I have been looking at a letter which Diana Johnson, the Schools Minister, sent to Tim Loughton MP yesterday. Questions have been asked of Graham Badman during the Public Committee sessions held on the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Specifically, he was asked about his assertion that home educated children are over represented in safeguarding cases.
In her letter, Diana Johnson says that in September the DCSF was aware of 140 current SCRs involving children aged 5-18. Only three of these concerned home educated children. She also mentions that 113 SCRs relating to children aged 5-18 were sent to Ofsted in the period between April 1st 2007 and August 26th 2009. Only one home educated child was to be found in these cases. She ends her letter with the astonishing admission;
"We concluded that the SCR figures are too low and not sufficiently robust for us to use with any confidence in drawing conclusions about the level of safeguarding risk amongst the home educating community."
This sums it up neatly. An attempt is made to hint that there may be more home educated children hidden in the figures, though. She says earlier that, "Many SCRs do not include the educational setting of the child.", a clear suggestion that some of those other cases might have home educated kids in them. Good try, Minister! The reason that most SCRs do not mention the school setting is that it is taken for granted that children attend school. You can be sure that if a child involved in an investigation was not at school, this would rate a few words in the report. That one case between April 2007 and August 2009, almost two and a half years, is certainly the only one.
In an Annex to her letter, Diana Johnson cites four cases where home educated children are concerned in SCRs. One of these is of course the Spry case! Again. They at least have the goodness to say;
"Education services maintained contact with the family on an annual basis, to monitor their education at home, and their education and situation appeared to be generally satisfactory. No child protection issues were noted"
In the Enfield case, it was noted of the mother;
"She co-operated with visits from the London Borough of Enfield Education Department in Aprils and may 2005 and June2006. The visiting officer had no concerns about the family or their circumstances and was satisfied with the programme of education proposed."
The Isle of Wight case concerned not the home educated child, but a sibling. The final case is suicide, no details given.
Neither the figures for SCRs nor the four cases given above, seem very impressive as evidence that home educated children are at greater risk of harm than those at school. In two of the cases above, local authority officers were actually visiting the home. The Enfield case had three visits in just over a year. As for the Isle of Wight, I don't think that one can cast the net so widely that harm to a sibling can be seen as a relevant factor in home education.
I think personally, that the DCSF would have done far better to stick to the educational benefits of a new inspection and monitoring regimen. Children can and will come to harm under any circumstances, whether at school or home. The evidence is not, to say the least of it, strong that they are more at risk when being educated at home than if they had been sent to school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But aren't they likely to come a cropper over the 'educational benefits' too? The thrust of the EHE Review was that home-educated children were at risk of abuse. Now even the DCSF are admitting there's no evidence of this. If they make much of the 'educational' benefits, there is a risk that the same thing will happen.
ReplyDeleteThis illustrates the danger of developing policies without doing the research first, something which the vociferous minority of home educators have been banging on about from the outset.
The situation is quite different. We have an educational system which delivers various measurable benefits. It is by no means perfect, but we can at least analyse the data and say certain things about it. When somebody comes along and says, in effect, " I can do better than that", then the onus is on that person to demonstrate that their claim is true. We know a great deal about the advantages and shortcomings of maintained schools in this country. The same cannot be said of home education.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of safeguarding, I think that it was right to draw attention to the fact that a layer of protection is removed for children who are not attending school. Where a wrong turn was taken was in making claims about actual cases which were obviously dubious and have now been clearly shown to be false.
"When somebody comes along and says, in effect, " I can do better than that", then the onus is on that person to demonstrate that their claim is true."
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what the person means by 'better' though. It may not be the same 'better' as that measured in schools. How do you measure love of learning, happiness, emotional maturity, family relationships, etc, etc. Yes, you can measure exam results and eventual earning levels easily, but do we really want these to be the main measures of success for such a significant part of out lives?
