House of Commons Support For Home Education English

House of Commons
Education Committee
Support for Home

Education
Fifth Report of Session 2012–13
Volume II
Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons

to be published 11 December 2012
Published on 20 December 2012

by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
The Education Committee
The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to

examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for
Education and its associated public bodies.
Membership at time Report agreed:

Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair)
Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud)
Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North)
Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central)
Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham)
Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West)
Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)
Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead)
Chris Skidmore MP (Conservative, Kingswood)
David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley)
Damian Hinds MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) was also a member of the

Committee during the inquiry.
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO
No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including
press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/education-
committee
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Dr Lynn Gardner (Clerk), Geraldine
Alexander (Second Clerk), Penny Crouzet (Committee Specialist), Emma
Gordon (Committee Specialist), Benjamin Nicholls (Committee Specialist),
Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant), Caroline McElwee
(Committee Assistant), and Paul Hampson (Committee Support Assistant)
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Education
Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The
telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s
e-mail address is educom@parliament.uk
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/educom)
1 Annabel Stockman Ev w1
2 Stephen Keen Ev w2
3 Wendy Charles-Warner Ev w2
4 Mish Pasha Ev w3
5 Clare Emerson Ev w3
6 Kate Jackson Ev w6
7 Louise Kerbiriou Ev w7
8 Karen Thirlaway Ev w7
9 Jon Home Ev w11
10 Jessica and Nigel Spiers Ev w11
11 Red Balloon Ev w13
12 Louise Smart Ev w15
13 Helen Hornby Ev w16
14 Gill Guest Ev w17
15 Neia Glynn Ev w17
16 The Association of School and College Leaders Ev w18
17 Mr and Mrs Gibson Ev w19
18 Vanda Alexander Ev w20
19 Janet MacKay Ev w21
20 Emmanuelle and Michael Horesford Ev w21
21 Nikki Harper Ev w22
22 Roxane Featherstone Ev w26
23 Family Education Trust Ev w27
24 Debbie Chippington Derrick Ev w29
25 Ofsted Ev w30
26 Cheryl Moy Ev w31
27 Kathryn Smutek Ev w34
28 Sophie Butcher Ev w35
29 Dr Leslie Barson and Tina Robins (Elective Home Education) Ev w36
30 Mohammed Chowdhury Ev w37
31 Professor Bruce Stafford Ev w37
32 J Spriddle Ev w40
33 Elaine Hallows Ev w43
34 David Hough Ev w45
35 Autism in Mind (AIM) Ev w47
36 Nicola Short Ev w50
37 Rosemary McGruther Ev w51
38 Buckinghamshire County Council Ev w55
39 Lisa Heath Ev w58
40 Simon Webb Ev w59
41 Tamsin Palmer Ev w60
42 London Borough of Wandsworth Ev w61
43 Nisai Virtual Academy Ev w61
44 National Autistic Society and Ambitious About Autism Ev w65
45 Helen White Ev w68
46 Annette Jones Ev w72
47 Bridgend Home Educators Ev w72
48 Education Otherwise Association Ev w75
49 Susannah Matthan Ev w77
50 Worcestershire Home Education Network Ev w79
51 Tracy Brind Ev w80
52 Elizabeth Taylor Ev w80
53 Lisa Dillon Ev w81
54 Alasdair Coles Ev w83
55 Ruth A Jump Ev w86
56 Essex County Council Ev w87
57 Annette and Rebecca Taberner Ev w87
58 Deirdre Woods Ev w91
59 Wigan Council Ev w93
60 Elena de Paris Ev w94
61 Peach Ev w95
62 Maire Stafford Ev w96
63 S Hodges Ev w99
cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [18-12-2012 17:27] Job: 023879 Unit: PG01
Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/023879/023879_w063_steve_HE 70 - Hodges (prev Onions).doc.xml
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w1
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by Annabel Stockman
1. In Summary
HE is an expensive option with no government or LA financial and educational support. My experience with
our LA shows that officers have no understanding of HE, nor of the law on HE, and conflate it with social
care issues. This may be because they are not in an education department; rather they belong to a “Truancy”
or “Social Inclusion” team. These are obstacles to mutual understanding and meaningful support of genuine
home educators who by default contribute to the financial support of schools through their taxes.
2. I and my husband adopted our children both aged one year old from China in 1998 and 2000 respectively.
From the beginning we decided not to follow the school system, preferring to take an independent route in
rearing and educating them. They were children who had been institutionalised in orphanages for their first
year of life.
3. With their integration and assimilation in mind we began to “educate” our way. This involved travelling
around London looking at exhibitions and galleries, museums, churches, temples, zoos, aquaria. They were
drawn in to activities where they would meet and make friendships with people of all ages: the local city farm,
the library, helping with charitable events, sports clubs. They were taken to ordinary places during the day to
learn about life and people: shopping, the mechanic’s garage, council offices, funeral parlours! They of course
made a wide circle of young friends through HE meets-ups and local children.
4. As the children have grown their activities have changed. They now take part in HE study and project
groups, learn languages, musical instruments, and crafts, use computers. They attend workshops in museums
and galleries on subjects as diverse as Japanese wood block printing to Renaissance drawing techniques. They
attend OU study days—they really enjoy them.
5. Our fifteen year old took and passed her RS GCSE exam in 2011, she has taken Eng. Lit and Eng. Lang
this year and she hopes to take Latin and History next year. She is working with a study group of HE children
and two parent facilitators. She will take up a place at the Saturday school at Trinity Laban this September.
6. Our twelve year old son is passionate about cooking; like many HE children he has always known what
he wanted to do, and be. In order to supply what he needs we take him to day-time cookery lessons where he
enjoys learning with the adults learning alongside him.
7. In December 2011 our children were offered the chance to extra in a feature film. We agreed because we
considered this to be a great educational opportunity. Our local council contacted me when a licence had been
applied for. Until then our family had been “off the radar”. I was told straight away that it was illegal for our
children to be educated out of school. Then I was told that I would not be accepted as the “headteacher” to
give them permission to work despite my being the children’s chief educator.
8. Having been “outed” to the LA by the requirement for a licence for the children to “work”, the Social
Inclusion Unit (and not an educational department) of our LA insisted that I agree to a visit from a “consultant”.
The council also required me to write a statement about my intention to home educate. I refused on the grounds
that I had been efficiently educating the children for many years already. Nevertheless, I was very keen to meet
the consultant. The consultant had a very poor understanding of home education and home educators and
proved to be of no help or value to me or my children whatsoever. She had clearly been sent to evaluate the
level of welfare the children enjoyed and to check that they were not being abused because, she said, “they
(were) not known to the LA”. A health visitor or social worker would have been more appropriate for this
exercise.
9. Most of the activities I have described above cost money. We go without family holidays, and spending
on things other than food and books is kept to the minimum in order to pay for activities and workshops.
Exams are expensive to take as an external candidate and the cost is rising year on year.
10. The benefit to our children from being made known to the LA has been a library card each which allows
them to take out more books for longer. That is all. Our children’s details are now logged into a database
“which only the manager can access”. This makes no sense at all and is very worrying.
11. The council expected me to justify what I do for my children’s education in terms of welfare and social
care. The muddled and dangerous Badman recommendations, though not adopted, seem to have reached the
council officers nevertheless. I am now known as a home educator to the LA, and though I bear the cost and
do the work, I receive no help, support or services towards it.
June 2012
cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [18-12-2012 17:27] Job: 023879 Unit: PG01
Ev w2 Education Committee: Evidence
Written evidence submitted by Stephen Keen

1. There is currently no known support (financial or otherwise) that we access from local authorities in
educating our children. We do, however, access and receive advice from two helpful organisations—HEAS
and Home Service.
2. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no support available for the home-educated child’s transition to
further and higher education. For us, the key issue here is equitable access to, and cost of, examinations
(compared with the school-educated child). To illustrate, the preclusive cost of taking a range of examinations
at GCSE level for our five children has caused us to re-think this stage. The result of our current thinking is
that we will use GCSEs for (exam) preparatory purposes only and thereby “skip” to Advanced level
examinations. We are not alone in our thinking to skip GCSEs—most notably, Eton’s head master said the
same thing very recently.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Wendy Charles-Warner

The Duties of Local Authorities With Regard to Home Education;
1. What support (financial and otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
authorities and other bodies
Little support is offered to home educators via their LA and many home educators would be reluctant to
accept such support if it came with “ties”. Trust is an important issue and home educators often do not trust
their Las to act within the law or to properly present the legal position to new home educating families.
2. The quality and accessibility of that support

Where support is offered it is difficult to access and generally comes with conditions attached which are not
always acceptable to home educating families.
3. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Those home educators who would wish to access support generally would consider such support inadequate.
The very basic requirement of providing examinations free of charge to home educated children would be a
big step forward. At present families have to locate a centre willing to accommodate their child (often an
onerous task, indeed one family approached 186 schools before being accepted) they then have to pay
personally the exam fee and admin fee and/or invigilator fee. Whilst this is manageable for families on higher
incomes most home educators find the cost prohibitive.
However, those who would welcome the funding would usually not welcome if it conditions were attached of
compliance with reporting, registration with the LA, following a set curriculum or other “school” style targets.
4. The support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
I am unaware of any such support having been involved with home education for approximately 26 years.
Many young people do attend higher education but through their own determination to achieve that goal and
their, and their parents’ personal negotiations with higher education establishments. Open University has been
a popular choice for some but funding issues from this year are making that less feasible.
The situation appears to be that little if any assistance is provided with this by LAs.
5. What improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee
Home educators with whom I am in regular contact have felt no improvement since 2009. In general they
feel that those recommendations have caused their level of trust to fall, their position to become more uncertain
and that LAs are abusing their position using the recommendations to justify doing so. LAs are presenting
information from the committee recommendations as law when it is not law.
6. What guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education, and
the quality of that guidance; and whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements
concerning the support available for home educators
The government needs to clarify to LAs that home education is legal and that Las do not have a right to
make demands from home educating families under threat of legal action such as School attendance orders. It
has become common practice for LAs to demand regularly reports from families where there is no evidence
to suggest that the education provided is not adequate. This is unacceptable and guidance to LAs should be
cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [18-12-2012 17:27] Job: 023879 Unit: PG01
clarified to state that an assumption that the education is adequate must be made unless there are specific
concerns to the contrary.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Mish Pasha

From an HE parent (also a qualified teacher)—Comments as below
Essentially the main support needed is to finance exams. A bare minimum of five per student would be a
start, including Maths, Science, English language and possibly ICT.
This would actually probably save money, since those on low income often have to do a whole college
course before accessing FE level 3 courses regardless of ability.
Funding a whole year’s education/NEET schemes is more expensive than funding the basic exam fees for
students who are bright but have a family on a low income (or with many children).
Other forms of “support” are likely to be resisted by the HE community, BUT funding other community
educational facilities to produce “no strings attached” educational provision at a lower cost eg similar to
education sessions as offered to schools may well be welcomed. Small grants to HE groups/support groups
may be taken up by some.
Overall 1/3 of HE parents are qualified teachers and act as a valuable resource to the rest of the community.
Some new HE parents may however welcome a website that has positive help and advice on the basics. This
ought to be in consultation with the HE community as learning styles vary hugely compared with those of
schools and activities that are too “schooly” often do not translate so well into EHE.
Other “support” would include a positive attitude from local councils and even schools towards HE. It seems
probably the worst informed section of the community and the most prejudiced, are actually school teachers.
This may well be because they tend to encounter situations where EHE has broken down, but overall, there
seems to be a huge bias against and a massive lack of awareness from that sector. Government publications
and websites need to be HE friendly and positive, not ill informed, innacurate or with poof information
and links.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Clare Emerson

1. Basis of Submission
1.1 We are a home educating family living in Cumbria. We have been home educating for approximately 12
years and have four children of school age. We are “known” to the Local Authority and have had two visits
from them in the approx. five years they have been aware of us. In other years they have made contact and I
have sent a report of our year. All these have been deemed to be more than satisfactory.
1.2 I am part of a small group of home educating parents that meets twice a year with the head of the LA’s
Learning Improvement Dept in an attempt to enhance communication between the LA and local home
educators, and as such speak on behalf of Home Educators in our district at these meetings. I am in regular
contact with 35–40 Home Educating families.
1.3 We live in Cumbria, whose LA is generally regarded as “pretty good”, by which we probably mean
respectful.
2. Response to the Points of the Inquiry

2.1 Duties of Local Authorities with regard to Home Education
2.1.1 The duties of the Local Authority are laid out in the 2007 Guidance. Whilst in general this is an easy
to read document, in 2.6 of this document it quotes
“Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by
the Education and Inspections Act 2006, to make arrangements to enable them to establish the
identities, so far as it is possible to do so, of children in their area who are not receiving a suitable
education. The duty applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school
roll, and who are not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example, at
home, privately, or in alternative provision). The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does
not apply to children who are being educated at home”.
Allow me to whittle that down a bit:
Local authorities have a statutory duty to try and find children in their area who are not receiving a suitable
education. The duty applies to children who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable
education otherwise than being at school (for example, at home).
The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home”.
Whilst including “at home” as being educated otherwise than at school, the guidance then states it doesn’t
include home educated children. If it’s nothing to do with HE, it shouldn’t be in the HE document! Most Local
Authorities take it’s presence to mean it does include home educated children (aided by the 2009 Statutory
Guidance on Children At Risk of Not Receiving Suitable Education, which in point 87 draws the conclusion
from 436A that they must determine the suitability of a child’s home education). It basically depends on the
Local Authority—or possibly the individual in charge’s personal stance—as to how this is inflicted on the local
home educating population, because of the insertion of the highly subjective word “suitable”. If the word
“suitable” were excluded at this stage, the sole purpose of that paragraph of section 436A would be to find
children not engaged in education, which I believe was its intention. The “suitable” insertion distracts Local
Authorities into hounding HE families to provide evidence that we are not legally required to produce. The
removal of those three little syllables would clarify that the duty really doesn’t apply to children who are being
educated at home, because the CME team’s job would stop at the point where the parents stated their children
were HE, and the HE team, who hopefully have more training and come with a less insulting job title, can
begin respectful discussions with the family.
2.1.2 I think what Home Educators fear is that clarification of this would curtail their freedoms and therefore
tend to prefer keeping the status quo, whilst not being entirely comfortable with it. A large part of this fear
comes from (a) past experiences, either personal or reported and (b) the logical possibility of being judged by
one person’s bad day, personal prejudices or educational preferences, simple personality clashes or
misunderstandings of the mechanics of the family on the day they visit.
2.1.3 None of this is helped by CME employees turning up at people’s homes looking all officious and
making assertions that aren’t legal. This has happened to countless people, including myself, and apparently I
have a reputation for sending the CME officer away with a flea in her ear, when actually I simply and pleasantly
requested she stick to the law when she made such assertions (“your children have to go on our register”).
2.1.4 In my opinion, the key problem with the Guidance as it stands, is that it uses the terms “suitable”,
“full-time” and “efficient” to a subject that cannot be defined in those terms because of the vast scale of
differing ideas of what a good education looks like. These cannot be defined without imposing restrictions on
the HE community, which would resist hugely because there is an intrinsic understanding that it is parents’
duty to educate their children and they have a philosophy and resulting approach that was not dreamt up on a
whim and that they would amend if it wasn’t working.
2.2 What support is currently available to Home Educators, including from Local Authorities and other
bodies
2.2.1 Our Cumbria LA information makes it clear that whilst there is no financial support for Home
Education, parents will not have to pay for school related costs, which is true. Generally Home Educators feel
that if there were funding available, the requirements of receiving it would be too restrictive to their purposes
to take it up anyway.
2.2.2 I do feel the need to highlight the pending effects of the Universal Credit, to be brought in from
October 2013. I have raised this with our MP, Rory Stewart, and most people have no idea what’s about to hit
them. I have four children who I make it my job to educate. We therefore save the government a considerable
amount of money in terms of their education. Most families who Home Educate have been hereto deemed to
“sacrifice an income” in order to do so. As such, most aren’t particularly well-off. I don’t think it’s ideal to
keep having babies in order to ensure I’m left alone to continue educating the older ones without being subject
to “claimant commitments”. As my youngest is now five, I will be expected to be available for 20 hours a
week to work, until our household income meets the minimum Universal Credit requirements. Apart from
informing Jobcentre staff that they haven’t to be too hard on Home Educators to avoid upsetting the children
they will have to bring to their interviews, there is no expectation that Home Educators will be have any other
allowances conceded to them. I realise The Bill is passed, but there is no reason that the Regulations cannot
afford this. Use could be made of point 4d of the Universal Credit Policy Briefing Note 12 “Conditionality
under Universal Credit: the work search and work availability requirements” http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/
ucpbn-12-work-search.pdf, which basically says the lead carer is only expected to find work that fits around
school hours—and Home Educated children aren’t at school, but this is still ambiguous. I suspect that unless
Regulations are specifically written, the Universal Credit will mean constructive dismissal from HE or poverty
to many Home Educators. We’ll choose the latter.
2.2.3 Many places of educational interest will offer Home Educators their education discount on request but
we have been unable to avail ourselves of things like community swimming sessions locally. I see no changes
since before 2009. Anything that is available is usually discovered by word-of-mouth between Home Educators
as it has been gleaned from small-print or on specific request.
2.2.4 Local Authorities vary widely in their offers of support. Very few Home Educators feel supported by
their annual contact, however it’s offered, it is universally recognised as solely for the benefit of the LA—”at
the end of the day, we all want to be sure our children are safe and suitably educated” is patronising, particularly
as they aren’t the Local Authority’s children and we are already completely confident that our children are
more than adequately educated and cared for.
2.2.5 Cumbria are considering how they can use their website to be helpful and we did suggest that the LA
contacting places of educational interest to see what discounts could be offered and publishing them on their
website would be appreciated. Also, assistance with finding exam centres is part of their remit and they will
offer advice and support to parents and schools in that regard. It would be helpful if it was harder for schools
to refuse to engage.
2.3 Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate
2.3.1 To my knowledge, there aren’t any. Home educated children should be able to have funded exams at
the same time as their peers, and it should be recognised that the efficiencies of HE mean that many children
could be exam-ready long before their schooled peers.
2.4 The support available for home educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
2.4.1 Again, to the best of my knowledge as an established Home Educator, but not one who’s got to the
point of FE or HE yet, it’s down to the educational establishment approached.
2.5 What improvements have been made to support for Home Educators since the December 2009
recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee?
2.5.1 Re: recommendation 7. The Cumbria LA website and our last year’s report were clearly tailoring the
LA’s approach and benchmarks to Every Child Matters. At our January 2012 meeting, the head of the Learning
Improvement Team said ECM is dead and gone and their website and current report structure back this up.
2.5.2 Re: recommendation 13. The new Cumbria visiting team were trained in-house through the experience
of their team leader, who is a lady I have respect for. There appears to be no national standard for this.
2.5.3 Re: recommendations 18 & 19. At the time of the Badman Review, I was disappointed that
contemporary research from other countries was not given any credence. In particular, two sets of American
research done by Dr Brian Ray, asked the questions about what makes a successful education and how effective
different styles of education and structures used, parental qualifications and money spent affect the outcomes,
also how much state input/interference/requirements impacted outcomes for HE children. The sample was
huge, the outcomes were fascinating. We’re foolish to ignore it.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/2009_Ray_StudyFINAL.pdf
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/default.asp
2.5.4 Re: recommendation 32. I suppose I am part of one of these “consultative forums”, although I don’t
know how long established it is. We meet twice a year for a couple of hours with the head of the Learning
Improvement Team, which is responsible for HE in Cumbria. I do also feel the need to mention that there is
no stipulation as to which department the LA confers the responsibility for HE. Where this is the Children
Missing Education team or Education Welfare, it’s not conducive to good relationships which are undoubtedly
the future of progress for relationship between the HE community and government.
2.5.5 Whilst I have commented on the recommendations, as a Home Educator, I don’t see any changes since
the recommendations were published. In some areas, Local Authorities are reported to have behaved as if the
Badman recommendations became law, but thankfully they didn’t and Cumbria haven’t done that.
2.6 What guidance is available for Local Authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education,
and the quality of that guidance
2.6.1 To the best of my knowledge, the 2007 Guidance is all they have. I find that quite understandable and
accessible, leaving aside my comments in 2.1.1. I think what is further required is training and requirements/
standards for visiting officers. I don’t find it acceptable that Cumbria could ditch its three trusted visiting
officers and fill the gap with people from the department who weren’t recruited for the job. It has only worked
because the head of dept chose carefully and trained well.
2.6.2 Most Home Educators will be strongly resistant to amendment of the 2007 Guidance and it’s basically
fear of constriction. Whilst we’d love heavy-handed CME officers etc to be reined in, we don’t want to risk
losing our autonomy!
2.7 Whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available
for Home Educators
2.7.1 I believe that in relation to Universal Credit, support for HE needs serious consideration, as expounded
in 2.2. Also, it is not unreasonable to expect our children to have access to free exams at the same time as
their peers. Further than this, most Home Educators just want to be left in peace! We are a proactive community,
you have to be confident and resourceful to begin the HE journey, we take practical advice from others in
the community.
3. Conclusions
(a) The 2007 Guidance isn’t perfect, but with detachment from section 436A, it would be improved.
(b) The terms “suitable” and “full-time” are pictures, not tick-charts. There is adequate information
in the 2007 Guidance and with good training, officers should not need further prescriptive
clarifications.
(c) Good training (and the funding to provide it) is probably the most critical factor in improving
relationships with the Home Educating community.
(d) As the Local Authorities do not get funding for HE, the quality of their provision can easily
reflect this, unless the person in charge is either extremely interested or extremely conscientious.
But more often than not, you get what you pay for.
(e) Most Home Educators will not want to engage with any broad financial support packages for
fear of what they might have required of them in return. Support for specific areas, such as
exams, is more likely to be taken up as it is deemed “only fair”.
(f) Universal Credit is going to cause major upheaval for many HE families. We are a small
community, but we still deserve consideration. If families really have a choice about how to
educate their children, and Home Education is really respected as a valid choice, then this can
be dealt with.
(g) I don’t see any changes in Cumbria since 2009.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Kate Jackson

