Overview and Scruitny - Elective Home Educationlancashire-he.dsa-lancashire.org.uk/docs/Lancs CC Task Group report.pdfOctober2008–March2009 Forfurtherinformationpleasecontact: BeverleyReid,OverviewandScrutiny

October 2008 – March 2009

For further information please contact:Beverley Reid, Overview and Scrutiny(01772) [email protected].

ContentsIntroduction to the Review 3

Membership of the Task Group 3

Scope of the Scrutiny Review 4

Methodology 5

Findings 7

Conclusions 18

Recommendations 20

Acknowledgements 22

2

Overview and Scrutiny

Elective Home Education

3

Introduction tothe ReviewParents are required by lawto ensure their children of aschool age receive anappropriate full-timeeducation. In mostinstances this is achievedby registering their childrenwith a school. However,some parents choose toeducate their child otherthan at school; in the UKthis is commonly known asElective Home Education(EHE). The number ofchildren in Lancashireregistered as homeeducated has steadilyincreased over the last eightyears and this reflects thenational trend.

The county council fullyacknowledges a parent'sright to choose to educatetheir children other than atschool and has proceduresin place to support parentswho opt to home educate.

At the Children and YoungPeople Overview andScrutiny Committee in July2008, members werepresented with a reportabout the current picture ofElective Home Education inLancashire. Members of thecommittee raised concernsabout the infrequency ofvisits to those children beingeducated at home and theability of the local authorityto ensure that they are safe.

As a result of the followingdiscussion it was resolvedthat a Task Group should beformed with the aim ofinvestigating andconsidering relevantinformation in more detail inorder to provide theCommittee with a greaterunderstanding of EHEissues.

The task group was agreedat the September 2008Management Committee,where it was decided thatthe task group would

consist of six members; fivebeing County Councillorsand one co-opted member.

The task group metbetween October 2008 andMarch 2009. The followingreport details witnesses withwhom the task group met;the information the taskgroup received and theconclusions that the taskgroup reached. It alsoincludes recommendationsthat the task group wishesto make about the issue ofElective Home Education inLancashire.

Membership ofthe Task GroupThe following membersserved on the task group:

- County CouncillorTim Ashton

- County CouncillorMrs. Pat Case CBE

- County CouncillorGraham Davies

- County CouncillorStephen Large (Chair)

- County CouncillorMiles Parkinson

- Mr. John Withington, ParentGovernor, Primary Phase

Scope of theScrutiny Review:At the first meeting of the taskgroup in October 2008, the taskgroup agreed that the reviewshould address the followingobjectives:� To examine the issues arising

from the increasing number ofchildren in Lancashire beingeducated away from school.This should include aconsideration of:� The strength of the current

legislative framework andhow effectively it allows thecouncil to ensure that theeducation and safeguardingof all children is accountedfor;

� Each of the five Every ChildMatters Objectives, with aparticular emphasis on‘staying safe’;

� The capacity of thecouncil's current supportstructures in meeting itsobligations as a Children’sServices Authority.

� Concerns raised by theChildren and Young PeopleO&S committee about theusual, single annual visit tochildren who are HomeEducated.

� Whether it would bepossible to encourage earlyintervention before a child isremoved from the schoolenvironment in order to behome educated; includingfinding ways for schools towork with families who wishto remove their children;

� The suggestion that issuesaffecting children should beconsidered by each of thecouncil's directorates in theirdaily work;

� The situation regardingTraveller Children registered

4



5

as being HomeEducated. Otherauthorities do notinclude Travellerchildren who are notin school as part oftheir Home Educationstatistics but thisdemographic doesform a largeproportion of childrenwho are registered asbeing homeeducated inLancashire.

� To makerecommendations forany improvements tocurrent EHE policiesadopted by the countycouncil that the taskgroup deems asnecessary.

