Raising Standards, Improving Outcomes:

Draft Statutory Guidance on the Early Years Outcomes Duty

Launch Date: Wednesday 23 May 2007

Closing Date: Monday 17 September 2007

Introduction

Here is the department of DCSF introduction to the consultation:

Consultation on the Raising standards, improving outcomes statutory guidance.

"This consultation seeks views on the draft statutory guidance on the Early Years outcomes duty. The Childcare Act 2006 introduces, for the first time, a duty on local authorities to improve all young children’s outcomes aged from birth up to the August following their fifth birthday, and reduce inequalities between them, through integrated early childhood services. Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and Jobcentre Plus are under reciprocal duties to work with local authorities and the draft statutory guidance outlines what local authorities and their partners should do to fulfil the duties set out in sections 1-4 of the Childcare Act 2006. The new duty will commence on 1 April 2008 and in preparation for this the Government will publish the final statutory guidance during autumn 2007. Local authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and Jobcentres Plus must have regard to this guidance when carrying out their duties.

This duty will ensure that effective, integrated early childhood services for young children are given a long-term and sustainable footing, with parents and children in every community able to access integrated, pro-active and outcomes-focused services.

A draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanies this draft guidance. The Government is committed to ensuring that the statutory guidance does not place new unfunded burdens on local authorities as it formalises and places on a more long-term and sustainable basis the roles and responsibilities that local authorities and their partners already have in working together on the Sure Start Programme. The duties will, therefore, be funded from within existing allocations and future settlements.

This document has been drafted for public consultation and we are keen to hear the views of our key delivery partners and stakeholders, and that these are taken into account in making the final guidance as useful and effective as possible."

Child Care Act 2006

Here is a link to the Act:

Child Care Act 2006.pdf

Child Care Act 2006.htm

AHEd's response

Here is the response sent in by the committee and membership of AHEd:

(response identifier 85.)

Name: (Name of group chair.)

Email: ahed@ahed.org.uk

Address:

Organisation: Action for Home Education (AHEd)

Response on Behalf of an organisation: Yes

Keep response confidential: No

Allowed to contact in the future: Yes

Request a response acknowledgement: Yes

Request to be informed when the consultation results are published: Yes

Respondent Information Questions

Which respondent type best describes you (please use the box below to provide additional detail):

Answer/Comments

AHED is a group of home educators and supporters working for the rights and freedoms of families electing to educate their children from home, within their natural communities and outside the schooling system.

Consultation Questions:

1 Does the statutory guidance make clear the roles and responsibilities of the local authority and its partners in meeting the requirements set out in sections 1-4 of the Childcare Act 2006?

Answer/Comments

The guidance makes the assumption that it is both acceptable and appropriate for the LA to take responsibility for children in every circumstance. This is not so, and the guidance fails to clarify the limits of LA responsibility. It ignores the fact that some parents will not opt for childcare provision, for perfectly valid, legal and child centred reasons. These may include a parental preference for home-based education. Officers and practitioners within LA services should be given clear guidance as to the limit of their role in such circumstances, and be directed to refrain from coercion. There is an underlying assumption that "inclusion" has to mean use of LA services, and this is not necessarily so and needs to made explicit.

Home educating parents frequently experience LA officers and departments over-stepping their legal responsibilities because of these assumptions.

The guidance redefines "social and economic well being" as being entirely related to parents being in employment. This will lead to unwelcome pressure on parents, particularly those who are home educating, lone, or parents of children with disabilities and special educational needs, to hand over the raising of their children to others. It is a legitimate and legal choice for parents to raise their children themselves, but this entire guidance is based on the assumption that this choice is inadequate when compared to services provided by LAs. Despite acknowledging (point 96) that evidence shows that a strong home learning environment is an even stronger predictor of a child's future attainment than high quality early learning delivered by professionals, the underlying assumption throughout the guidance is that children should be in monitored child-care settings outside of the home and parents should be in work. No account is taken at all of parent autonomy, of the right to decline public services without being labeled as "excluded" or assumed at risk of poor outcomes.

Point 89 states that 75% of parents have, on occasion, wanted more advice or support, but this guidance makes no mention of the valid position of the other 25% who do not want any more advice or support. This faulty emphasis risks causing many human rights abuses as families are deprived of their right to a private family life as defined in Article 8 of the ECHR.

2 Is the guidance clear about what constitutes effective partnerships between local authorities, Strategic Health Authorities or Primary Care Trusts and Jobcentres Plus, and how these fit within wider local strategic partnerships?

Answer/Comments

The section on partnerships is confusing and suggests layers of overlapping responsibilities and areas of influence, without it being clear to the lay reader who all these organisations are. It is difficult to access and obscure to anyone not immersed in the language of government.

There is an over-emphasis on information sharing, including for example (point 84) linking with voluntary organisations, that is not carefully enough qualified by necessity, and that risks massive abuse of a young child's privacy and safety. Not enough emphasis is put on the need to be very sensitive to the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

3 Is the guidance sufficiently clear on how analysis of data and research can enable service delivery to be effective in targeting those most in need of services, and the best ways of delivering services to overcome obstacles?

Answer/Comments

The guidance is vague on the subject of anonymity, and it is not clear how individuals rights will be upheld under Data Protection legislation. The guidance is based on the assumption that data sharing is a good thing. This is not true where the information is inaccurate, as it very often will be.