1 As a parent of a child with Special Educational Needs (SEN) our Local Authority (LA) provides “Elective
Home Education (EHE)” checks by an EHE Officer on a six monthly basis to ensure that sufficient education
is being provided. The LA offers no advice, support, knowledge or guidance to the parent with regard to the
home education (HE) being provided. The check visit is purely for LA benefit.
2 Support that I have accessed is primarily online and includes IPSEA, SOS!SEN, Ed Yourself website and
various home education forums and groups. I have received no support financial or otherwise from my LA
despite demonstrating my interest and need for it.
3 I am aware that the LA could apply for financial assistance on my behalf via Alternative Provision Census
but despite my request my local SEN department have refused to explore this. In my experience, a proportion
of advice for financial support is optional at the discretion of the LA. My LA seems to stick to the guidance
that HE is undertaken as the responsibility of the parents; I agree with this to a certain extent but believe that
SEN children, especially those with an educational statement of need, should be entitled to some support.
4 It is my experience that the LA has too much control over whether they offer support to children that are
HE and are unwilling to support parents who HE for whatever reason, breeding a “them and us” culture where
the child is overlooked by the LA. More support, especially financial, should be available to parents who are
attempting to meet their child’s educational needs, especially when a statement is in place.
5 My son was removed from his Moderate Learning Disability school placement due to his needs not being
met. As parents we felt that he needed more support and a more individualised curriculum to accommodate
his complex needs, something that the school and LA felt he could manage without, but we disagreed and
proceeded to deregister from his placement, it therefore doesn’t feel like we have ELECTIVLY home educated,
more that we feel forced into this situation to be able to give our son the education that he can access. But by
being perceived as it being elective we are not entitled to any support from the LA.
6 I feel that the Government needs to protect HE children by creating a servicing department within education
solely for HE children. It would address more universal support on a nationwide basis to reduce the current
inconsistencies in provision due to geographical location. Parents could self-refer to the government area rather
than relying on their LA to do so and parents could omit themselves for the support if they didn’t feel that
they required it. I would prefer to liaise directly with an external agency that could arrange for suitable support
or funding. The LA would still have their legal obligations as the do currently but without the conflict of
interests that I feel is currently occurring when families request support for their child from the LA but do not
find that the schools that the LA are providing are suitable or accessible. This leaves parents feeling
disadvantaged or unable to access help or support as the LA seems unwilling to do so.
7 I am also living in a Pathfinder pilot area but have been informed by those managing the operation that
HE is not to be included for this as it is out of LA duty despite my son having a maintained statement of
educational need. I believe that the personal budgets element of this pilot would be perfect for supporting many
HE children who could access funds that would support them whist accessing education. This seems to be a
huge loss of opportunity both for the families’ financially and the LA who could be more involved in SEN
and HE, a difficult but very rewarding combination.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Louise Kerbiriou

I am a home educating parent of three children and I live in the London Borough of Hackney. I wish to
make the following point in regard to your inquiry into Home Education.
1. Regarding the support available to home educators from local authorities (LA): from my experience in
Hackney the LA has minimal information to give to home educating families and is poorly informed/trained
in all aspects of home education and this appears to be a common problem in all boroughs. The staff are
unaware of the principles of autonomous learning that are used by many home-educating families and are
therefore in a poor position to judge and support the education occurring. I feel there should be trained staff
that deal with all aspects of Home education in every LA.
2. Regarding the support available to home educators from local authorities: There is no financial support
that I am aware of offered to any home educating families. I think this is a particular problem when it comes
to taking GCSE and other formal exams. Despite the fact that we all pay our taxes into the education system
that we do not utilize, when it comes to taking the exams that are free to children in school we have to pay
for these ourselves at considerable expense and this greatly limits the number that can be taken in low income
families. I think local schools should be encouraged to allow at least a few home educated children to sit
exams with their students and that this should be paid for by the LA.
3. Regarding quality and accessibility of that support: Again I think a trained LA person would greatly
enhance both of these aspects. Most LA staff members that deal with home education come from a school
background and have no experience at all to bring to the role. This should be stopped and training programs
set up before they commence work with home educating families.
4. Regarding whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate: as there is very little support
available this is clearly not the case. There should be small grants available for families to apply to, that allow
their children to do educational activities that are available to school children or to join in a program run
by schools.
5. Regarding the support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher
education: again this role could be performed by the trained LA member who would be aware of the child’s
need and what is available.
6. Regarding guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education,
and the quality of that guidance; there is adequate and good quality guidance but most LA staff are unaware
of this and create a role for themselves that is not focused on this guidance.
7. Regarding whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support
available for home educators: I feel that the existing policy should be altered to ensure that only trained LA
staff deal with home educating families, that educational grants should be made available and accessed via this
LA member who can advise on what is available and how to apply. Policy should be made regarding how
home educated children can sit GCSE and other exams along with school children and at no cost to their
families as it is for school educated children.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Karen Thirlaway

I am a Gateshead resident and the parent of an electively home educated child who was deregistered from
the state education system in October 2008 due to severely unmet special educational needs. Since that time I
have had considerable contact with several officers in the local authority in relation to home education matters
and also pursuing access to special needs support for my son.
My submission here concerns the lack of practical support available to elective home educators in Gateshead,
the efforts of local families to improve relationships with relevant departments and to obtain practical help
towards educating our children (especially those with special educational needs), and the outcomes of those
efforts.
I have formatted my submission under the specific issues referred into in the press release of 28 May 2012
announcing this Inquiry.
1 The duties of local authorities with regard to home education

1.1 The 2007 Guidelines are very clear regarding rights and responsibilities of both local authorities and
home educators, but some local authorities seem to prefer to follow their own local policies with regard to
monitoring of provision, and these do not always accurately reflect the guidelines.
1.2 My impression of local authority officers here is that they tend to look at EHE in the context of a
perceived “ideal provision”, ie comparable to school based education. They seem to expect home educators to
replicate the “school at home” model—those families who educate in this way appear to have a better
relationship with the local authority than those who don’t.
1.3 There do not appear to be guidelines available on Gateshead’s website but the older leaflet “Guidance
Notes for Parents” (2004) was very much geared towards a “school at home” approach, referring to
recommended hours for full-time education, timetables, National Curriculum, submission of evidence to the
local authority, inspection visits etc, none of which are legal requirements for EHE. The leaflet was very
carefully written so that it adhered to guidelines but gave a strong impression that the recommendations they
suggested were compulsory, which would be misleading for a new home educator. I do not know if this leaflet
is still being issued to new home educators but some of the questions are still being asked, eg relating to
organisation of work, recording, social interaction and so on. Questions of this nature were asked of me as
recently as October 2011.
1.4 I believe this local authority does appear to be aware of the law, though they do not adhere rigidly
enough to it.
2 What support (financial or otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
authorities and other bodies?
Local Authority
2.1 There is very limited access to public services or practical support as demonstrated in written responses
to enquiries regarding access, particularly those concerning SENs:
2.1.1 “...once children are of school age, [Special Needs service] only takes referrals from schools ...
the council receives no funding for the education of children whose parents elect to educate
them at home.” (Head of Access and Inclusion)
2.1.2 “ In principle, I would not be averse to you receiving some advice from [Special Needs service],
perhaps in a single meeting, but do not think I could agree to more extensive involvement.
However I will need to discuss this with [colleague] to ensure this doesn’t set some sort of
precedent that might cause problems for the service in some way.” (Head of Access and
Inclusion)
2.1.3 “I am afraid that it is inevitable that additional support will not be easily accessed by Mrs X
given that she has made the decision to home educate. This is effectively a statement by the
parent that she can meet all his needs, without the help of the maintained system.... (Director
of Learning and Schools)
2.1.4 ... we do not have a responsibility to provide additional support for X ... (Director of Learning
and Schools)
2.1.5 ... If Mrs X decides at some point that she can no longer meet X’s needs at home, she is always
able to ask the local authority to provide his education and we can discuss a suitable
placement...” (Director of Learning and Schools)
2.2 The only support offered in this case was a suggestion to return the child to the school environment
where he had previously been unable to cope. Among senior officers there is generally an attitude of “you’ve
made your bed” and should accept the consequences of choosing not to be involved in state education. Families
are either in or out of the school system; there is no middle ground.
2.3 Attempts were made to set up a group learning opportunity for ECDL (European Computer Driving
Licence), free of charge under Family Learning. In time it transpired that the courses would cost hundreds of
pounds per participant and those families who had shown interest sought provision elsewhere.
2.4 Initially there was some information sharing about social and educational events of possible interest but
none has been circulated since February 2011.
2.5 I personally have received no practical support from the local authority. In fact the opposite is true in
that I have been called upon to advise officers on information, contacts and resources.
Financial
2.6 Alternative Provision Return for Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)—enquiries were made into funding
through this process for under-16 college fees but nobody within the local authority seemed to be aware of it
or know who could advise. I have not pursued it further—experience with Gateshead has indicated that there
is unlikely to be any feedback or benefit.
2.7 There is no other financial support available from the local authority.
Other
2.8 There is good online support for practical matters via various agencies, eg Education Otherwise, Ed
Yourself, local groups and networks.
2.9 There is excellent support from a high school in a neighbouring authority, whose staff are very flexible
and helpful with regard to exams for external candidates, access arrangements and in-house assessments where
necessary, and investigating other exam opportunities outside of their remit where applicable.
2.10 Some educational venues will offer schools rate admission for workshops etc.
Financial
2.11 I believe some parents have secured charity funding to meet some of their educational costs, though I
am not aware of details.
3 The quality and accessibility of that support

Local Authority
3.1 There is a history of enquiries being made and meetings held to discuss accessibility of support but
although promises have been made to investigate and feed back there has been little practical outcome.
3.2 After canvassing home educators for the level of interest, an exam centre was promised but did not
materialise. One parent tried to register her child at the centre having been advised that it was in operation,
but was unable to do so due to internal technical and administrative problems and had to go elsewhere for
the exam.
3.3 More recently, a specific enquiry into exam access arrangements for a student with additional needs
received no response. Officers had very limited awareness of exams processes, were unfamiliar with Joint
Council for Qualifications and special needs provision, and lacked awareness of EHE at a very basic level.
The “exam centre” had no exams officer or SENCo allocated so there was no contact to arrange exam support.
3.4 I have now been advised that there is no exam centre for external candidates in Gateshead at present
though this might be reviewed for next year—apparently this is due to spending cuts and internal restructuring.
This information has not been circulated by the local authority throughout the local network.
3.5 I have experienced particular difficulty in accessing support for my child with diagnosed development
conditions which impact on his academic output (see written correspondence extracts in (2) above). It has been
made very clear on a number of occasions and by a range of senior officers that my son is not eligible for SEN
support as he is not on the roll of a school. Enquiries I have made with former professional contacts from my
son’s time in schools have resulted in minimal response and some have reported being instructed not to support
us as he is not registered with a school. One such contact was told that a matter had been resolved and was
now closed, though this was not so.
3.6 When support is not available within the local authority, there is little direction towards alternative
agencies who might provide it, suggesting a lack of awareness of available resources locally. As a result we
have met our son’s needs almost entirely independent of professional help.
3.7 With the assistance of home educators around the region (not restricted to Gateshead), the local authority
collated an Information Pack to share with new families to EHE, comprising resources, contacts, groups and
other relevant items of interest. After completion nothing further was heard of it and it does not appear to have
been shared with families. I am aware of one family who deregistered a child in October 2011 who received
no such information.
3.8 My impression is that the local authority views EHE as a substandard alternative to their own provision
and information disseminated at forum meetings focused on basic numeracy and literacy skills, which was
inappropriate for the majority of parents in attendance whose children were well above that ability level.
3.9 Communication is often poor. A previous EHE Liaison Officer had limited email access and it was
common to wait several weeks for responses.
3.10 Roles and responsibilities seem unclear from my enquiries into specific issues—in some cases I have
not received responses as officers were unable to identify the correct person to deal with the enquiry.
Unanswered matters do not appear to have been handed over to new staff when they have taken over roles.
Other
3.11 A national network of experienced home educators is available through online forums with contributors
regularly sharing a wealth of knowledge on a very wide range of matters: legislation, special needs, exams,
resources and events. I would personally seek advice from these sources rather than the local authority as I am
confident that enquiries will be responded to promptly and accurately.
4 Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

4.1 To my knowledge there is no financial support available for home educators in Gateshead (other than
the possibility of funding through the Alternative Provision Grant, referred to above). If there is it is certainly
not widely known or publicised. Clearly this is not adequate and most families would agree that some funding
should be made available to support home education.
5 The support available for home educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
5.1 I believe Connexions have contacted some home educating families as children approach 16, though I
cannot say whether this involved further or higher education. As my own child is below this age I cannot
comment on this point from a personal perspective, though I have made my own enquiries to a local sixth
form college where staff were supportive and helpful.
6 What improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
6.1 A forum was set up in October 2009 to give LEA officers and parents an opportunity to meet and discuss
relevant issues relating to EHE. Initially these seemed promising as both sides were keen to develop positive
working relationships, however interest decreased after a series of misunderstandings and broken promises left
parents disaffected by the group and it was disbanded around November 2010, after a draft (proposed) EHE
Information Leaflet was shared which effectively undid all the amendments we had mutually agreed in earlier
discussions. This document contained references to the “approval procedure”, requests for examples of work
and suggested that home visits were compulsory, and an overall ominous tone which many felt aimed to deter
parents from choosing to home educate rather than support their choice to do so.
6.2 Some parents met on a number of occasions with senior officers independently of these forum meetings
to discuss the 2007 Guidelines and the authority’s lack of adherence and the wording on correspondence,
questionnaires etc. Earlier form letters referred to “granting approval” to home educate, which was widely felt
by home educators to be inappropriate and contrary to the 2007 Guidelines. Some changes were made but
many were temporary. Even after these discussions, contact letters were still emphasising the importance of
the child being present during monitoring meetings (as recently as 2010), though this may no longer be the case.
6.3 At a meeting with home educators in June 2010 senior officers agreed that EHE was inappropriately
placed under the Education Welfare Service within the authority’s structure and promised that this would
change. Unfortunately this resulted in EHE being placed within the new Behaviour and Attendance
Improvement Service, which some parents find offensive due to the assumption that our children are considered
to present a problem in one or both of these areas. Key personnel recruited to this department in the past year
are from a background of Children Missing Education.
6.4 Currently, officers no longer tell families that they need local authority approval to home educate their
children.
6.5 Some standard letters have been edited to be less confrontational and authoritarian than they were pre-
2009, although I believe some inappropriate correspondence still exists.
7 What guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education, and
the quality of that guidance?
7.1 My understanding is that local authorities are required to follow the 2007 Guidelines. I see no need to
change these guidelines as they are very clear about roles, rights and responsibilities for all parties, however I
do think there needs to be tighter enforcement to ensure that they are adhered to by local authorities.
8 Whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available
to home educators
8.1 As I understand it (and certainly as I have been advised by several local authority officers), there is
currently no specific budget available to support home educators and this affects the authority’s willingness to
provide services and support. At present allowing access to support is discretionary, hence the availability of
services in some authorities but not in others. Gateshead is very firm in its assertion that home educated
children are not eligible for local authority support in terms of education, even in cases of special educational
needs and where appropriate provision is not available from other sources, eg NHS, charities or independent
agencies.
8.2 Availability of exam centres in all local authorities would be very useful. This shouldn’t be expensive to
set up and parents would expect to pay a charge as they do now at other venues. At the least local authorities
should hold the necessary information to enable them to signpost families to appropriate resources for their
needs.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Jon Home

