While the literature around Elective Home Education (EHE) is growing (see Fensham-Smith, 2017, 2019, 2021; Kunzman, 2016; Monk, 2011; Pattison, 2015, 2018), there is currently a dearth of literature for EHE individuals accessing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This gap in the literature calls for studies to explore access for this applicant group to enable the changes to be made to make this transition inclusive. This study builds towards the literature around this field.

Choosing to exercise your right as a parent to educate your child at home is not a new phenomenon and has been a significant educational practice since the 1980s - although this was mostly in the United States (Kunzman, 2017). Furthermore, once the Covid-19 pandemic struck in 2020, there has been a significant increase in EHE, with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) reporting in 2019 that 60,544 children were registered as home-educated (OSA, 2020) with this rising to 81,200 as of October 2021, according to the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS, 2021). It should be noted that currently home education is unregulated in the UK, with various levels of regulation elsewhere in the world. Because of this lack of consistency, home education is sometimes perceived as being unreliable (Krogh & Liberto, 2021) and with limited research in specific areas of EHE, this creates underrepresentation within this group.

It is inevitable for some, that attending university is the only route into a career path of their choosing. But for others, this transition into higher education is not an easy task due to the steps they must go through to prove their educational status and background. Choosing to apply to higher education usually reflects a desire to pursue a career in a specific area, or simply to widen their knowledge (Fortune-Wood, nd). Institutions provide support during the admissions process; however, this does not always appear to extend to those not from a formal educational background, and in a pandemic context, this makes it even more important to facilitate this transition as the home/school boundaries have become blurred for all. One US study which looked at the perceptions and attitudes of admissions officers towards EHE students found that admissions teams required home-educated students to complete formal college work prior to applying, with some officers in the admissions departments not believing that these individuals are “prepared” for further education (Jones & Gloeckner, 2004: 17). Conversely, some US universities have specific pages on their websites for home schooled (as it is more widely referred to in the US) applicants detailing how they can apply (NYU, 2022; UChicago, 2022). This calls for the question: what happens in a UK context? Upon initial glance, it appears some UK HEIs declare in their admissions policy that applicants must evidence academic entry requirements suited to the course and show they are appropriately prepared for study in higher education. However, it does not appear clear whether this means a formal education.

This study was used to explore the admissions criteria for HEIs in England, to generate conversations about how to support these students through application and to develop the home education literature output for the UK.

Elective Home Education (EHE) is the term used when parents choose to provide education for their children either at the child’s home, or another place of choice, in place of sending them to a mainstream school (DFE, 2019). It is a legal requirement in the Education Act (1996) in section 7, where it states that a parent or guardian must ensure their child is in receipt of efficient, full-time education that is suitable for the age and development level of the child once they reach compulsory school age which, in the UK, is 5 years old (DFE, 2019).

Home education in the UK is a legal parental choice and parents do not have to follow a specific style of education. They are not obliged to follow school timetables, curricula or set hours (DFE, 2019) and have complete control over the education of their child(ren). Parents have the option to use online schools, private tutors, or other teaching adults as desired, but again, this is not a legal requirement. Parents, and children, also have the choice of whether to study for their GCSEs and it is acknowledged that some families, due to the way in which they choose to educate and their own personal beliefs, choose to not go down the GCSE route (Govaerts, 2021). While this is a choice, it could have an impact on the child’s access to further and higher education, calling for the need to explore this accessibility and the options that can be offered as alternatives.

Children have a right to an education. Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

This supports the policy view (DFE, 2019) that education should be efficient, full, and suitable for the age and development of the child, however the same acceptance is not placed on the delivery of the education. Ultimately, these statements support the notion that education should be suited to the individual; therefore, alternative educational provision should be a valid and equal option for a child’s education journey. With this in mind, processes should be in place to allow children, from whichever chosen educational background they have, to access higher education the same way as everyone else.

