Monday, March 23, 2009
Honestly, What's the Point?
This post comes to you from someone who got an A grade in O level Latin and a B in physics, and even at the time, I barely understood a word of either subject. It doesn't therefore come as a great to surprise to me to hear that when English SATS papers were graded by a panel of experts, 44% (yes, that's 44%) of papers did not end up with the grade that they had been awarded.
More on Notschool
...from Al, Gill's 18 year old son, and someone who should know:
"Having been a child that attempted and summarily rejected several methods of structured education, and having known many other such children, I tend to be deeply skeptical of products that claim to provide a successful alternative to children that are disengaged from 'classroom learning' - Such children tend to reject structured education in general, not just the most orthodox method of structured education that happens to exist (school.) This means that offering a 'toned down' alternative of a student/teacher relationship invariably tends to fail for these children, or at least be far less efficient than straight autodidactism."
"Having been a child that attempted and summarily rejected several methods of structured education, and having known many other such children, I tend to be deeply skeptical of products that claim to provide a successful alternative to children that are disengaged from 'classroom learning' - Such children tend to reject structured education in general, not just the most orthodox method of structured education that happens to exist (school.) This means that offering a 'toned down' alternative of a student/teacher relationship invariably tends to fail for these children, or at least be far less efficient than straight autodidactism."
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A Neat Summary
A comparison of traditional and natural learning.
Am thinking perhaps we should provide a link for this to the Home Education review team.
Am thinking perhaps we should provide a link for this to the Home Education review team.
ContactPoint Shielding in Chaos
"We told you so" is the almost inevitable reaction to every tale of woe relating to ContactPoint at the moment. This story of incompetence and danger to social workers as well as children comes to us via the Yorkshire Post.
HT: Lotusbirther.
HT: Lotusbirther.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Autonomous Education Works (Part 2)
Good. There has been at least some criticism of the Reading Recovery Programme which has been featured so favorably on the BBC and is being funded in schools in order to help slow readers catch up.
Autonomous home educators all the while have looked on in dismay at such programmes. They shake their heads at the thought of all that unnecessary effort, all that dreadful labelling, all that wasted time when a child could be doing something so much more constructive. They know from considerable experience now, that if you leave a child alone with the necessary tools (Club Penguin, Runescape, a computer manual, a Star Wars compendium, MSN, the occasional pointer about letter sounds), and then wait until he is ready, the child will shoot through the early stages of reading and become extremely competent very quickly. And he won't have wasted his time in the interim: he will have been learning other things, through conversation, or through visual sources, direct engagement with stuff and he won't have become bored and disheartened or labelled as a failure.
We've seen this happening over and over again now. Children who have been assessed in the school system as having severe dyslexia, completely unable to read and write, come out of school, are left alone and are then doing Open University courses only a couple of years later. No pressure to read in the interim. They just do it WHEN THEY'RE READY.
And yet put an ignorant LA inspector in on a family who has no diagnosis for their child and who would strongly resist the labelling of their child, and like as not this child will be forced to be returned to school and plopped on some dreadful reading recovery programme that they know is redundant.
Autonomous home educators all the while have looked on in dismay at such programmes. They shake their heads at the thought of all that unnecessary effort, all that dreadful labelling, all that wasted time when a child could be doing something so much more constructive. They know from considerable experience now, that if you leave a child alone with the necessary tools (Club Penguin, Runescape, a computer manual, a Star Wars compendium, MSN, the occasional pointer about letter sounds), and then wait until he is ready, the child will shoot through the early stages of reading and become extremely competent very quickly. And he won't have wasted his time in the interim: he will have been learning other things, through conversation, or through visual sources, direct engagement with stuff and he won't have become bored and disheartened or labelled as a failure.
We've seen this happening over and over again now. Children who have been assessed in the school system as having severe dyslexia, completely unable to read and write, come out of school, are left alone and are then doing Open University courses only a couple of years later. No pressure to read in the interim. They just do it WHEN THEY'RE READY.
And yet put an ignorant LA inspector in on a family who has no diagnosis for their child and who would strongly resist the labelling of their child, and like as not this child will be forced to be returned to school and plopped on some dreadful reading recovery programme that they know is redundant.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Meeting with Mr Badman
Yesterday, a number of home educating families met with Graham Badman who is heading the review of home education and Liz Green of the DCSF at one of our local meeting places near Bromsgrove. It was a beautiful day, and the meeting was congenial throughout. Mr Badman, who was constantly surrounded by HEing parents and HEks, asked many incisive questions, received many incisive answers and provided some clues as to his current thinking.
Several other HEors also spoke along similar lines to Liz Green and reported that they received a sympathetic hearing.
In brief on the matter of clues provided by Mr Badman as to his current thinking: he says he hasn't made up his mind about anything as yet, but that the status quo is not acceptable, and things will have to change. He stressed that he is independent, that he would take on board all comments and his report would reflect his own independently formed view. He also pointed out that he is only there to make recommendations, and that it is ultimately up to government to decide what they do.
Home educators, including myself, talked about how we cannot see how monitoring can possibly be constructive, that standards do not apply to HEks, they are unique in their learning, and that coercive monitoring of autonomous educators makes it impossible for inspectors to monitor what they are meant to be looking at since coercion prevents autonomous learning. Mr Badman was provided with the link with the results of the recent poll about HE children's preference not to see LA personnel. I didn't flesh out the full implications of this, ie: that it would be coercive to monitor these children, and that you therefore won't be able to assess the autonomous education of these children as it will not be in evidence. I imagine that this point would be clear to Mr B though.
Several other HEors also spoke along similar lines to Liz Green and reported that they received a sympathetic hearing.
In brief on the matter of clues provided by Mr Badman as to his current thinking: he says he hasn't made up his mind about anything as yet, but that the status quo is not acceptable, and things will have to change. He stressed that he is independent, that he would take on board all comments and his report would reflect his own independently formed view. He also pointed out that he is only there to make recommendations, and that it is ultimately up to government to decide what they do.
Home educators, including myself, talked about how we cannot see how monitoring can possibly be constructive, that standards do not apply to HEks, they are unique in their learning, and that coercive monitoring of autonomous educators makes it impossible for inspectors to monitor what they are meant to be looking at since coercion prevents autonomous learning. Mr Badman was provided with the link with the results of the recent poll about HE children's preference not to see LA personnel. I didn't flesh out the full implications of this, ie: that it would be coercive to monitor these children, and that you therefore won't be able to assess the autonomous education of these children as it will not be in evidence. I imagine that this point would be clear to Mr B though.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Review Response from The Institute of Education (University of London)
...drafted by Alan Thomas, and was submitted largely without change. Whilst he isn't on the Review panel, he is being consulted by them.
= = = = = =
1. Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.
• Not Sure
We assume that “safeguarding” is to be understood in the “child protection” sense and not with regard to education in the academic sense which is addressed in Question 5.
The current system for safeguarding children educated at home is inadequate partly because children who do not start school are not required to make themselves known to the LA. On the other hand the only way to ensure that home educated children are safe would be to visit all homes on a regular basis without notice. To the home education community this might appear draconian. It might also be perceived to be discriminatory if similar action were not taken with regard to children who attend school. The fact that they are in school during the day does not ensure they are safeguarded when they are at home.
Note: In answering this first question we assume there is a possibility that a child educated at home might not be safeguarded. In the following Questions 2 – 5 our answers are based on what we know about the home educated population in general, though for the most part there is little research evidence to go on. Research undertaken at the Institute of Education (IOE) has focused mainly on the methods that parents use, especially informal and autonomous ones, including their application to literacy and numeracy (Thomas, A (1998) Educating Children at Home London, Continuum International Publishing Group; Thomas A & Pattison, H (2007) How Children Learn at Home Continuum International Publishing Group). As part of this research we have of course accumulated information on other aspects of home education, both from our own work and research undertaken elsewhere.
2. Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.
2 a) Be healthy
• Yes
The Five Outcomes
There is every reason to believe that almost all parents, whether their children go to school or not, will want to ensure their children achieve all five outcomes. They are so culturally embedded they hardly need stating. Indeed many parents in research by the IOE (and research elsewhere) cite the desire to achieve the first three outcomes as their reasons for turning to home education (Thomas, 1998, op cit; Rothermel, P (2003) “Can We Classify Motives for Home Education?” Evaluation and Research in Education Vol 17, No 2 & 3).
