Agenda item

The report references the key legislation and Department for Education (DfE)  guidance that governs Local Authority work with two cohorts of children; children missing education (CME) and those whose parents/carers have elected to home educated (EHE). It provides data relating to the numbers of both CME and EHE children over the past 5 years.

Elizabeth Spearman (Head of ACE and School Admissions) explained the work of the ACE team was related to attendance, child employment and children in entertainment, and elected home education (EHE) and children missing education (CME).  The team dealt with the statutory aspect of attendance by issuing penalty notices following a referral from schools. She noted every single pupil was tracked, and those who had been served a penalty notice since September showed improved   attendance.  The team was also responsible for licensing of children who were involved in stage productions and modelling.  The portfolio of the ACE team also covered permanent exclusions and made referrals within six days for offer of alternative provisions. 

Elizabeth Spearman introduced the report which referenced the key legislation and DfE guidance that governed local authorities work with two cohorts of children, i.e. CME and those whose parents/carers had elected to home educate. It provided data relating to the numbers of both CME and EHE children over the past 5 years.  She noted the number of CME peaked when the country welcomed arrivals from Afghanistan and then Ukraine. Smaller peaks were also seen during the two school admissions rounds, if parents were dissatisfied with the school offered and chose to wait for a preferred option. s.  The number of children known to be EHE before the pandemic was about 80+ which was in line with the national picture.  The figure went up to around 200 at the height of the pandemic and fell again to the current 130 which was still significantly more than that before the pandemic.  Elizabeth remarked as long as the parents/carers were committed to providing home education proactively, the Council was keen to support all parents’/carers’ who elected home education.

Councillor Aliya Afzal-Khan was concerned whether the DfE had stated any minimum requirements for those who EHE in relation to curriculum and assessment.  Elizabeth Spearman noted that according to the law, home education had to be “suitable”; this was not defined in law or guidance.  As such, EHE did es not have to follow the national curriculum, children did not have to be  tested nor sit any public examinations like SAT/GCSE.  , The DfE guidance expected each  local authority to devise their own policies and guidelines for home education but specified that those opting home education had no obligation to inform the local authority of their intent H&F had made it a policy to see every home educated child and their parents/carers that was notified to the local authority. The Council also suggest a broad and balanced curriculum to equip the child to take their place in society.  If there were concerns deeming the home education provision was not suitable, the Home Education Advisor would interact with the family and turn things around skilfully, such as advising on the programme or encouraging the child going back into school.  Replying to Councillor Afzal-Khan’s further question, Elizabeth confirmed that mandated subjects at school were not required to be covered in home education.

The Chair asked about comparative data on education outcomes of EHE. Elizabeth Spearman noted families often wanted to set up their programme undisturbed in the first three months of de-schooling their children. During that period, officers from CME or EHE might work with them and a percentage of families would decide EHE was not the right choice and be supported to register the child back into school sometimes after mediating disagreements with the school concerned. For those families committed to proceeding with home education, they would be guided on what was expected and encouraged to cover some of the subjects that the child would usually learn at school.  That said, the families were entitled to choose alternatives. Elizabeth added that the above had made data measuring challenging.

Nardia Taylor (Co-optee) was worried about the safeguarding checks for children who were home educated without the knowledge of the Council. Elizabeth Spearman noted that for those children with an allocated social worker, who were removed from school for various reasons, the Home Education Advisor would alert and work closely with the social worker who might make more regular contacts with the families.  Peter Haylock added that if a child had not registered with education, they might have done so with other authorities like health or housing. Sharing of information within the limitations of GDPR as and when appropriate helped identify and support these children.

Nandini Ganesh (Co-optee) asked whether parents/carers could apply for EOTAS (education other than at school) funding for home education. Peter Haylock noted that an EOTAS package had been agreed for a small number of young people with an EHCP which however did not sit within the ACE team.  

Councillor Alex Sanderson (Cabinet Member for Children and Education) appreciated the brilliant work of the ACE team in providing home education service and looked forward to a more forceful legislation coming through to require registration.  Elizabeth Spearman noted the annual home education family event to be held in the coming summer.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted the report.