The purpose of this study was to examine the accessibility of the admissions route into higher education for students with a background in elective home education (EHE). The study specifically looked at the perspectives of students’ experiences of the application process to HEIs in England, alongside the perspectives of the admissions team members at HEIs in England. In addition to this, a documentary analysis of the website information was undertaken to examine how the HEIs promoted the application to their establishments for this demographic of students. This was done by collecting information linked to home education directly (where home educators were specified), and indirectly (where a mention of a marginalised group was noted, but not directly home educated applicants), and looking for commonalities between institutions. Further analysis was done regarding specific policies that HEIs had adopted to widen the participation of its applicants. These policies were read, and key terms identified to support or dispute the view that the institution was inclusive of this demographic.

Specifically looking at the admissions route into HEIs and the potential barriers and challenges this process brought, the analysis of both the collected data during the survey and interview, and the content gathered from the institutional websites was focused on the route into HEIs via the admissions process, rather than the route into higher education, as a whole.

To help frame the acquisition of data, the following research questions guided data collection and study design:

A review of the literature was conducted to a) form a strong basis of current knowledge in the field, b) access previously published work on this specific topic and c) identify any gaps in the literature. The specific focus was on access to higher education, home-educated applicants to higher education and admission processes.

It has been noted in the literature that this group of individuals –home educated - are “hard to reach” (Fensham-Smith, 2021: 13) and therefore, recruitment of student participants was carried out purposefully and using a snowball sampling effect where it was encouraged that people share the call for participants and the survey link with others they felt would be eligible to participate. The criteria for participation in this study as a student participant was individuals who had spent some, or all, of their compulsory school age learning as a home-educated student, deregistered from mainstream school. After gaining permission from the gatekeepers (administrators of the social media pages) the link to the survey was circulated on two Facebook groups with encouragement to share among their own home-educating circles (providing the students were applying to HEIs in England). This was a lower number than originally planned but due to lack of consent, only two groups permitted sharing of the survey link. The HEIs chosen for this study as a focus for data collection were chosen based on location in England to ensure fair coverage and representation of the area. Initially, 5 HEIs were contacted, representing the North, South, East, West, and Central regions of England. However, some of these institutions either did not respond, or chose to refuse participation. Because of this, alternative HEIs in those regions were sought. A total of four HEIs agreed to participate and disseminate the survey to their admissions teams – these represented the Northwest, South, and East regions. The HEIs will remain anonymous in the dissemination of data and have been assigned a pseudonym; HEI 1, HEI 2, HEI 3, HEI 4.

Ethical approval was granted by Anglia Ruskin University and throughout the study, all aspects of research and the way in which the research was conducted followed the ethical principles as set out by Anglia Ruskin University and the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018). Using pseudonyms and the safe storage of data (in a password protected laptop) confidentiality and anonymity was upheld. Informed consent was gained prior to the data collection stage via a consent form and details about the project and its intended benefit and proposed impact was shared with the participants via a participant information sheet to ensure complete transparency. Consent was sought in the first instance by gatekeepers for both sets of participants.

Consideration for ethical concerns while using social media falls into two categories; being transparent as a researcher and respecting the privacy of social media users (Gelinas et al., 2017). Respecting privacy pertains to the sensitive handling of the data collected. Even though the user of the social media platform has input their own data into the public domain, it has not usually been shared by the user for research purposes, more for social connectivity and personal enjoyment of the application (Gelinas et al., 2017). Because of this, all data should be handled with responsibility, even if it is thought to be made publicly available by the user. Further to this, researcher transparency supports the respectful nature of data collection in addition to promoting trust in the research itself by the user. Also, a consideration of disclosing researcher presence online and making the participants aware that data collection is happening is another way to ensure transparency when collecting data.

The recording from the interview was sent to a transcription agency for transcribing. The agency has signed a confidentiality agreement with Anglia Ruskin University and therefore uphold the ethical requirements of this project. All recordings and data were stored on a password protected laptop accessible only by the researcher. When reporting and disseminating the data collected, pseudonyms have been used to maintain anonymity of both the participants and the HEIs. This will ensure that no individual or HEI can be identified in the research outputs.

