The Review of Elective Home Education - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


The recommendations and proposals

108. The recommendations in the Badman Report concerned with the educational provision of home educating families cover both the accountability of home educating parents for the education that they provide or facilitate for their child and the setting of parameters for that provision.

109. In terms of parental accountability, the Badman Report recommends that:

    At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.

    Guidance should be issued to support parents in this task with an opportunity to meet local authority officers to discuss the planned approach to home education and develop the plan before it is finalised. The plan should be finalised within eight weeks of first registration (recommendation 1).

In addition, it recommends that:

    Parents be required to allow the child through exhibition or other means to demonstrate both attainment and progress in accord with the statement of intent lodged at the time of registration (recommendation 7).

110. As outlined, under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents have a duty to provide their child with a "full-time", "efficient" and "suitable" education. As the Department's home education guidelines state, there is no legal definition of "full-time". They add: "Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year, but this measurement of "contact time" is not relevant to elective home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal "school hours"".[126] The guidelines also cite the following case law descriptions: an "efficient" education described as one that "achieves that which it sets out to achieve"; a "suitable" education described as one that "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".[127] In accordance with these markers, as we noted in our introductory chapter, the Department's guidelines on home education allow a free hand as far as educational provision is concerned. The Badman Report argues that the definition of "efficient" education anyway demands that home educators articulate their educational approach.[128] It further argues that, taken together, the definitions of "efficient" and "suitable" education are inadequate for ensuring that each child has the opportunity to develop their talents in the round. It makes the following recommendation:

    That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a "suitable" and "efficient" education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration (recommendation 2).

111. At the time that we were preparing this report, the Department had proposed that home educating families be required to submit "a statement of approach to education" when they registered as home educating, but no further details had been provided. With regard to recommendation 7, in its full response to the Badman Report the Department states that: "…local authority officials must be able to talk to home educated children to establish that they are receiving education in accordance with the plan submitted by their parents, and that they are making progress". In response to the remaining recommendation, to review the definition of "efficient" and "suitable" education, the Department notes the permissiveness of current guidelines and the varied quality of home education provision as reported to it by local authorities. It also emphasises the need for home educated children to "acquire a mix of skills which will enable them to contribute to society as adults". On that basis it intends to take forward the recommended review in 2010. It states: "The purpose of this work will be to examine how local authorities can reasonably determine whether home educated young people are making progress which will allow them to develop to their full potential and have a wide choice of future careers".[129]

112. The Children, Schools and Families Bill provides that at the point of registration to home educate the parent submit "a statement giving prescribed information about the child's prospective education".[130] It obliges a local authority to make arrangements to monitor the education provided to a child on its home education register. The objective of the arrangements is to ascertain, as far as reasonably practicable, whether the child is receiving a suitable education, whether the education accords with the information given about it in the family's statement and what the child's wishes and feelings about it are.[131]

Current home education practice

Range of practice

113. Home education provision can sit along a broad spectrum: at one end is a highly structured approach, whereby the child works to a set timetable, has their work marked and may even follow the National Curriculum; at the other is an essentially unstructured approach whereby the child follows his or her own interests entirely while the parent provides support and encouragement, known as 'autonomous education'. One of the home educated children with whom we met suggested that in practice it is unlikely that provision will be completely structured or unstructured. Those adopting a more formalised approach may take advantage of a child's interests and pursue those enthusiasms within a planned curriculum; autonomous learners may still choose to create a timetable for themselves, consult teachers, use a workbook or even join a course.[132]

114. Home educators prize the flexibility that they have to shape provision to their child's needs and to follow their child's motivations, as opposed to fitting around external frameworks or working through a set plan. This can be especially advantageous for children with special educational needs.[133] Many of the home educators who contacted us were enthusiasts for autonomous education in particular, believing this educational approach to have been hugely beneficial to their child's development. As one home educating parent, a secondary school teacher, commented: "The absence of curricula and formal pathway is what allows home educated children to thrive".[134] Indeed, he suggested that the school system could learn much from aspects of autonomous education:

    I have been fortunate to meet many home educating families over the last twenty years and they have led me to look at schooling afresh. I believe the Badman review demonstrates the kind of blindness that equates all education with school education and this leads to distortions in his recommendations about home education. His recommendations will damage the home education model which could provide invaluable insight for school education reform—and this is of consequence for the whole country.[135]

In particular, he cited the deep learning capacity seen in home educated children who follow their own interests.[136]

115. On this basis, the recommendations of the Badman Report outlined above have caused alarm among some home educators. Their fear is that school-based practice and age/stage frameworks will be imposed on home education. That the Badman Report elsewhere asks questions of the efficacy of autonomous education has fuelled this anguish.

