Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Children, Schools and Families
SUMMARY
— The review was commissioned on 21 January
2009 following concerns raised by local authorities (LAs)
and other organisations about the current state of the law relating
to home education, and concerns raised by home educators about
the difficulties they have in accessing support from LAs and other
public services. Graham Badman, former Director of Children's
Services at Kent LA, was appointed to undertake the review.
— Graham Badman's report on his review
was published on 11 June along with the Government's initial
response. Both the report and the Government's response reaffirmed
support for home education as a well-established part of the education
system in England.
— The recommendations in the report strike
a careful balance between giving parents the right to decide how
and where their children should be educated, and ensuring that
every child is safe and gets an education that will prepare them
to take their place in the world as adults.
— The report recommended that the home
education framework should be strengthened significantly by introducing
a system of compulsory registration and monitoring. We are taking
these recommendations forward through a formal consultation which
is open until 19 October and can be accessed via the DCSF
website. We plan to legislate at the earliest possible opportunity.
— The report also called for better access
to support services for those home-educated children who need
it, particularly the relatively high proportion of home educated
children with special educational needs and others who require
services they would otherwise receive through school. We made
it clear in our initial response that we accepted these recommendations
in principle and would set out in the autumn how we intend to
take them forward.
— Graham Badman's report both respects
the rights and freedoms of home educators, and reinforces the
responsibilities of local authorities, who have to fulfil their
statutory duties and operate efficiently in the best interests
of all taxpayers. It sets out arrangements for keeping home-educated
children safe and for strengthening the quality of education they
receive, while respecting parents' rights to choose to home educate,
if they wish to do so.
BACKGROUND
1. The Government believes that all pupils,
whatever their background or circumstances, are entitled to an
education which reflects their individual needs, enables them
to achieve their potential, and equips them with the knowledge
and skills they will need to play their full part in society as
adults. The Government also believes that all children should
grow up in an environment in which they are safe and well.
2. Where a child in England is of compulsory
school age, his[2]
parents are under a legal duty to ensure that he receives efficient
full-time education suitable:
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
3. Opting to educate a child at home rather
than send them to school has been a freedom that parents have
enjoyed ever since publicly funded education was established.
They do not require permission to home educate and if their child
has never been to school they do not need to inform anyone of
their decision. They do not need any qualifications. They do not
need to teach a specific curriculum and their children do not
need to sit tests or gain qualifications.
4. There is no legal duty on a LA to monitor
home education on a regular basis, although it has a duty to identify
children in its area who are not receiving a suitable education.
The effect of the current requirements is that LAs may not be
aware of all those children that are being home educated in their
area, or be able to assess whether they are receiving a suitable
education. As LAs are under a duty to act where a child is not
receiving a suitable education, they are in the unsatisfactory
position of being under a duty that cannot be discharged if home
educators choose not to identify themselves, or refuse to allow
monitoring to take place.
5. There is also a question as to whether
existing arrangements take sufficient account of a child's right
to education which is expressed through Article 2 of Protocol
1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The
article states that no person shall be denied the right to education.
It also specifies that the state should respect the right of parents
to educate in accordance with their convictions. Case law from
the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission makes it
clear that this second part of the article—whereby the state
must respect parental convictions—does not guarantee the
right for parents to home educate. Where a child's education is
inadequate, then it is our view that the State should intervene
in a way that is proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances.
NEED FOR
A REVIEW
6. In November 2007 the then Department
for Education and Skills published guidance for LAs on home education.
The guidance was non statutory but brought together in one place
the current laws that related to home education and explained
to home educators and LAs what their respective responsibilities
were. The guidance encouraged co-operation between LAs and home
educators.
7. Since the guidance was published LAs
have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the legal framework
for ensuring that home educated children receive an acceptable
standard of education and the difficulties of establishing whether
home educated children are safe and well. Home educators have
also expressed their concerns about LA practices.
8. Broadly speaking, the concerns of LAs
are:
— The absence of any requirement to notify
LAs of home education means that LAs may not know that children
are being home educated: those most at risk are likely to become
invisible;
— There are no educational standards covering
home education which needs only to be "suitable". LAs
claim the concept of "suitability" is nebulous and that
it is impossible to secure a school attendance order except in
the most extreme cases;
— Parents may not cooperate with monitoring
and are increasingly aware that it is a lengthy and time consuming
process for LAs to get to the point where they can issue a school
attendance order. LAs with limited resources cannot monitor effectively;
and
— Home education might be used as a cover
for child abuse or neglect which is less likely to be picked up
by the LA because a child is not seen on a regular basis by teachers.
9. Broadly speaking the main concerns expressed
by home educators are that:
— LAs take a heavy handed school-centred
view of education and do not appreciate the level of flexibility
the law currently allows;
— LAs often presume that home educated
children are more vulnerable than those attending school and automatically
treat the children as a safeguarding problem;
— The lack of additional support, especially
for children with special needs and young people who need access
to public examinations.
