Bias in the Government's Evidence regarding Home Education and Abuse
- homeeducationsite
- Mar 17
- 8 min read
Updated: Mar 18
Evidence presented in a report by the Safeguarding Review Panel: “Safeguarding children in Elective Home Education" is used by the government to justify the compulsory registration and increased monitoring of home educating families, through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. In this article I describe how the Safeguarding Review Panel’s Report represents misleading information about the prevalence of abuse of home educated children, and about the role of home education in child abuse and neglect.
I explain below why the safeguarding children in Elective Home Education report cannot, because of its methodology, be used to illustrate the prevalence of abuse of home educated children. This inability is compounded by the fact that a significant proportion of the cases in its report are not those of home educated children, whilst other cases referenced may not actually represent abuse or neglect. I also describe why the report provides an incomplete assessment of the role that home education plays in terms of children’s risk of abuse and neglect, since it fails to acknowledge evidence viewed by the panel that illustrates the protective role of home education against harm.
The following elements of the report are discussed below:
1. How bias and stereotyping create evidence falsely linking home education and abuse.
2. Not all the children in the panel’s report were home educated.
3. Why cases featured in the report may not represent actual abuse or neglect.
4. Omission of the protective role of Home Education against abuse, and the role of school as a source of harm.
Bias and Stereotyping creates false evidence linking home education and abuse,
Although the panel does not explicitly assert that home educated children are more likely to be abused, it begins its analysis of evidence with figures reporting that home education was a feature of 5.8% of the rapid reviews they received in the time period considered (p.12) Link. Presented without explanation, these figures can easily be misread to represent a relatively high level of home educated children within the population of children suffering harm - a conclusion that would be flawed.
In reality, home educated children are more likely to come to the attention of the panel than schooled children, regardless of whether abuse or neglect occurred. This is due to the nature of the evidence informing and supporting the panel’s conclusions; namely Rapid Reviews and Local Child Safeguarding Reviews (LCSPR's), submitted by local authorities.
"27 rapid reviews referred to the Panel featured children who were educated at home. These rapid reviews were analysed along with 15 associated LCSPRs" (Child Safeguarding Review Panel, 2024).
The use of Rapid Reviews and Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (LCSPRs) as evidence is very likely to result in an over representation of home educated children in the sample considered by the panel, since stereotypes and bias mean that children who are home educated are more likely than schooled children to be featured in both the Rapid Reviews and LCSPRs, regardless of whether abuse has taken place.
This over representation exists because:
Home educators are evidentially more likely to be suspected of (but not to have committed), abuse or neglect (Charles-Warner, 2015) and therefore be subject to Rapid Reviews.
Increased public attention on home education due to the Covid-19 lockdowns make it a "hot topic" for local authority learning (which is the stated purpose of Local Children Safeguarding Practice Reviews/LCSRs) (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022. p. 18). The creation of LCSR’s regarding home educating families is therefore made desirable by the opportunity they offer to learn about a current issue. There is no need for abuse, neglect, or severe harm to have occurred for a case to become the subject of a LCSR (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022. p.18)
Cases of home educated children being abused or neglected are very rare, and because of their exclusivity they are again more likely to inspire the creation of an LCSR
Below I describe in more detail how bias and stereotyping create evidence falsely linking home education and abuse:
Rapid reviews are the first type of evidence used by the panel. They are produced when a child has suffered significant harm and abuse or neglect has occurred or is suspected (Children's Act, 2004). Research shows that home educated children are more than twice as likely as schooled children to be referred to social services, whilst being two to three times less likely to become the subject of a child protection plan (Charles-Warner, 2015). Since abuse only needs to be suspected, not substantiated, for a Rapid Review to occur (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022) and home educated families are evidentially much more likely to be suspected of abuse (but not to commit it), we can expect an overrepresentation of home educated children in the Panel's statistics.
Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (LCSPRs), which follow on from some Rapid reviews, are the second type of evidence used by the panel. No abuse or neglect needs to have occurred for a family to become the subject of a LCSPR, their purpose lies in the learning that local authorities can glean from the cases described (Child Safeguarding Review Panel. 2022. p.18). Home educating families are more likely to become the subject of LCSPRs because their cases represent unique learning opportunities for local authorities concerning a “hot topic” in their field, particularly in the wake of COVID-19.
As a concrete example, this case review states explicitly that it was conducted because the child involved was home educated, not because abuse or neglect took place.
“The CRG and Independent Reviewer were unable to evidence any concerns regarding abuse/neglect relating to Child A through the review process. However, it was agreed by the CRG that this review offered a broader opportunity to use the lens of this family to consider any local or national learning around safeguarding for children electively home educated and from a particular faith" (Walters, 2022 - see references).
