ThesisPDF Available

How societally visible and engaged are the children of home educating parents who access online home education support groups

Authors:

Abstract

This study is currently the largest University affiliated Elective Home Education study conducted in the UK (as of August 2021). A commonly cited aspect of home education is that children may have less socialisation outside their own families and as such be less visible within society, particularly to professionals, than their counterparts who attend mainstream school. This research sought to establish how socially visible and engaged the home educated (HE) children of parents who use online home education support groups were. This was for the purpose of establishing whether there was any truth in this reported lack of socialisation and societal visibility or whether it was a stereotype. The nature of data sought was be qualitative, interpretative phenomenological analysis, so having considered multiple methods-online surveys were chosen as the most appropriate method. Had it not been conducted during a pandemic then case studies may have been used. The study found a highly engaged and visible community, with children attending a large variety of groups and venues, many of which would not be available to those outside the community. Participants’ children were also seen by a wide range of professionals and volunteers regularly, including Government employees. Themes emerged as to a lack of trust and regular visibility to Local Authority Elective Home Education teams due to poor communication and legal overreach. There was a reported lack of value exchange between Local Authority EHE staff and home educators. The overwhelming response to the research indicated that home educating parents were keen to contribute to academic research and to voice their views regarding visibility, socialisation and Local Government engagement. A lack of consistency between communication, expectations and engagement from Local Authorities and the Home Education community emerged.
001
How societally visible and engaged are the children of
home educating parents who access online home
education support groups?
Word Count: 15,176
By Jennifer Alburey, BA(Hons)
Dissertation submitted to the University of Derby in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a
degree of Master of Arts in Education
15 January 2021
002
Acknowledgements
It takes a village to raise a child, and a tribe for a single mum to follow her academic dreams.
To my children, Eve and Alexander, who inspire me to achieve more for myself and for all of
us. I’m the luckiest mummy in the world that you’re my kids.
To my cousin Diane and two of her wonderful children, Lauren and Dan, thank you for opening
my eyes to new ways of education. My gratitude to my dear friends Mike and Becky for their
IT support and endless patience! Thanks to my mum for the provision of many cups of tea.
To Rose Schofield, who was my first experience of unconditional positive regard, changing
both my educational philosophy and my life forever. I can never thank you enough for the
butterfly effect of your belief in me. To Val Poultney for your guidance and support regarding
my dissertation.
003
How societally visible and engaged are the children of home educating parents who
access online home education support groups?
Abstract
A commonly cited aspect of home education is that children may have less socialisation
outside their own families and as such be less visible within society, particularly to
professionals, than their counterparts who attend mainstream school. This research sought
to establish how socially visible and engaged the home educated (HE) children of parents
who use online home education support groups were. This was for the purpose of
establishing whether there was any truth in this reported lack of socialisation and societal
visibility or whether it was a stereotype. The nature of data sought was be qualitative,
interpretative phenomenological analysis, so having considered multiple methods online
surveys were chosen as the most appropriate method. Had it not been conducted during a
pandemic then case studies may have been used.
The study found a highly engaged and visible community, with children attending a large
variety of groups and venues, many of which would not be available to those outside the
community. Participants’ children were also seen by a wide range of professionals and
volunteers regularly, including Government employees. Themes emerged as to a lack of
trust and regular visibility to Local Authority Elective Home Education teams due to poor
communication and legal overreach. There was a reported lack of value exchange between
Local Authority EHE staff and home educators.
The overwhelming response to the research indicated that home educating parents were
keen to contribute to academic research and to voice their views regarding visibility,
socialisation and Local Government engagement. A lack of consistency between
communication, expectations and engagement from Local Authorities and the Home
Education community emerged.
Aims and purpose of the study
Introduction
The writer has home educated family members and is part of the UK home education
community, with a professional background in law, including having represented families in
Children Act public law proceedings as well as representing a Local Authority in Children Act
cases. As such, this dissertation aims to be mindful of the need for professionals to
effectively be able to safeguard, but also consider a commonly held home educators’
pedagogical ethos of holistic learning without unnecessary government involvement and
regulation which can arguably stifle educational provision.
004
Because the group classified as home educated is so broad it would not be viable to include
all the different types of home educators, along with the children who are missing education,
together in one study. Home educated families include families who educate in a variety of
different ways, which will be explained further within this dissertation. Home education is
sometimes erroneously grouped together within literature with Children Missing Education
(CME), who are in fact not home educated but children whose families do not secure
education for their children at school or otherwise. CME are, rightly, separately legally
defined in order that they can be differentiated by professionals for educational and
safeguarding purposes from electively home educated children.
It is the societal engagement and visibility of home educated children which was of interest.
For this reason, it was decided to research the societal engagement and visibility of home
educators who use online home education support groups. This was felt to be more likely to
include those who are educating their children at home and engaging with support from the
rest of the community true home educators. This was hoped to reduce the likelihood of
including those within the study who do not seek to educate their children and should be
categorised separately as children missing education, rather than home educated.
For the purpose of the study, the focus of the research is to explore home educating
children’s level of societal engagement as reported by their parents i.e. how visible they are
to society outside school, rather than delving in depth into the child protection aspect of
visibility. To include potential risk factors within the research would make the research too
wide and digress from the original purpose of the study. It would have been inappropriate
given that the study was focused on home educators rather than CME, and home education
itself is recognised as not being a direct risk factor. Additionally, it is a key point that there is
a difference between socialisation in terms of skill set for communication and adeptness of
interpersonal skills, and social engagement in terms of quantity and visibility of involvement
within the community/society. This research focuses primarily on quantity and prevalence of
social engagement, rather than quality of social skills. Parents were asked to answer
regarding their normal routines when Covid19 was not a factor.
For ease of reading, common home education acronyms have been used within this
dissertation.
Table of acronyms used:
HE
Home Education
EHE
Elective Home Education
CME
Children Missing Education
005
LA
Local Authority
SEN
Special Educational Need
GP
General Practitioner/Doctor
Research focus
To establish what level of socialisation, outside the home and immediate family, home
educated children engage with - particularly appointments and groups at which they could be
engaging with, and visible to, professionals and wider society.
How visible are home educated children to agencies and organisations that have a legal
duty to safeguard children? Are these children visible to other groups of people who do not
have a legal obligation, but do have a moral one to report any safeguarding concerns?
Research aims and objectives
The overall aim of the research is to explore the level of societal engagement, outside their
own family, of a sample of home educated children and to consider their level of visibility and
interaction with professionals and others.
Objectives:
To identify what groups and venues home educated children commonly
attend to socialise. It is anticipated that this will include groups and venues
where there is an adult present with a safeguarding legal duty of care.
To examine, based on the responses to the survey, how societally engaged
and visible those home educated children are.
To investigate the literature relating to home education, particularly social
interaction and visibility.
To critically evaluate the visibility or otherwise of home educated children
within society.
Value of intended research
The research aimed to provide a well informed and considered perspective on the level of
social engagement of home educated children, particularly including visibility to
professionals and wider society. There is an acknowledged lack of research around UK
based home education and it is hoped that this will assist to inform intellectual understanding
of this aspect of the UK home education community.
Review of related literature and emerging issues
006
What is home education?
There is no simple definition of home education (Rothermel 2002). The term ‘home
education’ has been used to include: electively home educated children; children whose
families are pressurised to educate at home having initially chosen state education but been
off-rolled by the school, families who withdrew their child to educate at home due to school’s
inability to meet their child’s needs for a variety of reasons including Special Educational
Needs, bullying, and families who wish to obscure their children from authorities (Ofsted &
Schooling, E. 2017, Children’s Commissioner 2019, Department for Education 2019).
The use of such broad categorisation of home education by Central Government and Local
Authorities is arguably misleading as it groups elective home educators alongside children
whose families are not home educating due to any pedagogical ethos. This mis-grouping
includes those who are perhaps pushed into HE through lack of other suitable options, plus
Children Missing Education who by their very definition are not educated at home and may
be at increased risk of harm. Electively home educating families are then included in
reported risk factors and stereotypes.
Why families choose to home educate
Many parents choose elective home education (EHE) for their children due to disaffection
with the UK school system and perceptions of their children’s experiences within it being
unsatisfactory (Morton 2010), echoed by the research findings of Foster & Danechi (2019).
Smith & Nelson (2015) also found dissatisfaction with the educational system a main reason
for choosing to home educate, along with a lack of suitable provision for special needs and
disabilities, bullying and mental health also being key reasons stated by parents. These
findings were further echoed in Charles-Warner (2020).
Within the families choosing home education (HE) due to philosophical or pedagogical
reasons some families home educate due to their own philosophical ethos, with some
rejecting what they see as a capitalist, neoliberal, agenda preferring to retain more control
over individual freedoms (Mitchell 2020). Others believe their children will engage and learn
most effectively outside the restrictions of the prescriptive nature of the national curriculum
(Blunt 2014) or wish to customise the curriculum and learning environment for each child
(Ray 2018), in order to deliver a bespoke education for their children.
Of course, there will be families who withdraw their children from school under the guise of
home education in order to obscure the family from authorities (Children’s Commissioner
2019, Ofsted & Schooling, E. 2017) but it is debatable whether parents who remove their
children from state education for nefarious reasons would actually seek to educate those
007
children or whether their purported home education status is instead being used as a smoke
shield. This will be discussed further within the literature review.
Types of home education
Home education varies by type, and within these types by style - ranging from unschooling
to flexi-schooling, structured and non-structured learning at home, those who choose to
follow an online curriculum, those who choose to follow the national curriculum, families who
choose no set curriculum, and many more variations in between.
Unschooling is a term first introduced by educational theorist John Holt in 1977. It is a
learner-centric model of education whereby children pursue their own interests, in the ways
that they choose (Morrison 2016). Unschooling families do not use assessments or require
particular assignments for the purpose of education, but instead are fully child-led (Gray &
Riley 2013). Within unschooling falls world-schooling, free-range learning, life learning and
radical unschooling the commonality between all the differing forms of unschooling being
their fully child-directed learning approach (Morrison 2016).
Flexi-schooling is a formal arrangement between parents and the head teacher concerned,
that a child can attend school on certain days and be home educated off site on others
(Carnie 2017). Flexi-schooling offers personalised education with shared responsibility for
teaching and learning being taken by families and schools (Poultney & Anderson 2019), plus
children being in regular sight of educational professionals for safeguarding purposes.
Whilst this may be seen as the best of both worlds, there are still drawbacks to this model,
which does not legally fall within the parameters of home education. There is no legal right
to flexi-school, unlike the right to home educate full time. The days in which children are
educated off site are required to be marked as absence under school attendance codes,
which is undesirable for schools and creates conflict between the Department for Education,
the schools offering flexible education and Ofsted (Nicholson 2018). Until and unless the
Government can address how this negatively affects school censuses, it is likely to continue
to be a barrier to schools offering this type of education more widely. It also means that
children for whom full time school is not suitable are forced to either continue with a
schooled education which does not meet their needs or to home educate full time, which
may not be the parents’ preference.
Home education in its traditional form is when parents take full responsibility to provide
education to their children without attendance at school (McDonald 2019). There is variation
in how this is achieved, but most parents do this with their home as a base and take
advantage of community resources including museums, libraries, sport centres, galleries,
clubs, home educators’ groups and field trips (Mountney 2009). Some parents commission
008
tutors, others teach using books and/or the internet. McAvoy (2014) notes the growth of
online curricula available has drastically increased freedom and choice for home educators.
What are the laws and regulations around home education?
UK law requires compulsory education, but this does not have to be provided at a school
(Gabb 2004). Parents are required to secure education for compulsory school age children
under section 7 of The Education Act 1996, which is appropriate for the child’s age, aptitude
and ability, including any special educational needs (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1996).
Home education is the teaching of children at home rather than within a school environment.
The Elective Home Education Guidelines allow authorities to access home educating
families for safeguarding purposes under sections 17 and 47 of The Children Act 1989 (Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office 1989) but the Guidelines do not allow for the routine oversight of
quality and suitability of the home education provided (Department for Education 2019).
With home education often being misused as a blanket legal term for all children who fall
outside state or private school education, and no power for Local Authorities to oversee the
quality of education being provided, only that it ‘achieves what it sets out to achieve’
(Department for Education 2016) - it may be difficult for authorities to separate out true home
educators from families who have ‘Children Missing Education’ (CME). CME is the term
used to define children of compulsory school age who are not registered at a school or
receiving a suitable education otherwise (Department for Education 2016). It is for this
reason that Local Authorities (LAs) fostering good relations and communication with the HE
community is vital. Also crucial is working in partnership with other Government
departments. These points will be considered in further depth later.
In 2006, the Education and Inspections Act introduced a ‘Duty to identify children not
receiving education’ adding s436A to the Education Act 1996. The 2019 Elective Home
Education Guidelines for Local Authorities and Schools require local authorities to maintain
sufficient contact levels to ensure each child is receiving a suitable education (Department
for Education 2019).
Why does visibility matter?
The reason the UK Government concerns itself regarding the visibility of children is that they
have the safeguard of school educated children being seen by a professional daily, in order
for any child protection concerns to be noted and raised with the appropriate authorities. It is
harder for the Government to ensure that they can monitor the safety of children who are
less regularly seen by adults with a safeguarding duty of care. Consideration is given later
within the dissertation as to whether it is necessary for that adult to be a teacher and
009
whether this reliance on schools as the primary safeguarding mechanism for children is
appropriate.