With respect to your current inquiry into home education, as a home educator I have the following points.
Local authorities, and from personal experience my local authority, are exceptionally disingenuous in the
information they provide. Once you commence the “home education journey” the local authority, or rather its
minions, seem to be working on the basis of seeing school at home, and ask for requirements in terms of
reporting and inspection that fall well outside their remit in terms of current legislation.
As far as support there is none. It seems, from our perspective and experience, that the local authority is not
there to provide support, but manipulate the home educator’s provision into something akin to school.
As there appears to be no support, financial or otherwise, I am at a loss to make any form of constructive
comment. Perhaps my it would be useful if home educated children had access to free exams, with respect to
GCSEs/iGCSEs and A-levels, and in terms of school league tables were omitted from their statistics.
Conversely, there is the possibility that including home educated students in the league tables may actually
improve some school’s standings.
As for guidance for Local Authorities and any policy changes, I suggest that the Department of Education
makes very sure that LA’s stick to the existing laws. Many, including my own, appear to be operating under
the recommendations of the failed Badman report, or a version of Badman light, as ours does.
The one person from the LA that was supportive and helpful to home educators in my LA is being side-
lined, pushed from frontline services according to her, following the appointment of new personnel in the LA.
These new, and some existing personnel, appear to have a rather dim view of home education and continue to
try and conflate education with welfare issues. They also seem to be totally indoctrinated into the school
system, and have little or no understanding of the alternative provisions that home educators provide in terms
of ensuring their children receive an education.
I fully accept my Section 7 duties, which is why my children do not go to school.
To summarise, the Local Authority provides no support, and from our experience, seeks to get in the way
of my children’s education.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Jessica and Nigel Spiers

1. The duties of local authorities with regard to home education. What support (financial and otherwise) is
currently available for home educators, including from local authorities and other bodies?
Under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspection Act 2006, local
authorities have a duty to identify children who are not receiving a suitable education in their area, so far as it
is practical to do so. As the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear,
however, “local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a
routine basis” and are only required to intervene if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education.
However on 20 and on 25 March 2009 we received letters from two different individuals at Bucks County
Council stating that the Local Authority has a duty to monitor the education that is provided by you at home.
The letter from the 20 March announced that a unilateral appointment had been made by the authority to
visit the following week at a specified date and time. When this was challenged, the response on the 25 March
demanded a meeting to avoid the issue of a School Attendance Order being sought.
At the same time a form was sent requesting information that is not required under law, accompanied by a
booklet which prominently displays its conclusion that the Local Authority prefers the option of State
Education. Given the various, valid and compelling reasons behind the difficult decision to undertake elective
home education, this was something we felt was decidedly inappropriate and unhelpful.
The booklet also contains other errors including under Duties of the LA; “The LA’s role becomes one of
monitoring and advising”. It states that an “education professional will visit to assess the education the child
is receiving. He or she will want to talk to you and your child and see some of the work your child is doing”.
In fact, this is not required under law. Under the section; Education Content it is stated that “A broad and
balanced programme is required” and goes on to specify exactly what this should consist of (again not required
in law).
Under a section entitled Making the right decision, the negative aspects of home education (costs, difficulties
in the provision of materials or obtaining help from trained professionals) are heavily stressed. Little attempt
is made to balance this, suggesting a lack of intent on the part of the LA to assist parents in making an
unbiased decision.
Both the form and the booklet make no mention of alternative programmes of education, such as autonomous
learning and in fact seem focussed on providing a version of the national curriculum and recreating a state
school experience at home.
As far as support goes we received a list of tutors and education centres and a Parents’ Resource
Recommendations booklet. However, the county guidance specifically states that the LA will not provide
equipment, books or other resources and receives no funding.

We do not feel that we have been able to access anything to date. We have however had a positive meeting
with our local EHE consultant with whom we discussed concerns for our ASD son. Although she was
encouraging and supportive, she has no background in autism and was unable to offer practical support. She
did suggest referral to the Educational Psychology Service.
Most support comes from other home educating parents through social media networking forums such
as Yahoo.

Generally we are not aware that there is anything at all. However, it is our understanding that money for
special needs children can be drawn down under the Alternative Provision Guidance. I made a request on the
28 March, on the 19 April I was informed that this had been forwarded to the appropriate department for their
response, although I have yet to receive any further contact.
Unaware of any provision in place.
Unknown.
the quality of that guidance?
N/A.
7. Whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available
for home educators
It has been shown that many home educators undertake the task following the failure of state school for
their child. This can be for a variety of reasons; bullying, restrictive procedure, unreasonable expectation and
unrealistic demands on the child’s abilities, harmful environment, inadequate or outmoded teaching practices
etc. In these circumstances parents often feel compelled to remove their child from school, not for some
idealistic philosophy, but through genuine concern for their child’s welfare physically, mentally and
emotionally.
This failure of the school system should not be compounded by excluding the child from accessing resources
that should be the right of every child—not just those in state education. Furthermore, parents choosing to
home educate under such circumstances should be dealt with sympathetically by the LA, not treated with
suspicion and condemnation.
Fundamentally we feel a change in attitude should be fostered within the LAs. As with our initial contact
communication can be aggressive and hostile. This is immensely intimidating and seriously undermines any
relationship the LA is likely to have with home educators.
On the subject of resource, we would welcome a direct payment debit card (similar to the scheme for Self
Directed Support direct payments) with a fixed budget to enable funding for a variety of provision. Without of
course in any way prejudicing the autonomy and freedom of home educators who do not need or wish for
whatever reason to access any financial support. This budget could be used to access the following:
— Sports activities at local centres. It is a sad reflection during this Olympic year that so few
activities are accessible to children in average or below average income families. One of the
failures of state school seems to be the inability to provide sporting provision outside of
compulsory football/netball lessons. In this one aspect alone it appears stuck in the 1950s model
it has perpetuated throughout the ensuing 60 years. Our eldest son so detested football that he
would willingly engage in an activity designed to secure written detention in preference, yet he
has enthusiastically participated in kayaking, table tennis, snowboarding, fencing and Parkour,
all of which we have had to fund exclusively.
— Museums. Although there are many excellent museums with free entry, there are equally many
private collections (or special exhibitions within national museums) that require an entrance fee.
— Workshops. Again, many workshops are available in a range of activities that require funding.
— Online distance learning courses.
— Subscriptions. Including courses, relevant organisation membership, even appropriate magazine/

periodical subscriptions.
— Examinations. (See below)
— Books and other course study materials.
— Lone and group tutoring.
Examinations are a particular area of concern. Although included in the list of provision that could be
funded/part funded through a direct payment debit card, this is also a topic in its own right. Why should home
educators be penalised? If a child has been home educated through the failure of the state education system,
why should the parents have to fund examinations privately? In state education children are compelled to
undertake examinations at the tax payers’ expense. When our eldest son took GCSEs during the last year (in
some instances up to two years before state school would have prepared him), we had to fund this as a private
expense and we simply cannot understand why this needs to be the case.
Greater access should be made available to college courses prior to age 16. Access should be based upon
ability and relevance, not upon age. If the purpose of education is to prepare children for the work environment,
this is discriminatory and unrepresentative. This should apply to part-time and evening classes as well as full-
time courses.
Greater access should be made available to special needs assessment and therapies. Currently these appear
to be largely restricted to state school education. The suggested implication that only formal school can provide
the correct environment for special needs is not only unfair, it is unrealistic. As a result parents of special
needs children feel added stress and lack of support through exclusion.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Red Balloon

Red Balloon was set up in 1996 to provide for “ordinary children” who found themselves unable to go to
school and who had been subject to sustained, systematic and unendurable bullying.
Red Balloons recover these children and return them to their former life. They are “intensive care”
educational centres for up to 15 secondary aged children (at any one time) who are too frightened to attend
school. At least half of them have attempted or seriously considered suicide. Once accepted, they are promised
a safe environment with clear boundaries for behaviour, and an individual full-time academic, pastoral and
therapeutic programme. The schools operate from 9.00am—3.30pm each day for 36 weeks a year. There is
above 85% attendance. Once the children have regained their confidence and are able to cope academically
and socially, they are supported in their move to the mainstream. 95% of the students who stay with us for
longer than six weeks return to school, move on to further education or enter employment.
It is important to recognise the traumatic effects of being bullied on young people’s mental health. There
can be disruptions in the ability to complete school work and to engage in learning. For this reason I am happy
to endorse the proposal from Red Balloon. Stephen Joseph—Professor of Psychology, Health & Social Care,
Nottingham University.
Red Balloon Learner Centre Group

I am writing this submission on behalf of the organisation for which I now work: Red Balloon Learner
Centre Group, a charity that provides education “other than at school” for young people who are “unable” to
access mainstream education following perceived experience of bullying or other trauma attached to school
attendance.
However, for the two decade prior to my undertaking a role with the charity (September 2010) I was
managing “EOTAS” “education otherwise than at school” for Cambridgeshire Local Authority and had plentiful
contact with parents who had opted to pursue “home education” and with their children. Evidence for my
submission is taken from both roles.
The duties of local authorities with regard to home education and the quality and accessibility of available
support
In Cambridgeshire responsibility for ensuring that parents were able to provide adequately for young people
who were home educated lay generally between the education welfare service and the inspectorate. As the
local authority has reduced in size and has concentrated upon its commissioning and quality assurance roles,
the time available to support families has reduced. Indeed the role of the LA appears increasingly to be to
monitor (and time available to do this is minimal) and not to “support”.
As Head of EOTAS I was frequently contacted by parents who had pursued this route and then found (most
usually at KS4) that they were unable to provide the full range of educational experience they wanted their
child to access. I was always directed that I must refuse any request from a parent in this position to access
local authority resources (eg individual tuition, online learning, supported programme at FE college, placement
at PRU) because any help offered would be the “thin end” of a very large wedge… ie the authority was
concerned that many parents would withdraw their offspring because they felt mainstream education to be
inappropriate and would then seek to access the LA’s “alternative provision”, seeing that as a more appropriate
vehicle to support their child’s learning.
What I came to understand very clearly (my understanding has been extended and reinforced through
multiple contacts from parents in my current role) is that there are two clearly divided groups of families who
enter into home education. There are those who chose this option, often before their child/children start school
or when their child/children are in their early years of schooling because they believe that their child will grow
into a more rounded and better educated adult through learning at home, and those who opt for this route, not
because they see it as a positive alternative, but because they see it as the only alternative to prosecution
because they are either unable or unwilling to enforce their child’s attendance at mainstream school… or
because they have been advised by school or local authority staff that, given existing problems with attendance
(schools understandably have significant concerns re keeping a long term “non-attender” on roll given the
effect that this has upon their attendance figures), parental withdrawal from “the system” may be the “best
way forward”.
What support (financial and otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
We (Red Balloon ) receive many contacts from parents who feel they have been “railroaded” into home
education or feel, despite their initial enthusiasm for the option, that they now want their child to re-access a
“broader” education. To date I have not known any parent to have been able to access funding to support this.
The local authority line is fairly standard: “if you want your child to re-access education, you must contact our
admissions department and they will identify a school placement for you”. Almost inevitably the parent and/
or the student is/are adamant that return to mainstream is not an option, yet this appears the only route to
funding. We have attempted, along with one or two authorities, to convince a school to place a student on roll
to generate AWPU and then utilise that to fund education. To date none of these approaches has been successful;
schools have simply seen it as “too much of a risk” to “take on” a student with a history of non-attendance,
and have remained unconvinced of the financial arguments placed before them. My/our experience is that no
financial support is available for home educators, although we are aware of parents currently negotiating
between a further education college and their local authority in an attempt to access funding for KS4 FE
provision.
To take a single example:
We were contacted by a parent in the south west: her son had begun to refuse to attend his mainstream
placement following alleged bullying. The parent found little (if any) support from her local authority; she
withdrew her son following suggestions that she might be subject to prosecution. She knew that she was not
in a position to provide “adequate” education but felt obliged to withdraw him from the “system”. Her son
then become further isolated, rarely leaving home and spending significant amounts of time in his bedroom
alone; she feared that he was approaching clinical depression. She contacted us last summer and we pursued a
variety of funding options with the local authority and his previous school: none bore fruit. Eventually we
decided to provide (free of charge) through our online learning service (Red Balloon of the Air). The student
is just about to complete year 10 and we have agreed to provide through year 11 in the continuing absence of
any funding.
The quality and accessibility of that support

It is not possible for me or my organisation to comment with any degree of rigour or objectivity concerning
the national position here. We have found individual local authority staff who are hugely committed to
attempting to support parents and students, but, without exception, those well intentioned, often incredibly
hard-working staff, describe a situation wherein they know that some parents are unwillingly entering this
arena and a lack of funding or resources to help parents who ask for support or help. They also describe
dwindling resources generally at a local authority level, leading to increased responsibilities and subsequent
workload for remaining staff, with responsibilities for elective home education often being allocated to a
member of staff with an existing range of duties.
Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Again I acknowledge that my experience cannot equate to robust evidence/research but that experience has
been that families have not been able to access funding to support EHE, nor have they been able to re-access
the “system” if they discover themselves dis-satisfied with what they can provide.
The support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
Presumably this support will need to come from the Connexions agency. Where budgets for this provision
have been devolved to schools, there will be no provision/support for young people who are not on a school
roll. Schools will not fund support to students who are no longer their responsibility.
What improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
Again this is based upon our experience. Contact made to use from “desperate” parents would indicate
no improvement.
What guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education, and the
quality of that guidance
Guidance has been improved upon since the December 2009 recommendations. There remains, though, a
lack of clarity as to how students (and the families of those students) wishing to re-access provision, but not
willing to attend a mainstream school, might find a way of accessing “other” provision. The proposed change
in free school funding (the K8 “base” funding) may offer a solution here.
Whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available for
home educators
There are two key and quite distinct areas for improvement:
— Those students who refuse/are unable to access mainstream education (this cohort is entirely
separate from those students whose parents elect to keep them away from school to meet their
own needs) require much better support. Intervention and support may enable them to return to
either their existing school or another school. For some students, however, alternative, very
“different”, provision is “needed” either to effect a return to mainstream or into education,
employment or training post 16. Unless this is addressed a number of students will enter into
elective home education when this is neither their parents’ desired option (other than being
better than imprisonment or a fine), nor are those parents equipped to deliver an adequate
education.
— When a parent and child decide that they would like to re-access provision otherwise than at
home, but remain opposed to mainstream education, then both the provision and the funding
required to access it must be available.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Louise Smart

1. This evidence is based on personal experience. We are a family with a Home Educated child, aged 12,
who has a Statement of Special Educational Needs and was educated in mainstream school settings until
June 2009.
2. We have had no support from our Local Authority (Northamptonshire) during the time our son has been
Home Educated. In fact, in respect of his Statement of Special Educational Needs and the legal requirements
this places on an Authority, we have experienced many delays, lack of adherence to procedures laid down both
in the SEN Code of Practice, DCSF Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities and the
Education Act. We have, to date, had a verbal apology and a written apology for the shortcomings we have
needed to bring to their attention.
3. Our son has had many assessments (at least 11 with more scheduled/ongoing) and most have resulted in
no input despite recommendations for interventions that would benefit him.
4. The paperwork we have is equivalent to about six full lever arch files and this is growing all the time.
5. Having a Statement of SEN has not enabled us to access any services or support for our son, even though
there is specific provision stated therein.
6. We have supported all requests for information from the Local Authority in a timely manner.
7. Our experience of dealing with the Northamptonshire County Council is that there is very little knowledge
or understanding of the duties they have to our son, either in relation to his Home Education or his Statement
of SEN. There has been no guidance forthcoming and most interactions have felt more like confrontations
than collaborations.
8. Rather than being beneficial in assisting our son with his education, we have expended a huge amount of
time in seeking advice, guidelines and informing ourselves about relevant education law. Having to respond to
and deal with a local authority in this way has resulted in time that should have been used to support our son’s
education and learning being taken up with bureaucracy.
9. We would have given up and asked for the Statement to be ceased were it not for the fact that we are
certain our son would benefit from specific, specialist support.
10. The only support and input we have had which has actually focused on helping our son has been from
charities which specialise in his difficulties. They are staffed by people who want to make a difference to the
children they see and treat them holistically.
11. Accepting that parents are experts in relation to their child is key to changing the experience of families
like ours.
12. Input, unless it is specialist support which comes from people with expertise in a particular area, can be
worse than useless.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Helen Hornby

1. The duties of local authorities with regard to home education
These are clearly laid out in the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines. Local Authorities must start
abiding by them—abuses and attempted abuses of their duties happen on a daily basis (it only takes a brief
trawl through the archives of something like the Mumsnet Home Education forum to encounter scores of
parents new to home education being the recipients of “compulsory” visits by Education Welfare Officers and
“compulsory” questionnaires about their home education provision).
There is a huge amount of support for home educators (mostly non-financial) within the home educating
community, and within sub-groups of that community. Such support comes in the form of advice about dealings
with LAs and about educational approaches and content; sharing experiences; emotional support; support for
those with particular needs such as SEN. Home Educators access this support through online national and local
email groups, message boards, blogs, facebook groups etc, as well as in local and national opportunities for
face-to-face informal and formal meetings.

From other home educators: excellent. Anecdotally, such support from LAs is patchy, often unhelpfully one-
sided (with expectations of particular styles of education, for example), and not necessarily grounded in a full
appreciation of the law relating to Home Education.

