NSPCC Response to the DCSF Proposals for the
Registration and Monitoring of Home Education
Introduction
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(NSPCC) is the UK's
leading charity specialising in child protection and the prevention of cruelty
to children. The NSPCC aims to end cruelty to children by seeking to influence
legislation, policy, practice, attitudes and behaviours for the benefit of
children and young people. This is achieved through a combination of service
provision, lobbying, campaigning and public education.
The NSPCC believes that, given the
will, all cruelty can be prevented. In
order to achieve this, it is vital that all children, whatever their needs,
have a range of services that are flexible and offer them support and
protection. The
NSPCC has a number of services in the UK
and the Channel Islands. These services aim to:
· Prevent children
being abused by working with parents and carers in vulnerable families to
improve their knowledge and skills in safeguarding, and giving children and
young people someone to turn to through the provision of our Listening
Services.
· Protect vulnerable
children and young people from abuse by providing direct services in a number
of settings, including schools and young people's centres. We also protect them by providing Listening
Services for adults to ensure they have someone to turn to with their concerns;
by ensuring that abused children and young people are identified and effective
action is taken to protect them, and by working with young people and adults
who pose a risk to children and young people to reduce the risk of abuse.
· Help children and
young people who have been abused overcome the effects of abuse and achieve
their potential.
This response
draws on the experience of NSPCC staff involved in direct service provision as
well as those involved in working with LSCBs on improving processes for
safeguarding.
General comments
Our interest in this subject is for one
reason and that is our mission to end child cruelty. Our concern is that children are safeguarded
effectively in all settings, including in the home. Our expertise is in child protection, not in
education, and our comments therefore focus on the safeguarding aspects of home
education.
The following anonymised quote from a
girl who called our ChildLine service in 2008/09 provides an insight into why
it is important that the legislative framework must be fit for the purpose of
establishing that children are safe when they are being educated at home: "My dad is hitting me and I am scared. He is touching me in
naughty places. My mum gone to heaven. Dad is saying he will rape me if I tell
anyone. My dad has kept me away from school last two years." (Girl aged 10)
1 Do you agree that these proposals strike the right
balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of
children to receive a suitable education?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments: Any proposals should be rooted in the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Articles 12 (fulfilling children's rights to have their voices heard)
and 29 (their right to an education) are of key relevance. For many home
educators it does seem that they are asserting their rights as a means of
protecting their children's rights.
This is understandable, but the difficulty is ensuring that the
views of a parent do not prevent a child from achieving their rights.
This balance is always going to be hard
to achieve. The proposals go some of
the way towards this goal and we therefore support them.
|
|
2 Do you agree that a register should be kept?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments:
As noted in the Badman Review: "It
is a cause for concern that although approximately 20,000 home educated
children and young people are known to local authorities, estimates vary as
to the real number which could be in excess of 80,000". (para 1.3). With the movement of families it is
relatively easy for a child to "disappear ", especially if there is no
knowledge that the child exists. As
one home educator commented "When I
moved house to another local authority, no-one knew about my child because
I did not have to notify." (evidence to Children, Schools and Families
Select Committee 14th
Oct 2009).
We are also aware that home educators
have been concerned because their local authority has contacted them
because they believe the child is missing from education when in fact the
child is being educated at home. A
registration scheme would make this much less likely.
ContactPoint will hold information on
where a child is being educated and home educators can choose to have their
home address recorded under that field.
Local authorities will be able to identify the numbers of children
in home education (where recorded) and those where no education
establishment is recorded. So in essence there will be data on numbers of
children recorded as being home educated and those who are missing from
education (because no education establishment is recorded).
However the legislation under which
ContactPoint operates means it cannot be used as a register.
We therefore support the need for a
simple register with clarity for parents and local authorities about
registration requirements.
Registration should be a process that
is two-way and one includes providing information about the rights of and
resources available to parents and children (see below).
|
|
3 Do you agree with the information to be provided for
registration?
|
|
Comments:
We have not ticked any of boxes above
as our response does not fit any of them.
The register does not need to be
extensive and so basic information is all that should be required (Name,
date of birth, gender, names of parents/ carers, and contact details).
In essence we see the purpose of a
register as providing the relevant local authority with enough information
to ensure it is clear about the population of home-schooled children, to be
able to separate home-educated children from those who are missing from
education and to enable local service provision (in line with other
recommendations emerging from the Badman Review).
It would also be helpful for there to
be a process which in addition places a duty on local authorities to inform children of their rights, parents of
their obligations, and both parties of the range of resources available for
them, for example home education groups and ChildLine.
|
|
4 Do you agree that home educating parents should be
required to keep the register up to date?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments:
It would be reasonable to expect that
the data held should be confirmed with parents on an annual basis to ensure
it is accurate. If registration is
kept simple (as we suggest in Q3) then this is not an onerous task.
This would be similar to other
requirements to confirm registration with a GP, or for the purposes of the
electoral record to confirm that the information held about an individual
is correct.
|
|
5 Do you agree that it should be a criminal offence to fail
to register or to provide inadequate or false information?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments: We noted in our submission to
the Badman Review that offering meaningful and relevant support would be
the most effective way of engaging and developing good relationships with
families.
In our experience criminalising parents
is not the best approach and compliance should be achieved through other
means. However this would clearly need to be kept under review; we
recognise that in exceptional cases it may be the only means left for a
local authority to ensure compliance.
|
|
6 a) Do you agree that home educated children should
stay on the roll of their former school for 20 days after parents notify that
they intend to home educate?
6 b) Do you agree that the school should provide the
local authority with achievement and future attainment data?
