The more articulate home educators in this country are very good at citing various faraway places as showing why the situation in this country with regard to home education should never change. We saw this here recently, when somebody brought up New Zealand as a knockdown argument against the routine monitoring of home education. I suspect that those using the case of New Zealand in this way actually know very well why it is not comparable with this country, but for the benefit of those who genuinely do not, let’s have a look at why the cases of this country and New Zealand are wholly dissimilar when it comes to home education.
In England, any parent wishing to educate a child at home must do one of two things. The first option is, as in my own case, to do nothing at all; that is to say just not sending the child to school at the age of five. The second is if the child is attending school, writing to the Head and saying that you are taking your child out of the school. That’s it. No seeking permission, no registration; nothing at all. It is this state of affairs that many militant home educators are determined to maintain at all costs. Where does New Zealand fit into all this? Some people in this country are concerned that children being educated at home might not be receiving a good education. New Zealand, until a few years ago, used to monitor home education pretty closely and found that 95% of children being educated in this way were getting an acceptable education. This appeared to remain the case even when routine monitoring was stopped. Therefore, so the argument goes, it would be a waste of time and money to start routine monitoring of home educated children in England.
Assuming that it is true that 95% of home educated children in New Zealand are getting good education, does that tell us anything useful about the current situation in England? Not in the slightest. This is because parents in New Zealand are not allowed to educate their children at home until they have fulfilled certain conditions. The law there is very clear. The 1989 Education Act says that permission to educate a child at home will only be granted if it can be shown that the child, ‘will be taught as regularly and as well’ as if he were at school. Note that; home educated children in New Zealand must be taught and not only that, taught as much as children at school and to at least as high a standard. Of course, some children in this country are getting this at home; many are not. There are an awful lot of parents here who do not approve of regular teaching, certainly not as frequently as it is given in schools. These would be breaking the law in New Zealand.
In order to home educate in New Zealand, one must ask for permission from the Ministry of Education. No nonsense here about just dealing with a local authority! Permission is not always granted. There are two reasons for this. One is that if a child about whom there is anxiety is taken from school, the school will contact the Ministry of Education and explain why they think why home education is a bad idea. Secondly, to gain permission anyway, called being granted an exemption, parents must fill out a very detailed outline of the type of teaching which they mean to undertake. Teaching, remember, not just allowing the child to learn autonomously. Here is a very abbreviated version of the sort of thing parents would need to be setting out in detail before they could even be considered for permission to teach their child at home:
1. Special Education Needs
If enrolled in a registered school, would your child be likely to need special education, forexample in a special class or clinic or by a special service? If yes, how do you plan to meet your child’s special educational needs?
2. Knowledge and understanding
Describe your knowledge and understanding of the broad curriculum areas you intend to cover as you educate your child.
3. Curriculum
Describe your curriculum or programme. Detail what you intend to cover with your child in different areas of your stated curriculum. The National Curriculum Framework may serve as a guide but use of this is not compulsory. It lists seven essential learning areas and eight grouipings of essential skills. These are listed below for your information should you wish to use the National Curriculum Framework as a guide.
4. The National Curriculum
Essential Learning Areas
Language and Languages
Mathematics
Science
Technology
Social Sciences
The Arts
Health and Well-Being
Essential Skills
Communication Skills
Numeracy Skills
Information Skills
Problem-solving Skills
Self-management and competitive Skills
Social and co-operative Skills
Physical Skills
Work and study Skills
Whatever source of curriculum you select, you should be specific about the skills you want your child to learn and you should be clear about matching the learning needs of your child to your programme.
5. Topic Plan
To help the Ministry understand how your curriculum vision translates into practical terms, we ask you to includ one topic of your choosing.
We are looking for the following elements in your statement:
The Topic Title –
The Aim – what you are going to teach your child.
Resources – what materials you would use to teach the topic.
Method – what steps would you take to communicate/teach the material? Please be as
clear as possible.
Evaluation – how you will test/measure the effectiveness of your teaching.
6. Resources and Reference Material
(There is no need to list the titles of books.) Please provide a comprehensive list of all resources and reference material available to you. Also list the type of material you may intend to include in the future. Do not list the titles of every publication.
7. Environment
State how you will use the environment and your community to extend and enrich your child’s education. Please include in this a description of any educational visits you hope to make.
8. Social Contact
Describe how you intend to provide for your child’s need for social contact with other children.
9. Assessment and Evaluation
Explain how you are going to assess and evaluate the progress your child is making. Remember, you will need to have some record of this over the years, eg, if your child wants to enter an apprenticeship, this will be needed.
