Below is the nearly complete response to the Call for Evidence that has been submitted
by the Unschooling Network. Unschoolers and anyone else who feels inclined, please
do use as inspiration for your answers, if it helps, though don't copy exactly.
(NB: we may yet make a few minor changes, but for the most part, it is the final thing.)
===================
Questions 1, 2 and 3 not filled in.
4. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, what is your organisation?
UK Unschooling Network
----------------
5. Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding
to this consultation?
If Other, please give details
The UK Unschooling Network is a busy Facebook discussion group with over 7,000
members who home educate their children or plan to do so. As with any online group
the number of active members varies but it is generally around the 5,400 mark in a 60
day period, 4,900 in a 28 day period and 3,500 in a 7 day period. “Active Members” is a
statistic worked out by Facebook and relates to those who are posting, commenting and
reading the content of the group in that time. We are confident that these statistics
provided by Facebook show that it’s an active and involved group.
Unschooling is a word that was coined to describe an educational belief, method and
philosophy that advocates learner-chosen activities, whole life experiences and
successful family relationships as the best way to learn and thrive. Unschooling tends
not to use curriculum and considers that external assessment and validation get in
the way of Self Directed Learning. Self Directed Learning is shown to be a more
effective method than imposed teaching. Unschooling is sometimes used
interchangeably with other terms such as Autonomous Education, Self-Directed
Learning and Life Learning.
There is a strong history of this kind of approach to learning in the UK. The most
recent research on learning points to the importance of relationship-based
self-directed approaches as the most effective to support learning and emotional
development for all people. We link to some of this research in our response to
this consultation.
Unschooling has been influenced by many thinkers and practitioners over time
such as: William Godwin, AS Neil, Bertrand Russell, John Taylor Gatto, Peter
Gray, Daniel Pink, Dan Siegel, Jan Fortune, Pam Larrichia.
All members of our group agree to abide by our posting guidelines including to
“Assume that members want to read replies that fit with the unschooling principles
outlined below”. There is therefore a shared approach to home education by members
of the group, though members will apply it differently in practice.
The following information is from our pinned post and will give a background on the
nature of Unschooling philosophy and methods. This description of Unschooling has
been used and developed by group members and has been consistent for a number
of years now.
“The purpose of the group is to provide a comfortable place where unschooling parents
can experience solidarity and support for their unschooling practices.
=====================
WHO THE GROUP IS FOR:
This group is for parents who are home educating or thinking of becoming home
educators. Sometimes previous unschooling parents may remain members when their
children have left home.
Parents with children of any age are welcome since unschooling is relevant from birth.
Please also note this is a UK based page, and information will be from a UK perspective.
WHAT IS UNSCHOOLING?
Over the years, unschooling has been defined in a variety of ways. Other terms such
as "autonomous education" and "consensual living" have been used. We seek to
constantly improve the theories and so welcome critique. But for now, for the purposes
of the conversation in this group, our understanding of unschooling is as follows:
UK Unschooling Network's PRINCIPLES OF UNSCHOOLING:
1. RESPECT:
We focus on understanding and connection: a child’s viewpoint, however it is
expressed, is to be valued and considered important.
2. FREELY CHOSEN, SUPPORTED LEARNING:
We strive to create a safe, nourishing and supportive environment where the child's
freely chosen learning can flourish. We are our children’s partners in learning and
supporters of their interests and passions. We seek to offer choices that will meet
the needs and desires of our children but we understand if a child does not want to
take up these opportunities. We recognise that children learn best when they can learn
at the pace that suits them.
3. LEARNING and UNSCHOOLING:
Individuals learn using a wide range of methods, implicit and explicit, intuitive and
rational. Learning happens in many ways: through everyday living, through a created,
rich learning environment, by demonstration, or by the offer of new information. The
key features of learning in unschooling are that the learner is self-motivated and the
information relevant to the learner.
4. A VARIETY OF LEARNING SETTINGS and TYPES OF INFORMATION:
We recognise that should the learner be interested, learning can be found anywhere,
from a trip to the shops, to a video game, to a text book. We also recognise that people
learn best when in company they enjoy, irrespective of age, and in locations they have
freely chosen. Learning can be either cooperative or competitive. As long as learning is
freely chosen by the learner, it is unschooling, whether it be informal, incidental, inferred,
social, private, conversational or responsively structured.
5. COERCION LIMITS LEARNING:
We understand that learning does not happen effectively when one person attempts
to impose it upon another person against their will. All learning is initiated by the learner
since any growth of knowledge will first require activity in the mind of the learner.
Information cannot simply be forced into the mind of the other. We define coercion
as "being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind, thereby limiting the
capacity for rationality and creativity". Coercion inhibits learning, so we strive to
avoid it. Unschooling parents also seek to help their children to resolve any internal
conflicts (self coercion) that may arise in the child by seeking creative solutions that
will reduce such conflicts.
6. PARTNERSHIPS:
We seek solutions to problems so that family members do not have an outcome
imposed upon them against their wishes. In other words, we strive to find solutions
that suit everyone.
7. THE BALANCE OF SUPPORT and FREEDOM:
Respecting the desires and rights of a child involves being attentive to the child’s
needs and desires and prepared to answer questions and offer information. Unschooling
is not laissez-faire parenting, a lack of involvement or neglect. It also does not mean that
the adult should sacrifice their freedom and happiness to support the child’s, but rather
should be about seeking to maximise freedom and happiness for all. We are also aware
that partnering a child in a sensitive and responsive way does not mean being intrusive
or overly involved.
8. HUMILITY ABOUT OUR IDEAS:
We realise we need to be alert for mistakes in our thinking and in particular to be aware
of the possibility of false assumptions that we may have acquired from our own childhoods,
the prevailing culture or simply as a result of human nature. We seek to remain open minded
and to constantly test the validity of our ideas against reality, as far as we can know it.
9. LOVE, TRUST, HONESTY, OPTIMISM AND CHALLENGE:
We seek to build honest, trusting, loving relationships in the family through all of the above.
Families should be places where ideas can be challenged, mistakes easily admitted and
where errors are seen as a natural part of learning and a useful way forwards.
10. ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN:
We acknowledge that many of the societies that we live in have a very different view of
parent-child relationships from the principles expressed above. We seek to promote
and normalize within our societies, the idea that children are full, complete and equal
human beings, deserving of the same level of respect and as many as possible of the
same freedoms that are afforded to adults. We see the concept of Adultism as being
as important as Feminism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This group doesn't adhere to the writing of any particular 'expert’. Writers who inspire
members here include: Pam Larrichia, Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison, Jan
Fortune-Wood, and blogs: Racheous and Happiness is Here.”
To summarise our response to this Consultation we believe that the levels of monitoring,
direction of education and assessment that are likely to result from implementation of
this Guidance would be detrimental to the education provided by families who hold an
Unschooling Philosophy.
These two articles provide thoughts and evidence on the problems of monitoring,
assessment and providing education based on targets and norms.
http://carolblack.org/the-gaze
https://www.self-directed.org/tp/growing-and-learning-beyond-normal/
----------------
6. Which local authority area are you based in?
N/A
-----------------
7. Would you like us to keep your responses confidential?
No, we are happy for this response to be public.
---------------------
8. How effective are the current voluntary registration schemes run by some local
authorities? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory
registration of children educated at home, with duties on both local authorities and
parents in this regard?
The members of this group take their legal duty according to Section 7 of the Education Act
to provide a suitable education very seriously and engage in conversation, reading and
thinking regularly with other parents to help them meet that duty in ways that are
influenced not only by their children but also by sound philosophy and evidence-based
research on learning.
We believe it is natural for all parents to take the education of their children seriously and
that it should be assumed that this is the case unless there is evidence to the contrary.
We think the law currently strikes the right balance between protecting those children
who need it (Section 437) and ensuring that other children still have the freedom to
have a tailored education to meet their individual needs. We do not believe that
registration is necessary or helpful. We have concerns that if families were to be
registered and monitored then their educational provision would be tailored more
to the expectations of those doing the monitoring than to the child’s individual needs
and the beliefs and learning philosophies of the parents and families.
We believe that registration is not needed and would be a waste of resources. We
understand that Local Authorities should intervene when they have reason to believe
that parents are not meeting their legal duty and we feel that this can be done most
effectively when resources are not being wasted monitoring families who are likely
to be providing a suitable education.
--------------------
9. What information is needed for registration purposes, and what information is
actually gathered by local authorities? Would it help the efficacy of these schemes,
and the sharing of information between authorities, if there were a nationally agreed
dataset or if data could be shared by national agencies, such as DWP or the NHS?
We believe that a culture of monitoring and unnecessary data sharing would have
a negative impact on the education of young people who are home educated and
would hinder parents’ capacity to provide the best education they can for their children.
There is no need to have a register of people who are fulfilling their legal duty to
provide a suitable education.
It is unlikely that all families would agree to have their data shared for this purpose
and it should not be assumed that there are any safeguarding risks just because
a family holds a different educational belief and philosophy to those who use schools.
Making of a referral or sharing information between agencies as described in the
proposed guidance just because a child is home educated would not meet the
privacy and consent requirements of GDPR, unless there are grounds for safeguarding
concern. Home education in and of itself should not be seen to be a safeguarding
concern. This needs to be made very clear to any LA staff who misunderstand this as
it is prejudicial against a group of people who hold a different educational philosophy.
-------------------
10. Does experience of flexi-schooling and similar arrangements suggest that it would
be better if the scope of registration schemes included any children who do not attend
a state-funded or registered independent school full-time? If so, do you think that local
authorities should be able to confirm with both state-funded and independent schools
whether a named child is attending that school full-time?
We do not understand why flexi-schooling is covered by this guidance since these
children are on a school roll. They are registered at schools which are responsible for
monitoring the suitability of the education provided to them.
As mentioned above we do not believe there should be a registration scheme for home
education.
--------------------
11. Would the sanction of issuing a school attendance order for parental non-compliance
with registration be effective, or is there another sanction which would be more useful?
We do not think there should be a registration scheme for home education. A school
attendance order should only be used if there is sufficient evidence of an unsuitable
home education.
-------------------
12. What steps might help reduce the incidence of schools reportedly pressuring
parents to remove children to educate them at home?
Many of the parents in our group would home educate their children regardless of
the quality of schools or the support within them because they believe that people
learn best when self motivated and that the direction and curriculum in schools are
not sufficiently flexible to take best advantage of self motivation.
Some parents in the group have come to unschooling by finding that school has not
met their children’s educational needs.
If schools are not providing a suitable education for some young people that is an
issue for Ofsted and the DfE, it should not result in a change to the regulations on
home education.
--------------------------
13. Is there an argument for some provision which allows a child to return to the
same school within a specified interval if suitable home education does not prove
possible?
Maybe, but we would be very concerned if this meant the child was kept on a school
roll and the duty to provide a suitable education was not acknowledged to be the parents
during that interval.
If parents decide to provide the education instead of school then it should be assumed
that they are providing a suitable education unless there is reason to think otherwise.
----------------------------
14. How effective is local authority monitoring of provision made for children educated
at home? Which current approaches by local authorities represent best practice?
The current guidelines on Elective Home Education acknowledge that there is no
statutory requirement for monitoring of home education provision.
Home education provision should be decided by parents and the young person. As we
have stated previously, unnecessary monitoring can get in the way of the young person’s
self direction and the parents’ confidence in their chosen method even when that method
has significant research and evidence base.
We believe that if the local authority has information that makes it appear that parents
are not providing a suitable education, then it may ask parents for further information.
(Current Elective home education Guidelines section 2.8)
This provides a reasonable balance between the need for local authorities to take
action if the education appears unsuitable and the need for parents and the young
person to decide for themselves on the right definition and application of a suitable
education. Assessment and external judgement get in the way of autonomy and
Self-Directed Learning.
There is a substantial amount of research and writing that provide evidence that
an autonomous/self-directed approach which exemplifies unschooling is an effective
way to underpin learning and education.
