A recent meeting of a council scrutiny committee, this time Caerphilly CCBC, sadly again highlighted a number of areas of misunderstanding and misinformation about home education and home educating families,

alongside pressure to lobby governments for change and increased regulation of EHE, with these misunderstandings and misinformation used as fuel and motivation for such calls.

We write this article reluctantly, but out of necessity, and we trust that all involved will take the time to read, appreciate and act on the contents.

So – just whose children were being discussed?  

Just ordinary children being raised by their own families.

Not children that belong to the council in any way.

However, the semantic field and range of comments painted a very different concept.

A selection of quotes illustrating what appear to be core beliefs and misunderstandings of just whose children these are includes:

“refuse direct access to the child”.

“parents can actually deny us the right of access to their child if they’re electively home educated.”

“if we’re able to get access to the child.”

“Parents don’t want us to have access to their child, the young person. We have no right to do so.”

“refusal a flat refusal”

“reluctant to engage or refuse to engage as is their right.

Yeah. You know, they can just keep all correspondence in writing”

(note – false conflation of “refuse to engage” or “reluctant to engage” with engaging by keeping “correspondence in writing”, which, given the tone conveyed, can hardly be a surprising choice).

“some families are are stubbornly refusing to do that. Why are they refusing just to do a simple side of A4 as much information as they want to give? Why are they refusing to do that?”

“but what I’d like to share with you is how distressing it can feel to not be able to see other (namely EHE) children regularly”

“additional level of responsibility”.

“to support our learners our learners. Sorry I need to stop saying that. The learners.”

“Um we try not to offer too much because obviously we’d like our ch our children the children sorry because the family’s children to stay in school”

(note – pretty poor co-parents if trying not to offer things that would benefit the children).

“So that’s where the gap is in all of this is that there is a residual risk of children out there who we know nothing of because they’ve never attended a school and parents don’t have to notify us as a local authority if they’ve never attended a school. So that register that’s being proposed through the the secondary legislation in Wales will ensure that we are informed sorry as a local authority that those children reside with us”

Is this an unnecessary extension of the concept depicted rather concerningly in

the logo for Caerphilly’s separate  “Team Around The Family (TAF) Model”?

The meeting heard of repeated calls to lobby governments for change, seemingly fuelled and motivated by misinformation and misunderstandings.

For example:

“I mean I thought we were lobbying Welsh government. I thought that LA’s you all got to get you told me on more than one occasion LA’s have got together and tried to lobby Welsh government.

You know we’re all concerned and we consistently lobby. We had a visit from Welsh government month ago to talk about safeguarding actually to talk about um quite a separate agenda and at the end when um the officer said have you got any other things you’d like to raise? I said yes. Elective  home education”  

“I feel that you know authorities got to do something. They got to lobby Welsh government, not criticizing the present Welsh government because they are new Welsh government. Hopefully they will look at it differently”

The meeting even heard of an expressed wish to be able to misuse appropriate remits and roles.

“But can I add if it’s if they said “if you send out a SAO and if they don’t comply, you are entitled to see this child” I’d be sending them all day long”.

SAOs – School Attendance Orders – are meant to be a tool of last resort,

Not a means for coercion or manipulation,

Not to be a threat to be used intimidate families.

Not as tools of social engineering or behaviour control based on personal opinions,  biases or intrinsic suspicion of ordinary families who do not choose state-organised or overseen education.

The meeting sadly saw a number of examples of specific misinformation about, and misunderstanding of EHE.

One key example was picked up and propagated by the media in a way that we feel the reputation and wellbeing of home educated children and young people in Caerphilly.

Namely the misinformation about how many children and young people sit external examinations.

This was taken up by a range of media sources, such as nation.cymru, South Wales Argus and the Caerphilly Observer.

Misleading statements from the meeting included:

“How many actually elect to do these examinations? Do we know?

Yeah. Not many to be honest. So approximately 7% of our key stage four cohort.

So we’re talking about 16 children this academic year have been entered for exams. That’s an increase of five children four or five children from last year. But it is a really low percentage of our stage 4 cohort which obviously causes concerns about future destinations”.

