Is there any evidence that home education/ taking your child out of school improves outcomes for SEN children?

[GnomeDavid]

I do have real life experience of this and I have a lot of empathy for parents of SEN children who struggle to attend school or experience EBSA.
But I also see a lot of parents pull their children out of school (in my opinion) prematurely. Some are able to go back to school, but I imagine many don’t.
I wonder if there is any evidence that these children end up happier, well adjusted and less impacted by the co-morbidities of poor mental health, depression, anxiety and predisposition to eating disorders.
I assumed that you would be switching one less than ideal situation for a different one. Yet there is no option to explore both paths. Certainly I see a lot of unhappy SEN children in mainstream schools, but I also know some deeply unhappy children who are out of school, and the impact on their parents is also huge in terms of losing jobs, independence, social life, relationships, relationships with their other children.
I suppose I made a choice that my daughter would have to stay in school, even though she doesn’t thrive, as this seemed to have a lesser impact on the family as a whole. But I think about whether I made the right choice every day, and tomorrow is never guaranteed.
I would love to do a longitudal study of this but I imagine the environmental factors would make it almost impossible to measure reliably.

What long term problems?

The child has no qualifications or support going forwards.

Mine missed 18 months of school but has managed to do exams in school in a private room. I was briefly threatened with legal action but managed to get a (pointless) GP note to cover mental health issues so the local authority backed off.

Keeping her enrolled in school also meant she finally got an EHCP in year 11. I don't think I could have managed that if I'd taken her out of school.

At least the EHCP will see her through to college and Uni. Unless the government scrap them.

Support from who?

Home ed children often take their GCSE’s at least a year before their peers in school.

That’s quite an assumption on your part.

There's no way we could do it. So child is in mainstream secondary atm. He actually hates the thought of anything else because he likes being around people. He struggles somewhat socially of course. But he likes having a group of mates there.

It's a hard slog. I am not main carer as I'm battling multiple debilitating diseases. But I am doing non stop work behind the scenes because the workload when you're child is SEN is like 3 having 3 kids. Probably more tbh.

I understand the predicament for schools. So we have issues like detention and not concentrating on classes which required me to non stop go attach with all the legal jargon and kindly start demanding stuff. It isn't even their fault because they don't have a clue how to manage this huge ND population.

We're getting along ok as my teen is pretty academic, good at sports.

If I was fit and healthy, I still couldn't home school. It would be too much.

Some DC having a substandard education or no education I'd imagine.

And that meaning those DC have limited options in terms of work in the future and therefore limited options to contribute to society as adults so setting up more benefit claimants.

I don’t know the answer but I know I personally couldn’t home school due to my dc’s extreme needs and I am a teacher.

I considered taking my dc out of school when they were struggling on part-time timetables but they were both permanently excluded anyway. They both went to a PRU (different PRUs) and were both permanently excluded again. Everything broke down unfortunately and I had to give up my career but there was no chance of anyone learning a thing in any environment. It was literally survival each day for all of us.

What a ridiculous assumption to make.

The local authority monitors home educators. Reports have to be provided regularly with evidence of adequate learning; the new bill being passed will mean the level of monitoring will be even more extensive. If a suitable education isn’t provided and evidenced, the LA have the powers to send children back to school.

My ex-husband left school with zero qualifications. He makes a huge amount of money and is well respected in his field. I returned to education to retrain in my 30’s and am about to qualify as a social worker. There is more than one path to a career/making enough money to support yourself.

Actually no - legally no reports have to be provided as things stand.

I EHE DS4 who's 10, have done since Yr2. DS1 and DS2 were entirely educated in school. DS3's SEN placement has recently failed so he's home but the LA have the Educational duty.

There were many reasons we de-regged. Tbh the intention wasn't to EHE this long, but there's no suitable schools for DS4, and setting him up for failure when there's no alternative is something I just couldn't do. He was in such distress at school he wasn't able to learn anything.
I do work very part-time, DH is a tradesman and we get by financially. No UC.

We do have a weekly tutor, but I had to drop some of our EHE groups when DS3 stopped attending school in February.