Here are some examples:
Study on Self Directed Learning commissioned by DfE
https://bit.ly/2Mf3rPW
Internal/External Motivation:
Self-Determination Theory, studies in internal v. external motivation from Deci and Ryan:
How curiosity changes the brain to enhance learning:
A wealth of research on self determination:
Peter Gray writing in Oxford Research Encyclopedias:
https://bit.ly/2s4RXVR
Parenting Styles:
Children of more caring, less controlling parents live happier lives:
A dissertation on Autonomous Learning:
https://tinyurl.com/y72muywl
A thesis on Autonomous Learning:
A response to the Select Committee Enquiry into Badman Report which links
to research that support the choice of autonomous learning as a method:
Mind-mindedness research
Research indicating that parents who notice and respond to children's needs
and preferences are most successful in supporting the development of social skills,
there are also positive impacts on more academic skills:
https://tinyurl.com/gw37cep
The Value of Play-Based Learning:
The damage that structured, coerced learning does in the early years:
https://tinyurl.com/p49z87n
Learning to Read:
Harriet Pattinson’s "Rethinking Learning to Read" is a good bit of research about
how children learn to read outside the school system:
Carol Black on learning to read:
15. If monitoring of suitability is not always effective, what changes should be
made in the powers and duties of local authorities in this regard, and how could
they best ensure that monitoring of suitability is proportionate?
There is nothing in law about monitoring home education. Parents and the young
person will be constantly monitoring the suitability of the education. When people
are free to learn according to their self motivation alongside the provision of a rich
learning environment this happens naturally. Local Authorities should only interfere
with this process if there is reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable
education.
In the same way that observer's paradox can affect many behaviours, monitoring and
assessment adds an element of external judgement that is significantly damaging to
self-directed learning. We feel that the risk of interfering with the learning and
educational process in the family is only worthwhile in situations where there are
significant concerns that parents are not meeting their duty to provide a suitable
education.
It is crucial that when LAs are acting on concerns they must have a working
understanding of informal learning, unschooling and autonomous learning so that they
do not accidentally interfere with perfectly suitable education just because it does not
look like schooling.
-----------------------
16. Should there be specific duties on parents to comply with local authorities carrying
out monitoring if such LA powers and duties were created, and what sanctions should
attach to non-compliance?
Non-compliance with monitoring of home education should be expected as it is intrusive
and potentially damaging to the child’s education. Such monitoring could be seen as
harassment since it would hinder families in their freedom to suitably educate their
children according to the child’s needs.
Case law (Phillips v Brown 1980) leads us to conclude that parents “would be
sensible” to respond to inquiries, this is described well in the current Elective
home education Guidelines section 2.8.
A response to those inquiries need only provide the information that parents are
providing a suitable home education unless the the LA have provided information
to indicate they have reason to think otherwise. In that case it would be sensible
for parents to furnish information to refute those concerns.
-------------------
17. Is it necessary to see the child and/or the education setting (whether that is the
home or some other place), in order to assess fully the suitability of education, and
if so, what level of interaction or observation is required to make this useful in
assessing suitability?
It is not necessary for them to do this, indeed observation and assessment can
hinder learning. Such an intrusive level of evaluation should only be necessary if
there were significant reason to think parents were failing to provide a suitable
education and parents had failed to provide information on their provision following
enquiries and explanation of the concerns.
----------------------
18. What can be done to better ensure that the child’s own views on being educated
at home, and on the suitability of the education provided, are known to the local authority?
It is the parents’ duty to provide a suitable education and the LA need not get involved
until and unless there is an appearance that they are failing to do so, as set out in
Section 2.8 of the current home education guidelines and in Section 437 of the Education
Act. Therefore it is not necessary for the local authority to know the child’s views on being
educated at home and on the suitability of the education.
LAs could provide a method for all children to raise concerns about the suitability of
their education if they wished to, but there should be no compulsion on them to share
this information. To focus on this for home educated children and not to provide a similar
opportunity for schooled children would be discriminatory towards both groups of young
people.
As a group of people following unschooling methods and autonomous philosophy of
education we’d like to make clear that e this method of education has the views of the
child at its core.
----------------------
19. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using settings which are not
registered independent or state schools, to supplement home education? How can
authorities reliably obtain information on the education provided to individual children
whose education ‘otherwise than at school’ includes attendance at such settings as well
as, or instead of, education at home?
Local authorities do not need that information if there are no concerns about the
provision. For Unschoolers/Autonomous Learners the world is their school, so LAs would
find it impossible to monitor the education provided in libraries, restaurants, sports clubs,
social gatherings, theatre trips, churches, etc.
If the concern is about unregistered schools then that should be tackled directly, it does
not relate to home education.
-------------------------
20. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using private tutors to supplement
home education? How can authorities best obtain information on the education provided
to individual children whose education at home includes private tuition, or whom attend
tuition away from home?
See the answer to the question 19. above; Local Authorities only need this information
if they have concerns about the education. In general the LAs have no need to obtain
this information, unless it is clear that their responsibility of last resort is required where
there are sufficient concerns to think that the education provided is unsuitable.
--------------------
21. Are there other matters which stakeholders would wish to see taken into account
in this area? If so please insert comments below.
The current Guidelines on Elective Home Education are adequate and appropriate; if
LAs need support to understand how to implement them that that could be provided
through basic online training for staff explaining how home education works and how
it is the parent’s duty to provide and monitor it, unless the LA have reason to believe
that the parents are failing in this duty.
Over the years parents have repeatedly reported that about many LA staff do not
understand the law, or how educational philosophies may differ markedly from
school practices.
---------------------------
22. What might be done to improve access to public examinations for children
educated at home?
The current system excludes home educated children. Many exam centres are
reluctant to allow home educated children to sit exams. Parents have to both
find suitable exam centres and provide the necessary funding for the exams.
It would be far better if these were easy to access and funded by the LAs, as
long as there are no conditions attached to this improvement in access.
Access to an LAs exams services should not be dependant on accessing the
education the LA provides.
Exam Boards should be required to have clear, accessible pathways for schools to
deal with access arrangements for private candidates, reversing recent changes
that have made it harder to get access arrangements for private candidates that need
them.
It is particularly unfair on those families who would not have chosen to home educate
but feel compelled to do so, due to school not meeting the educational or emotional
needs of their child.
-------------------------
23. What good practice is there currently in local authority arrangements for supporting
home-educating families? Should there be a duty on local authorities to provide advice
and support, and if so how should such a duty be framed?
