Monday, June 01, 2009

Report

Page 1

Secretary of State
on the Review of
Elective Home Education
in England
Graham Badman
June 2009
Report to the Secretary of State on the
Review of Elective Home Education in England
LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
Return to an Address of the Honorable the House of Commons
dated 11 June 2009
for the
Report to the
Secretary of State
on the
Review of
Elective Home Education
in England
Graham Badman
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on
11 June 2009
HC 610
£19.15
© Crown Copyright 2009
The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos)
may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately
and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and
the title of the document specified.
Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission
from the copyright holders concerned.
For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information,
Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk
ISBN: 9780102961133
Institute of Education
University of London
20 Bedford Way
London
WC1H 0AL
Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
Friday 29 May 2009
Dear Secretary of State
In January, you asked me to review the arrangements for home education in England. In particular,
you asked me to look at whether there are any barriers to local authorities and other public agencies
in effectively carrying out their safeguarding responsibilities in relation to home educated children.
You also asked me to investigate suggestions that home education could be used as a ‘cover’ for child
abuse. Finally, you asked me to look at whether local authorities are providing the right support to
home educating families.
I enclose my report which I trust accurately reflects the wide variety of information provided to me
over the course of the review.
As you will gather, I conclude that changes in the regulatory and legislative frameworks are necessary
and I suggest in my report that you pursue this at the first available opportunity. I also conclude
that home educating families should be better supported through improved access to services and
facilities.
I hope you find the report useful.
Yours sincerely
Graham Badman CBE
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank all of the home educators and their children who extended to me the courtesy of
explanation and who contributed to this report through questionnaire and letter.
I wish to thank also all of the local authority officers who did the same and my colleagues in the
reference group for their advice and counsel.
But I wish to reserve special thanks and praise for Elizabeth Green of the DCSF who has worked
tirelessly throughout this review with unfailing good humour. Without Elizabeth’s advice, diligence
and intellectual precision securing this report in the limited time available would simply not have been
possible – she is a credit to the service.
G.M. Badman
Contents
“
The need to choose, to sacrifice
some ultimate values to others,
turns out to be a permanent
characteristic of the human
predicament
1
”
ISAIAH BERLIN
1
Berlin, I (1969) Four Essays on Liberty London: Oxford University
2
1. Introduction
The review of elective home education, as the terms of reference (Annex A) make clear, has
1.1
been triggered by a range of issues and representations, not least being the quite proper
concern to ensure that systems for keeping children safe and ensuring that they receive a
suitable education are as robust as possible.
During the course of the review I have been struck by the passion and commitment of many
1.2
parents who either as a result of deeply held convictions or absolute necessity as they see it
have chosen to educate their child or children at home. Indeed for many it is quite clear that
this course of action is not without personal cost, often financial and professional. I have met
some extraordinarily accomplished young people who have prospered as a consequence of
elective home education of whom their parents are justly proud, but I am not persuaded that I
could argue this to be a universal picture, any more than the same argument could be applied
to the schooling system, but the same checks and balances do not apply.
I have read the many submissions made by home educators who argue their case from almost
1.3
as many standpoints as there are children in elective home education – indeed to attempt
to categorise the views of home educators or regard them as an homogenous group would
simply be wrong. It is a cause of concern that although approximately 20,000 home educated
children and young people are known to local authorities, estimates vary as to the real number
which could be in excess of 80,000. I will discuss this later in this report. The degree of
individualism exhibited may well be a strength but it militates against securing representative
opinion and has led to factions within the elective home education community that actually
distort the strength of philosophical commitment, achievement and need. I shall make
recommendation in this regard.
I have taken account of the views of local authorities who are strongly of the opinion that the
1.4
current guidelines are unworkable in that they are contradictory and confer responsibility
without power. I agree with this view and will recommend accordingly. However, I also
recognise that despite the excellent practice of some, there are local authorities who do not
discharge their responsibilities properly, make effective use of current statutory powers or use
the ingenuity referenced in the good practice illustrated later in this report. Good relationships
and mutual respect are at the heart of the engagement of local authorities with home
educating parents – this is evidenced in many authorities but such is the number of children
now within elective home education that the development of these relationships cannot be
left to chance or personality. The current disparity in practice across local authorities cannot
continue – there is a need for a common national approach locally applied.
3
Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside
1.5
of a schooling system. There is a considerable body of research evidence that points to
this conclusion – parental attitude, support and expectation are the key determinants of
educational success
2
. Indeed, as the national Children’s Plan makes clear it is “Parents not
Government that bring up children”
3
and there is nothing in this report which sets out to
contradict or modify this contention. However, there has to be a balance between the rights
of the parents and the rights of the child. I believe that balance is not achieved through
current legislation or guidance, and the imbalance must be addressed. Not to do so could
result in the concerns for a minority being applied to the vast majority of caring, motivated
home educating parents.
2 See for example, Desforges, C & Abouchaar, A (2003) The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education
on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review, London, Department for Education and Skills, Research Report No
433.
3 The Children’s Plan, DCSF, 2007, CM7280
4
The terms of reference stated the scope of the review was to be limited to practice in England.
2.1
The review was conducted by means of structured interview with a range of stakeholders
2.2
including home educating parents and children, visits to local authorities and home education
groups, a public call for evidence and a questionnaire to all top tier local authorities in
England. Over two thousand responses to the call for evidence were received, more than
three quarters of which were from home educating parents or children. Ninety responses to
the local authority questionnaire were received, which equates to a 60% response rate.
The review was further informed by a literature review and consideration of practice and
2.3
legislation in other countries. A list of the organisations and local authorities I consulted and
from whom I took evidence is at Annex B. A copy of the questionnaire used in the public call
for evidence is at Annex C. A copy of the questionnaire to local authorities is at Annex D.
2. Conduct of the Review
5
As my introductory comments make clear, I am not persuaded that under the current
3.1
regulatory regime
4
that there is a correct balance between the rights of parents and the rights
of the child either to an appropriate education or to be safe from harm. That being said I am
not in anyway arguing that elective home education is intrinsically wrong or that within the
elective home education community there is not exemplary practice. Indeed, there is a strong
argument to commission further research to better inform understanding of “personalisation”
as an element of student progression and achievement. I shall return to this issue later.
The question is simply a matter of balance and securing the right regulatory regime within
3.2
a framework of legislation that protects the rights of all children, even if in transaction such
regulation is only necessary to protect a minority.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young
3.3
people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely,
the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of
signatories to give children a voice:
“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right
to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being
given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the
child to determine or ascertain such views.
Furthermore Article 28 of the UNCRC recognises the right of the child to an education.
3.4
Education is compulsory in England and it can be provided at school “or otherwise”
5
. The
responsibility for the provision of a child’s education rests with their parents who also have a
duty to ensure that any education provided is “efficient”, “full time” and ”suitable”. This is set
out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 which provides that:
4 The current legislative and regulatory framework is outlined at Annex E.
5 Section 7 Education Act 1996
3. Current Legislation and Regulation
6
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient
full-time education suitable –
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school
or otherwise.”
The terms “efficient” and “suitable” education are not defined in law, despite the detailed
3.5
prescription of expectations in schools. Case law
6
has broadly described an “efficient”
education as one that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”. A “suitable” education is
one that:
“primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than
the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options
in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.
This poses a further problem for local authorities charged with a statutory duty under section
3.6
437 (1) Education Act 1996 in that they are required to intervene:
“If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in
their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or
otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them
within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education”.
Additionally local authorities have a duty
7
which requires them to:
….. make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the
identities of children in their area who are of compulsory school age but—
(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and
(b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.
6 Mr Justice Woolf in the case of R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School
Trust (12 April 1985)
7 Section 436A Education Act 1996 inserted by section 4(1) Education and Inspections Act 2006
7
Within current guidance local authorities are
3.7
“encouraged to address the situation
informally”
8
. Such an approach may or may not be sufficient. How can local authorities know
what they don’t know with no means of determining the number of children who are being
electively home educated in their area, or the quality of what is provided, without rights of
access to the child? For many, perhaps the majority of home educating families, this approach
may be sufficient. However, I do not believe that such arrangements are sufficiently robust to
protect the rights of all children.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 2 of Protocol 1 states:
3.8
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which
it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of
parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious
and philosophical convictions.”
This Article is much quoted by home educators in defence of their rights as parents to educate
3.9
their children as they see fit. However, case law on the ECHR challenges any claim that home
education is a fundamental right:
“The second sentence of Article 2 [of Protocol 1] must however be read together with
the first which enshrines the right of everyone to education. It is on to this fundamental
right that is grafted the right of parents to respect for their religious and philosophical
convictions. …Furthermore, respect is only due to convictions on the part of the parents
which do not conflict with the fundamental right of the child to education”
9
And:
“The Commission notes that the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No 1 .. enshrines the
fundamental right of the child to education. This right by its very nature calls for regulation
by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and
resources of the community and of individuals.”
10
8 Department for Children, Schools and Families. Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities (HMSO, 2007)
9 B.N and S.N v Sweden no 17678/91
10 Leuffen v Germany no 19844/92
8
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
In addition, in one exchange of emails during the course of this review one parent, in arguing
3.10
the case for the freedom of home education, cited the words of A.S. Neill:
“The function of the child is to live his own life – not the life that his anxious parents think he
should live, nor a life according to the purpose of the educator who thinks he knows best.”
11
This quotation could equally well be applied to home educating parents as to the schooling
system that A.S. Neill challenged with the curriculum and methodology of Summerhill School.
This review does not argue against the rights of parents as set out in Section 7 of the
3.11
Education Act 1996 outlined above, nor their deeply held convictions about education.
I believe it would be wrong to seek to legislate in pursuit of an all embracing definition
of “suitable”. However, such is the demand and complexity of 21
st
Century society and
employment that further thought should be given to what constitutes an appropriate
curriculum within the context of elective home education. Such a curriculum must be
sufficiently broad and balanced and relevant to enable young people to make suitable choices
about their life and likely future employment. Article 29 of the UNCRC states that:
“State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to
their fullest potential;
(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the
principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity,
language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living,
the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his
or her own;
(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of
understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples,
ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.”
It could be argued that adherence to Article 29 would demand further definition of the term
“efficient”.
11 Neill, A.S. (1960), Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, New York, NY: Hart
9
As stated previously, the term “efficient” has been described in case law as an education that
3.12
“achieves that which it sets out to achieve”. On this basis there surely can be no argument
against those who choose to educate their children at home being required to articulate their
educational approach or ‘philosophy’, intentions and practice and with their child demonstrate
its effectiveness. Indeed many do so already. This is not an argument for prescription; on the
