Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which provided an overview of elective home education in Leicestershire, the County Council’s statutory duties in this area and how these were discharged by the Inclusion Service.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)           Members expressed concern about the reasons why some families chose to elect to educate their children at home, particularly where this was not a positive or freely chosen decision but a last resort following difficulties within mainstream education or where a child’s needs had not been met.

(ii)         Members raised concerns about the breakdown of relationships between families and schools, which was identified as a key reason why some parents withdrew their children from school. It was suggested that more could be done to intervene earlier, before relationships reached crisis point. The Director advised that work was undertaken to support and repair relationships where possible, but that the issues were often complex and required work from both schools and families.

(iii)        Members noted that there was no statutory requirement for the Council to provide education to children who were electively home educated.  The Inclusion Service undertook valuable work with families before a decision to home educate was made, but thereafter parents were signposted to other sources of support.  Members queried whether more could be done to provide ongoing support once a child was being educated at home.  The Director emphasised, however, that any further support offer would need to be considered in the context of the Council’s statutory responsibilities and the limited resources it had available to go beyond that.

(iv)       Members queried how the Council monitored the standard of education being provided at home and whether parents were equipped to provide suitable education. It was noted that there was no requirement for children who were electively home educated to take formal examinations. The legal test was whether the education was suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs, and this could cover a wide range of educational experiences.

(v)         It was emphasised that the Council’s role was to signpost families to resources and support, and to only intervene where there were concerns about the suitability of education or safeguarding.

(vi)       The Committee recognised that many families provided good quality education at home, and members asked how the Council could better learn from those positive examples and share effective practice, while continuing to support families where appropriate.

(vii)      Given the number of children being electively home educated had increased, additional capacity had been allocated to the Inclusion Service. However, the number of vulnerable children had also increased, and resources therefore had to be targeted and prioritised according to need.  The Director indicated that they were not currently concerned about capacity but acknowledged that this would need to be monitored as numbers continued to rise.

(viii)    The Committee raised concerns about the current lack of data on outcomes for children who were electively home educated. Members noted that positive outcomes were not always captured, as families were not required to inform the Council if a child achieved qualifications such as GCSEs.  Members commented that proposed Government plans for a register of children not in school would be important in improving data collection and enabling local authorities to identify concerns and take appropriate action.

(ix)       Members asked about the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) that had been home educated. It was noted that because families were not required to register all outcomes, robust data was not available. However, a recently recruited post-16 manager was looking at NEET young people and how they could be supported back into education or training, drawing on good practice from other areas.

(x)         A member raised a concern about fairness, noting that parents of children attending school could be fined for unauthorised absence, whereas children educated at home could have more flexibility and were not subject to the same monitoring, testing or attendance requirements.

(xi)       Members welcomed the proposal for the item to return to the Committee, noting the increasing interest in elective home education and the importance of improving the available data. It was suggested that the Council should seek to reduce any stigma which might prevent parents from sharing their reasons for choosing home education and should engage with families in order to learn from their experiences.

(xii)      Members suggested that possible ways of improving engagement with home educating families, could include use of the Council’s website and the gathering email addresses so that officers could communicate directly with families and seek further information.

(xiii)    A member raised concerns that some home educated children might fall under the radar and referred to the role of commercial organisations and local charities that supported parents educating children at home. It was suggested that representatives from such organisations could be invited to speak to members, to provide a better understanding of why families used these services and what support was available.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the updated provided on elective home education in Leicestershire, the County Council’s statutory duties in this area and how these were discharged by the Inclusion Service be noted;

(b)  That officers provide further information on the number of school attendance orders issued and, of those, how many resulted in children returning to school;

(c)   That the Director be requested to explore ways to engage with home educating families, local charities and relevant support organisations.