Because the guidance is based on the assumption that accessing LA services is by definition good, and not accessing them is bad, we are extremely concerned that the data will be misused to inappropriately target families who choose to raise their children themselves, including retaining full responsibility for their education.

The guidance makes the erroneous assumption that if a family do not access LA services a child's standard of achievement will be low (eg point 48). This causes false conclusions to be drawn from statistical analysis of research into access.

There are several places in the guidance where conclusions are drawn that contradict the facts raised at point 71 - that parental involvement in a child's early years is the "most significant" factor and that social class and ethnic background do NOT determine a person's ability to parent well. This would suggest that parents should be leaders, not partners, and the state should only get involved when requested to do so by the parent or where a clear need is apparent.

It raises concern about the ability to draw fair conclusions from research and data analysis when preconceived prejudices outweigh facts.

4 Does the guidance clearly set out the role of the local authority and the steps it should take to improve quality in the early years?

Answer/Comments

No. "Quality" is once again equated with early years settings, and the assumption is that quality "provision" cannot happen elsewhere. The assumption that families who choose to raise and educate their children themselves cannot provide quality care is both inaccurate and offensive. Taken together with target setting that covers all children in an LA area, this will lead to coercion of families to place their children outside of the family in order for targets to be met.

5 Is the guidance clear on how to meet the needs of those most at risk of poor outcomes for example from low income families, disabled children, BME groups, SEN etc?

Answer/Comments

The setting of targets based on the assumption of children placed in settings outside the family is likely to lead to discrimination against any group or family that makes an alternative choice, which is likely to include all of the groups mentioned, as well as those who choose to raise and educate their children themselves.

Many families labeled "at risk of poor outcomes" elect to raise and educate their children themselves, in order to achieve better outcomes; there is neither acknowledgement nor

understanding of this in the guidance.

Many families who meet these potentially discriminatory criteria may choose both to raise their children themselves, AND to take advantage of some, but not all services. Families in this situation already run the risk of coming under intense and undue pressure to put their children in to additional LA services such as day care, to avoid stigmatisation and unwelcome intrusion.

The guidance should make it clear that families making a positive choice to raise and educate their children themselves,

regardless of their additional needs, should be treated with respect and not put under such pressure. Setting targets for getting children of families "at most risk of poor outcomes" may in practice discriminate against those choosing family based child-rearing and education; likewise "active out-reach", if ill-informed about such lifestyle choices.

In the experience of AHEd members, LA employees are highly unlikely to understand or value home-based education and child-rearing, and this guidance compounds this problem.

6 Does the guidance explain what local authorities should be doing to involve parents, and listen to children in the planning, commissioning and delivery of service for young children?

Answer/Comments

Once again, the assumption is that the only positive route for children is via use of LA services. There is no acknowledgement or understanding that choosing not to use these services is valid, and the guidance therefore says nothing about engaging with and listening to families making this choice.

Families choosing home-based education often make this choice well before the compulsory age for education, and LAs should be instructed to develop their understanding of this choice in order to avoid infringing the rights of such families.

LA staff should also be instructed that informing parents and potential parents about their right to provide their children with an education otherwise than at school and early years provision that does not involve external providers, may well be the most suitable route to achieving positive outcomes for that child. Withholding information about all of a parent's legal choices in the raising of their child is not only immoral but is manipulative and based on erroneous assumptions.

7 Is the guidance clear about how to include Private Voluntary and Independent providers in partnership working?

Answer/Comments

No. It is also manipulative in that it attempts to limit use of PVIs by declaring them less qualified

8 Does the guidance demonstrate how statutory targets support the outcomes duty, and how local authorities will meet these targets?

Answer/Comments

No. The guidance does not make clear how LAs will set their targets, and what form they will take. LAs will be likely to set themselves crude indicators such as numbers taking up places, which are assumed to equate with good outcomes for all children, when this is not necessarily so. If targets are number focussed this will lead to LAs increasingly giving the

impression that use of early years provision is compulsory, so that their targets can be met, and thus unwelcome pressure on families to comply.

The guidance should instruct LAs to only set targets for minority and discriminated against groups, including home educating families, with the input and expert guidance of these groups. AHEd is extremely concerned that targets for "inclusion" will lead to families who opt to raise and educate their children themselves being put under pressure.

Because the guidance has re-defined "social and economic well being" in extremely narrow terms, i.e. parental employment, LAs will set themselves targets for getting parents into employment and then put inappropriate and discriminatory pressure on, for example, families of lone parents, or where children have disabilities and other special needs.

Targets should focus on the quality of service provided in their child care settings and ensuring that they are freely available, accessible, well advertised and desirable.

Targets should not be allowed to put pressure on children to perform or on families to take up services on offer.

9 Do you believe that local authorities and their partners require any further information than currently exists to support them in meeting the requirements set out in the guidance?

Answer/Comments

LAs require a much better understanding, and validation of, the choice to raise and educate children within the family. Ignorant and prejudiced LA officers make discriminatory judgements against home educating families all the time, and guidance such as this, which completely ignores the lifestyle choices of these families, contributes to widespread and institutionalised discrimination.

The great majority of LA employees in contact with children wholeheartedly believe that school is the best and only place to educate and raise children, and that children raised outside of this system are by definition disadvantaged - which a large body of research shows to be completely erroneous. Proper understanding of home-based education should be embedded in all such guidance at all levels of government, central and local.

The guidance should include regular reminders that take-up of LA or PVI services is not compulsory and that parents have primary legal and moral responsibility for the health, welfare and education of their children.