
of organisations to engage. As such, we worked with the LGA and the
National Network of Parent Carer Forums to gather feedback from
parents who had direct experience of the issues we were exploring
through the research.
I
hope this helps to shed some further light on our research.
Best
wishes
Natalie”
I
think this does warrant some follow-up, but I haven’t got my head
around what it should be yet.
Back
to the report itself…
“Chapter
4: What is the impact on children, families and society of children
missing education?”
“Of
course, as we have outlined elsewhere in this report, the decision
for an individual child to leave a specific school might be the right
decision. There were examples in our parents’ survey of where that
particular choice has resulted in better outcomes for the child in
question. … However, in such cases, the parent has stepped in to
provide or commission the education that the child needs.”
And
that is exactly what ALL Home Education is – the parent
facilitating the learning of the child. It does not have to be
structured, it does not have to be formal. It does not have to
follow a timetable, a curriculum nor a school day. It does not have
to have a set number of hours each week (to be considered full time).
“The
detrimental impacts we discuss in the following sections are where
the child does not end up receiving formal, full-time education that
is suitable for his or her needs.”
I
repeat: It does not have to be structured, it does not have to be
formal. It does not have to follow a timetable, a curriculum nor a
school day. It does not have to have a set number of hours each week
(to be considered full time).
EHE
is not CME!
The
report then goes on to explain the impact/potential impact of a child
missing education. I don’t disagree with many of these points,
only to say that an electively home educated child is NOT missing
education, so should not even be mentioned in reports such as this.
“A
child or young person that misses full-time, formal education lacks
consistent access to teaching ... In missing out, either intermittent
lessons or large periods of a term, a child may miss important work
and fall behind peers.”
It
explicitly states in the EHE Departmental Guidance, that HErs do NOT
have to worry about keeping to the same levels as schooled peers.
“Local
authorities emphasised that it was not just missing out on key
periods of a school year impacting attainment that was a problem. But
that missing out on careers advice and progress meetings with
teachers and mentors to plan for the future also contributed to later
low employability. This is borne out in the research - the Badman
Review…”
Head.
Meet. Desk.
Mention
his name to any Home Educators in the past 10years or so, and you
will be greeted with a collective sigh. Mr Badman doesn’t like home
educators so was doing all in his power to stop it.
If
you want some more info (because frankly, I don’t have the mental
capacity to break it down and simplify it right now, here are some
links:
A
thorough google search will bring up many, many more.
Humorously,
this video of The Badman Song still brings a smile to my face.
“The
Office of National Statistics has also quantified the link between
low attainment and employability in the general population. …
Evidence provided by local authorities, parents, schools and national
bodies, as well as existing data and research, therefore, suggests
missing out consistently on education affects the educational
attainment for children and young people, which in turn has long-term
ramifications for employability through into later life.”
And
this is one of the problems with having a narrow, school-based view
of what education looks like. Home Educators are very aware that
there is no timescale for learning, and just because something has
not been learned by a specific age, it does not mean that it can
never be learned.
“Mental
health and wellbeing
Unpacking
the relationship between mental health and missing education is
complex. As we have set out already in this report, poor mental
health or emotional wellbeing, often linked to extreme anxiety, can
be one of the factors that leads to a child missing out on formal
full-time education. It was certainly a key consideration for many of
the parents who responded to our survey.”
If
you remove “formal full-time”, then it doesn’t read too bad.
“In
a very small number of cases local authorities identified how the
unsupported mental health needs of isolated young people who were not
in school had tragically resulted in suicide.”
“Not
in school” or “Children Missing Education”? They are clearly
two very different things. Almost unanimously, the anecdotal
evidence for Home Education says that the mental health of the
child/whole family improves once the child has deregistered, with
many parents wishing they had either made the change earlier, or that
their child had never gone to school in the first place.
It
would also be interesting to compare this statistic, with the number
of schooled children who tragically commit suicide.
“As
the NSPCC’s briefing on ‘Home education: learning from serious
case reviews’ (March 2014) outlines, children who are home educated
become isolated because they have no right to independent access to
friends, family but also professional agencies who could provide
distinct and specialist support.”
Well,
NSPCC is another group that doesn’t like HE due to stereotypes and
myth. In reality, Wendy Charles Warner reviewed all SCRs recently (I
can’t remember the date off the top of my head, but was in the past
couple of years – I’m sure a google would find it; I’ve even
mentioned it in previous blog posts) and in NONE of them was HE a
contributing factor in the death or serious neglect of the child.
“It
must be emphasised that although legally, home educated children have
the same rights to access mental health support in the form of CAMHS,
by not being in school, a child will have access to fewer trained
professionals who can spot warning signs around mental health, such
as school nurses, counsellors, external mentors and in-school
specialist support.”
Not
true at all. Any caring parent will want the best for their child,
and home educating parents are no different. If anything, HEing
parents often have to fight in order to access various support and
professionals! Having a lack of access is not, and should not, be
blamed on the parents.
And
incidentally, “school nurses” have a responsibility for all
children of Compulsory School Age (CSA), whether in school or not.
