Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by School-Home Support

  School-Home Support is a national charity, established in 1984 that provides practical and emotional support for disadvantaged and disaffected children and young people and for their families and carers.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    —  The role of "choice adviser" should be imaginatively conceived and parent focused; designed to ensure that parents and children find transfer to secondary school manageable and that it is successfully completed.

    —  Schools should find interesting ways of communicating information about children's progress—ways that succeed in engaging all parents and carers.

    —  Home-School agreements do need to be re-launched. But although parents usually sign them how many actually understand what they have signed up to? If mediated by a support worker these can be made much more effective.

    —  We hope Ofsted will interpret their brief for inspection of schools' engagement with parents as widely as possible and not interpret it solely as that prescribed by law.

OUR EVIDENCE

  1.  SHS welcomes the White Paper's emphasis on the responsibilities parents have in the education of their children. Some of the ambitions described—raising standards for all, especially amongst the least advantaged, helping parents to engage with the education of their children we would share.

  2.  We welcome the notion that ALL secondary schools are responsible for combating truancy, for improving behaviour and for hard to place children.

  3.  The expectation that schools will work closely with Children's Trusts is welcomed.

  4.  We also welcome the emphasis on the design of a system of education around the needs of children and on personalisation.

  5.  We are concerned about the changing role of local authorities especially as they have the responsibility to implement the Every Child Matters agenda. If they lose their maintaining responsibility for schools how will they be able to monitor the delivery of the five key outcomes in schools?

  6.  There are schools that need to improve particularly with regard to working in partnership with parents. Where schools work in partnership with parents the benefits in terms of outcomes for children and young people are huge. In our experience parents want their children to be happy at school. It would not occur to many of the parents we meet to request a new school.

  7.  The role of the local authorities as recruiter of a Parents' Champion is welcome. We welcome the proposals to provide better information for parents.

  8.  "Choice advisers" will undoubtedly help parents confused and worried by the plethora of choice of secondary schools in London and in other urban areas.

  9.  We know that many parents need more than a one-off session with a "choice adviser". Changing school is rightly recognised as a daunting and difficult time for parents and children; there are always some who have no school to go to when September arrives. The reality of a "choice adviser" needs to be imaginative if the process of transfer is to be made more manageable and if children are not to lose ground in their first year in secondary school.

  10.  The requirement to give parents information on children's progress at least three times a year is welcome but schools must find innovative ways of communicating this.

  11.  The decision to re-launch the guidance on Home-School agreements is welcome. Where mediated by a support worker they will undoubtedly be more successful. At present parents sign them—but how many really understand what they have signed and why? But this should not be where home-school links begin and end. Successful intervention where problems are identified early can prevent problems young people experience becoming intractable and constructive home-school links can facilitate this.

  12.  We welcome the requirement of Ofsted to report on schools' engagement with parents. We hope Ofsted will not take a mechanistic view of this and refer only to schools' legal obligations. Effective parental involvement in schools is much more than that prescribed by law.

  13.  The stronger encouragement to involve pupils in secondary schools in decision making through school councils is welcome. Many primary schools also have school councils so those in secondary schools need to build on the experience many young people have already developed.

  14.  The additional funding that will be made available for schools to provide information sessions when children start at primary and secondary school is welcome—however, time and thought need to be given to responding the kinds of questions parents have. Some, unfamiliar with the UK system, may be unable to articulate the anxieties they have and building trust takes time.

  15.  The recommendation that schools should develop the function of a Pupil and Parent Support worker mirrors the role our School-Home Support Workers have in schools. It would be a pity if the Pupil and Parent support worker role was too narrowly conceived.

  16.  The continuing consultations with local authorities about whether they have the tools they need to support parents is welcome—it is our view that they do not, that they need to recruit or commission from the voluntary sector where there is considerable expertise.

  17.  We welcome the recognition of the role of parents and of the needs of disadvantaged children and families—they do need more resources. But we do consider that the White Paper misses the point insofar as disadvantaged groups are concerned. It is not they who will lobby for new schools or drive change. For whatever reasons they are concerned that their children go happily and safely to school, that they are happy there and are not bullied. Within the context of their lives they are unlikely to be able to campaign for new schools.

  18.  We know that there are some groups who are more at risk of being troubled by the secondary transfer process:

  The risk factors are:

    —  Children who have less parental support.

    —  They appear to teachers and other adults o be less confident and mature young people.

    —  Their SATs results are below average.

    —  They are more likely to be from poorer socio economic background.

    —  Their families suffer from poor health.

    —  They live in poor housing conditions.

    —  They suffer from material deprivation.

    —  The family are often led by a lone parent.

    —  Children already have a pattern of poor attendance or behavioural, social and emotional issues.

  It is important to identify risk factors early and make contingency plans so that these children have appropriate secondary school places.

  19.  SHS makes a difference. Where secondary schools employ School-Home Support workers:

    —  Attendance in Year 7 improves.

    —  Information about a Year 7 student is received in time for schools to implement special provision.

    —  Students already "know" main people in the secondary school when they attend.

    —  Parents feel supported and can ask for advice.

    —  Fewer children are lost in the system.

    —  Children in Year 7 "settle in better".

   We have case studies available that illustrate our interventions.

  17.  We are concerned that allowing popular schools to expand may well affect less successful schools adversely. It is not always the case the less popular schools are not good schools. Small schools are often more successful with more challenging children and young people because they are small—this is a case where size does matter—in this instance—smallness.

November 2005





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 1 February 2006