MethodologyWitnessesThe following witnesses metwith the task group andshared information:

Lancashire CountyCouncil Officers- Maureen Davenport,

Lancashire EducationInclusion Service (LEIS) –Head of Service,Children and YoungPeople Directorate

- Frances Molloy,Schools AttendanceLead, Children andYoung PeopleDirectorate

- Angela Robinson, LEISTeacher, Children andYoung PeopleDirectorate

- Greg Vickers, ChildrenMissing Education(CME) County Co-ordinator, Children andYoung PeopleDirectorate

- An officer from the DCFS

Home EducatorsThe task group met with agroup of Home Educatorsand their children, LyndaHoward was the contactpoint for this meeting

- Alison Sauer, DirectorSC Education andBusiness Developmentand the lead trainer forlocal authorities aboutHome Education in theUK

- Fiona Nicholson, ChairEducation OtherwiseGovernment PolicyGroup, MemberEducation OtherwiseDisability Group, TrusteeEducation Otherwise

DocumentsThe task group consideredthe following documentsduring their review:

- Elective HomeEducation – the originalreport to committee inJuly 2008 and theMinutes following themeeting

- LEIS – Elective HomeEducation, Guidelinesfor Parents – Thecounty council's maindocument for supportingHome Educators inLancashire

- Elective Home Education,Guidelines for LocalAuthorities – from the DCFS,guidelines on Local Authorityresponsibilities and rightsrelated to Elective HomeEducation

- Every Child MattersFramework – The overarchingframework, the task groupconsidered this as a way tostructure their approach forconsidering the provisions andpotential gaps for the welfare ofchildren in relation to ElectiveHome Education

- Revised Statutory Guidancefor local authorities inEngland to identify childrennot receiving a suitableeducation – While HomeEducated children are notnecessarily children who aremissing an education, there isguidance in this documentwhich suggests localauthorities need to be ensuringthe educational welfare of allthe children in their area. This isalso from the Department forSchools, Children and Families

WebsitesEducation Otherwise -http://www.education-otherwise.org/Education Otherwise is the largestsupport network for HomeEducation in the UK, the taskgroup met withrepresentatives/members from theorganisation

ContactPoint -http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/contactpoint/This was referred to by the EHEteam and CME team as a possibleway to find children who arepotentially missing education andto add unknown children to theregister of home educatedchildren.

Site VisitsEHE Team Meeting – the taskgroup attended a team meeting forthe county council's EHE team inorder to understand better theeveryday implications andcaseloads of the EHE team

6

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/contactpoint/



http://www.education-otherwise.org/

http://www.education-otherwise.org/



7

Surveys and PublicityPress Release – The councilarranged a press release toinform the public that thereview of Home Educationwas taking place. Overviewand Scrutiny alsoencouraged those withexperiences of homeeducation to approach thetask group with information.There was a high level ofresponse and much generalinterest in the task groupwith various radio stations,newspapers and even NorthWest Tonight running a storyabout the review.

Responses to the PressRelease – The task groupconsidered the responsesfrom many people involvedin Home Education acrossLancashire.

FindingsLancashire CountyCouncil's ElectiveHome Education (EHE)team

At the time of gatheringevidence for this review(Oct 2008), 467 Lancashirechildren were registered asbeing home educated. InLancashire there has beenan increase in the numberof children being homeeducated since 2001, andin the last four years thenumber has doubled.During the LancashireEducation Inclusion Service(LEIS) teacher's initial visit tosee a child who is beinghome educated they willcomplete an EHE1A formwith the individual who isresponsible for theeducation of the child. Thisform is used to record whythe family is choosing tohome educate and howthey intend to deliver thechild's education, as well as

considering how eachaspect of the Every ChildMatters agenda will befulfilled. The EHE teamrecords the reasons thatparents give for choosing tohome educate their child,though the team recognisesthat it is often a mixture ofreasons rather than just one.The categories used are asfollows:

� Medical - Parents feelthat medical needs aretoo great for schoolattendance

� Refuser - Thechild/young person haselected not to attendschool and parentssupport this decision

� Bullying - Parents feelthat bullying issues havenot been dealt witheffectively

� Religious - Parentsbelieve Home Educationis important to maintaintheir faith

� Excluded - Parents wishto avoid exclusion

� Reactive - Parents chooseEHE to avoid a range ofproblems

� Proactive - Parents activelychoose EHE as they feel it canbest promote their values

� Traveller - Children, particularlyat Key Stages 3 and 4, may beexpected to assist in the homesetting or family business

There is a concern that childrenwho leave the school systembecause of bullying may find itmore difficult and traumatic toaccess social activities and maybecome isolated within the homeor education environment.