I do worry a lot about DS4s future, but even DS2 who is very academic burnt out in Yr11 and his attendance was 50%. Fortunately he got enough GCSEs to do A Levels and he's had a good 6th form experience. I really didn't think staying on was a good idea so I've been proved wrong in the best of ways.

Re reports, isn't it currently the LA can make enquiries annually and only really a report is considered sufficient to respond to that enquiry? Though technically not specified as you must provide a report.

Areas differ a lot in how much monitoring they do of home ed. I have a friend in one area who sends in an annual report and has visits. A friend in a different area has never had any interaction with the local authority.

And it used to be a lot easier for someone without qualifications to succeed and get a fulfilling job. But having seen what one friend has been through in getting her first GCSEs in her 40s because her parents didn’t value education. Juggling taking those qualifications alongside working and bringing up children? Yes, she’s now well on her way to a better paid career but a couple of decades of minimum wage cleaning/caring jobs haven’t done much for her self-esteem or retirement prospects.

Well it didn't fucking work for all the abused DC who were killed by their parents or foster carers who took them out of school to cover up abuse did it?

Don't say I'm making ridiculous assumptions and the LA monitors it when they clearly haven't.

The new legislation coming in is BECAUSE of Sara Sharif being withdrawn from school and murdered. So you can climb down from your high horse.

If the previous system worked as well as you say it did, DC like Sara and others would have been protected wouldn't they?

Except they weren't.

Same as Victoria Climbie 25 fucking years ago.

You're going to be a shit social worker if you think it's ridiculous to have concerns about home-education since again and again, home schooled kids have been home schooled to cover up abuse and neglect. Despite all the safeguards you stupidly think were in place.

Considering how toxic so many schools are these days, I think it's a perfectly valid choice for a parent to remove their child if there's something going wrong in school.

What does OP mean by "outcome"? There's more to life than GCSEs. Poor school experiences can mean a lifetime of problems, if, say, the child has been mercilessly bullied and they spend decades unable to trust people, which feeds into not having proper relationships, friendships, etc.

But lots of Home Ed children do perfectly fine academically as they can learn better in a safe environment away from disruption, bullying, etc.

We'd have taken our DS out of school in a heartbeat at the first sign of him being bullied, or even any other reason for unhappiness. We both suffered crap comps and wouldn't wish it on anyone else. I left school with no qualifications at all after 5 years of abuse and bullying, and then taught myself (alongside evening classes) to get GCSEs, A levels and then a chartered accountancy qualification! I'd been a straight A* pupil before starting the crap comp. I wish my parents had taken me out of school as it literally did nothing for me at all! Even now, decades later, I'm still anti social because I'm afraid to be around people after five years of verbal and physical abuse at school!

You mean the ones who were already on the LA’s radar who failed them?

And what if the far greater numbers of children in school abused and killed?

Daniel Pelker?

Thd statistics available do not suggest that children who are home educated have a greater risk of abuse, neglect and death - but given the way you talk I’d imagine critical thought and looking at the evidence first is your strong suit.

Every single one of the home educated children I’m aware of were already subject to CIN or CP enquiries/processes - home education doesn't force a local authority to cease those enquiries.

Some DC having a substandard education or no education I'd imagine

But don't forget that this also happens in schools. Some kids do complete the school system and still have no useable qualifications - it happens. We mustn't assume that being present in school automatically means qualifications gained and potential fulfilled, in the same way we can't assume it is the all homeschoolers either. When my kids were attending school, they weren't getting an education. They weren't even coping day to day. My son has less academic input as a homeschooler than when he was at school, but he's grown in leaps and bounds in taking responsibility for himself. And we decided that his character, and growing in his talents and life skills and responsibility for himself, was a crucial foundation for academics that he was missing and that he'd eventually crash and burn without. So we pulled him out to home-ed. Will he have gaps in his learning compared to his peers at 16? Yeah, but he'd have had them if he stayed at school too - just different ones.

Oh of course it does.

That doesn't remove the issue as a potential concern though.

