Tuesday 2 March 2010

The dangers of home education

One of the problems when reading about some risk or danger, is that the jumble of figures produced to back up the claim often means little or nothing to most of us. 0.002%, 1 in 10,000, and so on don't really tell us what we wish to know. Also, to make sense of the figures, we often need a little background information which most of us lack. For example, every year a certain number of people in this country are killed by cows. Suppose we see a newspaper article which tells us;

"Deaths caused by cattle have soared, with a 100% increase this year in Southern England alone"

Scary stuff! Does this mean that we should avoid the countryside for a while until the cows have calmed down a little? The background information necessary to make sense of this, is that around six or seven people a year are killed by cows in the entire country. One or two are killed in Southern England. This means that an increase of 100% means only that one or two more people have been killed. This is roughly the same number of people killed by lightning in Southern England each year; it is an insignificant risk. Only a very neurotic person would cancel a picnic because of a risk like that!

Much the same thing has happened with the figures produced which purport to show that home educated children are at greater risk of abuse. The numbers are so vanishingly small that even if we took at face value the assertion that the rate is double in home educated children, it would still be about as insignificant as being struck by lightning or trampled to death by a cow. This is the problem with very small numbers; even doubling them means that they are still very small numbers.

The real danger for home educated children is not being murdered or abused by one's parents. It is rather that an inferior education might be provided; one even less efficient than that on offer at the local maintained school. Working out the number of such children who are not being properly educated is not going to be an easy task. For one thing, we have no solid data upon which to work. The information held by local authorities is laughably inadequate. I have remarked before that whereas the local authority ceases to have any sort of legitimate interest in home educated children after the last Friday in June of the academic year in which they turn sixteen, the GCSE results don't arrive for another couple of months. Most local authorities never hear how home educated children did in their exams.

The NEET thing, about which so much has been made, is utterly absurd, as an example from my personal experience should demonstrate. Friends of mine, more fanatical, over-achieving home educating parents, coached their son through no fewer than eleven IGCSEs. (The family actually regard me as something of a slacker and a complete sell-out for sending my daughter to college to do her A levels). Their child is studying at home for four A levels and they still have some dealings with their local authority. Because the child is not registered in a school, nor does he have a job, they discovered recently that he is officially listed as a NEET! I think we may safely ignore the figures for NEETs among home educated teenagers.

I strongly suspect that many home educated children don't even take any GCSEs, much less pass five at grades A*-C. I have no hard evidence for this belief, except what I observe of other home educators. I see a few who take many and some who take none at all. Actually, I don't know any who are midway between those two extremes. I can lay my hands on a few who have eight or ten IGCSEs and I also know some who have taken none at all. Perhaps the result is that as a group, home educated children average out at about five each?

I can quite see why local authorities and the DCSF have felt it necessary to conjure up this chimera of child abuse and I don't really blame them at all. It provides a sense of urgency to the debate and encourages all concerned to view this as a matter of safeguarding little kiddies, rather than focusing upon the true reason why this legislation is needed, which is purely educational. Because the fact is that home educated children are in danger. There is a clear and present danger that their education will be neglected or harmed by those who adhere to outdated, crackpot educational theories which many of us left behind in the sixties. But with so many children failing miserably in maintained schools, this perfectly valid argument hardly looks forceful enough. Far better to hint darkly that home educating parents are more likely than most to be starving and beating their children to death! That's the way to get your laws through.

25 comments:

  1. "I can quite see why local authorities and the DCSF have felt it necessary to conjure up this chimera of child abuse and I don't really blame them at all."

    Let's get this straight. You're saying you don't blame the government and LAs for misusing statistics to imply that an identifiable minority of the people who pay them to provide services are guilty of criminal activity - even though there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't say that they had misused statistics at all. I am open minded about the possibility that according to the way these figures are gathered, that there are a disproportionate number of NEETS among home educated teenagers. I am also open to the possibility that the theoretical risk of abuse is greater, although as I pointed out, the numbers are so small as to be of little significance.

    People need these things; our legislature would soon grind to a halt if it began to rely only upon solid facts. There's no point getting ratty with me about it suzyg, that's how things work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way suzyg, you say;

    "You're saying you don't blame the government and LAs for misusing statistics to imply that an identifiable minority of the people who pay them to provide services are guilty of criminal activity "

    This is not true at all. In fact Graham Badman, the LAs and the DCSF all say that the great majority of home educators do a good job and that a tiny minority do not. They have not identified that tiny minority. If I say that most parents look after their children wonderfully well, but a small minority harm them, am I criminalising parents? Of course not!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simon says: If I say that most parents look after their children wonderfully well, but a small minority harm them, am I criminalising parents? Of course not!