To clarify: no signs of neglect or abuse were evidenced, the review was created because the child involved was home educated, as well as being from a particular faith.
Lastly and importantly, if guidance is followed the rarity of cases related to home education would also make them an appropriate subject of an LCSPR. According to Child Safeguarding Review Panel Guidance (2022. p.18) : “Good practice LCSPRs identify new learning that is not yet available in local safeguarding systems” Ironically, this means the novelty of a case relating to home education should make it more desirable as the subject of a Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review (LCSPR).
In summary; the reality that home educators are more likely to be suspected of abuse or neglect (but not to commit it), the considerable national attention home education is receiving, and ironically, the fact that home educators being accused of abuse are still rare cases, all compound to create more evidence erroneously linking home education and abuse.
Not all Children in the Panel’s Report were Home Educated
More than a quarter of the children included in the review either were not home educated, or the panel had no way of knowing if they were home educated. Six of the children were missing education, a situation entirely different from home education and likely to reflect more risk.
“29 out of the 41 children fitted the description of children educated at home (without confirmation that the quality of education provided was appropriate). Six other children appeared to be children who could be described as children missing education (CME) rather than EHE. It was not possible to determine from the information available what the most appropriate category was for the remaining six children considered in our analysis” (Child Safeguarding Review Panel, 2024. p.11 )
Why cases featured in the report may not represent actual abuse or neglect.
All the cases included in the report represent situations where a child has been harmed, and abuse or neglect was suspected. However, on investigation not all of the cases seen by the panel are found to involve abuse or neglect (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022). Home educating families are evidentially very much more likely to be suspected of abuse or neglect, but not more likely to commit it (Charles Warner, 2015). This means that although any Rapid Review received by the panel may be found on investigation not to refer to neglect or abuse, those referring to home education are more likely to fall into this category and be found to ultimately represent wrongful suspicion.
To clarify: abuse has only to be suspected for a Rapid Review to be sent to the Child Safeguarding Review Panel, and incidences where neither abuse or neglect have taken place can still be subject to a Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review (Child Safeguarding Review Panel, 2022. p.9, p.18). As described above, home educating families are logically more likely to become the subject of both types of review, regardless of abuse or neglect having taken place. Therefore, there is significant likelihood that in some of the cases represented in the “Safeguarding children in Elective Home Education Report” harm was not caused by abuse or neglect.
Omission of the protective role of Home Education against abuse, and the role of school as a source of harm.
The report states that “there were a range of harms that may be associated with a child not having the everyday access that is provided by schools and other education settings to the world outside their home and family” (Child Safeguarding Review Panel, p.11). It fails to mention the LCSPR’s that must have come to its attention where home education has been a protective influence against abuse or where school was damaging.
Here are example quotes from LCSPRs involving home educated children on the NSPCC website:
“Lilo’s mother was a significant protective factor throughout his life….. Offering elective home education to safeguard her child and to provide a safer education provision” (2.3) link
Child R’s joint form tutor shared their views ……referring to Child R “extreme difference in appearance. Gaunt/pale. Keeps feeling sick”. The form teacher phoned home to share concerns and mother said that the child’s appearance was due to illness and anxiety about sitting grammar school exams” (p.6) link
“In October 2019 Cameron attended Hospital 1 after drinking a bottle of Amoxicillin ‘to avoid school’.” (3.6) link
“Child C was reportedly detained on his own and was being shouted at by a teacher in a locked classroom. Mother described how she listened to the incident over the phone as one of Child C’s concerned friends called her and put their phone on loudspeaker” p. 22 link
The omission of harms related to school attendance and the protective role of home education represent strong bias in the Child Safeguarding Review Panel’s report.
Summary
The government uses the Safeguarding Children in Elective Home Education report to bolster its drive to register and monitor home educating families (see our page on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill). This report is flawed as a basis for legislation in several ways: Firstly, it fails to recognise the role of bias and stereotyping in creating evidence falsely linking home education and abuse, producing misleading statistics shared in its analysis. Secondly, a significant proportion of the reviews it refers to do not relate to home educated children and furthermore may not represent cases of actual abuse or neglect. Thirdly, the report fails to recognise that home education can be protective of children against harm – as evidenced in LCSPRs viewed by the panel.
Peer reviewed research can provide evidence which is less bias, and therefore more useful in creating policies that keep children safe. Here is an example:
If you would like to learn more about the Children's Wellbeing and School's Bill please click here:
Comments