Thursday 18 March 2010

How many home educated children are there in this country?

I was a little irritated to hear Graham Badman on the radio yesterday, talking about home education. He said that local authorities know of twenty thousand children who are being home educated, but that "there are at least another twenty thousand known about who are not within their purview". This strikes me as nonsense. With one or two exceptions, when local authorities hear of children who are not at school, they contact them and at the very least want a few details. I do not believe for a moment that local authorities "know" about another twenty thousand. They might suspect or have reason to suppose; they certainly don't "know". So how many children in total are being taught at home? (What sort of person uses words like purview, anyway? Answer, a teacher.)

York Consulting were charged with investigating the feasibility of counting the number of home educated children in Britain. They concluded that it was simply not possible to do this. Which means that all we are left with are various guesses and estimates. The problem is of course that different groups have their own reason for exaggerating or underestimating the numbers of home educated children. Some groups, home educators for example, on some occasions try and make the number high and on others reduce it as much as possible. Let's have a look at a few of these estimates and see what we can make of them.

Ten years ago, home educators felt that it was in their best interests to make the numbers of home educated children seem very great. Perhaps they thought that if they were seen as an unstoppable mass movement, it would have the effect of discouraging local authorities from giving them a hard time. It was a tactical error. Governments sometimes ignore a handful of cranks, but if they think that hundreds of thousands of people are undertaking some strange activity and perhaps flouting the law, they feel bound to take action. Perhaps the highest figure ever suggested for the number of children not at school was that calculated by Paula Rothermel ten years ago. She wrote that, " in 1997/98 there were 9,144,000 children aged 5-16 in the population, but only 8,583,400 registered in schools Where were the other 560,600?" In other words, she was hinting that over 5% of the children aged between five and sixteen were missing from school. A few years later in 2003, an article in the Times educational Supplement, the back pedalling had begun. the numbers were going down! "87,000 children, with some experts claiming numbers nearer to 200,000 if the children of Travellers are included". Most estimated today are much more modest than this. The problem is, as I mentioned above, that people have good reasons for lying about this subject and altering their guesses according to what they wish to prove. For instance, in the Impact assessment published with the Children, Schools and Families Bill, the DCSF were very keen to dismiss the idea that there could be eighty thousand home educated children in total. Why? Purely and simply because they wished to make the estimated cost of their schemes for monitoring as low as they possibly could. Home educators on the other hand have at times wished to portray home education as a mass movement with many scores of thousands of children involved. At other times, they wish to reduce the numbers in order to persuade the government that so few are involved that it is not worth bothering about. The fact is, everybody has motives for being deceitful about this matter.

So what do we actually know? We can be fairly sure that around twenty thousand home educated children are known to local authorities. This is the irreducible minimum number. It is also common knowledge that some home educated children are not registered with their local authorities, those who are, as it is sometimes called, "under the radar". The $64,000 dollar question is, how many more of these unknown children are there? Some home educating parents who are associated with groups, claim that half the children they see are not known to their local authority. If true, this would double the total number of children and give us around forty thousand for the whole country. We must be a little cautious about taking this as being an objective estimate though. After all, a few years ago many home educators were saying that there were far more than this. It is entirely possible that the current guesses are being kept deliberately low for some reason. I have looked at the motive for the DCSF to keep the numbers low, I rather think that home educators feel pretty much the same way.

Of course ultimately, we have not a clue. There are many, many families who have no contact at all either with their local authority or other home educating parents. Nobody has a clue how many children in the Gypsy/Roma community are not attending school, nor does anybody particularly want to know. Poking about there is more trouble than it's worth. As ContactPoint becomes live, we shall probably begin to have some idea about this, but until then all we can really do is guess!

22 comments:

  1. Wouldn't the number of babies registered minus the number of registered school pupils 5+ years later give some sort of idea of numbers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. LAs are definitely aware that there are home educated children who are not on their books. We have regular group meetings with our LA and just over half of the families represented at the meetings are not known to the LA system even though we're sitting right in front of them, and they know that too.