Even the council’s own director for education disseminated the misinformation, stating
“Um I’m not comfortable with 93% of um children in key stage four not sitting exams, you know, I’m just not”.

This was seemingly interpreted by the councillors as being only 7% of all EHE young people take exams.

as the quote was revisited again later in the meeting

“I wanted to go back to key stage four. Um I was really interested to read about the 7% of learners sitting exams.

What I wanted to know though was how are we measuring the success rate of the remaining learners the ones who are not sitting exams”.

Following emails to each committee member by Home Ed Cymru, asking for clarification on this point, a director for education and social services, who was not present at the meeting, has confirmed that this figure does indeed only refer to young people who chose to use the council-run examination centre, and also that this figure only applies to those who correspond in age to school year 11.
That confirmation claimed that this was “made clear” in the meeting, which is at odds with the statements within the meeting, particularly by the director for education who was in attendance.

However, despite requests, to date there appears to be no action by the council to clarify this mistake to the media and ensure corrections were made. This results in media articles conveying false information and attributing this to the council to continue to circulate, which risks depicting a demeaning picture that can damage the reputation and integrity of young people in Caerphilly.

Home educated young people can and do access external examinations such as GCSEs and IGCSEs through a range of locations and sources. Furthermore, they can frequently do so at ages outside the school-based concept of “year 11”.

However, GCSEs are not necessarily the most appropriate way to “measure” education. Families can find the limitations of these  to be restrictive and counterproductive to deeper learning, with increasing consideration of approaches that are considered more relevant and beneficial.

There were further examples of misleading information

For example, regarding examinations.

“they can’t just go straight back into school. They need to be introduced to that again. …. EOTAS provision because they come back in through that route”

EOTAS is generally extremely difficult for home educated children and young people to obtain. And is rarely the route of return. Should a child or young person wish to attend school, the usual route taken by EHE parents is to simply apply for a school place.

“We have to organize those exams for the pupils”.

This is not correct.
There is an expectation in the Welsh Government guidance for councils to improve access to examination centres for private candidates. However EHE families can and do regularly organise external examinations themselves, they do not “have to” have the council organise these for them.

There was also some potential conflation with EHE and NEET, with comments of unclear significance that again risk interpretation in a way that would demean the reputation and wellbeing of home educated children and young people, such as:

“because we know once they they leave school they disengage with education”

Well, I I feel socially bad for them. I just what academic results they have at the end. I just feel that they have they’ve missed out so much on their social life.

This comment is in direct contrast to the experience of home educating families and without foundational evidence. We would encourage councillors and policy makers to actively engage with families to help dispel such general myths.

One council staff member made a comment that appeared to be meant to counterbalance negativity towards home education.
Unfortunately, that comment only referred to “some” families in a positive way, again risking perpetuating a climate of suspicion.

The comment unfortunately also repeated the false rhetoric that EHE is what “parents” rather than families and children choose, again risking connoting this is at odds with the child’s needs or wishes.

There were references to attempts to obstruct or prevent deregistration and/or reduce the number of children and young people who are home educated or have the opportunity to experience it.

It is important to note that it is unlawful, and a criminal offence, to obstruct or not act on instruction to remove a child from a school roll, under Pupil Registration Regulations. It is also against the fundamental concept of education being a parental responsibility, as per s.7 of the Education Act 1996.

“So, there’s been a fair bit of targeted work around transition into secondary to try to prevent children coming out at that key point”.

“Um we try not to offer too much because obviously we’d like our ch our children the children sorry because the family’s children to stay in school”

This is vital to note.
If the Children’s Wellbeing and Education Act were to be implemented in Wales, it would require council staff to be considered as independent impartial determiners of what is in a child’s “best interests” regarding deregistration in a range of situations.
further confirmation of a two-tier anti- home education approach to children is found here:

“And I think the danger here is if we make this very comfortable and very um easy to manage, we run the risk of more children becoming EHE and that is go, you know, and that isn’t something we particularly would want to see.

So I think it’s always a balance between um doing the best for those children because it’s not the children who made the decision, you know, it’s the families, but balancing that with the needs of the other pupils here”.