We do not believe that professionals who focus mainly on schooling can necessarily
provide appropriate advice and support to home educating families, and specifically
Unschooling families. There should be no duty on local authorities to provide advice
and support, although officers and departments may wish to supply either on request
from families if possible.
Having this as a duty may lead some people to assume that families need to accept
and respond to that advice and support, it could result in monitoring by the back door.
LA EHE staff should have appropriate training in a range of educational approaches,
including unschooling/autonomous methods so that they don’t make errors in evaluating
provision when that becomes necessary.
------------------------
24. Should there be a financial consequence for schools if a parent withdraws a child
from the school roll to educate at home?
Absolutely not, parents should be free to change their educational provision without
fear of pressure from school. There already is a financial penalty in that the school has
one less pupil on roll for funding.
If a family would prefer to have the child's’ needs met within the school environment
and are only home educating because the school are failing to meet that need, then
Ofsted should be looking in detail at the school’s provision.
----------------------
25. Should there be any changes to the provision in Regulation 8(2) of the Education
(Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 requiring local authority consent to
the removal of a child’s name from the roll of a maintained special school if placed
there under arrangements made by the local authority?
It is discriminatory that there is a difference here. The same rule should apply. Parents
should be able to deregister their children without permission, since it is their duty to
provide a suitable education for the child; it is not the duty of the LA.
-------------------------
26. Are there any other comments you wish to make relating to the effectiveness of
current arrangements for elective home education and potential changes?
The current Guidelines for LAs on EHE are suitable with the exception that parents
of young people in maintained special schools need permission to deregister. The
assumption that school will meet the needs of such young people better than parents
is incorrect and unacceptable.
The practice that some Home Educators experience from Local Authorities indicates
that the Guidelines could be made more explicit so that LA staff can understand the
nature of home education better and apply the law more appropriately, particularly by
not overstepping the mark and interfering in family provision of education when there
is no need to.
There needs to be system to deal with LAs that do not follow the guidelines, an
independent system for complaints about EHE teams, that provides protection for
families from LAs that do not follow the guidelines. There should be penalties for
LAs that do not follow the guidelines as they can cause significant harm to families
and hinder the provision of a suitable education through their actions made out of
errors and misunderstanding.
-------------------
27. What data are currently available on the numbers of children being educated
at home in your local authority area?
N/A
----------------------
28. Do you have any comments on any of the contents of the call for evidence
document in relation to equality issues?
This call for evidence appears to be written in ignorance of the various educational
philosophies, in particular Unschooling which is focused primarily on self-direction
and self-motivation. There is an implication that increased monitoring would be
beneficial which does not grasp the drawbacks of interrupting a family’s provision
of education by requiring them to justify and explain it even when there is no
indication that they are failing to meet their duty under Section 7.
The Unschooling philosophy is strongly held by many families and would be
hindered by being monitored by people who have a more structured top-down
educational philosophy.
The call for evidence does not seek information on how parents of home educated
children with disabilities have challenges accessing services often accessible via
school, but not directly related to education. This is one of the major challenges
for families who are home educating; it is unacceptable that services unrelated to
schooling are easier to access for those who use schools. e.g. Occupational Therapy,
Speech Therapy, etc.
There is not sufficient understanding shown of the importance of diverse and individual
provision of education. We find this disappointing considering that these ideas are
more widely understood with even the Guardian having articles that accept that coerced
learning of topic out of relevant context is damaging to mental health.
https://tinyurl.com/y8e6dotl
Many members of our group experience wider acceptance of our methods
by family, neighbours, LA staff. These methods are no longer seen as radical necessarily
so it’s surprising not to see them represented in these guidelines.
Current law allows families flexibility to work out the most suitable way to educate
their individual child, which enables them to tailor it to their unique family’s needs
and cultural preferences. To undergo routine assessments implies that assessment
of 'adequate' education would be against a standard. It would be impossible for any
such standardisation to be fair on all families. Prejudice already leads to some families
being checked more than others.
Standardising 'suitable home education' would just formalise that prejudice, to the
detriment of the children and their education. It would fail to take advantage of the
benefits of individualised and diverse educational provision.
There are many families for whom being visited by authorities would feel threatening
because they suffer prejudice and discrimination on a regular basis. Children with a
disability may also find such visits particularly difficult.
All children who are being Unschooled would be disrupted by such visits and it would
force families into a position of trying to 'perform' education to an externally imposed
standard, which would be entirely counter and discriminatory to the Unschooling
philosophy.
The new draft guidelines are potentially harmful to Unschooling/Autonomous methods.
Unschooling is a philosophical belief that is genuinely held by many home educators,
that underpins children's everyday life (a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour)
and is a cogent and cohesive philosophy. Unschooling would appear to meet the required
criteria to be considered a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic
under the Equality Act.
--------------------------
DRAFT REVISED DFE GUIDANCE ON HOME EDUCATION: FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
This section invites comments on different sections of the draft revised
guidance document about the current framework for home education, which
DfE proposes to publish for local authority use. Copies of the draft document
can be downloaded from the Overview page.
---------------------
29. Comments on Section 1: What is elective home education?
We consider that it would be far more efficient and acceptable to amend the
Guidelines on Elective Home Education created in 2007 since these are a better
reflection of the primary legislation. We suggest that amending them to help people
working for LAs understand home education and how to apply the law would be
more useful than this major rewrite.
We believe it will be confusing to have two different sets of guidance, one for
parents and one for Local Authorities. In having two separate documents there
is greater potential for them to get out of step in the advice given and both parties
should be aware of the information provided to the other, hence one document as
it is at present makes for a more robust transmission of information to both LAs
and parents.
Would also add that having two sets of guidance reinforces conflict between parents
and LAs.
Referring to the Introduction here:
The new ideas aiming to add to the definition of a suitable education and home
education are concerning. They fail to grasp that the current flexible definitions enable
diverse and individually suitable provision.
“The government’s aim is to ensure all young people receive world-class education
which allows them to realise their full potential, regardless of background, in a safe
environment.”
This is a definition of education that does not take the preferences of the child or
parent into account. Most people would like to achieve their own chosen potential,
not someone else's idea of their “full potential”. The concept of a “world class”
education is potentially in conflict of the definition of education in Section 7
“the parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive
efficient full-time education suitable (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and (b)
to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at
school or otherwise”.