    Of course not. But what if you say that, and then say that therefore you are going to send local government officials in to inspect all parents and children in their homes (and take the children off alone and ask if they'd like to live elsewhere), and empower the same officials to remove the children based on their judgements. Bad enough in itself, but then what if a large number of these officials are already known and proven to be opposed to the whole concept of children living with their parents?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are no plans to enter people's homes, let alone take their children off alone. I'm sure you know that, Ciaran! We believe that most mothers of new born babies look after them well, but we still send officials into all their homes and generally insist upon looking at the babies. These people are called Health Visitors. Does this mean that we don't trust new mothers? Most parents take the visit of the Health Visitor for granted. It's a precaution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Both those plans are laid out in the legislation, as has been discussed here many times. I'm sure you know it, just as well as you're sure I know the opposite!

    As for Health Visitors, my experience of them is that they're useless bumbling fools. Although we've put up with most of their visits in the past, I might well refuse to allow them in next time around (this is not hypothetical, the bun is already in the oven so to speak). Are you saying I am not allowed to do this? Will I receive some kind of Attendance Order/criminal conviction as a result?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simon wrote,
    "There are no plans to enter people's homes, let alone take their children off alone."

    Of course there are. The DCSF position statement states:

    "58. The place that a child’s learning is conducted is an important factor in a child’s education and the Bill places local authorities under a duty to make arrangements to visit the place where education mainly takes place."

    It may not specify the home in the legislation but the Secretary of State could easily specify the home (or the place where education mainly takes place which is invariably the home) in the Statutory Guidance provided for in the Bill. Looking at the DCSF position statement I suspect they think this will happen. As to seeing the child alone, refusal is permitted, but refusal could count as non-cooperation and grounds for refusal or revocation of registration, so hardly a free choice.

    Simon wrote,
    "We believe that most mothers of new born babies look after them well, but we still send officials into all their homes and generally insist upon looking at the babies."

    Health visitors are not compulsory as you well know since you avoided them yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon wrote,
    "I didn't say that they had misused statistics at all."

    You suggested in your article that they are using (probably faulty) misrepresented statistics for one risk:

    Simon wrote,
    "The numbers [the faulty welfare risk statistics] are so vanishingly small that even if we took at face value the assertion that the rate is double in home educated children, it would still be about as insignificant as being struck by lightning or trampled to death by a cow."

    in order to achieve a theoretical reduction in another theoretical risk:

    Simon wrote,
    "I can quite see why local authorities and the DCSF have felt it necessary to conjure up this chimera of child abuse and I don't really blame them at all."

    How can you claim that this is this not a misuse of statistics?

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonySue, you have missed out a crucial part of the CSF bill. With regard to visiting the place of education, it says;

    "Arrangements made by an authority under this section shall include
    arrangements made with a view to their—
    visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or
    at least one of the places) where education is provided to the
    child."

    At least one of the places. This does not sound to me as though they are determined to come to your home. As far as misusing statistics goes, this is a good point. What has been done is to set out figures without giving the background. For instance, the NEETS numbers are perfectly true, but still horribly misleading. Whether you call that a misuse of statistics is debatable.
    I have not seen any actual lies, only information presented in a distinctly biased wasy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What do you think of the DCSF position statement and the power to specify details in statutory instruments?

    ReplyDelete
  11. arrangements made with a view to their—
    visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or
    at least one of the places) where education is provided to the
    child."

    Be NO visits here and they have been none since we began home education on June 23rd 2oo3.So who cares what uncle Balls?DCSF pass we just be taking no notice of them!

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonySue, you are absolutely right to be on guard about Statutory Instruments. This bill is really an enabling bill. Nothing is fixed and the details will be filled in later, as and when. To be fair, this is the case with most Acts of Parliament. So it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that home visits will be made mandatory in the future, although they are not as things stand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "nonySue, you are absolutely right to be on guard about Statutory Instruments. This bill is really an enabling bill. "

    What is the point of being on guard about Statutory Instruments after the Bill becomes and Act? As I understand it, once it's law the SI can be written without debate in Parliament or elsewhere - it will be too late to do anything about it. The DCSF position statement suggests that they fully expect the main place of education to be visited.

    ReplyDelete
  14. he DCSF position statement suggests that they fully expect the main place of education to be visited.

    only if you let them! DCSF can be faced down we did it! Balls is a pratt!

    ReplyDelete
  15. George Stewart3 March 2010 at 11:19

    Simon my friend, I am finding your blog post very hard to debate about and I think other home educators who may differ philosophically with you that this blog post is worthy of a slow reread.

    Here is another risk reward ststistical point to consider.