contrary it is simply an argument that the rights of parents are equally matched by the rights
of the child and a recognition of the moral imperative of securing education for all children
commensurate with their age, aptitude, ability and any special needs.
In the light of the above I therefore make the following recommendations:
RECOMMENdATION 1
That the dCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally
administered, for all children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively
home educated.
This scheme should be common to all local authorities.
■■
Registration should be renewed annually.
■■
Those who are registering for the first time should be visited by the appropriate
■■
local authority officer within one month of registration.
Local authorities should ensure that all home educated children and young
■■
people already known to them are registered on the new scheme within one
month of its inception and visited over the following twelve months, following
the commencement of any new legislation.
Provision should be made to allow registration at a local school, children’s centre
■■
or other public building as determined by the local authority.
When parents are thinking of deregistering their child/children from school
■■
to home educate, schools should retain such pupils on roll for a period of 20
school days so that should there be a change in circumstances, the child could
be readmitted to the school. This period would also allow for the resolution of
such difficulties that may have prompted the decision to remove the child from
school.
National guidance should be issued on the requirements of registration and be
■■
made available online and at appropriate public buildings. Such guidance must
10
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
include a clear statement of the statutory basis of elective home education and
the rights and responsibilities of parents.
At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear
■■
statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes
for the child over the following twelve months.
Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to
■■
meet local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education
and develop the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within
eight weeks of first registration.
As well as written guidance, support should encompass advice from a range of
■■
advisers and organisations, including schools. Schools should regard this support
as a part of their commitment to extended schooling.
Where a child is removed from a school roll to be home educated, the school
■■
must provide to the appropriate officer of the local authority a record of the
child’s achievement to date and expected achievement, within 20 school days of
the registration, together with any other school records.
Local authorities must ensure that there are mechanisms/systems in place to
■■
record and review registrations annually.
RECOMMENdATION 2
That the dCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a
“suitable” and “efficient” education in the light of the Rose review of the primary
curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout
statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child
Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly
prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and
differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated
at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and
make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform
guidance on registration.
Home educators should be engaged in this process.
11
At the risk of stating the obvious, in seeking evidence as to how the current system operates
4.1
it begs the question – what system? The differing approaches of local authorities and
extraordinary range of practice amongst home educators defy simple categorisation. Indeed,
one of the major concerns of home educators within the current system was the inability of
some local authority officers to appreciate and understand their practice. I shall return to the
role and remit of local authorities in a later section, but I believe it is important to try to capture
the views of the many home educators who contributed to this review.
In the main, home educators in their responses through questionnaire, email, letter and
4.2
interview were fiercely defensive of their rights and actions. There were some who welcomed
the visits of local authority officers and the support offered through drop-in centres, resources
and materials and some argued for more regularised monitoring and intervention. However,
there were those who wanted nothing from the local authority nor any contact with it.
The range of response principally outside the public call for evidence varied enormously from:
4.3
“…no one from the LA [local authority] would in my opinion be on my child’s intellectual
level or they wouldn’t be working for the LA.”
to the more measured:
“I would be happy to discuss my children’s education with my local authority, but would
expect the LA representative to have a good understanding of the law relating to EHE
[elective home education], the principles underpinning the law, how children learn and in
our case, special educational needs”.
To the above could have been added literally dozens of other quotations. They constitute
4.4
a heady mixture of pent up rage, frustration, resentment and a rejection of third party
judgement. In seeking to understand such responses it is important to examine the reasons
why elective home education was chosen by parents in the first place. A study commissioned
by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in 2007 concluded:
4. Elective Home Education in Context – the
Views of Home Educators and Others
12
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
“Reasons for home education vary and the decision to home educate is often due to
a combination of factors that may be subject to change over time. Common reasons
cited for opting to home educate include bullying, discontentment with the quality of
education provided in school, or parents’ religious, cultural and ideological beliefs. Risk of
prosecution for non-attendance and inadequate provision for special educational needs
are increasingly cited as reasons to educate according to some local authorities.”
12
These findings are endorsed by a small scale research project by the National Foundation for
Educational Research (2006)
13
which placed further emphasis on parents disillusionment with
schools and their inability to meet their child’s needs as they saw them.
My own conversations with individuals and groups of home educating parents would confirm
4.5
the above with the addition of a significant number who chose this route for ideological and
philosophical reasons or simply because they believe they “can do it better”.
Whatever the reasons, I believe it is important for local authorities both to analyse and
4.6
consider why an increasing number of parents are choosing elective home education both for
the betterment of children services as a whole and the monitoring and support of electively
home educated children.
RECOMMENdATION 3
That all local authorities analyse the reasons why parents or carers chose elective
home education and report those findings to the Children’s Trust Board, ensuring
that this analysis contributes to the debate that determines the Children and Young
People’s Plan.
There were, of course, some contrary views to those summarised above, from local authorities
4.7
(considered later) and others. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women
Teachers (NASUWT) in its response to the call for evidence, was quite clear in its opposition
to the whole basis of elective home education as currently defined:
12 Hopwood,V.,O’Neill, L., Castro G. & Hodgson, B. (2007) The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study, DfES,
Research Report 827
13 Kendall S. & Atkinson, M (2006) Some perspectives on home educated children, NFER
13
“The NASUWT maintains the existence of a right to home educate is anomalous with the
clear emphasis in Government policy of ensuring that all children and young people can
benefit from educational provision where teaching and learning is led by qualified teachers
in well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings.”
The Association of School and College Leaders
4.8
(ASCL) does not go as far in its argument
but raises fears about ensuring a system that does not harm children. The British Humanist
Association raised concerns in their submission to the review as follows:
“some of those who choose to educate their children at home for religious reasons may
not be providing schooling that is adequate, either according to the Every Child Matters
agenda or the principles of Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
And the Education Division of the Church of England states its concern:
“that children and young people not in formal education are missing the benefits and
challenges of learning in community with their peers. Children who do not go to school
may not experience the social and cultural diversity encountered there; they will not learn
how to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life; they may never meet people with
different faith and value systems. All such encounters, even the difficult or painful ones are
enriching. We are concerned not only with the five Every Child Matters outcomes, but also
with the spiritual well-being of all children and young people. Spiritual well-being arises not
only from being cared for in a loving family and/or faith community, but also in encounters
with people of different opinions and backgrounds; in learning to listen to a variety of
opinions; to encounter diversity and the riches and life-enhancement it can bring. Spiritual
well-being depends on living and taking a full part in community life. Children and young
people in schools learn about and from the five major religions. This may be a difficult
part of the curriculum for home educators to provide, yet it is vital for the Government’s
community cohesion agenda that all children learn in a balanced way about the variety
of religious values and practices, and to be encouraged to question their own beliefs and
practices.”
In addition there were of course detailed responses from elective home education
4.9
organisations (see Annex B) which have proved invaluable in the course of this inquiry.
14
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
’Education Otherwise’, a home education group, in a detailed set of proposals, listed
recommendations they would wish to see as a consequence of the review. However, this
evidence apart, what I believe to be of significance was that the immediate response of many
other home educators was to disown any such series of proposals and distance themselves
from the arguments put forward.
Herein I believe lies a fundamental problem, namely the absence of a representative voice for
4.10
home educating parents and home educated children. The Government of Tasmania supports
a system that not only gives elective home educators a voice in policy determination but also
a role in the monitoring and support of other home educating families. Having raised this
notion with both groups of home educators and individuals, such a structure at this time may
be a step too far but I do believe there is need for a representative body at a local level so that
there is a regular exchange of views and transfer of knowledge between local authority and
home educating parents and children. I do not underestimate the difficulty of creating such
a representative body but believe it to be essential if the recommendations in this report are
to be effective in giving greater assurance to the state about the wellbeing and education of a
significant number of children, and affording the freedom to educate their children that many
parents have sought. If nothing else such a body should promote understanding and bring
about the dissemination of good practice.
RECOMMENdATION 4
That the local authority should establish a Consultative Forum for home educating
parents to secure their views and representative opinion. Such a body could be
constituted as a sub-group of the Children’s Trust with a role in supporting the
development of the Children’s Trust, and the intentions of the local authority with
regard to elective home education.
15
As outlined in the previous section, local authorities were much criticised by home educators
5.1
in their responses to this review, for their perceived lack of understanding of the various
methodologies and approaches within home education and their manner of engagement with
the parent and/or child. On the other hand, local authorities often expressed considerable
anxiety for the wellbeing and progress of some children and the failure of some parents to
respond to what they regarded were quite legitimate requests for information about the
suitability of education. They have expressed in response to questionnaire and in interview
their dissatisfaction with the current legislative position and guidance, which many find
unworkable. In particular, the absence of a more precise definition of what constitutes a
“suitable” and “efficient” education militates against benchmarked attainment and being
denied access to the place of education, and the opportunity to speak with the child, prevents
them from fulfilling their current statutory duties referred to previously.
That said, I have been greatly impressed in my visits and conversations with local authorities
5.2
by what has been achieved through partnership and the fostering of good relationships.
Partnership not just with home educating parents and children but also with other agencies.
This partnership approach strengthens the local authority’s support to home educators and
increases their knowledge of the progress and wellbeing of the child or children.
The following case studies demonstrate the commitment and ingenuity of local authorities.
This list is by no means exhaustive. Implicit within the following examples is the importance
of mutual respect, regular information and the celebration of the achievements of many home
educated children.
North Yorkshire County Council organises a regular ‘drop-in day’ whereby home
educating parents and children can meet each other as well as professionals from the
local authority who can discuss issues, ask advice, share resources and discuss plans for
the future direction of education, such as routes into college or university. It is also a ‘fun
day’ with interactive sessions such as ‘brain profiling’ or simply playing computer games.
Crucially, parents and children are asked to complete an evaluation form to feedback what
they liked and didn’t like and what they’d like to see at the next session.
5. The Current and Future Role of Local
Authorities and Children’s Trusts
16
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Staffordshire County Council, like many local authorities, publish a booklet for home
educating families which provides clear information in ‘parent friendly’ language to
all parents thinking about home educating their child/ren. It clearly sets out the legal
requirements including the rights and responsibilities of parents and the role of the local
authority. It also prompts parents into considering what home education entails whilst also
offering them support, a list of useful resources and contacts with local home education
groups. The overall tone of the information is supportive, respectful and demonstrates a
clear understanding of the law and also the variation within home education. The material
also clearly provides the name and contact details of the local authority officer leading on
elective home education within the authority as well as details of complaints procedures.
Somerset County Council ensures there is effective and ongoing contact with the local
Connexions service for all electively home educated youngsters aged 13 to 16. It ensures
that Connexions are in contact with electively home educated young people and that
appropriate support is offered. The County Council have worked extensively with the