Providing an education that suits the individual and the environment in which they live
and wish to live is more relevant and effective than attempting to provide an education
based on any comparison with the education of the rest of the children in the world.
Flexi-schooling should not be included as those children are registered at a school.
We consider that the current guidelines are good enough and only need a few tweaks
to help LA staff understand how to apply them well. One example of how well and
appropriately they are generally applied is Lancashire County Council. They have
created documents on policy and practice in liaison with home educators. If all LAs
were to do the same, they would increase their understanding of home education and
be able to apply the law more easily and in a better informed manner.
1.3 is is muddling up flexi-schooling and part-time 14-16 home education (which is not
flexischooling at all). http://edyourself.org/articles/14-16collegeFAQ.php#rules
------------------------------
30. Comments on Section 2: Reasons for elective home education - why do parents
choose to provide it?
There are so many reasons for home education, while it may be helpful for people
working for the LA to understand some of these, a list in this context will not cover
enough and may be seen as a checklist of suitable reasons. The list is not necessary
to help people working for the Local Authority to apply the law properly.
It should not be assumed that some approaches are automatically suitable, and
others may not be.
This is prejudicial and discriminatory and raises concerns under Equality legislation,
on grounds of disability and philosophical belief.
It may also cause LAs to erroneously assume that an education is suitable when
it is not actually suitable for the individual child's age, ability, aptitude and special needs.
-------------------------
31. Comments on Section 3: The starting point for local authorities
3.4 "However, few people would argue today that parents should be able to exercise
their right to home educate children with absolutely no independent oversight, despite
their having the legal responsibility set out above."
This does not take account of the possibility that the minority can still be in the right
even if the majority have different opinions. It is in any case just an opinion and has
no place in this guidance.
"The job of each local authority is therefore to find an appropriate balance between
parental autonomy and its overall responsibilities for education of children in its area."
Parental autonomy is not particularly relevant here. Parents have a duty to provide
a suitable education according to Section 7 of the Education Act. The LA does not
have responsibility unless it appears that parents are not meeting their duty.
Registration schemes would add further confusion in this area.
--------------------------
32. Comments on Section 4: How do local authorities know that a child is being
educated at home?
Section 436A does not apply to home educated children as they are in receipt of
a suitable education.
"Until a local authority is satisfied that a home-educated child is receiving a suitable
full-time education, then a child being educated at home is potentially in scope of
this duty."
This is wrong; the local authority does not need to be satisfied to this detail about
every home educated child, indeed if they were to seek that level of satisfaction they
would become responsible instead of the parents and open themselves up to liability
if at a future date the education was thought to be unsuitable. The work that Lord Adonis
did on understanding the Fourfold Foundation should help avoid mistakes here.
"This fourfold foundation has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain
inherent strengths. First, it recognises that the party with the keenest personal interest in
securing the best available education for a child ordinarily is, or ought to be, the parent
of the child. Depending on age, maturity and family background, the child may or not
share that interest. But the parent has a statutory duty. Secondly, the regime recognises
that for any child attending school it is that school through which the education provided
by the state is in practice delivered. The relationship between school and pupil is close
and personal: hence the restrictions on its interruption or termination. It is a relationship
resembling, but for the want of consideration, a contractual relationship. But, thirdly, the
regime recognises the need for a safety net or longstop to ensure that the education is
not neglected of those who for any reason (whether 'illness, exclusion from school or
otherwise) are not being educated at school in the ordinary way. It is plainly intended
that every child of compulsory school age should receive appropriate education in
one way if not another, and that responsibility rests in the last resort with the LEA."
It is only in the “last resort” that the LA has responsibility, it is ordinarily the parent’s
statutory duty. Anyone devising guidance on HE or seeking to understand the law
on this needs to read this letter by Lord Adonis and work to understand this complex
aspect of responsibility for the provision of education in they way that he has done
and laid out here.
This aspect of the guidance does not take account of GDPR and Article 8 of the
Human Rights Act in terms of privacy and unnecessary data sharing.
----------------------
33. Comments on Section 5: Local authorities’ responsibilities for children who are,
or appear to be, educated at home
5.1 This is a repetition of the consistent misinterpretation of section 436A, which makes
no mention of home education.
5.2 This over-interprets section 436A, which does not direct LAs to maintain oversight
of home educated children.
5.4 Recommends annual contact with home educating parents. This would constitute
routine monitoring which we believe would be likely to interfere with the parents' ability
to provide the education that meets their section 7 duty to cause their child to receive
suitable education. Such monitoring could also hinder the families’ freedom to apply
their philosophy of learning and education.
------------------------
34. Comments on Section 6: What should local authorities do when it is not clear that
home education is suitable?
6.1 Section 437 of the Education Act makes it clear that Local Authorities only need
to act if there is an appearance of an unsuitable education being provided. There is
no need for detailed assessment of provision on a routine basis.
The current guidance section 2.8. describes a reasonable approach to informal inquiries.
6.2 The current guidelines section 2.8 make it clear they should only assess provision
if there is reason to think the provision is unsuitable.
6.4 Section 2.8 of the current guidance sets out the position correctly. The informal
inquiries should take place before section 437 of the Education Act but not under
section 436A.
The law makes the parent responsible for ensuring the receipt of suitable education
but does not define 'suitable education' in individually specific terms, it assumes parents
are capable of defining what is suitable for their individual child. While this is frustrating
for some educational administrators and educationalists, it is accepted and appreciated
by many thoughtful parents and educationalists. Defining a suitable education is
dangerous and constricting and does not allow enough flexibility in how humans learn
and grow.
It would also create a 'standard' , openly or otherwise, that would by its very nature
discriminate against all non-standard families. That would in reality end up meaning
it disproportionately affects negatively everyone who doesn't have the usually supposed
'typical' setup in terms of family , home, beliefs and lifestyles, especially people from
black and minority ethnic communities, disabled people, LGBT people, non-Christians,
travellers, working class people and families with less or more than two parents.
As we mentioned before it is reasonable to assume that most parents take the provision
of their children’s education seriously. We often forget that parents have been doing this
job well for a very long time before schools became commonplace. School is by no means
the most common method of education through history, even now it is arguable that much
education happens out of school.
