I have just commented on GS's site that the 35/65 split of primary/secondary aged children is not safe. Here is my reasoning: "these figures ... do not accord with the experience of home eduators attending local groups, where the majority of children are under 14. This is not surprising: children who have been to school and deregistered are much more likely to be known to the LA than children who have never attended school. They are also likely to be older. Specifically, if they are children with SEN who managed in primary but cannot cope with secondary school (as cited by DCSF), they will be known to the LA and, thus, disproportionately represented in the 21,000 EHE children known to the LA. On the other hand, children who are EHE from birth are less likely to be known to the LA and, for example, a five-year-old EHE child is extremely unlikely ever to have been registered at school. It is therefore not appropriate to extrapolate from the age profile of the 21,000 known EHE children to determine the profile of the 20-60,000 EHE children not known to an LA."
That certainly matches my experience in all of the areas where we know HEors.
By far the greater number of children are in the primary age range. Indeed we often lose children to school the older they get, so without having any way of confirming this, I suspect your explanation for the LA's numbers is correct.
Seems about right. From my experience (partly due to the age of my children of course). There is a whole segment of home educating families - younger children, never been to school and therefore unknown, for whom home education is first choice - a continuation of their parnting philosophies.
They are often self reliant and suspicious of professionals because they have experienced prejudice over parenting choices - fearful midwives, biased health visitors, bad advice, scaremongering etc.
Many have come from parenting communities characterised by attachment parenting, often breastfeeding, cosleeeping and babywearing. There is mistrust of official expertise because it seems based on completley different cultural assumptions.
I have just commented on GS's site that the 35/65 split of primary/secondary aged children is not safe. Here is my reasoning: "these figures ... do not accord with the experience of home eduators attending local groups, where the majority of children are under 14. This is not surprising: children who have been to school and deregistered are much more likely to be known to the LA than children who have never attended school. They are also likely to be older. Specifically, if they are children with SEN who managed in primary but cannot cope with secondary school (as cited by DCSF), they will be known to the LA and, thus, disproportionately represented in the 21,000 EHE children known to the LA. On the other hand, children who are EHE from birth are less likely to be known to the LA and, for example, a five-year-old EHE child is extremely unlikely ever to have been registered at school. It is therefore not appropriate to extrapolate from the age profile of the 21,000 known EHE children to determine the profile of the 20-60,000 EHE children not known to an LA."
ReplyDeleteDo you agree?
it sounds like DCSF have taken NO notice Of Mr Graham Stuart?
ReplyDeleteHi Shena,
ReplyDeleteThat certainly matches my experience in all of the areas where we know HEors.
By far the greater number of children are in the primary age range. Indeed we often lose children to school the older they get, so without having any way of confirming this, I suspect your explanation for the LA's numbers is correct.
Seems about right.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience (partly due to the age of my children of course).
There is a whole segment of home educating families - younger children, never been to school and therefore unknown, for whom home education is first choice - a continuation of their parnting philosophies.
They are often self reliant and suspicious of professionals because they have experienced prejudice over parenting choices - fearful midwives, biased health visitors, bad advice, scaremongering etc.
Many have come from parenting communities characterised by attachment parenting, often breastfeeding, cosleeeping and babywearing. There is mistrust of official expertise because it seems based on completley different cultural assumptions.