The lack of current requirement for a register of home educated children means that the
Government are unaware of how many children are home educated. Parents who wish to
avoid the attention of local authorities and Ofsted may choose to educate their children at
home or in an environment such as an unregistered school which fall below the threshold to
register as an out of school setting (Monk 2016) being the main provider of children’s
education, providing less than 18 hours education per week or educating less than 5 children
(Department for Education 2019). This balancing act between safeguarding legislation and
the rights of home educators has been made more acute in recent years due to expressed
Government concerns regarding the ‘risk of radicalisation’, particularly in unregistered
settings and home educating families, within their safeguarding agenda (Department for
Education 2015). For the purposes of remaining within the scope of the research aims, it is
not proposed to consider unregistered schools within this dissertation.
Whilst there are no official Government figures, estimates presented in a research briefing to
Parliament in 2018 suggested that in that year there were around 53,000-58,000 registered
home educated children in England (Foster & Danechi 2019). Due to registration with local
authorities being voluntary and the number of home educated children having been on the
increase each year for several years (Lubienski et al 2013, Blunt 2014, Foster & Danechi
2019, Cheng, A. & Donnelly, M. 2019), many researchers observe that it is likely that the
actual figure may be significantly higher than reported (Staufenberg 2017, Children’s
Commissioner 2019). However, recent research found that 69,791 children were registered
as home educated, with an estimate of under 2,500 being unregistered (Charles-Warner
2020).
The Government has expressed concern that home educated children ‘can go months or
years without contact with any professional’ (Children’s Commissioner 2019), voicing
concern around a lack of visibility of home educated children. Following the 2009 Badman
Review, in 2014 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was
commissioned by the Government to conduct a report regarding home education and
whether it contributed to risk factors around abuse. It recognised that home education per
se was not a risk factor, but still aligned with Badman in its proposal that HE could lead to
isolation and obscuring of children due to the lack of registration process (Badman 2009,
NSPCC 2014). Some points within that report were factually disputed by the HE community,
leading to its subsequent withdrawal.
010
Children who are in fact out of education and/or at risk of harm by being obscured from
authorities should already be visible to the Government if social care and health authority
safeguards are sufficiently in place as intended. The Government has argued that it is
harder to monitor the safety of children, some of whom have never been enrolled in school,
without a register of home educated children - the creation of which has been repeatedly
proposed (Badman 2009, NSPCC 2014, Children’s Commissioner 2019). Given that all
births are required to be registered and that health visitors and midwives will have seen
these families, children should not then cease to be known to the Government and its
safeguarding teams at local level, solely due to not enrolling at school. It is not only teachers
who hold responsibility for safeguarding children and indeed this is not their primary role.
Safeguarding and promoting child welfare is described within the Keeping Children Safe
statutory guidance as being ‘everyone’s responsibility’ (Department for Education, 2020) and
the lack of communication between Government bodies is arguably where potentially
vulnerable children may become lost within the system.
It could be interpreted that the state’s consideration of a lack of school attendance as a
significant risk factor indicates that they expect teachers to be the primary responsible
professional for identifying vulnerable families the protective remit for which should in fact
be shared between professionals from multiple agencies, rather than primarily those in
education. Indeed, the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance states that ‘no
single practitioner can have a full picture of a child’s needs and circumstances’ (Department
for Education 2018). It is of note that the protection and monitoring of vulnerable children
should mainly lie with the health and social care authorities rather than educators.
Notwithstanding the duty of care on professionals to work in partnership to ensure a holistic
approach to child protection, one could argue that the reliance upon the education system
being utilised as the catch-all for social care clouds issues around home education. Whilst
both Government and other research has established no direct correlation between home
education and an increased risk of abuse, there are still concerns expressed that some
families use the absence of their children from school to obscure mistreatment (Badman
2009, NSPCC 2014, Ofsted & Schooling, E. 2017, Children’s Commissioner 2019).
However high levels of mistreatment in school by peers have led to research indicating that
some families home educate in order to protect their children from abuse (Radford et al
2011) and it would be impossible to deny that abuse risks are still present within school
settings. Many serious case reviews involve children who were registered at and attending
school. There is no instance of a serious case review involving a home educated child
where that child was unknown to Government safeguarding authorities (Charles-Warner
2014). It is also of note that HE children are approximately twice as likely to be referred to
011
Social Services, but 3.5-5 times less likely to require a Child Protection Plan (Charles-
Warner 2014).
Flexi-schooling is not legally considered home education and is not raised as a safeguarding
concern in any of the reports to Parliament. It may be reasonably assumed that this is due
to the regular weekly contact those children have with teachers, providing opportunity for
those professionals to raise safeguarding concerns.
Are home educated children less engaged and visible within society?
Home education is reported by Carvalho & Skipper (2018) as being a rich and diverse
community with much support that is not necessarily apparent to those outside the
community, with visibility being the issue rather than lack of support structures. These
community supports would arguably be more likely to be engaged with by genuine home
educators than families who have children missing education (CME) who are motivated by
obscuring those children from authorities. Leading home education author Ross Mountney
(2009) states that within the home education community ‘there are always other parents with
specialist skills, groups, clubs and classes available’. Given the stark contrast between
these assertions from within the community and academics such as Eddis (2015) noting a
lack of visible support, it may be the case that those outside the home education community
are unaware of the extent of support and activities available.
It is a common perception that home educated children lack social experiences (Carvalho &
Skipper 2018), with leading home education critic Romanowski (2010) considering home
educated children’s level of social engagement to be much less than children who attend
school. Vigilant, Trefethren, and Anderson (2013) observed that home educators often wish
their family to be the ‘premier socialisation agent’ for their children. However, being the
primary socialisation agent does not necessarily mean this is to the exclusion of other social
opportunities. Medlin & Butler (2018) report that the perception of home educated children
being less socially exposed and skilled is just a stereotype and that in fact home educated
children have a wider range of skills than children in mainstream education. Due to the
limited quantity of research currently available regarding UK based home education, it is
hoped that this research will provide valuable insight from those within the home education
community regarding their children’s societal engagement outside their own family group.
There is a presumption that children at school have a high level of social engagement due to
the quantity of children and adults they are exposed to daily. Researchers have expressed
concern over potential isolation and invisibility due to being educated outside the school
environment (Romanowski 2010, De Carvalho and Skipper 2018, Children’s Commissioner
2019). In practice, enforced association is different from socialisation and does not
012
necessarily translate into meaningful or positive social engagement as demonstrated by
the large numbers of children removed from school to be home educated due to bullying or
other negative social experiences.
Studies reveal that home educated children score at or above the average score on social
skill tests than school educated peers, with greater social skills despite lower socialisation
level due to having not been exposed to unacceptable behaviour within the school
environment (Medlin 2006). A study by Francis & Keith (2004) indicated that home
education positively influences children’s social skills and that they performed more highly in
tests of those skills than their peers who had attended school.
Home education has been observed to provide an environment in which children can
emotionally prosper due to the more child centric and relaxed learning atmosphere than
school (Liberto 2016), with emotional stability and satisfaction being a key element in the
ability to socially engage in a positive manner.
It has been stated that home education, by its nature, limits the number of peers with whom
children are in contact with, which negatively affects their personal development and growth
including their ability to socialise and fit in with society (Nelson 2014). A lack of breadth of
exposure to others could limit skills according to Vygotsky’s theory, whereby children gain
skills by replicating the actions of a ‘more knowledgeable other’ (Vygotsky 1978) and the
more exposure a learner would have to knowledgeable others, the more learning opportunity
there would be. This would apply to all children whether educated at home or school and
apply to both wanted and unwanted behaviours. Indeed, sociocultural constructivism
proposes that children’s social understanding and behavioural choices are constructed
through social engagement (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Applying this theory, children having
interactions with people of a wider age variance in broader environmental settings would
gain a learning advantage.
Bandura’s social learning theory believes children learn most effectively by imitation (Bee &
Boyd 2013). Schools can be hindered by administrative, time and class size limitations for
children to freely observe and imitate the skills of others, which may be facilitated more
effectively in real world situations within wider society. These could potentially be provided
more easily by home educators, due to their educational choice having the flexibility to
engage and socialise with a broader range of age groups and situations than would be
achievable at school. Indeed, the increased opportunities for home educated children to be
immersed in what Kolb (1984) would refer to as ‘concrete experiencing’ during their learning
in hands-on ways and in real life scenarios would apply to social skills as well as academic
ones. Home education can also be aligned to adult learning theory, including that of
013
Knowles (1970) - who believes that effective learning can only occur in a learner directed
way. Given home education’s ability to be individually child-led, this may indicate that
greater depth of knowledge is achievable through this educational approach, including
knowledge and skills around social aptitude and confidence.
Schools traditionally rely strongly upon behaviourist techniques (Buckler & Castle 2014) and
children at school spend much time being instructed and memorising, limited by curriculum,
targets and time constraints - whereas many home educated children have the opportunity
of greater hands-on experiential learning to gain conceptual understanding with time to
reflect (Baverstock & Hines 2019). This conceptual understanding may well include social
engagement skills.
Due to grouping by age, schools could also limit the exposure of individual children to others
of differing ages and developmental stages. This horizontal age grouping used in many
educational settings is a socially unnatural paradigm, unlikely to be experienced beyond
school in wider society or work life. Montessori schools use vertical grouping due to the
belief that exposure to a wider multi-age environment assists social development, but the
increased complexity of planning for multi age grouped classes may be why other schools
find this a difficult model to implement (Rouse 2014). If the vertical social grouping model is
accepted as superior, then schools who teach in horizontal age groups could be considered
disadvantaged in trying to prepare children for broader social scenarios once they leave
school in comparison to home educators with immersive social experiences in wider societal
environments.
Indeed, the social skills learned by children conditioned to comply with the behavioural and
social expectations and normalcy of a largely behaviourist school environment would not
necessarily be those same skills that would transfer over to a more sociologically usual and
broad environment such as day to day life within a community, or a work environment.
Baverstock & Hines (2019) suggest that the societal model of the current education system
is ‘not necessarily creating young people fit for the modern workplace’. Conversely, one
may also argue that depending on the nature of their education, home educated children
could be less prepared for societal expectations in environments which share elements of
the autocratic culture of schools, such as authoritarian work environments or those with
many rules and regulations.
Rahma et al (2018) found that home educated children have less social experience and
social competence, due to a lack of breadth of peer behaviour to imitate. Their study found
that although home education could shield children from adopting socially negative
behaviours, it also hindered them from engaging in intensified interactions with a wide
014
variety of other children in environments where social skills would develop as a result. On
the contrary, a study conducted only a year later involving 385 guardians and 676 home
educated learners, found that that home educated children had ample opportunities to
socialise and engage with others (Burton & Slater 2019). Other researchers also found that
home educated children had high levels of social engagement due to having active social
calendars and large social networks enabling them to engage with a wide range of others
(CRHE 2020, Bergstrom 2012).
It is of interest whether the reported lack of visibility of UK home educated children has any
truth to it, or whether it is the perpetuation of a stereotype. Home educated families will not
be seen by a class teacher every day but may be seen by multiple other people within
society. Whilst some reports refer to HE children as ‘invisible’ and ‘hidden’ (Children’s
Commissioner 2019, Ofsted & Schooling, E. 2017), this would appear to mainly refer to the
visibility of those children to teachers rather than wider society. If these children are having
societal contact, there should be others with whom they are brought into contact who have
either a legal or moral obligation to raise safeguarding concerns if necessary. The real
question is whether home educated children are really less visible or whether this is a
generalisation with those reporting ‘invisibility’ only looking at them being seen by school
professionals.
Conclusion
We are aware that HE suffers from stereotypes and that there may be social and support
networks within the community which are not visible to those outside it.
HE children and CME children are commonly, erroneously, grouped together resulting in
stereotypes around the HE community. This in turn affects perceptions regarding risk
factors and the lives of the community. The reported lack of visibility of HE children may fail
to take into account their social lives, about which there is a lack of UK research.
Methodology
Introduction
The writer is part of both the home education and private education communities with
experience of state education and a background in law, specialising in Children Act
proceedings. This professional exposure to the mistreatment of children, including the
manner in which abusive parents seek to obscure those children from professionals, causes
the writer to understand the consideration of a register of electively home educated children.
However, from experience of parents who seek to hide children from authorities and
professionals, it is arguably naïve to believe that these same parents would register their
015
children merely due to it becoming a legal requirement. The conflation of issues which affect
CME being applied to electively home educated children could potentially cause
unnecessary strain on safeguarding professionals attempting to monitor a register of law-
abiding parents while still being expected to identify and protect CME children that may well
not be contained on that register under any new system. Further, the writer would question
the appropriateness of placing an entire minority community onto a Government list.
The writer is in support of the existing powers for Local Authorities to be able to undertake
safeguarding checks to identify children missing education who may be vulnerable to abuse.
These safeguarding checks however need to be mindful to differentiate between children at
risk of harm and genuine home educators, as this educational choice has no direct link with
an increased abuse risk (NSPCC 2014, Charles-Warner 2014). In addition, the writer’s
educational philosophy of child-led and personalised learning would be at odds against any
suggestion of the Government seeking to exert control over the content or teaching methods
utilised by home educating parents.
