Derbyshire

a page for information, news and comment in Derbyshire

 

table of contents:

EHE Consultation Personal Details Respondent Information Questions Consultation Questions Comments: News: Regional groups:

 

related links:

 

Meeting the LA Education Department

Guidance on improving LEAs

 

EHE Consultation

 

received by AHEd in response to FOI: March 11th 2008 ~

 

 

Personal Details

 

Respondent Information Questions

 

Consultation Questions

 

 

1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

Derbyshire County Council welcomes the long-awaited guidelines on elective home education. There are, however, some major concerns about the current content. The major concerns are:

 

• The guidelines do not address the implied contradictions with parents’ rights and responsibilities. In paragraph 4.1 it states that “…the central aim of this document is to assist local authorities and home educators to build effective relationships…”. There is no “duty” or even an expectation that parents should work with, or co-operate with local authorities .

• The guidelines mainly reiterate the current law. The guidelines do not address some of the most significant challenges relating to elective home education

• The consultation questions are mainly closed questions and, again, do not address the most challenging areas.

• The guidelines take little account of the entitlements and fundamental principles underpinning Every Child Matters and, in particular, the safeguarding issues.

 

In paragraph 1.4 it may be helpful to differentiate between positive, active reasons for choosing elective home education and negative, reactive reasons, as this often affects the quality of provision. No local authority will dispute a parent’s legal right to home educate their child for positive and active reasons. “Tensions” between parents who chose elective home education and the local authority usually occur when parents chose to educate their children at home for negative, reactive reasons and want to avoid scrutiny of the provision which may not provide any meaningful education which will prepare their young people for positive post-16 choices.

 

 

2 Do you agree that the description of the law (paragraphs 2.1-2.3) relating to elective home education is accurate and clear?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

Paragraphs 2.1- 2.3 are an accurate description of the law, as it currently stands. The emphasis in paragraph 2.2, on children’s rights to education, as well as parents’ rights to educate to choose home education is a fair reflection.

 

However, the Guidelines give no further clarification of what is commonly regarded as the key issues by local authorities and the home-educating community.

 

Paragraph 2.3 is accurate but requires expansion to be helpful. A much clearer definition of “suitable” education is needed; for example, some description of what would be considered to be a minimal level of expected education in reading, writing and mathematics, which would be broadly in line with that of school children of the same age.

 

It is considered that, as there is no legal requirement to teach literacy and numeracy, a significant number of the young people who are home-educated for negative reasons are more likely to have more negative outcomes and be “Not in Education, Employment or Training” (NEET), once they have attained statutory school leaving age.

 

Some expectation that education includes basic life-skills, such as the development of social and personal skills, computer literacy, as well as basic literacy and numeracy skills should be included.

 

Although there is no consultation question on paragraph 2.4 we welcome this specific comment as it reiterates the financial implications and responsibilities with regard to the costs of elective home education that parents need to consider. Parents often expect local authorities to provide funds to support their choice. It needs clarifying to parents that local authorities have no legal basis nor are they funded to support children whose parents elect to educate them at home.. A reference could be made here to parental choice to opt out of the state education system, in the same way some parents choose to pay for private school education.

 

 

3 Do you agree that the description of local authorities’ responsibilities (paragraphs 2.5-2.11) is accurate and helpful?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

There is strong support for paragraph 2.5 that states that local authorities should provide written information about elective home education. Claficationa of the legal position, however, is already available from a wide number of elective home education support groups and agencies.

 

More importantly, however, is that the Guidelines do not clearly explain parents’ responsibilities. The phrase “….all children should make reasonable progress”, is welcome, as it gives a clear message that merely repeating educational activities, is not acceptable, children must progress in their learning. It is felt that this is worthy of repetition and further emphasis in other parts of the guidance.

 

With regard to paragraph 2.6, the important new duty for local authorities to identify children missing from education is recognised. There is an underlying potential conflict here that is neither recognised, nor addressed in the guidelines. If a parent claims to be home-educating, the local authority currently has to accept the parent’s assertion, without having the right to see or meet the child, unless there is evidence that would trigger the safeguarding procedures.

 

Paragraph 2.7 is not helpful. There is no clear definition, or example of what “good reason” is. The law, currently, only allows the local authority to “serve a notice” on the parent, requiring them to “satisfy themselves” that the child is receiving satisfactory education. This appears to be contrary to all the principles needed to “..build effective relationships…” [paragraph 4.1] as it does not reflect the responsibilities of both parties to build a constructive and positive relationship. . There is no requirement for the parent to play their part in building effective relationship. The fact that “parents are under no duty to comply” [2.8] again creates the potential of an inequitable relationship.