10. Regularity
The legislation requires a commitment to regularity. In explaining your routines, show how you will meet the requirement that your child will be taught at least as regularly as in a registered school. Some parents provide a timetable to meet this request, some describe their integrated approach. You may like to include one of the following:
• Timetable or
• Integrated curriculum description or
• Description of typical routines used.
11. Other Information
Please make any other comments you consider relevant.
There are several consequences of all this. First, the sort of parent in this country who has a row with the head at her child’s school or is anxious about bullying and then dashes off a letter deregistering the kid, is unknown in New Zealand. Applying for an exemption is a serious process which can drag on for ages. It is very common for the Ministry of Education to consider an application and then write back asking for further and fuller details. This alone discourages parents from just taking their children from school in response to some temporary problem. It is one thing to take a child out of school and say that you will ‘de-school’ for six or nine months; quite another to realise that you will be expected to provide fulltime teaching from the word go! Although the majority of applications for an exemption are eventually granted, quite a few are not. These are the cases where the school is worried about the child or the parents seem to be incapable of providing an education. It must be borne in mind too that applications for exemption must be renewed twice a year and can be withdrawn at any time.
I think that readers are now beginning to see why 95% of home educated children in New Zealand might be getting a good education. It is because those who are not prepared to teach their children as much and as well as a school are not allowed to home educate in the first place. Those who do not feel up to the job of teaching to a high standard usually don't bother to apply for an exemption. Trying to draw any comparison between this state of affairs and the case of England, where anybody can take their child from school at the drop of a hat and then announce that the kid will be doing nothing for six months, is absolutely meaningless. I am not at all surprised that the great majority of home educated children in New Zealand are receiving a good education. This would also be the case in this country if we put into place the same system here.
Of course, if those who talk enthusiastically about New Zealand and the high educational standards achieved by home educating parents there are in favour of a rigorous system like the one there being instituted in this country; I would be the first to give my support. Imagine parents in this country being expected to teach their children fulltime to as high a standard as schools! It sounds great to me and I will certainly join in any campaign for this. Until then, it is probably best that English home educators give the subject of New Zealand a wide berth, as it raises more questions for them than it answers.
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
What about New Zealand?
Labels:
1989 Education Act,
exemption,
home education,
monitoring,
New Zealand
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as I can see, the information provided in order to request exception in New Zealand is very like the information provided in the UK when Local Authorities make informal enquiries. There are many examples of successful requests posted on the internet and, as an autonomous home educator, I would be very happy to provide something like this as a response to informal enquiries, http://sandradodd.com/curriculum/NZ. We actually provided much more information when our LA made informal enquiries and we had a home visit. We first became known to the LA when my child was 5, despite home educating from the start.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"I am not at all surprised that the great majority of home educated children in New Zealand are receiving a good education. This would also be the case in this country if we put into place the same system here."
One thing I found interesting about the freedom of information requests to Local Authorities in 2009, and the resulting analysis, was that the figure for those considered to be receiving a suitable education by Local Authorities in the UK was virtually identical to the figure for New Zealand. These would include most of the families you are most concerned about, since all of the families who save their children from bullying at school in this country are initially included in the group of home educators known, and effectively registered, with their LA.
"Of course, if those who talk enthusiastically about New Zealand and the high educational standards achieved by home educating parents there are in favour of a rigorous system like the one there being instituted in this country; I would be the first to give my support."
Apart from the reversal of permission, which seems unnecessary and likely to cause harm if a child is forced to stay at school until permission is gained, it would make little difference to those who are already know to their LA. I can see little difference between the actions I've have taken as an autonomous educator in the UK and those I would take in New Zealand, except that I don't get funding and I would probably not have been told that I had to accept a visit. In New Zealand they apply for permission, in the UK, 'permission' can be withdrawn.
Funding is of course, one of the reasons for the system in New Zealand. Each homeschooled child attracts funding that is paid directly to the parents who do not have to account for how it is spent. Any state funding will inevitably include greater state oversight to ensure taxes are not being wasted.
But the New Zealand argument is only one strand of many. I would still like to know why you think that education should be monitored more strictly than the parental provision of 'adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging', to a child. Community monitoring works well for the basics of life, why do you think it does not for education?
The people who want to spend additional tax money on increased monitoring should be providing evidence of need and evidence of the effectiveness of the approach they are mandating. This they have failed to do. What evidence do you have to justify spending extra money on the routine monitoring of so many families, 95% of whom are fine, when the problem 5% are likely to be brought to the attention of the LA via community monitoring, especially when resources are so stretched?
