Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Bad news for home educators

One of the more irritating aspects of home education is that while pupils in schools take all their examinations free, courtesy of the taxpayer, home educating parents who save the state around £3000 a year for a school place, also have to pay for any GCSEs that their children take. Still, it might be argued that this is something that we should take into account when we decide not to send our children to school. We assume full responsibility for our children's education and there is an end of the matter. Every IGCSE that my daughter took cost a little over £120 and so the final bill was around £1000. There we are though; I made that decision and that is my affair, there's no point moaning about it!

Part of the impact assessment for Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, the part which dealt with home education, talked of the advantages to home educated children if more of them were to gain five GCSEs between grades A* and C. I could not agree more. No central records are kept, but every so often an individual local authority will release information about this and it always suggests that home educated children are way behind when it comes to gaining good GCSEs. Last year, for example, Dudley, a town in the Midlands, revealed the figures for home educated children in their area and the GCSEs which they had taken and passed. These were pretty shocking. Of the hundred or so home educated children know to Dudley, only half had taken any GCSEs at all. Nationally, over 98% of children sit at least one GCSE. Fewer than one in ten of the home educated children managed to gain at least five GCSEs, including mathematics and English, at grades between A* and C. This is about a fifth of the national figure for children at school.

There are a number of reasons for these poor academic results. Ineffective teaching surely pays at least some part, but there is also the question of access to examination centres and the actual financial cost of the enterprise. Some families just can't afford to chuck around money on such things and in any case do not know how to go about arranging the GCSEs in the first place. The government proposed to help with this and furnish local authorities with 10% of the Age Weighted Pupil Unit, the amount which central government provides councils with for every school pupil, for some home educated pupils. It was not absolutely clear which home educated pupils would be eligible for this funding; it was at least an encouraging start and might have developed into a promising scheme. Unfortunately, the whole idea has now been scrapped.

Here is the latest news on what the government in Westminster will be providing local councils with for their pupils. The part relating to home educated children is on pages fourteen and fifteen;

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/t/the%20school%20funding%20settlement%20for%202011%2012%20the%20pupil%20premium%20and%20dedicated%20schools%20grant.pdf


As readers will see, the statement is brief and to the point; not a penny for home educators. I cannot help but wonder if there is an element of gleeful malice in those few sentences! As though the Department for Education is saying; 'Well, you bastards, you made enough trouble for us about the Badman Review. See if you will get any of that money now after the way you moaned about the other recommendations! Losers!'

This might of course be my imagination, which some of those commenting here yesterday suggested was particularly vivid. I think that most parents were a little cautious about accepting money from the local authority anyway. They suspected, probably with good cause, that any such benefits would come with strings attached. It would have been nice to have the option though, for those who were not overly concerned about closer involvement with their local authority. I am guessing that the GCSE figures for home educated children will not after all be improving dramatically in the near future as a result of this initiative and that they will remain frankly dreadful. This is a pity for those children whose parents are unable or unwilling to enter them for examinations. I think personally, that this is a short sighted policy of the government and that the £300 or so a year which was being suggested for each child would have been money well spent.

36 comments:

  1. Firstly I have to point out, there are many reasons why HE kids dont take GCSEs, most often because they dont want to. Equally GCSEs are often dumbed down and diluted and parents(and kids) often prefer to enter college at A Level.
    I think I mentioned before; I never took GCSEs and lived to tell the tale.

    So the money side of things:-
    When I read the report I felt a little bit of relief. I felt that if they werent giving us money, then they werent expecting us to accept it - not sure if anyone else understands that sentiment but it made sense to me.

    I personally dont particularly object to there being possible money available for GCSEs/Further Ed courses and would probably quite like some seeing as the courses my daughter is on cost us a small fortune.

    But as you pointed out,I cant imagine that any money would be allocated without strings attached. Who in government would hand out 'free money? It wouldnt make political or financial sense.

    From what I understand and have heard from many people, a large percentage of HEers want nothing from the Government so this latest document is of no consequence, however for those that do want (or need) money, it is a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'parents(and kids) often prefer to enter college at A Level.'

