Guessing how many children in the United Kingdom are educated at home by their parents has for the last couple of decades been a popular pastime with home educators. Unfortunately new legislation, possibly combined with data from Contactpoint, is about to signal the end for this much loved parlour game.
Estimates for the number of home educated children in the UK range from a modest twenty thousand to the frankly unbelievable figure of over half a million, of which more later. Because nobody has any idea of the true figures, estimates tend inevitably to be based more upon the prejudices and political interests of those making the guesses, rather than being founded in objective reality. Everybody playing this game in effect plucks a number out of thin air, then doubles, trebles or quadruples it and adds the date or time of day. What motivates people to exaggerate or underestimate numbers of home educated children in this way?
A few years ago, the trend among home educators was to suggest that the number of children being educated at home was well over a hundred thousand. Small, special interest groups often pretend to have more members than is actually the case; inflating the figures in this way makes them feel bigger and more important. Perhaps the most remarkable of these high estimates was that arrived at by Paula Rothermel, when she claimed to have discovered that over half a million children in this country, (560,600 to be exact), were not registered at a school.
It become clear after a while that home educators were likely to be shooting themselves in the foot by these wild exaggerations. After all, if hundreds of thousands of children were really not being taught in schools then the government would feel duty bound to do something about it. Home educating groups began frantically back-pedalling, soon getting the numbers below the fifty thousand mark. A fringe activity, hardly worth the government's attention!
In 2007, York Consulting released the findings of an investigation financed by the DCSF. Their concusions broadly agreed with those in Graham Badman's report. Somewhere in the region of twenty thousand home educated children were known to local authorities. There were perhaps double that number unknown to the authorities. Interestingly, Graham Badman's suggested upper limit for the number of children, eighty thousand, has been attacked by some home educators as being a gross exaggeration. It is still only a seventh of the five hundred and sixty thousand hinted at by Rothermel in 2000 and still featured on some websites. It just shows how times change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps the most remarkable of these high estimates was that arrived at by Paula Rothermel, when she claimed to have discovered that over half a million children in this country, (560,600 to be exact), were not registered at a school."
Paula Rothermel said,
"Moreover, there may be as many as 50,000 children educated outside school (ACE 1999). Combine this with the data that in 1997/98 there were 9,144,000 children aged 5-16 in the population, but only 8,583,400 registered in schools (DfEE 1999c). Where were the other 560,600? Whatever else, these figures provide strong evidence that very many children and families are voting with their feet."
http://www.pjrothermel.com/Research/Researchpaper/3-13.htm
You seem to imply that Paula Rothermel is suggesting that as many as 560,600 may home educated (otherwise why the 'most remarkable' comment?). If you read the whole paragraph, Rothermel is looking at schools and how effective they are and not home education numbers (though the estimate of 50,000 home educators gets a passing mention). She appears to be asking if schools are the best option for children is so many children truant or are not registered at schools.
BTW, the most common estimation of numbers I've seen on email lists recently is about 2 or 3 times the number know to LAs. This was based on responses from home education groups around the country and during talks or meetings where between half and two thirds of those present said that they were unknown to their LA. As I've mentioned before, the last time I asked this question at a meeting, only 2 out of 12 families present were known to the LA so it seems to vary across the country.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the lack of proof reading; that para should have read:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to imply that Paula Rothermel is suggesting that as many as 560,600 may home educate (otherwise why the 'most remarkable' comment?). If you read the whole paragraph, Rothermel is looking at schools and how effective they are and not home education numbers (though the estimate of 50,000 home educators gets a passing mention). She appears to be asking if schools are the best option for children why do so many children truant or not register at schools.
Yes, I have read all this. the paper is in the main concerned with home education. It is in that context that one must consider the figures given. I do feel the estimate that over half a million children in this country at that time were not attending school, remarkably high. "Remarkably high" is, I think, putting the case mildly.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, the whole tone of this piece is not one of objective scholarly research. Rothermel goes on to say, "Something is wrong and it is not teachers who are at fault: an ageing stagnant system, blinkered by fear of its own anachronistic nature, is more likely the cause". I have little idea what this statement might mean, but it is clear that this is not really a calm and objective analysis of the facts, more a piece of rhetoric. This problem is endemic in the research on the subject of home education; that those undertaking the work are partial and arguing a case, rather than approaching the topic with an open mind.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"This problem is endemic in the research on the subject of home education; that those undertaking the work are partial and arguing a case, rather than approaching the topic with an open mind."
Well I suppose they are going to be the people most interested in finding out so most likely to spend the time and money on research, but peer review and oversight by other academic staff must help balance this. I'm not sure if Paula Rothermel had an interest in home education before she needed to find a subject for her thesis or if her research findings resulted in her strong pro-HE feelings. Do you have a reason for your assumption that she supported HE before she began her research? The Fraser Institute is an independent organisation (and not a HE organisation) and they strongly support the efficiency and effectiveness of home education. Why do you think they are biased?
"I do feel the estimate that over half a million children in this country at that time were not attending school, remarkably high."