There is simply no reason to expect that home educated children might not be able to achieve this first outcome (be healthy). On the contrary, we might expect home educating parents to be more aware than the general population in promoting their children’s health though we know of no supporting research evidence.
2 b) Stay safe
• Yes
See response to Question 2a. In addition, in research carried out at the IOE and elsewhere, a number of home educating parents actually turn to home education in order to ensure their children’s safety (e.g. Thomas, 1998, op cit).
2 c) Enjoy and achieve
• Yes
Research carried out at the IOE and elsewhere demonstrates that the motivation of many parents in undertaking home education is precisely to raise their children’s achievement and enjoyment in their education (e.g. Thomas, 1998, op cit; Rothermel, P (2002) Home Education: Rationales, Practicess and Outcomes Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Durham).
A very thorough review of determinants of achievement in school identified parental involvement (both intellectual and emotional) as the critical factor over and above all others including socioeconomic background, ability and school factors (Desforges, C & Abouchaar, A (2003) The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review London, Department for Education and Skills, Research Report No 433).
There is a considerable amount of research in the USA which points to home educated children being in advance of attainment norms. The only study in this country had similar findings (Rothermel, 2002, op cit). However, any comparisons are fraught with difficulties, the greatest being that they do not tell us how these children would have fared had they been in school.
Notwithstanding the above, the possibilities which home education offers in terms of following the child’s individual interests and allowing them to learn at their own pace are paramount (see Thomas, 1998, op cit; Thomas & Pattison, 2007, op cit, which describe research undertaken at the IOE).
2 d) Make a positive contribution.
• Yes
Home educated children have the opportunity to engage in their communities at least as much as children in school if not more so because they are not tied to school hours. To what extent they actually do so is not known. However, research in Canada has shown the involvement of home educated children in their communities to be as high as or higher than that of schooled peers (Mattox, W Jr (1999) “Hidden Virtues in Homeschooling Spur Growth” USA Today quoted in Basham P, Marriefield J, Hepburn C, Homeschooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (2007) Studies in Education Policy Oct 2007 A Fraser Institute Occasional Paper; Van Peltz, D (2003) Home Education in Canda London ON: Canadian Centre for Home Education quoted in Basham P, Marriefield J, Hepburn C, Homeschooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (2007) Studies in Education Policy Oct 2007 A Fraser Institute Occasional Paper).
2 e) achieve economic well-being
• Yes
Research from the USA shows home educated young people go on to pursue a range of employment alternatives and further studies. There is very little research pertaining to the UK though what there is suggests positive outcomes (Webb (2001) Unschooled Minds: Home Educated Children Growing Up Educational Heretics Press).
3. Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?
• Not Sure
How can Government possibly “ensure” that children “achieve” these “outcomes”? The Government can only ensure that all children have the opportunity to achieve them, supporting their education in any way possible whether educated at home or in school.
4. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
• Yes
Currently home educating families receive no financial support. Financial support (e.g. for educational materials, correspondence courses, GCSE examinations) would seem appropriate. Also, permitting and encouraging part-time schooling, flexi-schooling, and increased flexibility to join FE colleges for those under 16 years of age.
At a general level, increased recognition of home education as a valid alternative to school would help strengthen relationships between government agencies and home educators. Existing DCSF guidelines for LAs already make a positive contribution in this respect.
5. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
• Yes
The present system lacks clarity and is unsatisfactory for both families and LAs. Part of the problem is that LA officials generally lack an understanding of the range of home educating approaches.
To our knowledge, the only in depth research into home educating methods has been conducted here at IOE during the last ten years (Thomas, 1998, op cit; Thomas & Pattison, 2007, op cit). Home educators adopt a very wide range of approaches which are often very different from school ones, especially those that are informal or autonomous. Prospective monitors therefore would need to be fully trained in an understanding of the differences between school-based and home-based education.
A good model for monitoring is provided in Australia by the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council, a government body with equal input from home educators and Education Department officials. The system in place in Ireland is also worth considering. There has been input into both these through research carried out at the IOE.
6. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?
Although a possibility, to our knowledge there is no research evidence to support the concern. However Michael Apple in the US has voiced concern over the potential effects of home schooling in relation to particular groups such as the religious right (see Apple, M (2000) “The Cultural Politics of Home Schooling” Peabody Journal of Education Vol 75, No 1).
The only way to ensure, as far as possible, that home education is not used as a cover would be to require all home educators to register with LAs and then to make regular and unannounced home visits with legal right of entry. From knowledge gained through our contact with home educating families and organizations this would undoubtedly be viewed as draconian and discriminatory.
= = = = = =
1. Do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is adequate? Please let us know why you think that.
• Not Sure
We assume that “safeguarding” is to be understood in the “child protection” sense and not with regard to education in the academic sense which is addressed in Question 5.
The current system for safeguarding children educated at home is inadequate partly because children who do not start school are not required to make themselves known to the LA. On the other hand the only way to ensure that home educated children are safe would be to visit all homes on a regular basis without notice. To the home education community this might appear draconian. It might also be perceived to be discriminatory if similar action were not taken with regard to children who attend school. The fact that they are in school during the day does not ensure they are safeguarded when they are at home.
Note: In answering this first question we assume there is a possibility that a child educated at home might not be safeguarded. In the following Questions 2 – 5 our answers are based on what we know about the home educated population in general, though for the most part there is little research evidence to go on. Research undertaken at the Institute of Education (IOE) has focused mainly on the methods that parents use, especially informal and autonomous ones, including their application to literacy and numeracy (Thomas, A (1998) Educating Children at Home London, Continuum International Publishing Group; Thomas A & Pattison, H (2007) How Children Learn at Home Continuum International Publishing Group). As part of this research we have of course accumulated information on other aspects of home education, both from our own work and research undertaken elsewhere.
2. Do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the following five Every Child Matters outcomes? Please let us know why you think that.
2 a) Be healthy
• Yes
The Five Outcomes
There is every reason to believe that almost all parents, whether their children go to school or not, will want to ensure their children achieve all five outcomes. They are so culturally embedded they hardly need stating. Indeed many parents in research by the IOE (and research elsewhere) cite the desire to achieve the first three outcomes as their reasons for turning to home education (Thomas, 1998, op cit; Rothermel, P (2003) “Can We Classify Motives for Home Education?” Evaluation and Research in Education Vol 17, No 2 & 3).
There is simply no reason to expect that home educated children might not be able to achieve this first outcome (be healthy). On the contrary, we might expect home educating parents to be more aware than the general population in promoting their children’s health though we know of no supporting research evidence.
2 b) Stay safe
• Yes
See response to Question 2a. In addition, in research carried out at the IOE and elsewhere, a number of home educating parents actually turn to home education in order to ensure their children’s safety (e.g. Thomas, 1998, op cit).
2 c) Enjoy and achieve
• Yes
Research carried out at the IOE and elsewhere demonstrates that the motivation of many parents in undertaking home education is precisely to raise their children’s achievement and enjoyment in their education (e.g. Thomas, 1998, op cit; Rothermel, P (2002) Home Education: Rationales, Practicess and Outcomes Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Durham).
A very thorough review of determinants of achievement in school identified parental involvement (both intellectual and emotional) as the critical factor over and above all others including socioeconomic background, ability and school factors (Desforges, C & Abouchaar, A (2003) The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review London, Department for Education and Skills, Research Report No 433).
There is a considerable amount of research in the USA which points to home educated children being in advance of attainment norms. The only study in this country had similar findings (Rothermel, 2002, op cit). However, any comparisons are fraught with difficulties, the greatest being that they do not tell us how these children would have fared had they been in school.
Notwithstanding the above, the possibilities which home education offers in terms of following the child’s individual interests and allowing them to learn at their own pace are paramount (see Thomas, 1998, op cit; Thomas & Pattison, 2007, op cit, which describe research undertaken at the IOE).
2 d) Make a positive contribution.
• Yes
Home educated children have the opportunity to engage in their communities at least as much as children in school if not more so because they are not tied to school hours. To what extent they actually do so is not known. However, research in Canada has shown the involvement of home educated children in their communities to be as high as or higher than that of schooled peers (Mattox, W Jr (1999) “Hidden Virtues in Homeschooling Spur Growth” USA Today quoted in Basham P, Marriefield J, Hepburn C, Homeschooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (2007) Studies in Education Policy Oct 2007 A Fraser Institute Occasional Paper; Van Peltz, D (2003) Home Education in Canda London ON: Canadian Centre for Home Education quoted in Basham P, Marriefield J, Hepburn C, Homeschooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (2007) Studies in Education Policy Oct 2007 A Fraser Institute Occasional Paper).
