3 EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE REGISTRATION
AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
31. Much of the controversy surrounding the Badman
Reportor certainly the challenge made to ithas been
rooted in the perceived deficiencies in its evidence base, not
least its statistical analysis. Home educators have also been
highly critical of the way in which the review was conducted,
which is where we start.
Conduct of the review
32. Home educators questioned whether, as a former
local authority Director of Children's Services, Graham Badman
was a suitable choice to lead a review into elective home education.
His expertise and impartiality in this respect were both queried.
The membership of the review's 'expert reference group' was also
criticised for its lack of expertise in relation to home educationmembers
were generally from an early years, schools or safeguarding background.[32]
33. The review was required to report in a short
timeframejust five months. Even members of the expert reference
group said that they would have welcomed more time to address
such a "complex area".[33]
On this matter Professor James Conroy, a late addition to the
review's expert reference group, commented that:
The final report was somewhat rushed and there
was little enough time to digest or reflect on either the report
or the recommendations. ... In my 30 odd years of professional
life in education I have rarely encountered a process, the entirety
of which was so slapdash, panic riven, and nakedly and naively
populist..[34]
Philip Noyes of the NSPCC pointed out that the pace
of the review was no different from that of other of the Department's
consultations.[35]
34. There was criticism of the disparity in the size
of the questionnaire sent to home educators and others and those
sent to local authorities. Similarly, there was criticism of the
content of the questionnaires, with the suggestion that they contained
leading questions or questions that misrepresented current law
and guidelines.[36] There
were similar accusations concerning meetings between the review
team and home educators and others.[37]
It should be noted, though, that those local authority officers
who commented on the conduct of the review emphasised the professionalism
and impartiality of the review team.[38]
35. On the review's Report many home educators pointed
to its selective use of quotes, and use of quotes taken out of
context. Of particular concern was the Report's use of a submission
by the Church of England Education Division (CEED).[39]
CEED officers themselves stated to us that they "
were
disappointed with the impression left by the selective use of
our submission".[40]
36. Many criticised the review for not engaging more
fully with some of the research literature on home education.
Some were also aggrieved that the Report did not consider legislative
arrangements for home education in Scotland or the United States.[41]
It is the case, however, that while Scottish practice is close
to current relatively permissive arrangements in England, practice
in the United States varies significantly across states and in
some cases involves a similar or greater level of regulation than
is recommended in the Badman Report.[42]
Some home educators were disappointed that the full literature
review supporting the Report was not published alongside it. Home
educators later obtained a copy of the literature review through
Freedom of Information requests.
Evidence base
37. In calling for the registration and monitoring
of home educating families to be put on a more formal footing
the Badman Report and the Department cite safeguarding as a, if
not the, key driver.[43]
This relates in large part to the suggestion in the Badman Report
that home educated children are at a greater risk of harm than
other children. Paragraph 8.12 of the Badman Report states:
on the basis of local authority evidence
and case studies presented, and even acknowledging the variation
between authorities, the number of children known to children's
social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high
relative to the size of their home educating population.
despite
the small number of serious case reviews where home education
was a feature, the consideration of these reviews and the data
outlined above, suggests that those engaged in the support and
monitoring of home education should be alert to the potential
additional risk to children.
