Memorandum submitted by Dr Ben Anderson (CS 18)
Children, Schools and Families Bill Schedule
1 ( proposed legislation to register, monitor, and support Elective Home
I would like to draw the Committee's attention
to a fundamental and persistent flaw in the financial benefit calculations
reported in the DCSF's revised (final) Impact Assessment dated 18/1/2010. If
corrected using data supplied to the DCSF by Mr Graham Badman, the costing
assumptions project an overall substantial
negative net financial out-turn over
the ten year timeframe.
1. In the previous Impact Assessment the DCSF used a figure of 8% for the proportion of EHE children receiving no education and an additional 12% for the proportion of EHE children thought to be receiving an unsuitable education.
2. In their revised Impact Assessment a rate of 1.8% is correctly used for the proportion receiving no education (as indicated by Mr Badman's supplementary evidence reported in his letter to Barry Sheerman MP (Chair, Children, Schools and Families Select Committee).
3. However the proportion who 'may' not be receiving a suitable education (new wording) is now incorreclty assumed to be 20%. In fact Mr Badman's own data, reported in the aforementioned letter, suggests that 5.3% of known EHE children are thought to be receiving an unsuitable education by the 74 LAs who responded, a further 5.8% were considered to be "Not co-operating (no assessment)" and a further 9.3% were classed as "Not yet assessed".
4. You will be aware from other submissions that classifying the 'not co-operating' and 'not yet assessed' as 'unsuitable education' and then calculating potential financial impact scenarios on this basis is considered at best illogical and at worst grossly misleading. This becomes clear when we compare the financial outcomes reported in the revised Impact Assessment with calculations using the correct 5.3% 'unsuitable education' rate, but keeping all other costing assumptions the same (see Tables 1 and 2).
5. As you will see correcting this flawed 'unsuitable education' rate produces an overall net negative financial outcome under all EHE population scenarios.
6. I hope that the Committee will therefore agree with my conclusion that given current budgetary constraints, the proposals outlined in the Bill cannot be considered a prudent use of resources.
Table 1: DCSF Revised Impact Assessment figures (author's re-calculations using DCSF rates)