Autonomous education

116. Some research has shown autonomous education to work well, at least for some children. For example, a recent study by Dr Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison concluded that it is an "astonishingly efficient" way to learn.[137] The Badman Report dismisses this and related studies on several grounds, including, most straightforwardly, that in some cases the research samples are too small to generalise from. The aforementioned study involved interviews with and observation of 26 home educating families. The review team were clearly sceptical that any of the studies on autonomous education that they had seen had research samples that reflected fully the diverse characteristics of home educated children.[138]

117. The Report also challenged autonomous education directly:

    Could it be…[autonomous education] defies definition but provides the ultimate opportunity for children to develop at their own rate and expands their talents and aptitudes [through] the pursuit of personal interest. Or, does it present a more serious concern for a quality of education that lacks pace, rigour and direction. I come to no conclusion but believe further research into the efficacy of autonomous learning is essential.[139]

118. In response, several of the home educators cited the example of Summerhill School, where lessons are not compulsory and teaching is essentially oriented around the child's interests. The home educators suggested that it would be inconsistent to allow this provision while imposing more restrictive arrangements on home education.[140] Ofsted has previously questioned the adequacy of educational provision at the school in this respect.[141] In its most recent inspection it concluded that provision was "satisfactory". However, this judgement was reached on the basis of the inspectors having observed, for example, "an appropriate emphasis on developing literacy and numeracy skills" and "appropriate subject planning provid[ing] satisfactory opportunities for pupils to make progress"—as opposed to completely unfettered autonomous learning.[142] As for other independent schools, Summerhill School's educational provision was evaluated against a clear set of criteria, including in relation to the curriculum and staffing. Inspectors are asked to consider, for example:

    Does the school have a curriculum policy set out in writing and supported by appropriate plans and schemes of work, and does it implement it effectively?

    Does the curriculum give pupils of compulsory school age experience in the following areas of learning: linguistic, mathematical, scientific, technological, human and social, physical, and aesthetic and creative?

    Does the teaching enable pupils to acquire new knowledge, and make progress according to their ability so that they increase their understanding and develop their skills in the subjects taught?[143]

119. We have some concerns regarding the extent to which the existing research evidence on the efficacy of home education fully reflects the profile of home educating families in England.

120. We note that in the case of school education the quality of teaching is thought to be the key factor in pupils' learning and attainment. In which case, the same must apply to the parents and others who are responsible for the education of home educated children. Yet, little is known about the home educating community as a whole within the research evidence.

121. The Department proposes introducing measures to establish a baseline of current outcomes for the home educated children who are known to local authorities, and to capture changes in outcomes for these and all home educated children in future years.[144] In addition to its proposed work to investigate outcomes for home educated children in general, we call on the Department to fund research into the outcomes of autonomous education among a fully representative sample of home educating families.

Statement of educational approach

122. The following comment typified the position of home educators on the matter of the requirement to provide a statement of educational approach:

    [We are concerned] that a local authority officer who helps us to set learning objectives and a curriculum, will then expect us to deliver exactly this plan over the forthcoming year. This leaves no space for the flexibility and dynamic creativity that we see home educated children enjoying currently. We don't want to be tied into doing something with [our daughter] that is no longer relevant to her. We want her to be able to pursue new interests and passions, as and when she is motivated to do so. Equally we want her to be able to move on from things that used to interest her but that no longer do.[145]

123. Part of the problem is the ongoing ambiguity regarding what the statement would require of home educating families. As Fiona Nicholson of Education Otherwise observed:

    When we met the DCSF civil servant…to discuss this at the end of June, he thought that a couple of sentences just indicating the approach that you might be planning to take would be all that was required. Now it is two sides of A4, and I have known local authorities that have not been happy with a 30-page report.[146]

124. Sir Paul Ennals, Chief Executive of the National Children's Bureau, outlined, from the perspective of those responsible for working with home educating families, the potential benefits of the requirement to provide a statement of approach. He did not believe that a statement needed to be particularly lengthy or involved to serve this function:

    Simply the requirement to set out—I tend to think no more than two pages would do it…—the basics of what they actually intended to do with their child would flush out, I believe, some of the ones that are of greatest concern to me. I do believe it would not represent a challenge or an unnecessarily high hurdle to the vast majority of home educating parents, who are more than able to design the way in which they're intending to educate.[147]

As a local authority officer concurred, the statement might usefully be designed so as to demonstrate that: the parent had thought through the reasons for home educating his or her child and the education to be provided; and the parent was going to be consistently involved with the child's education.[148] This was for reasons of principle, but also practicality. For example, another officer noted cases where children moved frequently between home education and school.[149] Requiring parents to think in advance about what they were going to do, with the help of an experienced home education advisor if necessary, might prevent a child's education becoming disrupted in this way.