There is a further concern that itmay be more difficult for homeeducated children to accessservices that are readily providedthrough the school environment,such as support networks andcareer advice. The potentiallydetrimental impact on the child'ssocial well-being is alsoconsidered to be an issue. Thehome educated child's access toother people and to children their

own age was also raised as aconcern by the task group.

When a child is removed fromschool to be home educated theLancashire Education InclusionService (LEIS) teachers from theEHE team will usually make aninitial visit to the family no earlierthan forty school days after thechild is registered as being homeeducated, but no later than sixtyschool days after thecommencement of homeeducation. Where there are noconcerns about the education thechild is receiving or the child'swelfare this initial meeting willusually be followed by a furthervisit after 25 school weeks.Following this visit, further visits willusually take place annually. Wherethere are concerns about theeducation the child is receiving,the LEIS teacher will arrange to visitmore frequently or seek furtherevidence of the education beingprovided; this will usually takeplace within fifteen school days.

8



9

The LEIS teachers do nothave a statutory right toaccess the family home oreven see the child beinghome educated, though inLancashire the team hasfound that there are very fewhomes and children that areconsistently inaccessible.

Where access to a child isrefused, it is often difficult,under current legislation andstatutory guidance, for theLEIS team to move towardsa resolution that ensures thechild is safe and receiving asuitable education. The firstpoint of contact would bethe Children MissingEducation team who wouldescalate any furtherconcerns they had toLancashire's SafeguardingBoard. In making thisjudgement, LEIS teachersconsider whether the childis in good physical healthand whether they appear tobe sound of mind. Theconfidence of the child isalso considered as a factorin judging their well-being.

In the situation where a childenters the country there iscurrently no failsafe systemthat will allow a localauthority to recognise if thatchild is in their boundaries.However, the county counciland many other authoritieshave agreements with theImmigration Office that theycan approach them withdetails that they have abouta child that they believe hasrecently entered the countyand have this informationconfirmed. ContactPoint isexpected to be a potentialsolution to this problem;however, schools are themost efficient point forcollecting the informationthat would be entered intothe ContactPoint database.ContactPoint will also beused to identify children inLancashire who the authoritymay not currently haveregistered as being homeeducated.

More information aboutContactPoint can be foundat the following website:http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/contactpoint/

The task group had furtherconcerns about the use oftutors and other adults tohelp with the education ofEHE children. These adultscan often be from outside ofthe family and it is theresponsibility of the parentto have these adults CRBchecked. There is, however,no legal requirement forparents to do so. It wassuggested that the LocalAuthority should perhapsconsider providing anumbrella process by whichto complete these checkson the behalf of parents. Ithas also been suggestedby other organisations andhome educators that theuse of tutors is not acommon occurrence acrosshome education inLancashire.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/contactpoint



10

It should be recognised that theEHE team are operating on verylimited resources and that theywould require extra staffing to beable to increase the number ofvisits per year to home educatingfamilies or to provide servicesbeyond the annual visits thatcurrently take place.

Lancashire County Council'sChildren Missing Education(CME) team

Where there are concerns aboutthe education that a homeeducated child is receiving, theEHE team would refer that child tothe Children Missing Education(CME) team.

The County Council has a CMEdatabase with over 250 cases inprogress. The exact number, at thetime of receiving the evidence,was unknown but it is thoughtthere are about 311 current cases:102 of these being in the East; 73in the North and 66 in the Centralregion. About 70 of these caseshad been actioned or closed andof the cases that are related to

home education, 9 have now beensuccessfully closed.

There is a schools portal toolwhich is expected to be usedmore in the future and this allowsfor referrals from the schools ofchildren who are suspected asbeing CME. This would potentiallybe widened in the future to allowpublic referrals which wouldhopefully highlight any childrenwho are registered as being homeeducated but where there areconcerns in the community thatthey are not receiving aneducation.

There are number of sources fromwhich CME referrals are currentlyreceived:

� Professional colleagues� General Public� EHE team� Other Authorities� School referrals

There is anecdotal evidence tosuggest that some children arenow on the children missingeducation register because their



11

parents were advised by theschool to remove their childfrom that environment andthat alternative educationalprovisions would be madeavailable by the localauthority.