local home education community and further education establishments to secure better
access for electively home educated young people to both vocational and academic
courses. Somerset has also offered to pay for examination entry and administration fees
for individual home educated students who have been registered with the local authority
for two years leading up to the examination. This arrangement will be agreed on an
individual basis with an Elective Home Education Officer. Somerset has offered workshops
to home educating families on literacy, numeracy and storytelling. They have also run a
residential experience at a local activity centre for Year 5, 6 and 7 pupils on their elective
home education register for the last two years, and a third residential is planned for this
September.
West Midlands local authorities’ regional home education forum
The purpose of these termly meetings, convened by a local authority in the West
Midlands, is to provide participating authorities with a forum to discuss and debate
common issues and concerns that are either of a local, regional or national interest. A
further key objective is to strengthen authorities’ understanding and shape consistent
practice/delivery. Representatives from home education groups are invited and this
interaction with the home education community is seen as crucial in helping to build
mutual respect and break down barriers and misconceptions.
17
The above exemplifications of good practice are in total accord with the demands and
recommendations of The Children’s Plan and fit well with the developments of Children’s
Trusts. However such practice must not be left to chance.
RECOMMENdATION 5
That the dCSF should bring forward proposals requiring all local authorities
to report to the Children’s Trust Board making clear how it intends to monitor
and support children and young people being educated at home, in accord with
Recommendation 1.
Furthermore in accord with Recommendation 5 above, given the variety and complexity of
5.3
elective home education, I recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 6
That local authorities should, where appropriate, commission the monitoring and
support of home education through the local Children’s Trust Board, thereby
securing a multidisciplinary approach and the likely use of expertise from other
agencies and organisations, including the voluntary sector.
To properly exercise the functions listed above and given that requirements of registration
5.4
detailed in Recommendation 1, I believe that further changes in regulation are required:
RECOMMENdATION 7
The dCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and
statutory basis to ensure that in monitoring the efficiency and suitability of elective
home education:
18
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
That designated local authority officers should:
■■
– have the right of access to the home;
– have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a
child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the
company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.
In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.
That a requirement is placed upon local authorities to secure the monitoring of the
■■
effectiveness of elective home education as determined in Recommendation 1.
That parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means
■■
to demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of
intent lodged at the time of registration.
Such new powers will still depend upon, and be more effective, where there are good
5.5
relationships and mutual trust, respect and open communication between the home educating
family and the local authority. The home may well become the place of education but it is first
and foremost a home and many home educators maintain that given the nature of elective
home education it is impossible to separate education from the normal, everyday life of the
family. This contention is supported by the research of Jane Lowe and Alan Thomas
14
and one
that I accept absolutely. I therefore recommend, contingent on the acceptance of this report,
that within revised guidelines:
RECOMMENdATION 8
That reasonable warning of intended visit and invitation to exhibit should be
given to home educators, parents and carers, not less than two weeks in advance.
A written report of each visit must be filed within 21 days and copied to the home
educating parent and child. A suitable process for factual correction and challenge
to the content must be in place and made known to all parties.
Developing this new regime of monitoring and support will not be easy and will require a
5.6
range of skills and understanding. The commissioning of services through the Children’s Trust
14 Lowe, J. & Thomas, A. (2002) Educating your Child at Home, London
19
will bring new professional disciplines to bear in some cases and crucially, bring about third
sector engagement, particularly in support of home educated children and young people who
have special educational needs. Nevertheless training will be necessary not least to dispel the
firmly held conviction amongst many home educators that current monitoring arrangements
are too often framed from a schooling perspective.
RECOMMENdATION 9
That all local authority officers and others engaged in the monitoring and support
of elective home education must be suitably trained. This training must include
awareness of safeguarding issues and a full understanding of the essential
difference, variation and diversity in home education practice, as compared to
schools. Wherever possible and appropriate, representatives of the home educating
community should be involved in the development and/or provision of such
training. It is recommended that all officers be trained in the use of the Common
Assessment Framework.
The good practice referred to earlier is illustrative of the attempts of many authorities to
5.7
extend a range of opportunities to young people educated at home but again the picture is
not universal. Many home educating parents, for reasons outlined earlier, having rejected
the schooling system, do not re-engage for fear of further requirements or restrictions, yet
they remain tax payers who contribute to the education system in the normal way. Many
simply accept that “that’s the way it is” but it seems to me perverse to articulate concern about
thousands of young people yet cut them off from services that would be rightfully theirs
if they attended school. I shall return to this issue in the final section of this report. In the
responses from home educating parents, there was no overall consensus as to the support
they would like or seek but there was almost universal support for free access to the public
examination system. I believe this to be fair and arguably a natural extension of the state’s
desire to secure appropriate outcomes for young people.
RECOMMENdATION 10
That all local authorities should offer a menu of support to home educating families
in accord with the requirements placed upon them by the power of wellbeing,
extended schools and community engagement and other legislation. To that end
local authorities must provide support for home educating children and young
20
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
people to find appropriate examination centres and provide entries free to all
home educated candidates who have demonstrated sufficiently their preparedness
through routine monitoring, for aII dCSF funded qualifications.
RECOMMENdATION 11
That in addition to Recommendation 10 above, local authorities should, in
collaboration with schools and colleges:
Extend and make available the opportunities of flexi-schooling.
■■
Extend access to school libraries, sports facilities, school visits, specialist
■■
facilities and key stage assessment.
Provide access to specialist music tuition on the same cost basis.
■■
Provide access to work experience.
■■
Provide access to post 14 vocational opportunities.
■■
Signpost to third sector support where they have specialist experience and
■■
knowledge, for example, provision for bullied children.
I wish also to give some consideration to the impact and availability of information and
5.8
communication technology (ICT) to home educated children and young people. This could
be a report in itself but suffice it to say that the importance of ICT in learning, access to
knowledge and information, communication and employment is self evident. Many home
educating families, perhaps the majority, already make good use of the national infrastructure
to support their child’s education as well as facilities for networking within home educating
community. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to add to the menu of opportunities and
suggestions listed above so that every effort is made to prevent a home educated child being
in any way disadvantaged. I therefore recommend that:
21
RECOMMENdATION 12
BECTA considers the needs of the home educating community in the national roll
■■
out of the home access initiative.
That local authorities consider what support and access to ICT facilities could be
■■
given to home educated children and young people through the existing school
networks and the use of school based materials.
That the QCA should consider the use of ICT in the testing and exam process
■■
with regard to its impact on home educated children and young people.
As I trust the foregoing makes clear, I believe that local authorities have a vital role in
5.9
supporting elective home education and by so doing, assuring themselves of the attainments
of the many young people so educated. From my analysis of their responses, visits and
discussions I am confident of their ability to rise to the challenges implicit within this report.
Nevertheless in pursuit of more uniform provision and action I recommend the following:
RECOMMENdATION 13
That local authority provision in regard to elective home education is brought into
the scope of Ofsted’s assessment of children’s services within the Comprehensive
Area Assessment through information included in the National Indicator Set
(Recommendation 25), the annual Local Safeguarding Children Board report
(Recommendation 21) and any other relevant information available to inspectors.
22
It is a matter of some concern that despite a number of research studies and reports, it was
6.1
not possible to identify with any degree of accuracy the number of children and young people
currently educated at home. Our own data concurred with the DfES (2007) report, that there
are around 20,000 children and young people currently registered with local authorities. We
know that to be an underestimate and agree it is likely to be double that figure, if not more,
possibly up to 80,000 children. I have no doubt that the vast majority of these children and
young people are safe and well but, that may not be true for all.
ContactPoint will record the place where a child is being educated, where that is known,
6.2
including where a child is being educated at home.
15
Registration proposed within this report should complete the picture and offer further evidence
6.3
of their wellbeing and educational progress. This information will complement the duty on
local authorities to identify children not receiving a suitable education
16
. But because of the
importance to local authorities of knowing the number of children and young people within
the elective home education cohort, to assist in their commissioning of school places and to
their understanding of why children were withdrawn from school, I believe it is important to
report such information to the Children’s Trust, together with data concerning their use of
current statutory orders, whether to supervise education or direct attendance at school.
RECOMMENdATION 14
That the dCSF require all local authorities to make an annual return to the
Children’s Trust Board regarding the number of electively home educated children
and young people and the number of School Attendance Orders and Education
Supervision Orders as defined in the 1996 Education Act, issued to home educated
children and young people.
While home education may sometimes be considered to be a better option for some children
6.4
than mainstream education, parents should never be placed under pressure by schools to
remove their children from school under threat of permanent exclusion or prosecution. I have
heard evidence to this effect. The first priority of schools should always be to discuss with
15 Further information on ContactPoint is at: http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/contactpoint
16 Revised statutory guidance for local authorities in England to identify children not receiving a suitable education, DCSF, January
2009
6. The Number of Electively Home Educated
Children
23
parents what support can be provided to keep their child in school and to ensure they behave
well and attend regularly.
RECOMMENdATION 15
That the dCSF take such action as necessary to prevent schools or local authorities
advising parents to consider home education to prevent permanent exclusion or
using such a mechanism to deal with educational or behavioural issues.
There are some electively home educated children and young people who may wish to return
6.5
to school. Many home educated young people do return to school or college, a number
post 16 or earlier, to pursue vocational or academic courses. However, local authorities
have advised that such a return is sometimes a problem, particularly if the only school place
available is at a school where the child was previously registered. For a small minority I believe
it is important to give local authorities powers in common with those held for looked after
children to direct beyond planned admission numbers. Such powers must not of course be
used simply to avoid the normal admission arrangements and local authorities would clearly
only use this discretionary power when it was absolutely clear that the needs of the child or
young person could not be met otherwise.
RECOMMENdATION 16
That the dCSF bring forward proposals to give local authorities power of direction
with regard to school places for children and young people returning to school from
home education above planned admission limits in circumstances where it is quite
clear that the needs of the child or young person could not be met without this
direction.
24
In formulating a response to the evidence submitted to this inquiry I have tried to retain in the
7.1
forefront of my mind the particular issues that relate to those young people educated at home
with special educational needs (SEN). For although as a group they simply form part of the
cohort of those educated at home and should be covered by the generality of regulation, I am
quite clear that their support and monitoring from local authorities or other agencies should be
significantly different. The evidence offered is punctuated by very convincing case studies of
hardship, anxiety and misunderstanding that would confirm the research evidence that many
parents whose children have needs as diverse as dyslexia and autism, withdrew their child
often in despair that their needs were not being adequately met in school. In such instances, it
is often a case of ‘home education by default’ rather than ‘elective home education’
Evidence submitted to this review by the National Autistic Society, Autism in Mind and
7.2
particularly the Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice (IPSEA), all raise searching
questions about the quality of support that follows a child into elective home education, and
the methodology by which that support is offered. Similar points are made by individual
parents, some of whom seek no help from the local authority even when their child has a
statement of special educational needs. Many point to the need for greater sensitivity in
intervention, indeed some are fearful that the act of monitoring would in itself be damaging to
the child.
IPSEA, in its submission to this review, cite a range of reasons why children with special
7.3
educational needs become educated at home:
7. Special Educational Needs
25
“…some families with children with SEN make a positive choice to educate their children at
home. For others it is the least bad option which may come about for a number of reasons:
Inadequacy of local SEN provision e.g. lack of special schools or lack of appropriately
■■
resourced units in mainstream schools
School or LA failure to make statemented provision
■■
Breakdown of relationships with school &/or LA
■■
Withdrawal as an act of desperation in the interests of the child’s mental or physical
■■
well-being e.g. when he/she is being badly bullied
Being asked to leave/exclusion by a school which cannot cope with the extreme
■■
behaviour linked with the child’s disability
Neutral position pending tribunal hearing (e.g. on secondary transfer)
■■
Response to unsuccessful tribunal
■■
Religious reasons e.g. lack of local school of relevant faith which can cater for SEN
■■
child
Response to threats of prosecution when a child is out of school for reasons above
■■
It is clearly a matter of grave concern that some of the most vulnerable children including
those with very complex special needs, should end up out of school through a default
in the system. Once a child is being home educated, Local Authorities may decline to
provide support or make special educational provision. This is a situation which IPSEA
commonly encounters.”
They also express concern about the amount of time a child may be ‘in limbo’ awaiting a new
7.4
assessment or out of school pending a First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and
Disability). Almost all of the evidence submitted to the review around special needs points to
the need for constructive relationships and adequate training of local authority staff. In line
with the approach outlined in Recommendation 6, local authorities could commission new,
independent experts and existing third sector organisations to support and monitor children
with special educational needs who are educated at home, and meet the proposed duty of the
local authority to monitor the elective home education, and in some cases, the statement of
SEN. IPSEA endorse this approach.
26
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
More work needs to be done in this area and I therefore recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 17
That the Ofsted review of SEN provision give due consideration to home educated
children with special educational needs and make specific reference to the support
of those children.
That being said I also believe that immediate action should be taken both to regularise the
7.5
current position, ensure that local authorities meet their obligation to monitor statements of
special educational needs and secure adequate resources and support for the child. To that
end I recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 18
That the dCSF should reinforce in guidance to local authorities the requirement
to exercise their statutory duty to assure themselves that education is suitable
and meets the child’s special educational needs. They should regard the move to
home education as a trigger to conduct a review and satisfy themselves that the
potentially changed complexity of education provided at home, still constitutes a
suitable education. The statement should then be revised accordingly to set out
that the parent has made their own arrangements under section 7 of the Education
Act 1996.
In the wake of the Ofsted review, changes to the SEN framework and legislation
may be required.
RECOMMENdATION 19
That the statutory review of statements of SEN in accord with Recommendation
18 above be considered as fulfilling the function of mandatory annual review of
elective home education recommended previously.
27
RECOMMENdATION 20
When a child or young person without a statement of special educational needs has
been in receipt of School Action Plus support, local authorities and other agencies
should give due consideration to whether that support should continue once the
child is educated at home – irrespective of whether or not such consideration
requires a new commissioning of service.
Local authorities should also pay particular attention to the Lamb Inquiry
7.6
17
comments relating
to partnership with parents and the need for transparency in communication
18
. In the same
inquiry, comments made regarding better and more communication with parents
19
could
equally well be applied to the expectation parents should have of local authorities when they
elect to home educate.
17 Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and Disability Information; Brian Lamb; April 29th 2009 HTU www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/.
18 Ibid p 7, para 27
19 Ibid p6, para 24
28
Of all the matters considered during the course of this inquiry the question of safeguarding
8.1
electively home educated children has prompted the most vociferous response. Many parents
have expressed anger and outrage that it was suggested that elective home education could
be used as a cover for abuse. They have not been slow to point out that the most dangerous
and damaging abuse of children is often before statutory school age or where children have
been withdrawn from school or are already known to children’s social care.
Many home educators argue that press coverage of this review has cast them as “guilty” with
8.2
a need to prove “innocence” just by virtue of being a home educator. And many have argued
for a measured response to prevent “hard cases becoming bad law”. In addressing this issue
I have tried to answer two fundamental questions:
First, if there is abuse of children within the home education community, is it
■■
disproportionally high, relative to the general population?
Secondly where abuse does exist, would a change of regulation with regard to elective
■■
home education have either prevented or ameliorated such abuse?
It would be wrong to assume that home educators do not take the question of child safety,
8.3
their own and others, very seriously. Some home educators who contributed to this review
argued for periodic spot checks by authorities. The view was also expressed that attendance
at school was no guarantee of a child’s safety, as other tragic cases have indicated.
I understand the argument but do not accept it in its entirety in that attendance at school
8.4
brings other eyes to bear, and does provide opportunity for the child to disclose to a trusted
adult. Furthermore the 2004 Children Act, with its emphasis upon five outcomes for children
including their safety not just their achievement, places new responsibilities upon schools to
work with other agencies in a preventative way.
Some home educators have access to support and guidance from their organisations on
8.5
recognising and dealing with child protection and many in conversation stressed to me the
importance of their informal networks and knowledge of their own community. I am not
persuaded that, although laudable, this is sufficient. Apart from which, on the basis of local
authority responses to my questionnaire, there are many children likely to be unknown to the
authorities or engaged in such networks. The process of registration recommended earlier
should address this issue.
8. Safeguarding
29
In seeking to answer the two questions posed earlier I have sought evidence and advice
8.6
from protecting services and a range of third sector and other agencies that are engaged
in the promotion of child safety and the protection of children. I have also analysed recent
serious case reviews and sought information from local authorities on the number of electively
home educated children subject to a child protection plan or were previously on the Child
Protection Register.
The NSPCC is quite clear in its response in seeking a registration scheme and changed
guidance.
20
“We do not agree that the status quo should be maintained and do think that monitoring
should be strengthened. We are concerned that the child’s safety and welfare should
be paramount and that there is nothing in the current guidance or framework that would
prevent children from being abused by people who may claim to be home educators.
The current guidance on EHE [elective home education] says that the local authority can
investigate if they have a concern about the child’s education, but they do not have the
powers to visit or meet the child. The guidance (paragraph 2.15) refers to the ability to
see a child under s47 of the Children Act 1989. In order for a professional to use s47 they
“must have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives or is found, in their area is
suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm”. If a child who is being abused is not afforded
opportunities outwith the house, then the slim chances of them being identified become
even smaller than they already are. In such a situation, because there is no education
concern, the local authority does not investigate, as there are no grounds to do so. If
a member of the public sees the child (and this would need to be regularly) then they
are unlikely to contact an appropriate body. It then becomes a catch 22 as no concern is
raised, because the child or the environment in which they are cared for is not seen.”
The National Children’s Bureau both in its response and through membership of my reference
8.7
group to this inquiry have raised similar concerns.
The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) is more equivocal in its
8.8
response but recognises the difficulty for local authorities under existing guidance to exercise
their duty of care.
20 NSPCC Response to DCSF Call for Evidence, April 2009
30
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
“The lack of regulation has made it very difficult for local authorities to exercise their
duty of care to the child or young person concerned and may compromise a child’s right
to education. The legislation only makes it possible to consider the education on offer
and this goes against all other aspects of their work with children which, encourages the
consideration of a range of factors contributing to the ECM outcomes. EHE is not in itself a
safeguarding issue although the failure to provide a satisfactory education (in any context)
may seriously compromise a child’s future opportunities. EHE removes the opportunity
for what is a very efficient method for monitoring and surveillance through attendance at
school. Consequently the issue of EHE has become conflated with safeguarding concerns
which may exist regardless of the method by which a child receives education.”
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI), in her submission, makes it clear that irrespective
8.9
of the number of cases, change in regulation is necessary, furthermore that there is an
unacceptable variation in the practice of local authorities and Local Safeguarding Children
Boards (LSCB):
“Our experience from inspections of children’s services and evaluations of serious case
reviews is that there is variation across the country in how proactively local safeguarding
children boards ensure these children are safeguarded. Some local child protection
procedures address this robustly while others do not. Current DCSF guidelines for local
authorities on elective home education place insufficient emphasis on safeguarding the
welfare of children. In a small number of cases, our evaluation of serious case reviews
has identified that a lack of oversight of children receiving home education contributed
to a serious incident or the death of a child. Schools have an important responsibility to
monitor children’s safety and welfare but this safety net is missing for children educated
at home. In addition, children who are educated at home may have less access to trusted
adults who they can turn to if they are concerned about their home circumstances.”
Ofsted go on to report findings from a small study they conducted in 2008 into the
8.10
effectiveness of local authority policies to manage the risks to children who are not attending
school nor receiving education elsewhere.
31
“Some authorities expressed the view that securing adequate safeguarding would be
easier if they had a clear right of access to family homes in the course of monitoring the
suitability of home education. Some authorities reported that national organisations for
home education were advising parents to deny access to officers from children’s services
who were attempting to establish the suitability of the provision. Ofsted is concerned that
this advice may increase the risk of harm to some children. Children who are educated
at home but are not known to the local authority may be more likely to be at risk. Local
authorities are notified when children are removed from local authority school rolls.
However, during the survey referred to above, five local authorities expressed concern
that some independent schools in their area did not notify them when pupils were taken
off roll.”
21
Some of the concerns raised by the above are dealt with in earlier recommendations.
8.11
However, in the light of the submission by HMCI and the other evidence, I recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 21
That the Children’s Trust Board ensures that the Local Safeguarding Children
Board (LSCB) reports to them on an annual basis with regard to the safeguarding
provision and actions taken in relation to home educated children. This report shall
also be sent to the National Safeguarding delivery Unit. Such information should
be categorised thereby avoiding current speculation with regard to the prevalence
of child protection concerns amongst home educated children which may well be
exaggerated. This information should contribute to and be contained within the
National Annual Report.
To return to the two questions posed earlier. First, on the basis of local authority evidence and
8.12
case studies presented, even acknowledging the variation between authorities, the number
of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high
relative to the size of their home educating population. Secondly, despite the small number of
serious case reviews where home education was a feature, the consideration of these reviews
and the data outlined above, suggests that those engaged in the support and monitoring of
21 DCSF is planning to implement Sir Roger Singleton’s recent recommendation, as outlined in his report ‘Keep our school safe’
(2009), to “ensure that all independent and non-maintained schools are required to notify the LA when children of compulsory
school age leave the roll, and to inform them of the destination where this is known to them”. This change will be included the
revision of the Independent School Standards that will take effect from September 2010.
32
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
home education should be alert to the potential additional risk to children. So saying is not to
suggest that there is a causal or determining relationship, but simply an indication of the need
for appropriately trained and knowledgeable personnel. To that end, I recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 22
That those responsible for monitoring and supporting home education, or
commissioned so to do, are suitably qualified and experienced to discharge their
duties and responsibilities set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children
22
to
refer to social care services children who they believe to be in need of services or
where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to
suffer, significant harm.
RECOMMENdATION 23
That local authority adult services and other agencies be required to inform those
charged with the monitoring and support of home education of any properly
evidenced concerns that they have of parents’ or carers’ ability to provide a suitable
education irrespective of whether or not they are known to children’s social care,
on such grounds as:
alcohol or drug abuse
■■
incidents of domestic violence
■■
previous offences against children
■■
And in addition:
anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient
■■
education.
This requirement should be considered in the Government’s revision of Working
Together to Safeguard Children Guidance.
Local authorities have a general duty, when carrying out functions in the education context,
8.13
to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (section 175 Education Act 2002). Provision