These comments, amongst others, are yet further demonstration that councils are not impartial independent objective determiners of what is in a child’s best interests, even if it were morally appropriate for councils to be given such a role instead of parents.

Re children returning to or being registered into schools “kind of testament really to the amount of work that is done by the team”.

Further misrepresentations and misinformation were noted regarding about family decisions to not opt for or continue with the state’s offer of free education, with the repeated misleading depiction of home education being somehow forced by parents as if against children’s will,

Without reference to home education being a children’s right.
Furthermore, there was no acknowledgement of the contradiction in thinking when comparing parents being expected to enforce school attendance against the will of children.

For example:

“Um but it’s not actually the child’s decision obviously whether they become electively home educated or not that decision sits with parents and carers”

“They have to be mindful that it is the parents’ choice in how they educate their children”.

“they do give us reasons. The the biggest one for us in Caerphilly is is parental preference”.  

“Parental right”

“Parents being the ones who decide if their children sit external examinations.”

Again, we sadly see continued elements and inferences of conflation of EHE and “safeguarding”.

“I gather some have social workers but some may not”

Amid many, many references to the concept of ordinary children in ordinary families needing to be seen and checked.

One member of staff did briefly add a reminder that

“However um I do have to say EHE  in itself is not considered a safeguarding risk.”

Unfortunately, “not considered” is not the same as saying clearly that it is not a safeguarding risk (as supported by evidence), with such phrasing carry a risk of questioning and doubt.

There were, sadly, repeated demonstrations of conscious or unconscious bias towards school-like concepts of education

With repeated references to home educated children and young people as “pupils”, a term that applies to those in school or those receiving school-like adult led top-down approach tuition.

With repeated references to learning being “work”.  

With references to children being considered to need to “reintegrate”.

With repeated references to children going “into the system” or “out of the system”

There were sadly repeated demonstrations of intrinsic bias, conscious or unconscious, of school being better than home education.  

Increase in home education was termed “frightening”,

with further comments such as “Um I I’m concerned about the exponential increase”

For example,

One staff member briefly and helpfully correcting the use of the term “pupils”, by explaining that “EHE young people” are more appropriately “classed as learners”, although this was short lived with this and other members of the meeting rapidly reverting to the use of a term that had been clarified as inappropriate.

However, they also committed something of a Freudian slip in saying that EHE young people are classed as this way “once they’ve left education”, instead of saying once they have left school.

And this same hopefully unconscious bias of equating school with education as if home education isn’t “really” education was repeated in the comment, referring to the number of children and young people who had moved from being educated at home to educated in schools as:

“Okay, so we’ve seen an increase of we’ve doubled basically the number of children going back into education”

The meeting appeared to generally depict home education as if it is in some way a problem to be solved, or an issue to be “resolved”.

This seemed to flow at least in part from repeated and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the council and of legal boundaries and remits

The role of the council is given in the Education Act 1996.

The role of the council is a reactive one, simply to make arrangements to identify children who are missing education (s.436A and 437) not to oversee provision of those who are not, because education is the responsibility of parents, not the state (s.7, also echoed in legislation elsewhere and in the UNCRC).

Councils would be rapidly bankrupted if the duty to ensure each child receives a suitable education did truly lie with them, as not only would they then have to ensure the finances to provide a truly suitable education according to not just each child’s age but their “aptitude, ability” and “any special educational needs they may have”, but they would also be liable in courts of law for every time a child does not receive such a bespoke and suitable education.

The repeated misunderstandings were seen, for example in quotes such as;

“test this or examine if they are educating them in the in the correct way”.

“there’s additional um support essentially because we don’t have to return until you know the annual part, the annual review part of that. So we are giving support earlier on but that is putting increased capac uh capacity issues on the team because where we could just be monitoring every year where we’re going back after 4 weeks that’s additional um resource that the local authorities having to put in”.

“we couldn’t monitor or um observe it the way we do in school”.

Note – There is no lawful remit to monitor home education.
This is not an oversight of the law,
this is fundamental, 
as education is not the responsibility of the council, it is the responsibility of the family (wherever the child receives that education).

“we couldn’t monitor or um observe it the way we do in school.

Um but that is the law. That is the law and that’s not the law we’ve made. That’s a law.