Good point. You seem to be saying that while routine monitoring might not be an effective use of resources, you would be in favour of the kind of compulsory registration in force in New Zealand, perhaps combined with the sort of commitment to proper, fulltime teaching that parents in that country are obliged to undertake. Under such circumstances, you may be right; regular, routine monitoring could well prove unnecessary. I think that we agree on this point.
ReplyDeleteNot without evidence of need and evidence of the effectiveness of the mandated approach. Do you have any evidence? If not, why do you think taxpayers money should be spent without the need to provide evidence? Why do you think education requires closer monitoring than the basics of life?
Delete"perhaps combined with the sort of commitment to proper, fulltime teaching that parents in that country are obliged to undertake."
DeleteAll parents in the UK are required to provide their children with a full time education, it's not something that needs to be introduced.
I'm not sure why you mention teaching, since every education approach I've heard about includes teaching in some form, even autonomous education despite your past assumptions. It may not look the same as what you call teaching, and I know you've used it yourself, it's a responsive form of teaching - answering questions, following interests, provision of resources, etc - rather than the adult directed, initiated and controlled form of teaching. But autonomous education has been accepted as providing a suitable education by case law in the UK and is also accepted in New Zealand.
Or did you have some other education approach in mind?
I don't think that Local Authorities or Government would like the New Zealand system. Parent's only have to describe their education once at the beginning of home education, instead of annually as required by many LAs. After the first report in New Zealand they just have to declare that they are continuing to home education according to the terms of exemption. Home visits are much rarer than in the UK, yet many LAs claim that home visits are essential. Parents also receive funding which does not have to be accounted for.
' In New Zealand they apply for permission, in the UK, 'permission' can be withdrawn'
ReplyDeleteCompletely different. In New Zealand permission is frequently refused and parents not given exemption. In this country, the enforcement of School Attendance Orders against home edcuating parents is all but unheard of. In one country, permission is refused; in the other it is not.
Can you provide evidence that permission is frequently refused in New Zealand? I've heard that they often ask for more information, but that's not the same as refusing exemption. I would be interested in seeing the statistics you have.
DeleteThe 2009 freedom of information equiries discovered 77 current School Attendance Orders against home educating parents. Local Authorities also described many examples of parents being threatened with SAOs and children being enrolled at schools as a direct result of both treats to issue SAOs and of issued SAOs.
In one country, school is compulsory unless exemption is given, in another country, education is compulsory. The requirement to ask permission in this country would reverse something established in all Education Acts, that it is education that is compulsory, not school.
Yes, I'd be interested to know how exactly what proportion of parents are refused permission to HE. You say,
Delete'Although the majority of applications for an exemption are eventually granted, quite a few are not.'
What's your source for this statement? Can you give a link to an online statistic? The accuracy of your assertion seems to be crucial to your argument here.
"perhaps combined with the sort of commitment to proper, fulltime teaching that parents in that country are obliged to undertake."
ReplyDeleteAll parents in the UK are required to provide their children with a full time education, it's not something that needs to be introduced. '
Brilliant attempt to fudge the issue! At the moment, education is a requirement in law in this country; the explicit provision of teaching is not. In New Zealand, regular teaching to at least as high a quality as that provided in schools is a legal requirment. This is bond to make a great difference.
'The 2009 freedom of information enquiries discovered 77 current School Attendance Orders against home educating parents'
Good try! As I think we both know, it is is unclear how many of these SAOs were concerned with families where there was no other official involvment. In other words, many, probably most, were for families where social services were involved and so on. I have been hunting for a long time for a home educated child who has been forced back to school on purely edcuational grounds. Do you know of any?
As far as I can make out, and correct me if I am wrong, your objections to monitoring and registration are solely connected with the cost. Is that right?
"I have been hunting for a long time for a home educated child who has been forced back to school on purely edcuational grounds. Do you know of any?"
DeleteLAs were asked to comment on the families they had educational concerns about for the 2009 FOI document. There are many mentions of children returning or starting school after concerns about education provision were raised by the LA.
If you really want to know, why not issue your own FOI enquiries. It's very easy - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Brilliant attempt to fudge the issue! At the moment, education is a requirement in law in this country; the explicit provision of teaching is not. In New Zealand, regular teaching to at least as high a quality as that provided in schools is a legal requirment. This is bond to make a great difference."
Brilliant attempt to ignore my request for information about the forms of education that you believe do not include teaching. We have ruled out autonomous education since this is accepted in both countries. First prove there's a problem that requires a solution before paying for a solution. Local Authorities think that 95% of home educators are providing a suitable education.
Simon wrote,
"Good try! As I think we both know, it is is unclear how many of these SAOs were concerned with families where there was no other official involvment."
