Monday 24 January 2011

Motives of the state

Underlying much of the debate among home educating parents on the possibility of increased regulation of education outside school is an assumption that there is more to this than meets the idea. One frequently reads that the government or local authorities do not really care about the children and that something else is driving this whole business. I am frankly baffled as to what this might be. I certainly had my differences with Essex County Council and they annoyed me at times, but I never doubted for a moment that they were acting in what they felt to be the interests of my daughter. Similarly, I never had reason to suppose that Ed Balls was motivated by anything other than the anxiety that some children might not have been receiving an adequate education or might have been at risk of abuse. These fears may have been mistaken, but I have no idea what else might have been at the back of the Badman Review apart from genuine, if misplaced, concern for children.

Nevertheless, many home educators feel that there is some sinister agenda of which we are not being told. This varies from an apparent desire on the part of the state to make all children the same and not to allow parents to raise future rebels and malcontents to local authorities wishing to protect themselves against job losses. Although beliefs of this sort are more properly classified as conspiracy theories, there may in some cases be a grain of truth in the anxieties which parents are feeling.

Yesterday, somebody said here that he felt that Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Act was designed for the benefit of the state rather than for children. This is classic wooly thinking; it does not seem to occur to people that what is of benefit to the state is often of benefit to individuals as well; the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. What benefit would the state have received from the passage of Schedule 1? There was no secret about this; it was set out plainly in the accompanying notes when the CSF Bill was published in 2009. One of the benefits would have been that more home educated children would have gained five GCSEs between grades A*-C. This would have raised the average earnings of these children over their lifetimes and made it less likely that they would be claiming benefits. In other words, it would have been of benefit to the child. The state would have benefited too. I say the state, but I should perhaps say society. Society would benefit because there is a direct and strong correlation between children who at the age of sixteen do not have at least five GCSEs between grades A*-C and their future life chances. To give one example. In prisons, it is extremely common to find young people without a single GCSE. Among young professionals, this is unheard of. The more and better GCSEs, the better the outlook in terms of employment and higher education for a young person. This means better earnings over the course of a lifetime. This is not to say that every home educated child without GCSEs will end up in prison of course! It does mean that out of a large group of youngsters, those without GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to go into higher education. They are also far more likely to be involved in criminal activity, using drugs and suffering from psychiatric problems. Their health tends to be poorer as well. All this tends to lower their earnings over their lifetime.

Here is one instance where the interests of the state and of the children themselves coincide. If a young person is on benefits or in prison, it is not only bad for the young person, it is expensive for the state which is obliged to support him. When home educating parents are talking of the state not being the parent to their children, it is to be hoped that they are bearing this in mind. In other words, if they are rejecting the state's involvement in the upbringing and welfare of their children now, are they going to be doing so in the future? If their children end up with no qualifications and perhaps unemployable, will they be telling the state to get lost when it comes to providing support in the form of benefits? Here is a definite a stake that the state has in a home educated child. If in the future, society will be expected to shell out for the child when he is an adult, perhaps pay for him to be educated or trained, then I think that it is justifiable to look at his childhood and ask what might have brought him to this point.

Before anybody mentions it, yes, I am aware that many school leavers are poorly qualified and end up in prison or on the dole. And no, I have no reason to suppose that either of these outcomes are more common among home educated children. According to Mike Fortune-Wood, there are over a hundred thousand home educated children in this country. If true, this would be the equivalent of more than a hundred schools full of children. It seems to me reasonable that the state should want to know something of this large number of children, including how many of them might prove to be wholly reliant upon state benefits in the future. Poor educational outcomes are not simply a private matter between parent and child; they affect us all ultimately.

21 comments:

  1. Why would more home educated children have achieved five GCSEs at A* to C, Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have a look at this document, Allie. Pages 87-95 are the relevant ones;

    http://www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/CSF-Bill_Impact-Assessment.pdf

    This will give you some of the financial thinking behind Scehdule 1 of the CSF Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's surprising that someone who claims to know real home educators keeps hinting darkly that we can expect the prisons and young offender institutions to have ex-home educated students within its walls.

    I'm friends with the prison chaplain of a Cat A prison. Next time I see him, I'll ask him if there are any stats for prisoners' mode of education.

    I'm also going to be visiting the same prison around Easter. I might ask some of the inmates if they've ever known any HE's prisoners during their prson career.

    Oh and come to think of it, the govenor of Wormwood Scrubs goes to our church. I'll ask him too.

    I suspect I know what the results of these informal enquiries will be, but I will try to remain the objective observer while I make them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'I suspect I know what the results of these informal enquiries will be, but I will try to remain the objective observer while I make them.'