The students who responded to the survey online for this study had similar experiences with their application journeys to their chosen HEI. Student 1 fell into a slightly higher age bracket than students 2 and 3, but all three came from a home-educated background. Although the make-up of this education varied slightly, with Students 1 and 2 having been home-educated for the entirety of their education – from reception age to year 11 – and Student 1 only experiencing home education from year 8 through to year 11. However, regardless of the amount of time spent in home education, all three students were home-educated through the secondary school years, meaning they all had the same experience of access to GCSEs as home-educated students. In addition to this, two students (1 and 2) attended a mainstream college or sixth form prior to applying to HEI to gain A-level qualifications, with the remaining student (3) not attending mainstream college. However, Student 3 did still gain a recognised A Level qualification, but this was through a home learning route. Furthermore, in their application for university, all three students had recognised GCSEs, or equivalent (such as IGCSEs), and A-Level qualifications.

When asked whether the students felt their HEI of choice was clear on their admissions criteria whether they accepted home-educated applicants, or applicants with an alternative education background, Students 1 and 2 stated they did not feel this was made clear. However, Student 3 stated, ‘I have access to the relevant qualifications (A levels), so I had no reason to think that my application would not be considered’. This reflection on the admissions information would suggest that the student still felt that it was necessary to have certain qualifications to be accepted, however because they already had these qualifications, it did not make them feel as though they were at any disadvantage. None of the students felt they had ever been refused a place based on their educational background.

All four HEIs expressed flexibility with entry requirements due to the Covid-19 pandemic affecting applicants’ examinations. While this is a positive step towards inclusivity, this flexibility does not appear to be present prior to the pandemic and is only relevant for the current academic year – 2022. Therefore, next year’s applicants may not have the same benefit for flexibility with the qualifications and equivalent. In addition to this, all four HEIs clearly state that should an applicant have a query regarding their qualifications they are encouraged to contact the admissions office to clarify. This does not show whether they accept alternative or equivalent qualifications, but simply that if the applicant cannot see theirs listed, they can query it. It is unclear how this would be dealt with should the qualification not be listed.

HEI1 gives clear details on how to apply and even states in its access information that they accept applicants ‘regardless of background’. This would suggest that all applicants have the option to work closely with admissions to apply. However, on reading the Access and Participation Plan, the backgrounds spoken about are those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic minorities, care leavers, and disabled students. There is no mention of applicants who have not come from a formal educational background. This is the same for HEIs 2, 3 and 4 also. HEIs 1 and 2 both provide a process called a Contextualized Offer for those in low socioeconomic areas or for care leavers. However, this just means the grade requirements are reduced a level. Yet the qualification – usually a GCSE and A Level - is still required, and it is unclear whether equivalent or alternatives are accepted. These equivalents could be qualifications such as IGCSEs, functional skills certificate, national diploma or BTECs. This is also the case for mature students. However, HEI1 does state that additional consideration can be granted for applications that are strong but do not meet the criteria so this could potentially help home-educated applicants with alternative qualifications.

A section in the Access and Participation Plan at HEI1 aimed at groups who experience barriers to higher education speaks about those with BTEC or vocational qualifications which could be typical qualifications that EHE applicants might have. Furthermore, in the admissions policy at HEI1, it states consideration is not simply based on the qualifications that an applicant has, but also ‘experiences, skills and potential’ too. HEI1 2 also had an Action and Participation plan with the same restrictions as above, in addition to a Widening Participation Strategy. There were sections specifically for supporting LGBTQ+ and multi faiths, but still nothing to specifically support applicants from an alternative educational background.

HEI3 showed some promising steps stating that UCAS points can be used for equivalent qualifications and an option for applicants to provide documentary evidence to support their application if they have qualifications alternative to A Levels. This HEI also accepts BTECs and T Levels, although the support package offered to applicants for the application process is limited to care leavers. HEI4 had limited information on its website. However, they do also have an Access and Participation Plan with the same restrictions as HEI1 and HEI2.

Overall, admissions information provided by the institutions online varies slightly from institution to institution, however they share commonalities with the strategies of participation they are implementing. It is unfortunate that the home-educating community do not appear to fit neatly into the pre-populated groups on these strategies and vary in benefit from them. It is clear that HEIs are active in promoting inclusivity and access for all, however this currently is not addressing the needs of EHE learners.