Good try! The 2009 FOI questions also asked about substance abuse or neglect care plans. Only 11 of the 77 SAOs overlapped with care plans, so some of these 11 may possibly have had other official involvement (there's no way to tell if the same people were in both groups). Since many LAs list care plans without SAOs, we have no reason to assume that other concerns automatically mean there are education concerns.
Simon wrote,
"As far as I can make out, and correct me if I am wrong, your objections to monitoring and registration are solely connected with the cost. Is that right?"
I've read many case reviews. I want the money to be spent on saving similar children - children already known to be at risk by the authorities. I want children to be saved instead of home educators listed and visited. I want children to be saved instead of adding false positives to the haystack making the at risk children more difficult to find. If that counts as, 'solely connected with cost', then yes.
Resources will always be limited so it is essential that they are targeted where they are most needed and are most effective. The vast majority of families that feature in case reviews are already known to social services. We don't need to find more children who may, possibly, be at risk (along with lots of false positives), we need to save the children we know are at risk.
The fact that so few children are killed or seriously harmed without being brought to the attention of the authorities first shows that community monitoring works. If we then say to the community, we are checking all home educators regularly, I suspect fewer people will bother to report concerns that an annual visitor is unlikely to notice. So it's even possible that more harm will be caused by monitoring. We have no evidence that monitoring will achieve anything positive. Quite the reverse. We have evidence from New Zealand and America that monitoring makes no difference.
I shall be posting a piece in the next few days about the deliberate strategy of pretending that opposition to registration and monitoring is based on concerns about wasting money. This policy has been dreamed up as one most likely to appeal to the man in the street.
ReplyDeleteAs for making Freedom of Information Requests, I have not time to do this with all a hundred and fifty odd local authorities. Most have already answered such requests and stated that they none have been made in recent years. Birmingham, for example, were asked in 2009 and said that they had none;
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ehe_department_suitable_educatio_4
Recent requests to places like Staffordshire and Lincolnshire reveal the same thing; SAOs are not used against home educators.
Simon.
"Birmingham, for example, were asked in 2009 and said that they had none;"
DeleteAnyone can play the cherry picking game. How about Devon, who when asked about SAOs in 2009, replied:
Number issued in last 12 months: 5
Additional comments: All children went back to school apart from one who disappeared with his mother. Mother was taken to court and fined in her absence. They have now been traced to another part of the country.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_call_for_he_evidence_34#incoming-54978
Simon wrote earlier,
Delete"I have been hunting for a long time for a home educated child who has been forced back to school on purely edcuational grounds. Do you know of any?"
You obviously didn't look very hard, Simon. But then, you didn't really want to find evidence that home educated children were being forced back to school did you?
Simon, am I right in thinking that you are in favour of monitoring as a way of improving standards of education rather than as a safeguarding tool?
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I shall be posting a piece in the next few days about the deliberate strategy of pretending that opposition to registration and monitoring is based on concerns about wasting money."
I strongly object to being accused of dreaming up a strategy in order to pretend that opposition to registration and monitoring is based on concerns about wasting money. I am an individual - not a member of any group and not active on any email lists or forums (though I occasionally read some of them). I'm not claiming that anyone else holds these views or makes these arguments, I'm putting them forward as an individual for discussion because they reflect the current situation as I see it after reading widely around the issue, having home educated for 16 years and having experience of both being known to an LA and having visits and sending reports, and also being unknown to a local authority. I've no idea if anyone else holds similar views.
I object to registration and monitoring because I honestly believe it will fail to achieve what it sets out to achieve. I've seen it in action. At least have the decency to address the arguments put forward in good faith instead of attempting to smear the writer!
In the process of spending money on a problem we haven't proved exists with a solution we have no evidence works, we will waste money that could be better spent elsewhere and also risk increasing the size of the haystack (as warned by Eileen Munro) when safeguarding is included in the mix along with education (as it inevitably is). It's not the money I'm concerned about, but the harm caused to children who might otherwise be saved if spending is better targeted.
Simon wrote,
"Most have already answered such requests and stated that they none have been made in recent years. Birmingham, for example, were asked in 2009 and said that they had none;"
Of course there are individual Local Authorities that did not have current School Attendance Orders in operation when the question was asked. It was a snapshot in time. One LA is anecdotal evidence, you need to look at the results of asking all LAs the question. This result showed that there were 77 current SAO issued against home educators - not none. Picking a single LA that didn't have a current SAO when asked does not wipe out all those that did!