EHE and the Law

The legal grounding forhome education is found inSection 7 of the EducationAct 1996 and is limited tojust a couple of sentences:

'The parent of every child ofcompulsory school ageshall cause him to receiveefficient full-time educationsuitable —(a) to his age, ability andaptitude, and(b) to any specialeducational needs he mayhave,either by regular attendanceat school or otherwise.'[emphasis placed by thereport author]

EHE is also subject to thelaw which dictates

compulsory school age.This states that a child mustremain in education ortraining of some form untilthe last Friday in June afterthey turn 17.

The term full-time is mainlyapplicable to the schoolsystem and is much moredifficult to explain whenconnected to homeeducation due to thediverse nature of theeducation delivered

'Suitable' in terms ofeducation is defined as, 'aneducation which achievesthat which it set out toachieve'. It is also supposedto be an education thatequips the individual for lifewithin their community butdoes not restrict them frombecoming part of anothercommunity if they wouldwish to do so in the future.

If a parent chooses to homeeducate before their childever enters the schoolsystem they are not required

to inform anyone, thoughthe council wouldencourage all parentsconsidering homeeducation to contact them.If the decision to homeeducate is made after thechild has entered the schoolsystem, the parents of thechild must inform theschool, and the schoolmust remove that child fromtheir register and inform thelocal authority of this actionwithin two days.

The local authority has nolegal right to access thefamily home or to see thechild that is being homeeducated and while writtenwork is often requested asproof of the education beingcompleted, it is not a legalrequirement for parents toprovide such evidence.

Home education can beused by parents to avoidaccusations about truancybeing made against thembut it is thought that this isnot common and, that if this

was the case, it would becomeclear during LEIS teacher visitsthrough lack of educationalevidence and this issue could thenbe referred to the Children MissingEducation team.

Traveller Communities withchildren being HomeEducated

Traveller communities wereconsidered separately as their wayof life and approach to educationcan be very different to theapproach considered by thecurrent school system. It wasnoted that a common experienceof LEIS teachers visiting travellersites was to find childrenregistered as being homeeducated doing work in thecommunity or looking after theirfamilies rather than undertaking a‘traditional education’. However,many traveller communities havetheir own language which maymake engagement in theclassroom/school setting difficult.

During visits to traveller familieswhere a child is being homeeducated, LEIS teachers have

often found that these children areworking within their familybusinesses and while this may beconsidered educational, there arestrict laws about when children canwork, how long for, and the typesof activities that they can beengaged in.

The task group was also informedthat many local authorities do notinclude traveller communities intheir statistics for the number ofchildren who are registered asbeing home educated.

Other Organisations

Department for Children andFamilies (DCFS)In January 2009 it was announcedthat a National Review of HomeEducation was to be conducted.This national review is beingconducted by the DCFS and willconsider various aspects of homeeducation. The review has invitedas many stakeholders as possibleto contribute and this report will bepassed on to those running thereview.

12



13

The Review will not questiona parents right to homeeducate but it will aim toconsider the power of LocalAuthorities and whether theyshould place more influenceon safeguarding andmonitoring of children whoare home educated

It was recognised that thereis a valid consideration tobe made as to whetherhome education achievesthe five outcomes of theEvery Child Mattersframeworks as readily asschooling. It was explainedthat officers are entitled toask about the education thata child is receiving and thatthere are protocols in placefor ensuring safety andwelfare. Further to this,concerns were re-iterated asto where the 'child's voice'sits in the decision abouttheir education.

The enormous amount offlexibility that currently existsfor home education was

seen as a possible obstacleand it was questioned as towhether there might be abenefit in more structureand guidelines beingapplied to education otherthan at school.

It was felt the Local Authoritydoes have appropriate toolsfor ensuring the safety ofchildren in Lancashire butthe National Review willconsider any barriers thatare being reported and isconsulting with as manystakeholders as possible.

There is a question aboutwhether the problems withaccess and barriers tocommunication with homeeducators being raised bycouncil officers areperceived or real. It wassuggested that someconcerns can perhaps beexplained by a lack ofunderstanding of thestatutory duties and rightsavailable to the countycouncil now.

Trainer and Consultant forLocal Authorities in homeeducationThe task group wasconcerned by thesuggestion that the countycouncil does not know of allchildren who are beinghome educated inLancashire.