TERMS OF
REFERENCE
10. The terms of reference of the review
are attached at Annex B.[3]
The focus of the review was to find out what lay behind the continuing
concerns of LAs over their inability to intervene where a home
educated child in their area is not receiving the education to
which they are entitled, or to establish that the child is safe.
Equally, it would examine the concerns of home educators who were
often critical of the support they received from LAs and other
public services. Following an analysis of the available evidence,
the review could then consider whether changes to either the guidance
or the underpinning law were needed and make recommendations accordingly.
11. The terms of reference also asked the
review team to establish the extent to which home education could
be used as a cover for child abuse. We wanted to establish whether
the existing arrangements could allow children and young people
to come to harm because they were not seen regularly by trusted
adults in school, and measures that would prevent this.
12. In drawing up the terms of reference
we were mindful that the review would need to take into account
the concerns of the many home educators who provide a good quality
education for their children, as well as identifying proportionate
arrangements to support the diverse home educating community.
CONDUCT OF
THE REVIEW
13. As the two key stakeholders were LAs
and home educating parents, it was important to appoint someone
with a strong background in LA policies and procedures and who
had a wide experience of responding to parents and members of
the public. Graham Badman, recently retired Director of Children's
Services at Kent, was the most suitable person identified and
was appointed to lead the review. In line with standard practice,
a DCSF civil servant was appointed to support him and an internal
Departmental steering group was set up to allow him to evaluate
the impact his developing ideas had on relevant DCSF policy areas.
The steering group kept Ministers abreast of developments and
their impact on wider Departmental policy.
14. Graham Badman was free to determine
how the review was carried out and there were no limitations on
the scope of the recommendations he could make. He collected evidence
through a public call for evidence, a questionnaire circulated
to all local authorities that 90 voluntarily completed, submissions
from many stakeholders, a review of the existing law and guidance,
a literature review and a wide range of meetings with individuals
and groups. He decided who to gather information from and in what
form, who to meet, and the members of the expert reference group
(set out in Annex F to the report).
INTEGRITY OF
THE REPORT
15. The Report was published on 11 June.
The Secretary of State's initial response was published the same
day with a commitment to provide a full response by the end of
September. A copy of the Secretary of State's initial response
is attached at Annex D.[4]
16. The review confirmed many of the concerns
that had been expressed to us by LAs and home educators. It presented
an overview of the current system with its benefits and drawbacks
as perceived by children, parents and LAs. It made a number of
recommendations for improving current arrangements, which fall
into three broad categories: registration; monitoring and support.
Our proposals for bringing registration and monitoring arrangements
into line with the review are the subject of a public consultation
that closes on 19 October.
Registration
17. The report confirms that one of the
main shortcomings of the current arrangements is that LAs cannot
reliably identify home educated children in their area not receiving
a suitable education. The new ContactPoint arrangements should
identify those children not in school, but there is currently
no statutory backing for routine monitoring by LAs of home educated
children. Local authorities have to rely on parental cooperation
which is not always forthcoming. Registration is a proportionate
response to this problem as it will help local authorities distinguish
between those children not receiving any education, and those
that are home educated.
18. The Review recommends that parents submit
a statement of their educational approach and desired/planned
outcomes for their children over the following 12 months.
It also recommends that we issue guidance on preparing this statement
and parents receive support from LA officers in drawing up these
plans. The purpose of any statement would be to assist parents
in demonstrating the effectiveness of the education they intend
to provide.
19. Home educators have expressed concern
about the requirement that they must produce an education plan,
some of them explaining that their "autonomous" education
approach means that learning is pupil led, and that the material
covered depends on the interests and preferences of their children.
They argue that a planned approach would stifle autonomous learning.
20. The Review came to no conclusion about
the definition and effectiveness of autonomous learning. It recognised
that home educators argue the benefits of allowing children to
develop at their own pace and expand their talents and aptitudes
through pursuing their personal interests. On the other hand it
questioned whether untrammelled freedom would always provide a
balanced outcome. It recommended that further research into the
efficacy of autonomous learning was needed, which would include
close scrutiny of the outcomes for home educated children.
Monitoring
21. Many home educating families are known
to their LA and co-operate with the LA's existing monitoring arrangements.
Where this works well it is likely that home educators will experience
little change. However, evidence presented to the review team
found that relationships between some home educators and local
authorities can be poor, particularly where there are disagreements
about the philosophical approach taken, or where children have
been withdrawn from school as a result of bullying or other concerns
about aspects of school life.
22. Given the wide range of arrangements
for home education, LA officers need to be well trained, and able
to respond to the diverse circumstances of home educators. They
will also need a broad discretion in determining the appropriate
level of monitoring. In addition, they will need to have good
links with the wide range of support services that home educators
might call upon, and to be sufficiently influential and persistent
to ensure that access to these services is provided where appropriate.
