Readers will be familiar with the government’s efforts to clamp down on educational freedom in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. But while Katharine Birbalsingh is fighting the good fight for academies, less attention has been paid to how the Bill will affect the 100,000+ children currently being educated at home. And if Bridget Phillipson doesn’t like academies being able to choose who to hire or what to pay them, you can guess how she feels about parents side-stepping the school system altogether and taking their child’s education into their own hands.
For home educators like me, the main change that will be ushered in by the Bill is the requirement to register with the local authority any school-age child who is not in school. We are told that the creation of a register, at no small cost to the taxpayer, is essential to ensuring child safety and educational standards for all. Like many home educators, I would not object to being on such a register if it achieved these worthy aims.
But the creation of a register of children not in school is an expensive sop, a mere gesture, which will, unforgivably, make no difference to the lives of children who most need the state’s support. Remember that Sara Sharif was well known to social services, and that her school will have reported her to the local authority when she was withdrawn, as schools are already obliged to do. Social workers missed a total of fifteen opportunities to take action and save her life. Remember that the youngest children — not yet of compulsory school age, who would not feature on the register — are most likely to be abused, like Star Hobson and Baby Peter, both known to social services. The national review following the death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes found that his family members were ignored and that both the police and social services failed to properly investigate reports.
In Florida, homeschooling parents can access around $8,000 per year. Here it’s nothing
The problem is not that children are “falling through the cracks”, as Phillipson fears, but that the authorities know about them and fail them time and time again. As Graham Stuart MP says, there seems to be “a conflation of a failure of social services, which needs to be fixed, with home education, which is entirely separate.”
Far from being “ghost children”, home educated children are disproportionately scrutinised: They are twice as likely to be reported to social services despite the fact that they are actually a lower safeguarding risk than other children. This is demonstrated by the fact that of the home-ed children who are reported to social services, they are around five times less likely to have a Child Protection Plan put in place compared to their peers demonstrating a higher degree of inappropriate reporting, however well-meaning, compared to children who aren’t in mainstream education.
The supposed concern for child safety is joined by concern about the quality of education received by children not in school. But the number of home educated children pales in comparison to the number of school educated children who are failed by the system every year. Around a quarter of children fail to meet the government’s own expected standards at the end of Year 6. This figure tallies with the finding that one in five adults between 16 and 65 read at or below the level expected of a 10 year old, and that, last year, nearly 30 per cent of 16-year old entrants failed the English Language and Maths GCSEs. Reassuring PISA scores mask the fact that one in four school children are consistently failing to meet basic measures of educational attainment. That’s well over a million children each year. The Chancellor may be interested to learn that the World Literacy Foundation estimated in 2021 that our poor literacy skills were costing the UK £37 billion per year.
But let’s put a pin in all that. If we accept that the register will allow the government to identify and help children currently unknown to them, what support are they planning to offer? Reassuringly, Bridget Phillipson says “Everything I do as Secretary of State, I do for all children.” Let’s see how that plays out.
First, consider the resources available. Anita Patel-Lingam notes in her submitted evidence to the committee scrutinising the Bill, that in Essex, where she is Statutory Education Compliance Manager, there is one Elective Home Education Officer responsible for every 1,013 children and young people. By comparison, the average caseload for a full-time social worker is about 15 families. This may be some consolation to home ed families concerned about the potential of the state to meddle where it is not wanted, but it doesn’t bode well for anyone looking for some support.
But let’s assume these EHE officers are super efficient and possibly superhuman. Perhaps, in addition to the 6,500 new teachers Labour has pledged to recruit by the end of the parliament and which it is already perilously close to falling short on, it will recruit thousands of new EHE officers as well. What does the 130-page Bill set out in terms of support for home educating families? Well, if a parent requests support the local authority must provide it. But the “advice and information to be provided” is simply “whatever the local authority considers fit”. Ah.
What the government sadly fails to appreciate is that far from being a source of concern and something to clamp down on, the rise in home education could be a positive addition to the educational landscape in this country. As Baroness Hale said:
Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights [ … ]. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”.
Of course, subversive variety, diversity and individuality are not high on Bridget Phillipson’s list of priorities. This is a shame, because 100,000 children with parents prepared to make huge sacrifices in order to give their child the best education they can deserve support, and could be a great strength and source of innovation. We know that students educated 1-1 perform 98 per cent better than those educated in a traditional classroom environment. And in a recent trial in Nigeria, students using an AI tutor made two years’ worth of learning improvements in just six weeks, attending only two after-school classes a week.
Home education has the potential to be a breeding ground of children passionate about their chosen subjects, supported by committed parents and a potentially revolutionary technology. 100,000 children is a small but significant sample group to see just what might be possible if we give these children the support they deserve.
Where are the welcome packs from local authorities recommending community groups, or libraries of educational resources free to borrow, or educational apps offering discounts to home ed families? Where is the offer, long sought, of financial support for public exams, which home ed families pay for entirely out of their own pocket and which can cost thousands of pounds?
The government’s recent response to a petition asking for financial support for home educators towards GCSE costs gives the lie to their true position:
“Parents who home educate are fully responsible for that education, including costs of obtaining qualifications.”
In other words: You’re on your own.
Perhaps that’s fair — if parents choose to remove their child from school, they can shoulder the cost. But it’s a strange position for a government to take who professes to be so keen to increase educational attainment for all, to not have any children fall through the cracks. The funding allocated to schools is over £8,000 on a per-pupil basis. Receiving only a fraction of that money would significantly help to ease the strain for families who are likely to have sacrificed an entire income in order to educate their child at home.
This isn’t just wishful thinking. In many states and provinces in the US and Canada, homeschooling families receive wide-ranging support. Around 470,000 US children currently access an Education Savings Account, which gives them access to several thousand dollars to be spent on educational resources each year. In Florida, homeschooling parents can access around $8,000 per year through the Personalised Education Programme. Several states allow parents to select a teacher-mentor from a pre-approved list who can offer professional advice. In some areas, children can join the local public school for sports, extra curriculars, and classes. This is what it looks like when home educators are trusted and respected, instead of suspiciously demonised.
Sadly, the register of children not in school has nothing to do with improving child safety or educational attainment, and everything to do with exerting increased control over families who show no indication of requiring it. What the government wants, particularly in the wake of Sara Sharif’s death, is to look busy. But it is far more concerned with appearance than with making real, concrete improvements. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill represents a huge missed opportunity for all children, no matter where they are educated.
