DfES consultation question

South Gloucestershire LA response

1

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

Yes, but these new guidelines are not robust enough to support LAs to fulfil their duties.

2

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

It is as accurate as it can be given the vagueness of the law, but clarity of vocabulary is needed in order to accurately interpret the law. Eg ‘suitable’ and ‘efficient’. There should be national minimum standards. See reference to ‘Research and Advice Commissioned by the DfES – The situation regarding current policy, provision and practice on Elective Home Education for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children’ para 6.13 states; “That the criteria for assessment and monitoring/inspection visits should be based on a modified version of the requirements for the inspection of independent schools under Section 162a, Education Act 2002”

3

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

No. The paragraphs and sections are contradictory. Para 2.6 indicates that under the CME guidelines EHE children are NOT included, para 2.7  indicates that LAs have NO statutory duty  in relation to monitoring EHE so why are there any guidelines at all? This contradicts  para 4.12 which advises that Ofsted will report on the way local authorities ‘cater’ for home educating families in their area. Furthermore, LAs can intervene if they have ‘good reason’ but how will the LA ever know if there is a good reason if there are no minimum standards and if parents are under no obligation to cooperate??

4

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

No! para 3.4 states that the LA should not automatically assume  that there is a problem if the parent does not want any involvement with the LA. This contradicts Every Child Matters. How can we protect children and ensure they are Safe, Achieve, Enjoy etc under these circumstances? Non-cooperation and refusal of access to a child is about the only incontrovertible fact an LA could rely upon to judge the situation, the rest is opinion. Para 3.7 – these examples are completely insufficient to provide evidence that a child is receiving ‘an efficient, full time education suitable to their age ability and aptitude’ Education Act 1996.

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. This is contradictory guidance. Again reference should be made  to minimum standards (see Q2 above).  Para 3.11 contradicts 3.13 in suggesting that the child needs materials, ICT etc when 3.11 advises that the premises do not need to be equipped to any particular standard. Again we refer to the DfES publication in Q2 (para 6.2)   in 3.11 it states that there is no requirement for parents to have a particular qualification: “few gypsy and traveller parents have the knowledge, skills and resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable” ….

If EHE parents are not required to undertake any of the ten bullet points mentioned, how is the LA expected to make any judgements?

6

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

No. What is the nature of the relationship? Monitoring? Advising? It is contradictory – 2.7 states that there is no statutory duty to monitor so why is there a need to build a relationship at all? How can a relationship be built if the family do not want contact with the LA? See reference again to the DfES Research and Advice (ref Q2) in para 6.7 it states” In the light of the recent legislative programme to improve the education of all children and to protect them from harm and abuse, it is strange that elective home education is the only area of education and child care that is not subject to  more rigorous statutory regulation concerned with assurance and accountability………”

7a

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

No. As there is no statutory responsibility, no funding and no legislation to support them, why would LAs wish to undertake additional responsibility for resources? This is already provided in public libraries, leisure centres, museums etc. Paras 5.6 and 5.7 may raise expectations when there may be no resources available – the parents should be aware that work experience may only be available if they themselves arrange it.

7b

Should any other contacts be included?

In terms of the format, why does Education Otherwise Association have a priority ‘title’ and listed first? The list should be alphabetical and have the same amount of contact information for each association.

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

Despite urgent requests and recommendations from local authorities up and down the country over the past few years, there still appears to be no change in legislation. The same anomalies persist – the same contradictions between EHE and Safeguarding children and Every Child Matters. What is crucial is a change in the law as recommended in recent research “The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study” York Consulting Ltd. Para 6.5 - Recommendation 1 “The DfES should take steps to address the concerns raised by LAs regarding the tension between the legalities surrounding EHE and LA obligations around child welfare. Action should be taken to define more effectively what constitutes an efficient and suitable education….”. In the DfES commissioned document previously mentioned regarding provision and practice on EHE for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, (6.8) states that “.. parliamentary legislation is required” supported by (6.11) “circulars, and other guidance together with initial and periodic national training programme”

Recommendation: As a matter of urgency, South Gloucestershire Council’s Children and Young People’s Department request that there are no more delays and prevarication, but instead a parliamentary review of the legislation surrounding Elective Home Education to adequately protect children and ensure that the Every Child Matters agenda includes children educated at home.