The job title of LEIS teacherwas suggested as a pointof friction with homeeducators who often seethe visits by these officersas intrusive and undertakingmore of a policing role thana supportive one.

Education at home shouldnot just be seen as schoolat home, it can take manyforms that may never involveany written work. The countycouncil recognises that notall education at home willfollow a national curriculumor indeed has to follow thepattern of school at home.The council does ask forwritten examples of work but

the statutory guidance does notstate that this is a mandatoryrequirement for home educators tofulfil.

The task group was informed thathome education usually fails whenit does not involve the fullinteraction of the parent and childin the process.

The task group heard that thecouncil should trust the judgementof its officers or provide moretraining as an experienced andskilled officer would recognise thesigns of abuse or a child who isnot entirely safe or enjoying theireducation at home.

The safeguarding duty of thecounty council is suggested asbeing a passive one. The authorityonly has a duty to act when it hasa concern and the mechanismsare in place or being developed toescalate situations where there areconcerns.

The task group was informed thatthere were at least two serious

cases known in the UK wherehome education had been usedas a cover for instances of abuseor forced marriage but this is out ofat least 50,000 children who arethought to be home educated.

Education OtherwiseEducation Otherwise is a nationalorganisation which works on amembership basis. It provides anonline community and support forits members and also lobbies forchange in government policy.Education Otherwise now has alocal contact in nearly every regionand uses this contact to facilitateworkshops for the sharing of bestpractice and for encouragingcontact amongst home educators.The organisation is also activelyinvolved in regular meetings withgovernment officials and ministerswhere they attempt to shapenational policy.

One particular aspect thatEducation Otherwise is trying tochange is the relationship betweenlocal authorities and homeeducators. They would like the

14

relationship to be moreabout home educatorsknowing who to contact atthe local authority when theyneed support, rather thanenforced visits at massiveintervals, such as thesituation in Lancashire ofannual visits.

Education Otherwiseconsider the whole EveryChild Matters agenda intheir approach to homeeducation which issomething that the taskgroup had highlighted asimportant.

The task group heard thatmore resources should bemade available for childrenwho are home educated. Inparticular access to examsshould be more readilyavailable.

Other areas such as NorthYorkshire and Somersetwere cited as examples ofbest practice for trying totake a different approachand that these authorities

provided regular support tohome educators.

There was a suggestion thatmembers of EducationOtherwise often find outabout home educators whoare known to the localauthority and who needsupport. EducationOtherwise will usuallycontact the local authority toask them to contact suchfamilies.

Examples given suggestedthat much of the relationshipbetween home educatingfamilies and the localauthority depended on theofficer that the family hadcontact with. Goodexperiences framed goodrelationships, whereas badexperiences have, onoccasions, upset children inparticular and left themfearful of local authorityinvolvement.

It was felt that nationallythere is an inconsistentapproach by local

authorities to homeeducation and that the roleand responsibilities of thelocal authority would bebetter served by asupporting rather thaninstructing role.

Education Otherwise havefound that that homeeducators in some areasare concerned about tryingto change their approach tohome education as theybelieve that they may not beallowed to continueeducating their children athome. The overallimpression that EducationOtherwise have taken fromcorrespondence is thathome educators are fearfulabout their relationship withthe local authority.

It was further suggested thatan advocacy service maybe beneficial to homeeducators when they arewary of the local authority.The task group suggestedthat this could be providedthrough the Voluntary,



15

Community and Faith Sector,where a group of home educatorscould bid for funding to providesuch a service.

Evidence from HomeEducators – Meeting andCorrespondence

CorrespondenceThe correspondence from HomeEducators identifies the followingcommon themes:

� Where a child has beenremoved from school to behome educated they are seento be thriving academically andmuch happier than they were;

� Home education is generallyseen as a positive experiencewhereas the child's experienceof school has usually been anegative experience;

� Home educators seem to findthe Council approach to beintrusive and abrasive;

� Children benefit from the closeattention within their family andone-to-one learning.

Meeting with Home Educatorsin LancashireHome educators consider homeeducation to be the 'natural state'of education as it is the parents'responsibility to ensure their childis receiving an education.

One major barrier home educatorsfeel exists in Lancashire tointeraction with the county councilis the choice of language in PressReleases and the title of LEISteacher as well as the need toshow evidence of a broad'curriculum' and other such schoolrelated terminology.