for the protection of children is contained in the Children Act 1989 and includes provision
that local authorities have a duty to investigate where they have reasonable cause to suspect
22 DCSF (2006) Working Together to Safeguard Children, TSO, London.
33
that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. Whether a child may
or may not have already come to the attention of the local authority because of safeguarding
concerns, I believe it is of crucial importance in any registration scheme to give the local
authority a discretion to prevent a child being electively home educated for safeguarding
reasons. I therefore recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 24
That the dCSF make such change as is necessary to the legislative framework to
enable local authorities to refuse registration on safeguarding grounds. In addition,
local authorities should have the right to revoke registration should safeguarding
concerns become apparent.
With regard to other specific groups within the remit of this inquiry I can find no evidence that
8.14
elective home education is a particular factor in the removal of children to forced marriage,
servitude or trafficking or for inappropriate abusive activities. Based on the limited evidence
available, this view is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is not to say
that there are not isolated cases of trafficking that have been brought to my attention.
The foregoing would confirm my view that had there been different regulations in place
8.15
as proposed, they may well have had a mitigating effect without necessarily guaranteeing
prevention. However, any regulation is only as effective as its transaction. To that end I believe
it is important to hold local authorities to account, identify and disseminate good practice and
ensure that in addition to the training proposed earlier, that local authority and other staff are
adequately and properly trained in safeguarding procedures and requirements:
RECOMMENdATION 25
That the dCSF, in its revision of the National Indicator Set indicated in its response
to the recent Laming Review, should incorporate an appropriate target relating to
the safeguarding of children in elective home education.
34
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
RECOMMENdATION 26
dCSF should explore the potential for the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in
Children and Young People’s Services (C4EO) and other organisations, to identify
and disseminate good practice regarding support for home education.
RECOMMENdATION 27
It is recommended that the Children’s Workforce development Council and the
National Safeguarding delivery Unit include the needs of this group of officers in
their consideration of national training needs.
35
Irrespective of any estimate of the number of children currently electively home educated,
9.1
it is the case that should they return to school, they would immediately draw down the Age
Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) value for a child of their age within that locality. At present no
such funding attaches to them on becoming electively home educated. Local authorities meet
their own costs and the cost of services provided are met from within their own resources –
which in part accounts for the disparity of support provision.
I do not believe this to be fair or just. Yes, they (sometimes) and their parents have chosen
9.2
to leave the schooling system but they remain in education and the state has a responsibility
to use its best endeavours to promote their safety and achievement. To implement the
registration scheme and meet the other requirements of this report, will undoubtedly
require further resources. However, recognising that these resources are part of a complex
arrangement between local authorities and the DCSF, I recommend:
RECOMMENdATION 28
That the dCSF and the Local Government Association determine within three
months how to provide to local authorities sufficient resources to secure the
recommendations in this report.
9. Resources
36
Inevitably during the course of an inquiry, matters arise that require answers, yet either no
10.1
answer is easily forthcoming, or in searching for it, one becomes aware that the evidence does
not exist. In particular I am concerned by two issues. First, what constitutes ‘autonomous’
learning. Could it be, as many home educating parents have argued, it defies definition but
provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their
talents and aptitudes thought the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more
serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no
conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential.
Case law offers some insight:
23
“...in our judgment “education” demands at least an element of supervision; merely
to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by
imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither
systematic nor instructive…such a course would not be education but, at best, child-
minding.”
23
My second issue in part relates to the first. I am not convinced by the existing research studies
10.2
on the outcomes for home educated children both in this country and elsewhere. Although
some (but not all) studies have found that home educated children outperform schooled
children on a range of indicators, the results may be attributable to parental characteristics
(e.g. better educated parents with higher incomes). Some of the studies were also based
on small samples and therefore the ability to generalise is limited. Some were based on self
selecting, and therefore biased, samples. The diverse characteristics of home educated
children make it difficult to generalise about their academic performance.
Furthermore, little is known about the collective outcomes for home educated children
10.3
in terms of their qualifications and employment. Evidence offered to this inquiry on the
proportion of home educated young people who are not in education, employment or training
(NEET) was inconclusive. Again I believe further research is necessary that seeks information
on progression to further and higher education and employment.
I suspect that should the recommendations in this report be accepted, these matters will
10.4
demand and receive further attention.
23 Harrison and Harrison v Stevenson (1982) QB (DC) 729/81
10.Issues Out of Scope of this Inquiry and
the need for further research
37
International comparison suggests that of all countries with highly developed education
11.1
systems, England is the most liberal in its approach to elective home education. Legislation
from the 1930s banning elective home education still persists in Germany and most European
countries require registration, whereas New Zealand demands that the “person will be taught
at least as regularly and as well as in registered school.”
24
The majority of other countries also
have processes for registration and the systematic monitoring of elective home education and
require evidence of progress, often specifically in mathematics and reading.
The recommendations in this review do not go that far. I have sought to strike a balance
11.2
between the rights of parents and the rights of the child, and offer, through registration and
other recommendations, some assurance on the greater safety of a number of children.
I recognise that much of what is proposed can be implemented and achieved through advice
11.3
and changes in guidance in due course. However I believe certain recommendations require
immediate action. To that end, I urge the DCSF to respond to recommendations 1, 7, 23 and
24 as summarised in the next chapter, at the next available opportunity.
24 New Zealand Education Act 1989 No. 80 (as at 17 December 2008) Public Act, 21(1)(a)(i)
11.Conclusion
38
Recommendation 1
That the DCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all
children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively home educated.
This scheme should be common to all local authorities.
■■
Registration should be renewed annually.
■■
Those who are registering for the first time should be visited by the appropriate local
■■
authority officer within one month of registration.
Local authorities should ensure that all home educated children and young people already
■■
known to them are registered on the new scheme within one month of its inception and
visited over the following twelve months, following the commencement of any new
legislation.
Provision should be made to allow registration at a local school, children’s centre or other
■■
public building as determined by the local authority.
When parents are thinking of deregistering their child/children from school to home
■■
educate, schools should retain such pupils on roll for a period of 20 school days so that
should there be a change in circumstances, the child could be readmitted to the school.
This period would also allow for the resolution of such difficulties that may have prompted
the decision to remove the child from school.
National guidance should be issued on the requirements of registration and be made
■■
available online and at appropriate public buildings. Such guidance must include a
clear statement of the statutory basis of elective home education and the rights and
responsibilities of parents.
At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of
■■
their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the
following twelve months.
Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to meet
■■
local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education and develop
the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within eight weeks of first
registration.
As well as written guidance, support should encompass advice from a range of advisers
■■
and organisations, including schools. Schools should regard this support as a part of their
commitment to extended schooling.
12.Summary of Recommendations
39
Where a child is removed from a school roll to be home educated, the school must provide
■■
to the appropriate officer of the local authority a record of the child’s achievement to date
and expected achievement, within 20 school days of the registration, together with any
other school records.
Local authorities must ensure that there are mechanisms/systems in place to record and
■■
review registrations annually.
Recommendation 2
That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient”
education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum
assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of
the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly
prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated
curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient
information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The
outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.
Home educators should be engaged in this process.
Recommendation 3
That all local authorities analyse the reasons why parents or carers chose elective home education
and report those findings to the Children’s Trust Board, ensuring that this analysis contributes to the
debate that determines the Children and Young People’s Plan.
Recommendation 4
That the local authority should establish a Consultative Forum for home educating parents to secure
their views and representative opinion. Such a body could be constituted as a sub-group of the
Children’s Trust with a role in supporting the development of the Children’s Trust, and the intentions
of the local authority with regard to elective home education.
Recommendation 5
That the DCSF should bring forward proposals requiring all local authorities to report to the
Children’s Trust Board making clear how it intends to monitor and support children and young people
being educated at home, in accord with Recommendation 1.
40
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Recommendation 6
That local authorities should where appropriate commission the monitoring and support of home
education through the local Children’s Trust Board, thereby securing a multidisciplinary approach and
the likely use of expertise from other agencies and organisations including the voluntary sector.
Recommendation 7
The DCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and statutory basis to
ensure that in monitoring the efficiency and suitability of elective home education:
That designated local authority officers should:
■■
– have the right of access to the home;
– have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is
particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a
trusted person who is not the home educator or the parent/carer.
In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.
That a requirement is placed upon local authorities to secure the monitoring of the
■■
effectiveness of elective home education as determined in Recommendation 1.
That parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means to
■■
demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of intent lodged at
the time of registration.
Recommendation 8
That reasonable warning of intended visit and invitation to exhibit should be given to home
educators, parents and carers, not less than two weeks in advance. A written report of each visit must
be filed within 21 days and copied to the home educating parent and child. A suitable process for
factual correction and challenge to the content must be in place and made known to all parties.
Recommendation 9
That all local authority officers and others engaged in the monitoring and support of elective home
education must be suitably trained. This training must include awareness of safeguarding issues
and a full understanding of the essential difference, variation and diversity in home education
practice, as compared to schools. Wherever possible and appropriate, representatives of the home
41
educating community should be involved in the development and/or provision of such training. It is
recommended that all officers be trained in the use of the Common Assessment Framework.
Recommendation 10
That all local authorities should offer a menu of support to home educating families in accord with
the requirements placed upon them by the power of wellbeing, extended schools and community
engagement and other legislation. To that end local authorities must provide support for home
educating children and young people to find appropriate examination centres and provide entries
free to all home educated candidates who have demonstrated sufficiently their preparedness through
routine monitoring, for aII DCSF funded qualifications.
Recommendation 11
That in addition to Recommendation 10 above, local authorities should, in collaboration with schools
and colleges:
Extend and make available the opportunities of flexi-schooling.
■■
Extend access to school libraries, sports facilities, school visits, specialist facilities and key
■■
stage assessment.
Provide access to specialist music tuition on the same cost basis.
■■
Provide access to work experience.
■■
Provide access to post 14 vocational opportunities.
■■
Signpost to third sector support where they have specialist experience and knowledge, for
■■
example, provision for bullied children.
Recommendation 12
BECTA considers the needs of the home educating community in the national roll out of
■■
the home access initiative
That local authorities consider what support and access
■■
to ICT facilities could be given to
home educating children and young people through the existing school networks and the
use of school based materials
That the QCA should consider the use of ICT in the testing and exam process with regard
■■
to its impact on home educated children and young
42
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Recommendation 13
That local authority provision in regard to elective home education is brought into the scope of
Ofsted’s assessment of children’s services within the Comprehensive Area Assessment through
information included in the National Indicator Set (Recommendation 25), the annual LSCB report
(Recommendation 21) and any other relevant information available to inspectors.
Recommendation 14
That the DCSF require all local authorities to make an annual return to the Children’s Trust Board
regarding the number of electively home educated children and young people and the number of