2 e) achieve economic well-being
• Yes
Research from the USA shows home educated young people go on to pursue a range of employment alternatives and further studies. There is very little research pertaining to the UK though what there is suggests positive outcomes (Webb (2001) Unschooled Minds: Home Educated Children Growing Up Educational Heretics Press).
3. Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?
• Not Sure
How can Government possibly “ensure” that children “achieve” these “outcomes”? The Government can only ensure that all children have the opportunity to achieve them, supporting their education in any way possible whether educated at home or in school.
4. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
• Yes
Currently home educating families receive no financial support. Financial support (e.g. for educational materials, correspondence courses, GCSE examinations) would seem appropriate. Also, permitting and encouraging part-time schooling, flexi-schooling, and increased flexibility to join FE colleges for those under 16 years of age.
At a general level, increased recognition of home education as a valid alternative to school would help strengthen relationships between government agencies and home educators. Existing DCSF guidelines for LAs already make a positive contribution in this respect.
5. Do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring home educating families? If you answered yes, what should they be? If you answered no, why do you think that?
• Yes
The present system lacks clarity and is unsatisfactory for both families and LAs. Part of the problem is that LA officials generally lack an understanding of the range of home educating approaches.
To our knowledge, the only in depth research into home educating methods has been conducted here at IOE during the last ten years (Thomas, 1998, op cit; Thomas & Pattison, 2007, op cit). Home educators adopt a very wide range of approaches which are often very different from school ones, especially those that are informal or autonomous. Prospective monitors therefore would need to be fully trained in an understanding of the differences between school-based and home-based education.
A good model for monitoring is provided in Australia by the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council, a government body with equal input from home educators and Education Department officials. The system in place in Ireland is also worth considering. There has been input into both these through research carried out at the IOE.
6. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?
Although a possibility, to our knowledge there is no research evidence to support the concern. However Michael Apple in the US has voiced concern over the potential effects of home schooling in relation to particular groups such as the religious right (see Apple, M (2000) “The Cultural Politics of Home Schooling” Peabody Journal of Education Vol 75, No 1).
The only way to ensure, as far as possible, that home education is not used as a cover would be to require all home educators to register with LAs and then to make regular and unannounced home visits with legal right of entry. From knowledge gained through our contact with home educating families and organizations this would undoubtedly be viewed as draconian and discriminatory.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Further on Notschool
After yesterday's rather hurried post on whether home educators could accept any form of support from the DCSF via the Local Authorities, I realised I still didn't have a very good handle on the work of one of the review panelists, namely that of Prof. Stephen Heppell or on his project Notschool.
After digging around a bit, the best I could come up with on Notschool was this movie, a video prospectus which gives some sort of picture of the way that Notschool works. There's also this short piece here where we learn that each "mentor" has six "researchers."
However, I'm still not clear as to the degree of control and compulsion involved. How self-directed are these learners in reality? If they wake up late of a morning, or decide they don't want to do any Notschool approved project that week, how does that go down?
These, I think, are the key questions. Autonomous home educators are properly autonomous. They decide when, where, what they learn and they themselves set about getting the help they need to do this. Adults are on hand to help out, offer suggestions, provide answers when asked, but the learning isn't covertly shoe-horned to fit pre-conceived outcomes by some third party.
I am still not clear how this would fit with Notschool.
With a view to finding a clearly non-coercive route forward, it might be interesting to find out more about Prof. Heppell's work with the BBC. See project - BBC learning layer for the www, approximately 3/4 of the way down this page. If the BBC or similar body could be funded to provide more by the way of exciting educational resources, free soft-ware, educational virtual realities, video lectures that could be cherry-picked as and when by the learner? Now there's a thought.
UPDATE: For further information on Notschool, please see Gill's comment below.
After digging around a bit, the best I could come up with on Notschool was this movie, a video prospectus which gives some sort of picture of the way that Notschool works. There's also this short piece here where we learn that each "mentor" has six "researchers."
However, I'm still not clear as to the degree of control and compulsion involved. How self-directed are these learners in reality? If they wake up late of a morning, or decide they don't want to do any Notschool approved project that week, how does that go down?
These, I think, are the key questions. Autonomous home educators are properly autonomous. They decide when, where, what they learn and they themselves set about getting the help they need to do this. Adults are on hand to help out, offer suggestions, provide answers when asked, but the learning isn't covertly shoe-horned to fit pre-conceived outcomes by some third party.
I am still not clear how this would fit with Notschool.
With a view to finding a clearly non-coercive route forward, it might be interesting to find out more about Prof. Heppell's work with the BBC. See project - BBC learning layer for the www, approximately 3/4 of the way down this page. If the BBC or similar body could be funded to provide more by the way of exciting educational resources, free soft-ware, educational virtual realities, video lectures that could be cherry-picked as and when by the learner? Now there's a thought.
UPDATE: For further information on Notschool, please see Gill's comment below.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Virtual Learning in the TES
...here.
We know that NotSchool is not what we are looking for. Could Schome be the answer? Obviously, the first prerequisite: that it should be entirely voluntary.
Anyhow, am more certain that the free resource of the week is Hippocampus.
We know that NotSchool is not what we are looking for. Could Schome be the answer? Obviously, the first prerequisite: that it should be entirely voluntary.
Anyhow, am more certain that the free resource of the week is Hippocampus.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Could We Accept Some Form of Support?
With Mr Badman regularly suggesting that one way to overcome barriers between Local Authorities and home educators is that HEors be offered support, and with HEors first reaction being "uh oh, that weaselly word, support. Yes, that would be support with strings attached, HEors dancing like puppets. For support, read monitoring and control", some of us have been wondering if there actually can be any way forward on this front.
What we are clear we don't want: anything that all of us HAVE to do. We don't want to have to log in the morning, or pitch up to some centre, do a curriculum, do SATS, do exams.
We don't want something that starts out innocuously, by offering something that then mutates into being forced to do something we never signed up for.
Most of us don't want something that will engulf us, take all our time, reduce our capacity to sort our lives out for ourselves. (See link above.)
So we are looking at a few of the examples that have been set up around the country that seemed to have worked, and haven't come under fire for wrecking the home educating community and effectively returning children to school, a la Bedfordshire scheme (again).
There are a number of possible models. There's the Dudley scheme, which offers English and Maths lessons of one and a quarter hours each, on a Wednesday morning, is entirely voluntary, paid for by the LA, and may or may not end up in taking a GCSE. That sounds good.
The Home Education Centre in Chard seems like another possibility. They are funded by the LA, but what they get up to seems to be entirely determined by the families themselves. They meet for two days a week and have the option of a wide range of activities. The only problem here: they have reached a maximum number. Home educators looking in from the outside could be feeling pretty desperate as deep friendships form and they can't join in.
And Dani has just pointed me to the Milton Keynes model: a once-a-week drop-in centre, providing advice to HEors, play equipment for younger children, and access to an exam centre for external candidates. There are also regular opportunities for HEors to meet with the LA to discuss various issues such as apprenticeship schemes and truancy patrols. Milton Keynes has for a long time had a reputation for respecting the rights of home educators to educate as they see fit and for their sensible approach in their guidelines.
Have also been casting around and looking at models abroad. We must do our best to avoid the problems posed by cyber-schools in the US, but an umbrella school, where you sign up, sometimes for free, and simply report on the number of hours of study you have undertaken? Now that sounds interesting.
Would be interested to hear what you think?
What we are clear we don't want: anything that all of us HAVE to do. We don't want to have to log in the morning, or pitch up to some centre, do a curriculum, do SATS, do exams.
We don't want something that starts out innocuously, by offering something that then mutates into being forced to do something we never signed up for.
Most of us don't want something that will engulf us, take all our time, reduce our capacity to sort our lives out for ourselves. (See link above.)
So we are looking at a few of the examples that have been set up around the country that seemed to have worked, and haven't come under fire for wrecking the home educating community and effectively returning children to school, a la Bedfordshire scheme (again).