“Social
and emotional development
The
lack of social interaction experienced by children missing education
and the potential negative impact of this was a key issue highlighted
in our regional workshops.”
That
is simply because you have not asked people involved with home
education; individuals, families nor organisations. Pre-covid
(hands-up, things are a bit trickier atm with the constant lockdowns
and tiered lockdowns), in my local area, we had a minimum of 5 groups
or meets listed for every week day. As a home educator, you couldn’t
do everything, but there literally isn’t enough time in the day!
Home educators in other parts of the country report similar things.
If you live in a particularly rural or isolated area, you may have to
make a bit more of an effort, but with technology (proven, thanks in
part to covid), there is social interaction even if you so have to
stay at home for a period.
“Local
authorities expressed concern about children’s low self-esteem and
lack of confidence to interact with peers as a result of being
removed from or missing full-time education and the possibility of
poor emotional development in the longer term.”
Any
evidence for this? Noting, again, that being removed from education
(I’m assuming being expelled) or missing education (I’m assuming
truancy) is different and will have different impacts on the child,
compared to one who has been removed from school in order to be
EHE.
“This is echoed by significant research into the
importance of social interaction and the negative impacts (both short
and long-term) of a child that is not socialising sufficiently early
or consistently. Key impacts of a lack of social interaction include:
low confidence and self-esteem, in particular the lack of belief in a
child’s ability to manage stressful situations; anxiety; social
withdrawal; and a lack of ability to make friends and therefore, form
supportive social networks throughout their lives.”
I
wonder if any research has been done on the negative impacts (both
short and long term) of a child that is being forced to socialise
against their will, and consistent negative interactions, such as
bullying?
“The
impact that social isolation can have on a child’s life are
comprehensively examined in ‘Social isolation in childhood and
adult inflammation’ (August 2014) by Lacey et al. The study uses
data from the National Child Development Study (NCDS) which looked at
babies born in 1958 and examined them at age intervals until they
were 50 years old.”
That
report is:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453014003126
and says about its limitations: “There
was no formal measure of childhood social isolation available,
however our measure comprises a question relating to peer withdrawal
(isolation) and a question relating to peer rejection (bullying)
which likely represent different aspects of social isolation. When we
looked separately at each of these questions, the associations we saw
were largely driven by the bullying item although the other item
about preferring to be alone was still associated with raised CRP
without considering the bullying item (results not shown).”
Given
that Home education was less
common in 1958, surely it can be assumed that the participants of
this study were schooled children, and as such it cannot be assumed
to be correct when discussion home educated children?
“Therefore,
their definition of social isolation is not identical to the social
isolated experienced by children missing education. Nonetheless, it
seems reasonable that similar issues might also be experienced by
children who are regularly missing out on exposure to peers and a
variety of people.”
No,
I don’t consider that to be reasonable, at all. (Again, not to
mention that EHE kids are rarely socially isolated.)
I
do feel like I’m repeating myself a lot, so apologies for that,
though I think it does bear repeating.
“Safeguarding
Throughout
our research a key message that has come out of the evidence gathered
is that schools and educational settings are a “protective factor”
in society…”
Instead,
I’d wager that schools (and in turn various authorities) consider
that schools and educational settings are a protective factor, rather
than there being actual evidence to indicate this. In the highly
publicised SCRs, EHE has never been a contributing factor, and all
the children were already known to the relevant authorities (not
limited to the LAs or Social Services).
“Crime
and exploitation”
This
whole section is mainly linking exclusions to crime.
“On
families and society Local authorities that we engaged in our
research were keen to express the broader impact children missing
education had on families and society as a whole. From our
discussions, the following themes emerged:
1.
Family breakdown
2.
Worklessness and poverty
3.
Reinforcing stereotypes”
It
would be interesting to see if there has been any research done
relating to these themes and home education? Many people report to
having grown closer as a family, through home education, because they
see their children (and in turn, the children see their siblings) all
the time, not just when they are tired and hungry after a long school
day, when they return home feeling overwhelmed and all the anguish
and frustration gets released in an explosion. As this happens day
after day, family relationships do not have the time to repair as for
large sections of the day, they are either asleep or separated at
school.
“Family
breakdown”
“Having
a child at home for extended periods of time can put strain on
parents who are not necessarily trained in home education. With
parents unable to leave a child alone, some mentioned how they had
lost friendships and/or opportunities to socialise themselves. For
some parents, they stated how high stress and home education had
contributed to bouts of anxiety and depression.”
Firstly
there is no training required to Home Educate your own children. The
EHE Departmental Guidance states that parents are not required to
have reached a specific academic level in order to HE. Whilst in
recent years, you can now get diplomas in HE, they are actually
totally unnecessary. Home Education is all about facilitating the
education, not that you have to be highly qualified and have to teach
from your own knowledge, what it is the child wants to learn. And
regarding the impact of HE on a parent’s mental health, I would
counter and say (anecdotally, as I have not done the research on
this) that forcing a
parent to offer a formal structured education to their children is
likely to do more harm, whereas a child who is allowed to follow
their own interests and learn autonomously is more likely to have
mentally healthy parents. (Please note the emphasis on forcing.