Fine, thank you. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Not known—not relevant to my family at this point.
None that I know of in peer support—we were pretty well networked before the Badman process began. It
certainly gave Home Educators a focus, and helped us develop into a diverse but largely unified community,
which means that peer support is perhaps more visible online. I don’t know of any improvements to HE support
by the LA in my area.
the quality of that guidance
The 2007 EHE Guidelines are excellent—they summarise the law very clearly, and outline the duties of LAs
(and the limits of those duties). If only the LAs would follow those guidelines consistently rather than trying
to make a land grab for more responsibility and power over British families.
for home educators
In the main, no thank you. We privately educate our children, and should be treated on a par with those who
send their children to private schools. We have opted out of the State educational offering.
One caveat: single parents on benefits who home educate their children should be exempted from going onto
Job Seekers’ allowance once their children reach the usual cut-off age. Home Educating a child saves the State
several thousand pounds a year in school costs. That should be factored in to a single parent’s contribution to
the exchequer before attempts are made to lever that parent into work (which may compromise their availability
to educate their children).
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Gill Guest

1. Executive Summary
The submission is from a non-elective home educator whose child is too ill for school. She receives little
help from the Local Education Authority, but better support from the Open University. She recommends:
— that Ofsted should audit the provision made for sick children;
— that children with rare or unusual difficulties should be dealt with centrally; and
— that the right to a state funded education should be able to be deferred.
2. Introduction
I am a non-elective home educator. My son has ME/CFS and has low energy levels. He is able to study in
short one-to-one sessions. He hasn’t been to school for five years. Shropshire Education Authority has not
made alternative provision for him as they do not provide tutors for periods of less than one hour or on-line
education. He remains on a school roll.
3. Experience of Support Available for Home Educators

I am unaware of any support that might be available to home educators (elective or otherwise) from the
local education authority. Music Services do provide music lessons, but I’m the one that pays for them. Until
about month ago, we received no other support. At that point, following the intervention of Tim Loughton,
Minister for Children, my son was allowed into school to look down a microscope. This was a red letter day,
as all my requests for this over the preceding five years had been refused.
Even the simplest educational experience must be fought for, tooth and nail. Having achieved success with
the microscope example, my son now has bigger ambitions. He wants to play a double bass. He already plays
bass guitar. The fingering is the same and he has a hankering to play some Jazz. It’s not a hugely popular
instrument and I’ve been told there are loads lying around in the Music Services store cupboard no one is
using. I’ve already chalked up my first “no” response but I’ll keep trying, see microscope, above.
On the other hand, the Open University couldn’t have been more helpful. Funded up until now by the YPLA,
they accepted my son when he was just 14. Note that it was pure fluke that I discovered that the OU accepted
children at all, and I am uncertain how long the funding will continue.
4. Recommendations for Action

4.1 Ofsted should audit the provision Local Authorities make for sick children and the support they give to
home educators.
4.2 Children with rare or unusual difficulties, for example those with ME/CFS whose entire education is
often completely derailed, should be dealt with centrally, by a team capable of seeing the bigger picture with
expertise in helping parents seek non-standard or out-of-the-box solutions. They should not be dealt by Local
Authorities, as their prime drivers—the number of exam points they can score and keeping things standard
with costs as low as possible—do not mesh at all with the needs of non-standard individuals.
4.3 The right to a state funded education should be able to be deferred. Quite typically, children with ME
miss four or five years of state funded schooling which they cannot have when they recover as they are too
old. It’s bad enough that they lose years of their lives because we cannot treat their disease. They should not
be denied education as well.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Neia Glynn

I am very pleased that the Education Committee is due to be looking into Home Education since I was on
the verge of contacting my MP about provision. I realise that it was our decision to home educate (albeit after
being thoroughly let down due to bullying at my daughter’s school) but I believe that I am raising children
who will be a great benefit to society through being happy and entranced by learning. With this in mind it
would be great to have a bit more provision from the education department. I will list a few thoughts below...
1. In the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, unless I am much mistaken, there appears to be no
provision whatsoever for home educating families. We have our yearly visit from a very amenable inspector
but that is hardly something that benefits us. I have given up work to educate my children in an environment
away from bullying so we live on solely my husband’s income. We are in the position of contributing financially
to the education system by way of my husband’s taxes and yet receiving nothing of the help that would be
advantageous to our children and is free to thousands of others. I will give an example of swimming...
2. Our inspections detail that we should provide adequate physical exercise for our children. One of the PE
classes that state educated children receive is swimming. For home educating parents this becomes very
expensive over a year. If I was to take my two children weekly throughout term time it would cost us around
£352. I have written to the manager of the Kingfisher Leisure Centre, spoken to the deputy manager, rung the
group’s head of community provision and emailed the borough’s education department to no avail. I wanted
to suggest a mutually beneficial scheme whereby home educating families gained a reduced rate of entry,
meaning that they would come more often, bring their friends and increase revenue for the Kingfisher.
3. To make home education work most people take their children on excursions so that the children can
socialise and learn in a conducive environment. What a wonderful idea it would be to be able to have a reduced
fare travelcard for rail and bus services. Education really comes alive when my children are able to see and
experience as well as learn from books at home.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders

1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents over 17,000 heads, principals, deputies,
vice-principals, assistant heads, business managers and other senior staff of maintained and independent schools
and colleges throughout the UK. ASCL has members in more than 90% of secondary schools and colleges of
all types, responsible for the education of more than four million young people. This places the association in
a unique position to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the leaders of secondary schools and of colleges.
2. Though not directly involved in the support of home education, ASCL welcomes the opportunity to
comment on these specific questions.
3. However, the questions do seem to be too specific, and to avoid the more controversial, but arguably more
important, question of what challenge should be placed alongside support.
4. Home education covers a variety of situations. Children may need a period of tuition at home because
they have rejected or become afraid of school, or have been excluded; this would normally be provided by the
local authority (LA) for a limited period with the intention of the child being gradually reintroduced to
mainstream education. Parents may choose to educate their children themselves for a prolonged period, or
throughout their childhood, because of perceived defects in the school system or political, ethical or religious
alienation from it. Presumably this inquiry is concerned with what support, if any, is available to this latter
group.
5. The resources available to education are scarce, increasingly so, and few can sensibly devoted to what is
an inherently less efficient approach to education, chosen by a small minority of parents.
6. With regard to the duties of LAs with respect to home education it seems to school leaders that the
clearest omission is any duty or indeed right to inspect to see that an education is in fact being offered. The
recent case, tragic, case of Khyra Ishaq demonstrated how little scope LAs have to do this. Of course, this
mis-use of “home education” as a screen for abuse is very rare, but it is not possible to be sure that this is an
isolated example.
7. Nor is it clear, in the absence of any right to inspect home education, what proportion of the children
outside the school system receives a good education. It is right that home educators should receive support,
but such support should be coupled with challenge to ensure that children are not being mistreated or given
little education. The state education system is far from perfect, in some instances falling short of giving the
best possible education to particular children, but it is subject to extensive monitoring so that failures can be
identified and corrected. Such monitoring appears to be essentially absence in the case of home education.
8. It seems likely that most home-educated children do receive a good education, but there are few or no
mechanisms in place to ensure that.
9. As schools become academies in increasing numbers, LAs are becoming less involved in education and
will find it increasingly hard to offer genuine support to home educators or to children in need of home tuition.
The logic of present policies is that such support should be sought elsewhere, presumably in the school
(academy) system—but that would require a separate funding system to enable certain academies to offer
such support.
10. The experience of ASCL members in colleges is that most home educated young people make the
transition to college very well, needing little support beyond that normally available to new students. The fact
that there is a typically large influx of young people from many backgrounds makes it relatively easy for them
to fit in socially, though they may need to adapt to more rigid timetables and more rigorous expectations. It is
important for the funding regime applicable to colleges reflects the fact that such students sometimes present
themselves outside the standard the age bands so that colleges can still respond to their needs.
11. ASCL hopes that this is of value to your inquiry, and is willing to be further consulted and to assist in
any way that it can.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Mr and Mrs Gibson

Home Education Inquiry Submission
1. This submission is made by a couple who home educate three children, currently aged 15, 14 and 10. We
have home educated all of them since birth; none has ever attended a school (though we attended state schools
so we have experience of both systems of education).
2. An underlying principle of British Civil Society is that individuals and families are presumed to be acting
in accordance with their responsibilities as citizens unless there is specific reason to believe otherwise.
Individuals are not routinely searched for possession of illegal drugs, families are not questioned on whether
they provide a suitable diet for their children and so on. The legal framework for education of children is
the same.
3. It is the responsibility of parents to ensure a suitable education is provided for their children, and the
responsibility of the state to intervene only where there is reason to believe such an education is not being
provided. Case law has permitted local authorities to make “informal” enquiries where they become aware of
a child not in state school, but that is the limit of any proactive role unless there is reason to believe no suitable
education is taking place.
4. Unfortunately most local authorities use the (implicit or direct) threat of taking further action to enforce
ongoing monitoring on families, using public money to pursue a course of action which goes beyond their
legal remit. Once informal enquiries have been made, there is no reason why local authorities should need to
make further contact with home educators unless there is a specific reason to do so.
5. Very little support is available for local or central government. Resources appear to be targeted primarily
at monitoring attempts rather than providing services and facilities which would be useful to home educating
families.
6. Government makes provision for education of children principally via state schools. Alternative education
is available through private education for those that can afford it, or through direct provision of education—
elective home education. In opting out of state provision we accept that no direct financial provision is made
(just the same as if we do not avail ourselves of other government services we still pay a share of the costs of
them through general taxation).
7. While some may call for direct funding of home education we would suggest this would not improve
things for home educating families, as inevitably government would seek to measure the efficacy of its spend
which would erode the very freedom from government prescription and traditional approaches which is one of
the biggest draws of home education. In effect it would cease to offer a marked alternative to mainstream
education.
8. However, there are areas where central and local government could easily provide services which would
assist home educators, cost government very little (certainly against the background of a saving of ca. £60,000
per child in education costs).
9. Principle among these would be access to examinations. At present home educators have to pay the full
costs of exam entry and often have to travel significant distances to sit exams. In the case of our family one
GCSE cost in excess of £300 in exam fees and travel costs.
10. Exam entry could be made free and simple, without the need for massive bureaucracy. If schools were
obliged to take external candidates and were able to draw down funding from government at a level which
covers the costs including all admin and overheads costs in a simple manner, then exams would become
affordable to many more children.
11. This should not lead to a presumption that home educated children should sit exams, sit them at specific
points in their lives or undertake specific types of qualifications. Much of the benefit of Home Education lies
is its diversity of approaches, breadth of education philosophies which can be adopted, and ability to be tailored
to individual children. Many home educated children lead exceptional and fulfilled lives without achieving
formal qualifications before the age of 19.
12. We are unaware of any changes made to support for home educators since the December 2009
recommendations. This includes the position regarding exams despite assurances from government in response
to the recommendation.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Vanda Alexander
I have been a home educator for 18 years and live in the Local Authority of Kent.
1. The guidance Kent County Council uses is The Elective home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities.
Although, the Local Authority insist on “Registering” and yearly monitoring of young people who are home
educated the Guidance and Statute Law does not insist on this course of action from Local Authorities. Kent
County Council is therefore acting ultra vires.
The Government should impose a duty on Local Authorities to act within the Guidelines and Law as required
and monitor that they are doing so.
2. Ofsted carried out an evaluation on a sample of how local authorities discharge their duties towards
children and young people who are educated at home. The report reference no. 090267 and it was published
in June 2012. I cannot understand why there is a requirement for yet another evaluation when the Government
is trying to save money at this time.
3. As some home educators continue to pay their contribution in the form of taxes towards the education
budget, it is time for the local authority to allow home educators the following benefits: to have access to
stationary items eg exercise books at cost price. To have access to a loan store for the use of educational books,
cd’s and text books. The Travel Card for young people; the Local Authority funding is only available to home
educators who are registered with them. To have discounted access to Leisure Centre facilities. Families who
wish to remain anonymous are being excluded from having the use of the travel card for young people. Should
the Local Authority be persuaded to allow us access to stationery etc. my concern is they will insist on home
educators registering with them for the privilege.
4. Kent County Council’s Education, Learning and Skills Advocacy and Entitlement have completed their
Annual Plan for 2012–13. In the report it states that “The main purpose of Advocacy and Entitlement is to
provide a range of support and intervention measures in relation to children and young people who may be
vulnerable to not achieving their full potential. These include: (a) The identification, tracking, placement and
monitoring of children missing from (suitable) education. There is no legal definition of suitable. How does
the Local Authority intend to identify, track and monitor children who are not currently known to them? There
is no legal duty imposed on Local Authorities to “monitor” children. (b) Monitoring and support for children
and young people registered for elective home education. There is no duty imposed on Local Authorities to
insist families “register” with them. This document fails to mention what support will be provided to assist
parents who are known to the Council. In order to support children and young people parents have the right to
be included in decisions and to be supported too. This document, in my opinion, deliberately excludes parents
and implies the Council does not wish to engage with parents.
5. The document also states that it will “ensure that all children whose parents elect to register them as being
educated at home have the opportunity of an annual visit. Annual visits are not a duty the council has and in
previous paragraphs they go as far as to say monitoring. As children are to have the opportunity of a visit, this
gives an impression that children can also decline as it does not state that parents are included in the visit. My
concern here—as the children are offered an annual visit does this mean that employees of the council can
also interrogate children about how they think their parents are coping with home education and do the children
feel satisfied that their parents are providing them with a suitable education.? Will these interviews be carried
out in a separate room away from their parent’s. How far will this Council go to discharge their perceived duty
in this respect? It’s very worrying.
6. The council wish to further pursue parents who are identified as failing to provide evidence of a suitable
education. What is a suitable education? The law does not require parents to provide evidence. The council is
again trying to impose a duty it simply does not have.
7. To collect information and data to improve record keeping of children being educated at home as
appropriate and necessary. Who stipulates what is appropriate and necessary and will it be within the guidance
and expectations of the law as required. What information and data needs improving and again what
information is the council holding about children and families and how is this information being used and for
what purpose? Is this something the Government should be monitoring?
8. The Council has recruited several New Elective Home Education Officers and they will not be required
to be qualified teachers. In fact the posts are likened to that of teaching assistant. Home educators will find it
very difficult to give any credibility to teachers let alone a teaching assistant. These people need to be properly
trained in the varying philosophies family adopt when they educate their children. There are also various
approaches to learning which suit children of these families very well. I am concerned these successful
approaches may not be fully appreciated or respected by the person monitoring the family and instead impose
their own approaches onto the child. I also have a concern regarding the training afforded to children with
special educational needs. They are vast as they are diverse and an in-depth training course is required to equip
these people with the necessary knowledge into the varying degrees of children with special needs. A one size
fits all approach does not apply to home education.
9. Mr Gove needs to give more assurances to the home educating community that he will emphatically
ensure Kent County Council discharges its duty as required by Law. I don’t have a lot of faith in him being
able to do this but at the end of the day he is responsible for ensuring they do comply.
These are my opinions regarding the conduct of Kent County Council and the lack of support they offer, in
my experience.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Janet MacKay

1. I am a home educating parent. My daughter suffers from a severe form of OCD.
2. My daughter does not have a statement of SEN and we do no not need or want one for her.
3. I have accessed help privately and within the NHS to accommodate my daughter’s needs. This works
well for my daughter and we are happy with and able to sustain this arrangement for her care.
4. Two years ago if I had been asked about “support”, I would have said the most important thing was for
home educated children to have access to professional help outside school, when requested by parents, on an
equal footing with children who are in school.
5. However, experience has taught me that access to professional services is not the most important thing.
6. My local council, Oxfordshire, has managed to be persistently intrusive and intimidating without offering
any effective help whatsoever.
7. My requests to be left alone have fallen on deaf ears, while the council has pursued its own agenda of
what my daughter should have “for her own good”.
8. I have always tried to cooperate with the council while making it clear that my daughter should not be
stressed by being quizzed or judged.
9. When I turned down the latest attempt for the “inspector” to quiz my daughter, my family was referred
to social services without my knowledge.
10. My family received a letter out of the blue from social services just before a bank holiday.
11. The referral was due to “not being seen by anyone in education” and “needing to make certain the help
for my daughter would meet their approval”.
12. Social services closed the case within three hours after a phone call to my daughter’s GP confirmed
everything I had already told the council.
13. However, the stress my family has been under after a year of bullying culminating in a false referral to
social services by Oxfordshire County Council remains.
14. I do not believe that Oxfordshire County Council will stop their intrusion into my family’s life.
15. I now believe that the most supportive thing for Oxfordshire County Council to do would be to accept
my decision to home educate, respect that I have my daughter’s best interests at heart, and not to use social
services as a stick to beat my family.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Emmanuelle and Michael Horesford

1. This submission will look at the flagrant discrimination still practised by local authorities (in this case
The Learning Trust in Hackney) against home educators by unjustly withdrawing support from children in
need of it.
2. We started home educating our five year-old son after withdrawing him from school in May of this year.
As a family, we decided that a mainstream school was not, at this present time, the right type of learning
environment for him. Since then he’s been flourishing every day and makes amazing progress.
3. During the period our son was at school, it had been jointly decided by the teachers and ourselves that
our son would see a speech and language therapist through the school. All the arrangements had been put in
place and his sessions were due to begin. When we withdrew him from school, we visited our GP for our son
to be referred to a speech therapist independently. During our first appointment at the therapist, she told us that
because our son is home educated he will not be able to be seen as Hackney does not have the funding to
support children who do not go to maintained schools (see outlined paragraph in report on page 2). The only
option possible would be to go to a private speech therapist. She was then only able to do an initial assessment
after which she diagnosed him with speech and language delay (see line 1 of Recommendations paragraph in
report on page 2).
4. Isolated and left in complete shock that the action, practised by the local authority, of denying medical
support to a child diagnosed with a condition requiring treatment based simply on his type of education, could
even be conceived as legal, we revisited our GP to request another referral, insisting that he be straightforward
and explained that our son was being home educated. He spoke with speech and languages therapists but was
met with the same answer, in Hackney, the Learning Trust will not allow for children who do not attend
maintained school to be followed by a speech therapist. Parents in other boroughs (see email on page 3) have
had no problem having their children who are home educated referred to speech and language therapists for
ongoing therapy.
5. We are now left solely responsible for our child’s speech and language therapy, as seeing a private
therapist is not an option we can afford. Despite the amazing journey our child is experiencing with his
education in the loving environment of our home, he is lacking the speech and language therapy that he
requires, although we try to help him with daily exercises. Our son is being refused medical treatment based
purely on his lifestyle, in this case as a home educated child. The Learning Trust is not respecting his basic
human right of not being discriminated against.
6. As a conclusion, our experience of the Support for Home Education is that sometimes there is simply no
support given at all (our son was in school and arrangements set in place to begin speech and language therapy,
as soon as he was withdrawn from school so was his support for speech and language therapy). This is, once
again, a blatant discrimination practised by our local authority. We are not asking for any more support than is
afforded to anyone else in our society just to have the same support. Home educated children are not given the
support that everyone else gets, even though they are entitled to it.
7. We hope that our evidence will help this inquiry and that in the future, no child will be penalised by
authorities because he or she is educated at home by parents who are passionate about their education and
well being.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Nikki Harper

Executive Summary
This memorandum is to the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into support for home education.
— Local authorities consistently misrepresent their legal duties with regard to home education.
— Very few services, financial or otherwise, are offered to the home educating community by
local authorities, but many home educators would in any event be wary of accepting/using
such services.
— The 2007 “Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities” are largely fit for
purpose, but are routinely ignored by local authorities.
— Home educating families have little-no means of redress against local authorities which overstep
the law.
— Recommendations include:
— Establishment of a procedure for home educating families to use when they need to seek
redress against a local authority.
— Any future service package from local authorities to home educators to remain entirely
optional with families under no obligation to accept such services.
Background Information
I am a home educating mother. We have home educated our daughter since she was six years old; she is
now thirteen. I recently initiated a complaint against Lincolnshire County Council regarding their ultra vires
home education policy, which was rejected by the council.
The Duties of Local Authorities with Regard to Home Education

1. It is clear both from existing legislation and from the EHE Guidelines for Local Authorities that a local
authority has no duty whatsoever towards a home educated child, unless and until they have reason to believe
than an education is not taking place.
2. Local authorities have no duty in law to monitor home education provision on an ongoing basis; this is
stated explicitly in point 2.7 of the EHE Guidelines.
Misrepresentation of Duties by Local Authorities