There are a number of possible models. There's the Dudley scheme, which offers English and Maths lessons of one and a quarter hours each, on a Wednesday morning, is entirely voluntary, paid for by the LA, and may or may not end up in taking a GCSE. That sounds good.
The Home Education Centre in Chard seems like another possibility. They are funded by the LA, but what they get up to seems to be entirely determined by the families themselves. They meet for two days a week and have the option of a wide range of activities. The only problem here: they have reached a maximum number. Home educators looking in from the outside could be feeling pretty desperate as deep friendships form and they can't join in.
And Dani has just pointed me to the Milton Keynes model: a once-a-week drop-in centre, providing advice to HEors, play equipment for younger children, and access to an exam centre for external candidates. There are also regular opportunities for HEors to meet with the LA to discuss various issues such as apprenticeship schemes and truancy patrols. Milton Keynes has for a long time had a reputation for respecting the rights of home educators to educate as they see fit and for their sensible approach in their guidelines.
Have also been casting around and looking at models abroad. We must do our best to avoid the problems posed by cyber-schools in the US, but an umbrella school, where you sign up, sometimes for free, and simply report on the number of hours of study you have undertaken? Now that sounds interesting.
Would be interested to hear what you think?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Autonomous Education Works
The news just in is that we suspect that the person leading the home education review (Mr Badman) doesn't grok autonomous education. This led me to wonder how on earth one could explain this to him. How can we possibly put across that we know/see that something that is so vastly different to school-based education can really work?
Anyhow, thinking about providing support for our arguments, (more than just Alan Thomas, Paula Rothermel and Mike Fortune Wood), I sat down and watched this piece from Fora TV about evidence-based education and was interested to hear that most "controlled" trials on various classroom techniques have thousands to tens of thousands of studies to back them up.
This led me to think that we cannot hope to argue with Badman on the basis of "controlled studies" , but that we should nonetheless continue to talk of our evidence base.
However, before we got on to doing this, my first instinct would be to make it quite clear to all and sundry, including Mr Badman, that controlled studies on the subject of the efficacy of education shouldn't be given much weight. I'd be saying, "Look let's be clear: humans are not subjects who may be submitted for scientific study. In education, you can't even do a double-blinded placebo-controlled study as you would in, say, a medical drug trial and even those aren't scientific in the strict sense anyway in that they do not even pretend to pose a falsifiable hypothesis and demonstrate that hypothesis is not wrong as far as we know. Studies on people, including all medical and psychiatric ones as well as ones to do with educational efficacy are not scientific ones. The best you can say about these kinds of studies is that they provide a rule-of-thumb impression of what may or may not work.
However, Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Speccie last year with the tag line "there are no ‘good’ teachers: the teacher who is good for you may wreck another’s prospects." His theory would give the lie to the notion that there are set, reliable ways to promote learning in schools, and by this token would seem to suggest that these controlled trials must be taken with a pinch of salt.
I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with his proposition. The other day, my sister and I compared notes on the teachers we had shared at secondary school. I had only derived positive long-term benefit from one of my senior school teachers, (not a trained teacher, but a novelist, journalist, bon viveur and wit who had a healthy disregard for power structures and curricula). It seemed to me that he really knew when someone had bothered to turn out a genuinely good piece of writing. He made me laugh and entranced me. My sister, the person who I feel I intuitively understand better than I understand anyone else in the world, the person who dreams the same dreams, who lives the same passions, she simply couldn't stand this teacher. She thought he was a secret bully and read all his actions through this prism. (In retrospect, I am not saying that she was wrong. I think perhaps that I had become more habituated to terrible treatment, whilst she simply never accepted it, however it was dressed up).
So yes, for one reason or another, it doesn't matter much that there IS very little by way of rule-of-thumb "controlled trial" evidence out there to support the idea of the efficacy of autonomous education since such studies wouldn't give us any more than a clue about what might work and the absence of this kind of evidence doesn't negate the possibility that autonomous education actually does work.
(Of course why there aren't many studies is another question. I would hazard that it may have something to do with the fact that there would be very little financial gain in demonstrating that autonomous education works, or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that autonomous education looks so different from school-based methods that researchers don't believe it a credible subject for study.)
Despite all this, there really is good empirical evidence that autonomous education does work. One reason why a good number of us think it works is that we have been around long enough to see that it does. Plenty of us have seen children who have been autonomously educated since birth become wonderful, sophisticated adults. That is a huge boost to our belief in the process of autonomous ed, though of course as parents, we can not really take much of the praise, since the children are autonomous, have directed their own learning, and it is almost entirely their own result.
Another reason why we believe it works: it has worked for plenty of us, ourselves. As a child, I had a hugely expensive education at one of the most academic girls schools in the country. Honestly and truthfully, I learned diddly-squat. I was miserable and bored for seven solid years on the trot. I might have got exam results, but this knowledge was not valuable to me, I remember next to nothing about it, it did not give me a valuable base from which to grow, it left me completely confused as to the fundamental principles of how the world works, of how to grow knowledge, of realising the value and excitement in learning. It was only upon encountering the concept of autonomous learning and of experiencing it for myself that I have formulated a world view with which I live, work and learn in a truly exciting and positive way. I personally owe everything I truly value in life to that which I have acquired through the process of autonomous learning, learning that is freely directed by myself, that answers the questions that I find are pressing for me.
There's another reason for our adherence to the concept of autonomous education: we believe that there are good philosophical theories which explain why it seems to work. There are, for example, rigorous theories about the efficacy of uncoerced, self-directed learning. If you accept that coercion is being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind, you can see the converse that uncoerced learning liberates rationality and creativity. There are plenty of other possible confounding factors, (such as the use of the Socratic method, self-assessment, personalised feedback, the fact that parents don't prescribe outcomes - the child does this for themselves, the fact that a parent simply can't become narcissistically and therefore damagingly invested in the child's learning because it is so clearly the childs handiwork), but the efficiency of learning that comes when learning is intrinsically motivated seems to form the nut of it all.
Another thing Mr Badman needs to know: autonomous education ceases to exist the moment someone insists upon imposing an unwanted assessment upon it. This is not to say that autonomous learners do not seek assessment from various sources. The difference is that the learners themselves choose when, where, how, why and from whom. Autonomous educators recognise the value of non-coercion: that it permits of a satisfaction of curiosity and liberates rationality and creativity. Coercion limits all these attributes and this is why home educators resist assessments from people who know so little about the process and who can't possibly implement it sensitively or reliably.
According to a recent poll, some 77% of home educated children and teens would rather not see LA personnel. If universal assessment of home educators were to be enforced, the autonomously educated amongst those 77% would no longer be able to work according to their own principles and philosophies.
Mr Badman also needs to be reminded that autonomous education is at least for some, the last bastion of hope. These families arrived at the doorstep of the autonomously educating clan because all other educational strategies had failed their children. They may have got there unwillingly, dragged by force of circumstance, but once they did get there, they found themselves lifted up to see a whole new world of exciting possibilities and learning strategies that actually worked. They most often found themselves staying more than willingly.
If such children are forced back into a system that previously failed them, they are likely to fail all over again, and what's more, you are likely to find that these families will dig in their heels. They know what's worked for them. They will not give up on the work they have done to find and provide a suitable education for their children. If you take away the freedom to educate their children autonomously, you are likely to find that you end up completely destroying these families one way or another. That must be on your conscience, Mr Badman.
Anyhow, thinking about providing support for our arguments, (more than just Alan Thomas, Paula Rothermel and Mike Fortune Wood), I sat down and watched this piece from Fora TV about evidence-based education and was interested to hear that most "controlled" trials on various classroom techniques have thousands to tens of thousands of studies to back them up.
This led me to think that we cannot hope to argue with Badman on the basis of "controlled studies" , but that we should nonetheless continue to talk of our evidence base.
However, before we got on to doing this, my first instinct would be to make it quite clear to all and sundry, including Mr Badman, that controlled studies on the subject of the efficacy of education shouldn't be given much weight. I'd be saying, "Look let's be clear: humans are not subjects who may be submitted for scientific study. In education, you can't even do a double-blinded placebo-controlled study as you would in, say, a medical drug trial and even those aren't scientific in the strict sense anyway in that they do not even pretend to pose a falsifiable hypothesis and demonstrate that hypothesis is not wrong as far as we know. Studies on people, including all medical and psychiatric ones as well as ones to do with educational efficacy are not scientific ones. The best you can say about these kinds of studies is that they provide a rule-of-thumb impression of what may or may not work.
However, Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Speccie last year with the tag line "there are no ‘good’ teachers: the teacher who is good for you may wreck another’s prospects." His theory would give the lie to the notion that there are set, reliable ways to promote learning in schools, and by this token would seem to suggest that these controlled trials must be taken with a pinch of salt.
I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with his proposition. The other day, my sister and I compared notes on the teachers we had shared at secondary school. I had only derived positive long-term benefit from one of my senior school teachers, (not a trained teacher, but a novelist, journalist, bon viveur and wit who had a healthy disregard for power structures and curricula). It seemed to me that he really knew when someone had bothered to turn out a genuinely good piece of writing. He made me laugh and entranced me. My sister, the person who I feel I intuitively understand better than I understand anyone else in the world, the person who dreams the same dreams, who lives the same passions, she simply couldn't stand this teacher. She thought he was a secret bully and read all his actions through this prism. (In retrospect, I am not saying that she was wrong. I think perhaps that I had become more habituated to terrible treatment, whilst she simply never accepted it, however it was dressed up).
So yes, for one reason or another, it doesn't matter much that there IS very little by way of rule-of-thumb "controlled trial" evidence out there to support the idea of the efficacy of autonomous education since such studies wouldn't give us any more than a clue about what might work and the absence of this kind of evidence doesn't negate the possibility that autonomous education actually does work.
(Of course why there aren't many studies is another question. I would hazard that it may have something to do with the fact that there would be very little financial gain in demonstrating that autonomous education works, or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that autonomous education looks so different from school-based methods that researchers don't believe it a credible subject for study.)
Despite all this, there really is good empirical evidence that autonomous education does work. One reason why a good number of us think it works is that we have been around long enough to see that it does. Plenty of us have seen children who have been autonomously educated since birth become wonderful, sophisticated adults. That is a huge boost to our belief in the process of autonomous ed, though of course as parents, we can not really take much of the praise, since the children are autonomous, have directed their own learning, and it is almost entirely their own result.
Often one of the biggest problems people have with autonomous education is that they simply don't believe that children have a natural curiosity. All they see is children in school who have had their curiosity ruined by compulsory education. They're thinking: how can autonomous education possibly work if children need to be coerced, either by punishments or rewards, into learning (ie. memorising) things?
One autonomous educator writes: "I come across this attitude repeatedly in discussions on mainstream parenting forums. Statements like "Oh, I would never be able to get my children to sit down and learn anything". It's not until they meet lots and lots of autonomously educated children, who have either never been to school, or who have had the time to thoroughly deschool and re-gain their natural curiosity, that a lot of people actually start to understand how children learn and how school can ruin them. What we're battling is not a huge misunderstanding of how autonomous home education works, but a huge misunderstanding of how children work."
One autonomous educator writes: "I come across this attitude repeatedly in discussions on mainstream parenting forums. Statements like "Oh, I would never be able to get my children to sit down and learn anything". It's not until they meet lots and lots of autonomously educated children, who have either never been to school, or who have had the time to thoroughly deschool and re-gain their natural curiosity, that a lot of people actually start to understand how children learn and how school can ruin them. What we're battling is not a huge misunderstanding of how autonomous home education works, but a huge misunderstanding of how children work."
There's another reason for our adherence to the concept of autonomous education: we believe that there are good philosophical theories which explain why it seems to work. There are, for example, rigorous theories about the efficacy of uncoerced, self-directed learning. If you accept that coercion is being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind, you can see the converse that uncoerced learning liberates rationality and creativity. There are plenty of other possible confounding factors, (such as the use of the Socratic method, self-assessment, personalised feedback, the fact that parents don't prescribe outcomes - the child does this for themselves, the fact that a parent simply can't become narcissistically and therefore damagingly invested in the child's learning because it is so clearly the childs handiwork), but the efficiency of learning that comes when learning is intrinsically motivated seems to form the nut of it all.
Another thing Mr Badman needs to know: autonomous education ceases to exist the moment someone insists upon imposing an unwanted assessment upon it. This is not to say that autonomous learners do not seek assessment from various sources. The difference is that the learners themselves choose when, where, how, why and from whom. Autonomous educators recognise the value of non-coercion: that it permits of a satisfaction of curiosity and liberates rationality and creativity. Coercion limits all these attributes and this is why home educators resist assessments from people who know so little about the process and who can't possibly implement it sensitively or reliably.
According to a recent poll, some 77% of home educated children and teens would rather not see LA personnel. If universal assessment of home educators were to be enforced, the autonomously educated amongst those 77% would no longer be able to work according to their own principles and philosophies.
Mr Badman also needs to be reminded that autonomous education is at least for some, the last bastion of hope. These families arrived at the doorstep of the autonomously educating clan because all other educational strategies had failed their children. They may have got there unwillingly, dragged by force of circumstance, but once they did get there, they found themselves lifted up to see a whole new world of exciting possibilities and learning strategies that actually worked. They most often found themselves staying more than willingly.
If such children are forced back into a system that previously failed them, they are likely to fail all over again, and what's more, you are likely to find that these families will dig in their heels. They know what's worked for them. They will not give up on the work they have done to find and provide a suitable education for their children. If you take away the freedom to educate their children autonomously, you are likely to find that you end up completely destroying these families one way or another. That must be on your conscience, Mr Badman.
Results of Polls
Results from a poll here, asking the home educated child/teen on their view of contact with LA personnel.
Total number of votes: 409.
He/she does not mind seeing LA personnel: 17%
He/she is happy to see LA personnel: 6%
He/she does not want to see LA personnel: 77%
============
Education Otherwise subsequently conducted a further more extensive survey on a similar theme, the results of which can be found here. This survey also found that the large majority (78%) of HE children/teens said they did not want to see LA personnel.
Updated results of the EO survey: here
==============
The Home Educated but not Hidden Survey.
==============
Total number of votes: 409.
He/she does not mind seeing LA personnel: 17%
He/she is happy to see LA personnel: 6%
He/she does not want to see LA personnel: 77%
============
Education Otherwise subsequently conducted a further more extensive survey on a similar theme, the results of which can be found here. This survey also found that the large majority (78%) of HE children/teens said they did not want to see LA personnel.
Updated results of the EO survey: here
==============
The Home Educated but not Hidden Survey.
==============
Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment for EHE Consult 2007
Re Costs for home ed, in 2007 the Government said:
"These costs range from £125 per child per annum to £275 per child per annum, with an average cost of £200.
Given our estimate that local authorities currently work with 20,000 children who are being educated at home, this means that local authorities are currently spending around £4m per annum on monitoring home educators. This is in addition to the costs of advising and supporting home educators"
PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR
ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION CONSULTATION
Purpose and intended effect
Objective
1. To ensure that all children who are being educated at home receive a full-time, high quality education which is suitable to their needs.
Background
2. Whilst most parents choose to educate their children at school, a small proportion of parents prefer home education. Estimates of the number of children who are being educated at home vary significantly, but as many as 40,000 children might be being educated at home.
3. The regulatory framework for home education is currently minimal. If children have never been to school, there is no requirement to inform the local authority that home education is taking place. Parents are under an obligation to provide a ‘suitable’ full-time education, but there are no set standards or curriculum requirements. The consultation proposes guidelines on home education to local authorities.
Rationale for Government intervention
4. The Every Child Matters framework sets out the five outcomes which the Government wants all children to achieve. These are to stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. Local authorities have an interest in ensuring that all children – whichever education setting they are in – achieve those outcomes.
5. Whilst many parents provide a high-quality education, there are concerns that a small minority of parents are unable or unwilling to do so. Local authorities report that a small – but increasing – number of parents may be withdrawing their children from school as a way to avoid School Attendance Orders. There are also concerns for the safety and well-being of a small number of children. The current system is often insufficiently responsive. Additionally, a lack of data makes it very difficult for local authorities and central government to plan services properly.
Consultation
Public consultation
6. The research which informed the consultation paper involved consultation with Education Otherwise and the Home Education Advisory Service, home educating parents and local authorities. The formal consultation period will run for 12 weeks and will include directly approaching stakeholders who have expressed an interest in the subject. This RIA is being published alongside the consultation, and we welcome contributions on the document.