I’m a strong believer that they style of home education that suits
the child and the family is by its very nature the best for that
family, whether that be structured, unstructured, eclectic or
anything else.)
“Worklessness
and poverty
Both
from our parent survey and through discussions with local authority
officers, many voiced concerns around the financial implications that
a child missing education can have. This was particularly the case if
a parent had to quit their job to look after or educate their child
at home. But it was also problematic when families had to pay for
resources for home education or for specialist treatments, advocates
or professional reports if trying to support the child’s special
educational needs.”
When
a family decides to electively home educate a child, they do take
full financial responsibility for the education, whether that be
outsourcing specific groups/activities, buying equipment and books,
paying for exams etc. It is important that a parent realises this
before they decide to HE, and yet another reason why Off-rolling is
so bad.
However,
it is possible to HE and work at the same time, whether that be
part-time or full-time, in the home or outside it. It is even
possible to HE as a single parent on benefits. Yes,
there may be lifestyle adaptations needed, but just because the
family may no longer be bringing in the big bucks, does not mean that
HE should be inaccessible or inadvisable.
“Reinforcing
stereotypes”
Other
than this report reinforcing stereotypes about HE, this paragraph
doesn’t apply to us.
“Chapter
5: What Councils and local partners can and are doing
Area
1: Early identification and support
Area
2: Preventative and restorative action”
“...there
was not a single right approach to managing managed moves, fair
access and the return of pupils who had been electively home
educated;” point of
information: not all pupils who were HE have been to school before,
and additionally, they may not need active extra support for the
transition to school.
“One
way in which the principles of fairness and collective responsibility
have been put into effect in Telford and Wrekin relates to their
approach to children who are Electively Home Educated. In Telford and
Wrekin, the Council and school leaders have agreed that the fairest
approach to elective home education is that where possible any pupil
returning from being electively home educated returns to their
previous mainstream school. This has been agreed as an important
means of ensuring that elective home education is not used as a way
of removing a child from a school where it is not in the child’s
best interests …”
I
can see this being good to
prevent off-rolling. However, life isn’t always that
straightforward. What about the case where a child is being
incredibly bullied and so the parents remove them from the school
roll to electively home educate them; after some time (years), the
child’s confidence has built back up again, and they want to try
school. Will they be forced back into the same school with the
bullies?
“As
in many areas the rising numbers of children being electively home
educated has been a concern in Warwickshire.”
Why?
That is a deeply biased and discriminatory response by Warwickshire
council.
“The
Children Missing education team have agreed with schools and parents
that they will implement a two week ‘cooling off period’ for
every new request for elective home education during which they will
work with the school and the family to explore the issues and try and
find a resolution.”
It
depends what this ‘cooling off period’ is specifically for. When
a parent decides to EHE and deregisters their child, the school must
remove that child’s name immediately. There are no ifs, buts nor
exceptions to this that I am aware of. However, if the school comes
to an agreement with the LA to not fill that child’s place
immediately, but wait two weeks, that does not seem as harmful to HE
to me. Yes, there is a risk of scope creep, but there is with all
this stuff.
“Area
3: Re-engaging pupils who have been out of education
Area
4: Monitoring and tracking”
This
is the area most of concern to HErs, not lease because in the EHE
Departmental Guidance it states the LA has no duty to monitor the
education.
“Lastly,
local authorities underscored the importance of having
well-established processes for tracking children who are not in
formal, full-time education or at risk of missing out.”
Tracking
children who are missing education is a priority. EHE is not CME.
“It
also requires that the system has the capacity to follow-up cases
where it is not known whether a child is in formal, full-time
education, or the reasons why a child is not attending school
full-time are not known, or in some cases to confirm that a child is
actually receiving education where they are reported to be being
educated.”
And
informal enquiries are absolutely fine. Immediately issuing a s347
notice to new HErs or long-term HErs who have been told their report
is satisfactory, is not fine. <cough>Swindon<cough>
“In
response to rising numbers of children being electively home
educated, and a greater proportion of these children having a history
of exclusions, child protection concern or historic non-attendance,
Portsmouth and its schools have developed the most recent collective
protocol. Now all headteachers have agreed that they will not take a
child off a school roll until there has been a meeting between the
school, the local authority and the parent or carer. Schools have
also agreed that any child who has been electively home educated for
less than six months will automatically return to the original school
roll if returning to mainstream education. In the interests of
openness and transparency the local authority has also committed to
reflecting numbers of electively home educated children back to
schools. In the year that the new protocol has been in operation
numbers of electively home educated children have begun to fall,
whereas previously they were rising rapidly.”
It
was my understanding that schools must remove a child’s name
immediately, and similarly (except for special schools and specific
circumstances) the LA do not have to agree to the child being EHE.
Any meeting requested by the school or LA at this stage is optional
(are the parents told that?) and the parents do not have to attend. I
have also heard that some schools are automatically reporting parents
who want to deregister their child directly to Social Services.
These heavy handed tactics, and people’s general fear of SS, is
more likely to have an effect.
I
will continue my, hopefully
final, part 5 on Friday, if I can’t squeeze it in tomorrow evening.