    The problem here being that in an increasing number of colleges and sixth form centres, this is impossible. An awful lot now refuse to take any pupil for A levels who has not already got GCSEs. We certainly thought about this, but discovered that every college within a thirty miles radius required GCSEs if one wished to study for A levels. Slightly different for vocational courses and you might swing it for Photography or Media Studies A level courses on a portfolio or interview alone, but for things like maths, science and English; it is in general all but impossible without GCSEs. Things have changed in this respect within the last few years, in many cases dramatically. Often, deciding against GCSEs also means deciding against A levels and this is a hell of a decision to make for a child.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did Dudley count the number of HE'd kids who'd taken OU courses as an alternative? Or those who were taking AS and A2's at home without GCSE's first? I'm guessing not.

    We took the same route as you, but others take alternate routes to qualifications, which you did not refer to in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Leaving aside all the debate about whether GCSEs are a "good thing" or not (since we have all had this debate before) I still feel sorry about this. My local group has a large numbers of young people taking GCSES (because we do live in an area where colleges are selective about admissions for non vocational courses). Some often families involved really struggle to find the money for exam entries; even though we have a "good deal" with a school which means that we are paying about 40% of what Simon paid for his daughter. I know all the arguments about LAs expecting something for their money etc, but to be honest that wouldn't bother most of these parents at all; they would be grateful for any support.

    The LA are also pretty fed up because the EHE team spent ages getting a business plan together as to how all this was going to work - and having got it approved, now there is no funding. In addition we (ie local home educators) and the LA (Hampshire) don't really understand what the following paragragh (about college funding/SEN ) means... can only those already in college on such funding/SEN children already getting support contiue to do so, or can "new" children benfit? To be perfectly accurate, no one in Hants is getting college funded by that method anyway (all local home educators who have college places funded do so because they are technically put on a roll of aschool to draw down funding, or for one group, the college are funding the course) but the LA did start identifying some SEN children and helped to support them, and this annoucement is ambigious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neither of my two young people took GCSEs, but both are in further and higher education studying at above GCSE level. It took an extra year for each of them to gain GCSE equivalent qualification at college, but they had no trouble getting on the course they wanted and had aimed for. My youngest is studying for GCSEs because they are needed for the course he is aiming for. Each to their own, I say.

    Statistics can say anything you want, you just have to choose a measure that fits with your required outcome. Want HE to look bad, I know, lets just look at GCSEs despite knowing that there are many other options and that the other options are often more popular with home educators.

    GCSEs are not the only or even the best option for many people and, even if GCSEs are the selected option for an individual, they may work to a different timetable to school children and still look bad in comparison. Will it matter when they are aged 30 and working if they gained their GCSEs at 16 (and looked good in the statistics) or 17 (and failed, according to the statistics) or if they gained their qualifications via a less traditional route? In my experience, no.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please pass on my congratulations to Simone on her Oxford offer. It must be such a relief after the wait.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I think personally, that this is a short sighted policy of the government and that the £300 or so a year which was being suggested for each child would have been money well spent."

    £300 wouldn't go very far though would it? £100 on authorised expenditure and £200 on the required monitoring to ensure it was spent as authorised seems the most likely outcome. It costs at least £200 for each visit to home educating families (according to an LEA about 10 years ago so this is likely to be an underestimate). Lets hope the government want to cut even more spending on home education.

    "'Well, you bastards, you made enough trouble for us about the Badman Review. See if you will get any of that money now after the way you moaned about the other recommendations! Losers!'"

    Given the current economic climate this seems a very short sighted, insular view. Unless you are also suggesting that the government are saying things like this about the Police, the NHS, pensioners, poor people (well maybe...) local councils...

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'We took the same route as you, but others take alternate routes to qualifications, which you did not refer to in this post.'

    I did not refer to these other routes, because the governemnt had never offered to help fiancially with them. The business was restricted to 10% of the AWPU; all this realted only to children aged between five and fourteen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'Please pass on my congratulations to Simone on her Oxford offer. It must be such a relief after the wait.'

    Thank you, I have done so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't operate any moderation here, but somebody repeated a rather silly comment which he had already posted yesterday. The gist was that I am a wanker, which may or may not be true. There are certainly more elegant and witty ways of criticising me!

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you can delete other people's comments without leaving a trace. You've got me wondering about all of my posts that have disappeared now...

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don't operate any moderation here, but somebody repeated a rather silly comment which he had already posted yesterday."

    As the other copy is buried in a long, long, comment thread, here's a link that will take you straight to it.

    http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.com/2010/12/alison-sauer-presents-first-fruits-of.html?showComment=1292872567170#c252898189144571543

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'So you can delete other people's comments without leaving a trace. You've got me wondering about all of my posts that have disappeared now...'