Costs and benefits
Sectors and groups affected
7. The major sectors and groups affected by these proposals are:
• children who are being educated at home and their families; and
• local authorities.
Costs
8. Whilst issuing guidelines would not impose any new costs on any parts of the system, it would ensure that current costs continue. Given the great uncertainty around the numbers of children being educated at home, it is very difficult to provide an accurate estimate of these costs. However, we do know that local authorities already monitor the standard of home education which parents are providing. This is generally done on an annual or biannual basis. Local authorities have provided various estimates of the cost of the staff time and additional costs which the monitoring process and associated work entail. These costs range from £125 per child per annum to £275 per child per annum, with an average cost of £200.
9. Given our estimate that local authorities currently work with 20,000 children who are being educated at home, this means that local authorities are currently spending around £4m per annum on monitoring home educators. This is in addition to the costs of advising and supporting home educators, which would not be affected by changes to the current legal framework.
10. Research has shown that the current regulatory framework relies on good will. Where that good will is absent or has broken down, local authorities tell us that the system becomes extremely cumbersome, and does not provide the tools they need to monitor effectively. For example, one of the main current mechanisms is legal action to obtain a School Attendance Order which is expensive and time-consuming for all concerned, as well as encouraging an adversarial approach. The cost of this process varies enormously, but can be thousands of pounds when local authorities have to take legal advice.
Benefits
11. Issuing guidelines would not increase burdens of registration or monitoring on either local authorities or home educators. The guidelines do not increase intrusion into home educators’ or their children’s lives, but clarify the responsibilities of the local authority and advise on the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations local authorities.
12. Another clear benefit of this would be the avoidance of additional monitoring costs. However, it is likely that the current large costs and inconvenience of legal action would continue.
Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring
14. We will consider how to take forward the guidelines on elective home education in light of the consultation responses. No enforcement of the guidelines is planned.
RACE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Part Two: Full Impact Assessment
Detailed aims of the policy and its context:
Whilst the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to school, a small number choose to educate their children at home. There is currently a minimal regulatory framework for home education: for example, there is no requirement for parents whose children have never been to school to register with the local authority. The law requires parents to provide a suitable full-time education for their children, but the courts have found that this ‘does not have to conform to any standards set by a school or local authority’.
Because there is no requirement for home educators to register their children with the local authority if the children have never been to school, there is no central record of the number of children who are being educated at home. However, LAs do maintain records of the children who are withdrawn from schools by their parents. These records show that between 0.1% and 0.4% of children are being educated at home. Whilst extrapolating from these figures is problematic, our latest estimate suggests there could be 40,000 children in home education, although some home education organisations suggest the figure is much higher.
The consultation proposes issuing guidelines which clarify the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to parents who education their children at home, and sets out the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations of local authorities.
Assessment of potential impact based on:
Evidence collected
The incomplete nature of the data has made it difficult to assess whether there are differences in the rate of home education between different ethnic groups. In order to obtain a more complete picture, the Department has commissioned two research studies, including one focussed on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. These studies found that children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families are substantially over-represented amongst families who choose home education. Children from other minority ethnic groups appear to be no more or less likely to be educated at home than children from White British families.
Consultation
The consultation will be launched on 8th May and will run for three months. We will send copies of the consultation to groups representing religious, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, and Black and Minority Ethnic communities, home educators, groups representing home educators, and local authorities.
Consideration of evidence
The decision to consult on guidelines has been informed by research studies, as well as informal discussions with local authorities and home education organisations.
The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES, 2007) established the current difficulty in assessing the numbers of children who are being educated at home. It also concluded that “the current definition of ‘efficient and suitable’ education is considered too vague to enable LAs to assess the suitability of elective home education (EHE) and protect the welfare of children”.
The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006) states, “Few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable. And yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is increasing at a high rate.” It concludes, “The legal context now requires a legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements. The DfES needs to address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being educated under the EHE arrangements.”
Local authorities tell us that it is difficult to establish whether or not a child is receiving a ‘suitable’ education at home, as there is no definition of what ‘suitable’ is in a modern context. The arrangements for monitoring rely mainly on good will, and there are insufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare of the child when parents are unwilling to cooperate.
Home educators are concerned that some local authorities go beyond their legal duties and are unhelpful or unnecessarily intrusive. Clearer legal standards would be helpful to ensure that the rights of the home educators are respected and observed.
Possible Alternative routes to achieving the policy aim(s)
An alternative would be to wait for the introduction of the Children Missing Education database, following the provisions in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Whilst this would give local authorities a much clearer idea of which children are being educated at home, it would not give them with any better tools to ensure that the education which is being provided is adequate for children’s age and ability.
Other alternatives to achieving the policy aim include new legislation which would require all home educating parents to register with their local authority and giving local authorities the power to monitor home educators.
Record any changes you have made to the policy as a result of the assessment:
None.
What arrangements are in place/have been made for monitoring potential adverse impact?
After the final guidelines have been issued, we will examine whether it would be possible to commission a short research study to assess the impact of the changes.
How and when will the results of the monitoring be published?
The results of the study will be published routinely.
Publication and review of the Assessment results:
How and when will these results be published?
This REIA will be published alongside the consultation document.
When will it be reviewed?
Comments on the REIA are encouraged as part of the consultation process, and this assessment will be reviewed after the end of the consultation period.
Please see Guidance on section 35 Freedom of Information Act- exclusion from publications
DISABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Initial screening for impact
Detailed aims of the policy and its context:
Whilst the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to school, a small number choose to educate their children at home. There is currently a minimal regulatory framework for home education: for example, there is no requirement for parents whose children have never been to school to register with the local authority. The law requires parents to provide a suitable full-time education for their children, but the courts have found that this ‘does not have to conform to any standards set by a school or local authority’.
Because there is no requirement for home educators to register their children with the local authority if the children have never been to school, there is no central record of the number of children who are being educated at home. However, LAs do maintain records of the children who are withdrawn from schools by their parents. These records show that between 0.1% and 0.4% of children are being educated at home. Whilst extrapolating from these figures is problematic, our latest estimate suggests there could be 40,000 children in home education, although some home education organisations suggest the figure is much higher.
The consultation proposes issuing guidelines which clarify the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to parents who education their children at home, and sets out the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations of local authorities.
Assessment of potential impact based on:
Evidence collected
The decision to consult on issuing guidelines has been informed by the research studies, as well as informal discussions with local authorities and home education organisations.
The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES, 2006) established the current difficulty in assessing the numbers of children who are being educated at home. It also concluded that “the current definition of ‘efficient and suitable’ education is considered too vague to enable LAs to assess the suitability of EHE [elective home education] and protect the welfare of children”. The survey estimated that around 5% of children who are educated at home have a statement of special educational needs, compared to 3% of the general population. Introducing compulsory registration will allow local authorities to find out more about the characteristics of children who are being educated at home, and respond to any particular needs they have. This may include learning more about the proportion of children who have a disability.
The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006) states, “Few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable. And yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is increasing at a high rate.” It concludes, “The legal context now requires a legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements. The DfES needs to address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being educated under the EHE arrangements.”
Consultation
The consultation will be launched on 8th May and will run for three months. We will send copies of the consultation to groups representing disabled children and parents.
Decision on whether to begin a full disability impact assessment
The Disability Rights Commission states that a full disability impact assessment should be performed if either:
• the policy is a major one in terms of scale or significance for the authority’s activities; or
• there is a clear indication that, although the policy is minor, it is likely to have a major impact upon disabled people – in terms either of numbers affected or the seriousness of the likely impact, or both.
Our preliminary analysis is that a full impact assessment is unnecessary. This is because the policy on home education is not major when set against the Department’s other policies and priorities.
However, this is a preliminary conclusion. We will consult groups with particular interest and expertise in disability during the consultation process, and will review the need for a fuller assessment in July.
Publication and review of the Assessment results:
How and when will these results be published?
This DIA will be published alongside the consultation.
When will it be reviewed?
Comments on the DIA are encouraged as part of the consultation process, and this assessment will be reviewed after the end of the consultation period.
