Agenda item

25        elective home education (EHE) in east sussex

25.1     The Assistant Director Education and the Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding introduced the report which updated the Committee on the work the Department undertook to meet the Council’s statutory requirements relating to Electively Home Educated (EHE) Children. The growth in the number of children electively home educated between the 2017/18 and 2021/22 academic years was highlighted, and it was noted that the current number of children EHE in East Sussex was equivalent to around the size of a large secondary school. The introduction also covered:

·                     The limited statutory powers the Authority had to ensure EHE children received a good standard of education, and to safeguard children. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding noted that EHE had been a factor in a number of serious case reviews nationally.

·                     The changing national policy and legislative framework, including that the Schools Bill, which had been expected to legislate for new duties on local authorities – including to maintain a register of children not in school – appeared to have been removed from the Parliamentary timetable as a result of recent national political changes.

·                     The service had recently undergone an internal audit that had received an opinion of substantial assurance that the service was delivering its duties.

·                     Service improvements were being implemented and schools were supportive of work to reduce the number of children EHE and bring children EHE back into school wherever possible.

25.2     The Lead Member for EISEND commented that the reasons for families choosing to EHE were varied, and as a result the standard of education children received was very varied. The Authority had very limited powers, particularly around ensuring the safeguarding of EHE children and it was unfortunate that the future of the Schools Bill, which would have given greater powers in this area, had become uncertain.  

25.3       The Committee asked questions and made comments on the following areas:

·                     Areas with high EHE – a question was asked on where the five schools with higher levels of EHE mentioned in the report were situated in the county. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding committed to follow-up with this information, as well as where the schools with lowest level of EHE were situated. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding noted that the schools with high or low levels were identified by schools recording requests to off-roll children. The Department knew that there were children in some parts of the county who had never been on-rolled; and there were parts of the county where certain philosophical beliefs around education were contributing to high levels of EHE but the position of children who had never been admitted to a school roll would not be reflected in the data.

·                     Religious education – a question was asked on whether there was any focus on ensuring EHE children received a religious education. The Director responded that parents that elected to home educate their children were not bound by the national curriculum or to deliver the curriculum agreed by the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education. The Department asked for evidence of children receiving an appropriate education and if this indicated a child was receiving an education that could be deemed as extremist, the Department would respond.

·                     School places – a question was asked on whether any families were having to educate their children at home because they could not access a school place. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding responded that the report in front of the Committee was focussed on parents who had elected to home educate their children. There were instances where children may not be in school as they were waiting for a school place, for example children with SEND who were awaiting a special school place, but the arrangement for those children’s education would be different, for example with access to tuition.

·                     Educational performance – a question was asked on whether the Council knew how the educational performance of EHE children compared with those in school. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding responded that this was not possible to compare because there was no requirement for EHE children’s education to follow the national curriculum, for them to undertake exams or for parents to report the exam performance of their child if they did take exams. This contributed to the challenge of assessing whether EHE children were receiving an appropriate education as there was no requirement to demonstrate that the education being delivered would lead to a qualification.

36.   

·                     Assessment of appropriateness of education – a question was asked on how - given the limited powers local authorities had to investigate - an assessment of children receiving an appropriate education was undertaken. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding responded that the Department would visit families, ask for examples of work and try to make a professional judgment on whether it would meet the standards expected of a child at that age. Where it was challenging to make this assessment, the Department would arrange to revisit at a future point. Where there was no evidence, or little evidence of performance to a required standard, the Department could implement a school attendance order compelling a child to attend school. The Director added that it was important to understand that although the Department could request to visit EHE children, and the EHE Team were very good at engaging parents, the Council had no right of entry unless there was evidence of a safeguarding risk, in which case, officers would attend with a police officer. The Director emphasised that this was a very contentious area and EHE lobby groups felt strongly that Councils should not have a right of entry.

37.   

·                     Role of school in outcomes of children and young people – the Committee commented on the role, and importance, of school for providing children with valuable life and developmental experiences. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding responded that while it should be recognised that some children thrived while being EHE, the Department shared similar concerns about EHE limiting a child’s social interaction with peers and their access to a range of benefits that came from attending school, including access to other support services.

38.   

·                      Budget pressures – a question was asked on whether a link had been identified between schools’ stretched budgets, as well as rising thresholds for accessing a range of support services (e.g. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and educational psychology services) and rising numbers of EHE. It was also asked, if there was a link, could those numbers be expected to rise. The Assistant Director responded that it would be difficult to demonstrate a direct link but that there were a number of reasons for families opting to EHE and some of those reasons may relate to issues, such as challenges around mental health, that may require needing to access stretched support services. 

39.   

·                     Legislative changes – in light of the information presented on the limited powers the authority had to ensure safeguarding of EHE children, the Committee asked the Lead Member for EISEND to write to the Government to ask for clarity on the future and planned timetable of the Schools Bill. The Lead Member agreed to write to the Secretary of State for Education or Schools Minister, copied to East Sussex MPs, to ask for assurance the Bill would contain anticipated powers to create a register of children not in school and for an update on the timetable of the Bill.

40.   

·                     Information and support for parents – a question was asked on whether training or online support was made available for parents that outlined the range of benefits for children from being educated in school, to help them make an informed decision about EHE. A linked question was also asked on what proactive engagement, including virtual engagement, the Department was undertaking to support parents that had chosen to EHE. The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding responded that the service provided drop in meetings to engage parents to ensure they were making informed decisions about EHE. The Department had worked with schools to ensure parents considering EHE understood that in choosing to EHE they were opting out of the education system and could not access resources for education or exams. There were also a wealth of other resources available for parents from EHE lobby groups. In terms of proactive support, a range of information, advice and guidance was provided on the ESCC website for parents, along with ways to contact the service. The service’s resource was stretched, however, so had to primarily be focussed on delivering the Department’s statutory responsibilities and could not necessarily proactively support, or address, coordinated online groups for EHE parents. 

·                     Home Educated Children with SEND – in response to a comment about instances of parents opting to EHE because they felt their child was not receiving an appropriate education tailored to their SEND needs, the Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding outlined that the Department had seen an increase in the number of EHE with SEND and were keen to ensure parents were making informed decisions. The service targeted support to schools to ensure they had conversations with parents considering EHE in these circumstances, to discuss how their child’s SEND needs would be met and to challenge their plans if the school felt they were inappropriate for the child. The Assistant Director added that this was linked to broader work to ensure schools were having early conversations with families considering EHE to provide a wider perspective and challenge pre- or misconceptions about EHE. The Director added that the Department was undertaking a pilot in Eastbourne and Hailsham of council staff joining discussions between schools and families with children with identified SEND or attendance needs who were considering EHE.

25.4     The Chair thanked officers for the interesting and thorough report. The Committee RESOLVED to request officers provide the information on geographic spread of schools with high and low levels of EHE; and for the Lead Member to write to the Secretary of State for Education or Schools Minister as outlined in the legislative changes section above.

25.5     In response to the report recommendation that the Committee consider whether to progress to scoping a scrutiny review of EHE, the Committee considered work programming of the topic and agreed to request an update on the service’s work in six months.