School Attendance Orders and Education Supervision Orders as defined in the 1996 Education Act,
issued to home educated children and young people.
Recommendation 15
That the DCSF take such action as necessary to prevent schools or local authorities advising parents
to consider home education to prevent permanent exclusion or using such a mechanism to deal with
educational or behavioural issues.
Recommendation 16
That the DCSF bring forward proposals to give local authorities power of direction with regard to
school places for children and young people returning to school from home education above planned
admission limits in circumstances where it is quite clear that the needs of the child or young person
could not be met without this direction.
Recommendation 17
That the Ofsted review of SEN provision give due consideration to home educated children with
special educational needs and make specific reference to the support of those children.
Recommendation 18
That the DCSF should reinforce in guidance to local authorities the requirement to exercise
their statutory duty to assure themselves that education is suitable and meets the child’s special
educational needs. They should regard the move to home education as a trigger to conduct a review
and satisfy themselves that the potentially changed complexity of education provided at home, still
43
constitutes a suitable education. The statement should then be revised accordingly to set out that the
parent has made their own arrangements under section 7 of the Education Act 1996.
In the wake of the Ofsted review, changes to the SEN framework and legislation may be required.
Recommendation 19
That the statutory review of statements of SEN in accord with Recommendation 18 above be
considered as fulfilling the function of mandatory annual review of elective home education
recommended previously.
Recommendation 20
When a child or young person without a statement of special educational needs has been in receipt
of School Action Plus support, local authorities and other agencies should give due consideration to
whether that support should continue once the child is educated at home – irrespective of whether
or not such consideration requires a new commissioning of service.
Recommendation 21
That the Children’s Trust Board ensures that the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) reports
to them on an annual basis with regard to the safeguarding provision and actions taken in relation
to home educated children. This report shall also be sent to the National Safeguarding Delivery
Unit. Such information should be categorised thereby avoiding current speculation with regard to
the prevalence of child protection concerns amongst home educated children which may well be
exaggerated. This information should contribute to and be contained within the National Annual
Report.
Recommendation 22
That those responsible for monitoring and supporting home education, or commissioned so to
do, are suitably qualified and experienced to discharge their duties and responsibilities set out in
Working Together to Safeguard Children to refer to social care services children who they believe
to be in need of services or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is
likely to suffer, significant harm.
44
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Recommendation 23
That local authority adult services and other agencies be required to inform those charged with
the monitoring and support of home education of any properly evidenced concerns that they have
of parents’ or carers’ ability to provide a suitable education irrespective of whether or not they are
known to children’s social care, on such grounds as
alcohol or drug abuse
■■
incidents of domestic violence
■■
previous offences against children
■■
And in addition:
anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education
■■
This requirement should be considered in the Government’s revision of Working Together to
Safeguard Children Guidance.
Recommendation 24
That the DCSF make such change as is necessary to the legislative framework to enable local
authorities to refuse registration on safeguarding grounds. In addition local authorities should have
the right to revoke registration should safeguarding concerns become apparent.
Recommendation 25
That the DCSF, in its revision of the National Indicator Set indicated in its response to the recent
Laming Review, should incorporate an appropriate target relating to the safeguarding of children in
elective home education.
Recommendation 26
DCSF should explore the potential for Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young
People’s Services (C4EO) and other organisations, to identify and disseminate good practice
regarding support for home education.
45
Recommendation 27
It is recommended that the Children’s Workforce Development Council and the National
Safeguarding Delivery Unit include the needs of this group of officers in their consideration of
national training needs.
Recommendation 28
That the DCSF and the Local Government Association determine within three months how to provide
to local authorities sufficient resources to secure the recommendations in this report.
46
Background and Rationale
The Department is committed to ensuring that systems for keeping children safe, and ensuring that
they receive a suitable education, are as robust as possible. An independent review of home education
is part of this continuing commitment.
Parents have a well established right to educate their children at home and Government respects that
right. There are no plans to change that position.
However, where local authorities have concerns about the safety and welfare, or education, of a
home educated child, effective systems must be in place to deal with those concerns. The review will
assess the effectiveness of current arrangements and will, if necessary, make recommendations for
improvements.
Terms of reference
The review of home education will investigate:
The barriers to local authorities and other public agencies in carrying out their
■■
responsibilities for safeguarding home educated children and advise on improvements
to ensure that the five Every Child Matters outcomes are being met for home educated
children;
The extent to which claims of home education could be used as a ‘cover’ for child abuse
■■
such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude and advise on
measures to prevent this;
Whether local authorities are providing the right type, level and balance of support to home
■■
educating families to ensure they are undertaking their duties to provide a suitable full time
education to their children;
Whether any changes to the current regime for monitoring the standard of home education
■■
are needed to support the work of parents, local authorities and other partners in ensuring
all children achieve the Every Child Matters outcomes.
Timing
The review will be conducted over 4 months, starting in January 2009 and concluding in April 2009
with a published report in May 2009. Ministers will then consider whether any further work is required
on any aspect of home education, on the basis of the findings contained in the review report.
Annex A – Review Terms of Reference
47
Scope
The Review will focus on practice in England but may consider relevant material from the devolved
administrations within the UK and elsewhere.
Review methodology
The review will be led by Graham Badman, former Managing Director, Children, Families and
Education in Kent. It will:
Map existing practice and consider the effectiveness of different practice – including
■■
identifying best practice – in England and elsewhere in monitoring home education from
an Every Child Matters perspective;
Identify what evidence there is that claims of home education are, or could be, used as a
■■
‘cover’ for child abuse under current monitoring practice;
Consider evidence of the effectiveness of current monitoring practice contained in Serious
■■
Case Reviews, Joint Area Reviews and other relevant inspections and reviews;
Seek evidence on how the systems operate in practice from key stakeholders including
■■
home education groups, home educating families, local authorities and children’s charities;
Identify areas for improvement and make recommendations for any changes to strengthen
■■
current arrangements.
The review will gather views and evidence through a literature review, a review of the law and
guidance and a series of interviews with key stakeholders representing the range of interests. It will
consider how effectively arrangements are currently operating, focusing on the operation of systems
and procedures and not on individual cases. The review team will contact key stakeholders and invite
submissions. Other stakeholders who wish to contribute can do so via a questionnaire available at
www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations.
The review will also consider the views of stakeholders gathered as part of the recent public
consultation on the statutory guidance on children not receiving a suitable education.
48
Association of Chief Police Officers
Association of Directors of Children’s Services
Association of Education Welfare Managers
Autism in Mind
Bedfordshire County Council
Birmingham City Council
British Dyslexia Association
Cheshire County Council
Professor James Conroy
Department of Health
Derbyshire County Council
Education Otherwise
Family Education Trust
Forced Marriage Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Gloucestershire County Council
Home Education Advisory Service
Home Education Research Association
Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice (IPSEA)
Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network
Arthur Ivatts
Leicestershire County Council
Local Government Association
National Association of Social Workers in Education
National Autism Society
NCB
North Yorkshire County Council
NSPCC
Ofsted
Dr Paula Rothermel
Alison Sauer, Sauer Consulting
Professor Alan Thomas
Annex B – List of Consultees
49
Staffordshire County Council
Wandsworth Council
West Sussex County Council
Wolverhampton Council
Worcestershire County Council
And numerous home educating parents and children.
50
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire about home education.
The Government is committed to ensuring that systems for keeping children safe, and ensuring
that they receive a suitable education, are as robust as possible. An independent review of home
education is part of this continuing commitment. The Review will look in particular at if and how
far home educated children have access to the five Every Child Matters outcomes (see www.
everychildmatters.gov.uk for more information).
These outcomes are:
Be healthy
■■
Stay safe
■■
Enjoy and achieve
■■
Make a positive contribution
■■
Achieve economic wellbeing
■■
The full terms of reference for the review are available on-line at www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/
homeeducation
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has asked Graham Badman CBE, to lead
this independent review. Mr Badman is gathering evidence about current working arrangements
from a range of key stakeholders such as home educating families and home educated children;
local authority staff responsible for ensuring the safety, wellbeing and education of children and
young people; and other organisations that represent children, young people and families, such as
children’s charities.
As part of that process, we would be very interested to hear your responses to the questions below.
Please return your completed questionnaire by Friday 20
th
February 2009 to homeeducation.
review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
Thank you for taking time to respond to these questions.
Annex C – Public call for evidence
questionnaire
51
Section One – About You
1. Please specify in what capacity you are responding to this questionnaire.
Please
tick
Please provide more information if you wish
A home educating parent
A home educated child
Working in local authority
with responsibility for home
educated children
Working in local authority with
other responsibilities
Working with children or
families in another capacity
(e.g. third sector)
Member of the general public
Other organisation/capacity
(please specify)
52
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Section Two –Questions
2. do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home is
adequate?
Yes
Why do you think that?
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
3. do you think that home educated children are able to achieve the five Every Child
Matters outcomes?
Yes
Please say why for each of the five outcomes.
53
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being
No
Please say why for each of the five outcomes.
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being
54
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
4. do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all
children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes?
Yes
How do you think Government should ensure this?
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
5. do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting
home educating families?
Yes
What should they be?
55
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
6. do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring
home educating families?
Yes
What should they be?
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
56
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
7. Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for
child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What
do you think Government should do to ensure this cannot happen again?
Thank you for taking time to respond to these questions.
Please return your completed questionnaire, by Friday 20th February 2009, to
homeeducation.review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
57
Independent Review of Home Education in England
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire about processes for supporting and
monitoring home education. You may find it helpful to read through the questionnaire before
attempting to complete it. Completion of the questionnaire is entirely voluntary. Responses
will be completely confidential and used only for the purposes of the independent review.
The Government is committed to ensuring that systems for keeping children safe are as robust as
possible. As part of this continuing commitment, an independent review of home education will
assess whether the right systems are in place for ensuring that home educated children have access
to the five Every Child Matters outcomes. This includes whether Government should do more
to support local authorities in discharging their duties in relation to home educated children. The
full terms of reference for the review are available on-line at www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/
homeeducation
As organisations responsible for ensuring the safety, wellbeing and education of children and young
people in your localities, we very much value your input into this review.
Please note, the Director of Children’s Services and Lead Member for Children and Young People are
asked to sign off the response to this questionnaire before submitting it.
Please return your completed questionnaire by Friday 6 February to
homeeducation.review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
Or by post to:
Elizabeth Green
Home Education Review
DCSF
Level 2
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT
Thank you for taking time to respond to these questions.
Annex d – Questionnaire to local authorities
58
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Section One – About your local authority
Name of LA
Tel. No of main contact
E-mail of main contact
Would you be willing to take part in the next phase of the research in March
(including in-depth interviews with key personnel in your organisation)?
Yes/No
1. Who is involved in supporting and monitoring home educated children within the local
authority and other agencies?
Team with main responsibility –
List all teams/professionals involved
Support
Monitoring
Describe how you ensure collaboration and communication between these teams/individuals