The Badman Report itself does not include any actual
figures in relation to this statement. The data on which it was
based was subsequently accessed by home educators through Freedom
of Information requests.[44]
38. Home educators' observations on the data were
that:
- the assertion is based on extrapolation from
estimates provided by a potentially unrepresentative sample of
25 local authorities;
- the data may be further skewed due to the review
team using the phrase 'known to social care' as opposed to official
reporting categories, potentially leading to differences in how
local authorities interpreted their data;
- home educated children may be 'known to social
care' for reasons other than safeguarding concerns (e.g. having
been reported by a neighbour who was unaware that home education
is legal; or in relation to the child's special educational needs);
and
- the figures are artificially inflated as each
referral to social care, rather than each child, is counted.[45]
39. The highly sensitive nature of the claim in the
Badman Report led some home educators to remark on the "shameful"
way in which a "poorly evidenced" suggestion that home
educated children were at greater risk of harm had been communicated
to the public.[46] A
comment by Baroness Delyth Morgan, Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State for Children, Young People and Families, when announcing
the review that: "
in some extreme cases home education
could be used as a cover for abuse",[47]
caused similar outrageone home educator suggesting that
it had "promoted mistrust of home educating families
"
and "smeared" her decision to home educate her child.[48]
40. The review team subsequently contacted local
authorities once again in order to gather "more extensive
and statistically robust" data in advance of giving evidence
to our inquiry.[49] Many
home educators criticised this request, regarding it as an admission
that the original data was inadequate. They were equally critical
of the decision by the Secretary of State to accept the Badman
Report's recommendations on registration and monitoring on the
basis of the original data.[50]
41. When presenting his evidence to us Mr Badman
stated that the new data, being concerned only with children subject
to a Child Protection Plan, was not skewed by the issues raised
regarding his earlier figures. He also stated that the new data
confirmed his earlier finding:
Just to be clear, the data sample was from 74
authorities. The percentage of the population of elective home
educators from those 74 authorities who are on Child Protection
Plans is 0.4%. From the same group of all children, it is 0.2%.
So, it is [proportionately] double.[51]
Given that the total number of home educated children
is not known, making claims about the proportion of these children
who are at risk is problematic. Any child who is subject to a
Child Protection Plan is known to a local authority. We know how
many of these children are home educated. As we do not yet know
how many home educated children there are in total it is not possible
to come to any conclusions regarding the relative proportion of
home educated and school educated children who are subject to
a Plan. Mr Badman suggested that those home educated children
who are not known to a local authority could be at risk of harm.[52]
However, this could also be said of school educated children,
though it is the case that these children are not 'under the radar'
in the same way as home educated children not known to the authorities.
It should be noted that home educators have anyway questioned
the 0.4% figure on the basis of sample size and bias and sampling
error.[53]
42. Between these two data gathering exercises home
educators submitted Freedom of Information requests to local authorities
in order to obtain their own data. They claim that these data
show home educated children to be at less risk of harm than other
children.[54]
43. Obviously, the home educators' analysis of their
own data also involves making comparisons between populations
on the basis of incomplete data. As one home educator did point
out, there are further flaws regarding these figures.[55]
There remains, then, no definitive quantitative analysis of the
comparative safeguarding risk to home educated and school educated
children.
44. Home educators have, in addition, commented on
the evidence from recent Serious Case Reviews (SCRs), evidence
that the Badman review also took into consideration alongside
other case studies that were submitted by local authorities to
the review. A working paper summarising local authority information
returned to the review, again obtained by home educators through
Freedom of Information requests, discussed four SCRs where there
was "a home education element". The home educators pointed
out that in three instances it was explicitly stated in the SCR
documentation that parents complied with local home education
monitoring arrangements and that no concerns had been noted. The
home educators also pointed out that in two of the cases there
had been extensive family contact with various social services
departments either immediately prior to the event leading up to
the SCR or prior to fostering and adoption arrangements being
made.[56] But, as also
outlined in the working paper, each of the SCRs recommended that
procedures for monitoring and supporting home educated children
be strengthened, whether for all home educated children or for
those where there are safeguarding concerns. The working paper
also referred to two cases of trafficked children who were said
to be home educated.[57]
45. The case studies submitted to the Badman review
were not published. We have, though, seen a selection of them,
each of which illustrates the difficult task that local authorities
currently face in managing instances where home education is taken
up inappropriatelyfactors that cannot be accounted for
in debates regarding the statistical risk posed or not posed by
home education. As Sir Paul Ennals, Chief Executive of the National
Children's Bureau, remarked: "We could do triple the amount
of research
and I don't think it would highlight any further
what's really a series of individual issues that we find across
the country".[58]
46. This is not to say, however, that the recommendations
put forward in the Badman Report would have prevented the SCRs
discussed here,[59] or
would assist local authorities in managing other challenging instances
of home education.