Many parents feel that the visitsfrom the EHE team involve thembeing told how they should homeeducate rather than beingassessed on how they are homeeducating. There are manydifferent ways to home educateand many home educators feelthat this variety in methods is notbeing recognised or understood.

Many parents thought that this wasa more effective way for theirchildren to learn. Rather than beingtaught through a timetable of

16



17

subjects and a curriculum, achild is able to engage inlearning about what theywant and when they wantto.

Many parents would like tosee more support providedto home educators; onesuggestion made was thatthe local authority couldprovide drop-in centres oropportunities for parents tocontact them with issues.

It was also felt that regularforum meetings betweenthe county council and localhome educators would bebeneficial to both sides;both in terms of networkingand in keeping the councilinformed of changes andtrends in home education.

Many parents felt that homeeducators in general werebeing singled out and thatperhaps more effort shouldbe being concentrated onprotecting children whenthey are in the school

environment. Further to this,parents accepted that thereare some home educatorswho need to be consideredmore closely by the localauthority and that not allhome education is suitable;however, they feel that thelocal authority is grouping allhome educators togetherrather than focusing onthose who are the problem.

Criticisms were made of theform used to assess homeeducators during the initialvisit by an LEIS teacher.Many home educators feltthat the information aboutthe home educationprogramme they intend toadopt and their reasons forchoosing to home educateshould be kept separate.

The parents who gaveevidence felt that nothingwas excluded to theirchildren in terms of theirchildren's' overall well-being.However, it was felt thatsomething should be done

to make it easier to accesssports and science facilitiesas well as GCSE exams.

Many home educators whohave removed their childrenfrom school did not knowthat home education was anoption and felt that parentsshould be informed at thesame time as they areasked to make a decisionabout which school to sendtheir child to.

Home educators putforward the evidence that itwas offensive that the localauthority considered homeeducated children to be atany higher risk than thosechildren who are at home atthe weekend or during theholidays.

It was also raised that oncea parent chooses to homeeducate there is no supportnetwork through which tocontact other homeeducators and to shareexperiences and best

practice. They would also like tosee a continuous dialogue with thelocal authority rather than just anannual meeting for the purpose ofassessment.

The task group heard that parentshave found that they have beenstopped by the police andaccused of allowing their child tonot receive education when in factthe child is receiving education bygoing to visit museums andlibraries and engaging in othersuch activities away from thehome.

The task group was informed thatmany families had not enteredhome education because theysaw school as a bad thing andwhen asked many said they wouldallow their children to go to schoolif that was what they wanted to do;though one individual said thatthey would not be happy for theirchildren to go to school. Thissuggests that the child does atleast have some say about theeducation that they receive.

ConclusionsThe county council respects therights of parents to educate theirchildren other than at school anddoes provide support to thosefamilies through their website andthe contact of officers with families.It is also recognised that homeeducation is not merely analternative to school but is anactive choice of the parent andchild. However, home educationmust be considered as differentsituation to children at schoolbecause of the added pressure itputs on the local authority toensure the safety of those childrenwho are educated other than atschool.

In an ideal situation, the onlyreason for home education wouldbe the want to home educate,both for the parent and the child.However, it is more common thatmany other reasons push childrenout of school or mean that schoolis not the best environment for achild to learn in.

18



19

There are many reasons forchoosing to home educateand these are as individualas the families in question.The council should do moreto recognise the values andpossible restrictions to eachof these reasons and tounderstand that education istailored to the child. A betterunderstanding of the stylesof home education wouldperhaps contribute towardsa more positive relationshipbetween the council andhome educators inLancashire.

Differing styles of educationmean that it can often bedifficult for LEIS teachers torecognise certain aspects ofeducation as suitable. Muchhas been done by the teamto understand travellercommunities but more timecould perhaps be spentwith other individual familiesto understand their style ofeducation and the benefits itpresents. However, it is

recognised that this mayrequire more resources forthe EHE team and awillingness from homeeducators to spend thistime with the officers.

There is potential for moresupport to be provided bythe county council but inorder to do this, there wouldneed to be more resourcesdedicated to the EHE teamand a clearer understandingacross directorates inrelation to the relevance ofhome education and itsimportance to the entireEvery Child Matters agenda.

