The famous scandal about home education which Barry Sheerman tweeted about recently, now seems to have become public. As he suggested, Ofsted are involved. The only problem is that this is not about home education at all. As expected, Gypsies and travellers are mentioned, but the only mention of home education is made in a footnote on Page 7, which states unambiguously, 'This report does not apply to pupils whose parents have taken the decision to electively home educate them'. In other words, this is nothing at all to do with home education. The language used by the BBC and newspapers is misleading. Reports in the media talk of children missing from school, but what they really mean is that they are missing from education; which is quite a different matter. My own daughter was definitely missing from school, but it would have been a rash person indeed who asserted that she was missing from education.
The main thing which strikes me about this report, is that most of the children mentioned are missing from school due to the ineptitude or laziness of those whose job it is to provide them with an education. They are children who have been excluded, children with special educational needs for which schools were unable or unwilling to cater, kids with physical and mental problems and also those of asylum seekers. There is no suggestion that any are home educated children, whose parents are not fulfilling their legal duties; more that local authorities are ignoring children who need school provision.
On the whole, I am pleased to see this report, because it ties in with what I have been looking at recently, which is to say children who are not being sent to school and are consequently at risk of harm. As long as nobody muddles this problem up with home education, then I shall be glad to see action taken to tackle what really is a scandal. A scandal it may be, but it it is not, as Barry Sheerman would have us believe, a scandal involving home education. The fifteen boroughs visited for this survey were Blackburn with Darwen, Bradford, Bristol, LB Camden, Derbyshire, East Sussex, Halton, Lancashire, North East Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Peterborough, Southampton, Telford and Wrekin, LB Wansworth and Wolverhampton.
The report, Children Missing Out on Education, may be found here:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupils-missing-out-education
This looks positive - on the face of it, at least; an attempt to deal with a real problem and a clear statement that this isn't related to home education.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think anyone in HE will be dropping their guard; measures taken to deal with the problem defined here by OFSTED could lead to collateral damage for HE, and that's beside any issue we might have in future with demands for registration and monitoring.
It's a welcome change, though, to see HE specifically excluded in this way; do I also detect some recognition by Simon that HE is not a part of the bigger set of issues with children's education and welfare?
'do I also detect some recognition by Simon that HE is not a part of the bigger set of issues with children's education and welfare?'
DeleteUnfortunately, there is a crossover group and so the two issues are linked. I would need to draw a Venn diagram to illustrate this clearly. Some of those mentioned in this report, Gypsies, travellers and Roma for example, withdraw their children from school at the end of primary and then claim that they are home educating them. Not all children listed as being home educated are actually receiving an education.
I've had the Venn diagram in my head for years, and it's quite clear that the worst way of dealing with the problem is to select HE children.
DeleteIt's also clear that if you wish to makes sure (to use your words) that no child goes missing then you have to deal with all children and their parents or carers.
'It's also clear that if you wish to makes sure (to use your words) that no child goes missing then you have to deal with all children and their parents or carers.'
DeleteThis is indisputably true and could most easily be done through the use of the Unique Pupil Reference Number. This would not discriminate against any parents or carers and would not mark out home educated children in particular.
"Unique Pupil Reference Number"
DeleteWhat would you do with that? How would this help for children under about four years of age or those who never go to school?
This sounds like registration and monitoring - for HEors and almost everyone else - via the back door, with the highest-risk children (~4 or under and dysfunctional families or that very small number who hide and harm their children) being missed.
'What would you do with that? How would this help for children under about four years of age or those who never go to school?'
DeleteOne way would be the allocation of a Unique Pupil Number to every child at birth. It would then simply be a matter of checking that the educational provision was entered at the age of five. If the provision changed, either because the parents took the child from school to move house or deregistered her, then a designated officer in the local authority could be responsible for updating the provision within a certain time. One could even make it an offence for local authorities not to have this record updated within, say, a month of the provision changing. This might tackle all the problems outlined in the Ofsted report.
Could you not use the child benefiit number, and make that their NHS number too? One number across all the systems should make it a little harder to lose children? (Although we are assuming here that people don't sometimes decide that it's easier to lose children than deal with situations...)
DeleteAtb
Anne
It is a pity there are no individual statistics about each LA - I was interested to see that Southampton was an area assessed. Now they have a very efficient data entry person in the CME department who contacts families with no record of a school place to track them down, but who is also fortunately clear that once a child is identified by parents as Home ed, they are no longer missing. SCC of course doesn't have an EHE department any more, but everyone seems to cope pretty well without one. The survey appears to have looked at 3 secondary schools, the hospital school and a special school, and whilst I have no idea what is going on really at any of them, I would be surprised to find that there are many children who are being failed in this way - the PRU, which I do know, tries extremely hard with some really difficult teenagers.
ReplyDeleteAll in all though as everyone rightly says, this isn't about Home ed, so I am not sure why Barry S got so excited.
Delete'Southampton was an area assessed. Now they have a very efficient data entry person in the CME department who contacts families with no record of a school place to track them down,'
This is interesting:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/education/research/projects/pilot_study_to_investigate_reasons_for_elective_home_education_for_gypsy.page
I didn't know that there was no EHE department now in Southampton. I used to have dealings with the woman who was there in 2007. I think she was called Ruth something.
There was Pam, who apparently was well liked, but everyone in the LA seems to have been made redundant. The website still mentions visits ect, but as there are no staff , it doesn't happen! The only contact seems to be the CME check, and that is it.
DeleteI got so fed up with not knowing what, if anything, I needed to worry about that I emailed Graham Stuart, head of the Education Select Committee, on Saturday night. On Sunday morning he confirmed to me that this Government has NO plans for a register of home educators, but that any future Labour Government almost certainly would have.
ReplyDeleteSo, it would seem to me that we are back to the time honoured tactic of 'keep throwing mud and with any luck enough of it will stick to justify legislation.'
Thanks for this post, Simon.
Anne
' I emailed Graham Stuart, head of the Education Select Committee, on Saturday night.'
DeleteAnd that Anne, is the best strategy of all. A number of times when various rumours have been floating around and home educators have been running round like headless chickens, I have done that very thing myself. Often, if you speak directly to people involved, you find out a lot more than you do by following internet lists or even reading well informed blogs like this one!
Exactly, but I haven't got your tenacity or contacts so I like seeing what you come up with.
DeleteAnd I hope you're sitting down because I want to say thank you for all you do. No matter how often I disagree with you, you get to the facts and flag up incoming problems. By arguing with you I can rehearse arguments with someone who will happily counter and correct me so if/when I have to use them in real life I've got them clear in my head.
Don't worry, I'm sure normal service will be resumed soon enough.
Anne
'I want to say thank you for all you do.'
DeleteI urge you to reconsider this rash statement, Anne. You will lose all credibility as a serious home educator! But don't worry, for, as you say, normal service will indeed be resumed soon enough; of that I have no doubt at all.