    My personal guess is that the total is somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000, although that may well go up due to the Streisand Effect of the increased news coverage. I've seen an estimate somewhere that 1% of children are educated outside the school system, which would put numbers near the top end of that range, but I don't know who derived it or how, so it's probably as reliable as Badman's statistics.

    As for ContactPoint, its days are numbered if Labour aren't still in charge after the election, and I've heard stories that it's not as good as they like to claim, with some children recorded multiple times at different addresses, or even variants of the same one. This brings to mind an interesting scenario, where social services turn up at a house and insist that there must be a child living there because their database says so, and decide that the occupants are hiding said child.

    I fully expect my LA to work out we exist eventually, but I see no reason to hurry that process when there are no benefits, only disadvantages.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have quite a few unknowns in our group too- probably half of the under 11's at least. Even more oddly is the fact that many families have an older known child and then unknown siblings. We needed the LA to do CRB checks on us so we could use school property for science classes, and this caused some soul searching amongst a few unknown parents because they wanted to be able to help at the classes, but didn't want to attract attention. In the end they were reassured by a promise that no "other use" would be made of the info they provided; HCC sent off the CRB forms without checking the names against a list of known home educators. Actually the LA probably are completely happy - such parents are probably more likely to be providing a suitable education anyway, and they get less paperwork to do if they are not known.
    Interestingly though at a meeting with the HCC councillor last term, he raised the issue that in some of the bigger cities nearby (none of which are actually now in Hampshire anymore) it was "believed" that there were a large number of unknown unregistered children of illegal immigrants which were those whom everyone was more concerned about; although of course they may be technically CME but they are not really home educated at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Julie says-In the end they were reassured by a promise that no "other use" would be made of the info they provided; HCC sent off the CRB forms without checking the names against a list of known home educators.

    You belive that do you Julie that HCC would not check against there list of know home educators? I bet they did check!

    nterestingly though at a meeting with the HCC councillor last term, he raised the issue that in some of the bigger cities nearby (none of which are actually now in Hampshire anymore) it was "believed" that there were a large number of unknown unregistered children of illegal immigrants which were those whom everyone was more concerned about; although of course they may be technically CME but they are not really home educated at all.

    What meeting? who? How do you know there not home educated because they illegal immigrants? who saidthere where illegal?

    No word from that nice Jan Lewis! i thought she was there to assist all home educators or does she just assists those that do as they are told!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Simon-
    Do give a link to the radio broadcast with Badman!
    It seems that you and I are synchronising in thoughts- how strange that this is the exact topic I have been musing over this week.
    If 'known' statistics resulted in numbers that were too low and it would not attract legislative change and ergo funding. Too high and it would be way too expensive to fund!
    Nationwide, I reckon the average number of known problems is in reality 5% and that the majority of these problems could be solved with better partnership between the LA and these families. That would of course need these LAs to be able to fund their EHE departments better in order to work with these families. Currently they do not have enough funding. I am fairly certain that there was a predetermined sum of money that would be considered 'reasonable' for this new legislative venture and the final resulting 'numbers' needed to fit around that budget.As I am also currently given to think that as the true known problems are around 5% and that because one 'does not know what one does not know' the numbers of children who are not on the LA lists also needed to be fitted into this budget. Therefore a huge amount of 'unknowns' would make the whole thing too costly as you point out. If my theory is correct, then like Goldilocks- the final numbers had to look 'just right' for the available finances.
    ..continued...

    ReplyDelete
  6. .....What, if anything, what can be deduced logically from the information we do have?

