Page 7 | A wave of illiterate “home schooled” children

RedSkyatNight25 · 2025-09-27T05:58:40+00:00

Prepared to get torn apart, and I know many homeschool because the school environment isn’t right for their children (SEN, sensory issues - whatever else) and their needs aren’t met by school with a chronic lack of SEN placements and too much demand etc. I’m not naive to that. I also know some parents with adequate resource will ensure their children have a rounded education whilst being homeschooled. But there seems to be a movement to homeschooling by people who are simply anti establishment with a point to prove. Their grammar and communication on social media tells me they’re not equipped to homeschool a child. Not least I think the socialisation and soft skills school provides are hugely important too. I suspect most of these parents either haven’t considered the benefits of school or hugely underestimated it, especially past primary are parents really equipped to teach ALL the subjects with sufficient skill if they lack the knowledge themselves? Are they not underestimating the skills and expertise of qualified teachers? AIBU to think it’s really concerning? These are the next generation of our workforce and infrastructure. I personally think we are hugely privileged to live in a country with free education - I know it’s not perfect but I’m not convinced homeschooling is better for a vast majority.

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:56

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:55

But it's all additional stress targeting the families already at breaking point with punishments and threats rather than actually providing what is needed for the child to access education

Show quote history

I didn’t say it wasn’t stressful and I didn’t say it was acceptable, quite the opposite actually. I was merely pointing out it can be challenged.

Original poster

RedSkyatNight25 · 30/09/2025 13:56

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:54

And yet you think the LA can handle more work and more oversight when they aren't even doing the minimum they should do now

Show quote history

Where have I said that?

OP posts:

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:55

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:54

@Eastereggmadness that happens a lot, but it can be challenged, legally if necessary.

@Leftrightmiddle as I said, if LAs try, they can be successfully challenged.

But it's all additional stress targeting the families already at breaking point with punishments and threats rather than actually providing what is needed for the child to access education

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:54

RedSkyatNight25 · 30/09/2025 13:53

You have a very optimistic view of the efficiency of Local Authorities. In reality there’s little capacity, resource or in some cases motivation to pursue. They’ll also always be children who only just satisfy their requirements but for whom a SAO would be a waste of resource. There are many people who home ed who never have contact with the LA - some have said as much on this thread.

The point raised by a pp of what constitutes “Active Avoidant” is pertinent because if you can’t easily define it how can you apply it in practice.

Show quote history

And yet you think the LA can handle more work and more oversight when they aren't even doing the minimum they should do now

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:54

@Eastereggmadness that happens a lot, but it can be challenged, legally if necessary.

@Leftrightmiddle as I said, if LAs try, they can be successfully challenged.

Original poster

RedSkyatNight25 · 30/09/2025 13:53

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 11:46

Actively avoiding engagement = failure to satisfy = SAO

You have a very optimistic view of the efficiency of Local Authorities. In reality there’s little capacity, resource or in some cases motivation to pursue. They’ll also always be children who only just satisfy their requirements but for whom a SAO would be a waste of resource. There are many people who home ed who never have contact with the LA - some have said as much on this thread.

The point raised by a pp of what constitutes “Active Avoidant” is pertinent because if you can’t easily define it how can you apply it in practice.

OP posts:

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:53

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:49

Despite school clearly making my child ill eventually we would have been fined for them not being in school

I know it isn’t relevant to you now if you are EHE, but the threats of fines are just that. Scare tactics. Despicable behaviour. The Regulations (School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024) make it clear where a pupil is absent because they are unable to attend due to sickness, including mental ill-health, the absence must be regarded as authorised. The absence must be coded as I, thus not lead to fines/prosecution. The LA would not be able to successfully fine/prosecute. If they tried, it could be successfully challenged.

Lots of parents have been fined in instances like that. Some have even had to go to court

Eastereggmadness · 30/09/2025 13:52

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:49

Despite school clearly making my child ill eventually we would have been fined for them not being in school

I know it isn’t relevant to you now if you are EHE, but the threats of fines are just that. Scare tactics. Despicable behaviour. The Regulations (School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024) make it clear where a pupil is absent because they are unable to attend due to sickness, including mental ill-health, the absence must be regarded as authorised. The absence must be coded as I, thus not lead to fines/prosecution. The LA would not be able to successfully fine/prosecute. If they tried, it could be successfully challenged.

I did think this too on the coding that it should be coded as illness. However despite evidence from the GP and mental health in schools team all absences were coded as unauthorised despite me pushing back to the school.
Made a very stressful situation even worse.