ReplyDeleteSo where do you think Rothermel went wrong? Is her figure for the number of children in the UK or the number registered in school wrong? I mean, the maths is simple enough, so presumably you know that one of these figures is incorrect.
Sharon, first looking at the half a million missing pupils. About the time paual Rothermel made this claim, Mike Tomlinson then Chief Inspector for schools, had identified ten thousand school age children not on a school roll. This is about a fiftieth of Paula Rothermel's figure. Believe me, if the government had cause to think nine years ago that half a million children were missing from education, you would have heard about it! The explanations are not hard to find for Rothermel's figures; think about families moving before they register with schools in their new district, others changing from primary to secondary, combined with statistical effects and some poor record keeping. I think Tomlinson's figure is a little more believable.
ReplyDeleteAs regards research being done by people favourable to home education, I meant in this country. People like Meighan, Rothermel and Thomas make no secret of their sympathies. Look at it like this. If we wish to debate the merits of independent schools versus maintained, we have a lot of solid, independently gathered statistics to work with. These data, on the percentages in private schools, how many A levels gained, which areas and so on are generally gathered by civil servants and impartial bodies. Either side can then refer to these figures and use them to support their point of view. With home education, on the other hand, most of the data are gathered by people who are strongly in favour of it. This makes the information a little unreliable. This is particularly so because the only way of gaining access to home educating parents is to say that you agree with them. Otherwise they might not co-operate. This casts a little shadow upon all the data which are collected.
"With home education, on the other hand, most of the data are gathered by people who are strongly in favour of it. This makes the information a little unreliable."
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, but to be sure you would need to know how they felt about home education before they began their research. It's obviously significant is someone starts the research from a genuinely neutral position and ends up strongly in favour of it. You seem to assume that they begin from this position and I agree it's possible, but do you know this for a fact? Also, isn't this why we have peer review? The same issues must affect medical research. If you've spent years of your life developing a new drug you are going to hope it works.
BTW, I suspect the bias of the Fraser Institute may be that they are right wing libertarians, but I may be wrong. I suspect you are a right wing authoritarian. Have you tried the political compass yet?
Peer review would matter if people were submitting papers to Nature of the Lancet. To publish books and magazine articles generally, you can say what you please.
ReplyDeleteIn order to gather information about home education, you have to worm your way in with them. Would you allow a researcher hostile to home education to come into your home and talk to your kids? It should not matter at all what one feels about a subject when collecting data. That is why we can rely upon information about schools, qualifications and so on; the information is collected and collated by people who do it for a living and don't care one way or the other. I would love to see a lot of information about home education gathered like this. I have no idea at all what it would show.
"Peer review would matter if people were submitting papers to Nature of the Lancet. To publish books and magazine articles generally, you can say what you please."
ReplyDeleteI believe Rothermel's study was overseen by two university academics/Professors. I would expect that part of their function would be to check for bias, give advice on how to avoid it and would serve a similar function to peer review. The Fraser Institute study claims to be peer reviewed.
"In order to gather information about home education, you have to worm your way in with them. Would you allow a researcher hostile to home education to come into your home and talk to your kids? It should not matter at all what one feels about a subject when collecting data."
So you think all medical research is carried out be people who have no interest in the outcome? They never wish for a particular result? I think you know that this is not the case and they manage to carry out acceptable research despite these handicaps. Why do you assume that home education researchers cannot overcome the same handicap (assuming that they were pro-HE before they began researching it, which you have not established as fact yet).
A bit old but interesting none the less,
ReplyDelete"In November 1991 Nottinghamshire Education Authority were presented
with a copy of the Education Otherwise Contact Magazine by a lady who
had connections with the NSPCC and was concerned. Armed with the list
the LEA realised that there were thirty more children who they had no
record of who were being home educated.
What is interesting is that the contact list at the time of disclosure was
almost a year old and being a member of Education Otherwise is not a
prerequisite to home-educate.Nottinghamshire's known home educators
figures increased from 95 to 125 virtually overnight, a percentage
increase of thirty per-cent."
http://www.education-otherwise.org/HE/S%20Lowden.pdf
Some research carried out for a LA.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/39/53/EdKirkrep.doc
You are quite right,Sharon, that medical researchers testing some new drug may very well have the idea that it works befre they test it. They may well be convinced that it is the best thing ever and not be at all objective about its merits! That is why be insist upon such rigourous protocols in order to check on the thing. Double blind testing for example. Tell me, what would you think if some doctors testing a new treatment went into people's homes, got to know them on Christian name terms, played with their children and so on? Just how objective does this sound? I have an idea that the Lancet would surely raise their eyes at that. You are right about a couple of professors overseeing the study, but you have to bear in mind that this was a thesis for a Phd. They din't check all the facts and figures involved in it.
ReplyDelete"Double blind testing for example."
ReplyDeleteSo tell me, how do they double blind test home birth v. hospital birth, or episiotomy v tearing?