3. Widespread evidence from the home educating community indicates that local authorities routinely
misrepresent their actual legal powers and duties with regard to home education.
4. A short survey of local authority websites and policies turns up questionable statements at almost every
turn. In the worst cases, misrepresentation is serious, aggressive and, one must assume, deliberate, with local
authorities presenting themselves on websites, in writing and in person to parents as having wide ranging
powers in this regard.
5. Even among local authorities which do not insist upon home visits or other hoop-jumping exercises,
almost all insist that they have a duty to monitor home education on an ongoing basis, requiring annual reports
in writing if nothing else.
6. Local authorities commonly use safeguarding as an excuse for unwarranted intrusion and monitoring.
Local authorities do not have a duty to safeguard every child in their area. Clearly, such a duty would be
untenable. They do have a duty to bear safeguarding in mind when they come across children during their
normal duties; a different matter entirely. However, LA after LA insists that they have a duty to safeguard,
despite point 73 of 2009 Statutory Guidance on Children at Risk of Not Receiving Suitable Education (England)
explicitly stating:
“Education of children at home by their parents is not in itself a cause for concern about the child’s
welfare.”
7. Local authorities routinely insist that they have a duty to ensure that a home educated child is receiving
a suitable education. In law, they have no such duty. Their only duty is to establish that the child is home
educated as opposed to missing an education. The legal duty for the suitability of the education rests firmly
with the parents, whether the child is schooled or home educated.
8. Should local authorities seek to take upon themselves a duty to ensure that a home educated child’s
education is suitable, they must also logically become legally responsible for the education of schooled children
in their area. To take on such a duty would not only require major legislative change, but would also leave
councils vulnerable to widescale legal action from parents of children at failing schools.
Lincolnshire County Council: A Case Study

9. I am aware that the Select Committee is not the place to pursue an individual complaint; I offer these
points in order to illustrate some of the problems encountered when home educating parents attempt to complain
to their local authority. Full copies of correspondence can be found here:
http://secondaryathome.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/chronology-of-a-complaint/
10. As this complaint progressed, it revealed serious incompetence in Lincs CC with regard to home
education law. It also revealed clear bias against home education, an unwillingness to admit fault, a failure to
offer any remedy and a failure to handle the complaint itself properly.
11. On being told that their new annual monitoring policy was ultra vires, Lincolnshire’s Director of
Children’s Services adopted a “guilty until proven innocent” stance towards home educating families when she
replied as below, reversing the legal burden of proof entirely:
“Advice from our legal services states that;
If a parent is refusing to engage, the LA must be entitled to presume that the educational provision being
provided at home is not suitable unless evidence can be provided to the contrary. Elective home education
associations commonly assert that a LA has no power to investigate whether the provision being made at
home is suitable unless they are notified of any concerns. This is clearly unsustainable as a LA is unlikely
to be able to establish such concerns unless they endeavour to investigate that provision.”
12. Lincs CC failed to consult on their new policy. A FOI request revealed that the views of only six families
were taken into account. Lincs were unable to provide a satisfactory answer as to why their attempts at
consultation had been so shockingly limited, in a county where there are over 450 known home educating
families.
13. The views of the families who were heard were largely disregarded. Another FOI request revealed
specifics of where families had found the wording or intent of the new policy unacceptable, and where this
had been acknowledged in the consultation document, but the relevant changes were not made to the policy.
14. In at least one instance, safeguarding was used by Lincs CC as an excuse to not amend the policy.
Despite explicit government guidance that home education is not in itself to be considered a safeguarding
issue, one internal email from a senior staff member, obtained under FOI, stated:
“I realise that for some parents present at the meeting one or more of these were and are contentious to
them and the same is likely elsewhere, however the LA has a duty to safeguard and protect and the policy
seeks to do this in a spirit of co operation with stakeholders.”
15. By the time the highly frustrating complaints procedure finally reached the Chief Executive, our
complaint covered:
— the legality of the yearly monitoring policy;
— incompetence of Lincs CC’s legal department and Director of Children’s Services in
understanding and applying the law;
— deliberately misleading letters sent to parents implying that they must comply with said policy;
— the failure to consult;
— the biased and antagonistic “guilty until proven innocent” stance;
— institutional bias as shown by the conflation of home education with safeguarding, offensive
remarks made by the Chairman of a scrutiny committee etc;
— family privacy under article 8 of the Human Rights Act;
— obstruction of the complaint itself; and
— a Counsel’s Opinion was included for Lincs CC’s reference, which supported the complaint.
16. In Lincs CC’s final reply to the complaint, they dismissed concerns out of hand and refused to concede
fault on any of the above points, or even to issue an apology. Indeed, the Chief Executive was more concerned,
in his only correspondence on this matter, with reprimanding us for criticising Lincs CC on our blog than he
was with dealing with our concerns.
17. Apart from the ultra vires annual monitoring procedures, other examples of ultra vires or offensive parts
of Lincs CC’s home education policy include:
“School in itself is a protective feature and children who are educated at home may not have access to
other trusted adults who can recognise and act if a child is considered to be at risk of harm.”
“It is LCC Children’s Services policy that the education provision should be considered annually through
an Education Provision Visit (EPV) and the child’s view should be ascertained and considered as part of
the review.”
“If a Headteacher is informed of a parents intention to home educate it is the Policy of LCC Children’s
Services for Headteachers to acknowledge the request of the parent and arrange a meeting with the parent
and, if appropriate, the child.”
“In formulating a viewpoint of whether the education a child is receiving is suitable to their age, ability,
aptitude and any special educational needs they may have, should include a discussion with the child to
enable their views to be sought and considered.”
“The EWO will make an initial visit following the agenda previously sent to the parents.”
Redress for Parents Unhappy with Local Authority Behaviour

18. The Department for Education advises home educating parents who are unhappy with local authority
behaviour and policies to pursue a complaint through that authority’s formal complaints procedure.
19. While this may seem reasonable, our own experience and experiences of others suggest that such
complaints are very rarely successful. Our personal experience found that a local authority can just carry on
misrepresenting the law even in the face of clear evidence that they are wrong.
20. I wrote to the Department for Education in June 2012, asking for their view on where a parent should
go when they have exhausted their local authority’s complaints procedure. The response was illuminating in
its lack of support, and can be viewed here: http://secondaryathome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dept-of-ed-
reply-june-2012.pdf
21. The response concludes that the DfE has no power to intervene at a local level, and suggests that parents
should use the Local Government Ombudsman.
22. The LGO itself demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of home education legislation. On its website
here: http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-home-tuition/ it mentions that:
“The council’s role [in home education] was confined to approving the syllabus and checking that it
was followed.”
23. Since the above statement is so incorrect, it does not inspire confidence that a complaint regarding local
authority behaviour over home education would be successful.
24. For this reason, I decided not to risk taking the complaint about Lincs CC to the LGO—having the LGO
find in favour of Lincs CC, due to their own misunderstanding of home education legislation, would set a very
bad precedent for home educating parents across the country.
25. Under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996, parents may complain directly to the Secretary
of State if they believe that a local authority has acted or is about to act unreasonably or unlawfully. The
Secretary of State has powers to direct schools and local authorities to take action to remedy any unlawful or
unreasonable act. However, the above reply from the DfE seems to rule out the option of home educating
parents complaining directly to the Secretary of State.
26. The only remaining redress available to home educating parents would therefore be to take a local
authority to judicial review—which is, of course, extremely expensive, time consuming and stressful, and
beyond the reach of most parents both financially and practically.
Financial and Other Support from Local Authorities to Home Educating Families
27. I do not find the term “support” to be very helpful, as it implies a neediness on the part of home
educating families, as if by default we are unable to manage. Perhaps a better term would be “services”.
28. I have seen no evidence of any services, financial or otherwise, from Lincs CC. On the contrary, I
consider their behaviour towards home educators to be highly unsupportive, dishonest and confrontational.
29. Anecdotal evidence from other home educators across the country indicates that the majority of local
authorities provide no or almost no services for home educating families, and instead invent for themselves a
quasi-policing role.
30. I personally would not accept any financial assistance because I would not be prepared to submit to the
unlawful intrusion which it seems would inevitably follow. As soon as public finances are involved, there will
be calls to ensure that the money is being spent wisely and that the public is receiving value for money when
it comes to home education funding.
30. Some home educators would no doubt like a greater level of service from their local authority, whether
in terms of financial assistance or practical assistance in securing exam centres and the like. However, it is
crucial that such services, should any be forthcoming, be and remain entirely optional in nature, and that each
individual family be given clear and transparent information about the services available—and about what will
be expected from them in return if they choose to use any of them.
31. The most basic level of service from a local authority is surely the provision of clear, honest and helpful
information to home educating parents. EHE Guidelines specify that information provided should be clear and
accurate; that complaints should be dealt with in a sensitive and timely manner; that families should be involved
in reviewing policies; that procedures should be clear, consistent, non-intrusive and timely. In our experience,
Lincs CC fails on all of these points, as, it is clear, do most other local authorities.
32. When one cannot trust the correspondence one receives from a local authority, one is not inclined to use
their services. Lincs CC (for instance) refused to retract letters sent out carrying misleading information. What
confidence should a family have in a local authority which so blatantly lies in correspondence?
33. The EHE Guidelines further specify that local authority staff who have contact with home educating
families should receive training on home education law and practice. A FOI request revealed that Lincs CC
staff (for instance) have received no such training, with Lincs instead, very inappropriately, considering that
their staff are suitably trained because they have experience in schools.
34. Home educating services are typically included in local authority structure under “attendance and
inclusion” departments, and dealt with by staff used to dealing with truancy and other problems. The whole
culture of these departments appears to expect problems with parents, rather than to accept home education as
a legitimate alternative to school, afforded equal status and dignity in law. This does not lend itself to a
supportive atmosphere between staff and parents.
35. Until these most basic levels of service-clear, honest correspondence/information and properly trained
staff—are in place across the country, it seems highly premature to seek to instigate more complex types of
home education services from local authorities. I have no confidence that any further services would be
administered in a legal and ethical manner.
36. Given the hostile attitude of many local authorities towards home educators, it is little wonder that most
families engage with LAs as little as possible. We as a family intend to take a stand by refusing to provide any
further information in answer to ultra vires monitoring enquiries. We are fully prepared to see that through the
courts if necessary; many families, however, do not have the time or feel confident enough in the law to do this.
It seems to me that local authorities rely on intimidation of families (via deliberately misleading information) in
order to prevent the widescale refusal to co-operate which would ensue if more families were aware of the
actual legal position.
Guidance Available to Local Authorities

37. The 2007 EHE Guidelines to Local Authorities are quite clear and largely fit for purpose; it is bewildering
how easily local authorities choose to ignore or disregard them.
38. Further guidelines, or indeed clarifications to the existing guidelines, will be pointless if authorities are
permitted to ignore them at will.
Recommendations
39. Options must be considered to provide families with fair and consistent redress against local authorities
behaving unreasonably and in an ultra vires fashion towards home education. The LGO route is entirely
unsatisfactory, for reasons explained in this memorandum.
40. Local authorities should be required to provide training on home education practice and law to the
relevant staff; although this is mentioned in the EHE guidelines, one is left to wonder how often the training
provided is adequate.
41. Should this inquiry result in any kind of package of services being offered to home educators by local
authorities, these services must remain completely optional and this should be made clear to parents.
42. Local authorities should be required to make it clear to parents in all correspondence that they are not
legally obliged to co-operate with ongoing monitoring, home visits, report writing or other ultra vires hoops.
43. Local authorities must be firmly reminded of their actual legal duty with regard to safeguarding; their
misguided focus on safeguarding is one of the things home educating families find most offensive.
44. Local authorities must recognise, above all, that the legal responsibility for the suitability of a child’s
education rests with the parents. This understanding would at a stroke remove the mistaken desire of so many
local authorities to “monitor” and would relieve them of their unnecessary work and expense in consistently
overstepping their limited legal duty.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Roxane Featherstone
1. The main principle of responsibility for educational provision is the same for all, schooled or otherwise,
SEN or otherwise.
2. In other words, the Education Committee and LAs need to be clear that the duty to ensure the provision
of an efficient education must remain (as per S7 1996 Education Act) the responsibility of the parent, and this,
in effect means that parents must retain the right to choose the form and content of the education that their
child receives, and this, at the very least, because parents could not otherwise be held responsible should the
education prove unsuitable.
3. This means, for example, that those home educating families who either accept or refuse local authority
support must be able to do so freely, and those who accept support must be able to do so with full knowledge
of and consent for the requirements and restrictions that accepting such support might impose.
4. Local authorities only have a duty to act where there is a reasonable appearance of failure to provide a
suitable education. In the course of coming to such a decision as to whether or not to act upon this duty, LA
officials must have fully acquainted themselves with the theories that underpin alternative forms of educational
provision, such as autonomous education which differs vastly from schooling models but has now been around
long enough to prove its efficacy. There are now numerous autonomously home educated children who have
subsequently passed through colleges and universities and/or have progressed to a productive adult life. There
are books available which provide explanations as to why such methods are successful, for example:
and for a number of different educational methods:
Terri Dowty’s Free Range Education.
5. LA officials must have a rigorous, demonstrable understanding of these forms of education and all informal
enquiries to home educating families must allow for the possibility that parents will be educating their children
in very different ways to the standard schooling model.
6. As for specific support on a national level, it would be helpful to have nominated exam centres where
home educated children could take exams and which didn’t cost a great deal, or were even fully funded.
7. It would be helpful if all sixth form colleges and sixth forms in schools would accept HE children at 16
to do catch-up GCSE (or O levels), say five subjects in one year with an opportunity to progress to AS and A
levels if the necessary grades are reached. This system already works very well in certain parts of the country,
but it would be helpful to have this rolled out to all areas and given that the age of participation in education
or training is rising in the next year, this might be a universally constructive and timely strategy.
8. Guidance to and from LAs should remain within the current law.
9. Submission from Roxane Featherstone, home educator of 15 years experience. The views expressed
have been discussed with and are shared by many other home educators in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire
and Worcestershire.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Family Education Trust

Summary
— Education law places upon parents the responsibility to ensure that their children receive a full-time and
suitable education. The local authority has no statutory duty to routinely monitor home education provision
and is required to intervene only “if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education”.
— The limited duties of local authorities with regard to home education conform to three key principles that
lie at the heart of UK and European law, viz., parental responsibility, respect for parental wishes and
convictions, and the right to a private family life.
— Home education sits within a legal framework that has a number of strengths and benefits for home
educating families and local authorities alike.
— Local authorities should ensure that they provide clear and accurate written information on elective home
education in line with the Elective Home Education Guidelines.
— Home educating families should not be placed under any pressure or obligation to accept any additional
support offered by local authorities. Home educators receive advice and support from a range of sources
and do not always feel that the local authority is suitably equipped or best placed to provide the support
they need.
— The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities provide a helpful summary of the law and
its implications. There is therefore no need to alter existing policy or arrangements relating to support for
home educators; the need is rather to ensure that local authority personnel are familiar with the guidelines
and apply them consistently.
1. Introduction
1.1 For over 40 years, Family Education Trust has conducted research on a range of issues with a view to
promoting stable family life and the welfare of children. As an educational charity, parents frequently contact
the Trust for advice on the options available to them with regard to the education of their children, both within
the school system and “otherwise”. The Trust actively participated in the process leading up to the publication
of the home education guidelines towards the end of 2007, and both met and corresponded with departmental
officials at that time.
1.2 Family Education Trust played an active role in relation to Graham Badman’s review of home education
under the previous government. In addition to making a detailed submission, it met with Mr Badman and
also corresponded with departmental officials with regard to the terms of reference of the review and the
review questions.
2. The Duties of Local Authorities with Regard to Home Education

2.1 Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, it is parents, and not central or local government, who have
the responsibility for making sure their children receive “efficient full-time education” suitable to their age,
ability and aptitude and any special needs they may have. Parents may fulfil this responsibility, either by
ensuring that their children attend school regularly, or by making alternative arrangements.
2.2 This law has served both parents and children well. It allows parents the freedom to determine how their
children will be educated, while enabling local authorities to take appropriate action where it appears to them
that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular
attendance at school or otherwise (Education Act 1996, s437).
2.3 The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are clear that: “Local authorities have
no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis. However, under
Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities shall intervene if it appears that parents are not
providing a suitable education”.1
2.4 In a reference to the duty of local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under
Section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002, the guidelines state:
“Section 175(1) does not extend local authorities’ functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities
powers to enter the homes of, or otherwise see, children for the purposes of monitoring the provision of
elective home education.”2
2.5 However, where there are grounds for concern about the welfare of a home educated child, the local
authority is empowered to act:
“[L]ocal authorities have general duties to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of
children (section 175 Education Act 2002 in relation to their functions as a local authority and for other
functions in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004). These powers allow local authorities to insist
on seeing children in order to enquire about their welfare where there are grounds for concern (sections
1
Department for Children, Schools and Families, Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, 2007, para 2.7,
(emphasis in original).
2
Ibid., para 2.12.
17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989). However, such powers do not bestow on local authorities the ability
to see and question children subject to elective home education in order to establish whether they are
receiving a suitable education.”3
2.6 The current guidelines present a consistent view throughout and do not confer any responsibilities upon
local authorities that they do not possess the power to fulfill. The guidelines offer protection for children while
respecting the private and family life of home educating families.
2.7 The principle of not requiring any intervention on the part of the authorities unless “it appears” to a
local authority that parents are failing to fulfil their responsibilities is not a legal loophole as some have
characterised it, but a provision that conforms to three key principles at the heart of UK and European law:
— parental responsibility (Section 7, Education Act 1996);
— respect for parental wishes and parental religious and philosophical convictions (Section 9,
Education Act 1996, and Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human
Rights); and
— the right to a private family life (Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights).
2.8 In keeping with these principles, the Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities state
that “parents are not legally required to give the local authority access to their home” and “where a parent
elects not to allow access to their home or their child, this does not of itself constitute a ground for concern
about the education provision being made”. The guidelines go on to say where informal enquiries are made,
parents should be free to provide evidence in a variety of ways.4
2.9 This framework has a number of strengths and benefits:
— it permits flexibility—where support is needed and requested it can be given;
— where parents are fulfilling their responsibilities and do not require support or intervention, the
local authority has no obligation towards them;
— scarce resources are therefore not wasted on monitoring families who neither need nor desire
local authority involvement; and
— Local Authority resources are freed up to address situations where “it appears to them” that a
child is not receiving suitable education.
2.10 While there is no need to extend the duties of local authorities with regard to home education, we are
aware of cases in which local authority staff have acted ultra vires due to a failure to appreciate the limits of
their powers to monitor home education provision. In view of the unnecessary distress this has caused to home
educating families, there is a need for local authority staff to receive training so that they are thoroughly
familiar with the guidelines and the legal framework on which they rest, and so that they are equipped to
consistently apply the guidelines in the course of their daily work.
3. Support for Home Educators