Section Two – data and Tracking
2. How many children are currently home educated in your local authority?
Phase
Registered with LA
Non-registered children
Primary age
Secondary age
Total
59
3. Are these figures accurate or based on estimates?
Accurate
Where do you get this data from?
How do you know the data are accurate?
Estimate
What data have you used to arrive at this figure? (List all sources)
4. How confident are you in the accuracy of this data?
Very confident
Fairly confident
Don’t know
Not very confident
Not at all confident
5. How often does the local authority get updated data?
List frequency for each source separately
60
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
6. Thinking about your home educated population, what proportions have the following
characteristics? Please say whether these figures are based on estimates or accurate data.
Characteristic
Proportion
Delete as appropriate
Statement for SEN
Estimate/accurate
Non-statemented SEN
Estimate/accurate
Gypsy, Roma, Traveller heritage
Estimate/accurate
Other BME Group (please state below)
Estimate/accurate
•
Estimate/accurate
•
Estimate/accurate
•
Estimate/accurate
7. do you believe the local authority knows about all the home educated children in
your area?
Yes, we are confident we know about all home educated children in the area
We think we know about the vast majority of home educated children in the area
We probably do not know about a fair number of home educated children in the area
We probably do not know about a significant proportion of home educated children in the area
8. do you think that you will be better able to track children in your area in the near future?
e.g. planned changes to your own systems, ContactPoint, other system improvements?
Yes
Why do you think that?
61
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
Section Three – Supporting Home Educating Families
9. How does the local authority ensure families know about their rights and
responsibilities in relation to home education?
List all approaches used
10. What support does your local authority provide to home educating families?
List all forms of support offered
11. How does the local authority let families know about the services provided to support
them in home educating their children?
List all approaches used
62
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Section Four – Assessment and Monitoring
12. Following the initial assessment visit, are further monitoring visits made to a home
educated child?
Yes
No
Don’t know
12a. If yes, how often, on average, are these carried out?
More than twice a year
How often?
Twice a year
Once a year
Less than once a year
Additional comments
13. On average, how often is the child seen when a visit is made?
Always, at each visit
Usually, but not always
Sometimes
Never
Depends on the child/circumstances
Please describe
63
14. If the child is seen, where is s/he usually seen?
In the home
At the home, but do not go inside
Another venue
Please specifiy _____________________________________
Depends on the child/circumstances
Please describe
15. If you are not permitted access to a child, is any further action taken?
Yes
No
Don’t know
15a. If yes, what further steps are taken?
Please describe
16. How is the ‘suitability’ of the education provided to the child assessed?
Please describe
17. Is the local authority clear about what the definition of a ‘suitable education’ is?
Yes
64
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Why is that?
No
Why is that?
18. does the local authority have systems in place to track the educational progress of
home educated children?
Yes
No
Don’t know
If yes, please describe the system
19. Of the home educated children in your area of whom you have knowledge, what
proportion in your estimation are receiving a suitable, full time (20hrs a week)
education?
Please describe
65
20. does the local authority take any further steps if a home educated child’s education
was found to be unsuitable or not full time?
Yes
No
Don’t know
20a. If yes, what steps are then taken?
Please describe
21. does the local authority face any challenges in assessing whether home educated
children receive a suitable education?
Yes
No
Don’t know
If yes, please describe challenges and what you think could be done to overcome these
22. Thinking about your local area, in the last five years
25
, how many cases have you come
across that use the premise of home education as a ‘cover’ for child abuse, forced
marriage or other aspects of child neglect?
Please specify number
26
_____________________________________________________________
Additional comments
Please include the number of Serious Case Reviews you know about that have a home education element
25 Since January 2003
26 NB – this data will not be aggregated or used in any other way. This data will provide an overall sense of the scale of this issue
66
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
23. do you think the current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home
is adequate?
Yes
Why do you think that?
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
24. do you think that home educated children in your local authority are able to achieve
the five Every Child Matters outcomes?
Yes
Please say why for each of the five outcomes.
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
67
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being
No
Please say why for each of the five outcomes.
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being
68
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
25. do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for supporting
home educated families?
Yes
What should they be?
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
26. do you think there should be any changes made to the current system for monitoring
home educating families and ensuring that home educated children are able to achieve
the five outcomes?
Yes
What should they be?
69
No
Why do you think that?
Don’t know
Thank you for taking time to respond to these questions.
Please return your completed questionnaire, by Friday 6 February to homeeducation.review@dcsf.
gsi.gov.uk or by post to the address on page one. If you are returning the questionnaire electronically,
please add the name of the DCS and Lead Member in the signature box.
declaration
I agree that the information supplied in this questionnaire is a true reflection of practice in this local
authority.
Signed_______________________________________________________ Date _____________
Director of Children’s Services
Signed_______________________________________________________ Date _____________
Lead Member for Children
The information you have provided may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
This does not necessarily mean that your response can be made available to the public as there
are exemptions relating to information provided in confidence and information to which the Data
Protection Act 1998 applies. You may request confidentiality by ticking the box provided, but you
should note that this may not exclude the public right of access.
Please tick if you want to keep your response confidential
70
1.
Children’s rights
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is an international human
1.1
rights treaty that grants all children and young people (aged 17 and under) a comprehensive
set of rights. It came into force in the UK on 15 January 1992. When a country ratifies the
convention it agrees to do everything it can to implement it.
The convention gives children and young people over forty substantive rights which include
1.2
the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative
matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
(Articles 12 and 13). It also includes the right to an education (Article 28).
Section 53 of the 2004 Children Act sets out the duty on local authorities to, where reasonably
1.3
practicable, take into account the child’s wishes and feelings with regard to the provision of
services.
Local authorities must ensure that functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local
1.4
education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of
children. Duties under the Children Act 1989 impose a requirement on local authorities to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area and to make enquiries and
take appropriate steps where there are concerns about a child’s welfare.
27
2.
Parent’s rights, responsibilities and duties
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect on 2 October 2000. The purpose of the Act is to
2.1
give effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human
Rights (“the Convention”). Convention rights are enforceable through domestic courts,
legislation should be interpreted so far as possible so as to be compatible with the convention
and it is unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention
right. Article 2 Protocol 1 of the Convention provides:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which
it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of
parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious
and philosophical convictions.”
27 Sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989
Annex E – Legislative framework
71
Education is therefore a fundamental right and can be provided at school “or otherwise”.
2.2
28
The responsibility for the provision of a child’s education rests with their parents who also
have a duty to ensure that any education provided is ‘efficient’, ‘full time’ and ‘suitable’. This is
set out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 which provides that:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient
full-time education suitable –
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school
or otherwise.”
The terms “efficient” and “suitable” education are not defined in law although case law
2.3
29
has broadly described an “efficient” education as one that “achieves that which it sets out to
achieve”. A “suitable” education is one that:
“primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than
the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options
in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.
Parents may decide to educate their child at home and they can do this at any time during
2.4
statutory school age. Should parents decide to home educate from the start of statutory
school age, they can do so and do not have to inform anyone e.g. the local authority. If the
child was previously on a maintained school or independent school roll, parents must officially
deregister from the school which is then obliged to inform the local authority.
30
3.
Local authorities’ responsibilities
Local authorities have a statutory duty to make arrangements to enable them to establish the
3.1
identities, “so far as it is possible to do so”, of children in their area who are not receiving a
suitable education.
31
The duty applies in relation to children of statutory school age who are
not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at
school (for example, at home, privately, or in alternative provision).
28 Section 7 Education Act 1996
29 Mr Justice Woolf in the case of R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School
Trust (12 April 1985)
30 Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1751)
31 Section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006
72
Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England
Under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities shall intervene if it appears
3.2
that parents are not providing a suitable education.
“If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in
their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or
otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them
within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.”
Guidance states that
3.3
“local authorities need to make arrangements which will as far as possible
enable them to determine whether any children who are not pupils at schools, such as those
being educated at home, are receiving suitable education. In order to do this local authorities
should make inquiries with parents educating children at home about the educational
provision being made for them”.
32
Parents are under no duty to respond to such enquiries, but
case law provides that “it would be sensible for them to do so”.
33
Local authorities can apply to serve a School Attendance Order if after all reasonable steps
3.4
have been taken, they are not satisfied that a suitable education is being provided. At any
stage following the issue of the Order, parents may present evidence to the local authority that
they are now providing an appropriate education and apply to have the Order revoked.
34
Local authorities also have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
3.5
35
This
section states:
“A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions
conferred upon them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a
view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.”
This duty does not give local authorities powers to see children for the purposes of monitoring
the provision of home education.
32 Revised statutory guidance for local authorities in England to identify children not receiving a suitable education, DCSF, January
2009; section 87
33 Philips v Brown (unreported transcript 424/78 QB (DC)) 20 June 1980
34 Detailed information about school attendance orders is contained in Ensuring Regular School Attendance paragraphs 6 to 16
35 Under section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002
73
Where a child who has a statement of special educational needs and is on the roll of a special
3.6
school the child’s name may not be removed from the register of that school without the
local authority’s consent. Consent may not unreasonably be withheld. If a child who has a
statement of SEN is educated at home it remains the duty of the local authority to ensure that
the child’s needs are met. The statement must remain in place and it is the local authority’s
statutory duty to undertake an annual review of special educational needs. This review
includes assessing whether the statement is still appropriate, requires amendment or might
cease to be maintained. If parents’ arrangements are suitable then the local authority is
relieved of its duty to arrange the provision specified in the statement.
74
Sue Berelowitz, Deputy Children’s Commissioner/Chief Executive, 11 MILLION.
Professor James Conroy, Dean of Faculty of Education, University of Glasgow.
Paul Ennals, Chief Executive/Jacqui Newvell, Policy Officer, NCB.
Stephen Hart, Her Majesty’s Inspector, Ofsted.
Professor Stephen Heppell, University of Bournemouth, Chair of Trustees, The Inclusion Trust.
Jean Humphrys, Director, Early Years Development, Ofsted.
Professor Edward Melhuish, Birkbeck, University of London.
Delroy Pommell, Director, London and the South East, Barnardos.
Beth Reid, National Autistic Society.
Professor June Statham, Institute of Education, University of London.
Annex F – Expert Reference Group
Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
ID6173620 06/09
Printed on Paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum
Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online
www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail,Telephone Fax & E-Mail
TSO
PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN
Telephone orders/General enquiries 0870 600 5522
Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474
Fax orders: 0870 600 5533
E-mail: customer.services@tso.co.uk
Textphone: 0870 240 3701
The Parliamentary Bookshop
12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square,
London SW1A 2JX
Telephone orders/ General enquiries: 020 7219 3890
Fax orders: 020 7219 3866
Email: bookshop@parliament.uk
Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk
TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents
Customers can also order publications from
TSO Ireland
16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD
028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 54
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Lord Laming and Margaret Hodge, ContactPoint and Baby P.