Paragraph 2.9 implies that, if the local authority considers that educational provision is not satisfactory then, there is only one alternative – serving a School Attendance Order [SAO]; this goes against the principles of partnership. Although a SAO should only be served “..as a last resort”, current legislation and lack of targeted Government funding for elective home education, provides little alternative. Local authorities have neither the statutory duty, nor the ring-fenced funding to provide any alternative, despite knowing that a SAO is not necessarily an appropriate response to meet the needs of the child. Rather than providing clear guidance on dealing with this issue, this guidance could be seen to encourage conflict and potential court action. The County Council would also welcome clarification on what is regarded as “..reasonable steps”.

 

The conflict between parents’ rights and local authorities’ safeguarding duties [2.11] will never be truly resolved unless the local authority has the right to see and talk to the child. The local authority cannot satisfy itself that the child is happy, healthy, enjoying and achieving, making an active contribution to whatever lifestyle they choose or are part of, if the child is hidden.

 

It is considered that the draft guidelines have failed to address the fundamental safeguarding issue.

 

 

4 Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority (paragraphs 3.4-3.7) is accurate and helpful?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

Paragraph 3.1 is accurate and helpful to the home-educating community.

However, paragraph 3.2 is heavily weighted on roles and responsibilities of local authorities. There is no clarification of the “rights” of local authorities. Likewise, parents’ rights are emphasised with no specific explanation or description of their “roles and responsibilities”. Perhaps more importantly, the rights of children to receive a truly appropriate education are not outlined.

Where children who are electively educated at home, live in a community or culture that is relatively self-sufficient, for example. Gypsy Travellers, Jehovah’s Bretheren, they may be able to operate effectively beyond the school leaving age. If, however, they operate in a traditional community they need to understand the implications of home-education, once they are 16 years old. If they want to engage in further education or training they may not have the necessary qualifications to enable them enter.

 

Paragraph 3.4 is considered to be unhelpful. There is no amplification of what a “risk-based approach” is. With reference to the points made in section 3 above, if the representative from the local authority is not allowed to see or talk to the child, does that constitute a risk to the child?

 

We consider that all children who are electively home educated should be treated equally, no matter what their religious, ethnic or cultural background is. Identifying Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families as a separate group, does not accord with the County Council’s equal opportunities policy. Although research suggests that the children of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families do not achieve academically, as highly as children in schools, there has been no systematic research on the academic attainment of all children who are electively educated at home. The research from home-educating organisations claiming higher level of attainment than children in schools is partial and cannot be seen as a truly representative sample.

.

Paragraph 3.5 gives no clarification of what evidence would be appropriate nor a recognition that local authorities have no ring-fenced funding for to undertake this.

 

In relation to paragraph 3.6, examples of “reasonable” and “unreasonable” concerns should be provided. There is no guidance to local authorities on how to fund frequent contact with home educating parents with a view to helping them improve their provision in the best interests of the child.

 

With regard to paragraph 3.7, are “samples of work”, which may or may not be the child’s own work, “sufficient evidence” to ensure that provision is appropriate to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have? What does the local authority do if samples of work, show low age-related skills or inaccurate knowledge of the child? What should or, more precisely, can a local authority do if annual reports from parents show no or little progress? [see paragraph 2.5].

 

 

5 Do you agree that the section on providing a full-time education (paragraphs 3.11-3.14) – and in particular, the characteristics of provision (paragraph 3.13) – is accurate and helpful?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

Paragraphs 3.11 –3.14 are accurate but not particularly helpful; describing what doesn’t need to happen is unhelpful. What would be much more helpful would be criteria for describing outstanding, good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory provision in elective home education. This would give a standard by which provision could be seen as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

 

The “characteristics” of “reasonable provision” in paragraph 3.13 are extremely vague. These characteristics would mean that a parent who was at home all day, provided their child with a television in their bedroom, invited friends round, gave the child access to a computer and the Internet, gave them some pens, paper, scissors, glue and coloured paper and provided a bicycle, could legitimately claim to be fulfilling all those criteria.

 

Paragraph 3.14 is unnecessary as it repeats what is already in section 2.

 

 

6 Do you agree that the section on developing relationships (section 4) is useful?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

The section on developing relationships is unhelpful, as it is one-sided. For a relationship to be effective, both sides must make an active contribution. Nowhere in the guidelines does it articulate parental responsibilities to make the relationship work. For example, although local authorities have no legal right to see or meet with the child, home educating parents need to understand the local authority’s safeguarding duties.