Philosophical underpinnings create the foundation on which study design and methods are
based (Scotland, 2012).
What the study seeks to discover
The study aims to identify what groups and venues are attended to socialise by home
educated children whose parents use online home education support groups. This study
seeks to discover both the quantity and diversity of attended groups and appointments, over
and above any socialisation within the children’s own family. This information is sought to
hopefully gain an understanding of the level of societal engagement and visibility of home
educated children, facilitated by their parents.
The research also sought to obtain data regarding contact with the Local Authority (LA) and
other Government agency professionals. This was for the purpose of considering those
children’s level of visibility to government officials, in addition to their visibility in wider
society.
Theoretical perspectives
The following sections aim to outline the potential approaches which were considered and
justify the methodological approach chosen, providing a clear rationale for the selected
survey approach and design.
Types of Research
Quantitative
016
Quantitative research focuses on the measurement or quantification of data, which is usually
numerical, statistically significant and generalisable (O’Leary 2004). Standardisation and the
ability to replicate the research are commonly desired elements of this method, with
statistical analysis of the data being expected (Robson & McCartan 2019). However, not all
quantitative research data is generalisable or representative of the general population
(O’Leary 2004).
The advantages of quantitative research are its neutrality brought about by the
decontextualization of the method giving its findings an objectivity, and its ability to provide a
broad overview and shield findings from erroneous generalisations (Savela 2018).
Due to the research seeking to capture the lived experience of members of a community,
qualitative methods were felt to be more appropriate for the study, so quantitative methods
were dismissed.
Qualitative
Qualitative research aims to understand behaviour and participants’ subjective interpretation
of reality, to discover the meaning of experiences and to explore complex or sensitive
issues. This happens through an inductive method of collecting data and processing it into
categories to create hypotheses and theories (Creswell & Creswell 2018).
It is possible to understand the meaning of actions in context through this method, enabling
researchers to gain insights from multi-faceted realities (Queiros et al 2017) which would not
be possible through quantitative methods. O’Leary (2004) believes that the aim of
qualitative research is to illustrate experience through observation and measurement.
However, qualitative research is sometimes criticised for its subjectiveness and increased
risk of researcher bias, along with a lack of generalisation beyond the participants in the
study (Silverman 2019).
Mixed methods
Mixed methods, combining both quantitative and qualitative research methods enable more
data to be collected than use of a single method, adding strength to a study’s findings (Gray
2017).
However, mixed methods are not suitable for studies such as this one where there could
potentially be few participants, or the aim of the study is to gain experiential insights from
participants’ subjective viewpoints (Creswell & Plano Clark 2017). As the study has an
unknown response rate and aims to gather experiential understanding from within a minority
017
community, mixed methods were dismissed as less suitable than a qualitative method for
this research.
The chosen method
The focus of the study is to seek insight from parents within the home education community
regarding socialisation experiences of their children. As the researcher hopes to gain
subjective views from participants regarding lived experience within that community, this
makes the study qualitative by nature.
The research method chosen should be that which best provides data and analysis
necessary to answer the research questions, while respecting resources, skill, and time
(Punch, 2013).
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is a form of qualitative research which aims
to gain insights from and analyse the lived experience of participants (Smith 2017). This
approach has the benefit of allowing shared characteristics and themes to be identified,
enabling the researcher to build a collective group account of participants’ experience (Smith
et al 2009). This ability is particularly valuable for this study, given that academics
acknowledge the home education community suffers from stereotyped perceptions (Morton,
2010). The lack of volume of research and intellectual discourse regarding the UK home
education community makes it harder to debate the accuracy of these stereotypes.
Various qualitative IPA methods, which could have offered insight from participants, were
considered when planning the research.
Qualitative IPA methodologies considered for the study
Focus Groups
Focus groups bring participants together in their investigation of shared interests and the
opportunity to engage in discussion, gathering data faster than individual case study
interviews (Gray 2017).
The focus group approach requires the researcher to act as skilled facilitator to manage
dominant participants within the group, who can introduce bias, as well as respecting
participants who wish to take more of an observer role (Robson 2011). The researcher does
not have experience of facilitating focus groups and was mindful of optimisation of
trustworthiness of data collected. Individuals have been found to be more fulsome in private
disclosure than face to face and are reported to feel susceptible to pressure because of
social circumstances (Thomas 2013).
018
Unfortunately, due to the Coronavirus pandemic and the researcher’s requirement to shield,
an in-person focus group was not able to be considered as a viable research option. It was
felt that an online focus group would be more complex to facilitate than a face to face focus
group, regarding participants being able to establish group dynamics and for everyone in
that group to freely express themselves. Online group calls can have technological
disadvantages regarding knowing who is speaking and establishing turns to speak etc.
which it was felt would stifle the information participants were able to share. For these
reasons, focus groups were dismissed as a potential method.
Case studies
Case study research originates from social sciences and investigates one or a small number
of cases in great depth (Gray, 2017). Case studies have been disputed as being a distinct
method due to the multiple approaches which can be taken in order to glean the information
from participants, but it does enable the researcher to spend more time with participants and
gives scope for multi-dimensional forms of data collection (Hesse-Biber 2016). Case studies
have also been noted to be a useful approach when, as is the situation with this study, there
is a lack of information about the subject (Travers 2013).
Case studies are beneficial when there is no guarantee as to participant numbers, as per
this study. However, the risk factor of limiting the study size by using a case study method
would have left the research vulnerable to participant withdrawal. The study required a
method which was flexible in the number of participants who may choose to engage but can
also emphasise participants’ subjective viewpoint and opinion.
As a result, this approach was considered but discarded due to; the personal contact of
interviewing case study participants potentially causing unconscious bias in the information
provided by the participants and also in the interpretation by the researcher, reduced
anonymity potentially negatively affecting the number of participants who may take part, and
also time constraints of this technique meaning that a lower sample size may have resulted.
For these reasons, questionnaires were instead considered.
Questionnaires
Surveys in the form of questionnaires provide a systematic way of capturing and
summarising qualitative data and are particularly useful for researchers seeking to study
phenomena (de Vaus 2019).
Answers given in standardised questionnaires can be used to accurately describe
characteristics of participants (Fowler 2013). However, questionnaire design is crucial and
participant self-selection bias should be considered. Online questionnaires allow
019
participants to share data which researchers may have had difficulty obtaining sufficient co-
operation for through other methods (Callegaro et al 2015).
New technology and equipment offer a variety of ways to undertake academic research
electronically (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016). Particularly in survey research, electronic
research is rapidly gaining popularity amongst qualitative researchers (Bazeley 2013).
Virtual communities have flourished online, and researchers find internet facilitated
questionnaires a rich domain in which to gather information (Wright 2005). An advantage of
online surveys is the ability of the internet to provide access to groups and individuals who
can be difficult to reach through other channels (Wright 2005). This unique advantage is
why an online questionnaire was chosen as being most appropriate for the study.
Study Design
There are two categories of research sampling: probability sampling and non-probability
sampling.
Probability sampling includes random sampling, where all eligible individuals have an equal
chance of being chosen for the study which increases the generalisability of the research. It
also includes systematic sampling whereby participants are selected at regular intervals from
a sampling frame.
Non-probability sampling is a type of data collection whereby participants are not selected
randomly, but for their appropriateness for exploratory research and the formulation of
hypotheses. Sampling participants with selected criteria is considered to lend
trustworthiness to qualitative research.
Given that the study aims to explore the socialisation experiences of home educated
children, as reported by their parents, probability sampling was unsuitable and so non-
probability sampling techniques were selected.
Convenience sampling
Had it not been for the pandemic, the convenience sampling approach may well have been
chosen by the researcher. Due to being in a position of being able to attend home education
groups, it would have been possible to engage with a wide variety of home educating
parents to take part in a study. Although this approach would still have an element of
volunteer bias whereby those who choose to participate may have different motivations from
those who did not (Menter et al 2011), this is a risk with any voluntary sample research.
020
This in-person research may have elicited a more varied group of participants than only
those who choose to engage with online home education support groups. However, due to
limitations brought about by the pandemic, purposive online sampling was considered
preferable.
Purposive sampling
Purposive sampling is a non-probability approach which is information rich and potentially
illuminative regarding its subject.
The purposive sampling technique was selected for this study as the researcher enjoys the
benefit of being part of the UK home education community and as such is a member of
online support groups which people who are not part of the community would not access.
Home educators are documented to be a difficult to reach group (Stevens, 2001) but being
part of the community enabled access to other home educating families.
As the researcher has access to online home education support groups it was felt
appropriate to use purposive sampling of parents who choose to use these groups. This
method was hoped to increase trustworthiness of the study by allowing increased anonymity.
Also, by using questionnaires rather than case studies or focus groups, it was hoped to limit
potential bias on the part of the researcher. The anonymity of the questionnaire was key.
When researching subject matters of a personal nature, ability to truthfully answer without
feeling identified or personally engaged with the researcher should be a key consideration
(Thomas 2013).
Online availability of the questionnaire
The questionnaire was made available to a group in the East Midlands but was also made
available in a nationwide group. The reason for making the survey available nationally was
in case a local survey elicited a limited response.
The questionnaire would be accessed via online groups for UK based home educators. It
was made clear in the introduction to the questionnaire and within the introduction itself that
the questionnaire was for completion only by families within the United Kingdom, who are
home educating beyond the Covid19 pandemic. This was to eliminate families whose
children usually attend state school and were temporarily educating at home, in order that
their responses did not bias the results. The information to participants made this clear.
The researcher estimated that perhaps 40-50 families may respond to this questionnaire,
although with online research of a community who are known to be difficult to reach
(Stevens 2001) this was by no means guaranteed.
021
The questionnaire was pilot tested with 10 test participants to ensure clarity of understanding
and test for any questions that may be felt to be leading or contain bias. The final
questionnaire is available at Appendix no. 2.
Questionnaire Design
Key
literature
point
Question
raised
Survey question
1.Home
education
can lead
to
potential
isolation
and
obscuring
of children
(Children’s
Commissi
oner 2019,
Ofsted &
Schooling,
E. 2017)
How often
are home
educated
children
‘seen’ or
checked
on for
safeguardi
ng?
Do you send an annual report to your Local Authority outlining
the educational progress of your child/children each year?
Yes/No please state why you do or do not choose to do this.
Indicates contact with local authority who have a duty to
safeguard and ensure education is suitable.
Do you currently accept any offered Local Authority home
education visits to your home, or another neutral meeting place,
in person? Yes/No please state why you do or do not choose
to do this.
Indicates contact with local authority who have a duty to
safeguard and ensure education is suitable.
Is your child/are your children registered with a GP?
No
Yes
Indicates contact with a professional with a safeguarding duty of
care.
Does your child/do any of your children have a disability or
Special Educational Need?
No
Yes
If yes, does your child receive any support from the NHS or any
other Government department including appointments
regarding this disability/Special Educational Need?
Indicates contact with a professional with a safeguarding duty of
care for children who may be particularly vulnerable.
022
2.
Potential
isolation
and
‘invisibility’
to
profession
als due to
being
educated
outside
school
environme
nt
(Children’s
Commissi
oner 2019,
Ofsted &
Schooling,
E. 2017)
Who
interacts
with home
educated
children
besides
their own
family?
Will be answered by the cumulative findings of the other
questions.
3. Home
educated
children
have a
limited
number of
peers
(Nelson
2014)
How much
exposure
to ‘peers’
do home
educated
children
get?
This will be answered with the cumulative findings to the other
questions.
023
4. Home
educated
children
have less
social
experienc
e and
social
competen
ce
(Rahma et
al 2018)
What does
their social
life look
like? Are
there
indicators
of their
levels of
social
competen
ce and
success?
To answer
key
literature
points 4 &
8.
If you have any children who have finished home education
please could you state for each applicable child what they are
currently doing? If you have more than one child, please tick all
which apply:
Non applicable my children are still being home
educated
In a state school
In a private school
At college
At university
Working employed
Working self employed
Unemployed
Other (please
specify)……………………………………………………
……………………….
Indicates social competence gained through home education.
Regarding building a picture of social life and engagement, this
will be answered with the cumulative findings to the other
questions
5. Home
educated
children
being less
socially
exposed is
a
stereotype
(Medlin &
Butler
2018)
To what
extent do
home
educated
children
get to
socialise
and
engage
with
others?
To answer
key
literature
points 5 &
7.
This will be answered with the cumulative findings to the other
questions.
024
6. There is
a rich and
diverse
community
with
support
not visible
to
outsiders
(Carvalho
& Skipper
2018)
Do home
educated
children
attend
social
groups
which
wouldn’t
necessaril
y be
known
about
outside
the
community
?
Do you usually attend any ‘in person’ home education groups
with your child/children? Please specify the nature of these
groups and how often you attend i.e. board games group 1 x
per week, home education social meet up 1 x per month.
7. There is
ample
opportunit
y to
socialise
and
engage
with others
(Burton &
Slater
2019)
See point
5.
Does your child/do your children usually attend regular groups
which are staffed by DBS checked youth leaders/volunteers,
such as Scouts, Brownies, St John Ambulance, Boys/Girls
Brigade, Sporting Groups, Youth Choirs, Church Sunday
School etc? If so, could you please specify which groups and
how often your children attend? i.e. Scouts weekly, Football
camp monthly etc.