125. A further local authority officer offered an illustration as to what a statement might actually contain. Her interpretation of the statement was explicitly as a record of an ongoing dialogue with the home educating family:

    It would be more practical and helpful [than a plan] to understand the child's current range of activities, interests and achievements and make some agreed notes with the family. If "one year on" was agreed [at] the time of next visit those notes could be used as a basis for understanding the progress made. Some families may request more frequent support temporarily and sometimes the local authority will want to offer it.[150]

126. Of course, even this softer interpretation of the statement of educational approach would not assuage those home educators who believe that they should not be required to liaise with or that they have nothing to gain from contact with their local authority. Nevertheless, it would not in itself undermine autonomous education.

127. It was suggested to us that other approaches might be less workable in practice. As one home educator pointed out, simply asking home educators to provide two or three sentences on the family's broad educational approach would serve little purpose but to increase bureaucracy:

    …it takes bureaucracy to an excessive level to demand that parents restate their philosophy every year. If a philosophy is the basic, underlying thinking behind why and how they educate, is this really like to change dramatically every twelve months?

On the other hand, the requirement to set hard targets could result in a cynical response from some—as the same home educator put it, akin to companies purposefully underestimating growth "so that stock markets will not penalise them for a bad year".[151]

128. It is surprising that neither the Badman Report nor the Department have provided much idea of what the statement of educational approach might look like. This has engendered much hostility from some home educators who might have been reassured by confirmation that only a short general statement would be required.

129. We are supportive of the principle of requiring home educating families to submit a statement of educational approach on the basis that such a requirement would strengthen the rights of the child and the responsibilities of the parent. We recommend that such a mechanism be introduced. If the statement essentially served as a record of dialogue between the home educating family and the local authority officer it need not be regarded as onerous or restrictive.

Timetable for provision of a statement

130. The Badman Report suggests that home educating families should be required to submit a statement of approach at the point of registration. The family would then be able to discuss and develop their statement with the assistance of a local authority officer if necessary. The plan would need to be finalised within eight weeks of registration (recommendation 1). The Children, Schools and Families Bill does not specify a deadline for provision of a statement.

131. For some home educators this timetable further illustrated the failure of the Badman Report to understand and reflect the needs of all home educating families. They pointed out that it can take time for a family to find an educational philosophy and style that suits them. They highlighted instances where a child might need time to recover from their school experience and to adjust and settle into home education.[152] Jane Lowe explained:

    The parent has taken a child out of school and often faces a problem because of the situation that has led to that child being withdrawn, so they cannot just switch seamlessly into some kind of delightful arrangement at home—it takes a while to set things up, to sort things out, to calm the child down, to find out what resources you have and to find the way forward. Obviously, parents will not be happy about the demand that we prepare a statement, that we should be seen within x days of withdrawing our child from school and that everything should be in place. That is not reasonable, and it is no wonder that parents are worried about it.[153]

The same point is made in the Department's home education guidelines:

    Local authorities should bear in mind that, in the early stages, parents' plans may not be detailed and they may not yet be in a position to demonstrate all the characteristics of an "efficient and suitable" educational provision. In such cases, a reasonable timescale should be agreed for the parents to develop their provision.[154]

132. We recommend that at the point of registration families should need only set out their reasons for choosing to home educate and to outline in broad terms how the education would initially be provided. We suggest that three months is a more reasonable timeframe for families to submit a fuller statement than the eight weeks proposed in the Badman Report. From that point onwards families should be required to submit a statement on an annual basis, which includes a brief record of the child's achievements and progress.

133. The annual meeting with the local authority officer would provide the opportunity for home educating families to reflect on their child's progress over the preceding 12 months in relation to the family's current statement.