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:52

MintTwirl · 30/09/2025 13:39

Home Ed children are visible at groups and appointments This is exactly what I mean when I say that people denying that there are issues within home ed are part of the problem.

What about the children who don’t go to any groups? There are plenty who don’t for various reasons.
By appointments, I assume you are referring dental/GP but they are with a parent present or they simply might not have any appointments! Let’s face it a huge number of families don’t have access to a dentist at all and when mine go it’s a quick in and out appointment, they aren’t doing safeguarding referrals unless there are very very obvious signs of abuse.
You only go to the GP if you have reason to go, if your child is generally healthy they aren’t going to be visiting the GP, and vaccinations are optional so you can easily skip those without question.

I don’t think it does us any favours to deny that there are kids who are not visible, it is something that does exist and there are safeguarding concerns around that.

Sara was visible and ignored by social services

It doesn't do any favours to blame home Ed when the issue is social services ignoring g at risk children

Everyone I know who home Ed is visible. Those who are underground and hidden won't become visible by targeting the visible home Ed families.

We need to make sure that SS actually do there job and support those in need not actually make it harder to safeguard actual at risk children by targeting safe children.

flawlessflipper · 30/09/2025 13:49

Despite school clearly making my child ill eventually we would have been fined for them not being in school

I know it isn’t relevant to you now if you are EHE, but the threats of fines are just that. Scare tactics. Despicable behaviour. The Regulations (School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024) make it clear where a pupil is absent because they are unable to attend due to sickness, including mental ill-health, the absence must be regarded as authorised. The absence must be coded as I, thus not lead to fines/prosecution. The LA would not be able to successfully fine/prosecute. If they tried, it could be successfully challenged.

MintTwirl · 30/09/2025 13:39

Home Ed children are visible at groups and appointments This is exactly what I mean when I say that people denying that there are issues within home ed are part of the problem.

What about the children who don’t go to any groups? There are plenty who don’t for various reasons.
By appointments, I assume you are referring dental/GP but they are with a parent present or they simply might not have any appointments! Let’s face it a huge number of families don’t have access to a dentist at all and when mine go it’s a quick in and out appointment, they aren’t doing safeguarding referrals unless there are very very obvious signs of abuse.
You only go to the GP if you have reason to go, if your child is generally healthy they aren’t going to be visiting the GP, and vaccinations are optional so you can easily skip those without question.

I don’t think it does us any favours to deny that there are kids who are not visible, it is something that does exist and there are safeguarding concerns around that.

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:27

To put things a different context

In the UK if you get caught speeding by camera or by police. The process is to fine and points. Too many points you lose licence.
This is a legal process - now imagine rather than actually do this process some people are just not getting their points added and don't lose their license. We then have a situation where people have been killed by speeding drivers because the process wasn't carried out correctly. Rather than making sure these processes are now carried out correctly they decide to blame all drivers even those with no points.

People say drivers are dangerous and we have to watch all drivers constantly and punish them if we think they may speed. The limit is 30 so anyone doing 28 will now get points. Meanwhile those doing 45 will be left alone b cause we're only monitoring the maybe a risk and ignoring the known risks

Everyone will target drivers and say if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear but the jobs worth monitoring you believes all drivers are bad so they are extra cautious and fines are issues even when you are operating within the speed limit.

This is Great right as it will save lives except the real risk of 45 speeding in a 30 is still happening as no one dealt with the real issue and failings that started this targeting of drivers in first place

If social services can't act when a child is known to be at risk then this is where resources need to be targeted.

If LA can't act when a child is known not to be getting an education. When they can't meet the needs of children enrolled at school then this is where resources need to be targeted

If these issues are resolved first and foremost most of the other issues will also be resolved under those umbrellas.

Eastereggmadness · 30/09/2025 13:24

Unfortunately parents often feel they have to take their child out whether they have the time/capacity to home educate properly or not. This is due to the child's SEN, mental health or school anxiety.

We simply had no choice as going to school was making my child physically and mentally ill. We were lucky that we took my child out before she became too unwell and we had the money and she had the capacity to do online schooling. However she was barely able to leave the house for months because of the damage attending school had done. The push on fining parents whose children can't attend is also fueling this. Despite school clearly making my child ill eventually we would have been fined for them not being in school. I think this also forces parents hands to move to home education sooner than they might otherwise have done.

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 13:16

spicetails · 30/09/2025 12:48

What do you count as ‘actively avoiding’

Show quote history

My response was to a previous poster who used the term actively avoided. I took from their post that they think families can just ignore informal enquiries and have no follow up. This is not the case.

