HED0082
Written evidence submitted by Boere
I am a home educating parent with eight years’ experience and I am submitting evidence because I have experience in this area and because it has a direct bearing on my life, my child’s life, and my private family home life.
1. The duties of local authorities with regards to home education, including safeguarding and assuring the quality of home education.
Education law is clear that properly and historically the responsibility to provide an education rests with the child’s parents, not with the state. This was repeated and made explicit in the judgement concerning Ali v Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, in which the court stated, “The first of the four elements identified in the Education Act 1996, which governs this case, is the parents of a child of compulsory school age. By section 7 the parents are under a duty to cause every such child to receive efficient and suitable full-time education “either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”. The serious character of this duty is reflected in the criminal penalty attaching to unjustified breach of it.”
The Education Committee 2012 stated that “10. The role of the local authority is clear with regard to home education. They have two duties: to provide support for home educating families (at a level decided by local authorities themselves), and if families wish it; and to intervene with families if the local authority is given reason to believe that a child is not receiving a suitable education. It is
not the role of the local authority routinely to monitor whether a suitable education is being provided, and local authorities should not act as if it is, or cause parents to believe that it is.”
The law has not changed since this Education Committee has met. The duties have not changed. The Education Committee was very clear in detailing what the duties of local authorities are. In respect of the first duty, no support is provided by the vast majority of local authorities; in respect of the second, they are only to intervene if there is reason to believe that a child is not in receipt of a suitable education, not to assure the quality of home education.
Safeguarding is a red herring. A child is more likely to be abused by a teacher in school than by a home educating parent at home. Home educated children are no more likely to be abused by a parent than school educated children.
“Home educated children were found to be disproportionately scrutinised, being approximately twice as likely to be referred to Social Services … as were children aged 0-4 years and children aged 5-16 who attend school. Despite that double referral rate, …. Referrals to Social Services were found to be 3.5 – 5 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan with home educated children than with referrals of schooled children aged 5-16 … and 5 – 7 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan than referrals for children aged 0-4 years…Rates of home educated children subject to a Child Protection Plan …. were also found to be less than teaching staff guilty of abuse offences.” (Wendy Charles-Warner, Centre for Personalised Education, 2015).
Section 7.3 of the Guidance for LAs states that "There is no proven correlation between home education and safeguarding risk.”
2. Whether a statutory register of home-educated children is required.
A register of convicted sex offenders is required. A register of persons convicted of domestic violence is desirable. A register of home-educated children is not required.
If the government wishes to have increased data on the home educating community, a notification scheme would be more appropriate.
3. The benefits children gain from home education, and the potential disadvantages they may face.
Home educated children gain many benefits from home education.
Individualised education, especially in cases of SEND
Education in an environment in which they feel safe and supported
Improved social skills with a wide variety of ages
To take each of these in turn:
Individualised education, like individualised medicine, has been the gold standard for education for many years. Of course, practically speaking, it is impossible for any teacher to truly provide individualised education for each of the students in her class.
By contrast, in home education, a parent can provide truly individualised education for each of his or her children. The strengths of a child can be bolstered and the weaknesses shored up. Reaching mastery of a subject is then more likely, in a way that enters long-term memory, before moving onto another topic. Mastered topics do not need to be repeated for the sake of others; instead the child can progress.
At home, with a caring parent, children feel safe and supported. By contrast, many children can feel guarded or even frightened in a noisy, restrictive school environment. I have seen teachers in field trip settings bullying their pupils; and bullying within schools is a common reason for parents to remove children from school for home education.
There are, unfortunately, few studies which study the social skills of home educated children; those that do show that home educated children have social skills at least as good as those of school educated children, and usually better. My observation is that home educated children have equal social skills in dealing with their peers and superior social skills in dealing with people of differing ages from themselves, such as adults or very young children.
As to disadvantages, the persistent hostility of the press has resulted in much misunderstanding of home education by the general public. Far from recognising a legal educational choice generally taken in the best interest of the children involved, the press has deliberately created a straw-man stereotype of a secluded, unseen child.
By contrast, in reality, home educated children (being out and about in school hours) are usually visible in a way that school educated children are not. Strangers often question both children and parents about their lifestyle and educational choices in a way that would simply not be tolerated by school educating parents.
The other disadvantage is that it is difficult and expensive to access exams. Families often save for considerable lengths of time to provide these for their children.
4. The quality and accessibility of support (including financial support) available for home educators and their children, including those with special educational needs, disabilities, mental health issues, or caring responsibilities, and those making the transition to further and higher education.
Currently there is no support (financial or otherwise) available from the state for home educators in England.