    Of course I can delete comments without trace. I tell people when I am doing so and why. In this case, the comment was a rather long, I imagine meant to be amusing, one, in which the words 'Simon Webb wanker' had been reversed. I have left the original post from yesterday if anybody wishes to see it. It did not have much to do with home education and so I thought that one copy was enough.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I imagine meant to be amusing, one, in which the words 'Simon Webb wanker' had been reversed."

    LOL! I'd missed that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The problem here being that in an increasing number of colleges and sixth form centres, this is impossible."

    Hmmmm, could that be an regional problem? Several of our friends have been able to attend college for A-Level. The problem as I have experienced it is that 16-18 year olds may find it harder(but not impossible) to gain access to A-levels. Over 18s seem to be able to do this with no problems that I have heard of.
    I think this is what most are doing, or OU instead quite often.
    The only possible disadvantage with this is that kids who opt to start later then begin their careers slightly later, though this isnt necessarily a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I imagine meant to be amusing, one, in which the words 'Simon Webb wanker' had been reversed."

    Best thing I've ever read on here. and by the way W Webb. I am very female.

    ReplyDelete
  17. C says-But as you pointed out,I cant imagine that any money would be allocated without strings attached. Who in government would hand out 'free money? It wouldnt make political or financial sense.

    Governments gives out free money all the time if it suits it! take a look at the oversees buget or the defence buget!
    it can and should give out loads of money to home educators who want it if you dont want your share we have it! what a nice christmas gift! many thanks!

    Julie how come your group gets help from HCC but the rest of us get nothing? that cant be right? is it becuase you suck up to them?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I did not refer to these other routes, because the governemnt had never offered to help fiancially with them."

    Did they define any particular route? Did the specifically mention qualifications, or was it for 'education'?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Peter

    Our group doesn't get any financial support from HCC; a few individual members have been able to access things like college placements, because the families have negotiated with the LA in our part of the world, and we have all supported that when necessary. As a group we also have a few books from some school book scheme, which we use as a library, and the nearest HE group to you has the same books in their library.
    We also have use of a school science lab for group practical activities; a group of home educators mananged to get free access to an adult ed class at a local college (but that is nothing to do with the LA) I can't think of any other perks at the moment - wait - I did get a slice of home made cake once at a meeting in the LA office; do I need to declare it on a list of home educators financial interests??

    ReplyDelete
  20. Teacher Julie says-I did get a slice of home made cake once at a meeting in the LA office; do I need to declare it on a list of home educators financial interests??

    What where you doing in the LA office? reporting back to them? yes all gifts financial intersts should be declared and you should have refused the cakes from them! why did LA give you a cake?

    ReplyDelete
  21. ....I think it went with the coffee I was given too....

    hmm, what was I doing? Not exactly sure, - could be negotiating about lab use/or registering as an exam centre, sorting out CRB checks -plenty of possibilities

    Julie

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'Best thing I've ever read on here. and by the way W Webb. I am very female.'

    Yes, but if you refuse to indicate your gender, one must guess; there being no gender neutral, singular pronoun for humans.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Simon wrote (in reply to Anonymous):
    "'We took the same route as you, but others take alternate routes to qualifications, which you did not refer to in this post.'

    I did not refer to these other routes, because the governemnt had never offered to help fiancially with them. The business was restricted to 10% of the AWPU; all this realted only to children aged between five and fourteen."

    The AWPU continues to at least 16. The document you link to states:

    "Provision for home educated pupils
    The Badman report on home education recommended that local authorities could provide some services for pupils who are educated at home. These might include paying exam entry fees or providing access to work experience. The consultation document sought views on a proposal to allow local authorities to claim for 10% of a unit of funding for home educated pupils to provide these services."

    No mention of a limit to GCSE-to-A level route there. I don't believe I've ever seen such a limit placed on this mythical money.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whatever the last Govt intended, it is irrelevant as this Govt aren't going to provide the money...

    -any way OU courses (above 10 points) are free to under 16's so they wouldn't have come into this equation anyway....

    ReplyDelete
  25. They are free to many over 16 too, as long as you study 30 or more points. Check out the eligibility checker, http://css2.open.ac.uk/fafcalculator/eligibility.aspx As an example, a single person with an income of £16,000 would qualify for fees of up to £820 and a grant of £265 towards study costs. None of this needs to be paid back in the future, unlike the usual university loans for fees. If someone has dependants the household income can be quite a bit higher. A friend had all their fees paid and the £265 grant with a household income of £22,000.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just thought that £820 doesn't sound much when we hear that uni course fees are £3000+ . However, for those unfamiliar with the OU, £820 is more than enough to cover most 60 point courses in full and more expensive courses (like law, for instance) qualify for extra help.