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 13:03

InMyShowgirlEra · 30/09/2025 12:47

Any child who is not visible is getting less protection from the authorities than a child who is.

The laws on home ed allowed Sara to be taken out of school and kept at home with no oversight. There is no law that parents have to allow their children to be seen, by anyone, ever. No-one saw Sara for several months before her death. I agree she was massively failed and SS should have been checking on her regularly, but if the law changed to say that children at risk can't be removed for homeschooling, she would probably still be alive.

There's also many children who have never been to school and the LA isn't monitoring their education because they don't even know they exist. The vast majority are probably absolutely fine but if they aren't fine, there are no safeguards to pick up on it.

Anyone who is properly home edding their child shouldn't object to being registered with the LA and having regular check-ins to make sure that everything is going as it should and the child is safe and happy.

The 6 week summer holiday is definitely an issue and anyone who works in schools will say it's a safeguarding problem. However, it's unlikely that a child who has been looked after well for the entire school year will suddenly be abused or neglected in the 6 week break. Children at risk of harm in the holidays are at risk all year round and this has likely been picked up already by the school and social services are in touch.

Show quote history

Home Ed children are visible at groups and appointments

Sara wasn't murdered because she was home Ed. And I repeat when a parent deregisters a child from school the school have paperwork to complete and send to the LA home Ed team.

On that paperwork it asks for any concerns the school have about this child being home Ed (academic or safeguarding). The school can highlight why this isn't appropriate or their concerns.
Either the school did this or they didn't. If they did it this should have been seen by the home Ed team and actioned. If they saw it and didn't action they didn't do their job. If they actioned it and social services ignored they are responsible.

If all those professionals failed to do their jobs that is not the fault of home Ed.

There is no point bringing in more hoops if the hoops already in place aren't being utilized.

First they came for the home elders, but I did nothing as I'm not home educating, then they came for the SEN and I didn't nothing because I don't have a SEN child, then they came for the poor parents and I did nothing as I'm not poor

They didn't bother with the actual criminals and at risk because that actually takes work and those families are difficult so they ignored them.

Then they came for me but there was no one left to help. Only criminals who now run everything were there and they now have full run

spicetails · 30/09/2025 12:48

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 11:46

Actively avoiding engagement = failure to satisfy = SAO

What do you count as ‘actively avoiding’

InMyShowgirlEra · 30/09/2025 12:47

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 12:17

There is Already laws in place to protect children from unsafe environments

There are already laws in place if LA believes that home Ed isn't meeting child's needs

There are laws in place and processes in place

BUT it is easier to blame a minority of society that utilize the process already available.

When Sara was murdered it was home Ed that they blamed but I. Reality it was services and professionals who failed to follow the evidence and failed to protect Sara.

If a child is removed from school that the school already identify as at risk from harm the school have a duty to report these concerns just as they did when a child attends.

We all have a duty to flag safeguarding issues.

A child isn't more at risk because they are home educated.

If a child isn't having a suitable education vie home Ed then there are processes in place to deal with this. We don't need to remove rights of home educating families - people just need to follow the processes already in place.

School children have 6 weeks off in the summer - are they safeguarded and checked during this period as standard ?

Would resources be best being diluted to every child or should limited resources focus on those known or suspected of being at risk?

Any child who is not visible is getting less protection from the authorities than a child who is.

The laws on home ed allowed Sara to be taken out of school and kept at home with no oversight. There is no law that parents have to allow their children to be seen, by anyone, ever. No-one saw Sara for several months before her death. I agree she was massively failed and SS should have been checking on her regularly, but if the law changed to say that children at risk can't be removed for homeschooling, she would probably still be alive.

There's also many children who have never been to school and the LA isn't monitoring their education because they don't even know they exist. The vast majority are probably absolutely fine but if they aren't fine, there are no safeguards to pick up on it.

Anyone who is properly home edding their child shouldn't object to being registered with the LA and having regular check-ins to make sure that everything is going as it should and the child is safe and happy.

The 6 week summer holiday is definitely an issue and anyone who works in schools will say it's a safeguarding problem. However, it's unlikely that a child who has been looked after well for the entire school year will suddenly be abused or neglected in the 6 week break. Children at risk of harm in the holidays are at risk all year round and this has likely been picked up already by the school and social services are in touch.

TheTallgiraffe · 30/09/2025 12:46

InMyShowgirlEra · 29/09/2025 20:01

I read one study that said that homeschooling without structure left children several years behind their peers whereas homeschooling with structure put them a little ahead, although not by miles.

