Gloucestershire
A page for information, news and comment in Gloucestershire
contents:
related links:
Meeting the LA Education Department
Guidance on improving LEAs
EHE Consultation
In response to a FOI request, the following information has been received:
Local authority
Please Specify:
Local Authority –
Joint response from Gloucestershire Elective Home Education Service (GEHE) and GEHE Steering Group
GEHE Service/Steering Group Membership;
GPT Health
CYPD Children and Families Team
CYPD Educational Psychology
CYPD Education Welfare Service
CYPS Senior Education Officer
EHE Head of Service
EHE Information Officer
EHE Home Visitors
1 Do you agree that it is helpful for the DfES to issue guidelines to local authorities?
Yes
Comments: Yes it is useful to issue guidelines, but they are vague, and do not address underlying core issues. These may encourage Local Authorities to improve practice, but underscore what home educators need not do.
2 Do you agree that the description of the law (paragraphs 2.1-2.3) relating to elective home education is accurate and clear?
No
Comments: the description of the Law may be accurate but it is not clear. There are no benchmarks for “suitable” and “efficient” in terms of education. This is too vague and is open to a very wide interpretation. It is very difficult to challenge within the legal framework, should this become necessary. National minimum standards would have been helpful.
3 Do you agree that the description of local authorities’ responsibilities (paragraphs 2.5-2.11) is accurate and helpful?
No
Comments: No.
§ 2.6 states that the Local Authority has a statutory responsibility to identify children who are missing or in danger of missing education, but this does not apply to home educated children. This would seem to contradict the Local Authority’s duty of care under “ECM”, and under local Children’s Safeguarding Protocols. The DFES Guidance does not offer advice on what to do here. This is not helpful.
§ Under Section 437 (1) of the Education Act 1996, Local Authorities can intervene if they have good reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education. How can local authority officers ‘have good reason to believe’ education is not ‘suitable’ if they do not know about a child, or do not have the authority to meet the child if they do.
4.12 OFSTED will report on how the Local Authority caters for home- educated families – there would be an expectation that this issue of children missing education would be addressed.
4 Do you agree that the section on contact with the local authority (paragraphs 3.4-3.7) is accurate and helpful?
No
Comments: No.
It is an accepted fact that the majority of home- educating parents register their children as home educated with the local authority, and accept help and advice when it is offered. But the issue lies with having the duty of care to all children. Some are not registered and under current law don’t have to be. Some families may be difficult to track and may avoid contact with the local authority, because they know that they are not providing an education. It means that some of the most vulnerable children remain so.
The section on submission of a report by parents is unhelpful. There are no guidelines on quality or content or substantiation.
Assessment of a child’s education should not have to be based just on goodwill.
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?
No
Comments: This section is particularly negative.
It focuses on the rights of the parents in terms of what they do not have to do when providing an education for their children, and there are no minimum standards. The autonomous approach may be respected by Local Authorities, but is difficult to assess if there is little evidence of planning and outcome. Access to literacy and numeracy should be a basic right for any child, even if these are not measured as in mainstream school. Further, there is a need to ensure that home educated children also have all 5 ECM outcomes promoted, with support/inspection visits by the responsible local authority going beyond purely academic issue.
Terms used in these paragraphs are vague and unclear. It is difficult to quantify “consistent involvement” of parents, and “opportunities for the child to be stimulated”.
This section serves to raise the level of subjective judgment by LA officers.
6 Do you agree that the section on developing relationships (section 4) is useful?
No
Comments: No.
The Guidelines indicate that positive relationships should be built up, but by Law one does not have to.
No right of access to see the child / speak to the child alone - continues to be an issue, and the Local Authority is again relying on goodwill to promote contact with parents.
7 a) Are the suggested resources in section 5 and appendix 2 useful?
Yes
Comments: yes, however
5.2 Suggests that the Local Authority may offer additional support. There is a funding issue here because it implies to parents that there could be an expectation/provision of additional support or resources, and this is unhelpful advice.
5.5 Connexions Service – this is a very useful service, but it may not be taking an overview of all young people, and so some Elective Home Education children are lost to the system.
5.6 Flexi-schooling - We are not certain why Flexi-schooling has been included in the guidelines because flexi-schooled children are still on a school roll, and the school receives funding. These children are not home educated.
5.7 Work experience – If parents are taking responsibility for their children’s education, then this will include arrangements for work experience. Local Authorities are not able to provide resources; EHE parents should provide their own insurance arrangements /Health and Safety / CRB checks.
5.11 GRT families have a dedicated paragraph in the guidance, but Local Authorities are dealing sensitively with a number of other ethnic minority/religious groups. The document is implying that this particular group of children might have access to funding, where other groups may not.
7 b) Should any other contacts be included?
Yes
Comments:
Parent Partnership
School Health Service
Open University
8 Please use this space for any other comments you wish to make about the guidelines
§ The DFES Guidelines have been written in accordance with the Law on home education as it stands, and still does not address the anomalies of the Local Authority having to work to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child, under the terms of the Children Act 2004 “Every Child Matters” but having no right to see the child.
§ The needs, attitudes and aspirations of the child are to be recognised, but this is difficult if LA Officers do not meet the child or if there is insufficient information for an objective educational assessment.
§ The DFES has produced Guidelines for LAs, but has not drawn up guidance for parents who are responsible for the EHE.
§ The Guidelines do not address the issue of home educated children who are not registered with the Local Authority..
§ LA Officers in Gloucestershire are already working closely to these new guidelines, have been doing so for years, and in many instances go further than minimum recommendations. National minimum expectations are needed to ensure that the child achieves ECM outcomes.
§ The Guidelines rely too much on goodwill, and not on the basic rights or interests of the child.
Only a change in the legal framework would ensure that Local Authorities are not impaired in their efforts to support the home- educated child under the terms of ECM.
~~~~~
Comments:
~~~~~
News:
Regional groups:
http://www.bristolhomeeducation.org.uk/
http://members.lycos.co.uk/GlosHomeEducators/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SouthGlousHomeEd/
~~~~~
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.