While this study only recruited 5 participants overall, the data collected was able to provide some interesting insights into the admissions process for home-educated applicants and raised some more questions for further exploration. The breakdown of respondents for this study was 3 students applying for study at a HEI from home-educated backgrounds and 2 members of staff from the admissions team at a HEI in England.

This study has provided the opportunity to start discussions about access into UK HEIs for applicants from an alternative educational background. EHE students are underrepresented and EHE is often presented as unreliable due to lack of regulation (Krogh & Liberto, 2021). While the rise in EHE post-pandemic has enabled a critical view, EHE remains to be seen through a negative lens from some and those accessing HEIs sometimes appear to be at a potential disadvantage, unless they have prior qualifications that meet the specification of the course requirements. There continues to be a disengagement between mainstream qualifications (such as GCSEs) and their equivalents (IGCSEs).

Because of the small number of participants in this study, the data cannot be generalised to represent England. It can, however, be used as a discussion point for further research.

This study was not without its challenges. One main limitation was access to participants. This has been highlighted in previous studies (Fensham-Smith, 2021; Govaerts, 2021; Kunzman & Gaither, 2020) and is a key driver for future research. Overall, there was a lack in responses both from student applicants and admissions teams at the HEIs.

Access to student applicants proved challenging because of the need to access via gatekeepers on multiple levels. Initially access needed to be granted by the administrators of the Facebook pages selected for inclusion. Access was requested on seven Facebook groups and only two agreed to post. Four others refused to give any response at all, and one responded negatively towards researchers. The view of the administrator of this group was that they felt they were a group to support their members through their home education journey, and not for researchers to post survey links. There appeared to be a negative connotation to researchers and a misunderstanding to the purpose of the research. After explanation and further clarification, no response was given and therefore no survey link was posted. Further study into the reasons for refusal to take part would help gain a valuable insight to access with this group. It is imperative that research is carried out to give home educators a voice in the development of this educational choice. Without the voices of those practising, it becomes difficult to present a true reflection of experience and subsequently, the practices implemented to support this movement become less effective and targeted.

Once access was gained to post on the two groups who gave consent, a further invisible barrier was recognised as many of the members on the group were parents to the students. Therefore, there was a reliance on them to involve their children in the survey. One parent contacted me and told me the story of their child who was currently applying to a HEI in England, however the data was not able to be used for the study as the child did not want to participate in the survey or an interview to speak about their experience themselves. Therefore, this information was discarded. Further exploration into accessing the applicants directly needs to be considered for future studies. Furthermore, applicants had the option to submit their contact details to participate in an interview to further share their experiences. Two out of three respondents agreed to be interviewed, however only one interview could take place as the second respondent was too early in the application process and therefore did not meet the requirements of the study for an interview. This also potentially affected the data given by that respondent in the survey.

In addition to access issues with the students, the study also encountered access challenges with the admissions teams. As with the applicants, these individuals were contacted via a gatekeeper – senior members of staff in admissions. Access requests were either refused, or ignored, by three HEIs, without reasons given. The remaining four HEIs agreed access. One of the four agreed to complete the survey as an individual but refused to share with the rest of the admissions team, therefore only allowing one member of the team to respond. A total of two responses were collected for admissions.

Further barriers to this study were the time frame and connecting with the Local Authority (LA). This study was noticeably short – 10 weeks – therefore this impacted the study in terms of limiting the amount of time allocated to build networks and engage more participants. Should this study be replicated or developed upon, it is suggested that a longer period be allocated to allow for the appropriate networks to be created and a larger sample developed to work with. It is important to build strong foundations with the target demographic as the study shows how unreachable the participants are. In an attempt to reach more participants, a LA in one of the areas of data collection was contacted to ask for support in reaching home-educated students in the area for the study. The LA stated they did not have a home education department and could not be of help to this study. It was later identified that there was a home education department, but this was too late for this study. This potentially highlights a breakdown in communication within the LA and a lack of collaborative working within education departments. For home education to be seen as valid, collaborative working across all educational outlets should be sought.

Due to the small number of participants for this study and the possible identification of individuals or institutions, data has not been made publicly available for this study.