Why a register of children not in school is not the real issue

(First published on twitter, 24/1/24, in relation to this tweet: https://t.co/THzYC1UW5g, about the House of Commons debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-01-23/debates/BB759A20-57E1-4C7D-A1C4-97FE7D824A5A/ChildrenNotInSchoolNationalRegisterAndSupport)

This was a disappointing bit of politicking, unfortunately. There are serious, important questions and issues here but ultimately the proposals don’t address any of them. I don’t know if this is a deliberate policy or a lack of understanding, but it’s worrisome.

Let’s start with support; something I am very much in favour of offering - children who are home educated deserve it just as much as any other. The bill contains a support clause but it is highly wooly, and boils down to ‘you can ask; and we can say no’.

Guidance might improve this, but who knows - and it would *already* be entirely possible to offer support and funding through the existing guidance. It would be non-statutory but if the money is there for a service it has a much higher chance of being provided.

Exam centres are the biggest thing. If you want excellence for all and to remove barriers then start by making sure home educated children have a local, affordable centre to sit exams at. Parents can decide if that’s the right choice, but only if the facility is there.

That could be implemented immediately. There are complexities - I’m probably one of a very few who understands them well - but the situation could be massively improved fairly easily. We know this is needed.

Next, safeguarding. The thing I don’t understand is why this becomes a significantly greater concern on a child’s fifth birthday than it was previously. Up to that point, we work on a system that reacts to concerns raised; why does this stop being the right choice at 5?

And why did we make that choice in the first place? Because it’s an efficient balance of resources to target them where they are needed, and a cursory check in all cases isn’t very effective anyway. If that’s the wrong decision, change it for all; not just some.

And then attendance, which was the actual focus of the debate, and is something this bill would have absolutely no impact on. Again, we know the children on roll who are not attending; and being on a list hasn’t helped them do so.

We know pupils who deregister, there is an existing legal requirement for schools to notify the LA, who can track this school-based data and identify patterns. And of course there are the existing safeguarding processes for raising concerns, which deregistration might heighten.

So then we have the provision of suitable education, which is the only unique thing about this group. This is actually the most interesting and difficult question to consider; and no-one really does consider it, possibly because it’s just too hard.

This is not really covered by registration, but it is the crux of LAs fulfilling their (again, existing) s436a duty to act if it appears that a child is not receiving suitable education.

LAs currently contact all known EHE families - that is, those who have deregistered, ever had concerns raised, or otherwise come to the LAs attention, so the vast majority - and ask for details of the education being provided so they can check this.

Arguably this is already not in keeping with the law or with any other parental duty - we don’t ask all parents of 2-year-olds what they feed their children to guard against possible malnutrition, though we do act if there is evidence of it - but it is what happens.

This is led by the EHE guidance, which has just gone through a round of consultation and home educating families have spent enormous amounts of time and energy contributing to it. It is, however, a task that really raises questions for us all.

Can you define a set of rules for suitable education that improve on the section 7 baseline duty? Is there anything that does not have some level of individual variation and therefore needs to be judged individually anyway?

Who has the default right to say what is important? The state, or a parent? Is the right approach one of asking for permission or of defending a challenge? What priority do we place on academics if they come at the cost of emotional stability, and who decides on that balance?

Finally, the biggest question of all, that underpins the whole absence debate as well - what can, and should, one realistically do if another person does not want the thing you have decided is for their own good? Can we actually force an education, or just offer it?