'I strongly object to being accused of dreaming up a strategy in order to pretend that opposition to registration and monitoring is based on concerns about wasting money. I am an individual - not a member of any group and not active on any email lists or forums (though I occasionally read some of them). '
ReplyDeleteI wasn't accusing you of dreaming up a strategy. Indeed, I could hardly do so; I don't even know who you are! I was rather drawing attention to what happens when things like registration and monitoring are in the wind. The fact is, many home educating parents think that it is nobody's business but their own what goes on in their homes and how they raise and educate their children. They want no interference. Saying this bluntly though might not go down to well with the average person who might share the concerns of local authorities for either the welfare or edcuational attainment of children being educated at home.
Because they are aware that many ordinary people find it hard to understand their opposition to monitoring, groups of home edcuators come up with reasons that are canculated to appeal to other people. One of these is that they are worried that wasting money on home education will leave fewer resources for those children in genuine need.
Simon.
"Because they are aware that many ordinary people find it hard to understand their opposition to monitoring, groups of home edcuators come up with reasons that are canculated to appeal to other people. One of these is that they are worried that wasting money on home education will leave fewer resources for those children in genuine need."
DeleteOr they genuinely fear that children will suffer as a direct result of resources being incorrectly targeted, as I do. Why do you continue to fail to address the issues raised and instead attack home educators for holding these views?
'How about Devon, who when asked about SAOs in 2009, replied:
ReplyDeleteNumber issued in last 12 months: 5
Additional comments: All children went back to school apart from one who disappeared with his mother. Mother was taken to court and fined in her absence. They have now been traced to another part of the country.'
It is unclear whether a home educated child was forced back to school in this case. Certainly some were bluffed by the local authority, but it is not clear whether the single prosecution resulted in the child being sent to school.
Simon wrote earlier,
"I have been hunting for a long time for a home educated child who has been forced back to school on purely edcuational grounds. Do you know of any?"
You obviously didn't look very hard, Simon. But then, you didn't really want to find evidence that home educated children were being forced back to school did you?'
On the contrary, back in January I spent ages hunting for such a case in the preceding couple of years. By which I mean a child being forced back to school as a result of his parents being prosecuted. Nobody could come up with a case. Such things are rarer than hen's teeth!
Simon.
'
Five SAOs were raised and 4 of these children were forced into school. The LA didn't need to take them to court for failing to abide by the SAO because they had given in and sent their child to school. When this didn't work in the fifth case they did take the family to court. You seem to be suggesting that families might just as well ignore SAOs because the LA is bluffing and will not take you to court. Clearly they were not in this authority.
DeleteYou seem to think it only counts if a family holds out and gets taken to court by the LA but the SAO is a legal document. You seem to have a strange idea about the willingness of families to put themselves through this. Most will just give in and send their child to school rather than go through the stress and expense of a court case.
Lewisham say that one of their two SAOs was taken to court a while ago and is due in court again soon.
Deletehttp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_call_for_he_evidence_75
Nottingham started legal proceedings for one family who accessed a school place just before the court date.
Deletehttp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_call_for_he_evidence_93#incoming-54556
North East Lincolnshire had issued one SAO and said, "In cases of concern either the provision has improved to a suitable education with guidance by LA or returned to school."
Deletehttp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_call_for_he_evidence_86#incoming-70153
Sandwell said, "School Attendance Order processes have been initiated with respect to 4 children but they accepted a school place prior to an Order being made necessary."
Deletehttp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_call_for_he_evidence_108#incoming-53227
Whether SAOs reach court or not is irrelevant (and we are unlikely to read about magistrate cases in the press or elsewhere as demonstrated by the examples of court cases taken from the 2009 FOI information). The fact remains that many children are returned to school, or education provision is improved as a direct result of Local Authority intervention, either by a threat to issue an SAO or the issue of a SAO. Many examples of these situations are described in the 2009 FOI answers from Local Authorities.
Community monitoring works for education concerns, just as it does for abuse and neglect. It has proved effective in New Zealand and America for education and in the UK with regards to abuse and neglect cases. Why would education in the UK be different?
'Community monitoring works for education concerns, just as it does for abuse and neglect.'
DeleteI would love to believe that all communities are supportive of the children in their midst. However, a current court case I am familiar with has shown me that this is not always the case.
'Simon, am I right in thinking that you are in favour of monitoring as a way of improving standards of education rather than as a safeguarding tool?'
ReplyDeleteIt is all but impossible to prevent parents from harming their children is they are intent upon doing so. It is however quite possible to ensure that they provide their children with an adequate education!
Simon.
Do you have details of the Oxfordshire County Council SAO case that went to Divisional Court a couple of years ago?
ReplyDelete