    Good try! However I too suspect that I know what the results of these informal enquiries will be. Since fewer than 1% of children are home educated and only a very tiny fraction of any group of young people ends up in prison anyway, the chances are about a hundred thousand to one against meeting a home educated young person in any setting, whether a prison or a health farm.
    None of the schooled children of my friends have been to prison either, but this does not mean that no children who attend school go on to spend time in prison.

    The point I was making about the outlook for those with no GCSEs stands.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, so I get the calculations but they seem to be based on 'facts' about the situation that we know they didn't have and projections they couldn't really make with any confidence.

    First, we know that they didn't know about the education of home educated children as a group - either in terms of day to day quality or qualifications attained. The prejudices and assumptions of LAs don't really count, do they?

    Then they made assumptions about the likely outcome of their interventions - i.e. they could get the same results (in terms of GCSEs passed)from their intended intervention in home edders lives as they do (on average) from schooled children in the general population. I can't see why they assumed that.

    You said that,
    "One of the benefits would have been that more home educated children would have gained five GCSEs between grades A*-C."

    You can't claim that really, can you?

    Then there's the whole question of assuming that large scale generalisations (people without many qualifications) apply equally to a small sub-set (home educated people without many qualifications). It's all far more complicated than you suggest here.

    I know you know these things, Simon. Without a crystal ball you can't make any serious claims about what would have happened had the bill passed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Since fewer than 1% of children are home educated and only a very tiny fraction of any group of young people ends up in prison anyway,'

    I thought you were trying to imply that HE'd young people were more likely to end up there because they'd had their life-chances ruined by not getting 5 GCSE's grace C or above. Surely then, there should be loads of them in prison?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Surely then, there should be loads of them in prison?'

    No, of course not. Very few young people of any large group end up in prison. We are talking increased risks; not dead certainties. Very few young people without GCSEs go to prison, but they are more likely to do so than young people with A levels. Since home educated children are so rare, there will be few of them anywhere, whether prison or university.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But.... I am pretty sure there is a difference between those who don't take GCSES for a good reason, and those who don't take them because they aren't actually in any sort of education at all, or are failing them.

    "Good reason" is the sort of home educator who make a conscious decision about not taking GCSES - either because they are aiming to go to college in some type of vocational or arty course at 16 where they aren't needed to get in, or because they are doing alternatives anyway (such as the OU sort).
    That is a world away from the "don't attend any sort of education/don't want to learn and so on" I think it is clear that if anyone is going to end up in prison, it isn't likely to be those who have made positive decisions about their educational choices.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'First, we know that they didn't know about the education of home educated children as a group - either in terms of day to day quality or qualifications attained. The prejudices and assumptions of LAs don't really count, do they?'

    True, but when figures do emerge, they are not encouraging. See:

    http://www.expressandstar.com/latest/2009/12/19/home-schooled-pupils-fall-off-radar/

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'I think it is clear that if anyone is going to end up in prison, it isn't likely to be those who have made positive decisions about their educational choices.'

    That is absolutely true Julie. However we have no reason to suppose that all, or even most, children and young people who have been de-registered from school fall into this catagory. Besides, I am not at all sure in what sense my daughter can be said to have made what you describe as 'a positive choice' about her education. I didn't send her to school; at the age of five, she had no choice at all in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I never had reason to suppose that Ed Balls was motivated by anything other than the anxiety that some children might not have been receiving an adequate education or might have been at risk of abuse.

    No that was not why Ed Balls was motivated to ban home eduation Ed Balls hates Home education and can also said he would not do it! Balls is an extreme Left winger who belive the state should control everything over peopels life! Balls was using the motive of child abuse with home education to at first make it harder to do than later he would have baned it! Balls lost this time and hopfully he want help to keep labout of of office!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simon said,

    "True, but when figures do emerge, they are not encouraging. See:

    http://www.expressandstar.com/latest/2009/12/19/home-schooled-pupils-fall-off-radar/"

    But, even if you think this indicates a problem (which I don't, necessarily) it doesn't follow that the interventions suggested in the failed bill would have changed things. You can't possibly claim,

    "One of the benefits would have been that more home educated children would have gained five GCSEs between grades A*-C."

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'You can't possibly claim,

    "One of the benefits would have been that more home educated children would have gained five GCSEs between grades A*-C." '

    The point I was really driving at here Allie is that everybody in this debate is motivated by what they see as the welfare of children. I keep seeing hints that there is some other reason for attempts to regulate home education, but I have no idea what this might be. You are of course right, it is impossible to say whether or not introducing new controls would really result in X numbers of kids getting five GCSEs. Nevertheless, that was the hope of those who framed the legisaltion and their motives were sound. This was what I was trying to convey. We can certainly disagree whehter they were right or if they were going about the thing in the best way, but it is not helpful when it is suggested that there was a sinister reason for trying to bring home education under increased oversight.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Yesterday, somebody said here that he felt that Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Act was designed for the benefit of the state rather than for children. This is classic wooly thinking; it does not seem to occur to people that what is of benefit to the state is often of benefit to individuals as well"

    So removing the defence of providing a suitable education which makes enforcing SAOs much cheaper and easier for the authorities and impossible to defend against for home educators is good for everyone?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "One of the benefits would have been that more home educated children would have gained five GCSEs between grades A*-C."