There's no register of home educated children in most places though so the only people participating and being recorded in research are people who are confident that their home ed stands up to scrutiny and not mistrusting of authority and science. If you don't know how many children are being home educated you can't say that 74% make it to college.

Show quote history

This (UK) study is now over 20 years old, but is still interesting:
Home-Education:
Rationales, Practices and
Outcomes
Paula-Jane Rothermel
PhD Dissertation
University of Durham
School of Education
2002
ft. i

etheses.dur.ac.uk/1005/1/1005.pdf?EThOS+(BL)=

RedToothBrush · 30/09/2025 12:45

I personally know children who were clearly being abused by their controlling mother who was neglecting them.

But equally I know that there are about half a dozen SEN places for next years High School intake in my council and there's 50 kids chasing them. So 42 of them will be failed at 11 years old age and god knows what will happen to them. I'm fairly sure one of the kids in my son's class will be one of the 42, will go to the same high school as my son and then be eventually kicked / withdrawn out due to his behaviour as they 100% will not cope. And there will be all the other kids he's being educated with who will also suffer in the process. The council KNOWS this is the number of applications they will get for the half dozen space NOW.

It's an inevitability.

Leftrightmiddle · 30/09/2025 12:17

There is Already laws in place to protect children from unsafe environments

There are already laws in place if LA believes that home Ed isn't meeting child's needs

There are laws in place and processes in place

BUT it is easier to blame a minority of society that utilize the process already available.

When Sara was murdered it was home Ed that they blamed but I. Reality it was services and professionals who failed to follow the evidence and failed to protect Sara.

If a child is removed from school that the school already identify as at risk from harm the school have a duty to report these concerns just as they did when a child attends.

We all have a duty to flag safeguarding issues.

A child isn't more at risk because they are home educated.

If a child isn't having a suitable education vie home Ed then there are processes in place to deal with this. We don't need to remove rights of home educating families - people just need to follow the processes already in place.

School children have 6 weeks off in the summer - are they safeguarded and checked during this period as standard ?

Would resources be best being diluted to every child or should limited resources focus on those known or suspected of being at risk?

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 11:46

Actively avoiding engagement = failure to satisfy = SAO

Original poster

RedSkyatNight25 · 30/09/2025 10:24

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 09:15

The law provides for if people are not doing home ed justice.
The LA have asked for further information in the example given because there wasn't clear enough info in the communication received. In the very likely chance they remain unsatisfied that suitable education is taking place then a school attendance order is the next step.
What may be missing is why the child was removed from the school in the first place and whether that child will cope within the school that they are sent to. It may be that going back to school will not be the end of the matter as the child will need adequate support.

The law isn’t perfect in its application, it’s not as straight forward as that especially when families are actively avoiding engagement.

OP posts:

NettleandBramble · 30/09/2025 09:15

The law provides for if people are not doing home ed justice.
The LA have asked for further information in the example given because there wasn't clear enough info in the communication received. In the very likely chance they remain unsatisfied that suitable education is taking place then a school attendance order is the next step.
What may be missing is why the child was removed from the school in the first place and whether that child will cope within the school that they are sent to. It may be that going back to school will not be the end of the matter as the child will need adequate support.

Original poster

RedSkyatNight25 · 30/09/2025 07:24

Orwelly · 29/09/2025 19:40

Out of interest

If you were genuinely interested, you could find myriad comments, posts and questions on FB and elsewhere minus the confirmation bias, but where would the fun in that be?

Show quote history

Confirmation of what, exactly? Given my opening paragraph was caveated to say I acknowledge home Ed/school can be done well and for the right reasons. The discussion was intended to be centred around people who not doing their children justice, I have made it pretty clear I am not condemning home ed as a whole.

OP posts:

unsurewhattodoaboutit · 30/09/2025 02:16

My DD developed panic disorder during lockdown ( or just before actually but it cemented itself during lockdown). We tried and tried to get her into school but agoraphobia had her firmly in its grasp. We managed to access the medical needs teaching service and got English, maths and science tuition. She sat her GCSE’s at home. She got 6 all together; 8,8 in science, 6 in English and 7 in maths, then a couple more.
We tried online A levels it wasn’t working. So as medication was working and constant exposure therapy with me we found an access course. Anyway she started university 2 weeks ago.
I would never take education for granted after our journey. Although I’m an educator myself I was wholly unprepared for the enormity of getting her through those years. It’s not a choice either myself or her would have opted for if we hadn’t had to.