Parameters for home education provision

134. In describing the profile of the known home educating families in her area one local authority officer who we heard from distinguished between two broad groups. The first group comprised families for whom home education was or became essentially a lifestyle choice. These families, the officer noted, were committed to their child's education and required little or no support from the local authority. The second group comprised families for whom home education was often not a positive choice and where, in some cases, the parents were unsure of where to start in home educating their child. The officer suggested that these two groups represented around 80% and 20% respectively of the known home educating families in her local authority area. Several other of the officers with whom we met indicated that this picture reflected that of their own area.

135. One officer elsewhere commented:

    This LA recognises that there are many responsible home educators whose children are thriving and succeeding, but has had significant concerns that the current legislation also allows negligent and irresponsible parents to withdraw their children from school...[155]

136. Others noted the degree of support that some home educating families need, whether directly in relation to educational provision or, for example, understanding child development. While it could be argued that many such families are home educating by default rather than electively home educating, they are nevertheless home educating and illustrative of the cases that local authorities are working with.

137. Should a local authority have concerns about the suitability of a family's education provision—and the family's willingness or ability to address the problem—it can issue a School Attendance Order (SAO). At any stage following the issue of an SAO a parent may present evidence to the local authority that he or she is now providing an appropriate education and apply to have the SAO revoked. Should the parent breach the SAO the local authority has the choice of prosecuting the parent or applying to a court for an Education Supervision Order (ESO). If the local authority prosecutes the parent then it is for a court to decide whether or not the education being provided is suitable. An ESO makes the local authority responsible for advising, supporting and giving 'directions' to the supervised child and his or her parent in such a way as to ensure that the child is properly educated. When a child is made subject of an ESO, while local authority officers are required to take into account the parent's and child's views, the parent loses the right of appeal against admissions decisions and certain rights to educate the child in a manner of their choosing.[156]

138. However, as local authority representatives explained to us, there are difficulties in enforcing both SAOs and ESOs. In part, this relates to issues that we have already discussed—for example, the barrier to gathering the necessary evidence where there is no right of access to the family. It also stems from the current definition of "suitable" education.[157] The Department notes that, nationally, usage of SAOs by local authorities varies widely and that the numbers completed are "very low".[158]

139. A range of preferred definitions of "suitable" education were put to us in the course of our inquiry. In his evidence Mr Badman voiced his personal preference for, in effect, a framework that followed the National Curriculum:

    …whether we like it or not, we have a world defined by systems of knowledge. If you're going to take part in that world, you need to understand how those systems and knowledge developed. It doesn't mean to say you have to be equally interested in everything, but you have to know something and so…I would go for an education system that if it does not define the outcomes, at least defines a curriculum structure that allows that child to make choices.[159]

140. Ofsted argued that home education should be required to equip the child "for life in the national and global community", thereby complementing the duty placed on maintained school to promote community cohesion. It also argued that a parent should be required to set out how provision would enable his or her child to meet the Every Child Matters outcomes.[160]

141. The local authority officers who we met simply wanted a better means of addressing extreme examples of where no parent is engaged with their child's education, or where there is no prospect of the child gaining basic skills and/or any breadth of experience. These concerns are to some extent addressed by the Department's existing (non-statutory) guidelines on home education. These state that local authorities could reasonably expect home education provision to:

—recognise the child's needs, attitudes and aspirations;

—offer opportunities for the child to be stimulated by his or her learning experience;

—be supported by the necessary resources; and

—offer opportunities for the child to interact with their peers and others.[161]

Case law suggests that to these conditions might usefully be added a positive expectation or requirement—most obviously, that provision should demonstrate a commitment to the child acquiring the basic skills of literacy and numeracy.[162]

142. Clearly, additional considerations are raised in relation to defining what is "suitable" education where the home educated child has special educational needs. The following comment from a parent of a child with autism illustrated the particular concerns of these families:

    As a community we have very real fears that defining a suitable education will stop parents from being able to teach their disabled children the skills they are going to require in a mainstream world as an adult. While academic success is of course important it is of little value if the person who has a string of qualifications does not possess the effective communication or social skills that they require to put those qualifications to use in a working environment.[163]

143. Finally, also relevant to setting parameters for home education provision is the recommendation in the Badman Report that, where a child is withdrawn from school, the school should provide the local authority with a record of the child's achievements to date and expected achievement, together with any other school records (recommendation 1). The Children, Schools and Families Bill permits the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring information relating to a child to be supplied to a local authority, in certain circumstances, for the purpose of exercising its home education-related functions. The persons who may be required to supply information are another local authority and the proprietor of the school from which the child has been withdrawn for home education. The information to be provided might include details of the child's educational attainment to date.[164]