3.1 The Elective Home Education guidelines state that: “Local authorities do not receive funding to support
home educating families, and the level and type of support will therefore vary between one local authority
and another.”5
3.2 As a minimum, local authorities are advised to provide clear and accurate written information on elective
home education that sets out the legal position, but any additional support is discretionary.6
3.3 Notwithstanding the guidelines issued in 2007, some local authorities are still failing to provide accurate
information on the law relating to elective home education. There have been instances where parents have
been incorrectly advised that they are legally required to register with the local authority and to receive periodic
home visits, for example. Another concern that has been expressed is that home educated children and their
parents are frequently treated in a less than courteous way by truancy patrols, who are often not familiar with
the fact that home education is a legal option and that home educators are not obliged to observe school hours,
days or terms.7
3.4 While we would welcome action to ensure that local authority officers and truancy patrols are better
informed of the law and guidance relating to home education, we would not be in favour of establishing a
mandatory support system for home educators. Home educators receive advice and support from a range of
sources and do not always feel that the local authority is suitably equipped or best placed to provide the support
they need.
3.5 A better approach might be for local authorities to advertise what services they are willing to offer to
home educators and then to leave it up to individual families to decide whether or not they wish to avail
3
Ibid., para 2.15.
4
Ibid., para 3.6.
5
Ibid., para 5.2.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid., para 3.13.
themselves of what is on offer. In this way, support can be provided to those who welcome it, without the local
authority imposing “support” on families who do not require it.
4. Guidance to Local Authorities

4.1 The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities provide a helpful summary of the law
relating to home education and effectively delineate the respective duties of parents and local authorities. As
noted in paragraph 2.10 above, officers in some local authorities are not always familiar with the guidance and
instances have arisen where they have acted ultra vires and insisted on intervening where there is no suggestion
that parents are not providing a suitable education.
5. Is there a need to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning support available for home educators?
5.1 From our experience of working with home educating families, most of the difficulties between home
educators and local authorities have not arisen because of any shortcomings in the guidance, but because local
authority officers have either not been familiar with the guidance, or else they have chosen to disregard it.
5.2 Although we are not aware of any need to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning support for
home educators, there is a need to ensure that local authorities are familiar with the Elective Home Education
Guidelines and that they consistently apply them in their interaction with home educating families.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Debbie Chippington Derrick

We are aware that you are not dealing with personal cases, but are presenting our case as an illustration of
the issues of the lack of support for home education.
1. There was no local list of where examination facilities could be accessed; nor is there any right of access
to these for children outside the school system. We were told of several places where other parents had managed
to gain access for examinations; we were left to make our own enquiries with each one.
2. We enquired with all the local schools and all refused access for private candidates.
3. We were left to work out for ourselves which examinations would be practical. There are severe limitations
because of the course work for child not attending a school. In cases where coursework would have been a
practical possibility it would usually still have been a very costly option.
4. The nearest centre that was available to us was a 12 mile drive, and we leave in Surrey where the density
which could take nearly an hour to drive during rush hour and accessing it by public transport would not have
been possible in order to arrive in time for a morning examination.
5. The availability of the exam centre was always under threat, and we would not know until the beginning
of the academic year whether we would have to start to look for somewhere else to take examinations and
whether they would provide access to the examinations that our child was currently studying for.
6. We have just heard that the examinations centre we used will not be providing examination facilities in
the future. They said “I am writing to inform you that we will not be taking private candidates at this centre
next year. This has not been an easy decision to reach as we are aware that there are very few centres in the
area offering this service. However, as the number of learners at Christ’s College has grown it has become
increasingly difficult to find sufficient desks for the growing number of private candidates. In addition, as the
number of private candidates has grown, the time needed to run this service has also grown”. So, it can be
seen that this is not because the service was not being used or still needed.
7. The cost of examinations meant that we could not afford for our child to take more than a few examination
at a time.
8. We had to pay additional fees for the extra time and the laptop that our child needed because of the
special educational needs. With these additional costs we paid £575 for the three examination which our child
took this last summer.
9. We have had difficulties in accessing all the past papers for the examinations which children within
schools are provided with access. The exam boards seem to hold the last back the set of examination papers
and charge individuals to access them, whilst making them freely available to schools. When queried about
this the board came up with issue of security and of them being used for mock examinations, which if they
are selling them seems to make no sense. This is an issue of discrimination against private candidates which
needs to be addressed.
10. If our son had not already had his special education needs documented whilst in school, getting this
assessment would have been very difficult and costly; it may not have been possible and he may have suffered
educationally as a consequence.
11. We tried to access foreign language tuition via the adult education centre for our son to attend with me
(his mother), we checked that there would not an issue with his age, as he would have been only be 15 just
after the beginning of the course. The staff at the centre checked with the teacher and with the rest of the
people due to attend the class and everyone was happy with the arrangements. They also put the teacher in
contact with me so that we could make sure that the class was appropriate for our son. The fees were paid for
both of us and it made up a class of 6 which was the minimum number for a class to run. We attended two
sessions and all seemed to be going well. We then received a phone call to check on his date of birth, and
were eventually told that he could not do the class because he was under 16. First we were told there was an
insurance issue because the site was only insured for over 16s. We were then told that it was a budget issue,
in that the education budget was only to cover over 16s. Despite the involvement of the most senior person at
the adult education centre he was not allowed to continue and we were refunded our fee. We believe at that
point the class became financially unviable and was cancelled, and the rest of the class were also refunded
their fees, but the teacher would still have been paid as they had been already contracted to provide the classes.
It was not possible to find alternative foreign language tuition for that year because other courses had started,
and his enthusiasm had been dented along with the difficulties of finding a suitable class has meant that he has
not had the benefit of studying a foreign language.
12. We have continue to have educational reviews as our child had a full statement before being taken out
of full time secondary education to be educated at home. The continuation of these reviews has required
considerable effort on our part and the last one was over a year late in taking place.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Ofsted

Ofsted has no mandate to inspect home education provision—the 1944 Education Act set out the rights of
parents to educate their children at home, a right confirmed in the 1996 Education Act. Additionally, Ofsted
no longer routinely inspects the education functions of Local Authorities, and holds no evidence on home
education other than that gathered for the 2010 survey report “Local authorities and home education”.
While not a finding of the 2010 survey, Ofsted notes that there are some local authority websites which
indicate the local authorities have greater ability to intervene in home education than is actually set out in law.
Ofsted recognises that strong views are held about home education. Our evidence shows that many children
who are home educated have a positive experience of it—in fact, those children and young people that
inspectors were able to meet said that they were happier than they had been when attending school. Our
reporting has also focused on the additional support which some families would welcome in order to support
the choice to educate their children at home.
The duties of local authorities with regard to home education

Ofsted’s 2010 survey found that there are tensions in the existing legislative framework. Given the well-
established rights of parents to home educate their children, there is no obligation incumbent on those who
make this choice to notify either their local authority or any other public body. The 1996 Education Act, for
instance, confirms the duty of parents to ensure full-time education for their children “either by regular
attendance at school or otherwise”. However, local authorities have statutory duties to safeguard and promote
the welfare of children within their boundaries. They must also take steps to see that children are receiving a
“suitable education”, as set out in the 1996 Act, and provide support and resources to home-educating parents
and their children.
All the 15 local authorities visited took a range of actions to establish whether all children in their area were
receiving a “suitable” and “efficient” education. They were aware that their knowledge of their population was
incomplete because not all home educated families were known to the local authority.
What support (financial and otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
The quality and accessibility of that support
Ofsted’s 2010 survey found that all the authorities visited provided guidance for parents about the legal
requirements of home education. This guidance generally included advice about how parents might want to
organise a curriculum, as well as information about the authority’s monitoring and support role. Some of the
guidance provided contact names and addresses for home education groups. It explained how children could
be entered for examinations, provided useful websites, and suggested places of interest for parents to visit with
their children.
Home-educated children’s access to services such as Connexions, child and adolescent mental health
services, and the school nursing service varied widely in the authorities visited. In particular, lead officers for
elective home education expressed concerns about the limited access for children who were educated at home
to child and adolescent mental health services.
Six of the local authorities visited had arranged for home educators to withdraw larger numbers of books
from the libraries than was usually allowed. Another authority provided access to resources such as science
boxes. Three gave information about tutors who could be employed with Criminal Records Bureau checks and
four provided information about commercially available curriculum materials. One of the authorities supported
home-educating parents in registering their children with the local pupil referral unit as private candidates so
that they could sit GCSE examinations.
Two authorities provided money for the officers responsible for home education to organise a conference for
parents and their children.
Families of children with special educational needs expressed concern that as home educators they
experienced a lack of specialist support. Children did not always receive support such as speech and language
therapy or physiotherapy unless the parents commissioned and paid for it.
The 2010 report also noted that for most of the parents surveyed, the choice of educating their child at home
brought with it an attendant (and often significant) financial commitment. While some parents proactively
planned to provide home education, others felt forced to do so as a result of concerns about their child’s safety
and welfare at school. Some parents suffered financially when they had to give up paid work to educate their
child at home.

Ofsted’s 2010 survey found that parents who were monitored and supported by local authorities generally
commented that they welcomed the advice and encouragement and would have welcomed further support,
particularly financial support. The cost of paying for public examinations was a particular issue.
All the authorities visited expressed some level of concern about the limited resources available to them to
help families who wanted support.
The support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
We have no evidence on this issue.
What improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
Ofsted does not routinely examine home education provision, and undertook the 2010 survey (the inspectors’
visits took place between September and December 2009) on local authorities and home education at the
request of the previous administration. We have not gathered evidence since that time.
What guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education, and the
quality of that guidance
Ofsted’s 2010 survey comments on the quality of the guidance available to families but not on that available
to local authorities.
Whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available for
home educators.
Ofsted has no means of assessing the broad picture in terms of home education having not undertaken any
study or assessment for two years.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Cheryl Moy

1. This response is mainly regarding Doncaster Council, of whom had recently been in talks with local
families to amend their approach to support. But have now had a change of staff and talks seem to have fallen
through. They have devised a new draft policy without consulting families. Whilst my experiences are mainly
with Doncaster MBC, I have had many dealings with other local authority areas most of whom do not follow
the guidelines accurately. The guidelines are not clear on certain matters, such as :
“The purpose of these guidelines is to support local authorities in carrying out their statutory
responsibilities”
Yet it doesn’t state which statutory responsibilities.
“Parents are not required to register or seek approval from the local authority to educate their children
at home.”
Yet so many LA’s claim they have to “authorise” “approve” of the educational provision.
Doncaster’s new draft, which in my opinion breaches this statement from the EHE guidelines:
“The DCSF recommends that each local authority provides written information about elective home
education that is clear, accurate and sets out the legal position, roles and responsibilities of both the local
authority and parents.”
Says the EHE consultant should demand evidence of the educational provision via copies of work to be
provided either at a visit or via the post, this is not a legally binding request, it also says that visits be
made after 20 days if after an initial visit their are concerns over the education provision, then as often as
three monthly.
“Parents might prefer, for example, to write a report, provide samples of work, have their educational
provision endorsed by a third party (such as an independent home tutor) or provide evidence in some
other appropriate form.”
This paragraph is part of the what to do if there is concern over the educational provison, but is normally
stated in EHE policies as the reason why they ask for a visit a week after deregistering, or then three months
later and then every six months after that.
“Section 175(1) does not extend local authorities’ functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities
elective home education.”
Yet Doncaster EHE has told me it is policy for them to request a safe and well check if a family opts to not
let the EHE into their home.
“However, such powers do not bestow on local authorities the ability to see and question children subject
to elective home education in order to establish whether they are receiving a suitable education.”
Many local authorities state in their letters and policies that they will want to talk with the child, they ask if
the child is happy with home education, Doncaster EHE actually said to a set of 12 year old twins “do you
think your mum can cope with you all at home? wouldn’t you all be better in school” she asked this because
she had been in the house over two hours, the baby was crying because she wanted feeding, but mum wasn’t
comfortable breast feeding in front of the EHE, and it was past the toddlers bedtime. This mum feels like she
will be punished if she opts out of visits (or refuses them as the LA call them).
Doncaster EHE have asked my own children if they are happy to be home educated and wouldn’t they prefer
to be in school, they have asked for children to read to them so they can be assessed. The list is endless.
Their documents regularly state that the LA has a duty to monitor and has a duty to be satisifed with regards
the provision.
“Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a
routine basis.”
The LA’s are known for their EWO’s or integration officer, doorstepping families and saying such things
like home education is illegal or that “you do know you have to let the EHE in every three months?” As I
write this I have just been told that an EWO has doorstepped a family that deregistered two weeks ago and
have told the mum that she has to notify the LA as well as school or she will be prosecuted for truancy, I have
checked her dereg letter and it is more than adequate. Doncaster integration have this week sent letters to two
families, stating that they have to have a visit, (no reason given) I then spoke to the integration officer, who
admitted she knew nothing about home ed, but would tell people they have to have visits or send copies of
work in. The management are refusing to even acknowledge there is an issue.
This goes against many things including

“All parties involved in elective home education should be aware of their roles, rights and responsibilities.
Local authorities’ policies should be clear, transparent and easily accessible. Any procedures for dealing
with home educating parents and children should be fair, clear, consistent, non-intrusive and timely, in
order to provide a good foundation for the development of trusting relationships.”
The LA do not seem to know what their duties are, and they change from staff member to another. Some
say its ok to opt out of visits some say its not.
The LA also have a policy where the school do not remove the child’s name from the school role until 20
days after deregistration, they have been informed numerous times about the legalities of this, yet they do not
acknowledge it. We have resorted to involving local councillors and making formal complaints, yet in a phone
call today the manager of integration services has told me they will not amend this policy because it is only
our (local families) opinion that it breaks the law,
authorities and other bodies/the quality and accessibility of that support/whether current arrangements for
financial support are adequate/the support available for home-educated students’ transition to further
education and higher education
There is no support currently available, the EHE attempts to advise such things as
“the child should use a pencil not a pen because their writing is neater that way”
“the Christian curriculum is a good one to follow” bias here is a big problem
I was told on more than one occasion (and I know of lots more people who have been told the same) that
the work the child completes has to be named and dated and filed in date and subject order. This goes against
the guidelines that clearly state these are not a requirement. A lot depends on the EHE’s previous role, there
is a correlation between ex teachers being the EHE and demanding a school type approach.
Families are told that they have to follow school hours, that children can only learn when sat to the table.
Doncaster agreed to share my contact details, as I run a local Home Ed group, with other people in the area,
this hasn’t been done, the LA claim that there are many families in the area living in isolation yet they won’t
pass on contacts for the groups.
There is no financial support or advise regarding access to college.
There have been no improvements, there have been many staff changes in this time, some staff have tried
claiming that the Badman recomendations have been made law.
As far as I know there are only the current government guidelines on elective home education, these are left
open to interpretation and misrepresentation, which Doncaster does willingly.
for home educators
I think this needs to be approached with caution, the government response to badly behaved LA’s is that the
current guidelines are not statutory but that the CME guidelines are. The current guidelines are open to
interpretation and misinterpretation, which Doncaster currently does. I would not welcome a change to current
guidelines, beyond them being made clearer and statutory with regards the involvement of the LA with families,
ie that they shouldn’t be asking for visits as routine, that they shouldn’t be asking for evidence in the form of
a child’s work, that they should only be contacting families if they have evidence to show an education isn’t
being provided.
“However, under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities shall intervene if it appears
that parents are not providing a suitable education”
This needs to be clearer as a common excuse heard from the LA’s is that six months since they had contact
is a reason, or that a child being older is a reason. There is ambiguity over whose job it is to decide what a
suitable education is, the law states it is the parent’s responsibility to provide, but LA’s claim it’s their
responsibility to decide.
“Local authorities should bear in mind that, in the early stages, parents’ plans may not be detailed and
they may not yet be in a position to demonstrate all the characteristics of an “efficient and suitable”
educational provision. In such cases, a reasonable timescale should be agreed for the parents to develop
their provision.”
This suggests that the LA can ask for information once the family have deregistered, yet previously the
guidelines say the LA should only be contacting families if it appears an education isn’t being provided!
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Kathryn Smutek

The duties of LAs with regard to home education
Local Authorities have a statutory responsibility under section 436A of the Education Act 1996 to establish
the identities of children in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. Once it is established that a
child is being home educated, the LA then has no duty in relation to monitoring of home educating families
unless it appears that the child is not receiving a suitable education.
Parents have the responsibility to ensure that their children are receiving a suitable education. If a child is
home educated, the parent has the right to educate any way they see fit. The LA is in no position to judge
whether or not education is suitable unless it is absolutely clear that education is being deliberately withheld
from a child.
There are many types of home education ranging from highly structured, to completely autonomous and no
one outside of the home can realistically judge if any method of home education is more suitable than another.
Once an initial inquiry has been made and it has been established that the child is being home educated, the
LA should not need to monitor as it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the educational needs of a
child are being met.
What support, (financial or otherwise) is currently available

The definition of support as used by the government in terms of home educators, is somewhat ambiguous.
Financial support is obvious, it describes the fact that the LAs could offer some financial assistance in some
instances to help with the financial burden of home educating.
However, other types of support offered at present is always be best coming from within the home education
community. To become more supportive, LAs could keep a list (and make it freely available) of individuals or
groups that can offer social, emotional and educational support where it is needed, after school activities,
specialists teachers willing to work with home educated children and so on. LA officers are not best placed to
offer that kind of support at the moment because there is a pre-conceived idea of what education looks like,
and in most cases, LAs want to see as many children in school settings as possible.
In terms of educational support, unless a home education officer is fully aware of, and accepts as valid, all
forms of home education, there can be no real support offered there either. It is clear from the guidelines that
parents take on FULL responsibility for their children’s education, and therefore, the LA can not remove any
of that burden of responsibility. However, individuals within the home education community can provide that
support when necessary as they are better equipped to do so.
In Wiltshire, there is currently no financial support available to home educators.
LAs probably think that the yearly offer of a visit from the EWO responsible for home education in Wiltshire
is their form of support. This is not thought of as a method of support by the home educators that I have
spoken to. While the Wiltshire EWO is not particularly intrusive, she offered me nothing in terms of financial,
social or educational advice or support. In fact, she wasn’t aware of any groups, websites or discounts available
for home educators within the county.
Support available for transition to higher education