    The Government, in fact any Government anywhere, is in fact limited to finite monetary resources.

    If they spend money on this "problem" they will in fact be diverting money from somewhere else. They could be redirection internally within government programs or simply taking funds from the taxpayer.

    Is this a a good value for money reallocation of resources?

    Remember this is the same Government that was on the verge of stopping training among TA Units for many months.

    Is this money that would be spent on regulating home educators better spent on ensuring that the TA is able to train constantly before being sent to Afghanistan? What will better save a life, as that is the favorite expression amongst the political class?

    Another example, this time from the United States. There was a lengthy debate some time ago on a further reduction in the permissible level of mercury in drinking water. Some parties wanted a reduction well below the level that is normally found in water naturally. Those that opposed the grand idea were attacked in the press as "supporting mercury in your drinking water." After all, who in their right mind would support mercury in drinking water!!

    When things cooled down, just as I hope they cool down in the home education community, it was realized that the tremendous cost to reduce mercury below natural levels would require a redirection of resources from other healthy programs meaning that for every single person saved from mercury damage, many more would die because basic public health issues were neglected due to lack of funds.

    Anyways, good blog posting. Maybe in the next Parliament, a solution for the real problems with home education can be found, and a proper and prudent solution be crafted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. George Stewart3 March 2010 at 11:31

    Just one more comment. The sole question for Government, as you possibly imply, is IF children that are home educated in England have outcomes that are worse than typically occurs out of state education.

    This is where Badman seriously failed. Home education is fairly new and young in the UK. He should have had a serious look at outcomes around the world where home education flourishes.

    After this Bill fails, which it will as there is not enough days remaining in the legislative calendar and assuming that the Torries form the next Government, likely not a guarantee, then I hope that the next step of the DCSF is to take a slow and complete look at home education on both sides of the Atlantic and learn from good practice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. George Stewart3 March 2010 at 12:23

    Simon says;

    "Only a very neurotic person would cancel a picnic because of a risk like that!"

    What do you call a MP, a Minister, a Lord or a Baroness who determines that cows need to be regulated, inspected and licensed because of this "risk?"

    ReplyDelete
  18. George - much of your analysis assumes we are dealing with reasonable people here. In fact, we are dealing with socialists.

    I put it to you that in their eyes, IF children that are home educated have outcomes that are typically better than occurs out of state education, that would be a BAD thing. It would be 'unfair' that some received better opportunities in life than others, and their ultimate aim would be to abolish such things, in the same way that they ultimately aim to abolish private schools and all other forms of non-state education. Granted their aims have been set back a decade or two in the private education area, on account of having to deal with the pesky problem of looking electable, but nonetheless the ideology remains.

    Also, not only is it 'unfair', but children outside the state education system miss out on the indoctrination and conditioning that in reality is what school (as opposed to education) is all about.

    Likewise, you talk in terms of value for money and resources, but in their eyes the bigger the state machinery, the better. One might consider an army of home education inspectors pointlessly inspecting as a waste of resources which could be deployed elsewhere, but they see it (in addition to another step on the road to the goals outlined above) as jobs created, power gained, control (sorry, 'fairness') established.

    In fact, the resources don't exist. They have virtually bankrupted the country, and they can't raise the money to pay for this through taxes. But wait, a) they can borrow it (ultimately from the very children they claim to be protecting, who are already saddled with their debt before they're born), and b) as with many of the policies they're trying to hurry through now, they don't care about the cost - they know they're on the way out and the next administration will be left to clean up the mess.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Simon
    I've had to make many a quick exit from advancing cattle over the years and only last week a farmer in the next village was airlifted to hospital after being trampled by his own cattle. I would suggest that these figures are suspect - who conducted this research and what was there background - are you a mate of them too?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fortunately, few cattle related incidents result in death. There are three main ways that people are killed by cows. The first is being trampled to death after tripping up as a herd approaches. Secondly is when a cow falls over on top of somebody and finally, and rarest of all, are the odd cases where the cown actually gores somebody.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is a problem comparing home education in Britain with that in America. George said;

    "
    hope that the next step of the DCSF is to take a slow and complete look at home education on both sides of the Atlantic and learn from good practice."

    In the USA, the primary motive for home education is education. Surveys in this country suggest that the main reason parents like it is that it enables families to be closer. Different motives have implications for the outacomes; you would not be comparing like with like.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'd be very surprised if they haven't already compared outcomes depending on motives.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you mean that the DCSF have compared outcomes, that is almost certainly true. That's why they want increased regulation in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No, I meant within the US research.

    ReplyDelete
  25. How can the DCSF have compared outcomes?

    ReplyDelete