144. One complaint is that the Badman Report does not recommend that this information be supplied to the parent as well as or instead of the local authority. A home educating parent remarked: "Since the school and local authority are providing a service for the parent, one would expect a copy of the child's school record to be sent to the parent as well".[165] More fundamentally, such records might be regarded as irrelevant to home education. Some home educators may want to monitor their child's progress in relation to the child's past performance and have the local authority 'benchmark' that progress in relation to the performance of school-educated children. Others, though, will want to move away from the school age/ability framework towards more exploratory learning. On that basis, a short narrative about the child's learning might be preferable to attainment data, past and predicted, with attainment data available to the parent on request.[166]

145. We are concerned that any monitoring of home education provision should not undermine the flexibility and freedom currently enjoyed by home educating families in relation to the child's learning and development. On autonomous education we recognise that, when overseen by a responsible parent who is committed to his or her child's education, this approach might work well for a child. However, we also recognise the difficult balance between protecting autonomous education and ensuring that all children have the prospect of gaining basic literacy and numeracy skills and of gaining an awareness of the full range of fields of knowledge open to them. Without such skills and awareness a child could not hope to thrive, let alone achieve his or her full potential and access a choice of careers.

146. We agree that there should be a more precise definition of what constitutes "suitable" education. The definition must be established prior to any registration and monitoring proposals being introduced.

147. The specification of "suitable" education must enable local authority officers to tackle situations where the child has no prospect of gaining basic literacy and numeracy skills efficiently or where there is no breadth to their education. It must, then, encompass a positive expectation in relation to, at least, the acquisition of basic skills. That some pupils still leave school without these skills is no argument, in our view, for essentially permitting the same outcome for home educated children.

148. At the point at which a child is de-registered from school to be home educated the school should provide the child's parent with an up-to-date record of the child's attainment. A copy should be given to the local authority so that it has a broad outline of the child's education to date. This information should not be used as a benchmark against which to monitor a child's subsequent progress, unless requested by the parent.

149. The accusation from some home educators was that local authority officers, typically having a schools background, often did not understand the full spectrum of home education practice, or were unsympathetic to practice that contrasted strongly with that in schools. The Home Education Advisory Service commented: "Unfortunately… sometimes local authorities will not be persuaded that school criteria do not apply to education at home".[167] For the same reasons, some home educators questioned the suggestion in the Badman Report that local authorities and schools could assist home educating families in writing their statement of approach (recommendation 1).[168] The Badman Report does recommend that officers receive training in this regard. Indeed, it makes specific reference to training in relation to "the essential difference, variation and diversity in home education practice as compared to schools". It also suggests that, wherever possible and appropriate, representatives of the home educating community should be involved in the development and/or provision of such training (recommendation 9). Some home educators, though, questioned the adequacy of a mere training session to address the attitudes of local authority officers.[169]

150. Given the concerns of some home educators that, on occasion, local authority officers are unsympathetic to more unstructured educational approaches, we welcome the Badman recommendation that officers receive training in this regard. However, we emphasise the need for thorough training that will equip officers with an understanding of a range of learning theories, child development and educational philosophy. We point to the difficulties of, for example, assessing without such knowledge the progress of a child who has moderate or even mild learning difficulties.

126   DCSF, Elective Home Education: guidelines for local authorities, 2007, paragraph 3.13. Back

127   Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust v Secretary of State for Education and Science. This was a judgement passed regarding the adequacy of the curriculum of an independent orthodox Jewish school. According to Monk: "The 'condition' in the last line represents an attempt at balancing the rights of parents and children. This arguably coheres with Art 29 of the [United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], which also states that 'education should aim to develop respect for the values and culture of their parents' and Art 30, that 'children and young people from minority communities must not be stopped from enjoying their own culture, religion and language'." (Monk, D., 'Regulating home education: negotiating standards, anomalies and rights', Child and Family Law Quarterly, May 2009). Back

128   paragraph 3.12. Back

129   DCSF, DCSF Response to the Badman Review of Elective Home Education in England, October 2009. Back

130   Schedule 1, section 19C(4)(b). Back

131   Schedule 1, section 19E). Back

132   EHE 164 (Autonomous Education UK); Annex 1. See also the views of home educating parents and children on autonomous education-EHE 7 (Myrna Tennant); EHE 40 (Jackie Burnham); EHE 42 (Carol Gray); EHE 187 (Maya Toney) Back

