Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The recognition of parents' well established
rights to home educate children as fundamental to the review is
welcomed as is the Government view that it has no plans to change
that position.
— It is only right that the Government
considers systems to keep children safe and in receipt of suitable
education and that they are as robust as possible; ADCS supports
this view.
— It is essential that local authorities
are enabled to deal with any concerns about the safety and welfare,
or education, of a home educated child, with effective systems
in place to address these.
— However, ADCS believe that it is important
to be clear which of these proposals are intended to ensure a
good education and which are related to safeguarding concerns—our
response is laid out accordingly. While the Every Child Matters
framework clearly encourages services to take a "whole child"
approach, this should not cause confusion as to the purpose of
any given intervention.
— The recommendations made by the Badman
review are proportionate and evenly balance the right of the parent
to home educate and the right of the child to receive a suitable
education and the duty of local authorities to ensure both an
appropriate education and the safety of all children in their
area. This includes:
— mandatory registration, with the provision
of basic information;
— the role of the school in supporting
home education;
— the need for home visits and to see the
child alone on a regular basis; and
— the need for restrictions on freedom
to home educate where children are deemed to be at risk of harm.
— There are some details to be further
considered, such as the resourcing of home visits and legal technicalities
to ensure local authorities have the powers they need.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Association of Directors of Children's Services
(ADCS) welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Select
Committee regarding the recommendations of the Badman review of
home education. ADCS is the national leadership organisation in
England for directors of children's services appointed under the
provisions of the Children Act 2004 and for other
children's services professionals in leadership roles. The Association
provides a national voice as a champion for children, with local
and central government, and with the public.
2. OVERVIEW OF
POSITION ON
HOME EDUCATION
2.1 The recommendations made by the Badman
review are proportionate and evenly balance the right of the parent
to home educate and the right of the child to receive a suitable
education and the duty of local authorities to ensure both an
appropriate education and the safety of all children in their
area. There are some details to be considered, such as the resourcing
of home visits and legal technicalities to ensure local authorities
have the powers they need.
2.2 The recognition of parents' well established
rights to home educate children as fundamental to the review is
welcomed as is the Government view that it has no plans to change
that position.
2.3 It is only right that the Government
considers systems to keep children safe and in receipt of suitable
education and that they are as robust as possible; ADCS supports
this view. It is essential that local authorities are enabled
to deal with any concerns about the safety and welfare, or education,
of a home educated child, with effective systems in place to address
these.
2.4 However, ADCS believe that it is important
to be clear which of these proposals are intended to ensure a
good education and which are related to safeguarding concerns—our
response is laid out accordingly. While the Every Child Matters
framework clearly encourages services to take a "whole child"
approach, this should not cause confusion as to the purpose of
any given intervention.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
RELATED TO
ENSURING A
SUITABLE EDUCATION
The aim of any regulation of home education
must primarily be to ensure that every child receives a suitable
and age-appropriate education, even those who do not attend school.
This is the legal basis for the current arrangements and must
continue to be so.
3.1 We agree that the proposals strike the
correct balance between the rights of parents to home educate
and the rights of children to receive a suitable education.
3.2 Registration
3.2.1 ADCS support the keeping of registers
for home educated children. The information proposed as being
required at registration is basic and probably fulfils the minimum
requirement which would support local authorities in ensuring
a suitable education.
3.2.2 Requiring parents to register and
to keep that register up to date is essential in our view, leaving
the responsibility of choice for education with parents, and yet
enabling local authorities to fulfil their various roles under
Every Child Matters and in particular the achievement of educational
outcomes.
3.2.3 Converting the requirement to register
into a legal responsibility for parents again supports the local
authority in carrying out its duties. However, the timing of any
legal enforcement should be considered by the local authority
in much the same way as the enforcement of the requirement to
attend schools is dealt with through current systems so as to
allow for ongoing engagement with families.
3.3 Involvement of schools in home education
3.3.1 Children should remain on the school
roll for a short period after the notification of the intention
to home educate. This will allow potential alternative solutions
to home education to be explored. The time period should be the
same period in which a child should be seen at home after home
education begins (four weeks as proposed in the Badman review).
Information gathered on the visit, whether on the suitability
of the education or the views of the child, may result in the
child returning to the roll and it would be helpful if they were
still on the roll.