No
Yes please specify what and how
often…………………………………………..
025
8. Home
educated
children
have high
levels of
social
engageme
nt and
large
social
networks
(Bergstro
m 2012,
CRHE
2020)
See point
4.
Do you use any leisure centres with your children?
No
Yes, occasionally please estimate how often……………..
Yes, regularly please estimate how often………………..
Does your child/do your children have a library card and visit
the library?
No
Yes, occasionally please estimate how often…………..
Yes, regularly please estimate how often……………….
Do you visit any museums with your children?
No
Yes, occasionally please estimate how often……………..
Yes, regularly please estimate how often……………….
Does your child/do your children attend any music lessons with
DBS checked music teachers?
No
Yes
9. No
single
practitione
r can have
a full
picture of
a child’s
circumstan
ces (DfE
2018)
How many
DBS
checked
adults and
adults in
profession
al roles do
home
educated
children
see?
Are there any other facilities you utilise with your home
educated children where they are engaged in social contact
with DBS checked professionals or other Government
employed professionals?
No
Yes - please specify what facilities these
are……………………………
Ethical considerations
It is understood that people who choose to engage with research may have different
motivations and values from those who do not, affecting the validity of findings (Menter et al
2011). It is acknowledged by the researcher that there is a possibility of committed home
026
educators being more likely to participate in the study regarding their social engagement
level and societal visibility. This means that participants’ responses may not be
representative of the whole home education community, and that those who seek to shield
their children from the sight of authorities or whose children should more accurately be
categorised as out of education may be less likely to respond.
To increase trustworthiness, the study was triangulated with books, journals and websites,
particularly seeking to compare findings with other research regarding social engagement
and visibility of home educated children.
An ethics form was approved by the University of Derby Ethics Approval Committee prior to
collection of data. This ensured that the British Educational Research Association’s ethical
guidelines were adhered to. Advice through supervision was sought and provided prior to
undertaking the study.
The online questionnaire contained questions, an opt in consent to partake in the study and
a requirement to confirm that the participants are UK based home educators. The link was
provided for participants to access the questionnaire, hosted by Lime Survey, in order that
responses would be anonymous, and the researcher would not personally hold any details of
those who engaged with the study.
The General Data Protection Regulations were complied with by ensuring that the collection
of personal data was obtained by opt in participant consent with a consent sheet outlining;
that the researcher was a student at the University of Derby, the purpose of the research,
the nature of questions to be asked, withdrawal date, the ability to withdraw at any time (up
until 15 December 2020). The consent form explicitly retained the right to publish at a later
date in any journal, article or publication. See copy consent form at Appendix 1. This
consent form was approved for suitability by the University of Derby.
Online home education groups could potentially be considered as a public place due to
being on social media, and particular consideration was given to the ethics of collecting
information through a social media tool. Participants were not able to see who else had
participated and confidentiality was assured. No personal identifiers were asked within the
questions and IP addresses were not collected.
Due to potential online privacy issues, it would not be possible to contact each participant
individually without compromising not storing any personal details/being able to assure
absolute confidentiality, but participants could see the writer’s identity from the original online
post in order to contact directly should they wish and key findings are to be posted following
completion of the research. The study was also checked to be compliant with the General
027
Ages of children
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Age of children
Data Protection Regulations by providing an information sheet outlining the study design,
purpose, and right to withdraw before participants consented to share their personal data
on an opt in basis.
Findings
The study received a response of 567 participants. This was considerably larger than
anticipated. The scale of this response would indicate that far from being a difficult to reach
community, home educators are welcoming of research and keen to share their experiences.
Responses were coded and themes emerged. For full details of the coding system, please
see Appendix 7.
There was a high prevalence of young children within the family unit as well as children of
compulsory education age. Post compulsory education age, the highest age prevalence
was ages 10 and 7. It is of note this correlates with school years 2 and 6, in which children
at state schools work towards and undertake Standard Assessment Tests but this may be
merely correlation rather than causation and would require further research to determine
whether there is any link. The smallest age group was 18 year olds followed by 17 year olds
then the 16, 15 and 14 year olds in descending order.
It appears that the amount of home educated children declines at secondary age onwards,
but it may be that older HE children facilitate more of their own learning and so their parents
Number of children
028
are less likely to use online support groups. Perhaps further research regarding older HE
children and their learning choices and motivations would shed light on this.
In response to what children who had finished home education were doing the results were
that the majority of children were still home educating and so this was not relevant to 320
participants as one would expect of parents currently within a home education online
group. However, there were some participants with children who had finished home
education. 23 respondents were in the ‘other’ category. The smallest group was those
children who had moved from HE into private education, with only 3 respondents.
30 ex home educated students were now employed and 7 were self-employed, with only 1
reported as unemployed. 29 were at University and the largest group where their ongoing
outcomes were specified were at college with 35 respondents. 22 previously home
educated children were now in state education. 69 participants did not answer this question.
Further research into the long-term outcomes of UK based home educators could be
illuminating.
N/A my children are still being home educated
65.26% (320 participants)
In a state school
3.88% (22 participants)
In a private school
053% (3 participants)
At College
6.17% (35 participants)
At University
5.11% (29 participants)
Working employed
5.29% (30 participants)
Working self employed
1.23% (7 participants)
Unemployed
0.18% (1 participant)
HE Children's Outcomes
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
029
Other
4.06% (23 participants)
Not completed
12.17%
Illustrative examples of the ‘other’ responses were as follows:
‘Eldest is doing A levels at home plus volunteering work’ (Q5O/24), ‘Doing an environmental
engineering apprenticeship’ (Q5O/505), ‘Long term sick and disabled’ (Q5O/261).
It was to be expected that most parents accessing online HE groups would be still home
educating their children, rather than at a stage to report further life outcomes. However, of
those who had children that no longer HE - the majority of these children were reported as
being either at College, University or work. This shows social competence suitable to
succeed in society outside the HE community, following their HE ending, in contradiction to
the findings of Rahma et al (2018). Unsurprisingly from the high prevalence of disability
within the HE community, the ‘other’ category contained some ex-HE students with a
disability or special need which rendered them unable to work or study in further education.
Participants were asked if they send an annual report to their Local Authority outlining their
children’s educational progress. The responses were that 290 of the respondents did not do
this, 181 did send an annual report, and 90 did not complete this question.
The reasons provided by participants as to why they chose to send or not send an annual
report was split into themes.
Participants who chose not to send a report
Theme
Number of participants
LA Annual Report
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Yes
No
Not completed
030
1. Not requested by the LA
121
2. Provided information previously but not
requested/required annually
34
3. Unknown to LA
58
4. Because it is not a legal requirement
17
5. Have visits/telephone calls instead
14
6. Other
15
7. Still in first year/too early into HE to
provide a report yet
8
Illustrative examples from within each theme for those participants who choose not to send
an annual report:
1.
‘Didn’t know you could’ (Q6N/22)
‘We are known to the LA but are not contacted by them or asked for annual
reports’ (Q6N/44)
‘I have never been asked to do so and am happy monitoring their progress
myself’ (Q6N/89)
‘This has never been requested of me’ (Q6N/161)
2.
‘Have done so in the past but have not been asked for one for several years’
(Q6N/21)
‘I have only been asked once and they were impressed by our provision. It
takes a lot of time to write a complete report. Time away from actual home
educating. If I don’t need to do it, I won’t’ (Q6N/86)
‘They have only asked me for one report which they accepted as proof of
adequate provision and haven’t asked for anything since.’ (Q6N/243)
‘I have sent 2 emails in 7 years’ (Q6N/248)
‘Not asked every year, only at key stage’ (Q6N/280)
‘I have sent one report, because someone reported us to the LA, so we had to
prove education was suitable as they had reason to think otherwise. I have not
heard from them since (almost 2 years)’ (Q6N/286)
3.
‘Currently ‘under the radar’ and see no benefits and a lot of negatives for
becoming known (Q6N/34)
‘We are considered ‘under the radar’. We would be happy to provide report if
requested’ (Q6N/120)
031
‘Never registered with LA – no valuable support offered, so no reason to engage
with LA’ (Q6N/174)
‘I am not known to them, and happy not to be as too many overstep their duties
and are aggressive towards home educating families’ (Q6N/195)
4.
‘It is my responsibility to educate my child. The LA do not have a responsibility
to monitor EHE’ (Q6N/322)
‘It is not legally required or necessary or helpful to me (Q6N/323)
‘No legal requirement so not needed’ (Q6N/504)
‘There is no need, I would contact the necessary people should I have
concerns’ (Q6N/539)
5.
‘They phone and chat but don’t ask for anything’ (Q6N/121)
‘Home visits instead’ (Q6N/198)
‘Don’t have time. This year I updated her by phone, last year she visited, next
year we’ll meet at our holiday caravan’ (Q6N/289)
‘They used to visit yearly but budget cuts and a smaller team mean we now chat
on the phone once a year’ (Q6N/545)
‘We have visits due to social services involvement’ (Q6N/569)
‘I don’t wish to write a report, I meet them. This year will be a zoom meeting’
(Q6N/572)
6.
‘I have the right to parent as I see fit. HE paradigms are not like state school
where one size is applicable to all’ (Q6N/443)
‘From what I have seen from others in the area they don’t tend to be that
satisfied with the reports’ (Q6N/103)
‘There’s nothing in it for my child’ (Q6N/155)
‘I do not think it is a good use of my time or that the LA has anything useful to
offer us. I do not think LA staff are qualified to assess home education’
(Q6N/270)
‘Because I have never had any support from them. I am a social worker myself
and have a PhD. Besides, I have friends and neighbours who are teachers and
have always been very helpful. I follow the national curriculum and hence, I
think we are on target’ (Q6N/331)
‘I’m happy with what we’re doing. We don’t need to be checked up on’
(Q6N/305)
7.
‘Haven’t completed 1 year of education yet’ (Q6N/67)
‘First year of doing it’ (Q6N/225)
‘Have only been home educating for 2 months’ (Q6N/314)
032
There is discourse within the answers raising dissatisfaction with Local Authorities
overstepping their remit and a lack of perceived value exchange by home educators in
engaging with them. There was concern expressed by participants as to lack of LA
understanding of differing educational approaches. There was also a surprisingly high
number of HE families who responded that the reason they did not send a report was
because they had not, or never, been asked by their LA to do so.
Participants who chose to send a report
The respondents who did chose to send a report fell into themes, but with common
messages running through those themes which echoed the lack of faith in LAs to act
appropriately, as per the answers of the participants who chose not to send reports.
Theme
Number of participants
1. Because it was requested/it is required
by our LA
92
2. As a preference to more intrusive
monitoring including home visits
36
3. Because we are happy to send this
23
4. Other
17
Illustrative examples from within each theme for those who chose to send an annual report:
1.
‘In our county it is a requirement’ (Q6Y/119)
‘We have no choice’ (Q6Y/141)
‘It is requested by LA’ (Q6Y/175)
‘So they can satisfy themselves that my
child is receiving a suitable education’
(Q6Y/275)
‘I do send a report, but only when asked by
the LA. My LA have not asked me for one
for 3 years’ (Q6Y/296)
‘We do it 6 monthly for them to appreciate
this is a far superior education in
comparison to a schooled education’
(Q6Y/306)
033
2.
‘I had one visit from the LA and it was
inconvenient and intrusive so now we write
a report instead’ (Q6Y/192)
‘Tried one visit as I had nothing to hide,
found it unsatisfactory. I then elected to
send in a short annual report…I hoped it
would affect the LA’s view of HE children’
(Q6Y/197)
‘I prefer a report to a visit’ (Q6Y/336)
‘I no longer want a visit as our EHE officer
was made redundant’ (Q6Y462)
‘I have no issues with informing the LA what
provision is in place to educate our son. We
only ever write a report. We do not consent
to face-to-face meetings’ (Q6Y/550)
3.
‘I am happy to provide information, as long
as I don’t feel it’s too invasive’ (Q6Y/3)
‘To show that we are progressing and doing
as much if not more work than a school
educated child’ (Q6Y/52)
‘I like to show all the amazing things we’ve
been doing and show that home education
is a viable form of education’ (Q6Y/72)
‘Known to LA as the eldest attended school.
Friendly contact at LA who supports HE.
Only yearly contact’ (Q6Y/133).
‘I wanted to register due to the lack of
activities in our area and hoped that if we
could start building bridges with our LA,
there may be an opportunity for funding for
some things’ (Q6Y/334)
4.
‘Forms do not fit my child’s education or
give a good overview of the education I
provide due to restrictive questions’
(Q6Y/45)
034
‘I send an educational philosophy’
(Q6Y/191)
‘I give a brief outline of what they are
currently doing and how they have
progressed from the previous year’
(Q6Y/394)
Again, many participants who answered that they provided a report to the Local Authority
stated that this was not on an annual basis. There was discourse of variance between how
often this was requested. Multiple participants mentioned their belief it was compulsory or a
‘requirement’ by their LA. Many respondents had been, erroneously, told this by Local
Authority staff. It was shocking that one LA was reported as having made their EHE officer
redundant and this is perhaps one of the more demonstrative examples of variance in
support and communication offerings from differing LAs.
In response to whether participants currently accepted in person Local Authority meetings
either at home or at a neutral venue, an overwhelming majority of 410 respondents did not.
