Surrey County Council LA

a page for information, news and comment in Surrey 

related links:

Meeting the LA Education Department

Guidance on improving LEAs

EHE Guidelines consultation response

Here is a transcript of the Surrey County Council LA response to the government consultation on elective home education guidelines to local authorities. Please interject responses under comments.

Questions for Consultation

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

Yes.

Surrey County Council welcomes the clarity of the guidance and the fact that the purpose is to support local authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities.

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.

The guidelines seem to be an accurate reflection of the law and good practice.

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

2.5 Whilst agreeing with the statement that all children should make reasonable progress it is hard to see how progress can be measured if the local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.

2.6 Again, how do the local authorities know the child is receiving education if enquiries can be made only if there is reason to believe parents are not providing a suitable education?

2.7 The draft guidance 2007 emphasises through bold print that local authorities can intervene if they have good reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education implying the local authority can only take action when a complaint has been received.

It does not acknowledge as clearly as earlier draft guidance that local authorities may, in the first instance, make informal enquiries. Draft guidance from DfES to local authorities in 2002 and 2004 and ‘A Summary of the Law Relating to Home Education in England and Wales’ produced by education otherwise stated:

"Although the legal duty of LEAs is concerned only with children who appear not to be receiving a suitable education, case law (Phillips v Brown, Divisional Court [20 June 1980, unreported]) has established that an LEA may make informal enquiries of parents who are educating their children at home to establish that a suitable education is being provided."

2.8 This section alludes to the above but mentions Phillips v Brown as a footnote with no explanation of Lord Donaldson’s judgement.

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

3.4 The role of Traveller Education Support Service is to enable and support the children of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families to attend school.

Despite working closely with TESS and making joint visits to families who intend to home educate, TESS feel their efforts to maintain school attendance are undermined by elective home education whose “suitability” is that it “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”, and may be seen by parents as an easy option and means to avoid prosecution for their child’s non-attendance at school.

3.5 Surrey County Council is pleased to note the guidance recognises the contribution of the child and seeks to include his/her views either by attendance at a meeting or expressed in some other way.

3.7 It is the experience of Surrey County Council that many parents welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision that they are making for their child’s education and we, as the local authority are happy to meet at venues other than the home or to be provide with evidence of suitable education in other ways if parents choose not to meet, however, in a minority of cases it is extremely difficult to establish the veracity of a written report. Surrey County Council is willing to accept creative and flexible education arrangements but is concerned that 'evidence' submitted may not be the work of the child. To safeguard the child's right to education, a person in the employ of the local authority should see and speak to the child.

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?

3.11 Accurate but unhelpful when parents request a definition of full time or use the fact that there is no definition of full time to justify providing a minimal number of hours education per day.

3.12 Accurate and helpful.

3.13 Far more helpful and specific than previous guidance. Each characteristic is valued especially the expectation by the DfES of consistent involvement of parents or significant carers playing a substantial role in providing education.

3.14 Accurate and helpful. However, access to ICT is integral to providing education at home. Not all families (especially GRT) have this and may be reluctant to use the resources at public libraries.

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

This section is useful. Officers of Surrey County Council endeavour at all times to develop positive relationships with home educating families but in some cases their efforts are rejected on the grounds of interference and abuse of the parents’ right to privacy. A small but increasing number of parents tolerate enquiries by the local authority but do not wish to develop a relationship; the fact that they respond to the local authority with identically worded letters suggest that this is an organised group.

4.5 Parents need a more comprehensive set of information than proposed - e.g. on key contacts in the local authority for advice and clarification. Connexions services - not enough guidance e.g. as a service for young people of 13 above, it is young people who need to make the decision to opt out or not from this service not parents; there is not enough clarity as to Connexions requirements to track young people who have opted out of the service.

4.9 Whilst there is no provision for education professionals to see the child (they could be the only professional involved) it is possible for child protection issues to be concealed.

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

Yes

7b. Should any other contacts be included?

Social contacts are important so information directing parents to local drama groups, the Youth Service, sports clubs etc would be useful.

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

1.4 The wording of this section does not refer to parents whose intention is to remove their child from school for a short period of time. A proviso should be made that parents who intend to home-educate for a period and then return their child to the school system may disadvantage the child if they do not follow the National Curriculum. The statement could be repeated in paragraph 3.11.

2.4 It is essential that parents are made aware that they must assume full financial responsibility for all aspects of the child’s education. Since parents have great difficulty arranging for their children to sit public examinations attention should be drawn, at this point, to Annexe A.

3.9 There is conflict here with The Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations introduced on 1st September 2006. Regulation 12(3) states:

"The name of a school-age pupil must be deleted if the proprietor has written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school. The school must inform their local authority as soon as they become aware and before the deletion is made."

Whilst it is acknowledged that compulsory registration of all home educators would require a change to the Law, there is considerable strength of feeling within Surrey County Council that the education of some vulnerable children is not monitored because registration is not compulsory.

3.17 and 3.18 Clarification is needed as the guidance does not say if it is compulsory for the local authority to amend the statement to read "parents have made their own arrangements under section 7 of the Education Act 1996" where the authority is satisfied that the child's parents have made suitable arrangements.

“The statement can also specify any provision that the LEA has agreed to make under section 319 to help parents to provide suitable education for their child at home.” Clarification needed again. Does it mean funding provided to schools for SNA support, Speech and Language Therapy and resources for disabled children such as standing frames or specially adapted desks, etc. would be transferred to parents to provide the same resources at home?