Home educators have a diverse network of support within the home education community and are generally eager to support one another.
There are many unnecessary difficulties in finding exam centres for taking GCSEs and A-levels, and many of these centres charge excessive administration fees on top of the fees for the exams themselves. Ensuring that the performance of outside candidates does not affect a school’s ratings would improve this situation.
5. Whether the current regulatory framework is sufficient to ensure that the wellbeing and academic achievement of home educated children is safeguarded, including where they may attend unregistered schools, have been formally excluded from school, or have been subject to ‘off-rolling’.
The current regulatory framework is sufficient.
Families should be considered innocent until proven guilty; and as in other areas of life, there is no need to inspect a family if there is no reasonable suspicion of guilt. It is as inappropriate to inspect a family “in case” they might be failing to provide an education to their children as it is to inspect a family “in case” they might have stolen goods in their house. Without any reason to suspect guilt, there is no need to inspect.
Off-rolling is a school problem and home educators should not suffer because of it. This should be addressed within the monitoring of schools. One option is that a school could be marked down or even fail an Ofsted inspection if off-rolling were proved. However, interference in the private family lives of home educators is not the way to solve a problem within schools.
Any suspicions of unregistered schools can be investigated and, if appropriate, closed under the current regulatory framework. Therefore there is no need to cause difficulties to home educators because of the existence of unregistered schools. A child attending an unregistered school is not being electively home educated.
It is very important that elective home education is not bundled together with other educational practices (or problems). Elective home education is not the same as illegal schools, off-rolling, state-funded out of school education, or pandemic home schooling. It is unfair and inappropriate to bundle discussions of elective home education with non-elective or illegal practices.
As to safeguarding, I would re-emphasise that safeguarding is a red herring. A child is more likely to be abused by a teacher in school than by a home educating parent at home. Home educated children are no more likely to be abused by a parent than school educated children.
“Home educated children were found to be disproportionately scrutinised, being approximately twice as likely to be referred to Social Services … as were children aged 0-4 years and children aged 5-16 who attend school. Despite that double referral rate, …. Referrals to Social Services were found to be 3.5 – 5 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan with home educated children than with referrals of schooled children aged 5-16 … and 5 – 7 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan than referrals for children aged 0-4 years…Rates of home educated children subject to a Child Protection Plan …. were also found to be less than teaching staff guilty of abuse offences.” (Charles-Warner, 2015).
Section 7.3 of the Guidance for LAs states that "There is no proven correlation between home education and safeguarding risk.”
Unnecessary referrals to social services not only cause distress to the families concerned, but also increase the workload of social workers and divert time and energy from cases of genuine need.
6. The role that inspection should play in future regulation of home education.
Inspection should play no role in home education. The right to a private family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) precludes it. Schools must be inspected because they are acting in loco parentis; parents have a right to know what is happening to their children when the schools are caring for them.
7. What improvements have been made to support home educators since the 2010-15 Education Committee published their report on ‘Support for Home Education’ in 2012.
No improvements have been observed.
As mentioned before, no support of any kind is available for home educators in England. The relationships between home educators and local authorities are too often marked by suspicion and hostility exhibited by the local authorities towards home educating families. One example is the report published in 18 July 2019 by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, in which the “unjust” dealings of the local authority towards the home educating family were detailed.
The Education Committee 2012 stated that “We recommend that the Government places a duty on every local authorities to ensure access to local centres for home-educated young people to sit accredited public exams. We further recommend—given the contribution that many home educators make through their taxes—that the costs of sitting public examinations (to an appropriate level of entitlement) be met by the State.” No part of this has happened.
The Education Committee 2012 also stated that they “recommend that the Department for Education carries out an audit of local authorities’ performance regarding home education. Publishing the results, showing which local authorities are performing well, would fit well with the Government’s transparency drive.” This has not happened either. Many local authorities continue to act in an aggressive and ultra vires manner.
8. The impact COVID-19 has had on home educated children, and what additional measures might need to be taken in order to mitigate any negative impacts.’
For all home educated children, the government guidance issued for home educators about COVID-19 shows a profound lack of understanding of how home education works and has severely restricted the socialising opportunities of home educating families, especially those with four or more children. It also shows a marked discrepancy with how school-educated children are treated. Forming appropriate guidelines in consultation with real home educators would help to mitigate negative impacts.
It is also notable that an estimated twenty thousand external candidates were left without exam results as a result of COVID-related closures. The Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, stated that candidates could obtain grades in the autumn — when it is, of course, too late to progress in their education. Yet even that is now in jeopardy, as schools press for exam cancellations.