Only 59 participants did, and 96 participants chose not to answer this question.
410 participants did not accept in person visits, 59 did and 96 did not answer this question.
The reasons why visits were not accepted were again divided by theme and broken down as
follows:
Participants who choose not to accept in person LA visits:
Theme
Number of participants
In person visits accepted
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Yes
No
Not completed
035
1. Not requested/offered
66
2. Other
104
3. LA not qualified/suitably experienced to
judge provision
13
4. Unknown to LA
49
5. Lack of trust in LA/concerns re LA
overstep of powers/wishing to keep LA
communications in writing
78
6. Because it is not a legal requirement
40
7. Too intrusive/an invasion of privacy
26
Illustrative examples by theme:
1. Not requested/offered
‘It has never been offered/suggested’
(Q7N/4)
‘They have never asked for one’ (Q7N/97)
‘I would accept a visit but the authorities
have not requested one’ (Q7N/135)
2. Other
‘Did originally and was very helpful but I
know what I’m doing now!’ (Q7N/149)
‘There is nothing the LA can actually offer,
therefore there is no value to us in
engaging in that way’ (Q7N/222)
‘For personal reasons I would not be happy
with a home visit. I asked to meet them at
their office but they never replied’
(Q7N/243)
‘We had visits at first, but found them no
help. They really have nothing to offer me’
(Q7N/249)
‘Because I believe the report should be
sufficient unless the child is deemed at risk
for other reasons as HE is not a
safeguarding risk’ (Q7N/254)
‘We have not been contacted. However if
we were I wouldn’t accept a visit as I do not
036
feel it is needed for my family. We are
already well supported by the HE
community and at this point the LA would
not bring any benefit to us’ (Q7N/509)
‘My daughter is autistic and finds it very
distressing to have strangers in our home’
(Q7N/531)
3. LA not qualified/suitably experienced to
judge provision
‘I do not feel it would benefit us. Many LA
have no training/knowledge of HE, they
come from a school background and often
have very fixed ideas on what HE should
look like. How I do it will look very different
to how my friend down the road does it, it’s
not comparable and the LA does not seem
to understand this’ (Q7N/51)
‘The LA are not experts in HE, they are
experts in mass schooling so I do not see
what benefit it would give my son’
(Q7N/175)
‘Do not see any particular advantage to
doing so. I have the support I need from the
community. From my communication with
them, I do not feel LA staff have a good
understanding of HE and could offer much
advice’ (Q7N/492)
4. Unknown to LA
‘Under the radar’ (Q7N/34)
‘Not known to the LEA’ (Q7N/76)
‘Not offered as not known’ (Q7N/146)
5. Lack of trust in LA/concerns re LA
overstep of powers/wishing to keep LA
communications in writing
‘We do not trust the LA to follow the
Guidance or to be able to make a
judgement on our provision in person so do
not invite them into our home’ (Q7N/36)
‘They are not trustworthy. Our local LA aim
to put every child back into school, the only
way to protect yourself is by having a paper
trail’ (Q7N/88)
037
‘I don’t have any confidence that the LA
have any understanding of a HE child’s life,
the myriad of ways education is presented,
have heard locally and nationally of very
narrow, school based expectations of the
individual inspectors and inappropriate
behaviour, door stepping, leadings
questions etc. And also the fact that no one
else is expected to open up their homes to
inspections, really akin to being made to
allow kitchen inspections like restaurants
do, as you cook at home’ (Q7N/157)
‘I would not invite them into my home. I
read daily horror stories of LA involvement
in other families and I do not want this.
They also have nothing to offer me’
(Q7N/234)
‘In order to maintain the freedom that I
currently have to decline them. My LA
officer is great, but personnel change and
LAs have a history of not knowing the laws
and overstepping it’ (Q7N/261)
6. Because it is not a legal requirement
‘This is not within their remit and not
necessary for them to establish that I am
fulfilling my legal duties’ (Q7N/13)
‘Do not choose to, as is my legal right’
(Q7N/49)
‘I do not require visits for support and my
LA does not have a right to monitor us
without cause for concern’ (Q7N/91)
7. Too intrusive/an invasion of privacy
‘This would be a significant invasion of our
privacy and reduce the ‘safe space’ nature
of our home which we have worked so hard
to achieve for our son’ (Q7N/99)
‘I see it as an invasion of privacy and
against our basic human rights. I get
038
enough support from the HE community’
(Q7N/430)
‘Right to a private family life and they offer
no help’ (Q7N/467)
There seemed to be divergence in approach between LA areas and widespread concerns
and experiences regarding LA officials overstepping their legal remit. Again, there appeared
a theme regarding LA’s not being perceived by participants as offering anything of value to
them and their children. This lack of value-exchange and LA’s being reported as breaching
the rights of home educators by so many participants was unexpectedly high. There was
also a lack of faith that EHE officials who may visit did not necessarily understand the
multiple-
039
ways in which education can be delivered, and would have narrow expectations as to what
suitable educational provision should look like.
Of the participants who did accept in person visits and stated a reason, these reasons were
themed as follows:
Theme
Number of participants
1. Supportive/helpful LA/Happy to engage
with our LA
16
2. Other
11
3. To demonstrate nothing to hide
7
4. Prefer to writing a report
3
5. Due to Court/Social Services involvement
4
6. To show our good education
6
7. Because we were asked/we have visits if
or when asked
7
Illustrative examples by theme:
Theme:
1. Supportive/helpful LA/Happy to engage
with our LA
‘The LA representative is easy going and
respectful of HE’ (Q7Y/190)
‘As a helpful pointer for resources. But also
they are always very complimentary so it’s
nice to have this great feedback’ (Q7Y/121)
‘My previous LA were fabulous and
extremely supportive so I allowed a visit
and continue to, but one visit over a year
ago with a different LA and she was far
from supportive and nice so this may
change’ (Q7Y/315)
‘1st meet in…a neutral environment before
visit at home. Wanted to assess LA official’s
attitude and support. Now have home visits’
(Q7Y/408)
2. Other
‘I have accepted 2 visits. 1 at the start
which was pleasant but unhelpful. 1, 3
040
years ago which was pleasant, it added
nothing to my knowledge but was not
unhelpful’ (Q7Y/114)
‘Neutral, without my child. Child has autism
and home is safe place’ (Q7Y/280)
‘Same reason I send a report, fear of the
system’ (Q7Y/483)
3. To demonstrate nothing to hide
‘I don’t mind someone ensuring that my
child is well and being educated, they may
also have some useful suggestions’
(Q7Y/314)
‘I have had one meeting at our home. I
thought it was a good opportunity for my
children to receive some external praise for
their academic work. I think registration is
inevitable, I have nothing to hide, so felt I
may as well get it out of the way and try to
use it to our advantage’ (Q7Y/334)
‘Got nothing to hide’ (Q7Y/446)
4. Prefer to writing a report
‘…rather than do an annual report, I invited
her to come to our classroom to see the
richness of the environment and so she
could meet and chat with O**** herself’
(Q7Y/81)
‘Found it easier than sending a report’
(Q7Y/388)
5. Due to Court/Social Services involvement
or fear of involvement
‘Because I am not very good at writing
reports but with my older daughter on a CP
plan, the EHE officer was very helpful and
supportive to my family when a social
worker acted out of her remit and
knowledge’ (Q7Y/211)
‘Threat of safeguarding referral if children
not seen’ (Q7Y/299)
‘Have been a respondent in Family Court
proceedings and therefore need to be seen
041
to be engaging as fully as possible because
of the ignorance around home education
within the legal profession’ (Q7Y/454)
6. To show our good education
‘Because I want to show my children are
happy home educating’ (Q7Y/347)
‘My children like to show their progress and
we are happy to engage with the LEA to
demonstrate I am providing my children
with an education and opportunities’
(Q7Y/366)
‘To show the LA an insight into HE life and
remove the stigma. I do this in good faith
that they will see the rich education on offer
but there is an element of doubt that they
will actually use this against me in the
future’ (Q7Y/561)
7. Because we were asked/we have visits if
or when asked
‘We would but have never been asked’
(Q7Y/406)
‘If they wanted to come they can, but they
don’t bother’ (Q7Y/545)
‘Yes but we’ve only been asked once about
3 years ago’ (Q7Y/61)
‘I did but have only been offered one once’
(Q7Y/359)
The responses to this question again raised responses regarding level of contact and
support differing widely between LAs. This variance in communication and relations with HE
families between different LA areas was again raised. There was again a theme of mistrust
and fear of LAs failing to know their legal remit and work within it, or to understand differing
educational styles and recognise forms of education which did not look like traditional
schooling.
042
In response to whether their children attend regular groups staffed by DBS checked youth
leaders, a large majority of 366 participants’ children did so. 107 did not and 104
participants chose not to answer. This high uptake of community groups/activities indicates
good visibility of HE children within the wider community by professionals with a
safeguarding duty of care, many of whom will have had additional safeguarding training and
be part of organisations with set reporting structures and appointed welfare
officers/managers.
The activities attended by children were vast and in excess of 80 different activities, which
included music classes, singing/choir groups, language lessons, Guides Association, Scouts
Association, St John Ambulance and sporting activities. For a comprehensive list, please
see Appendix No. 3.
A large majority, 361, of the participants also attended ‘in person’ home education groups
with their children. Only 97 did not and 112 did not answer this question.
Regular groups with DBS leaders
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes
Not completed
043
The HE specific activities attended by children exceeded 70 different activities, including
Christian groups, GCSE groups for a variety of subjects, special needs meet ups, HE social
meet ups, allotment group, science/STEM/crest clubs, specialist interests and languages.
For a comprehensive list, please see Appendix No. 4.
This reinforced the findings of Carvalho & Skipper (2018) that much support is available
within the HE community which would not necessarily be known about to those outside it.
The range of groups specifically for HE children was roughly as vast as the general
community groups. It was interesting that this range of groups to attend had opportunities
for learning within it that may not be available to children in schools, such as Crest science
award clubs, architecture, falconry and Montessori learning.
This raises questions as to whether there could in fact be more opportunities for learning by
home education than within a school educated environment. There was certainly more
opportunity for specialist interests to be followed deeply and regularly. Some academics
appear to have preconceptions about schools being the best place for children who do not
have problems fitting within that system, due to special needs or negative school
experiences. The responses to this question could raise questions about whether the
increased depth and ability to delve deeper into specialist areas of interest would in fact
provide learning advantage over the education available within the parameters of state
schooling.
As well as accommodating the tailored requirements of children with disability/SEN, for
whom school does not meet their learning/care needs, do the learning opportunities within
the HE community perhaps better suit the learning needs of gifted children? This could be
interesting future research.
In person HE group attendance
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes
Not completed
044
Regarding music lessons, 345 children did not regularly attend DBS checked music classes,
whereas 104 children did. 118 participants did not complete this question.
A large majority of the participants’ children either regularly or occasionally used Leisure
Centres, with 204 regular users and 193 occasional users. 116 participants did not complete
this question and only 83 respondents reported not using Leisure Centres at all. This is a
high proportion of children being seen, mostly on a regular basis, at Centres staffed by DBS
checked staff. Many Leisure Centres are still Council owned and run, which means that
many children, including those who would be categorised as unknown by their Local
Authority, are in fact visible on a regular basis to Government employees.
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Yes
No
No answer/ Not completed
Leisure Centres
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes,
occasionally
Yes
regularly
Not
completed
045
Regarding GP registration - 449 of the participants who responded to the question ‘Is your
child/are your children registered with a GP’ answered yes. Only 2 participants stated their
children were unregistered and 116 respondents did not complete this question.
The participants reported a high prevalence, 183 respondents, of children with a disability or
special educational need (SEN). This raises questions as to whether these families home
educate as their first choice or whether schools were unable to meet these children’s needs.
In hindsight, it could have been useful to ask whether the participants’ children had ever
attended state school. 261 participants reported no disability or SEN and 123 declined to
answer this question.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Yes
No
No answer/ Not completed
300
250
200
150
100
50
Yes
No
Not completed
046
Of the participants who reported their children had a disability or SEN, almost half (84
participants) were supported by the NHS or another Government department including
appointments, versus 98 reporting no NHS or other Government support for their child’s
disability or SEN. Only 1 respondent chose not to answer this follow up question.
This may indicate that a significant proportion of disabled children being regularly seen by
medical professionals are from within the HE community.
Libraries were a popular resource. In answer to the question whether their children had a
library card and visited the library regularly, 204 families attended regularly and 208 attended
occasionally, with only 56 respondents not using the library and 117 declining to answer.
Many libraries are now staffed by volunteers following Government cuts to Library services.
However, all library staff are required to be DBS checked and there are still Government
NHS/Gov support for disability/SEN
Yes No
Library usage
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
regularly
Not
completed
047
employed librarians in some areas. This is another group of volunteers and professionals
who, according to the study responses, are reported as engaging with a large proportion of
children from the HE community on a regular or occasional basis.
The majority of children in the study did not attended any Ofsted registered settings (371
participants), with only 76 confirming attendance at one, and 119 choosing not to respond.
Of the respondents who answered yes, the most popular Ofsted registered settings attended
were Forest School, childminders, summer holiday clubs/camps and playschemes. For a full
list of settings, see Appendix 5.