It is however reasonable to question the general assumption that parents are providing
a suitable education if it appears for some reason that a parent is not fulfilling their duty.
This could happen in the case of families who use schools to provide the education for
their child too. But no one seems to be suggesting we look to monitor the provision of
individual children and ask parents to provide a more suitable education if the school
is failing.
6.7 Flexischooling should not be included in these guidelines as the children are on the
roll of a registered school.
6.10 That is an unreasonable conclusion. The family might be away on an extended
absence from home, for example, and not receiving their post.
6.12 Section 437 requires only satisfaction from the parent. It does not mention seeking
information from other sources and the guidance should not imply that this should happen.
6.20 The guidance should not make these implications.
The wording in section 2.8 of the current guidelines is better. Again, omit flexischoolers
since they are on a school roll.
-----------------------
35. Comments on Section 7: Safeguarding: the interface with home education
7.2 "However, it must be acknowledged that a child being educated at home is
not necessarily being seen on a regular basis by professionals such as teachers
and this increases the chances that any parents who are using home education
to avoid independent oversight may be more successful by doing so."
This is a ridiculous fear, it is highly unlikely that young people will not be seen by
wider family, neighbours etc. While they are not seen by teachers they are seen
by dentists, doctors, etc.
The implication that HE children are more likely to have safeguarding issues is
prejudiced and discriminatory.
The rest of section 7 of the draft guidance has specific threats that are unnecessary.
The same safeguarding procedures apply equally to all families regardless of the
provision of education.
The mention of Care Orders in this guidance is irrelevant to provision of education
and likely to instil fear in families who are only seeking to provide a suitable education
for their children. This fear could cause significant harm to families, particularly where
home education has been chosen as a solution where school was having an impact
on the mental health of the young person. Suspicion of educational neglect should
not be seen as breaching the 'significant harm' threshold in the Children Act.
-------------------
36. Comments on Section 8: Home-educated children with special educational
needs (SEN)
The annual EHCP review should be a specific review of the child's progress towards
the outcomes specified in the plan. It need not and should not be an evaluation of the
whole education provision unless there is reason to think parents may be failing in this
duty. It is particularly important that the LA does not put extra pressure on parents of
young people with special educational needs as often they are already responding to
more significant challenges in everyday parenting. The LA needs to be supportive
rather than overseeing.
The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice should be followed and normal
home education regulations apply to home educated children with SEN. There is
no need to add difference here. Though it may help to make it clear that there is no
need for additional oversight of the general education.
Disabled children and those with other special needs are in general already more
(not less) likely to be seen regularly by other authoritative people such as; GP;
a multitude of community health services (including SALT, Physiotherapists,
community nurses, occupational therapists, audiology, continence services,
hospital consultants), respite services, support agencies, children's services (SS)
and community groups.
Those professionals would benefit from training that helps them understand the
benefits and possibilities that come from home education so that they can more
easily understand the work done by parents to provide this very individualised
and suitable education for their young people.
---------------------
37. Comments on Section 9: What do the s.7 requirements mean?
It is really important not to lose sight of the primary legislation which trusts parents
to comply with their Section 7 duty until it has information to make it appear that
this might not be happening. This trust is a crucial and respectful aspect of the
primary legislation; any guidance must help those following it to implement that
trust and respect which and must not be undermined without good reason. This
guidance is at times at odds with that important aspect of the primary legislation.
Re: Article 2 Protocol 1, ECHR:
This means that the LA needs to respect parents’ philosophy of education and
therefore that this guidance should be explicit in helping LA staff to know how
they can respect families’ educational philosophies. This should minimise the
risk of mistakes through LA staff applying their own personal philosophies or
the standard methods of schools.
From 9.3 “There is no definition of an ‘efficient’ or ‘suitable’ education in
English statute law”.
There is indeed a flexible and appropriate definition that enables interpretation
relevant to the individual and their life context. Education must be suited to the age,
ability and aptitude of the child and see also the case law as referenced in 9.4.
(Eg Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson (Appeal, 1981, Worcester Crown Court, unreported)
and R v Secretary of State for Education and Science ex parte Talmud Torah
Machzikei Hadass School Trust (April 1985, unreported))
9.3. “This means that the wishes of parents are relevant. However, it does not mean that
parents are the sole arbiters of what constitutes a suitable education….A court will reach
a view of suitability based on the particular circumstances of each child and the education
provided.”
It may help those drafting the improved version of this guidance to consider the letter
Lord Adonis wrote about the fourfold foundation where he quoted Lord Bingham in
the Ali case (Ali v Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14)
“This fourfold foundation has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain
inherent strengths. First, it recognises that the party with the keenest personal interest in
securing the best available education for a child ordinarily is, or ought to be, the parent of
the child. Depending on age, maturity and family background, the child mayor not share
that interest. But the parent has a statutory duty. Secondly, the regime recognises that
for any child attending school it is that school through which the education provided by
the state is in practice delivered. The relationship between school and pupil is close and
personal: hence the restrictions on its interruption or termination. It is a relationship
resembling, but for the want of consideration, a contractual relationship. But, thirdly, the
regime recognises the need for a safety net or longstop to ensure that the education is
not neglected of those who for any reason (whether 'illness, exclusion from school or
otherwise) are not being educated at school in the ordinary way. It is plainly intended
that every child of compulsory school age should receive appropriate education in one
way if not another, and that responsibility rests in the last resort with the LEA.”
In general it is the parent who has primary duty, the LA’s duty is that of last resort. We
recognise and support this concept and would like to see guidance that helps LA staff
to understand this important subtlety .
It is important that respect for parents philosophy and children’s preferences are taken
into account and that LAs and courts do not abuse their responsibility of last resort to
rule out a form of suitable education. Their judgement must be exercised with
proportionality and reasonableness in order that they pay due regard to Article 2
Protocol 1 ECHR and in order to enable freedom of educational methods to develop
and improve in this country and reduce the risk of constraint and restriction through
imposition of politically driven ethos on direction and monitoring of education.
There is a danger that this guidance could lead to procedures that lack reasonableness
and proportionality. If this becomes the case home educators are discussing Judicial
Reviews to remedy this.