23. The proposal that has generated most
public interest is whether a LA should have the power to see a
home educated child alone, or with a trusted adult other than
the parent where necessary, to ensure that the child can give
an account of their education which confirms any evidence that
the parent has presented. We recognise that this is one of the
most sensitive recommendations in the report, and something that
needs to be handled sensitively. We will take careful account
of the responses to the consultation underway before deciding
how to proceed.
Support
24. The report recognises that some home
educators would like better access to public services. Their main
concern is access to the public examination system, where there
are no systematic arrangements for learners who are not registered
at schools or FE colleges to sit examinations. We also know that
some home educators would like better access to work experience,
after school clubs, sports and music services and specialist education
facilities. Home educating parents who have children with SEN
may want access to a range of services that are usually accessed
through school.
25. The review envisages that monitoring
and support will go hand in hand. We share the report's vision
of LA support giving far better access to public services for
home educated children, integrating them into the wider educational
system where it makes sense to do so. An integrated approach to
registration, monitoring and support will give home educated children
better access to services and opportunities which will support
them in achieving the five Every Child Matters outcomes.
THE CASE
FOR CHANGE
26. There are sections of the home education
community who contend that LAs already have sufficient powers
to intervene where home education is poor and that the report
did not provide evidence that change was necessary. We disagree,
and support the careful analysis set out in this review which
makes a compelling argument for change.
27. First of all, we have placed a duty
on LAs to ensure that all children in their area receive a suitable
education. While we have no doubt that most home educating parents
are doing a good job, many local authorities issue school attendance
orders to a minority of home educators who are not providing a
suitable education. More needs to be done to act speedily where
home education is inadequate. The review also accepts that a significant
number of home educators may not be known to the LA and that there
is no information about the standard of education these home educated
children receive.
28. Second, we accept that home education
has been used to mask safeguarding issues although we note that
there is no evidence that elective home education was a particular
factor in the removal of children to forced marriage, servitude,
trafficking, or other abusive activities. While many home educated
children are seen regularly in the community, those who are most
at risk may rarely if ever be seen outside the home. As the NSPCC
said in its evidence, "if a child who is being abused is
not afforded opportunities outwith the house, then the slim chances
of them being identified become even smaller than they already
are…..no concern is raised because the child or the environment
in which they are cared for is not seen".
29. Third, the review sets out the difficulties
home educating families experience in accessing services that
are often organised around schools. It finds that only the more
wealthy, persistent or well-connected can do so. And much more
needs to be done to reach out to home educated children with special
educational needs, particularly where they need specialised services.
30. Education in both maintained and independent
schools is conducted under a set of legal constraints that balance
freedoms and responsibilities, recognising that schools, parents
and children all have their part to play in sustaining a viable
community. We believe that the approach in this review puts in
place a parallel set of arrangements for home education.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
31. A paper outlining the requirements in
different countries is attached at Annex F.
32. Wales has broadly similar arrangements
to England as has Scotland except that prior approval is required
if the parents want to remove the child from school. Germany does
not permit home education while in Sweden, Netherlands, Austria,
Greece, Spain, and in parts of Switzerland, school attendance
is normally compulsory except where home education is permitted
in limited individual circumstances.
33. In Norway and Finland the LA oversees
the education provided and can require the child to sit tests.
Australia and Ireland require registration and approval of the
education plans for the child to be approved. France requires
registration, home visits and more closely specified areas of
study that children are required to follow. In the USA the arrangements
are determined at individual state level. Many require registration
and some also set out a specific curriculum requirement that must
be followed.
34. Even after these reforms are implemented,
the British approach to home education will still be amongst the
most liberal in the developed world.
CONCLUSION
35. The report prepared by Graham Badman
raises the status of home education, recognising that it is a
significant part of British education. It recognises that home
education should be considered positively, and supported by the
wider education system. Introducing a system of registration and
monitoring will build confidence in home education and dispel
ignorance and suspicion of those people within the wider education
system who do not understand what it can achieve.
36. Our broad proposals for a registration
and monitoring scheme are currently out for consultation, and
we will respond in full to the other report recommendations at
the end of September. We are receiving a high volume of representations
from different stakeholders and will take account of the full
range of views once the public consultation closes on 19 October.
ENCLOSURES[5]
Annex A Guidance to Local Authorities on Home
Education
Annex B Terms of Reference for the Review of
Home Education
Annex C Graham Badman's Report of the Review
of Home Education
Annex D Secretary of State's Initial Response
to the Report
Annex E Consultation of the Registration and
Monitoring Scheme
Annex F International Comparisons
Annex G York Consultancy report on home education
September 2009
2 Throughout the document "his" should be
taken to mean "his or hers" and "he" to mean
"he or she". Back
3
Not printed. Back
4
Not printed. Back
5
Enclosures not printed except for Annex F. See http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ete/independentreviewofhomeeducation/irhomeeducation/ Back
| 