Well, I've no reason to suppose that the emotional maturity, family relationships and happiness of school children are in any way inferior to those of home educated children! I agree that these things are important and it could be argued that they are more improtant than educational attainment. I was however talking of the educational advantages of home education, as opposed to school. Emotional stability, like the number of children appearing in SCRs, is not really relevant to this.
ReplyDelete"I was however talking of the educational advantages of home education, as opposed to school. Emotional stability, like the number of children appearing in SCRs, is not really relevant to this."
ReplyDeleteHow can it be irrelevant if that was the reason for home education? You are suggesting that the only reasons for education are measurable by exam results and that all/most home educating parents think they can do better in this area than schools and should therefore have to prove it. You said: "When somebody comes along and says, in effect, " I can do better than that", then the onus is on that person to demonstrate that their claim is true."
But if your basic premise is wrong and your stated reason is not the reason a person has chosen to home educate, how can you maintain the rest? You are making a straw man argument.
Parent: I want to home educate so that my child retains their love of learning, develops strong family and friendship ties and is happy and fulfilled during their childhood and future adult life.
Simon: OK, then prove that you can do better than schools by showing that you get better exam results/literacy/numeracy levels.
I agree that educational attainment can be measured, fairly objectively, in terms of the knowledge and skills that the child can demonstrate that they have acquired. A question still remains over what knowledge and skills are deemed as necessary for a child to acquire and who determines this.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was of course assuming that the primary reason for home education would be education! Of course there might be other reasons. It could be, for example for the purposes of forced marriage, or it might also be to promote emotional maturity. You seem to be saying that some people do not home educate in order to educate, but more for social and emotional reasons. This may well be so.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:"But if your basic premise is wrong and your stated reason is not the reason a person has chosen to home educate, how can you maintain the rest? You are making a straw man argument.
ReplyDeleteParent: I want to home educate so that my child retains their love of learning, develops strong family and friendship ties and is happy and fulfilled during their childhood and future adult life.
Simon: OK, then prove that you can do better than schools by showing that you get better exam results/literacy/numeracy levels."
Exactly. We are back to the old (and unresolved) debate about what constitutes an education. Precisely the reason previous governments have (wisely) not tried to legislate.
"Sorry, I was of course assuming that the primary reason for home education would be education!"
ReplyDeleteOf course it's for education, but how do you define education? Is is purely the learning a list of proscribed facts and the ability to regurgitate them on command at one extreme, or does it have wider life affecting implications? Why shouldn't education include relationship skills, the ability to determine ones interests and to follow them up appropriately and successfully, to think for oneself and analyse influences on your thinking, planning and life skills, etc, etc...
Having a happy childhood, being emotionally mature and devloping strong family ties are all very good and desirable things. I feel sure that all parents hope that these will be part of their child's natural growth and development. They will however be no help at all if, as an adult, the happy, emotionally mature person is unable to work out the change from a £5 note or cannot read a letter. There is a difference between this sort of education and between what we might not inaptly term the softer outcomes such as emotional literacy. One can be measured accurately, the other is harder to determine. I cannot imagine why one would withdraw one's child from school simply to help her form stronger family ties. This can easily be done while the child attends school. I am likewise dubious about deregistering a child so that he can learn "emotional maturity". Are there fewer emotionally mature children at school? Would school hinder the devlopment of emotional maturity? These are tricky questions indeed.
ReplyDeleteJust as Graham Badman's review of elective home education was triggered by concerns which had nothing at all to do with education, forced marriage, child abuse and so on, so too are home educators now trying the same trick. Just as the DCSF have dropped their claims about higher levels of abuse and focus on education alone, some parents wish to divert attention away from education and onto happiness and family ties! These have no more to do with the case than forced marriage or child trafficking.
"I feel sure that all parents hope that these will be part of their child's natural growth and development."
ReplyDeleteAnd often school works against this, hence the choice to home educate.
"They will however be no help at all if, as an adult, the happy, emotionally mature person is unable to work out the change from a £5 note or cannot read a letter."