Is it a law? Could you describe as a law please?

Yes. It’s a law made by Welsh government because it’s delegated to Welsh government to do”.

As clarified above, this unfortunately shows a marked lack of understanding of the legal basis for any engagement with home educating families. Present practice is based on the Education Act 1996, not on “law made by Welsh Government”.

“There has been re recent evaluation of the Welsh government guidance and all authorities across Wales have had those opportunities to feed in our concerns around how we do monitor suitability and efficiency of education, the pressures that it this is putting on the system because of the numbers of children involved”.

As that “evaluation” was listed in documentation for councillors to read, It would be very helpful for councillors and others to analyse the contents of that commissioned report further.
For example, this evaluation of the WG-commissioned “evaluation” explores not only what was stated but also the range of concerns and implications of what was not stated, explored or addressed.

Note also the repeated admission of trying to monitor education without lawful remit or duty to do so, against the legal principle that education is a parental responsibility and when it has already been confirmed that a child is not under the council’s remit of being “CME” (a child missing education).

Yet the members repeated complained about their perceived concerns about “authority’s ability to cope” financially and int terms of resources with attempting to enforce measures without lawful duties, remits or evidence of need.

“Um the requirement in the Welsh government guidance is that we offer WJC exam only”.

That is not factually correct, this is not a requirement. The guidance produced by the former Welsh Government indicates and suggests some preference for WJEC, it would appear for potentially political reasons, but this is not a requirement.

“Flexischooling – parents would assume the responsibility for the education of their child part-time”

Again, this shows a lack of understanding of or appreciation that education is always the responsibility of the parent, even if they choose to delegate the provision of some of the education to others, such as schools.

There was some reference to the financial implications of overstepping, without the admission or realisation that these financial costs were because of overstepping of necessary or lawful remits.

“This is supplemented and subsidized by um work from other departments”.

“Grant = £80 per child per annum”

“Only half of families known to them have applied for it”,

with staff appearing to not appreciate the reasons for this.  

Some partial insight was demonstrated in the comment:

“I was I was just wondering I suppose if if any any of the parents or the carers

thought of it as a bit of a pain that they have to interact with you do you have any parents who are like that or is it generally just a good relationship

The idea of a “relationship” when the duty of the council is simply to identify children who are CME rather than EHE is a topic for a separate conversation.
However, it would be helpful for councillors to hear the perspectives and experiences of home educators directly.
Some initial insight can be gained from research that can be found here, with a summary here, on experiences and perspectives of home educators in Wales, especially when coupled with the parallel research of errors and misleading information in council policy and documentation on EHE, found here, where the reader can scroll to the summary at the end.

However, personal engagement with home educators in the area is naturally the most beneficial way to dispel misinformation and misunderstandings.

We would be delighted to engage further on any of the issues raised here.

Will this feedback be welcomed?

It was interesting to note comments that:

“I think it would be a good idea to to get that feedback and if there’s constructive criticism as well for us to work on that you know because

it’s really important that our services do reflect the wishes of of families”.

An interesting comment given that no home educating families, children or young people were given representation at this meeting.

“we have responded to feedback from home educating groups as well who will contact us and ask us to change wording and things you know in our document so

that it’s more family friendly um so that it’s um more reflective of how the

whole educating community think and feel and we’ve made those ad adaptations”.

Whilst a change in wording in approach letters to families has been noted, It is important to also note that CCBC were provided with an extensive feedback document of their revised policy on EHE, but only one sentence of that policy was amended in response to this, with the vast majority of concerns not addressed.
It is also important to note that home educating families should not find themselves in the position of having to ensure that council practice is correct and respectful.

We write this article very reluctantly,

But out of necessity,
when such passing comments and misleading claims or statements are being used to fuel calls for “changes” to approaches to home educating families.
Changes that would profoundly affect family life and education.

As part of our fact-checking process, we have also produced an annotated transcript of the meeting.

We would be delighted to share that annotated transcript with members of the committee and any who would be interested.

We trust that this present article will be read by councillors, staff members and policy makers alike, as well as all who have an interest in ensuring families are treated with respect and only according to appropriate remits.



Wellbeing in Education Wales