Blogdial, who says it all, has spotted this story in the Evening Standard.
Posted by at No comments:

Home Education in Sheffield

...is on the increase, apparently.
Posted by at No comments:

Home Education Review Poorly Timed

We always said that the Home Education Review, which was announced on 19th January had come at a strange time, what with ContactPoint yet to go live, and the new Guidance on Identifying Children Missing an Education only issued also in January, but with no time to come into effect or to assess for its effectiveness.

The timing looks even stranger when we add in the fact that the DCSF have commissioned a Research Initiative:

"designed to support the Government’s programme of reform to improve early recognition and cost effective intervention to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The broad aim is to strengthen the evidence base to underpin policy and practice in three key areas highlighted by the Laming Inquiry, namely:
· Recognition of abuse, particularly neglect and emotional abuse, which have received less research attention than physical and sexual abuse (See Ward et al, 2004).
· Impact of interventions on outcomes for children, including supportive and rehabilitative efforts
· Inter-agency working involving collaboration between statutory services in health, education and social services with particular attention to the impact of new structural arrangements designed to promote multi-agency/multi-disciplinary collaboration.

Child abuse and neglect are societal problems that cut across medical, educational, social service and legal disciplines. The initiative is designed to support both policy and practice, cross-cutting disciplinary and agency practice."

Potentially highly relevant results from this process appear, in many of the studies, to be as yet unavailable.

Whilst I can't reliably guess at the motivations of the DCSF for the timing of the review, (though concern about being seen to do something, however inefficiently does top the list), it is at least pretty clear that the DCSF have put the cart before horse.


Posted by at 3 comments:

Friday, May 29, 2009

Review Publication Date = Early June

We hear today from the DCSF:

"I am afraid I am unable to advise an exact date of publication as yet. The review team are finalising their report and aim to publish in early June."
Posted by at 2 comments:

To Sum Up?

OK, I think we've well and truly thrashed that one out. Thanks so much to everyone who contributed.

To be honest, I am still trying to process it all, as for one reason or another I haven't had those usual moments when I'm not either exhausted or frantically rushing about, but my best bet so far is that, as the large majority of commentators have said, we remain true to our previous arguments, ie: that the law as it stands represents a subtle and proportionate balance between respecting the rights of families to privacy and self-determination and protection of the child and it remains incumbent upon local authorities to get more proficient at using it.

Sadly, there is no conceivable way that the authorities are ever going to find the child who has never been registered at birth and whose parents don't claim Child Benefit unless they insist on looking under the floorboards of every single house in the land, which is clearly impossible.

ContactPoint will alert them to those children whose parents claim child benefit and use other services but who's place of education has not been identified. It does seem that the 2009 Guidance on Identifying Children Missing from Education means that local authorities must then follow these families up, but they must follow a proportionate process of evidence collection. They should start by writing to the family, asking for information and evidence of education and should only take further action should the responses prove unsatisfactory.

Alarmingly however, even without any recommendations from Mr. Badman's review team or any changes in current legislation, there is some evidence to suggest that local authorities are already taking the CME Guidance to mean that they must make more referrals to social services. This is reportedly happening to families at the point of deregistration from schools and/or if the family refuse a home visit. Already over-burdened social workers are likely to object to this use of their services, but this will come too late for the families who have to deal with the completely unwarranted stress of social services intrusion. Should reports of this trend prove to be true, we will need to consider what we should do about it. Casting around for new ideas (such as the one mentioned below) and critiquing them as sensibly as we can, should be part of this process and will probably continue to feature on this blog.
Posted by at 7 comments:

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Why I STILL Think D's Idea is Possibly (POSSIBLY, please note) a Good One!

OK, folks, please bear with me. I haven't actually had a moment to properly process the thread below, but what few seconds I have had, the following thoughts have occurred to me:

I am thinking that right now - without any changes in the law and without any further recommendations from the Mr Badman's review team, many home educators who refuse a home visit are then automatically referred to social services for some fairly undetermined reason, but nominally because refusal of a visit is deemed a possible reason for supposing that abuse is taking place. This is already the reality for many home educators.

Wouldn't it be better, rather than having to deal with a social worker pitching up at your door with a nasty agenda, if we could all find a way that suits the child, to attend a meeting, public or private, where the child can be informed of their rights?
Posted by at 27 comments:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

What About This Idea?

A suggestion has been raised in comments here by way of a response to the questions that ex-home educating lawyer Ian Dowty posed here.

The suggestion, which only exists in vague form at present, is that there be some sort of compulsory, perhaps annual lecture, delivered by local authorities or another designated body to home educating children and their families on the subject of children's rights, abuse and how to solve the problem of abuse. It would not involve assessment of children and families but merely ensure that children know about how the government conceives of children's rights.

Several commentators mention some problems with the idea of a summer school for example, but I wonder what they would think of the more limited proposal above?

I have to admit I am tempted, as I have this vision that the whole thing would rapidly proceed to a demonstration of how it is actually HE children who are routinely listened to and have their rights respected and that it is schooled children who are woefully abused by the system; (see Cosmic Seed's tale of woe in the comments below).

UPDATE: In response to some criticisms of the idea, one proposal is that the method of delivery of information be much more flexible than I delineated above. For example, a child could be given a book at a health centre that would be appropriate for their age and ability, a health visitor could help them read it and that a lecture would therefore not be the only compulsory option.

FURTHER UPDATE: From comments, we have a suggestion that discussion/information/training on children's rights and how to stay safe be offered by the state on an invitational basis, with the idea that it is more likely than a compulsory scheme (which abusive people would make an effort to dodge) to reach the people who might need help.
Posted by at 50 comments:

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Questions from Ian Dowty

An article by ex-home educating lawyer Ian Dowty, due for publication in the Education Otherwise newsletter, may be found here. He summarises the current position very succinctly and then asks some searching questions.
Posted by at 35 comments:

Friday, May 22, 2009

Websites of the Day

Exploratorium and My Wonderful World.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, May 21, 2009

The Cost of the Home Education Review?

...as yet, we still don't know.
Posted by at No comments:

Gender Analyzer

This blog is 75% male apparently.

Other regular reads:

Aspie Home Education: 57% male.

Headdesk: 54% male.

Renegade Parent: 57% male.

Sometimes it's Peaceful: 58% male.

Is this saying more about me or about the widget, I wonder?
Posted by at 4 comments:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Police State?

The response to the petition is out.

We wonder if it does indeed indicate that we are heading for the automatic policing of the intimate nooks and crannies of family life, all of which might be smuggled in in some sub-section the next White Paper on Education which has been a little delayed and is now due out in June.

From paragraph 1 of the petition response:

"One of the key principles underpinning The Children’s Plan published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families is that the government does not bring up children – parents do."

Yes, thanks for that, (very big of you), but who is actually responsible for children then? This is a different question. Are parents merely to do the government bidding with raising children, or are they autonomous agents, free to go about their own business unless there is some reason to think that they are not fulfilling their responsibilities towards their children?

"The review of home education does not threaten a parent’s right to educate their child at home."

Thanks, but we did know this much already and it does not resolve the problem of who is responsible for the education of children. If the state monitors the education all children to ensure that it is suitable without there being any reason for believing that it isn't, the state unequivocably becomes responsible for determining the nature of suitability of the education of all children in this country and parents merely become agents of the state in ensuring that this education is delivered.

Paragraph 2.

"However, there is always a balance to be struck between respecting the rights of parents, and ensuring that local authorities (LAs) and other agencies have the right systems in place to intervene where it is necessary for them to do so."

Hold on here - yes, strike a balance, by all means. This is what you had done with legislation that only permitted of intervention in family life when there was an appearance of parental failure. Sadly, recent developments have not shown such a respect for the importance of balance or an understanding of the importance of liberty. With the introduction of the universal database - ContactPoint, and with the recent Guidance on Identifying Children Missing a Suitable Education, it seems that this government believes that the whole population must be screened in order to determine if it guilty of something, whether or not there is any reason to suspect that this is so.

From the Devil's Kitchen: (HT: Louisa H).

"Your humble Devil has often been mocked for his assertion that we are, increasingly, living in a police state, but I think that the above idea is worth thinking about. The root of the problem is "preventative" laws—laws that penalise you because you might do something...

...In other words, the absolute right of the individual has been subsumed into the probability rights of society.

It is this attitude that it is right and proper to criminalise people on the basis of probabilities—coupled with the idea of the state as an entity that can be sinned against—that has led to the worst excesses of illiberal legislation over the last few decades or so.

...I have said before that I think that all criminal law could actually be distilled into one single law: "It is illegal to initiate force or fraud against another person's life, liberty or property."

Further on paragraph 2 of the petition response:

"LAs tell us that they have particular concerns about being able to fulfil their responsibilities in the case of home educated children. We must find out what is behind those concerns and make sure that the arrangements are fit for purpose."

And whilst you collect this evidence, be sure that you realise that plenty of LA personnel don't understand the limits of their responsibilities. For example, they often believe that they are responsible for ensuring that HE children achieve the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda, when this is not stated in primary legislation and is ultra vires. LA staff may may exaggerate their difficulties not because they do not actually have sufficient legislation to deal with problem cases, but because they want to make their lives as easy as possible. They want the legislative back-up to enable them batter down our doors and make us do their bidding. But this is not the way to strike any sort of balance. It is not to respect the importance of freedom. And their jobs are not necessarily meant to be easy. That is why are paid for what they do.

"The welfare and protection of all children, both those who attend school and those who are educated at home, are of paramount concern. The independent review of home education is part of our ongoing commitment to strengthen the safeguarding arrangements for all children, whatever their background or circumstances."

Yes, welfare and protection of children is a concern of paramount importance, but it is, so to speak, of the most paramount importance to themselves and their families. This is how it should be, both for the reasons of principle, (since coercion acts as a limit upon rational and creative thought, and children must therefore determine for themselves how they would like to be looked after) and for the practical reason that the state couldn't possibly genuinely hold the welfare and protection of all children as of paramount importance. The government really must realise that the state must concentrate on the few whose parents fail most woefully.


Posted by at 5 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)