Again, in Wiltshire, there is no support or advice offered by the LA that I am aware of though my children
are not yet at this age.
What guidance is available for LAs and the quality of that guidance
The Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make it clear with respect to home education
that, among a list of other things:
— there is no requirement to follow the national curriculum;
— there should be no routine monitoring;
— families do not need to keep to specific hours; and
— parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s education.
There is an expectation that families provide, among other things:
— a stimulating learning experience;
— access to educational materials;
— recognition of needs, aspirations & attitudes to learning; and
— consistent involvement of parents or carers.
I would suggest that home visits would not adequately establish whether these expectations are being
provided. In my view home visits are the least supportive method of establishing educational provision.
This does not appear to be understood by many LAs, including Wiltshire, who on their website suggest three
hours working per day and that children cover maths, English and ICT. It also says that they should cover
“a broad and balanced curriculum” even though the guidelines are explicit in their statement that this is
not necessary.
When a LA can put this on their website and believe this to be true, there is no support being offered. In
fact, a judgement has already been made as to what a suitable education entails, even though there is no legal
definition of one.
For home educators who are not clear on what their legal responsibilities are, this can seem to be quite
directive and as home educators are not required to follow any form of structured education, this is clearly
trying to manipulate people into doing what the LA think is best. The EWO in Wiltshire can then judge each
family on this basis, which in turn makes any support of a completely autonomous style, out of the question.
Does the Government need to alter exisiting policy concerning support available
No. The law is clear. What should change is the LAs understanding of the law and their rigid value
judgements. And there must be consistency between LAs. At the moment, there are so many different
interpretations and it’s a bit of a postcode lottery.
Most people—parents, teachers, LAs believe that education means sitting at desks everybody learning the
same thing as part of a large group. This is not true and is certainly not meeting the individual needs of children.
Having spoken to a number of home educators in Wiltshire, there is a definite sense that the families don’t
want to swap the freedom to educate their children as they see fit for additional services.
When a family decides to home educate, they are aware that they must take on the full financial burden of
doing so. However, there are areas where home educators could gain access to certain services, providing that
additional monitoring and compulsory registration was not the path to access.
Services such as:
— access to free examinations in centres that will accept home educated children;
— subsidised sport, music and language tuition; and
— an easily accessed list of local groups and people to contact for educational, emotional and
social support.
These services could be offered to home educators as groups or individuals, if they wish to tap into them,
without the need for monitoring.
Once a parent decides to home educate, and the LA is notified of this decision, contact could be made to
establish that home education is in fact taking place. A short questionnaire could be filled in to answer questions
such as:
— Are you [still] home educating?
— What methods/resources do you use in your educational provision ie autonomous child led
learning, a formal curriculum, museum visits etc?
— Do you need access to any services that we can offer ie a list of groups, a visit to discuss
specific needs?
This could possibly be repeated annually.
Once this is returned, the family should be left to educate as they see fit UNLESS there is some cause for
concern. If a system such as this were to be introduced it would need to be extremely clear to LAs that this is
the extent to which they can make contact with families.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I look forward to reading the report.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Sophie Butcher

The most important issue in terms of support for us is the continuing recognition of home education as a
feasible and demonstrably effective way for children to learn and achieve fulfilling successful lives.
We would like all local authorities to have a good understanding of home education and ideally for it to be
included in teacher training courses so that teachers have an awareness of it.
For us the support we have received from our home education liaison officer has been very good.
We do not expect financial support from the LEA however, we would be grateful for help with
accommodation for home education groups, as the finding and hiring of a building for any length of time is
always an issue. Perhaps using Children’s Centres or schools without charge when they are not in use would
be a way forward?
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Dr Leslie Barson and Tina Robbins, Members of the Elective Home
Education (EHE) Group
1. Submission by Dr Leslie Barson and Tina Robbins, Members of the Elective Home Education (EHE)
Group which have been and continues to consult with Westminster City Council (WCC). We are both parents
who have home educated our children for a combined 44 years. We have varied experience of providing
support, information and advice to the local home educating community and Dr Barson has lectured and
published widely in the UK and internationally. We have worked with WCC for several years and have built
a good working relationship based on mutual trust and respect. This has been successfully built up due to the
LA Officers openness and understanding of education outside of school. Together with WCC we have written
EHE policy (see web link at end of document for details) that adheres to the law and clearly states home
educators rights whilst also clearly explaining to the Local Authority (LA) their duties and responsibilities with
regard to EHE. This work has included both internal policy writing for the LA and external “Guidance For
Parents” information. WCC are one of the very few LAs in the country that follow the law regarding home
education and our aim is to promote their policy especially as they are soon due to merge this area of work
with both Kensington & Chelsea LA and Hammersmith & Fulham LA-both of which use EHE policies and
practices that are outside their duties.
2. The duties of the LA with regard to home education.

There is no duty on any LA to provide any support for home educating families. The only reference to any
support is via the 2007 EHE Guidelines which suggest that the LAs provide helpful and accurate information
that is generally available.
authorities and other bodies.
Support-financial or otherwise-is inconsistent across the entire country. Any support is discretionary.
4. The quality and accessibility of that support.

Inconsistent across the entire country.
5. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate.

Do not believe that changes to financial support should be discussed until general behaviour of LAs is
improved due to a lack of trust and confrontational attitude by many LAs to home educating families.
6. What support is available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher
education.
In our long experience no specific support due to home education is needed in this transition. Numerous
young people have moved from home education to college and university without any problems related to
home education.
recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee.
We do not give our approval to the Review of Home Education conducted by Graham Badman nor the
subsequent Select Committee Recommendations. Both projects were flawed and demonstrated a serious lack
of understanding of home education and the duties of the state. We do not agree that any of the
Recommendations from either Graham Badman or the Select Committee should be implemented.
the quality of that guidance.
As there is no duty on the LA to support home educators there isn’t any guidance written and we do not
feel that any is necessary.
for home educators.
We reiterate that there currently isn’t any existing policy regarding “support” as there is no requirement for
LAs to provide support. We do not agree that there should be any alternation to this situation.
Speaking more generally though, Section 7 of The Education Act 1996 states clearly the right to home
educate. The 2007 EHE Guidelines are also available to guide an LA through their duties. Whilst this document
does contain errors—which were pointed out once already during the consultation period for this guidance—it
does provide a general guide for LAs. We do not need to produce new and unnecessary documentation. Instead
the 2007 EHE Guidelines should instead be corrected so that they are fully in line with the law themselves
and this must be done with the direct input of home educators. We need LAs to adhere to the rules set out for
them in law and a process to stop them from committing ultra vires acts and infringing on home educators
rights and lives.
The duty of an LA is to provide truthful and accurate information—based on law—and to behave in a way
that supports the law. The 2007 EHE Guidelines suggest that LAs provide helpful and accurate information
for home educators. A perusal of the information most LAs are distributing to home educators or are using as
internal policy clearly shows that the vast majority of LAs are not fulfilling this duty and are acting outside of
their remit. These problems need to be addressed and the offending LAs stopped before any discussions
regarding support can be embarked upon.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Mohammed Chowdhury

I have been home educating my daughter for almost four years. When I first took her out of school, the
policy on elective home education on the council’s (Waltham Forest) website was atrocious. It focused entirely
on their need to see something resembling school recreated at home and requiring “evidence of 25 hours a
week structured work” without any respect for alternative educational philosophies or even that, for a family
who chooses a structured style of learning , 25 hours one-to-one is completely unnecessary. It was re-written
about a year ago and was much better, although still insisted they had a duty to monitor provision. I have just
looked on their website to clarify details and could not find any reference to elective home education. The last
time this happened was when the policy was rewritten. I have seen more ultra vires practices emerging in the
policies of other LAs over the past few months and hope this is not to happen here.
The single most important support the local authority could offer home educators is to understand fully the
limit of their responsibilities under the law and stick to it!
The most recent contact I have had with them was when known home educators were invited to a meeting
with them to discuss a possible home ed forum. The main reason for this was budgetary, ie the funding had
been cut to enable them to make visits. They hoped home educators would come to these forum meetings BUT
(and this was critical for me), if the meetings did not meet our needs, they understood we would vote with
our feet.
I have no objection to offers to support, eg they spoke of willingness to apply for the funding for exams for
14–16 year olds and the possibility of setting up a home ed exam centre, both of which would be extremely
useful in a few years time. However, most of what they were offering was actually very negative. This included
checking what you were doing to see if it was suitable (as though this was beyond a mere parent’s capability).
They repeatedly stressed that they would help you out find a school place, which echoed the negative tone of
their original policy, which put a huge emphasis on what they would do if they deemed you to be failing. It
serves to undermine parents in their duty and responsibility to their children.
It would be very useful if the funding and access to an exam centre was made available, but I would like to
be made very clear that not accepting funding or use of the centre should NOT be taken as evidence of failure
to provide a suitable education.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Professor Bruce Stafford

Summary
This memorandum considers systemic shortcomings in the provision of information, advice and services to
home educators. It highlights shortcomings in providing effective leadership by a number of bodies including
the Department for Education and Directors of Children’s Services. It also considers some factors that might
affect the demand for support services, specifically the “conditionality” that might be attached to the receipt of
support services.
Key recommendations are:
(a) The removal of home education from those units of child services that deal with “problematic”
cases-home education should not be seen as a “problem” because of where it is located
structurally within local councils.
(b) Introduction of an accredited registration scheme for Elective Home Education officers in order
to improve the quality of the information, advice and support they provide.
(c) The co-production of support services for home education, in particular the engagement of
home educators in the design of national and local support policies.
(d) That the introduction of support services must not be used as an opportunity to establish a de
facto registration and monitoring scheme.
(e) Any support services should be made universally available in order to ensure parity with school-
based provision and to maximise take-up and minimise administrative costs and disincentive
effects.
1 Introduction
1.1 This memorandum considers why so many local authorities choice not to give a honest explanation of
the law and associated guidance on home education. It argues that this “misinformation” and related
“misconduct” is due to system-wide or institutional failings that need to be addressed before any effective
support system can be provided. It also discussed some factors that need further consideration if additional
support was to be provided to home educators by local authorities. A number of recommendations are made.
1.2 In drafting the memorandum the author draws upon over 30 years experience of applied public and
social policy research and nearly six years of sharing responsibility for home educating the youngest of his
four children.
1.3 The Committee’s inquiry into support for home education is to be commended. It is both timely and
raises some important, but challenging, policy and practical issues. This memorandum is focused on the
institutional or system wide aspects of support and issues that could affect the demand for support services.
2 The Support System

2.1 Research studies show that there are many different reasons why families choose to educate at home and
different ways of delivering elective home education. If policies to support home education are to be cost-
effective this heterogeneity in motivation and provision must be taken into account throughout the policy
process. Moreover, it implies that a “one size fits all” support system is inappropriate, rather it needs to be:
— Voluntary.
— Co-designed and, when appropriate, co-produced with home educators.
— Personalised-tailored to meet individuals’ needs by offering choice and being responsive rather
than designed to meet producers’ interests.
— Timely.
— Evidence based.
— Accessible.
— Fair-incorporate a means of redress.
2.2 The support provided by local authorities includes information on the law and associated guidance and
in-kind services. Funding for Further Education courses or Special Educational Needs support can also be
provided by local authorities via the Dedicated Schools Grant scheme.
2.3 Whilst there is no representative survey data on local authorities and the services they provide to home
educators, there has been since the publication of the Review into Home Education in 2009, ample evidence
posted on blogs and social media of misinformation and poor practice. Local authorities can misrepresent the
law; vital information on the legal status and rights of home educators is omitted, or even incorrect statements
are made. In some instances misinformation is corrected following lobbying of councils by home educators.
Reported examples of misconduct include local staff erroneously insisting that children cannot be deregistered
for 20 days once withdrawn from school, or involving Educational Welfare Officers and insinuating to people
new to home education that a visit from one is compulsory, and insinuating that a visit from an Elective Home
Education official is compulsory. Other submissions will, no doubt, provide further examples and case studies
of local authorities (and other organisations) failure to provide accurate and accessible information and of
misconduct. Home educators are receiving a standard of service from some local authorities that the public
and policy makers would not tolerate for other public services.
2.4 Although systematic evidence on prevalence is lacking, negligent and unprofessional behaviour by local
authorities appears to be widespread. The poor practice observed cannot be simply attributed to a small number
of “rotten boroughs”, rather it highlights systemic shortcomings. Possible reasons for such extensive and blatant
disregard of the law and guidance includes:
(a) Department for Education failure to ensure its own guidance is adhered to by local authorities.
The Department might argue that it is the responsibility of local authorities to administer home
education policy and that it has no powers to intervene at local level. However, it is the
Department’s guidance, and as it does not specify any means of redress in its guidance nor has
it established an alternative means for redressing poor local authority performance, it has a
moral duty to respond to home educators concerns. If the “Open Public Services” agenda is to
be implemented effectively, the Department has a responsibility to ensure that citizens choosing
to home educate can exercise control over local services to ensure accountability to users. Until
this is done, the Department has to provide effective leadership and represent the user
group-home educators-where there is evidence of poor quality local authority performance.
(b) Directors of Children’s Services both individually and collectively through The Association of
Directors of Children’s Services Ltd (ADCS) must bear responsibility for a failure to give
sufficient priority to taking measures to ensure their staff follow the law and provide full and
transparent information which is required to empower users.
(c) The Local Government Association, which seeks to improve Councils’ performance, has failed
to provide leadership and training to councillors on home education matters, which arguably
means that oversight of staff is not as robust as it should be.
(d) Organisationally, local authority Elective Home Education staff tend to be located with staff
dealing with children facing safeguarding issues. The risk is that Elective Home Education staff
internalise a culture that is focused on safeguarding rather than educational issues and, indeed,
is predisposed to be suspicious of education delivered outside of schools.
(e) A lack of clarity over the relationship between the guidance for elective home education and
children missing education. The latter, unlike the former, is statutory, but refers to the home
education guidance. Local authority staff appear to assume that the children missing guidance
gives them powers to assess the suitability of home education, but as the home education
guidance makes clear, this is not the case. This incorrect impression has not been rigorously
and properly challenged by the bodies mentioned above. Although the two sets of guidance
seek to be clear on this matter, further clarification would seem to be necessary given the extent
of local authority maladministration in this area.
2.5 The poor quality of the information and service provided by some local authorities is troublesome. Such
flagrant beach of the law and guidance does raise the wider question of whether there are other public services
where local authorities are failing to provide accurate information. The “Open Public Services” agenda is
dependent upon the provision of reliable and accurate information to citizens. Government should conduct an
audit of the information local authorities provide across a range of public services to assess its quality.
2.6 The institutional underpinnings of this poor standard of service, demands radical reform. Possible
measures include the removal of home education from those units of child services that deal with “problematic”
cases. Home education should not be seen as a “problem” because of where it is located structurally within
local councils. There is also a case for a registration scheme for Elective Home Education officers in order to
improve the quality of the information, advice and support they provide. The current arrangements and levels
of training are not fit for purpose. Officials dealing with home education need to demonstrate accredited
professional competence (knowledge and skills) and, to ensure compliance by local authorities, staff should
not be allowed to practice unless registered. The opportunity should be taken to involve home educators in
determining the knowledge and skills that staff should possess.
3 Support Services
3.1 Services could be in-kind (eg access to examinations) or cash (vouchers, grants or low cost loans). The
level of demand from home educators for local support services is unknown. One of the issues that could affect
demand is the “conditionality” attached to the use of any services that are provided. Issues that need to be
considered include:
(a) Whether the service users will have to register with the local council to have access to a service.
The conduct of the Review into Elective Home Education damaged relationships between
central and local government and many home educators. Any expansion of services for home
educators must not be used as a “backdoor” for establishing a de facto registration scheme.
(b) Whether monitoring of child outcomes and performance will be required. Again, the distrust
engendered by the 2009 Review means that the utilisation of services will be low unless it is
made clear by councils that the offer of support is not a ruse for assessing the suitability of a
child’s education.
(c) Whether entitlement to support is means-tested. Given resource constraints, councils might wish
to target support services on those with low incomes. However, means-testing of any support
has a number of potential disadvantages. First, it would be inequitable, as families using schools
to educate their children are not means-tested. Secondly, it adds to the complexity and hence
costs of administration. Thirdly, means-testing will have work and savings disincentive effects.
Fourthly, it will lead to a lower take-up rate. Hence any support should be “universal”-available
to all home educators.
3.2 Recent cuts in public expenditure, together will expected further cuts in the next Spending Review,
suggest that local authorities will find it difficult to resource additional services for home educators. Even if
additional resources were provided via the grant settlement including the Dedicated Schools Grant, it might
require a statutory duty on local authorities to provide support for home education.
3.3 In developing a portfolio of services for home education, councils must not assume that they know what
services users need. There is an opportunity for central and local government to demonstrate their commitment
to service user engagement. Some home educators would welcome the chance to be involved in the planning
and delivery of support services for home education.
4. Conclusion
The Open Public Service White Paper provides a framework within which to consider the development of
support services for home education. Accordingly, it is important to provide support services that home
educators want—this means that local authorities must (for the first time in some cases) listen to home educators
and give
“… them greater choice and control; genuine information on outcomes; and a stronger role for their
communities. Improvements will be driven by putting the needs of citizens before producer interest, by
using data transparency to put real information in people’s hands …”
HM Government (2012) Open public services 2012
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by J Spriddle

1.1 Coventry City Council’s website sets out its policy regarding Home Education here:
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/info/1/school-home_schooling/364/educating_your_child_at_home_elective_
home_education
And in a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) here:
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/faqs/1/school-home_schooling
1.2 According to their website, Coventry’s LA appears to overstate their remit as follows:
1.2.1 The LA has a duty in law to monitor that children who are “educated otherwise than at school”
receive suitable education.
1.2.2 The LA has a duty to ensure that children educated at home are receiving “efficient, full time
education, that is suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they
may have”.
1.2.3 Parents must inform the Director of Children, Learning and Young People of their intention to
home educate in writing.
1.2.4 If the child is in school, deregistration involves writing to both the Headteacher of the school
and the LA.
1.2.5 If a child has never been to school, parents must register with the LA so that the education
being provided can be monitored.
1.2.5 Failure to register may result in prosecution.
1.2.6 Further to this, in the case of parents who live apart, the LA will take steps to contact the non
resident parent to ensure they are in agreement over the decision to home educate.
1.2.7 To determine if the education the parent is providing is appropriate, the Home Education Officer
will arrange a home visit to assess that education. Parents are required to fill in a questionnaire.
1.2.8 Additional areas for discussion are adequate record keeping and arrangements for public
examinations.
1.2.9 This meeting can take place elsewhere but the parent needs to provide evidence of the education
they are planning or providing.
1.2.10 The Home Education will need to see the child so they can be assured of their continued
well being.
1.2.11 If the Education Officer is satisfied that the arrangements are appropriate, a follow up visit will
be arranged in a year to monitor the child’s progress and review arrangements.
1.2.11.1 If the Education Officer is not satisfied with the provision, they will tell the parent and
explain the reasons why. The Officer will make some practical suggestions as to how to
improve the provision.
1.2.11.2 If the Officer has minor concerns about the arrangements they will arrange another visit
in three months to give you time to develop/improve the provision.
1.2.11.3 If the Officer has major concerns about the arrangements they will arrange another visit
in one month.
1.2.11.4 If after six months, they’re still not satisfied Coventry will apply for a School
Attendance Order.
1.3 The LA has no duty to monitor home educated children as quoted in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. Responsibility for
ensuring children are receiving a suitable education lies solely with the parents.
1.4 There is no legal requirement as claimed by the LA in 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6. To deregister, parents
must inform the Headteacher in writing at which point the Headteacher must take the child’s name off the roll
and it is down to the school to inform the LA. If a child has never registered with a school, parents need take
no further action.
1.5 Surely the claim in 1.2.6 is a matter that rests with the parents? If there is a disagreement, then it is a
domestic issue to be resolved between the parents, who may involve outside mediators or involve the courts
in the last resort. This is none of the LA’s business!
1.6 There is no statutory requirement for parents to register or fill in any forms, no matter how much the
council might like them to. There is no requirement for a visit as described in 1.2.7, unless the parents would
like one.
1.7 There is no requirement for parents to keep records of the education they are providing other than for
their own satisfaction. Examinations are a matter for the individual child’s needs and not of immediate concern
to the LA regardless of what the LA may claim (1.2.8).
1.8 At no point does Coventry make it clear any visits are optional. No mention of other ways of engaging
with the LA-for example writing a educational philosophy and submitting a report. Evidence is not required
unless the council has doubts that an education is being provided in which case they should ask for specific
evidence to address their concerns.
1.9 Home Education is not a cause for concern about a child’s welfare. The HE Officer has no duty or
requirement under law to see the child as claimed in 1.2.10.
1.10 The LA has no duty to routinely monitor a child’s progress nor the education that is being provided.
1.11 I’ve no idea if 1.2.11 is reasonable or not, but given the rest of the website I’d be questioning whether
they’d get the SAO if the parents chose to challenge them. All of this seems to be a huge waste of Council
resources!
1.12 Whilst I am a parent, I am not a home educator at the time of writing and therefore have no experience
of support as it is delivered in Coventry and how it may or may not differ from that described on Coventry’s
website. However, if I relied in Coventry’s LA for information relating to home education then I would be
severely misled according to their website. I am left wondering how many parents are unwittingly complying
with this ultra vires policy as they simply take it at face value and believe what the Council tells them.
2.1 In Coventry, the answer to this seems to be very little-if you elect to home educate you are on your own.
2.1.1 No help given in arranging examinations
2.1.2 No financial support available at all, be that to cover educational materials, examination fees,
specialist tuition or sporting activity
2.1.3 No support to find suitable work experience placements for young people