It could be possible to domore to allow childrenaccess to exams and sportsor science equipment,though it may be that homeeducating families are stillexpected to pay to usethese services.

The county council knowsmany, but not all of the

children being homeeducated in Lancashire.

There are valid guidelinesand reasonable powers inthe statutory guidance onhome education for theLocal Authority to escalatesituations where they believethere is a problem.However, there are perhapsnot strong enoughguidelines for guaranteeingaccess to the family andchild so as home educationcan be assessed for anyissues. Further to this, thecounty council does notknow of all the children whoare being home educated inLancashire.

The current legal guidelineswhich describe what can bedetermined as a suitableeducation are vague andmake it difficult for theofficers who form the countycouncil's EHE team to makea sound judgement aboutthe overall well-being of any

child they see. This is particularlytrue of reported incidents intraveller communities wherechildren are working in their familytrade.

Home educators in Lancashirewould prefer to be supportedrather than policed, though it isrecognised that there are resourceconstraints placed on the EHEteam.

More home educators would belikely to interact with the localauthority and to agree to beregistered as home educated if therelationship were to be more aboutaccessing support when it isneeded than being 'checked upon'.

The current contact betweenfamilies who home educate andthe local authority is too infrequentand more should be done tomaintain a continuous link betweenthe two. Both the local authorityand the home educators that thetask group met with agreed thatthey would like to maintainincreased contact. However, theway that this is done would need

to be carefully managed to ensurethat it does not place an evergreater requirement for resourcesto the EHE team and that it doesnot further intrude onto the lives ofthose families who choose tohome educate.

Home education is not currentlypromoted as an option inLancashire at the point of applyingfor school choices.

Recommendations1. The county council and homeeducators should work moreclosely to develop a relationship oftrust and mutual support withinwhich the child can achieve andflourish.

2. LEIS teachers should berenamed to reflect the fact that,when working with homeeducators, their role is not ateaching one, but a support one.

3. The approach of the LEISteachers should reflect the supportand assistance they can provide

20



21

home educators, against abackground of the CountyCouncil's statutory duty tosafeguard all children.

4. In the light of theincreasing numbers ofchildren being educatedother than at school, extrasupport should beconsidered for the EHEteam to help them copewith this increase inworkload.

5. Support should be givento home educators inLancashire to bid forVoluntary, Community andFaith Sector funding with theaim of setting up anadvocacy provision forhome educating familiesand their children fordiscussions/meetings withthe local authority where thefamily/child feels that theyneed that support.

6. Regular meetings shouldtake place between LEISand home educators in

order to facilitate a positiverelationship and exchangeof information within a groupforum setting.

7. More information shouldbe available to homeeducators either throughimprovements to thecouncil's current EHEwebsite or through the useof a contact number.

8. When a parent choosesto home educate a childcurrently attending school,the school and officers ofthe local authority should doall that they can to ensurethat the parent discussesthis decision with theschool. The aim should beto seek to resolve anyproblems that the child ishaving at school and, whereappropriate, of maintaining arelationship. If the mattercannot be resolved at thisstage, there should be thepossibility for a referral forconciliation.

9. The EHE1A form shouldbe reconsidered, inconsultation with homeeducators in Lancashire.

10.More support should begiven by the county councilto home educating familiesto help their children accessexams services, whilstrecognising that thosefamilies may have to pay touse these services.

11.The county councilshould consider giving moresupport to home educatedchildren in accessing sportsand science facilities whilstrecognising that familiesmay have to pay to usethese services.

12.The county council andHome Educators shouldwork together to ensure thatthe voice of the child isheard in decisions aroundtheir education

13.The legislation thatgoverns the local authority's

ability to ensure the well-being andsafety of children being homeeducated should be strengthened.

14.The county council'sresponsibility for the safeguardingof every child in Lancashire mustbe acknowledged and HomeEducators and the council shouldwork together to establish the bestways to achieve this for homeeducated children.

15.This report should be passedonto the DCFS for consideration intheir review of Elective HomeEducation.

AcknowledgementsThe task group would like to thankeveryone who has taken the timeto write to the task group or meetwith the task group. The taskgroup would also like to thank allthose officers who helped the taskgroup in their understanding ofhome education in Lancashire.

22

Designed by Corporate Communications, Lancashire County Council 2009.