I'll warn you now, this post is long.

What a surprise:

“I'm exiting now and won't be back. I won't comment directly on the last group of thoughtful and reflective postings in answer to my asking some specific questions, but I'll take away the transcripts and read them with care and reflection over Easter.”

Going back through the comments on Carlotta’s blog, and Gill's too. I am struck by Stephen Heppell’s dogged emphasis on the very things that also tend to raise the hackles of the EHE community. He is against:

• “kill and drill”
• “mandated on-screen testing”
• “dreadful factory schools” and schools that are “brutal places”
• “testing to within an inch of collapse”
• “tick-box monitoring”

And then Stephen talks at length about projects seemingly unrelated to EHE, the only similarity being that these projects too are “necessarily outside the established education system”:

• ICT learning projects embodying “mutuality and collegiality”
  
• micro-community schools with no “cells and bells”,
  
• models of traveller communities “building their own literacy from within”
• Mumology.net
• Notschool
• Teachers TV
• BBC Jam – although I am not sure whether this was anything to do with Stephen directly
  

The one big difference is glaringly obvious, however. Unlike EHE, none of these projects are self-organised and self-supporting: they all rely on someone else to direct, facilitate and/or coordinate.

So why did we need all of this information? Because in pushing for changes to the current system, Stephen used the welfare argument extensively, quoting examples of abused children and what he described as the many “less fortunate EHE children” to demonstrate the inadequacy of the current system. He requested from us a “generic solution to fit the many textures of EHE” in order that we save the “sacrificial lambs” he suggested we were so keen to leave to the wolves.

And his description of the law pertaining to EHE as “murky” further demonstrated the very big differences between his understanding of actual EHE and that of EHEers – who, let’s not forget, are the experts in EHE, they being the ones who do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

And then we reached the real conundrum.

In subsequent comments, Stephen went on to describe the abuse issue as a “red herring”. The very issue upon which this review was originally precipitated - and the very issue he waxed lyrical about in an effort to extract from us a “generic solution”. And, mind bogglingly, he had this to say:

“As you know, policy is often triggered by anecdotal trivia – but then hopefully shaped by more informed judgements.”

We also had this:

“I think that Graham Badman is right, that the status quo won’t remain.”

And this:

“I’ve seen nothing to suggest that abuse in schooled families is any less, or any more than abuse in EHE families as a percentage.”

And this:

“I wasn’t aware of being asked “why?” in relation to the status quo change... But I think it has been covered well enough by others. Personally, I don’t know why, in detail. I am just offering the opinion that it will change and hoping that you can be engaged in guiding it constructively.”

So we are being told, by more than one member of the review panel, that we must accept that change will arise from the review, and we must accept that such change is based on the following contradictory, flawed mess:

• The review was precipitated by allegations of child abuse in the EHE community, although everyone now agrees that there is no actual evidence to support such claims
• Despite these beginnings, 50% of the review is now directed at examining education, not child welfare 
• The allegations of child abuse were a “red herring”
• This is okay, because policy change is very often implemented by such “anecdotal trivia”, but with the input of “more informed judgments”  along the way, the questionable foundations of the policy are irrelevant
• Change to the status quo is a pre-determined outcome of this as-yet-unfinished review process
• The panel members are not aware “in detail” as to why change to the status quo is a pre-determined outcome of this review
  
• The leader of the review has stated that change to the status quo is a pre-determined outcome of this review because of the current climate around child safety (that old “red herring”)
  

Confused? Does anyone really think that this is a sound basis for implementing significant – any - change that will affect the lives of children?

So let’s get to the nuts and bolts of this, shall we? We have the following children to consider (leaving aside all of the schooled children and their education and welfare):

1. EHE children who have never gone to school and who are registered with their local authority
2. EHE children who have never gone to school and who are not registered with their local authority
3. Children who have never gone to school, are not registered with their local authority and who fall into three possible categories:
   • Those who are not receiving an education 
   • Those whose welfare is at risk
   • Those who are not receiving an education and whose welfare is at risk
4. Children whose parents withdraw them from school because they are disruptive, truanting etc; such parents believe there is no alternative or wish to avoid prosecution
   
5. Children whose parents choose or arrive at EHE as a positive alternative after withdrawing them from school because of bullying, insufficient SEN or other provision etc. 
6. Children who are withdrawn from school under the pretext of EHE, but who are actually subject to forced marriages, slave labour, etc.
   

Looking down this list, local authorities should be able to sufficiently satisfy themselves of virtually every child’s welfare and education, simply by using existing mechanisms such as professional, community and relative referrals, common sense, and existing child protection and education law.

If there is a requirement for alternative education provision, for example in the case of children who fall into category 4: this has absolutely nothing to do with EHE families, and neither is it a child protection issue per se.  In these cases, which according to Stephen are significant in number and on the increase, alternative options such as Notschool are truly valuable – but they should certainly never be promoted or capitalised upon under the guise of addressing an illusory, politicised EHE “problem”.  As with every other child, howsoever educated, welfare is a separate issue to be dealt with by child protection professionals as appropriate.