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Mike Tomlinson then Chief Inspector for schools, had identified ten thousand school age children not on a school roll. This is about a fiftieth of Paula Rothermel's figure."
You are comparing figures from 1999 to 2009 and Mike Tomlinson appears to be talking about 10,000 dropping out of school at 14, so not the same thing at all. In 2003, a study by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro) cites research by Blackpool council suggested that as many as 100,000 children were missing from the system nationally.
To add to the confusion, DCSF figures for schools and pupil in England, January 2007 give a total of 6,120,010 pupils registered at schools aged from 5-14. However, if you look at the mid-year 2007 estimates of the population of England on the National Statistics web site, you find that they estimate there to be 5,961,000 children aged from 5-14 in England. So not only are there none missing, but we've gained 159,010 children! Some of these may be accounted for by foreign students registered at private schools who may or may not be included in National Statistics figures (neither source mentions foreign nationals). However, the ISC gives a figure of 21,533 for overseas students (I only looked at 5-14 because that's the group used in the National Statistics web site, the overseas students will include older children too).
DCSF figures for schools and pupils in England, January 2007
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000744/index.shtml
First Excel link
National statistics - Population: age and sex 1981 onwards
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9543
Basically, as has been said before, it's impossible to know where children are educated (or not) in the UK, at least until ContactPoint is up and running and maybe not even then going by past performance of government IT projects. But I don't think Paula Rothermel would have said, "Moreover, there may be as many as 50,000 children educated outside school", if she thought the figure she had calculated for children missing from school had anything directly to do with home educator numbers.
(sorry, missed a bit)
ReplyDeleteRothermel was making the point that school isn't working, it is failing vast numbers of children who either play truant or just disappear from school, so maybe we need to look for a 'third way in education'. In that section Rothermel is seeking evidence for the need for a third way, not attempting to calculate HE figures! That section ends:
"The existence of school, however, is not being questioned here, but rather the exclusive and inclusive nature of the system, and the compulsion it brings to bear: exclusive because so many children and families are excluded, yet inclusive, because the system does not provide for a mainstream alternative to school. Compulsion, because what choice there is, is little choice at all - summed up by usage of the term 'compulsory school age' (Education Act 1996 s. 7) in a country where school is not compulsory."
I repeat, Rothermel is discussing the system and schools in this section, not home education.
As I said, "Everybody playing this game in effect plucks a number out of thin air, then doubles, trebles or quadruples it and adds the date or time of day." Nobody knows how many children there are in this country aged between 5 and 16. Nobody knows how many of these children are not attending school and nobody has the least idea what percentage of this unknown number are being home educated and how many are actually missing from education. It is all guesswork.
ReplyDeleteYou quote a figure by NACRO and that is a perfect example of what I was saying about special interest groups. If you are running a charity for abused children then you have an interest in making out that large numbers of children are being abused. If you are working with the homeless, then you hype up the figures for homelessness. If you wish for new legislation to tackle children missing from education, then you increase the supposed numbers of such children. Everybody plays this game, both in the statutory and voluntary sectors. In a case like this where there simply are no reliable figures, it is an open competition. Nobody can disprove what you say.
I have read that Third Way piece in its entirety, no mean feat considering it is composed of some of the most turgid prose which it has ever been my misfortune to read. I thought I was a lousy writer; this stuff makes me sound like Proust! She is trying to prove that something is wrong with the educational system in this country and that many kids are truanting or excluded and that a lot are being home educated. Since she trots out the same figure in her thesis, I cannot help feeling that she does regard it as connected in some way with home education, if only because it indicates a widespread disenchantment with traditional education. It is still a gross exaggeration.
"You quote a figure by NACRO and that is a perfect example of what I was saying about special interest groups."
ReplyDeleteThe research was carried out by Blackpool Education Authority and the University of Lancashire in 2008, not NACRO.
Quite true, figure based upon investigation of only one local authority. NACRO realised that this was probably too high and later started using the 50,000 figure that is still popular with HE groups. The DCSF commissioned some company called Creative (!) to come up with a better estimate. Their guess was 10,000, although they admitted that this might not be accurate. As I said, choose a number, double it and add the date.......
ReplyDeleteYou really are getting confused now. The Blackpool 100,000 are children reported missing, runaways from family homes and care settings. The 50,000 is the estimate for numbers being home educated - at home, safe with their parents, not living on the street. Why would NACRO use a figure for home educated children when talking about runaways?
ReplyDeleteSharon mentions a survey of home education groups where all were asked if they were known to their LEA and between half and two thirds were unknown. LEAs admit to knowning about 20,000 so this suggests around 50,000 altogether. Still a guess, but at least it's an educated guess, not just think of a number.
Yes, I am well aware that NACRO was talking about children not at school, rather than actually being home educated.They used the figure of 100,000 for a few years and then revised it to 50,000. This number, 50,000, also happens to be the number of children that many home educators think are being home educated. No confusion really.
ReplyDeleteDelyth Morgan seemed to think it was 100,000 just over a month ago, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2009_0121
ReplyDelete