=================================================================
13th March 2009
Education: Home Schooling
Questions asked by Lord Lucas
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90313w0001.htm
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 25 February (WA 87), whether the guaranteed unit of funding applies to children who are being home-educated under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996; and, if not, what sum is on average paid to local authorities in respect of such children. [HL1830]
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 25 February (WA 87), whether the guaranteed unit of funding applies to children who are being home-educated under Section 19(4) of the Education Act 1996; and, if not, what sum is on average paid to local authorities in respect of such children. [HL1831]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): The guaranteed unit of funding (GUF) would not be paid to young persons who are being home educated. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 requires parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Home tuition would be a decision by a parent and no GUF would be paid in respect of such children. No other funding would be payable either by the department to the local authority.
The GUF would not be paid to local authorities for pupils under Section 19(4) of the 1996 Education Act as this section refers to young persons (not of compulsory school age), However Section 19(1) is a similar section for children of compulsory school age and GUF could be paid to a local authority where the authority has financial responsibility for such pupils. If the LA has financial responsibility and makes exceptional provision for the pupil to be home educated then the LA could claim the GUF. This is, however, likely to be a very
Exceptional circumstance as Section 19(2B) makes it clear that LAs can set up pupil referral units which are schools specially organised to provide education for children referred to in Section 19(1)."
"These costs range from £125 per child per annum to £275 per child per annum, with an average cost of £200.
Given our estimate that local authorities currently work with 20,000 children who are being educated at home, this means that local authorities are currently spending around £4m per annum on monitoring home educators. This is in addition to the costs of advising and supporting home educators"
PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR
ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION CONSULTATION
Purpose and intended effect
Objective
1. To ensure that all children who are being educated at home receive a full-time, high quality education which is suitable to their needs.
Background
2. Whilst most parents choose to educate their children at school, a small proportion of parents prefer home education. Estimates of the number of children who are being educated at home vary significantly, but as many as 40,000 children might be being educated at home.
3. The regulatory framework for home education is currently minimal. If children have never been to school, there is no requirement to inform the local authority that home education is taking place. Parents are under an obligation to provide a ‘suitable’ full-time education, but there are no set standards or curriculum requirements. The consultation proposes guidelines on home education to local authorities.
Rationale for Government intervention
4. The Every Child Matters framework sets out the five outcomes which the Government wants all children to achieve. These are to stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. Local authorities have an interest in ensuring that all children – whichever education setting they are in – achieve those outcomes.
5. Whilst many parents provide a high-quality education, there are concerns that a small minority of parents are unable or unwilling to do so. Local authorities report that a small – but increasing – number of parents may be withdrawing their children from school as a way to avoid School Attendance Orders. There are also concerns for the safety and well-being of a small number of children. The current system is often insufficiently responsive. Additionally, a lack of data makes it very difficult for local authorities and central government to plan services properly.
Consultation
Public consultation
6. The research which informed the consultation paper involved consultation with Education Otherwise and the Home Education Advisory Service, home educating parents and local authorities. The formal consultation period will run for 12 weeks and will include directly approaching stakeholders who have expressed an interest in the subject. This RIA is being published alongside the consultation, and we welcome contributions on the document.
Costs and benefits
Sectors and groups affected
7. The major sectors and groups affected by these proposals are:
• children who are being educated at home and their families; and
• local authorities.
Costs
8. Whilst issuing guidelines would not impose any new costs on any parts of the system, it would ensure that current costs continue. Given the great uncertainty around the numbers of children being educated at home, it is very difficult to provide an accurate estimate of these costs. However, we do know that local authorities already monitor the standard of home education which parents are providing. This is generally done on an annual or biannual basis. Local authorities have provided various estimates of the cost of the staff time and additional costs which the monitoring process and associated work entail. These costs range from £125 per child per annum to £275 per child per annum, with an average cost of £200.
9. Given our estimate that local authorities currently work with 20,000 children who are being educated at home, this means that local authorities are currently spending around £4m per annum on monitoring home educators. This is in addition to the costs of advising and supporting home educators, which would not be affected by changes to the current legal framework.
10. Research has shown that the current regulatory framework relies on good will. Where that good will is absent or has broken down, local authorities tell us that the system becomes extremely cumbersome, and does not provide the tools they need to monitor effectively. For example, one of the main current mechanisms is legal action to obtain a School Attendance Order which is expensive and time-consuming for all concerned, as well as encouraging an adversarial approach. The cost of this process varies enormously, but can be thousands of pounds when local authorities have to take legal advice.
Benefits
11. Issuing guidelines would not increase burdens of registration or monitoring on either local authorities or home educators. The guidelines do not increase intrusion into home educators’ or their children’s lives, but clarify the responsibilities of the local authority and advise on the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations local authorities.
12. Another clear benefit of this would be the avoidance of additional monitoring costs. However, it is likely that the current large costs and inconvenience of legal action would continue.
Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring
14. We will consider how to take forward the guidelines on elective home education in light of the consultation responses. No enforcement of the guidelines is planned.
RACE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Part Two: Full Impact Assessment
Detailed aims of the policy and its context:
Whilst the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to school, a small number choose to educate their children at home. There is currently a minimal regulatory framework for home education: for example, there is no requirement for parents whose children have never been to school to register with the local authority. The law requires parents to provide a suitable full-time education for their children, but the courts have found that this ‘does not have to conform to any standards set by a school or local authority’.
Because there is no requirement for home educators to register their children with the local authority if the children have never been to school, there is no central record of the number of children who are being educated at home. However, LAs do maintain records of the children who are withdrawn from schools by their parents. These records show that between 0.1% and 0.4% of children are being educated at home. Whilst extrapolating from these figures is problematic, our latest estimate suggests there could be 40,000 children in home education, although some home education organisations suggest the figure is much higher.
The consultation proposes issuing guidelines which clarify the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to parents who education their children at home, and sets out the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations of local authorities.
Assessment of potential impact based on:
Evidence collected
The incomplete nature of the data has made it difficult to assess whether there are differences in the rate of home education between different ethnic groups. In order to obtain a more complete picture, the Department has commissioned two research studies, including one focussed on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. These studies found that children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families are substantially over-represented amongst families who choose home education. Children from other minority ethnic groups appear to be no more or less likely to be educated at home than children from White British families.
Consultation
The consultation will be launched on 8th May and will run for three months. We will send copies of the consultation to groups representing religious, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, and Black and Minority Ethnic communities, home educators, groups representing home educators, and local authorities.
Consideration of evidence
The decision to consult on guidelines has been informed by research studies, as well as informal discussions with local authorities and home education organisations.
The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES, 2007) established the current difficulty in assessing the numbers of children who are being educated at home. It also concluded that “the current definition of ‘efficient and suitable’ education is considered too vague to enable LAs to assess the suitability of elective home education (EHE) and protect the welfare of children”.
The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006) states, “Few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable. And yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is increasing at a high rate.” It concludes, “The legal context now requires a legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements. The DfES needs to address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being educated under the EHE arrangements.”
Local authorities tell us that it is difficult to establish whether or not a child is receiving a ‘suitable’ education at home, as there is no definition of what ‘suitable’ is in a modern context. The arrangements for monitoring rely mainly on good will, and there are insufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare of the child when parents are unwilling to cooperate.
Home educators are concerned that some local authorities go beyond their legal duties and are unhelpful or unnecessarily intrusive. Clearer legal standards would be helpful to ensure that the rights of the home educators are respected and observed.
Possible Alternative routes to achieving the policy aim(s)
An alternative would be to wait for the introduction of the Children Missing Education database, following the provisions in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Whilst this would give local authorities a much clearer idea of which children are being educated at home, it would not give them with any better tools to ensure that the education which is being provided is adequate for children’s age and ability.
Other alternatives to achieving the policy aim include new legislation which would require all home educating parents to register with their local authority and giving local authorities the power to monitor home educators.
Record any changes you have made to the policy as a result of the assessment:
None.
What arrangements are in place/have been made for monitoring potential adverse impact?
After the final guidelines have been issued, we will examine whether it would be possible to commission a short research study to assess the impact of the changes.
How and when will the results of the monitoring be published?
The results of the study will be published routinely.
Publication and review of the Assessment results:
How and when will these results be published?
This REIA will be published alongside the consultation document.
When will it be reviewed?
Comments on the REIA are encouraged as part of the consultation process, and this assessment will be reviewed after the end of the consultation period.