I don't disagree and think that would fall comfortably within, "the ability to determine ones interests and to follow them up appropriately and successfully, to think for oneself and analyse influences on your thinking, planning and life skills, etc, etc..." For example, your interests may suggest a career route and your planning skills will recognise the need to be literate and numerate for that career (assuming they are necessary - most will have in this modern world). You will have the ability to follow this up appropriately and successfully, developing any life skills necessary to follow you plan.
"One can be measured accurately, the other is harder to determine."
Exactly, so it is ignore and not considered important. Yet for many home educators, they are more important than how many GCSEs their child can gain and arguably more important when employed or self employed. Being able to work out the change for a £5 note may be irrelevant if the shop assistant grunts at customers when they make enquiries.
I cannot imagine why one would withdraw one's child from school simply to help her form stronger family ties. This can easily be done while the child attends school. I am likewise dubious about deregistering a child so that he can learn "emotional maturity". Are there fewer emotionally mature children at school? Would school hinder the devlopment of emotional maturity? These are tricky questions indeed."
Really? So peer pressure that suggests it's uncool to be seen doing things and going places with your family doesn't exist? It's not uncool to be interested in learning? Gang culture, falling in with the majority view so you fit in? And of course, school is brilliant for introducing children to a wide range of people of all ages and social classes and gives them plenty of time to socialise and learn how to relate to them. Is it emotionally mature to call college tutors sir or miss despite being asked to call them by their first name, relating to them only as 'the boss' to be worked against, and to constantly need instructions and chivvying otherwise they sit around wasting as much time as they can get away with - seeing teens and adults as us against them. Very emotionally mature - not. Your own daughter has noticed and remarked on this effect of a school education. Maybe emotional maturity is the wrong term and has resulted in confusion? What would you call these life skills?
"Just as the DCSF have dropped their claims about higher levels of abuse and focus on education alone, some parents wish to divert attention away from education and onto happiness and family ties!"
You are conveniently ignoring the more obviously educational outcomes I've mentioned that are difficult to measure (and probably shouldn't be measured) - the ability to determine ones interests and to follow them up appropriately and successfully, to think for oneself and analyse influences on your thinking, planning and life skills, a happy and fulfilled during adult life and the fact that the emotional stability and happiness are very important in enabling people to learn efficiently and well.
Sorry for errors in last post, in a bit of a rush - hope it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWell, of course children at school behave differently from those kept at home. And certainly some of their behaviour seems odd to home educating parents. You give the example of children calling teachers "Sir". This does sound strange, but no stranger than my daughter, who called me by my first name from the time she was a baby! Hearing a two year old address her father as "Simon" sounds just as strange as a school child calling her teacher "Sir".
ReplyDeleteIt's true that some children pick up bad habits at school, but others pick them up at home. There may be peer pressure at school, but I have known home educating parents who complain that their children are more clingy and less independent than children of a similar age who are at school. Whatever system one chooses of raising children, there will be good points and bad. I seriously doubt that home educated children are any happier or better adjusted than those at school.
How do you feel school and home-ed compares re. the ability to determine ones interests and to follow them up appropriately and successfully, to think for oneself and analyse influences on your own thinking, planning and life skills, continued love of learning, research skills, etc.? All difficult to measure and often highly valued educational outcomes to home educators.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I am prejudiced in favour of home education; that's why I didn't send my daughter to school. It's true that some home educated children learn to study for the sake of it and enjoy learning. Others probably develop a "butterfly" approach to studying, flitting aimlessly from one thing to another and never sticking at anything. Many children at school plod along, following instructions and doing just as they are told. On the other hand, they might learn more about the discipline of sticking at one task for a long time. As I say, both methods of education have advantages and disadvantages. I don't think that there is a perfect method of teaching which suits all children.
ReplyDeleteGood day I am so happy I found your blog page, I really found you by error,
ReplyDeletewhile I was browsing on Bing for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say thanks for
a tremendous post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don't have time to browse it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the excellent job.
Feel free to visit my web-site; www.propertywide.co.uk