7 Do you agree that DCSF should take powers to issue
statutory guidance in relation to the registration and monitoring of home
education?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments:
It is important that any approach is consistent
across England. One of the valid criticisms to date has
been the inconsistencies between different local authorities and their
activities in relation to home education.
It is important that children in all local authorities should
benefit from the enhanced safeguarding potential of registration and
monitoring. To achieve this guidance
would need to be statutory.
|
|
8 Do you agree that children about whom there are
substantial safeguarding concerns should not be home educated?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments:
Any decisions about a child need to be
based on the specific circumstances and concerns about that child.
Where there are substantial safeguarding concerns
relating to parents /carers of the child, then as part of any decision
making, one would expect there to be clear consideration given of the most
appropriate and safe place for the child to be educated. Where this is a child is being home
educated, then it may be appropriate to say that education cannot continue
at home or until such time that the situation is satisfactorily resolved
with all parties agreed.
However, it would not make sense to
require a child to end home education, in cases where: the risks to the
child are not related to their parent / carer or where the parents/carers
are assessed as being capable of protecting the child.
e.g
it may be an abusive parent
who is not living at home and
not involved in providing the home education but sees the child
regularly. In that case the risk is
not at the home and so it would not be reasonable for the home education to
stop
|
|
9 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the
premises where home education is taking place provided 2 weeks notice is given?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments:
From the education point of view, this
seems to be reasonable notice, but we would defer to others.
We take the view that the two week
notice is not relevant if there are concerns reported about a child. Local authorities and their partners will
have processes in place which they will use if they have a concern to
decide what action to take and when.
In working through this issue it is
important to separate out the processes set 1989 around child protection
and children in need , and the processes in relation to home education. In
our reading of the consultation document, we read the two weeks as being of
relevance to the provision of education and not of relevance in relation to
safeguarding concerns.
There are two issues, the first being
whether the child is "safe"; the second being where they are they receiving
an "education". To obtain good
answers to both questions relies on skilled and experienced staff being
able to engage with both children and parents. We know that home educators have, for
good reason, frequently cited very poor experiences of engaging with local
authorities. So there is an
understandable wariness and distrust.
In our response to the review we noted that "Processes that focus on support tend to be more successful in
engaging with the majority of families and are more likely to lead to
improved outcomes, than a focus on monitoring and prescription. However,
local authority staff involved in this process must be trained to identify
signs of abuse and know what to do if they suspect it, or if a child
discloses abuse. "
We know from the correspondence and
discussion with home educators that a key issue has been the experience,
skills and knowledge of the staff involved.
We agree with recommendation 22 which is about ensuring that staff
with appropriate knowledge and training undertake this work.
In discussions with our staff it is
clear that home visits are important, and they should take place. We note
however that for these to be meaningful and helpful the staff undertaking
them need to be skilled and competent, including in identifying possible
signs of child abuse or neglect. The
key issue for the NSPCC is ensuring the skills and competence of the staff
involved.
|
|
10 Do you agree that the local authority should have the
power to interview the child, alone if this is judged appropriate, or if not in
the presence of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer?
|
x
|
Agree
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Not sure
|
|
|
Comments: The practice of our staff
highlights the importance of speaking to children alone unless that creates
distress for the child; we therefore agree that local authorities should
have this power. We would also note
that there should be a clear record which notes reasons also for not seeing
the child alone.
As with Q 9 it is crucial that staff
have the pre-requisite skills to communicate with children and know what to
do if a child raises an issue be it
about not wanting to be home educated or about abuse. The NSPCC has developed a number of resources
for a range of organisations and professional groups on safeguarding and
child protection. For example we have developed EduCare which is a set of
modules to support people developing an understanding of child protection
and knowing what to do. We would be
happy to offer our support in developing resources or training for staff.
We note the concern expressed by some
home educators, that their children
have been traumatised by their past experiences of the education system and
this would lead to further traumatisation.
Depending on the circumstances and how long ago it happened, it may
be insensitive to expect a child to be seen alone, but decisions should be
made in discussion with parents.
However, most children (who
have not had traumatic experiences) are resilient and it would be
reasonable to expect them to be able to cope with meeting an unknown adult
and handle some discussion about their learning.
|
|
11 Do you agree that the local authority should visit the
premises and interview the child within four weeks of home education starting,
after 6 months has elapsed, at the anniversary of home education starting, and
thereafter at least on an annual basis? This would not preclude more
frequent monitoring if the local authority thought that was necessary.
|
|
Comments:
We have not ticked any of boxes above
as our response does not fit any of them.
There does need to be engagement
between the family and the local authority.
Getting the approach right first time is vital as that sets the
agenda for future working.
The model suggested of within four
weeks, then six months and then annually sounds reasonable. Rather than prescribing a visit to the
premises within the first four weeks, it may be better to require that one
of those first three visits should be to the premises. Meeting initially on neutral ground may
be more beneficial for some parents/children and once there has been some
engagement it may "feel" safer for the parents/child to allow them into the
premises of learning.
There does need to be clarity about the
nature of the assessment and this is best managed by such an assessment
being developed collaboratively between home educators, educators and
government. Any records should be shared with children and their parents.
|
|
|
Please tick if you want us to keep
your response confidential.
|
|
|
Name
|
Policy Team
|
|
Organisation (if applicable)
|
NSPCC
|
|
Address:
|
42 Curtain Rd
London
EC2A 3NH
|
Please tick the box that best describes you as a
respondent.
|
|
Home educated child/young person
|
|
Home educating parent
|
|
Organisation representing home educating
families
|
|
|
Local Authorities
|
X
|
Other organisation with responsibility
for children (please specify in box below)
|
|
Other (please specify in box below)
|
|
|
Please Specify: We provide a number of services to
children who are being abused.
|
|
October
2009