“9.4 b. notwithstanding (a), the home education provision need not follow specific
examples such as the National Curriculum, or the requirement in academy funding
agreements for a ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum, nor the independent school standards
prescribed by the Secretary of State [In regulations made under s.94 of the
Education and Skills Act 2008 ]. Conversely, however, if the home education does
successfully deliver one or more of those examples then that would constitute strong
evidence that it was ‘suitable’ in terms of s.7;”
This notion of a suitable education could easily be argued against, not just by home
educators but by many teachers within the education system. The definition of suitable
that has evolved out of the primary legislation and case law and was described well in
the 2007 guidelines is perfectly adequate and reasonable.
In the view of Unschooling parents a suitable education is that which actually suits an
individual child. “Suitable” should therefore not be defined in a generic way by the state
according to the way the education system happens to have evolved. It should be
defined in most instances by the family themselves who are able to tailor the education
to genuinely suit the child based on the child’s needs, parents’ philosophy and what
parents learn about learning and education in the process of carrying out their duty to
provide a suitable education. Suitable will only be defined in cases of last resort by the
LA and courts.
The list of what does not need to be included for an education to be suitable that is
found at 3.13 in the current Elective Home Education Guidelines for local authorities
should be included in any new guidance, since it helps LA staff to shift their understanding
and be open to methods that are different to those used in schools.
Home educating parents are not required to:
teach the National Curriculum
provide a broad and balanced education
have a timetable
have premises equipped to any particular standard
set hours during which education will take place
have any specific qualifications
make detailed plans in advance
observe school hours, days or terms
give formal lessons
mark work done by their child
formally assess progress or set development objectives
reproduce school type peer group socialisation
match school-based, age-specific standards.
“the first sentence of ECHR Article 2 of Protocol 1 quoted above confers the
fundamental right to an effective education, and relevant case law (ref to
German case law) confers very broad discretion on the state in regulating that law. “
German case law is not relevant here in UK as it derives from the Basic Law in
Germany which had as a primary purpose, the need to prevent ‘parallel societies’,
which do not create a dictator.
The Basic law and the Constitution of Baden Wurttemberg position is very different
to the legal position in England, given that they make school compulsory save for in
exceptional circumstances.
“d. a local authority may specify minimum requirements as to effectiveness in such
matters as literacy and numeracy, in deciding whether education is suitable;”
While this may seem like a good idea to those who do not have an understanding of
the varied ways in which humans learn and the effectiveness of self directed learning
it is very much at odds with the current research on learning and in particular with the
Unschooling philosophy of education.
Allowing LAs to develop their own local version of “suitability” rather than learn to apply
the definition that is in the primary legislation would lead to a postcode lottery for home
education families in terms of freedom to apply their personal educational philosophy.
38. Comments on Section 10: Further information
Local authorities should trust parents unless they have good reason not to.
--------------------
DRAFT REVISED DfE GUIDANCE ON HOME EDUCATION: for PARENTS
This section invites comments on different sections of the draft revised guidance
document about the current framework for home education, which DfE proposes
to publish for parents. Copies of the draft document can be downloaded from the
Overview page.
---------------------
39. Comments on Section 1: What is elective home education (EHE)?
Referring to the Introduction here:
The new ideas aiming to add to the definition of a suitable education and home education
are unhelpful here. They fail to grasp that the current flexible definitions enable diverse
and individually suitable provision.
“The government’s aim is to ensure all young people receive world-class education which
allows them to realise their full potential, regardless of background, in a safe environment.”
This is a whole new definition of education that does not take the preferences of the child
or parent into account. Most people would like to achieve their own chosen potential, not
someone else's idea of their “full potential”. The concept of a “world class” education is
potentially in conflict of the definition of education in Section 7 “the parent of every child
of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and (b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”.
Providing an education that suits the individual and the environment in which they live
and wish to live is more relevant and effective than attempting to provide an education
based on any comparison with the education of the rest of the children in the world.
Flexi-schooling should not be included as those children are registered at a school.
We consider that the current guidelines are good enough and only need a few tweaks
to help LA staff understand how to apply them well. One example of how well and
appropriately they are generally applied is Lancashire County Council. They have
created documents on policy and practice in liaison with home educators. If all LAs were
to do the same, they would increase their understanding of home education and be able
to apply the law more easily and in a better informed manner.
-----------------
40. Comments on Section 2: What is the legal position of parents who wish to
home educate children?
“What is an efficient education? There is no definition of this in statute law. However,
it can be interpreted as meaning education which ‘achieves what it is intended to achieve’.
This is not the same as the education being ‘suitable’ - because it is possible to deliver
efficiently an education which is definitely not suitable for the child.”
“There is no definition of ‘suitable’ education in statute law”
There is a very useful general definition of suitability: A suitable education is that which
is suited to the age, ability and aptitude of a child. Any other attempt at imposing a
definition that rests outside the locus of the child will reduce the efficacy of that learning
process as all children are different and have different learning needs. There is a wonderful
flexibility in the current law that allows for growth in our understanding of learning and how
we should educate young people. This flexibility needs to be protected not only to enable
home education to provide the most possibilities in terms of individual provision but also
to enable growth and change in other aspects of the education system. Constraints in
these guidelines could impact on creative implementation of education in other contexts
too.
Local authorities should not use minimum expectations for things such as literacy and
numeracy in assessing suitability. The abilities and rates of progress of children vary widely.
This would significantly discriminate against those with learning difficulties and result in
stressed parents trying to apply an unsuitable education in order to meet the expectations.
Even when learning difficulties do not apply, aptitude and ability are the key to successful
learning. This kind of standard would interfere with the power of self directed learning,
which is central to the Unschooling philosophy. Harriet Patterson’s book “Rethinking
Learning to Read” gives a good picture of the wide natural variety in this one aspect
of learning. Unschooling parents often discuss the wide variance in age and methods
for learning to read. Educationalists tend not to know that children can learn to read
and write in the same way that they learn to listen and speak. This recommendation
shows great ignorance of what can happen when children are given supportive but
non-directive learning environments.
The list of what home educators need not demonstrate in order to be providing a
suitable education at 2.11 should be included in the LA guidance as well. This list is
helpful to enable Local Authority staff grasp that home education need not look like
school. There should not be two different sets of guidance with differing standards
applying.