    Why would you or anyone assume that increased monitoring would improve outcomes? This has not been the experience in the US or New Zealand.

    "This will give you some of the financial thinking behind Scehdule 1 of the CSF Bill."

    But this was not based on evidence, it was based on assumptions - the assumption that if we spend money sending education professionals into home it must automatically raise standards. Again, very faulty thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "It does mean that out of a large group of youngsters, those without GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to go into higher education. "

    You are confusing cause and effect here and assuming that the lack of GCSEs causes the problems. It's far more likely that 'something' causes both the lack of GCSEs and and negative outcomes. If the original negative cause is not present in someone without GCSEs there's no reason to expect the negative outcomes. Very woolly thinking there, Simon.

    In all of this you (and the government) are also ignoring GCSE equivalents and the very common situation where HE children gain GCSE or the equivalent a year later than school children when they can take them for free at college.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I keep seeing hints that there is some other reason for attempts to regulate home education, but I have no idea what this might be.

    the reason is Ed Balls belief in the nanny state and his extreme left wing views this is why he wants to ban home education.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'the very common situation where HE children gain GCSE or the equivalent a year later than school children when they can take them for free at college.'

    Could we have some statistics for this?

    'You are confusing cause and effect here and assuming that the lack of GCSEs causes the problems. It's far more likely that 'something' causes both the lack of GCSEs and and negative outcomes.'

    Yes, this is fairly obvious. I am hardly likely at this late stage of my life to fall victim to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy! We are not talking cause and effect but positing an association. It does not matter what the association is. There is very good evidence that employers and colleges look askance at teenagers without GCSEs. The cause of their failing to get them is not relevant. Many employers have said that they would not even consider an applicamt without any GCSEs. A survey by the Learning and Skills Council in 2006 found that 20% of employers would simply disregard an application from somebody without a single GCSE. Even more were dubious about a job applicant with fewer than five GCSEs between A*-C. These employers would not care what the reason was. Your talk of cause and effect is therefore beside the point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're making the assumption that five GCSE passes are a requirement and the only good thing. DCSF liked it as a standard because it was easy for them to measure. Whether it is a useful measure is another matter entirely, especially as there's a continuing debate about standards and whether some GCSEs are easier than others, not to mention the standard Daily Fail complaint that they're not up to scratch compared to the O-levels taken by much of Middle England.

    I stand by my claim that Schedule 1 was for the benefit of the state, and any benefit to home educators is entirely coincidental. Stating a specific example does not invalidate any other example that might be designed to benefit both - and you accuse me of wooly thinking!

    Look at how many of the prison population are drawn from the ranks of children unfortunate enough to have the state as parent? That is a significant number, and the fact that schools, under control of the state, fail to do very well against the state targets is another factor.

    Surely the government should welcome autonomous home education as a control group, and simply request anonymous data on the final outcome at age 16/18, which it can then use to determine whether the state is doing better or worse. As Heisenberg pointed out, the act of observing something disturbs it, which is evident in schools teaching to the test and is why home educators do not wish for that disturbance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'You're making the assumption that five GCSE passes are a requirement and the only good thing. DCSF liked it as a standard because it was easy for them to measure'

    I am not making any such assumption. Forget the DCSF for a moment and consider the direct and strong correlation between those five GCSEs and employment history. Think about the connection between those five GCSEs and going on to higher education. For whatever reason or combination of reasons, not having those GCSEs is associated with poor outcomes in life. If this were only an invention of the DCSF, I would not be that concerned, but it is not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Simon wrote,
    "A survey by the Learning and Skills Council in 2006 found that 20% of employers would simply disregard an application from somebody without a single GCSE."

    Simon, that's a gross misrepresentation, at least according to The Times which states:

    More than 20 per cent said that they would not recruit teenagers with fewer than five good GCSEs or the vocational equivalent

    Stop going on and on about GCSEs. There are alternatives and many HE children take them in preference to GCSEs because they are easier to organise at college and are free. This is based on the 14 young HEed people I've know since childhood, all of whom have gained qualifications to at least GCSE equivalent level and only 3 have done this with GCSEs (and this corresponds with internet friend's experiences too).

    ReplyDelete