The report of the Deputy director of Children’s Services (Document “P”) provides Members with details of the legislative framework surrounding Elective Home Education and the Authority’s role and responsibilities.

Recommended -

(1)        That the limited powers of the Authority to intervene in cases whereby parents elect to home educate their child(ren) is noted.

(2)        That it be noted that the establishment of the Education Safeguarding Hub is a key vehicle in ensuring and promoting the wellbeing of children who are not attending any registered provision.

                                                                                    (Judith Kirk – 01274 431078)

The report of the Deputy Director of Children’s Services (Document “P”) provided Members with details of the legislative framework surrounding Elective Home Education and the Authority’s role and responsibilities.

It was noted that a distinction had to be made between parents that successfully home educated and those parents that removed their children from school either because of issues with the school which were not taken up with the school or parents that did not secure a place in the school that they wanted and kept the child out of school pending an appeal.

A member questioned what action was taken in instances when a parent did not get a place at the preferred school and they kept the child out of school saying they were being home educated.  It was noted that the safeguarding team dealt with children not in education in a multi agency approach involving health and the police.

In response to a member question whether those children born in the district and not in school were being followed up, it was noted that not all children were known to the local authority as some went into the independent sector or moved out of the district.  If parents did not return the form then they were chased up.  It was noted that a pilot would run from January to June with HMRC sharing information.  A similar pilot in Sheffield had identified 47% of children missing education.

With reference to a member enquiry about outcomes for gypsy and traveller children it was noted that this would be known if they were on roll in school.  However if they elected to home educate they would be part of that cohort and if they had never been in school then there would be no knowledge of them.  It was also pointed out that there was no legislation that required parents to submit children to take qualifications.

A parent who was a home educator attended the meeting and addressed the Committee and circulated an Action for Home Education briefing paper on the report of the Deputy Director of Children’s Services (Document “P”).  She expressed concerns about the blanket sharing of child benefit data and stressed that Bradford Council had to be able to justify why it required the information and she was of the opinion that there was nothing evident in the report.  The Action for Home Education briefing paper referred to:

·        The contradiction between the proposed delay in deregistration from school and S8 of the statutory Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regs. 2006.

·        That the proposed use of personal data about children and families breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

·        That the data sharing proposed in the report did not comply with the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

·        By the nature of the scheme those families whose personal data would be shared will not know about it and therefore can not be asked or agree to provide their informed consent to the data sharing.

·        The information sharing scheme described in the report fails to meet the “necessity” test because the threshold for concern about individual unregistered children is not apparent.

·        Current home education liaison practice in Bradford braches the Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local authorities and S 437 of the Education Act.

·        The problem of illegal schools should be addressed by proper policing of S98 of the Education and Skills Act.   It was contended that Bradford Council had taken no action whatsoever in at least one ingoing incidence of a reported illegal school.

It was noted that the instance referred to was a supplementary school operating outside school hours in a residential property.  The majority of these supplementary schools were madrasas and it was confirmed that there was no legal requirement for supplementary schools to register with the local authority.  It was noted that 164 supplementary schools engaged with the local authority which provided child protection training for them.  It was also noted that the local authority could only investigate supplementary schools if a formal complaint was made or there was a health and safety issue.  If there were more than 6 children in the supplementary school  the home owner would have to apply for a change of use.

A question was raised about the 20 day cooling off period.  It was confirmed that the child was kept on roll at the school for that period which allowed flexibility in case the parent changed their mind then the child did not lose their place at the school.

The Deputy Director of Children’s Services stressed that the authority was not questioning those parents that home educated and whose children were receiving an excellent education but the concern was for those children taken off the register that the authority did not know about.   She added that the Director of Education had a legal responsibility for the safeguarding and welfare of children and that this was about trying to ensure that there was a mechanism for protecting children.

The following points were made by members of the Committee and responses given:

·        The highest proportion of 330 children registered as home educated were in year 11.  There was not enough information in the report on this.  Information was requested on those children for which there were  safeguarding concerns who were being lost within the category of home education.  The authority had concerns about the welfare of children missing education and was looking at those children for which there was the most concern and working with Families First and the Youth Offending Team.  With reference to data sharing with the DWP, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, the authority would only share data on families missing from the district and undertake exhaustive enquiries with health and GP’s.  Data was shared with DWP if there were high safety concerns and the child was genuinely missing.

·        Concern was expressed regarding those children that the authority did not know about.

·        The authority was not concerned about were not people who successfully home educated.  The authority had a duty to ensure children were safe when parents had chosen to withdraw interaction with other statutory agencies. 

Recommended -

(1)       That the limited powers of the Authority to identify cases whereby parents elect to home educate their child(ren) be brought to the attention of the Regional Schools Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Education.

(2)       That it be noted that the interventions of the Education Safeguarding Team are a key vehicle in ensuring and promoting the wellbeing of children.

(3)       That closer working between partners, especially DWP and HMRC sharing data, be strongly promoted within the parameters of children missing education.

Action:            Strategic Director of Children’s Services