3.3.2 Schools retain a responsibility for
pupils and we agree that where parents remove children from school
to home education, the school should in the first instance respond
to this responsibility, and be required to inform the local authority
of the change in status of the pupil from a school roll registration
to home educated. Similarly the school holds information on the
child and this should be shared with the local authority including
the expected and future attainment data. This data should be shared
with local authorities to enable them to continue monitoring of
educational progression for every child.
3.3.3 One aspect of a school's involvement
in the education of children educated at home. The school, via
the local authority receives funding for every pupil in school,
but when a child is educated at home this funding is removed.
It would be useful if the per pupil funding for these pupils could
be redirected to resource home visits made by a team in the local
authority.
3.4 Role of central government
If registration and monitoring of home educated
children is to become a requirement, it would be helpful to have
some statutory guidance on how this should be implemented. However,
as with all guidance, care must be taken to ensure that it does
not become too burdensome for the school, local authority or parent
involved in the process, whilst ensuring that the system's objectives—to
ensure an appropriate education and the safety of home educated
children, is achieved.
3.5 The voice of the child
The child should be seen, preferably alone,
in the first four weeks of home schooling. This would allow the
child's views about being removed from school to be taken into
account when assessing the suitability of home education. This
is as important to ensure a child is engaged with their education,
wherever it may take place. This complements provision for a child
to stay on the school roll for a short period after removal—the
two measures together will provide a more flexible system to accommodate
those who want to return to school in this early period.
4. KEEPING CHILDREN
SAFE
Schools operate as part of an integrated children's
service that allows education professionals to share safeguarding
concerns with other professionals so that appropriate action can
be taken. While not a school's main purpose, it should be acknowledged
that children not in a school environment are less likely to have
these concerns identified where they arise, due to their lack
of contact with professionals. There is at least one high profile
safeguarding case which demonstrates that removal from school
was a missed milestone, when if the reasons for removal had been
more closely examined, other risk factors would have become apparent.
Home education may also impact on other outcomes for these children—for
example immunisation records will not be as complete as for those
who receive these services through school.
4.1 Registration
The information that the review suggests would
be required is basic and probably fulfils the minimum requirement
which would support local authorities in keeping children safe.
Most local authorities keep a register of children who are educated
at home, and this is good practice, enabling links to be made
with health visitors and other health services for example, which
can inform safety and well-being concerns. Making this standard
practice would be an advantage. Clearly where the register is
used to identify possible risk of harm, the legal requirement
to provide true information to the register is of paramount importance.
4.2 Restrictions on home education for children
with a protection plan
We agree that where there are children about
whom the local authority has substantial safeguarding concerns
there should be the power and the authority to not allow them
to be home educated. This is particularly relevant to those who
may be looked after at home and would enable the school to be
an integral part of the intervention programme. We have some concerns
about whether a change in the law to enable local authorities
to insist on school attendance due to safeguarding concerns would
be feasible or enforceable. It should be considered in the light
of the current arrangements for insisting on school attendance
due to concern about a child's education at home—the right
exists but is very difficult to enforce.
4.3 Visits and interviews with the child
4.3.1 The local authority should visit the
premises where home education is taking place, and two weeks notice
of this visit should enable parents to be engaged in this process.
Regular visits by the local authority to premises and interviews
with the child would enable safeguarding issues to be addressed.
4.3.2 It would be helpful and supportive
for the local authority to 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. We are concerned,
however about the legal framework required to give local authorities
the right to speak to children alone in this context—as
far as we are aware, child protection investigations do not have
the legal authority to demand this, even though it is seen as
best practice. It is difficult to see how this could be resolved
without legislative changes.
4.3.3 Additional resources will be required
if home visits are to be required at four weeks, six months and
annually, seeing children alone would add an additional resource
requirement. In principle, however, this is an acceptable approach.
(see paragraph 3.3.3 above)
5. CONCLUSION
The recommendations made by the Badman review
are proportionate and evenly balance the right of the parent to
home educate and the right of the child to receive a suitable
education and the duty of local authorities to ensure both an
appropriate education and the safety of all children in their
area. There are some details to be considered, such as the resourcing
of home visits and legal technicalities to ensure local authorities
have the powers they need.
September 2009
| 