Conclusions
47. Given the lack of information on the actual
numbers of home educated children, we suggest it is unsafe for
the Badman review to have reached such a strong conclusion about
the relative risks of a child being home educated or school educated.
We believe that any intervention should start from the educational
needs of the child.
32 EHE 6, paragraph 6 (Epsom and Sutton Home Education
Group); EHE 10, paragraph 4 (Steve Keen); EHE 20, paragraph 1.6.1
(Bristol Home Educators' Forum); EHE 21, paragraph 3.2.1 (Professor
Bruce Stafford); EHE 25, paragraph 4 (Louise Walters); EHE 27,
paragraph 2 (Roy and Jackie Thurley); EHE 33, paragraph 1.3 (Home
Service); EHE 34, paragraph 4 (Christine Anne Eastwood); EHE 38,
paragraphs 2, 8 (Andrew and Janet Shrimpton); EHE 39, paragraph
1h (Stockport Home Education Partnership); EHE 46, paragraph 4.1
(Stephen Tarlton); EHE 49, paragraph 2.5 (Sarah Conyers); EHE
60, paragraphs 1.1-1.2 (members of a Christian home educating
group); EHE 64, paragraph 3.1 (Isle of Wight Learning Zone); EHE
70, paragraphs 7-8 (Schoolhouse Home Education Association); EHE
71, section 8 (Tina Robbins); EHE 79, paragraphs 1.1-1.2 (David
Watson); EHE 84 (Dr K E Patrick); EHE 137, paragraph 1.1.1.2 (group
of Bristol home educators). See also, Ev 35 (DCSF) Back
33
Ev 86, paragraph 4.2 (National Children's Bureau) Back
34
EHE 62, paragraphs 1-2. See also, for example, EHE 124, paragraph
1 (Kirsty Alexander) Back
35
Q 87 Back
36
Ev 44, paragraphs 3.7-3.8 (Home Education Advisory Service);
EHE 21, paragraph 3.2.4 (Professor Bruce Stafford); EHE 44, sections
3.3-3.5 (Dani Ahrens); EHE 53, paragraphs 13-17, 21-23 (group
of home educating families in Yorkshire); EHE 60, paragraph 1.4
(members of a Christian home educating group); EHE 64, paragraph
3.2 (Isle of Wight Learning Zone); EHE 79, paragraphs 1.3, 1.5
(David Watson); EHE 88, paragraphs 2-5 (Peter Trevelyan); EHE
100, section 4 (HERA-Home Education Research Association); EHE
135 (Rebekah Fox); EHE 139, sections 4-5 (Elizabeth Scully and
Michael Fell); EHE 157, paragraphs 3.1-3.3 (Oxon Home Educators) Back
37
See, for example, EHE 47 (Herts Home Education Action Group) Back
38
EHE 163, paragraph 2.3; Annex 2 Back
39
Ev 41, paragraphs 17-18 (Education Otherwise); Ev 42, section
1 (Home Education Advisory Service); EHE 20, paragraph 1.5.2 (Bristol
Home Educators' Forum); EHE 21, paragraphs 4.1-4.3 (Professor
Bruce Stafford); EHE 25, paragraph 3 (Louise Walters); EHE 49,
paragraph 2.2 (Sarah Conyers); EHE 52, paragraph 2 (a home educating
parent); EHE 124, paragraph 3 (Kirsty Alexander) Back
40
EHE 59, paragraphs 24-29 (Church of England Education Division) Back
41
EHE 44, section 3.2 (Dani Ahrens); EHE 16 (Dr Alan Thomas and
Harriet Pattison); EHE 57 (Dr Paula Rothermel); EHE 67, paragraph
1d (Greater Manchester Home Educating Network); EHE 70, paragraph
6 (Schoolhouse Home Education Association); EHE 100, section 2
(HERA-Home Education Research Association) Back
42
For example, in Kentucky parents who wish to home educate must
establish a bona fide school for their child to attend. Education
should be offered in English, in the branches of study that are
taught in public schools, and for a minimum of 1,050 instructional
hours. Scholarship reports of each child's progress should be
completed at the same interval as in the local public school,
with grading for all subjects taught. All schools, including home
schools, should be open to inspection by the Education Department.