    If you want to study at the same rate as a bricks and mortar university (120 point per year), the fees grant goes up to £1230. This, combined with the £265 grant towards study costs, should pay all your course fees in full.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Simon wrote ' Last year, for example, Dudley, a town in the Midlands, revealed the figures for home educated children in their area and the GCSEs which they had taken and passed. These were pretty shocking. Of the hundred or so home educated children know to Dudley, only half had taken any GCSEs at all.'

    So, my question was, how many of them were taking OU or AS courses or exams as an alternative to GCSE's? Did Dudley keep records on alternatives to GCSE's?

    You describe this percentage taking GCSE's as 'shocking' and probably the result of 'ineffective teaching', but you haven't presented the whole picture, have you,? Many home educators choose alternate qualifications. This means that the Dudley results don't tell the complete story.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "
    Anonymous said...
    "I don't operate any moderation here, but somebody repeated a rather silly comment which he had already posted yesterday."

    As the other copy is buried in a long, long, comment thread, here's a link that will take you straight to it.

    http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.com/2010/12/alison-sauer-presents-first-fruits-of.html?showComment=1292872567170#c252898189144571543 "

    So, self confessed miserable git Webb is the only one that didn't find it funny

    ReplyDelete
  29. Julie says.I think it went with the coffee I was given too....

    you should not accept coffee from these people Julie!

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'So, self confessed miserable git Webb is the only one that didn't find it funny'

    I must confess that when I was at school, I found nothing more amusing than smuggling rude words past grown-ups by, for example, spelling them backwards. Somehow, as the years have gone by, I find the idea of somebody spelling 'wanker' as 'reknaw' less rib-tickling funny. I have no objection to anybody playing these games; as I say, I was fourteen myself once. The person who made made this joke is evidently desperately anxious for it to be noticed, having put it twice on the comments on successive days and also twice posted a link to it. He reminds me of a kid jumping up and down, shouting 'Poo, bums, willy!' in an increasingly frantic bid for attention. Come on guys, let's at least tell this person how clever he has been in reversing the letters of a rude word!

    ReplyDelete
  31. It was probably an off the ckuf comment Mr reknaw - er sory Webb.


    Darren

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ah, another case of arrested development! How cool is that; he jumbles up 'fuck' and puts the letters in a different order. That's even more clever than simply reversing them. Gosh, what will these daring young fellows come up with next? Honestly, first 'wanker' and then 'fuck'; I wonder how many more of these naughty words they know?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Somehow, as the years have gone by, I find the idea of somebody spelling 'wanker' as 'reknaw' less rib-tickling funny."

    To be fair, that was only a small part of the message. I almost looked up the names thinking they were genuine, so I'm afraid that part of the joke passed me by.

    "The person who made made this joke is evidently desperately anxious for it to be noticed, having put it twice on the comments on successive days and also twice posted a link to it."

    Err, no, that was me, a different anonymous. Well, the first copy of the link anyway. Sorry for the confusion!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Webb says: 'So, self confessed miserable git Webb is the only one that didn't find it funny'

    I must confess that when I was at school, "

    The reversed words were surely incidental as the whole flow of the text with its funny punchline was the real humour. Only web would not see it.

    Claire

    ReplyDelete
  35. Self importance and superiority mania demonstration from a miserable person with no sense of humour:

    I must confess that when I was at school, I found nothing more amusing than smuggling rude words past grown-ups by, for example, spelling them backwards. Somehow, as the years have gone by, I find the idea of somebody spelling 'wanker' as 'reknaw' less rib-tickling funny. I have no objection to anybody playing these games; as I say, I was fourteen myself once. The person who made made this joke is evidently desperately anxious for it to be noticed, having put it twice on the comments on successive days and also twice posted a link to it. He reminds me of a kid jumping up and down, shouting 'Poo, bums, willy!' in an increasingly frantic bid for attention. Come on guys, let's at least tell this person how clever he has been in reversing the letters of a rude word!

    ReplyDelete
  36. 'Self importance and superiority mania demonstration from a miserable person with no sense of humour'

    Yes, thanks to the poobumwilly person for distracting us from the ISSUES raised in the post. {sigh}

    ReplyDelete