Please see Guidance on section 35 Freedom of Information Act- exclusion from publications
DISABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Initial screening for impact
Detailed aims of the policy and its context:
Whilst the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to school, a small number choose to educate their children at home. There is currently a minimal regulatory framework for home education: for example, there is no requirement for parents whose children have never been to school to register with the local authority. The law requires parents to provide a suitable full-time education for their children, but the courts have found that this ‘does not have to conform to any standards set by a school or local authority’.
Because there is no requirement for home educators to register their children with the local authority if the children have never been to school, there is no central record of the number of children who are being educated at home. However, LAs do maintain records of the children who are withdrawn from schools by their parents. These records show that between 0.1% and 0.4% of children are being educated at home. Whilst extrapolating from these figures is problematic, our latest estimate suggests there could be 40,000 children in home education, although some home education organisations suggest the figure is much higher.
The consultation proposes issuing guidelines which clarify the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to parents who education their children at home, and sets out the best approach to balancing the rights of parents and the obligations of local authorities.
Assessment of potential impact based on:
Evidence collected
The decision to consult on issuing guidelines has been informed by the research studies, as well as informal discussions with local authorities and home education organisations.
The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES, 2006) established the current difficulty in assessing the numbers of children who are being educated at home. It also concluded that “the current definition of ‘efficient and suitable’ education is considered too vague to enable LAs to assess the suitability of EHE [elective home education] and protect the welfare of children”. The survey estimated that around 5% of children who are educated at home have a statement of special educational needs, compared to 3% of the general population. Introducing compulsory registration will allow local authorities to find out more about the characteristics of children who are being educated at home, and respond to any particular needs they have. This may include learning more about the proportion of children who have a disability.
The situation regarding the current policy, provision and practice in Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children (DfES, 2006) states, “Few Gypsy/Roma and Traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable. And yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is increasing at a high rate.” It concludes, “The legal context now requires a legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements. The DfES needs to address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being educated under the EHE arrangements.”
Consultation
The consultation will be launched on 8th May and will run for three months. We will send copies of the consultation to groups representing disabled children and parents.
Decision on whether to begin a full disability impact assessment
The Disability Rights Commission states that a full disability impact assessment should be performed if either:
• the policy is a major one in terms of scale or significance for the authority’s activities; or
• there is a clear indication that, although the policy is minor, it is likely to have a major impact upon disabled people – in terms either of numbers affected or the seriousness of the likely impact, or both.
Our preliminary analysis is that a full impact assessment is unnecessary. This is because the policy on home education is not major when set against the Department’s other policies and priorities.
However, this is a preliminary conclusion. We will consult groups with particular interest and expertise in disability during the consultation process, and will review the need for a fuller assessment in July.
Publication and review of the Assessment results:
How and when will these results be published?
This DIA will be published alongside the consultation.
When will it be reviewed?
Comments on the DIA are encouraged as part of the consultation process, and this assessment will be reviewed after the end of the consultation period.
=================================================================
13th March 2009
Education: Home Schooling
Questions asked by Lord Lucas
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90313w0001.htm
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 25 February (WA 87), whether the guaranteed unit of funding applies to children who are being home-educated under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996; and, if not, what sum is on average paid to local authorities in respect of such children. [HL1830]
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 25 February (WA 87), whether the guaranteed unit of funding applies to children who are being home-educated under Section 19(4) of the Education Act 1996; and, if not, what sum is on average paid to local authorities in respect of such children. [HL1831]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): The guaranteed unit of funding (GUF) would not be paid to young persons who are being home educated. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 requires parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Home tuition would be a decision by a parent and no GUF would be paid in respect of such children. No other funding would be payable either by the department to the local authority.
The GUF would not be paid to local authorities for pupils under Section 19(4) of the 1996 Education Act as this section refers to young persons (not of compulsory school age), However Section 19(1) is a similar section for children of compulsory school age and GUF could be paid to a local authority where the authority has financial responsibility for such pupils. If the LA has financial responsibility and makes exceptional provision for the pupil to be home educated then the LA could claim the GUF. This is, however, likely to be a very
Exceptional circumstance as Section 19(2B) makes it clear that LAs can set up pupil referral units which are schools specially organised to provide education for children referred to in Section 19(1)."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
And Another One
...another entirely positive article that is. Good grief, am coming over all peculiar.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Poll re HEks Views
Please find above a poll to find out how home educated children feel about seeing LA personnel. I have repeated the poll six times so that it is possible for each family to register a vote for each child. Do let me know if there is anyone out there who needs more than six votes.
PLEASE NOTE, whilst the poll is active, newer posts can be found below.
PLEASE NOTE, whilst the poll is active, newer posts can be found below.
European Commission Funds Public and Private Fight to Curb Child Pornography
This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of the best online schools. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12@gmail.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Law enforcement, credit card companies, and online service providers will join forces and work to keep child pornography off the World Wide Web. The group, dubbed the European Financial Coalition (EFC), is funded in large part by the European Commission. The commission gave the EFC €427,000 to help with start up costs and fund initial efforts.
At the helm of the EFC will be the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and some bellwethers in their respective industries such as MasterCard, Microsoft, PayPal, and Visa Europe. Law enforcement will be represented by Europol and the Italian National Postal and Communication Police.
The primary mission of the coalition is, very simply, to stop any and all distribution of child pornography via the Internet. They will work intensively on identifying victims and arresting and prosecuting predators and those who sell these images. The group will also investigate the origins of any funds of which the perpetrators are in possession. Because so many pedophiles use credit cards to purchase their child pornography, partnerships with MasterCard, PayPal, and Visa Europe will prove invaluable.
In addition to their association with the EFC, the EC will begin development of multiple proposals to overhaul the Council Framework Decision on sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
Until recently, organized crime was responsible for much of the commercial distribution of child pornography. The EC was responsible for reducing this circuit considerably but child pornography remains a problem because of the tenacity and resourcefulness of pedophiles that rely heavily on the anonymity the Internet affords them.
The EFC is the first organization of its kind that unites so many public and private entities for the most pervasive and comprehensive monitoring, tracking, and prosecuting of Internet child pornography purchasers and purveyors. While they know they are up against an ever-evolving and constantly-moving target, they are confident in the coalition's resources and dedication to completely eradicate child pornography.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Law enforcement, credit card companies, and online service providers will join forces and work to keep child pornography off the World Wide Web. The group, dubbed the European Financial Coalition (EFC), is funded in large part by the European Commission. The commission gave the EFC €427,000 to help with start up costs and fund initial efforts.
At the helm of the EFC will be the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and some bellwethers in their respective industries such as MasterCard, Microsoft, PayPal, and Visa Europe. Law enforcement will be represented by Europol and the Italian National Postal and Communication Police.
The primary mission of the coalition is, very simply, to stop any and all distribution of child pornography via the Internet. They will work intensively on identifying victims and arresting and prosecuting predators and those who sell these images. The group will also investigate the origins of any funds of which the perpetrators are in possession. Because so many pedophiles use credit cards to purchase their child pornography, partnerships with MasterCard, PayPal, and Visa Europe will prove invaluable.
In addition to their association with the EFC, the EC will begin development of multiple proposals to overhaul the Council Framework Decision on sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
Until recently, organized crime was responsible for much of the commercial distribution of child pornography. The EC was responsible for reducing this circuit considerably but child pornography remains a problem because of the tenacity and resourcefulness of pedophiles that rely heavily on the anonymity the Internet affords them.
The EFC is the first organization of its kind that unites so many public and private entities for the most pervasive and comprehensive monitoring, tracking, and prosecuting of Internet child pornography purchasers and purveyors. While they know they are up against an ever-evolving and constantly-moving target, they are confident in the coalition's resources and dedication to completely eradicate child pornography.
HEors Warn the Government...
... not to mess with a finely wrought balance
The constitutional implications of possible changes to education and welfare law which were implied by the questions in the Review of Home Education are highlighted in this article which mentions the petition here.
There is also a press release from Education Otherwise here.
NB...if you have had problems signing the petition, (and many have), please do persist. It really is possible to overcome the difficulties presented by the inadequate server if you keep going.
The constitutional implications of possible changes to education and welfare law which were implied by the questions in the Review of Home Education are highlighted in this article which mentions the petition here.
There is also a press release from Education Otherwise here.
NB...if you have had problems signing the petition, (and many have), please do persist. It really is possible to overcome the difficulties presented by the inadequate server if you keep going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)