133   e.g. see, Q 65 (Carole Rutherford) Back

134   EHE 74, paragraph 4.2 (Mr Keir Watson) Back

135   EHE 74, paragraph 1.3 (Mr Keir Watson) Back

136   EHE 74, paragraph 2.1 (Mr Keir Watson) Back

137   How Children Learn at Home, 2008. See also, EHE 16 (Dr Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison) Back

138   Badman Report, paragraph 10.2. Back

139   paragraph 10.1. Back

140   EHE 24, paragraph 3.6 (Marie Stafford); EHE 64, paragraph 4.2.2 (Isle of Wight Learning Zone); EHE 102, section 9 (Cumbrian Home Educators) Back

141   Ofsted, Summerhill School inspection report, 1999, paragraph 6. Back

142   Ofsted, Summerhill School inspection report, 2007.  Back

143   For the full set of criteria, see, Ofsted, Pre-registration regulatory check sheet, September 2009.  Back

144   Children, Schools and Families Bill-an Impact Assessment prepared by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice, for introduction into the House of Commons, November 2009, p 90. Back

145   EHE 8 (Carol Mathews and Nick Weir). See also, EHE 9, paragraph 4 (Alexandra Barnes); EHE 25, paragraph 11 (Louise Walters); EHE 39, paragraph 2a (Stockport Home Education Partnership); EHE 42 (Carol Gray); EHE 102, section 9 (Cumbrian Home Educators); EHE 161 (Rainbow-Leaf Lovejoy) Back

146   Q 60. The reference to "two sides of A4" relates to Q 38 (Diana Johnson MP) Back

147   Q 118  Back

148   Q 117 (Ellie Evans) Back

149   Annex 2 Back

150   EHE 126, paragraphs C1-C3 (Mary Mullett) Back

151   EHE 173 (Paul and Julia Kielstra) Back

152   Ev 48, paragraph 5.8 (Home Education Centre, Somerset); Q 61 (Jane Lowe); EHE 20, paragraph 2.4.1 (Bristol Home Educators' Forum); EHE 24, paragraph 3.3 (Marie Stafford); EHE 42, paragraph 33 (Carol Gray); EHE 47, paragraph 8.2 (Herts Home Education Action Group); EHE 60, section 2 (members of a Christian home educating group); EHE 67, paragraph 3i (Greater Manchester Home Educating Network); EHE 74, paragraph 3.5 (Mr Keir Watson); EHE 79, paragraph 2.1c-d (David Watson); EHE 102, section 9 (Cumbrian Home Educators)  Back

153   Q 74  Back

154   DCSF, Elective Home Education: guidelines for local authorities, 2007, paragraph 3.11. Back

155   EHE 163, paragraph 1.2. See also, paragraphs 2.5, 2.7 (local authority officer)  Back

156   See, DCSF, Ensuring Children's Right to Education: guidance on the legal measures available to secure regular school attendance, January 2008. Back

157   Ev 84, paragraph 4.2 (Association of Directors of Children's Services); EHE 163, paragraph 1.4 (local authority officer); Annex 2 Back

158   Children, Schools and Families Bill-an Impact Assessment prepared by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice, for introduction into the House of Commons, November 2009, pp 83-90. Back

159   Q 39  Back

160   EHE 165, section 3.2.3  Back

161   DCSF, Elective Home Education: guidelines for local authorities, 2007, paragraph 3.15. Back

162   Monk, D, 'Regulating home education: negotiating standards, anomalies and rights', Child and Family Law Quarterly, May 2009. See also, Q 117 (Ellie Evans); Annex 2 Back

163   Ev 60 (Carole Rutherford). See also, EHE 136 (K Thirlaway) Back

164   Schedule 1, section 19H; Explanatory Notes to the Children, Schools and Families Bill, paragraph 129.  Back

165   EHE 28, paragraph 4.5 (Sue Gerrard). See also, EHE 20, paragraph 2.8 (Bristol Home Educators' Forum) Back

166   See, EHE 178, paragraph 4.2 (Institute of Education, University of London) Back

167   Ev 45, paragraph 3.14  Back

168   EHE 28, paragraph 4.4 (Sue Gerrard) Back

169   e.g. EHE 22, paragraph 9 (Dr Peter Kahn); Annex 1 Back

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 16 December 2009