2 PROFILE OF THE HOME EDUCATING
POPULATION
Motivations for home educating
16. The Department's guidelines on home education
note the many and varied reasons why a family might choose to
home educate their child. It lists the following "common
reasons":
distance or access to a local school;
religious or cultural beliefs;
philosophical or ideological views;
dissatisfaction with the system;
bullying;
as a short term intervention for a particular
reason;
a child's unwillingness or inability to go
to school;
special educational needs; and
parents' desire for a closer relationship
with their children.[12]
We elaborate on this list below.
17. Those home educating families with whom we met
as part of our inquiry and those who submitted written evidence
gave broadly similar reasons to one another for home educating.
A common motivation was concern about the nature of schooling,
including the impact of testing on children and children's learning.
These home educators were also attracted to home education as
a lifestyle choice and by the flexibility that it offered in terms
of educational approaches. Some parents referred to their wish
to educate their child in accordance with their family's religious
faith. There were also references to instances where children
had been so badly bullied and traumatised by their time at school
that they did not feel able to return to a school environment.[13]
The failure of local authorities and schools to meet the needs
of children with special educational needs (SEN) is well known
to this Committee, and home educating parents frequently raised
this issue in their evidence to us.[14]
Research suggests that home educated children are twice as likely
as school educated children to have statemented SEN5% as
opposed to 2.9%.[15]
18. The comments of some of the local authority officers
with whom we met as part of our inquiry suggested that the failure
to obtain a place for the child at the family's preferred school
was another reason for a family to choose to home educate. Equally,
the decision to home educate might sometimes be taken 'on the
spur of the moment', often as a response to difficulties in relation
to the child's schooling, difficulties that might or might not
be resolvable.[16]
19. The officers, along with some home educators,
also noted a very different section of the home educating populationthose
children whose parents were encouraged to de-register them from
school by their local authority or school. This was referred to
elsewhere as "coerced de-registration".[17]
Where local authorities and schools encourage parents to de-register
their child from school it is typically as a result of a child's
poor school attendance, poor behaviour and/or poor attainment.
That schools are held accountable on all three is no doubt part
of the explanation for this practice.[18]
Local authority officers noted how it was often only once
the child had been de-registered that they learnt that the family
had previously had no intention to home educate.[19]
20. The local authority officers, in addition, discussed
the particular implications that home education could have for
different sections of the population. For example, two officers
noted instances within the Gypsy and Traveller population whereby
home educated girls were not being provided with an education
after Key Stage 2 (Year 6, age 11).[20]
Relevant recommendations in the
Badman Report
21. Pertinent to those instances where the decision
to home educate is taken 'on the spur of the moment', the Badman
Report recommends that:
When parents are thinking of deregistering their
child/children from school to home educate, schools should retain
such pupils on roll for a period of 20 school days so that should
there be a change in circumstances, the child could be readmitted
to the school (recommendation 1).
At present, a school is required to delete the child's
name from its admissions register upon receipt of written notification
from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise
than at school.[21] The
Department has stated that, in order to meet the above recommendation
it intends to make the necessary amendments to the Education (Pupil
Registration) (England) Regulations 2006.[22]
22. Some home educating parents interpreted the recommendation
as intended to pressurise families away from home education.
They also pointed to the unease it might cause in the minds of
children who were desperate to be removed from school for reasons
of bullying.[23] Several
of the local authority officers indicated their support for such
a 'cooling-off period', suggesting that it would help in instances
where the problem that prompted the parent to de-register his
or her child from school was resolvablefrom both the school's
and the parent's point of view.[24]
23. We believe that a child who is de-registered
from school to be home educated should be nominally kept on his
or her school's roll for 20 school days. This would offer much
greater scope for resolving problems where parents had any unease
about the prospect of home educating their child. We ask the Department
to confirm that the child's absence from school during the 20
days would be treated as authorised absence.
24. In other respects the Badman Report addresses
the issues raised by the highly segmented nature of the home educating
population by requiring local authorities to improve existing
practice. For example, the Report calls on local authorities to
analyse the reasons why families in their area choose to home
educate and to use that information to inform the development
of their Children and Young People's Plans (recommendation 3).[25]
The Department has signalled its intention to take forward
this recommendation.[26]
The Badman Report explicitly calls on the Department to
take such action as necessary to prevent local authorities or
schools from encouraging parents to de-register their child from
school as a means of dealing with behavioural or educational issues
(recommendation 15). The aforementioned guidelines already state
that schools should not use home education as a means of addressing
poor attendance on the part of a child.[27]
The Department has stated that it will strengthen its guidance
on exclusions when that guidance is next revised in 2010.[28]
25. We welcome the Badman Report's emphasis on
local authorities examining the reasons why families in their
area choose to home educate. The Badman Report suggests that local
authorities address any issues that this process reveals through
their Children and Young People's Plans. We suggest that this
recommendation should be strengthened: where a parent takes the
view that a school has failed his or her child and that his or
her only option is to withdraw the child from the school there
should be an independent assessment of why this was so, with the
school asked to respond to the findings of that assessment.