Source: INCA (International Review of Curriculum and Assessment
Frameworks Internet Archive). Back
43
e.g. DCSF consultation, Home Education-registration and monitoring
proposals, 11 June 2009. Back
44
Independent Review of Home Education-safeguarding evidence. Working
paper, available at: www.whatdotheyknow.com (request 14543; response
41308). Back
45
Ev 48, paragraph 5.5. (Home Education Centre, Somerset); EHE
9, paragraph 1 (Alexandra Barnes); EHE 18, (Louise Thorn); EHE
21, paragraphs 3.2.7 (Professor Bruce Stafford); EHE 33, paragraph
4.3 (Home Service); EHE 34, paragraph 3 (Christina Anne Eastwood);
EHE 44, section 4.3 (Dani Ahrens); EHE 64, paragraph 3.9 (Isle
of Wight Learning Zone); EHE 73, paragraph 3.3.3 (James and Michaela
Turpin); EHE 100, paragraph 1.1.6 (HERA-Home Education Research
Association); EHE 153, section 3 (Professor C G Mundell and Dr
D L Shone). A more detailed critique is provided by EHE 91 (William
Wallace). See also, EHE 75, annex 1 (Randall and Mary Hardy) Back
46
EHE 128, section 6 (Stop the UK Government Stigmatising Home
Educators Facebook Group) Back
47
"Morgan: Action to ensure children's education and welfare",
DCSF Press Notice, 19 January 2009. Back
48
EHE 18, paragraph 24 (Louise Thorn) Back
49
Graham Badman letter to Directors of Children's Services, 17
September 2009-'Select Committee hearing on the Review of Elective
Home Education in England'. Back
50
EHE 39, paragraph 1b (Stockport Home Education Partnership);
EHE 44, section 3,6 (Dani Ahrens); EHE 46, section 4 (Stephen
Tarlton); EHE 66, paragraph 4.1 (Nicholas Hill); EHE 72, paragraph
3.6 (Mr R Barns); EHE 92, sections 4-5 (C Archer); EHE 168, paragraph
6.1.3.6 (Dr Ben Anderson) Back
51
Q 11. See also, Children, Schools and Families Bill-an Impact
Assessment prepared by the Department for Children, Schools and
Families and the Ministry of Justice, for introduction into the
House of Commons, November 2009, pp 83-90. Back
52
Q 17; EHE 186 Back
53
EHE 91(a) (William Wallace); EHE 143(a) (the Sauer Consultancy
Limited); EHE 153(a) (Professor C G Mundell and Dr D L Shone) Back
54
See, for example, EHE 24, paragraph 1.4 (Marie Stafford); EHE
66, paragraph 2.2 (Nicholas Hill) Back
55
These concern the way in which the data was gathered through
a series of separate Freedom of Information requests, the differences
across local authorities in the way they record their data, and
the failure to compare like with like. See, EHE 99, footnote 4
(Claire Blades) Back
56
EHE 18, paragraphs 22-23 (Louise Thorn); EHE 24, paragraphs 1.2-1.3
(Marie Stafford); EHE 82, section 2 (The Otherwise Club); EHE
99, paragraphs 2.12-2.17 (Claire Blades) Back
57
Independent Review of Home Education-safeguarding evidence. Working
paper, available at: www.whatdotheyknow.com (request 14543; response
41308). Back
58
Q 84 Back
59
EHE 24, paragraph 1.3 (Marie Stafford); EHE 51, section 3 (Roxane
Featherstone); EHE 138, paragraphs 6-7 (North Wilts Home Educators).
Back
|