 

LAs only have to investigate, if parent has chosen NOT to co-operate

 

The comment in paragraph 4.2, “This will be true whether or not parents are required to demonstrate that suitable home-education provision is being made available.”, is confusing, as presumably parents will always have to demonstrate provision in some way.

 

The “ diversity” of approach [4.3] is appropriate to elective home education and school based education. The comment that “LAs should not specify a curriculum which parents must follow” is not helpful as it puts parents and local authorities potentially in conflict again. A subject based curriculum may not be needed or chosen, but it is considered that a minimal basic skill level is essential.

 

It is agreed that children learn in different ways and at different times [4.4] However, paragraph 2.5 says that “..all children should make reasonable progress”. Parents may provide “some indication of their objectives and resources” when they first start home education, but parents must surely provide evidence of progress, over time. Currently, the law allows parents the right not to report progress.

 

Paragraph 4.5 highlights the fundamental imbalance in the relationship between the parents who elect to educate their children at home and local authorities. Local authorities have no legal duty to provide information to elective home education parents, but are expected to, in order to promote positive relationships. Local authorities have no legal right to see or speak to the child, but parents are not expected to allow access, in order to promote positive relationships.

 

In paragraph 4.7 the guidelines state “The LA does not…. Have a legal right of access to the home and the matter should not be forced”.

 

 

7 a) Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

The suggested resources are useful

 

www.freedom-in-education.co.uk

www.home-ed.co.uk

www.thecrystalball.org.uk

www.weshome.demon.co.uk

 

 

7 b) Should any other contacts be included?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

 

Answer/Comments

www.cpgbooks.co.uk

www.nc.uk.net

www.curriculumonline.gov.uk

www.nec.ac.uk/courses

 

 

8 Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidelines

 

Answer/Comments

 

The current education legislation emphasises parents’ rights rather than their responsibilities or the child’s rights. Legislation regarding the role of local authorities with regard to home education is vague. The consultation document provides no clearer guidance to local authorities on how to fulfil their role than there was already available. The Guidelines could be described as parent focused rather than child centred

 

The suggestions in the consultation based on partnership, do not take account of the situation when some parents choose not to co-operate with the local authority. There is a wealth of difference between the rich and stimulating experiences provided by parents who have a clear rationale and/or philosophy and those who home educate because of negative reasons; fro example perceived or actual bullying or the threat of prosecution for non-attendance. In Derbyshire we have some excellent home educating families, with which we have a very positive relationship. Where relationships are poorer, every effort is made to engage the parents but in a few cases this proves to be extremely challenging. The guidelines provide no further advice for such situations, other than to take out a School Attendance Order. This action escalates feelings of antipathy and confrontation.

 

We have major concerns not just about the quality of educational provision for some of these very vulnerable children but also about their well-being. The legislative changes from the Children Act (2004), relating to safeguarding, have not been considered in the light of the fundamental right of parents to home educate their child. Local Authorities have no right of entry to the home or right to see the child

 

There has been no account taken of the schools’ roles and responsibilities in ensuring that parents are satisfied with school provision. We would welcome a more positive steer from central Government about ensuring that everyone, school staff, governors, support agencies and parents are aware of the implications of elective home education. This would recognise the positive outcomes for a significant number of children but highlighting the conditions and “investment” that parents have to make to achieve these outcomes for their children.

 

In the majority of other forms of educational provision clear criteria are identified for what constitutes outstanding, good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory provision. Until, or unless the law is changed so that elective home education is regulated, as it is in the United States of America, some vulnerable children will receive poor educational provision.

 

The DfCSF should further consider the findings of the small scale research they commissioned by the NFER:

 

1. The DfCSF should take steps to address local authorities’ concerns regarding the tension between the legalities surrounding elective home education and local authorities’ obligations around child welfare. Action should be taken to define more effectively what constitutes an” efficient” and “suitable” education for the purposes of local authorities’ monitoring duties.

 

2. Local authorities should analyse the reasons why parents are electing to home educate and take steps to address what some parents view as inefficiencies in the school system; for example bullying, not meeting specific special educational needs, etc. The opportunity cost of home educating families should be acknowledged.

 

3. Attempts should be made to assess the capacity of local authorities to monitor children receiving elective home education and the associated costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~

 

News:

 

Derbyshire EHE document for parents, current as of Sept 2010. (This document outlines the authority's own policy and may or may not accurately reflect or interpret statute.) 

 

Regional groups:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/emhe/

 

AHEAD.DerbyGroup - email - ahead (dot) derbygroup (at) yahoo (dot ) com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~