    Paula Rothermel's work where she found half a million children not on school roles was before CME legislation and I am not sure if she included in her figures the 475 thousand children enrolled at private schools at the time. I am seeking to ask her the answer to this.
    There are 1 million travellers known in the UK and the number under 16 must be known too.Since 2003 in primary school , the letter 'T' is put beside their names on the register. I am awaiting information on this from a Traveller organisation.
    The other mobile EHE families about whom there are concerns are tiny (as evidenced in the 226 children in the supplemental statistics which also included those where there were no concerns but simply a house move)
    Unless I am in error, that leaves only two categories one of which is families from the group 'never known to the LA' and really ought to be known because there are 'issues'. Just how likely is it that thousands of families can escape the net of concern completely if there are issues going on?
    Which leads into my musings over the final group who have never come to the attention of the LAs because there are NO issues-
    Just because many HE groups have 50-75% of families choosing not to have contact with the LA it does not follow that half to three quarter of the entire EHE population is unknown. On the lists there may well be a higher proportion of people who choose not to have contact with the LA and they may well live in areas where there is good reason for this-therefore their social meetings would naturally have more families who have nothing to gain by registration. Secondly it may well be the case that those who choose to attend these groups also tend to be the types who are more 'autonomous' from government services (and also incidentally more educationally autonomous or on the autonomous spectrum).Therefore it says nothing about other HE groups -possibly religious or very structured groups which meet for the purpose of 'lessons'.These groups I would guess have a much higher registered population and less concern about the current bill as the education looks somewhat like school anyway. .
    In my local social groups it is true that up to 2/3rds are not choosing to have contact with the LA.They are a mix of semi structured to autonomous. Almost everyone who was not 'registered' signed the online petition and was concerned enough to be somewhat aware of the current review- less so in the 'registered group. In groups where the LA is not considered so benevolent would the not be even more reason for people both 'registered' or not to sign the petition and be involved politically?
    Why not look at the number who signed the petition? This group could be said to be more likely to be politically aware of current EHE events and many of this group will be choosing not to have contact with the LAs .It has 5500 signatures .

    ReplyDelete
  7. According to this paper, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003544.htm, the DfES thought there were 100,000 home educated children in the UK in 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This study, http://www.emie.co.uk/research-areas/pims-data/summaries/home-educated-children.cfm, which involves interviews with EHE staff from 16 LEAs suggests that local authorities knew about a third to a half of the young people on EHE. This tallies with the ratio in many local groups.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tania, I am not sure how significant this number is, but 8 to 10 years or so all the Exclusive Brethren children (of the type known as Taylor Brethren) were normally home educated, but a change in church policy has meant they have founded their own schools. Since they tend to have large families this may have reduced the number of home educated children in the statistics in a surprising way (there are now around 60 of these schools- which must be a fair few children even if they are small). There are over 100 children at our local school who would have been HE in the past.
    Not sure how that adds to the debate, but it was
    something that I thought was interesting- pperhaps these are some of Paula's previously missing category

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ofsted considered in 1996 that about 12,000 Traveller children are not registered with a school.This is before CME legislation and also before schools had to mark 'T' on the register.
    Cannot say how many are currently registered as EHE although we know from the more recent Ivatts report that at least 3000 are in the mere 15 LAs surveyed! Possible they chose LAs known to have higher numbers but not possible to know how many GRT children are EHE and registered.
    in 1992 it was estimated that in the 0-16 age range there may be 50,000 traveller children total .That figure changes to about 80,000 in another Ofsted report. Why is it so hard to find any information on how many ARE registered in schools and how mnay are registered as EHE with the LA?

    http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Inclusion/Traveller-children/The-education-of-Travelling-children-

    http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Inclusion/Traveller-children/Provision-and-support-for-Traveller-pupils

    in 1992 it was estimated that in the 0-16 age range there may be 50,000 traveller children total .

    2) http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research- /data/uploadfiles/RW77.pdf- Ivatts report.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Julie-the Brethren account for about 2000 children who may now be on a school role.
    Not sure what you mean by '100 children who would have been EHE'. Is that 100 at the local Brethren school?
    If Paula did not include independent schools then yes they are not counted

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, Tani, I am probably not making sense. I was trying to account for the large number of CME in Paula's stats.
    There are 110 children in our local Taylor Brethren school, which didn't used to exist before the change of policy, as home ed was the norm (I actually applied some years before I started home educating to be a tutor working for some of the families).
    So when Paula had a large number of apparently CME, perhaps some of them were the then home educated Brethren who are now in these Focus Learning Trust schools (there are 64 schools run by them) and so they will have disappeared both from the CME and HE populations.

    ReplyDelete
  13. oops Tania, lost an a!