The only exception I can see from my list is the tiny proportion of children who fall into category 3: non-EHE children who have never gone to school and are not registered with their local authority. And realistically, those children would need to be permanently locked away and completely excluded from society in order to avoid attention at some point from professionals, community members or relatives. These children, if indeed they even exist, are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

I am not suggesting that any child is actually insignificant. What I am suggesting is a sense of proportionality. Each and every child really does matter and increasing the regulatory burden on all parents and local authorities to prevent a minute, theoretical risk will cause actual abuse to most, if not every EHE child either in respect of their actual welfare or provision of their education. And there are thousands and thousands of those children.

The argument that all EHE children ought to be registered as a matter of course just does not hold water. We know that they do not constitute a high risk group. The NSPCC itself gives dire figures for abuse disclosure rates during childhood (and beyond). It is impossible to expect that their suggestion of an annual visit would be effective in identifying abuse. And probably most compelling is that no-one has demanded universal monitoring for all children under 5 who stay at home with their parent(s) full time. Or children who are privately educated, despite the independent school inspection cycle operating on a 7 yearly basis. What about all of those children? Is it okay that for them, too, there remains a theoretical risk of abuse that the authorities will never have the opportunity to act upon?

So, what did the EHE community think might further improve the current situation?

• Competent, well informed and trained professionals
• Voluntarily accessed support
• Low threshold support for abused or at-risk children to access
• Trust
• Improved working knowledge of existing legislation and its practical applications
• A realistic understanding of risk
• A healthy respect for people’s freedoms and human rights

But what are we actually going to get? It’s funny, isn’t it, that the NSPCC, which has also advocated increased monitoring in the home – but only with appropriately trained staff, of course – also has this to say in their response to the review:

“Processes that focus on support tend to be more successful in engaging with the majority of families and are more likely to lead to improved outcomes, than a focus on monitoring and prescription. However, local authority staff involved in this process must be trained to identify signs of abuse and know what to do if they suspect it, or if a child discloses abuse. For example our Educare® child protection awareness programme enables those who have contact with children... to gain the confidence to act upon concerns about children and play a role in preventing abuse.”

And this:

“The needs of home educating families are very diverse and so any support needs to be personalised to the family. If support is to be meaningful and taken up then it will require genuine partnership working between the local authority and home educators. In this context the community development approach may be helpful. This approach is about working with communities (in this case communities of interest) on agendas set by and led by them. It has been used successfully both by groups who have wanted to become organised and by agencies to engage with various communities.”

And this:

“The work of our Safer Communities Project has demonstrated the willingness of communities to engage in safeguarding if they are afforded the opportunity to learn about it....”

These recommendations follow on from recent reports that, because of the recession (and many subscription cancellations, surely) the NSPCC is making redundancies and redirecting its focus onto the provision of services.

And now, back to Stephen Heppell:

“I do believe that in the last century formal learning had a lot to learn from EHE, but in this century perhaps they have a lot to learn from each other and I worry about how this dialogue can be improved.”

“I do think as education leaps ahead, both in school and the home, there is a lot for the two to learn from each other. A dialogue should/could diminish ignorance – and polinate [sic] good ideas in both. I’m not sure LAs are the route for this. I know plenty of you have tried. ”

“There is considerable ignorance about EHE, but then there is ignorance too about what children do in the classroom... How do you diminish that ignorance? And where there are problems with elected [sic] home educators how might the appropriate services be alerted?”

“We need to care about all these children too. Suggestions welcome – I’m interested in what they did in Tasmania, for example.”

“In Tasmania peer support references the families – have you considered that here?”

"And I absolutely agree that there is a real risk of snake oil salesmen trying to make money out of home educated children shortly by forcing home educated children to take on, for example, learning packages.”

So, what do I think we’re heading towards? Shena Deuchars hits the nail on the head when she says this on Carlotta’s blog:

“You cannot 'support' someone to 'ensure' something. The use of 'ensure' implies a policing function and it is generally accepted that enforcement and support are very difficult to provide through the same mechanism.”

Does this ring any bells for you? The non-negotiable support so beloved of the DCSF, perhaps? 

It seems to me that non-statutory service providers are jockeying for position at the moment, looking for their opportunity to showcase their ability to provide the best “support” services for all children “necessarily outside the established education system” . Whether they are actually EHE children is largely irrelevant; these providers are out to capitalise on the government’s ridiculous control agenda and prove that they can meet its centrally defined criteria whilst offering third party “support” services that appear to be palatable, if not appealing.

These “support” services will no doubt come under the banner of a necessary, independent champion or leader of EHE; they will trumpet community development, empowerment, engagement and connection; they will supposedly enable the voices of EHEers to be heard, ensuring that they network digitally and in real life; they will promote peer support and collaboration and transparency and mutuality and collegiality; they will strengthen ties and partnership working between schools and EHEers; they will ensure that EHEers meet the criteria for 21st century education; they will be delivered by highly trained education/welfare/child/parent professionals who have all undergone the Educare® child protection awareness programme....

This is “support" that will:

• be costly – or lucrative, depending on your perspective.
• bring recognition and kudos to whichever professional pioneer claims it first.
• for the most part, be fruitlessly reinventing a wheel that already turns itself in an incredibly productive manner.
• be something we might want to access over time, but which we do not all need by default.
• be mandatory, and therefore underpinned by registration, monitoring and external control.

Non-negotiable support. One big box ticked. I’m feeling alienated, and I sincerely hope to be proved wrong.