Annexe A Paragraph 2. Home-educated young people do not have equal opportunities with their peers who attend school.

In Surrey, home educated young people are precluded from attending College in year 11 because available places are secured by transfer of funds from schools to colleges. Recent changes to the examination system have made it extremely difficult for home-educated children to take GCSE examination. The main difficulties are:

• The range of examinations available to private candidates is limited

Children Educated As A Group

No information is provided on children educated as a group. Surrey County Council is aware of children of school age educated in groups of 5 or more on a part time basis, generally three or four days per week. Clarification is required on the regulations for registration of schools. Similarly, would the regulation apply to a family home educating five or more siblings?

In addition to 'The Guidance To LEAs On Elective Home Education, could the DfES produce a booklet giving guidance to the public on Elective Home-Education? The booklet should include procedures for home-education, the implications of de-registration, case studies, examples of good practice, etc.

Finally, a comment from a home-educating parent: “I did read the document and thought it a very thorough laying out of things I was vaguely aware of. If I had had any major comments I would have got them to you but if this is to become government policy then I feel it gives security to parents who felt under pressure to justify their decisions or lifestyles, whilst still allowing for LA involvement where children seem to need protection.”

~~~~~

Comments:

please add your comments here.

News:

Surrey CC LA News:

October 2007

Hi

March 15th 2008

Just when we thought progress had been made ... Surrey has come back with some old and new tricks up its sleeve. Several new home educators have recently had unfavourable first contact from the LA and it seems they are back to pretending they have a right to home visits, and one family had a demand for a programme of work and timetable. They have also offered to put new families in contact with other local home educators ... one presumes the LA's "obedient" families must give consent for this ... and also revived their old "home educators' ID card" scheme. The latter apparently began some time back when they began demanding passport size photographs of children so that ID cards could be issued to "prove" to that they were "genuinely" home educated if they encountered a truancy sweep, but home educators objected and the LA appeared to backed. However, these families recently contacted by the LA have now had requests for photographs for ID cards. A letter of complaint is in progress.

Surrey's Truancy Protocol document

This has recently been the subject of complaints by home educators, to both Surrey Police and the head of Surrey's truancy team. So far an (unsatisfactory) response has been received from the Police (and a reply is in progress), but no response yet from the truancy team head. The policy document is here:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspublications.nsf/591f7dda55aad72a80256c670041a50d/ed5ddebfaa62178f8025727a003cbf59/$FILE/Joint%20Protocol%20forTruancy%20Patrols.pdf

but these are the specific bits we are complaining about:

Approaching young people who are accompanied by an adult

In those circumstances where the child or young person approached is in the company of an adult, suitable enquiries will be made to verify the legitimacy of the child’s absence from school and, where appropriate, the accompanying adult’s reasons for keeping the child out of school will be challenged. Checks will be made to ensure that the accompanying adult is a suitable person to be with that child. The Truancy Stop Form will be completed and details of both the child and the adult will be taken.

Approaching young people who are alone and appear to be of statutory school age  

Young people who have been verified as excluded by school, those who state that they are home-educated or those not receiving a suitable education should be returned home, or if necessary after contact with their parent left with a suitable adult. Parents have a duty to supervise their children when they are not in school. If no contact can be made immediately the child will be taken to their school or the designated place until contact is made.

Home-educated pupils are followed up by the Lead Advisory for Education by Parental Provision.

We are not sure if the LA's revival of the ID cards has anything to do with the complaints received about the truancy protocol, and whether they think they can counter our objections by suggesting that ID cards are the answer ... especially if they manage to con new home educators into accepting them. 

October 2009

More bad news. The Surrey EHE team are now working to an unofficial policy (a copy of which we received via a Freedom of Information request) which includes doorstepping any family that doesn't explicitly decline the 'offer' of a home visit, in other words it's not an offer, they make an appointment for you. There is currently no indication of this in the letter that they send out but it is what will happen.

In addition to recommending that you keep all communication with Surrey in writing we now have to recommend being out at the time of the appointment unless you have received confirmation in writing that it will not go ahead. 

September 2010

A lot has happened since that last update!

Both Pam Berryman and Andrea Cunningham have retired. A new EHE Advisor Gwen Crossan has started.

As a result of the dreadful draft policy mentioned above a petition was presented to the Schools & Learning (now renamed Education, Learning and Development) Committee asking that a new policy be created in line with current law and guidelines and in consultation with local Home Educators. Much to our surprise the response was positive, they agreed that it was a very good idea. As a result a Working Group was set up to consult with interested parties and draw up a new policy which will then undergo the usual consultation process before finally being presented to the full council for approval. 

Members of the Working Group are:

Dorothy Ross-Tomlin : chairman of the Education, Learning and Development Committee
Steve Cosser : councillor

Margaret Widdows : County Lead For Children Out Of School

Gwen Crossan : Senior EHE Advisor

Ruth O'Hare : Home Educator

Lindsey Steadman : Home Educator

As of writing there have been 2 meetings of the group and a focus group for local home educators will be held on 20th October 2010. It is planned that the policy will be ready for public consultation starting around May 2011. Regular updates, reports from the meetings and discussions can be found on the surrey_home_ed Yahoo Group.

~~~~~

Regional Groups:

http://www.swsurrey-home-ed.co.uk/

... Unschooling, de-schooling, autonomous, structured, steiner, montessori, don't have a name for it ... weekly gatherings alternating between Farnham and Godalming.

~~~~~