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/03/000000_europe_today.shtml

    The above link should take people to the right place to hear Graham Badman and others. It is the programme from the 17th of this month and quite a long way in, about three quarters of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You are of course absolutely right Tania, in thinking that the costs and so on that the DCSF anticipate have been cunningly fixed. It looks to me as though they have done this through some form of reverse engineering; starting with the figures they want at the end and then working backwards. The end result is beautiful;

    Average Annual Cost 14.6 - 60.6 million
    Average Annual Benefit 17.8 - 71.5 million

    They have arranged it so that the benefits just outweigh the costs; the whole scheme won't cost anybody a penny, it will be in effect entirely self financing! I never saw anything more elegantly done in my life. Their estimate is that, "We think that the cohort size is likely to be 25,000 to 30,000 and that it is unlikely to exceed 40,000" You pays your money and you takes your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Badman was talking crap again on the radio. droning on Badman is an arse!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually Badman seems to have mellowed his tone somewhat although still 'droning' on abot the statistics.

    He says ' high number not receiving a full education' but does not say what this number is.
    He also admits that 'only those who made themselves known to Connexions were included in the statistics and 22% of them were NEET.' That's about 220 kids in about 900 known leavers who registered with Connexions but at least there is an admittance that they did not take the total amount of leavers - they certainly could have easily found out the entire size of the cohort. Looking at my data 11 LAs do state the total amount of leavers - looking at these 11 LA's 3-45% of their entire population are leavers.
    The eleven LAs had this percent as total leavers (3,10,14,15,15,16,21,26,26,27,45)

    So it could be that there is a average of 20% of the entire registered population each year 'leaving;' and the LAs know that 220 are NEET.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The end result is beautiful;

    Average Annual Cost 14.6 - 60.6 million
    Average Annual Benefit 17.8 - 71.5 million"

    Can't find the estimates ATM but did they include the cost of the extra school places they will need since an SAO seems to be their answer to all problems, including non-cooperation? They have suggested that 20% are not receiving a suitable education so if even half of those manage to pass muster in the end they could need an extra £16-£32 million per year, depending on numbers, wiping out any 'profit' straight away. Even and extra 800 school places, only 2 per cent of 40,000 EHE children, would be enough to cancel out their 'profit'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "He also admits that 'only those who made themselves known to Connexions were included in the statistics and 22% of them were NEET.' "

    So, anyone like to hazard a guess as to which HE children might be more likely to register with Connexions? Would someone who has just enrolled on a college course or started a job register bother? Of course not.

    Connexions "provides high-quality, impartial, information, advice and guidance (including careers advice and guidance), together with access to personal-development opportunities to help remove barriers to learning and progression and ensure young people make a smooth transition to adulthood and working life."

    If you have a job or are studying, why would you register with Connexions? I'm surprised that the NEET figure for HE children isn't 100%! Presumably all school children are automatically made known to Connexions so there is a little more hope for accurate figures but even these have been disputed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A lot of home educated children who go to college register with Connexions. It is after all the default setting for most young people in the educational system. Many local authorities also register home educated children known to them with Connexions, sometimes without asking permission. Essex do this, for example. As far as NEETs go, this catagory is wholly inappropiate for home educated children. I know a teenager who took many IGCSEs at home and who then studied for four A levels at home. Because he was not registered at a college or working, his mother was amused to find that he had been listed as a NEET!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "A lot of home educated children who go to college register with Connexions. It is after all the default setting for most young people in the educational system."

    Not in our experience. We have had three at college and there has been no mention of Connexions and no contact from them. I suppose it's possible they have been registered without their knowledge, but I would have at least expected them to receive a flyer about available services through the post if that were the case.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Still, anyone who does register by choice is obviously self selected and in need of their services and likely to be nearly 100% NEET. Thus this unknown proportion of Badman's NEET figures is going to skew the figures to such an extent that they are unusable for the purpose he is putting them to.

    You know yourself how ridiculous these figures are, along with all Badman's other 'statistics'. I'm surprised that you are so supportive of the conclusions of a report that results from such sloppy, woolly minded thinking! Or does the end justify the means in your view?

    ReplyDelete