Illustrative examples of Ofsted settings:
My youngest son attends pre-school once per week. My older sons come along to drop off
and collection (Q16Y135)
Home education learning and exam centre (Q16Y211)
Childminder one day a week while I work (Q16Y392)
Forest school and HE childminders (Q16Y562)
Madrassa, childminder, martial arts (Q16Y344)
Summer playscheme (Q16Y443)
The answers to this question seemed to illustrate that many home educators consider HE a
continuation of the lifelong learning that starts in infancy, rather than something which gains
increased importance at school age. The prevalence of younger siblings using
nurseries/preschools would indicate that perhaps the Early Years Foundation Stage
curriculum is seen a positive, maybe due to being more child led than the school curriculum.
OFSTED registered settings
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes
Not completed
048
Also, there is a willingness to use childminders and summer holiday schemes, arguably
demonstrating that the suitability of the state curriculum rather than the setting itself is the
issue for some home educators. Like nurseries, childminders are legally required to follow
the Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum with children until they are 5 years old, be
regularly inspected, have LA approved safeguarding training, plus have safeguarding
policies in place.
The participant who stated that their HE child was seen at the Exam Centre raises an
interesting point. Exam Centres may be harder for HE children to access, due to all
candidates’ results counting towards the Centre’s figures. With regard to value exchange
between HE families and LAs, perhaps if LAs could register Exam Centres and allow
affordable access for registered HE children it would increase registration, contact with and
‘sight of’ HE families by Local Government. It is of note that the Government does not
currently concern itself with accessibility of exams for HE children. HE pupils due to take
exams both last year and this year have had no Government provision made for them during
the pandemic. By the nature of their education, many do not have teacher predicted grades
and exam centres or remote exams have not been made available to them.
Museums appeared to be the most popular venue for HE families to attend, with 244
participants attending occasionally and 193 regularly. 122 families did not complete this
question and only 24 families did not use museums at all.
In response to whether there were any other facilities the HE families utilised where their
children were in contact with DBS checked or government employed professionals, it was
almost evenly split between yes and no, with 124 participants not completing this question.
Museums
300
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes, occasionally
Yes, regularly
Not completed
049
Of the participants who answered yes to using other facilities, many had been previously
stated in other questions and so were removed. Those which had not already been stated
were listed in Appendix no. 6. Answers included; family, friends and neighbours who were
childcare or government professionals, multiple answers of parents being foster carers so in
contact with social workers regularly, volunteering work, charity and council run groups.
Discussion of Findings
The number of participants far exceeded expected engagement with the survey. This would
contradict the assertion of Stevens (2001), that the HE community is a difficult to reach
group. The scale of response received indicated that they are in fact welcoming of academic
research and happy to share their experiences.
Many of the participants’ children attend HE exclusive groups and activities with their
children, the range of which was as vast and varied as the socialisation opportunities outside
the HE community. This confirmed the research of Burton & Slater (2019) that HE children
are far more socially engaged than many people think. There was a repeated theme of high
levels of socialisation and support within the HE community itself. This supports the
assertion of Carvalho & Skipper (2018) that there is much support and resource not
necessarily apparent to those outside the community.
Attendance at non-HE groups was also high. The responses showed a broad range of
social engagement opportunities between HE children and wider society as well as within
the HE community itself. Most of these engagements were regular and with a high quantity
of weekly and monthly groups attended by participants’ children. This supports the previous
findings of (Bergstrom 2012) and CRHE (2020). There were groups which would be
accessible by the wider community as well as HE exclusive groups, allowing children ample
DBS or Government employed professionals?
250
200
150
100
50
No
Yes
Not completed
050
opportunity to develop peer relationships plus relationships outside their own age group.
This appears to evidence a highly sociable and societally engaged community. These large
social networks and active calendars were reported by both families known and unknown to
the Local Authority. This confirms previous research findings that HE children do have high
social engagement levels and wide social networks (Bergstrom 2012, CRHE 2020).
Within the social engagements reported, participants’ children were regularly seen by a
broad range of professionals with a safeguarding duty of care, as well as members of the
public with a moral duty to safeguard. There was a substantial prevalence of children with a
disability or special need, some of whom were reported as having less social engagement
but a high proportion of the community reported children being regularly seen by health
professionals.
Responses to this study indicated that concerns regarding lack of visibility of this community
(Children’s Commissioner 2019, Ofsted & Schooling, E. 2017) are indeed a stereotype. This
may be contributed to by a lack of distinction often made between HE and CME. There is no
simple solution to determine how CME under the guise of HE could be better identified, but it
is clear that CME are not representative of the HE community.
Better engagement and communication between LAs and the HE community would cause
an increase in visibility of children to their local EHE Officers. Such engagement would
require a better value-exchange than appears to be currently on offer, with ample
opportunities for LAs to create this being available. Research may be welcomed as to what
the HE community would wish for in order for relations with Local Government to be
improved; from standardised training in legal remit and educational styles for EHE Officers,
to potentially offering value by hosting exams or supporting HE families to access other
registered Exam Centres, or other incentives.
More cohesive communication between LAs to ensure consistency and quality of service
and support between areas could potentially increase engagement from within the HE
community. The levels of fear and discomfort at LA overstep were striking and not
conducive to partnership working between the community and Local Government.
This justified worry about underlying intentions of those seeking to oversee their educational
provision, given the negative experiences of so many within the community, may account for
the number of unanswered responses to questions. Trust between the community and LAs
is poor, as is communication. This was evidenced by the fact that many participants had
never been contacted by their LA to offer a visit or request other forms of contact. For those
families where visits had taken place, many were reported as lacking value. Whilst these
children are highly visible within the rest of society, their parents are understandably reticent
051
to engage in communication with LAs who have an unfair power balance and were reported
as sometimes misusing that.
Better Local Authority communication with other Government departments, including
safeguarding and health, could prevent children from being ‘unknown’ to LA EHE teams as
those children are in fact known to Government, but to other departments. It may also help
to better identify CME.
Offering HE families who move area the option to transfer documentation between LAs could
also be considered, in the same way that children’s educational records move between
schools. In this way, home educators with previously satisfactory visits or reports could
satisfy new LAs of their suitable education without needing to re-establish their provision to
an unknown, subjective, new standard. The complicating factor for any attempts to create a
more objective framework for assessing suitability of provision may stifle the freedom to
tailor education based on children’s best interests, or to allow fully child-led learning which is
so highly valued by many home educators. It would be more prudent to have a set standard
of requirements for EHE officials, and standardised training around the recognition of
differing educational styles. Training specifically about home education itself as well as the
legislation around it, perhaps designed in partnership with the HE community, could
potentially be of huge benefit to LAs.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
Perhaps it would be beneficial to replicate the research to establish the level of societal
engagement of children who are educated at school and then compare those findings. This
would provide a benchmark against children educated within a school environment against
children educated at home. It would also be interesting to establish whether the parents of
children educated at school felt their children were more or less socially visible and involved
with the wider community than families whose flexibility of routine enabled them to societally
engage both inside and outside school hours.
The study found a highly sociable and visible community, whose children were engaged in a
wider variety of groups than would be available to children educated in school. There was
regular sight of children by a huge range of professionals and volunteers with safeguarding
duty and moral duty to report any child protection concerns. The increased reporting rates of
HE children to Social Services would indicate that visibility and safeguarding issues do not
mainly lie at the identification and reporting stage. Indeed, the community repeatedly raised
legal overstep on behalf of the LAs, perhaps due to stereotypes around increased risk.
These same children were regularly seen by Government employees from departments
other than the EHE team including health, libraries and leisure, in addition to a vast array of
052
community groups plus HE community groups. It appears to be overlooked within much of
the literature that the HE community itself contains safeguarding professionals and people
who would exercise their moral duty to report abuse.
The Government are currently considering a register of all home educated children. Further
studies on the merits and detriments of registration may be beneficial to assess effective and
appropriate allocation of safeguarding resource and oversight of educational suitability. As
the majority of any minority community can be reasonably assumed to be law-abiding,
measures considered need to take into account the requirement to not compromise the civil
liberties of that community.
It would also be necessary to consider the purpose of any such register. It would be unlikely
to be created without also having some new requirements for monitoring. Set standards to
do so would need to carefully balance safeguarding with not compromising the educational
freedoms of this minority community.
Research would be warranted on the consistency/variance of engagement approach
between LAs and the uptake of visits and other communication methods by HE families
mapped against one another by area. This could then be used to inform effective
communication and engagement strategies between the community and LAs. It could be
possible to identify areas where they are doing well and replicate this across less successful
LAs. Personnel specifications/experience/qualifications were also revealed to be highly
varied across the country. It may be illuminating to compare job specifications of Elective
Home Education Officers and their own LA aims, to consider consistency of national
expectations, training and requirements.
Given the repeated discourse regarding lack of value exchange between home educators
and Local Authorities, research may also be merited on what the HE community would like in
terms of support and resource from their LAs. Findings from such a study would provide
opportunity for Government to improve relationships between LAs and home educators,
increasing mutual trust and engagement between the parties. It is clear from the
overwhelming response to this study that HE families are keen to communicate and share
their experiences but that they are often not asked.
This research provided a rich picture of the social lives and engagements of HE children, in
addition to unexpectedly revealing the complexity of many HE parents’ relationship with their
LA. It is hoped that this evidence may contribute depth of knowledge regarding the HE
community and their relationships with Local Government in addition to the social
interactions of their children.
053
054
Reference List
Badman, G. (2009) Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home
Education in England. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009) [Online].
Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/.../PDF%20FINAL%20HOME%20ED.pdf
(Accessed: 17 November 2019).
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Baverstock, A., & Hines, G. (2019) The Home Education Handbook: A Comprehensive and
Practical Guide to Educating Children at Home. London: Piatkus.
Bazeley, P. (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: Sage.
Bee, H. & Boyd, D. (2013) The Developing Child. 13th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Bergstrom, L. (2012) What Effect Does Homeschooling Have On The Social Development
and Test Scores of Students? [Online]. Available at:
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/61574/LB_Final_thesis.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 9 July 2020).
Blunt, J. (2014) Home education on the rise a cause for concern? [Online]. Available at:
http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2014/10/24/home-education-on-the-rise-a-cause-for-
concern (Accessed: 9 July 2020).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature
and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buckler, S. & Castle, P. (2014) Psychology for Teachers. International: Sage.
Burton, K. & Slater, E. (2019) Homeschooled children are far more socially engaged than
you might think. PhysOrg. [Online]. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2019-04-
homeschooled-children-socially-engaged.html (Accessed: 9 July 2020).
Callegaro, M., Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2015). Web Survey Methodology. London:
Sage.
Carnie F (2017) Alternative Approaches to Education: A Guide for Teachers and Parents.
London: Routledge.
Charles-Warner, W. (2014) Home Education and the Safeguarding Myth: Analysing the
Facts Behind the Rhetoric. Personalised Education Now. [Online]. Available at: home-
055
education-and-the-safeguarding-myth-signed.WCW_-1.pdf
(personalisededucationnow.org.uk) (Accessed: 10 November 2020).
Charles-Warner, W. (2020) Home Education Trends, Preliminary Report. Education
Otherwise. [Online]. Available at: https://www.educationotherwise.org/report-on-home-
education-trends (Accessed: 4 January 2020).
Cheng, A. & Donnelly, M. (2019) New frontiers in research and practice on homeschooling.
Peabody Journal of Education 94(3), pp.259-262 [Online]. Available at: https://www-
tandfonline-com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1617576 (Accessed:
5 August 2020).
Children’s Commissioner for England (2019) Skipping School: Invisible Children. How
children disappear from England’s schools. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/publication/skipping-school-invisible-children/
(Accessed: 14 April 2019).
Coalition for Responsible Home Education (2020) What the Research Says on Socialization
[Online]. Available at:
https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/research/summaries/homeschooling-socialization/
(Accessed: 3 September 2020).
Creswell J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches 5th edn. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L. (2017) Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. 3rd Edn. London: Sage.
De Carvalho, E., Skipper, Y. (2018) “We’re not just sat at home in our pyjamas!”: a thematic
analysis of the social lives of home educated adolescents in the UK. In European Journal of
Physol Educ 34:501-516 [Online]. Available at: https://link-springer-
com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10212-018-0398-5.pdf (Accessed: 1 August
2020).
De Vaus, D. (2013) Surveys in Social Research. London: Routledge.
Department for Education (2019). Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local
Authorities. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elective -
home-education (Accessed: 9 July 2019).
Department for Education (2015). The Prevent duty: Departmental advice for schools and
childcare providers. [Online]. Available at:
056
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2020).
Department for Education (2016). Children missing education: statutory guidance for local
authorities. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-
missing-education (Accessed: 22 August 2020).
Department for Education (2018). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-
agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. [Online]. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2020).
Department for Education (2019). Registration of independent schools: Departmental
advice for proprietors and prospective proprietors of independent schools in England.
[Online]. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/865049/BRANDED_independent_school_registration_guidance_21_August_2019Ms.
pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2020).
Department for Education (2020). Keeping children safe in education: statutory guidance
for schools and colleges. [Online]. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/912593/Keeping_children_safe_in_education_part_1_Sep_2020.pdf (Accessed: 20
August 2020).
De Carvalho, E., Skipper, Y. (2018) “We’re not just sat at home in our pyjamas!”: a thematic
analysis of the social lives of home educated adolescents in the UK. In European Journal of
Physol Educ 34:501-516 [Online}. Available at: https://link-springer-
com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10212-018-0398-5.pdf (Accessed: 1 August
2020).