@DeftLemonTraybake Yet another ridiculous assumption based on nothing. Firstly your concern was children who aren’t home educated going on to be benefit claimants, and now it’s child abuse?

Sara Sharif who was murdered in the school holidays and wouldn’t have been in school in August anyway? Sara, whose teachers had reported their concerns to social services more than once yet the case was closed?

What about kids under 5 who aren’t in school because it’s not compulsory, are they exempt from abuse? You have not got a clue.

I’m not concerned about my ability to be good a social worker thanks, I’ve worked in social care for many years and have done bloody good job with the people I worked with.

I have one good friend whose daughter has Downs Syndrome and a close relative whose daughter has Retts Syndrome. Even with these severe disabilities they have had to fight with the local authority to get appropriate school provision.

DD2's needs were extremely mild really. If schools were not stupidly draconian, stupidly massive and noisy, stupidly pressurising and able to keep DCs safe then at least 15% of the 20% or so who are currently failed by mainstream school could be included, all kids would have better outcomes, and teachers would not be fleeing the profession in droves. She thrived in primary school as it was much smaller, individual and quieter. Then you go to secondary and it's a bear pit with Professor Umbridge in charge.

"I would love to do a longitudal study of this but I imagine the environmental factors would make it almost impossible to measure reliably."

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this point. Given you can't have one child who is both in school and not, you can never really do this study. Parents will be different at how they educate there kids. Schools cope in very different ways with different children. A child with certain needs might thrive at one school and fail at another, one parent might home-educate their child well, while another withdraws their child and barely educates them at all.

There'll be

• a child that gets to achieve their dreams because coming out of school took away their anxiety
• a child that gets to achieve their dreams because they were pushed to manage their anxiety and stay in school and school gave them opportunities that being home educated never could.
• child that would have achieved their dreams if they'd been pushed to manage their anxiety and take all the opportunities that school offered them, but their world was closed because they were removed from school.
• child that would have achieved their dreams if they had been removed from school and nurtured at home, but fell apart because they were forced to stay in school
• also the child who fell apart because they were forced to stay in a particular school, but might have thrived at another
• or the lucky child who thrived at their school, but might have been broken by another.

The reason people are struggling with the proposals re closer regulation of H.E is because it doesn't really feel like it's for the love of those kids abused at home tbh. Do we really feel this is a well thought out investment in protecting kids being abused. What else are they doing for those at risk kids.

It will certainly add more loopholes for the huge population of parents already punished enough in an education system that becomes a full time job to navigate. The majority of parents implementing H.E I have no doubt will have SEN kids, they're not the horrible stories we're hearing about.

If Government actually did something that helped SEN parents managing all this, addressed why so many kids can't function in the current school system.... actually did something and then also regulated home schooling then we'd get it.

It feels to me like another gimmick. A shit one that will probably be terribly mismanaged I don't doubt..

The new legislation coming in is BECAUSE of Sara Sharif being withdrawn from school and murdered. So you can climb down from your high horse.

If the previous system worked as well as you say it did, DC like Sara and others would have been protected wouldn't they?

Sara was murdered in the school holidays so being at school wouldn't have protected her.

Sara was a child who was on the radar of social services before she was even born. She was in care before she even started school. Her sibling was permanently removed from the family. Her teachers reported their concerns numerous times.

Sara was failed in many, many, many ways by multiple people. She was not failed by the homeschooling legislation. It's not only ludicrous to suggest that changes to this legislation will protect children like her, but is downright dangerous to do so.

That poor child was failed to the point her life was in danger long before homeschooling was a factor in her life.

It’s nothing more than a stick. I only became a home educator bevause the shit show that is SEND and CAMHS and health and social care was far more awful than just pulling my child out.

Theu’re in their 20’s now and are adamant it was the best thing I ever did for them (and probably the biggest sacrifice I’ve made) It certainly didn’t do me any favours.

Yup. It’s giving a false sense of fairly cheap security to beurocrats who don’t seem to be able to look at the evidence - home educated kids are no more likely to suffer abuse and neglect than kids under 5 and school age kids.