26. The Badman Report is right to recommend that
the Department take action to prevent local authorities and schools
from encouraging parents of 'difficult' pupils to de-register
their child from school, practice that represents a failure of
duty towards the child in question. However, we are not convinced
that the Department's proposed response of simply strengthening
existing guidance on exclusions is sufficient; the Department
should investigate what is driving this practice on the part of
local authorities and schools, bearing in mind some of the findings
of this Committee's recent inquiry into school accountability.
The home educators who contacted
us
27. There are a small number of national home education
organisations in England, several of which submitted evidence
to our inquiry. They do not, however, claim to be representative
organisations.[29] The
same could be said of the many local home education groups in
England, a number of which also submitted evidence to us.
28. While there are no representative organisations,
there are a number of internet-based home education networks,
some of which have been used to campaign against the Badman Report.
It is difficult to determine how representative these home educators
are of the home educating population as a whole.
29. All but one of the home educators and home education
organisations who contacted us were highly critical of the Badman
Report and were very resistant to the idea that local authorities
should be given new powers in relation to the regulation and monitoring
of home education. This viewpoint has dominated debate surrounding
the Badman Report more generally. On this matter we would note
our unease at the reluctance of some to speak publicly on the
Badman Report due to fear of harassment from sections of the home
educating population.
30. A number of local authority officers suggested
to us that, in their experience, the majority of known home educating
families welcomed the contact that they had with their local authority.[30]
Several of the officers described the very good relations that
they had with these families, which in one case had built up over
a number of years. Unfortunately, many of the home educators who
contacted us were of the view that publication alone of the Badman
Report had undermined any goodwill previously in place between
home educating families and local authorities. Some referred to
families who had ceased contact with their local authority simply
because of publication of the Report.[31]
12 DCSF, Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local
Authorities, 2007, paragraph 1.4. Back
13
See, for example, Annex 1. Back
14
See, for example, Ev 36-38 (Autism in Mind), Ev 59-61 (Carole
Rutherford); EHE 155 (National Autistic Society); Education and
Skills Committee, Third Report of Session 2005-06, Special Educational
Needs, HC 478; Education and Skills Committee, Tenth Report of
Session 2006-07, Special Educational Needs: assessment and funding,
HC 1077. Back
15
Hopwood et al, The Prevalence of Home Education in England: a
feasibility study, 2007, DCSF Research Report, paragraphs 3.22-3.23. Back
16
Q 94 (Ellie Evans); Annex 2 Back
17
EHE 100, paragraph 1.2.1 (Home Education Research Association) Back
18
Q 96 (Ellie Evans) Back
19
Annex 2 Back
20
See also, Home Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007-08,
Domestic Violence, Forced Marriage and "Honour"-Based
Violence, HC 263, paragraphs 163, 169. Back
21
DCSF, Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities,
2007, paragraph 3.8. Back
22
DCSF, DCSF Response to the Badman Review of Elective Home Education
in England, October 2009. Back
23
e.g. see, EHE 20, paragraph 2.4.4. (Bristol Home Educators) Back
24
Annex 2 Back
25
A Children and Young People's Plan is a single, statutory, strategic,
overarching plan for all services which directly affect children
and young people in the area, showing how the local authority
and all relevant partners will integrate provision to improve
well-being in relation to the Every Child Matters agenda and focus
on specific challenges and priorities. Back
26
DCSF, DCSF Response to the Badman Review of Elective Home Education
in England, October 2009. Back
27
DCSF, Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities,
2007, paragraphs 3,12. Back
28
DCSF, DCSF Response to the Badman Review of Elective Home Education
in England, October 2009. Back
29
Education Otherwise is the largest national home education organisation,
with around 4,000 members. Back
30
Annex 2 Back
31
EHE 24, paragraph 8.1 (Marie Stafford); EHE 90, paragraph 5 (Home
Education Tyne and Wear); EHE 106, section 6 (Local home education
contact in Cumbria). See also, EHE 18, paragraph 2 (Louise Thorn);
EHE 42, paragraph 38 (Carol Gray); EHE 69 (Stephen Quinton); EHE
100, paragraph 7.2 (HERA-Home Education Research Association) Back
|