Eddis, S. (2015). A case of mistaken identity: Perspectives of home educators and state
officials in England and Wales, and Florida, USA. In P. Rothermel (Ed.), International
perspectives on home education: Do we still need schools? pp. 99109. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2016) Qualitative methods in business research 2nd edn.
London: Sage.
057
Foster, D. & Danechi, S. (2019) Home Education in England. House of Commons Library
Briefing Paper [Online]. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-
briefings/sn05108/ (Accessed: 3 September 2020).
Fowler F. J. (2013) Survey Research Methods 5th edn. London: Sage.
Francis, D. J. & Keith, T. (2004) Social skills of home schooled and conventionally schooled
children: a comparison study. National Home of Education Research Institute 16(1) [Online].
Available at: https://www.nheri.org/home-school-researcher-social-skills-a-comparison-study/
(Accessed: 9 July 2020).
Gabb, S. (2004) Sean Gabb on Truancy in the UK [Online]. Available at:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/academic/homeschooling.htm (Accessed: 18 September 2020).
Gray, D. E. (2017). Doing research in the real world. 4th Edition. London: Sage.
Gray, P. & Riley, G. (2013). The challenges and benefits of unschooling according to 232
families who have chosen that route. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning 7(14)
pp1-27.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1989) The Children Act [Online]. London: HMSO. Available
at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents (Accessed: 6 June 2020).
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1996) The Education Act. [Online]. London: HMSO.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/56/contents (Accessed: 9 July 2020).
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2016). The practice of qualitative research. 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Holt, J. (1977) Growing without schooling. [Online]. Available at
http://www.holtgws.com/growingwithoutsc.html (Accessed: 11 September 2020).
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Lubienski, C., Puckett, T., & Jameson Brewer, T. (2013). Does Homeschooling ‘Work’? A
Critique of the Empirical Claims and Agenda of Advocacy Organizations. Peabody Journal of
Education. 88(3) pp.378-392 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2013.798516 (Accessed: 9 July
2020).
McAvoy, A. (2014). A Discourse on Broadband Technologies and Curriculum Access in
Elective Home Learning Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning 8(16) [Online].
Available at: https://jual.nipissingu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/v82163.pdf
(Accessed: 3 September 2020).
058
McDonald, K. (2019) Unschooled: Raising curious, well-educated children outside the
conventional classroom. Chicago: Chicago Review Press Incorporated.
Medlin, R. G. & Butler, J. L. (2018) Thinking Skills, Academic Intrinsic Motivation, Academic
Self-Concept, and Academic Independence in Homeschooled Children. Journal of
Unschooling and Alternative Learning 12(24) pp62-90. [Online]. Available at:
https://doaj.org/article/1aa0f0f83b3d424ebcb5456eddcbe787? (Accessed: 3 September
2020).
Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., & Lowden, K. (2011) A Guide to Practitioner
Research in Education. London: Sage.
Mitchell, E. (2020). An exploratory study investigating why do English parents choose to
home educate their children and what educative practices do they adopt. Educational
Studies June 2020. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03055698.2020.1781598 (Accessed: 9 July
2020).
Monk, D. (2016). ‘Out of School Education’ and Radicalisation: Home Education Revisited.
Education Law Journal 1(17-31) [Online]. Available at: https://heinonline-
org.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/edulj2016&id=17&collection=journ
als&index=# (Accessed: 12 September 2020).
Morrison, K. (2016). ‘The courage to let them play’: Factors influencing and limiting feelings
of self-efficacy in unschooling mothers. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning
10(19) pp48-80.
Morton, R. (2010) Home education: Constructions of choice in International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education Vol.3(1), pp45-56 [Online]. Available at: https://eds-b-
ebscohost-com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=8bf1e63f-3365-4d1c-895e-
d85ab06af525%40pdc-v
sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsdoj.153410f53cb4588bdf8ab4e
bf0bd738&db=edsdoj (Accessed: 3 September 2020).
Mountney, R. (2009) Learning without school: home education. Jessica Kingsley Publishers:
London.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2014) Children not educated in
school: learning from case reviews.
Nicholson, F. (2018) Ed yourself: flexi-schooling. Available
at: http://edyourself.org/articles/flexischooling.php (accessed 15 September 2020).
059
Ofsted & Schooling, E. (2017) Social care commentary: hidden children the challenges of
safeguarding children who are not attending school [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/social-care-commentary-hidden-children-the-
challenges-of-safeguarding-children-who-are-not-attending-school (Accessed: 4 October
2020).
O’Leary, Z. (2004) The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
Poultney, V. A., & Anderson, D. B. (2019) Leading change for survival: the rural flexi-school
approach. Management in Education. [Online]. Available at:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0892020619878809# (Accessed: 2 September
2020).
Punch, K. F. (2013) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Queiros, A., Faria, D. & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and
Quantitative Research Methods European Journal of Education Studies 3(9) [Online].
Available at: https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/1017 (Accessed: 27
September 2020).
Rahma, R. A., Lestari, G. D., & Nugroho, R. (2018) The social-emotional development of
homeschooling children Journal of Nonformal Education 4(2), pp.151-160 [Online]. Available
at: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jne/article/viewFile/15975/8220 (Accessed: 3
September 2020).
Ray, B. D. (2018) Research Facts on Homeschooling [Online]. Available at:
https://www.nheri.org.research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html (Accessed: 5 August
2020).
Robson, S. (2011). Real World Research. 3rd edn. Cornwall: Wiley.
Rothermel, P. (2002) Home education: aims, practices and outcomes. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter,
England, 12-14 September 2002. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002197.htm (Accessed: 4 October 2020).
Rouse, E. (2014) Mixed-age grouping in early childhood creating the outdoor learning
environment. Early Child Development & Care. 1(10) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03004430.2014.953138#.VPw0Wxu2_mQ
(Accessed: 9 July 2020).
060
Savela, Timo (2018). The advantages and disadvantages of quantitative methods in
schoolscape research. Linguistics and Education 44 pp31-44 [Online]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.09.004 (Accessed: 23 September 2020).
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating
Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive,
and Critical Research Paradigms. English Language Teaching 5(9) pp9-16 [Online].
Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1080001 (Accessed: 4 October 2020).
Silverman, D (2019) Interpreting Qualitative Data. 6th edn. London: Sage.
Smith, E. & Nelson, J. (2015) Using the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey to Examine the
Prevalence and Characteristics of Families Who Home Educate in the U.K. Education
Studies 41(3) pp.312-325. [Online]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1005577 (Accessed: 3 September 2020).
Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Getting at lived experience. The
Journal of Positive Psychology 12(3) pp.303-304 [Online]. Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262622?journalCode=rpos2
(Accessed: 20 September 2020).
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis:
Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage.
Staufenberg, J. (2017) Home education doubles, with schools left to ‘pick up pieces’ when it
fails. Schools Week. Retrieved from https://schoolsweek.co.uk/home-education-doubles-
with-schools-left-to-pick-up-pieces-when-it-fails/
Travers, M. (2013). Qualitative Research through Case Studies. London: Sage.
Vigilant, L. G., Trefethren, L. W., & Anderson, T. C. (2013) “You can’t rely on somebody else
to teach them something they don’t believe”: Impressios of legitimation crisis and
socialization control in the narratives of Christian homeschooling fathers. Humanity &
Society, 37(3), 201-224.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wright, K. B. (2005) Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software
061
Packages, and Web Survey Services, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3)
[Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x (Accessed: 20
September 2020).
062
Appendices
Appendix 1 Questionnaire Consent Form
Appendix 2 Online Questionnaire
Appendix 3 List of DBS checked leader/teacher run, activity groups attended
Appendix 4 List of HE groups attended
Appendix 5 List of Ofsted Registered Settings Attended
Appendix 6 - List of ‘other’ facilities utilised where children are engaged in social contact with
DBS checked professionals or other Government employed professionals
Appendix 7 Coding references
063
Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Consent Form
How societally visible and engaged are the children
of home educators who access online home
education support groups?
We know from the academic literature that home educating families are subject to
stereotypes. A commonly cited criticism is that home educated children have less
social engagement and are less ‘visible’ within society, particularly to professionals,
than their counterparts who attend mainstream school. Is there any truth in this
purported lack of social exposure and societal visibility or is it a stereotype?
For the sake of reliability of this questionnaire, it is aimed at established home
educating families who were home educating before the Covid19 pandemic and/or
will be continuing to home educate after the pandemic - as it aims to consider the
amount of social contact and visibility to professionals and wider society of children
who are home educated and not enrolled in a school. Please only answer this
questionnaire if you were already home educating before the Covid19 pandemic or
intend to continue to do so afterwards.
These questions are based on your family’s usual routines when Covid19 isn’t a
factor. The survey will be open until 15th December 2020.
This research is being carried out by Jennifer Alburey at the University of Derby, UK,
who is a Masters in Education student.
Research purpose
To explore the level of societal engagement, outside their own family, of a sample of
home educated children. To consider their visibility and frequency of social
interaction with both professionals and others.
What does my participation involve?
If you agree to take part in this research study, you will be asked to complete an
online questionnaire. This questionnaire will contain questions about your
child/children’s participation in activities/groups and social engagement where they
are ‘visible’ to a community. It also contains questions regarding your chosen level of
contact with your local authority and whether you use any Ofsted registered settings.
Can I withdraw?
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw at any point during the
questionnaire for any reason by clicking back through the survey and removing your
responses then closing the browser. Due to using an anonymous methodology, it is
not possible to identify participants and retrieve answers once you have chosen to
submit your completed survey.
Answers will be recorded though Lime Survey. These answers will be automatically
anonymised and your IP address will not be recorded. The researcher and the
University of Derby will not collect or have access to names or IP addresses.
064
How will my data be used?
Your responses will be completely anonymous and will be kept confidential. Your
data will be stored in a password protected file and your IP address will not be
collected or stored.
The research will be written up as part of a dissertation, and as such may be
deposited both online and in print in the University archives. It may also be published
as original research. No personally identifiable data will be included in any
publication.
Who will have access to my data?
Jennifer Alburey is the data controller with respect to your personal data and will
process your data solely for the purpose of the research as described above. Further
information with regard to your rights around your personal data is available at:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-
data- protection-regulation-gdpr/
Lime Survey, the online survey platform, will also be a data controller regarding your
personal data. Lime Survey meets the standards of the University of Derby’s policy
on the use of commercial internet survey tools. Lime Survey is GDPR compliant and
adheres to the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework. It encrypts data as it transfers it to
storage and deletes data from its servers once the project is ended.
This research is for a Masters in Education dissertation. The researcher is Jennifer
Alburey, under the supervision of Val Poultney.
There are 19 questions in this survey.
Consent & mandatory information
Answers to following questions are required in order to complete the remainder of
the survey.
Please confirm that you are a UK based home educating family:
* Please choose only one of the following:
Yes No
I have read the information above and agree to participate with the research
understanding that data I submit will be processed accordingly.
Please note you will not be able to complete the survey without giving this consent.
*
Please choose only one of the following:
065
Yes No
066
Appendix 2 - Online Questionnaire
How many children do you have?
Only numbers may be entered in this field. Please write your answer here:
How many of your children do you currently home educate?
Only numbers may be entered in this field. Please write your answer here:
What ages are your currently home educated children?
Age
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Child 4
Child 5
Child 6
Child 7
Child 8
Child 9
067
Child 10
If you have any children who have finished home education please could you state for
each applicable child what they are currently doing? If you have more than one child,
please tick all which apply:
Please choose all that apply:
Non applicable my children are still being home educated In a state school
In a private school
At college
At university
Working employed
Working self employed
Unemployed
Do you send an annual report to your Local Authority outlining the educational
progress of your child/children each year?
Please state why you do or do not choose to do this
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
Yes
Other (please specify):
No
068
Do you currently accept any offered Local Authority home education visits to your
home, or another neutral meeting place, in person?
Please state why you do or do not choose to do this
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
Yes
Does your child/do your children usually attend regular groups which are staffed by
DBS checked youth leaders/volunteers, such as Scouts, Brownies, St John Ambulance,
Boys/Girls Brigade, Sporting Groups, Youth Choirs, Church Sunday School etc? If so,
could you please specify which groups and how often your children attend? i.e. Scouts
weekly, Football camp monthly etc.
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
No
Yes please specify what and how often
Does your child/do your children attend any music lessons with DBS checked music
teachers?
Please choose only one of the following:
No
069
Yes No
Do you usually attend any ‘in person’ home education groups with your
child/children? Please specify the nature of these groups and how often you attend
i.e. board games group x1 per month
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
No
Yes - Please specify the nature of these groups and how often you attend i.e.
board games group x1 per month
Is your child/are your children registered with a GP?
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes No
Do you use any leisure centres with your children?
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
Yes, occasionally please estimate how often
No
Yes regularly, please estimate how often
070
Yes, occasionally (please estimate how often)
Does your child/do any of your children have a disability or Special Educational Need?
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes No
If yes, does your child receive any support from the NHS or any other Government
department including appointments regarding this disability/Special Educational
Need?
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes No
Does your child/do your children have a library card and visit the library?
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
No
Yes, regularly (please estimate how often)
071
Yes, occasionally (please estimate how often)
Does your child/do your children attend any Ofsted registered settings including
registered childminders, nursery, preschool, summer holiday school playschemes?