Social needs also vary widely between different children and should not be assessed by
education officers. There is much anecdotal evidence that the more natural bespoke social
world that can be created outside of school supports the development of such children
more than the intense school social environment.
Given that it is a challenging and complex job to assess efficiency and suitability Local
Authorities should only attempt to assess home education provision if they have information
that makes it appear unsuitable (current guidelines 2.8).
Home educators should only need to bother with this job of demonstrating suitability if there
are genuine concerns that their provision appears unsuitable. Providing a suitable education
is a natural intuitive thing for parents to do. Having to demonstrate it adds work and
complexity that gets in the way of responding to the child and providing what the child needs.
A broad curriculum and assessment of progress are not required by primary legislation
and therefore this should not be allowed in guidance on interpretation of the law. This kind
of constraint will limit the creativity of educational provision. In particular it is in conflict with
the Unschooling philosophy of education which enables young people to engage deeply in
areas of specialisation when they wish to do so. There is much research on learning to
show that specialisation is a natural and effective way to learn. Imposing the philosophy
of a broad curriculum is likely to limit excellence and self direction.
“The United Kingdom has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC). Article 12 of the UNCRC requires states to provide a right for children to
express their views and for due weight to be given to those views, in accordance with the
age and maturity of the child. This does not give children authority over parents, and a
decision to educate a child at home is a matter for you as parents. You should, however,
consider whether home education is realistically possible in your family’s particular
circumstances, and if your child is happy to be educated in this way.”
Of course, Unschoolers take the preferences of the child seriously and believe that that
leads to the most effective self-directed learning. We agree with the principle that parents
should consider whether a child is happy with the form of education provided for them.
However we believe that this is equally true for parents using schools, and we do not
agree with this guidance being provided to home educating parents, unless it is also
provided to parents whose children are educated at school (or at least made clear in
this context that this is a principle that all parents should follow with their children's
education).
-------------------
41. Comments on Section 3: So what do I need to think about before deciding to educate
my child at home?
A detailed curriculum does not need to be planned in advance. Parents need to be
motivated to provide a suitable education and willing to adapt it to their child’s needs
as parents learn more over time about how to provide the most suitable education for
their child.
Parents need to consider whether they are able to provide the time and thought to
providing a suitable education. Anything more specific than this restricts the possibilities
that enable a provision that is individual to the child in their specific life context.
-------------------
42. Comments on Section 4: If I choose to educate my child at home, what must I do
before I start?
Our knowledge of the advice and support provided by most LAs indicates that registration
would not be worth the hassle for most parents. If the intention of this section is entice
parents to register it could be combined with direction to LAs to provide support that is
considered useful by home educating families.
----------------------------
43. Comments on Section 5: What are the responsibilities of your local authority?
It is important that parents are carefully advised that any information they supply to the
local authority may be used to contribute to an appearance that the education is
unsuitable under Section 437. It can be very difficult for parents to describe their methods
in ways that will be understood by LA staff who hold very different philosophies of education.
The dangers of misinterpretation of the provision and over reaction by LA staff cannot be
understated.
In particular we believe that self-direction is a core aspect of good learning and that
external misinformed monitoring that is not clearly consented to by the learner damages
learning and education. The LA has a responsibility not to interfere in the education of
young people in ways that could divert and misdirect the self-direction of the young person.
Parents should only be asked to provide detailed information about the provision if the
local authority has information that makes it appear that the education is unsuitable.
(Current guidelines for local authorities section 2.8). Otherwise it risks interfering with
the education and wasting LA resources.
A paragraph on how to make a Subject Access Request should be supplied so that
parents are aware of the information held about them.
Section 5 is extremely threatening for guidance about an activity undertaken by parents
to benefit their children and is likely to negatively impact on some families choices.
It would be useful to also include a clear complaint system if a family find that the correct
procedures are not applied and find that there is a disproportionate intervention in
their lives.
----------------------
44. Comments on Section 6: Further information
References to flexi-schooled children are irrelevant.
We think it is confusing to have two separate sets of guidance, one for parents and one
for LAs. They should be consistent, this would be best achieved by having one set.
-------------------------
45. Do you think that anything in the revised guidance documents could have a
disproportionate impact, positive or negative, on those with 'relevant protected
characteristics' (including disability, gender, race and religion or belief) - and if so, how?
Yes, the guidelines do not take sufficient account of different philosophies of education
and seem to be written in ignorance of the evidence based underpinning of some of
those philosophies. There seems to be a particular lack in terms of taking account of
self-directed learning which is at odds with routine monitoring.
We are glad to see questions about whether parents of young people who attend
maintained special schools should need permission from the LA to deregister. We hope
the result of this is an equal approach for all young people.
We believe that the flexibility to home educate without direction or monitoring from the
LA can facilitate and improve the education of young people with “relevant protected
characteristics”. Any updated guidelines needs to maintain and increase this flexibility
and choice to enable diverse suitable provision most relevant to each individual young
person. We believe that systematic monitoring will reduce this significantly.
Informed anecdotal evidence already shows that families which have 'protected
characteristics' and other discriminated against groups (such as travellers, single parents,
non-standard families) are already more likely to be checked up on or have their education
regarded as inadequate, often by various services. All regulations which attempt to form
a 'standard' of what home education looks like will, by their nature, discriminate
disproportionately against those people. It seems to us impossible to create a standard
without doing that. The law as it stands allows us all the flexibility to provide home
education in the manner that best suits our individual children and diverse families.
There is some evidence on this in this recent book.
“Middle-class families who choose home schooling are often seen as “ahead of the game”,
according to a major analysis by the Universities of Birmingham and Portsmouth.
By contrast, poorer families who make the same choice – particularly if they are from
minority groups – are frequently regarded as problematic and even as threats.”
Our group consists of parents at both ends of this spectrum and many in between all
learning from each other. Online and real life home education groups tend to be diverse
and create powerful collaborative learning opportunities as a result of this diversity, the
diversity is more welcome than in many conventional learning contexts.
A significant number of HE families with protected characteristics have already decided
to home educate because school does not meet their cultural, inclusion or access needs.
To give the education system, which already did not suit them, power over how they home
educate is going to alienate families and end up discriminating against them. It is crucial
for the law to remain flexible, as it is now, because then each family is able to apply that
to their individual child and individual situation.