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
No
Yes - Please specify for each child which kind of setting and how often they
attend
Do you visit any museums with your children?
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
No
Are there any other facilities you utilise with your home educated children where they
are engaged in social contact with DBS checked professionals or other Government
employed professionals?
Comment only when you choose an answer. Please choose all that apply and
provide a comment:
Yes, regularly (please estimate how often)
072
No
Thank you for completing this survey.
Yes: Please specify what facilities these are
073
Appendix 3 List of DBS checked leader/teacher run, activity groups attended
Air Cadets
Art Club
Badminton
Beach School Group
BMX club
Board Games Group
British Museum Little Explorers Club
Bushcraft
Chess club
Church Youth Group
Circus skills
Climbing classes
Coding Club
Community Centre Lego Group
Community Volunteering Groups
Creative writing class
Dancing/ballet/streetdance
Disability sports group
Dodgeball
Drama
Drumming
Duke of Edinburgh Award
Farm Group
Fencing
Fire Cadets
Football
Football
Forest School
GCSE Group
Girls Brigade
Golf
Guides Association/Brownies/Rainbows
Gymnastics
Home ed club
Ice skating
Japanese games group
Kayaking
Language lessons
Leeds Social Services Breeze Events
Local Authority Youth Club for Disabled Young
People
Martial arts/karate/taekwondo
Messy Church group
Minecraft Club
Mosque kids club
074
Museum workshops
Musical theatre
Nerf Club
Orchestra
Orienteering
PADI Scuba Diving
Pokemon Club
Pony club/horseriding
Pottery
Qu'ran classes
Richmond Youth Council
Robotics club
Rollerskating
Rugby
Sailing
Saturday Islamic School
Science Club
Scouts Association/Beavers/Cubs/Venture
Sea Cadets
Sewing class
Singing/choir
Skateboarding Club
Skiing
Special Needs Group
St John Ambulance
Sunday School
Swimming
Tennis
Trampolining
Unspecified musical instrument lessons/classes
Violin
Volleyball
Water sports
Wave Rangers
Wildlife Group
Woodwork/wood skills
YMCA club
Yoga
Young Archaeologists Club
Youth club
075
Appendix 4 list of HE groups attended
Allotment Group
Archery
Architecture club
Art & Music co-op
Art Group
Arts Award Group
Beach Group
Board Games Group
Book Club
Botanical Garden Meet Up
Bowling
Break dancing
Bushcraft
Chess club
Christian HE Meet Up
Christian PE Group
Circus Skills
Cooking Club
Craft Group
Cycling/bike group
Drama
Dungeons and Dragons
group
English Group
Falconry Centre HE Group
Farm Group/Animal Care
Film club/Film studies
Football
Games Group
Gardening club
GCSE Group (various)
Geometry
Gymnastics
HE Museum Group
HE Social Groups
HE Study Group
HE Teenagers Group
HE Trips Group
HE Youth Club
Hiking group
History Group
Hockey
Horse riding/pony club
Horticulture club
Ice skating
076
ICT/Computing
Lego Club
Leisure Centre Group
Library club
Martial arts (various)
Maths Group
Minecraft club
Montessori learning hub
Music (unspecified)
National Trust Group
Nature Group/Forest
School
Parkour
Paw prints badges group
Philosophy club
Pottery
Project based learning
group
Rock Climbing
Roller skating
Science Club/STEM/Crest
Scuba diving
Signing group
Skate and Scoot
Soft play meet up
Spanish Group
Special Needs Meet Up
Sports (unspecified)
Structured learning co-op
Swimming
Tennis/lawn tennis
Theatre Group
Trampolining
Wood working
Zoo group
077
Appendix 5
List of Ofsted Registered Settings Attended:
Forest School
Childminder
Summer holiday clubs/camps
Playschemes
Sports camps
Sporting regular groups
Explore Learning
Kumon
Unspecified tuition centre
A child at pre-school/nursery
HE Learning and Exam Centre
Animal Club
Teen outdoor education group
Dyslexia tuition
Disability respite centre
Stagecoach
078
Appendix 6
List of ‘other’ facilities utilised where children are engaged in social contact with DBS
checked professionals or other Government employed professionals:
Airports when travelling
Audiology
Autism group
CAMHS
Centre for Young Musicians
Charity groups running short breaks and play sessions
Children's Centres
Church
Community visits i.e. fire station, police station, lifeboat
station
Council run Forest School
Dentist
Dietician
Foster carer parents so have SWs in the house often
HE workshops run by education officer museum staff etc
Health visitor
Holiday Park kids club entertainers
Hospital physio
LGBTQ+ group for teens run by the Council
Mosque
National Trust staff
Neighbours, family and friends who are child care
professionals
Neighbours, family and friends who are Government
employees
Online teachers/tutors
Optician
Paediatrician
Respite workers
Small group tutorials with qualified teachers
Speech therapy
Synagogue
Tutors
University workshops
Volunteering/Accompanying parents to voluntary work
079
Appendix 7
Coding references
Question 5
‘Other’ section illustrative examples:
Reference
Coding
Q5O/24
Question 5, other, participant no. 24
Q5O/505
Question 5, other, participant no. 505
Q5O/261
Question 5, other, participant no. 261
Question 6
Participants who chose not to send a report to the Local Authority:
Theme
Reference
Coding
1. Not requested by the LA
Q6N/22
Q6N/44
Q6N/89
Q6N/161
Question 6, no, participant no. 22
Question 6, no, participant no. 44
Question 6, no, participant no. 89
Question 6, no, participant no. 161
2. Provided information
previously but not
requested/required annually
Q6N/21
Q6N/86
Q6N/243
Q6N/248
Q6N/280
Q6N/286
Question 6, no, participant no. 21
Question 6, no, participant no. 86
Question 6, no, participant no. 243
Question 6, no, participant no. 248
Question 6, no, participant no. 280
Question 6, no, participant no. 286
3. Unknown to LA
Q6N/34
Q6N/120
Q6N/174
Q6N/195
Question 6, no, participant no. 34
Question 6, no, participant no. 120
Question 6, no, participant no. 174
Question 6, no, participant no. 195
4. Because it is not a legal
requirement
Q6N/322
Q6N/323
Q6N/504
Q6N/539
Question 6, no, participant no. 322
Question 6, no, participant no. 323
Question 6, no, participant no. 504
Question 6, no, participant no. 539
5. Have visits/telephone
calls instead
Q6N/198
Q6N/121
Q6N/289
Q6N/545
Q6N/569
Q6N/572
Question 6, no, participant no. 198
Question 6, no, participant no. 121
Question 6, no, participant no. 289
Question 6, no, participant no. 545
Question 6, no, participant no. 569
Question 6, no, participant no. 572
6. Other
Q6N/103
Q6N/155
Q6N/270
Q6N/305
Q6N/331
Q6N/443
Question 6, no, participant no. 103
Question 6, no, participant no. 155
Question 6, no, participant no. 270
Question 6, no, participant no. 305
Question 6, no, participant no. 331
Question 6, no, participant no. 443
7. Still in first year/too early
into HE to provide a report
yet
Q6N/67
Q6N/225
Q6N/314
Question 6, no, participant no. 67
Question 6, no, participant no. 225
Question 6, no, participant no. 314
Participants who chose to send a report to the Local Authority:
080
Theme
Reference
Coding
1. Because it was
requested/it is required by
our LA
Q6Y/119
Q6Y/141
Q6Y/175
Q6Y/275
Q6Y/296
Q6Y/306
Question 6, yes, participant no. 119
Question 6, yes, participant no. 141
Question 6, yes, participant no. 175
Question 6, yes, participant no. 275
Question 6, yes, participant no. 296
Question 6, yes, participant no. 306
2. As a preference to more
intrusive monitoring
including home visits
Q6Y/192
Q6Y/197
Q6Y/336
Q6Y/462
Q6Y/550
Question 6, yes, participant no. 192
Question 6, yes, participant no. 197
Question 6, yes, participant no. 336
Question 6, yes, participant no. 462
Question 6, yes, participant no. 550
3. Because we are happy to
send this
Q6Y/3
Q6Y/52
Q6Y/72
Q6Y/133
Q6Y/334
Question 6, yes, participant no. 3
Question 6, yes, participant no. 52
Question 6, yes, participant no. 72
Question 6, yes, participant no. 133
Question 6, yes, participant no. 334
4. Other
Q6Y/45
Q6Y/191
Q6Y/394
Question 6, yes, participant no. 45
Question 6, yes, participant no. 191
Question 6, yes, participant no. 394
Question 7
Participants who choose not to accept LA ‘in person’ visits:
Theme
Reference
Coding
1. Not requested/offered
Q7N/4
Q7N/97
Q7N/135
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
2. Other
Q7N/149
Q7N/222
Q7N/243
Q7N/249
Q7N/254
Q7N/509
Q7N/531
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
3. LA not qualified/suitably
experienced to judge
provision
Q7N/51
Q7N/175
Q7N/492
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
4. Unknown to LA
Q7N/34
Q7N/76
Q7N/146
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
5. Lack of trust in
LA/concerns re LA overstep
Q7N/36
Q7N/88
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
081
of powers/wishing to keep
LA communications in
writing
Q7N/157
Q7N/234
Q7N/261
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
6. Because it is not a legal
requirement
Q7N/13
Q7N/49
Q7N/91
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
7. Too intrusive/an invasion
of privacy
Q7N/99
Q7N/430
Q7N/467
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Question 7, no, participant no.
Participants who chose to accept ‘in person’ LA visits:
Theme
Reference
Coding
1. Supportive/helpful
LA/Happy to engage with
our LA
Q7Y/190
Q7Y/121
Q7Y/315
Q7Y/408
Question 7, yes, participant no. 190
Question 7, yes, participant no. 121
Question 7, yes, participant no. 315
Question 7, yes, participant no. 408
2. Other
Q7Y/114
Q7Y/280
Q7Y/483
Question 7, yes, participant no. 114
Question 7, yes, participant no. 280
Question 7, yes, participant no. 483
3. To demonstrate nothing
to hide
Q7Y/314
Q7Y/334
Q7Y/446
Question 7, yes, participant no. 314
Question 7, yes, participant no. 334
Question 7, yes, participant no. 446
4. Prefer to writing a report
Q7Y/81
Q7Y/388
Question 7, yes, participant no. 81
Question 7, yes, participant no. 388
5. Due to Court/Social
Services involvement
Q7Y/211
Q7Y/299
Q7Y/454
Question 7, yes, participant no. 211
Question 7, yes, participant no. 299
Question 7, yes, participant no. 454
6. To show our good
education
Q7Y/347
Q7Y/366
Q7Y/561
Question 7, yes, participant no. 347
Question 7, yes, participant no. 366
Question 7, yes, participant no. 561
7. Because we were
asked/we have visits if or
when asked
Q7Y/406
Q7Y/545
Q7Y/61
Q7Y/359
Question 7, yes, participant no. 406
Question 7, yes, participant no. 545
Question 7, yes, participant no. 61
Question 7, yes, participant no. 359
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Scientific research adopts qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the modeling and analysis of numerous phenomena. The qualitative methodology intends to understand a complex reality and the meaning of actions in a given context. On the other hand, the quantitative methodology seeks to obtain accurate and reliable measurements that allow a statistical analysis. Both methodologies offer a set of methods, potentialities and limitations that must be explored and known by researchers. This paper concisely maps a total of seven qualitative methods and five quantitative methods. A comparative analysis of the most relevant and adopted methods is done to understand the main strengths and limitations of them. Additionally, the work developed intends to be a fundamental reference for the accomplishment of a research study, in which the researcher intends to adopt a qualitative or quantitative methodology. Through the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, it becomes possible to formulate a more accurate, informed and complete choice.
Article
This article seeks to present the perspectives of three school leaders in one rural primary school in the English East Midlands, who, when faced with closure due to a falling student numbers, decided to offer and operate a flexi-schooling model of educational provision. We aim to find out, through a theoretical model of systems school leadership, how the school leadership team addressed this issue. Findings suggest that the principles of systems leadership, operating through an open systems model, have facilitated the journey towards flexi-schooling and ensured the survival and growth of the school. The learning community created with parents and the personalisation of the curriculum for learners reflects an innovative curriculum design and in part solves the problems which led to the initial decision taken by parents to home-educate. Focusing on ways to secure healthy student numbers, school leaders developed a partnership with a multi-academy trust, yet they still face challenges in formally recording student numbers when their attendance is only part of the week.
Article
This article focuses on the application of quantitative methods in schoolscape research, including a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages. This article seeks to rehabilitate the quantitative by re-theorizing the landscape in linguistic landscape (LL), moving from an area based study of visible forms to a poststructuralist and postempiricist interpretative study of landscapes. The article discusses previous quantitative LL research and introduces a quantitative approach developed by the author during a data gathering and annotation of 6016 items. Quantitative methods can provide valuable insight to the ordering of reality and the materialized discourses. Furthermore, they can mitigate personal bias. They cannot provide in-depth understanding of the analyzed items due to the inherently reductive nature of classification. However, considering that the objects of inquiry are discourses, not the artifacts themselves, the issue is not paramount. Nevertheless, large scale data gathering and annotation is time consuming, which sets practical limitations to research.