3.1 Not applicable.

4.1 Currently there appear to be no arrangements for financial support available to parents who choose to
home educate. I cannot comment on arrangements for funding that are available to Coventry LA.
4.2 However, it does seem unfair that home educating parents are not supported financially. After all, they
presumably still pay their taxes which would normally be duly allocated to schools for the provision of their
children’s education. I would like to see some financial support made available to home educating parents who
would like it (any such acceptance of financial assistance to be voluntary).
5.1 I am unaware of any LA or government support for home educated students’ transition into further or
higher education.
6.1 Not applicable.
7.1 The Guidance for LAs on Elective Home Education—published in November 2007 appear to be quite
detailed and suitable for purpose.
7.2 However, Coventry do not seem to have read it. Or if they have read it are willfully ignoring it.
for home educators
8.1 The first thing I would like to see is home education portrayed in a more positive light and given equal
status to schools in the eyes of those agencies who “support” it.
8.1.1 To this end, I suggest that responsibility and reporting lines for elective home education be
placed with positive education resources such as Libraries, Parks, Museums, Theatres or other
places of educational interest.
8.1.2 This would remove any stigma by association with negative or problem services which are
frequently managed under the same umbrella with current arrangements (eg school attendance,
children missing education, children’s services, pupil referral units). Such services place a
strong emphasis on children needing to be in school, which will inevitably carry over into
dealings with home educating families.
8.1.3 Placing the administration of EHE services with other educational resources would likely also
have the effect of increasing the availability and knowledge of those resources amongst home
educating families.
8.2 I consider it unfair that there are no funds or useful support available to home educating parents and
their children. I would like to see optional financial support available for those families who would like it.
Optional, for such is the distrust being fostered by the ultra vires behaviour described under question 1, that
some home educating parents will view any such offering with great suspicion.
8.2.1 I suggest that a small budget be made available to home educating families via a dedicated
education debit card. The card should be accepted for payment of educational materials,
resources, sports facilities or entrance into places of educational interest.
8.2.2 Maintaining a list of authorised educational outlets or sites would be a valid use of any EHE
team within the LA.
8.3 Rather than harassing law abiding home educating parents, why don’t Coventry’s LA work at providing
optional resources for those that would like them?
8.3.1 For example, coming up with a list of educational resources or outlets which may be of interest
to home educating families.
8.3.2 Negotiating discounts for the purchase of educational materials, resources, use of sports
facilities and entrance into places of educational interest.
8.3.3 Perhaps arranging optional group meetings where families can engage with their LA
(anonymously if they wish it) and learn what the LA can offer them.
8.3.4 Subsidised training courses for home educating parents who wish to take them up, allowing
them to improve their own skill set which they would in turn be able to pass onto their children.
8.4 Help with locating examination centres and funding for taking nationally recognised examinations on a
par with school children should be available for those home educating families who would welcome it. Any
such assistance should be flexible, recognising that home educated young people may choose to take many
examinations, no examinations at all, start them young compared to their schooled counterparts or delay them.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Elaine Hallows

ACCESS TO EXAMINATION FACILITIES FOR HOME EDUCATED CHILDREN IN STOCKPORT
Background
1. We are a family of home educators of ten years’ experience, with two sons now aged fifteen and thirteen.
We live in Stockport, Cheshire.
2. I wish to report on home educators in Stockport efforts to access examination venues. There are currently
approximately fifty electively home educating (EHE) families in Stockport, and a principal and recurring issue
in the EHE community here is that there is no identified school or college in the Borough that will offer exam
facilities for independent candidates to gain formal academic qualifications. Individual home educators who
approach local schools with a request tend to be rejected without any discussion; this applies to both state and
independent schools. Our experience is mirrored in many other areas of the country.
3. The difficulties often faced by EHE families in finding exam centres can be multiple, and I am sure are
well-documented in other petitioners’ reports. I will reiterate briefly that independent examination candidates
meet with rejection from schools because:
4. Schools may perceive that allowing EHE candidates to sit exams at their venue is undesirable as it would
require additional time and administration for staff. Allowing access would indeed involve a small amount of
staff input, but home educators are well aware of this and always willing to pay a reasonable administration fee.
5. It is felt amongst both home educators and other education professionals with whom I have discussed the
unwillingness of schools to come forward, that as EHE children are an unknown quantity their exam results
may adversely affect the school’s statistical returns and league table position. Schools need to be made aware
that they are able to exclude
Independent candidates’ results from their statistical returns. (I would add that EHE children tend to perform
well in examinations)
6. Schools may also fear that if they offered facilities they may receive an unmanageable increase in requests
from EHE candidates from both inside and outside the borough. That this may happen highlights how much
at least one identified exam centre is needed in each borough.
7. As GCSE syllabuses frequently include a coursework requirement, EHE families often prefer to study
IGCSE. Schools can be unaware or uninterested in that fact that if they are registered as a GCSE exam centre
they are also able to offer IGCSE. In practise they simply need to request the exam board for an additional set
of papers.
8. Because of the situation, candidates can spend much time searching for a venue which offers facilities
appropriate for the studies they are undertaking and then have to travel outside the borough (sometimes great
distances) to sit their exams. They often also incur great expense using private tutorial college facilities that
may charge hundreds of pounds per examination session.
9. Because of the time-consuming complexities of the current situation and individual home educators’
repeated rejection when they approach schools in Stockport, and because there are examples of good practice
demonstrated in two neighbouring local authorities (Trafford and Manchester), between June and August 2010
a group of Stockport home educators held meetings with the Stockport MBC Partnership Support Officer. At
his suggestion we submitted a written Request to Access Facilities and Services. The document outlined several
areas in which local EHE families would benefit from support, but primarily seeking the LA’s advocacy in
entering into an arrangement with a school or college as an identified exam centre. The proposal was that the
LA representative should liaise with any interested school, advocate for us on any perceived and actual
difficulties which may arise, and that families would be willing to pay an administration fee for using the
facility; the document cited good practice in neighbouring boroughs and gave contact details for one LA
representative who is proactive on EHE families’ behalf. This Request was submitted to Stockport MBC on
behalf of eleven EHE families on 2 August 2010; I drafted it in consultation with the other home educators
and have been the leading contact on this issue since its submission. I present here in this Report my own
personal view of the process which followed.
10. Home educators are of course aware that schools are under no obligation to open their facilities to us,
and that the Local Authority is under no obligation to to assist us. We approached the LA in the belief to do
so would add weight to our petitions to local schools; also because the LA professes an interest in the
educational “progress” of home educated children, and that for the child to undertake examinations is the
logical outcome of this process, as with school peers.
Outcome
1. Over the last two years there has been no tangible progress, despite a considerable amount of effort on
my own part, time and effort that I would rather have invested in my children’s actual education.
2. We have been told by the Local Authority representative that advocacy on our behalf has been made
towards schools in Stockport, but progress cannot be determined as any documentary evidence, ie minutes of
meetings, has not been made available. In spring 2012 we were informed that (unidentified) schools had shown
some interest in the proposal, and some twenty home educators received a form to fill in with projected
requirements, ie numbers of children and the examinations they may wish to undertake in summer 2013 and
2014. Some families submitted this information in hope of progress, but we are now told it will be further
weeks before it is circulated to schools; and further, that discussions will probably not go forward if only one
school shows an interest—that two or more venues are required. I can assure the Committee that home
educators would be satisfied with one! I regret to report that there are weeks and months of delay without
explanation or contact, and I do feel now that we will receive no assistance from the LA. We have also been
directed to a private tutorial college in an outlying area; however, the registration and exam fees charged by
this venue excludes its use by many home educators.
3. My sons and I are increasingly engaged in formal study, and due to time constraints I have now withdrawn
from liaising on this issue with the LA.
4. EHE families are well aware of the multiple roles and pressures increasingly placed upon local government
employees, and budgetary constraints; also that as home educators are in general well-behaved and quiet they
are not a priority. I do say however that if we had been given a definite statement that we would not or could
not be assisted we would have ceased our petition and concentrated our efforts elsewhere. The LA are in a
difficult position regarding home educators—they wish to maintain contact and a degree of surveillance over
known EHE families, while offering no real incentive to these families to engage; I do feel that Stockport
home educators have been “kept dangling” on this issue in order to retain this contact. This process has for
our family now tested whether a tangible incentive to maintain a relationship with the LA exists and found it
does not.
5. NB At the outset of the process in summer 2010 the LA representative did make enquiries regarding the
use of a Pupil Referral Unit in a neighbouring borough as a possible exam venue for EHE children, but some
families were of the view that there are disadvantages to using a PRU. (The venue’s name is displayed
prominently on examination certificates, and it was felt that having used a PRU may be prejudicial when the
certificate is shown to a prospective employer or college). This line of enquiry was not pursued.
6. I have myself contacted almost every state and independent school in Stockport to enquire, without getting
beyond an initial introduction, except at one school where my son was offered a place to take his GCSE Maths
exam only. I do feel that the rejections are due to the misconceptions outlined above, and that they could be
dispelled by proactive advocacy.
7. After much searching inside and outside Stockport, our family have met with success with one state
school in Manchester (where we were welcomed hospitably and not charged any administration fee) and an
independent school in Oldham (where we paid a reasonable admin fee). Both of these schools have
demonstrated how efficiently and easily an external candidate can be accommodated, ie the Exam Officer
requests one additional exam paper from the appropriate examining board and charges an admin fee if they
wish to. It is absolutely straightforward.
8. Home educators inform others when they locate exam centres outside the local area, but I do maintain
that at least one named venue for independent candidates in each borough would be of great benefit to EHE
young people.
Comments and Suggestions
1. I look forward to the results of the Select Committee Inquiry process, and to action being taken to make
clear what the duties of local authorities towards home educators are.
2. I also ask the Select Committee to make explicit what tangible assistance can be given to home educators
at this period of financial cuts to local authorities.
3. My suggestion is that as a result of the Select Committee Enquiry, a document is circulated to all local
authorities and schools outlining the facts pertaining to home educated independent exam candidates and the
actual ease of offering facilities. This document should particularly emphasise that results do not have to be
included in the venue’s statistical returns, and also the financial incentive.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by David Hough

1. This submission considers the duties of local authorities towards home educators, and the implications of
accepting, or not accepting support from a local authority.
2. I am a home educator and, along with my wife, have been home educating our son for several years now.
He has never been to school because we considered that we could do a better job and give him more of a
childhood than the school system.
3. Although the committee is not looking at the welfare of home educated children, it should be aware that
many local authorities conflate education and welfare and that this colours their perception of what duties they
may have.
4. All duties for local authorities stated in law regarding home educated children start from section 437 of
the Education Act 1996, where they are required to act if it appears that a suitable education is not being
provided. All other powers given to local authorities, to make enquiries and ultimately to impose a School
Attendance Order, require this initial step. As written it is good; parents are assumed to be carrying out their
duty under section 7 of the 1996 Act to provide an education, all in accordance with the presumption of
innocence under UK law.
5. However, many local authorities wrongly consider that they have to explicitly approve the education being
provided before parents can start, and inspect it annually, or sometimes at more frequent intervals. Sometimes
this is allied to claims that because a home educated child is shut away and never meets “professionals”, they
need to have sight of the child once a year for welfare reasons. In some local authorities, when a parent refuses
a home visit by an inspector, this is given as the reason why they must agree to a visit or be referred to
social services.
6. Many local authorities misquote the words of Lord Donaldson in his judgement on Phillips v Brown from
1980 to support their claim for annual monitoring. This judgement pre-dates much of the legislation in force
now, and should have a much narrower scope than that given to it by local authorities. The judgement concerned
a child who had come to the notice of the LEA, which was attempting to determine the educational status of
the child. This is now covered by the duty of an LA under section 436A of the 1996 Act to discover children
missing education in their area. Once a child has been established as being home educated, duty under this
section is satisfied and the provisions of section 437 apply, as mentioned above.
7. To further emphasise the lack of duty for monitoring, the EHE Guidelines for Local Authorities issued in
2007 state quite clearly in section 2.7 that “Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring
the quality of home education on a routine basis.”
8. The quality of information about home education provided on local authority websites is highly variable
and much of it is inaccurate, especially when it comes to claims about local authority powers. The committee
chairman has remarked on this himself in the debate on the last Education Bill. To add to the examples he
provided, the current Barking and Dagenham EHE policy1 stands out as particularly bad, as does the Newham
website2 where they claim that not only must the parents meet with an LA official but that the child must be
present in order that his views can be elicited. The current and draft new policy provided by Doncaster3 in
response to a recent FOI request are even more confusing, where they state “Local authorities are required to
ensure that parents/carers carry out their responsibilities to provide for their children an efficient full-time
education (Education Act 1996 Section 446)”. Section 446 states: “Proceedings for an offence under section
443 or 444 shall not be instituted except by a local education authority.” So, not only does it claim powers for
the authority, it backs them up with what looks like a good reference until one actually goes to read it.
9. Some local authorities are very blatant in their belief that all children should be in school, which does not
exactly encourage home educators to engage with them. Somerset’s website4 states “Somerset Local Authority
believes in the value of school-based education but respects the rights of parents and carers to elect to educate
their children at home.”
10. Thurrock Council’s website5 states that “The law makes the Local Education Authority (Thurrock
Borough Council) responsible for ensuring the education given to children at home is suitable”. In their elective
home education procedure document, they highlight an important note: “We would hope parents seeking to
educate their children at home would see the LA’s contact as supportive and constructive. We are anxious to
act in the best interests of every child. For this reason, lack of co-operation with the EWO and/or Pupil
Improvement Officer will be treated as a cause for concern. Whilst these visits are not mandatory, the LA must
have some means of discharging its duty to determine the suitability of the education provided, and its statutory
powers in respect of cases where the education is not suitable. Refusal to allow access to the home or the
child, and/or refusal to produce evidence of the work being undertaken, may cause the authority to involve
other agencies in checking on the welfare of the child”. In other words, “Do as we say or else”, and a clear
example of the attitude mentioned in paragraph 3 above.
11. The net effect of all this bad practice from local authorities in claiming duties and powers is an
atmosphere of distrust. It is significant that a large number of home educators who have had the option, remain
unknown to their local authority, because there are few, if any, benefits from becoming known, and plenty of
disadvantages in having to deal with annual requests for visits or information. Where trust had been built up
in some areas over the years, much of it evaporated over the content of Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill in 2009/
2010, especially as some local authorities seem to have based their procedures on an assumption that this
would become law.
12. Despite this, there are a few local authorities where, often due to the efforts of individual officers, a
good working relationship exists between the authority and local home educators. Some families are happy to
have annual visits from the inspector, although this can be down to the attitude and approach of an inspector
who fully understands the nature of home education and the wide range of approaches in use instead of just
school-at-home studying the National Curriculum with workbooks.
13. It is against this backdrop of local authority behaviour that attempts to introduce services for home
educators must stand. While there are good authorities, and bad ones, a change of staff due to retirement or
promotion can change a local authority from good to bad or vice versa overnight. The lack of trust in, and the
attitude of, a local authority means that home educators who are unknown to their local authority may prefer
to remain unknown despite the offer of reasonable and helpful support.
14. Some home educators, having rejected the state system want nothing from the state and will regard any
attempt at offering services as a back door method to discover all the unknown home educators, or at least
apply undue pressure to “service refusers” on the basis that refusing to take up an offered service implies that
something is wrong.
15. Others, possibly with children in their teenage years, may look at the level of exam fees and think that
perhaps it wouldn’t be too bad if the local authority would pay them, or have found a course at a Further
Education College but discover that they’re expected to pay the fees and would welcome assistance with that
cost. Obviously in these cases, there is only a limited time before a child ages out of the system so exposure
to the local authority is much reduced.
16. Some, who are possibly home educating reluctantly because they would have their child in school if
only some issue, for which they hold the local authority to blame, was fixed, may consider that the authority
should be paying their costs.
17. With any offered service, there are problems that judgements may be made either against those who
choose to use the service, or those who choose not to. While not directly related to home education, there have
been cases where families have contacted their local authority for help or advice, only to find that they are
then considered delinquent in some way and a simple request for help results in a major battle with social
services. Given the way many local authorities seem to classify home education as a welfare risk, this is not
necessarily an unfounded fear. On the refusal side, if exams were funded, it is possible that a future Secretary
of State would note that, for example, only 30% of home educated children were sitting Maths GCSE and
action would be taken to put pressure on families to boost that number. Some children choose not to take
GCSEs, possibly going straight to A-levels or some other option, and so state pressure to waste time gaining
an irrelevant (to the child) qualification would not be welcome.
18. Non-statutory services offered by local authorities vary widely across the country. Some are claiming
alternative provision funding, some are looking at how they might do so and others have no intention of
claiming funding. Because the money is paid by central government in arrears, it may be that cash-flow is an
issue for some authorities. In other cases, refusal to claim the funding appears to be down to the attitude of
the local authority towards home education in general.
19. Because until recently there was no government funding for home education, any support offered by
local authorities was very much down to individual authorities, and in many cases, down to individuals who
were willing to allocate funds from their limited general budget.
20. One important form of support that home educating families are losing is the ability to study Open
University modules. For some children, this is a good alternative to GCSEs and A-levels, and is better suited
to their way of learning. With the changes to university fees, this has now become a prohibitively-expensive
option.
Recommendations
21. The existing EHE guidance, despite apparently being clear on monitoring, is obviously not clear enough
to local authorities and needs to be reinforced.
22. Local authorities need to be made to separate welfare issues from home education and to stop using
welfare as a justification for claiming powers they don’t have.
23. If funds are available from central government for a particular service then a local authority should be
required to apply for it if requested by a family and not simply refuse. There should be no cap applied by the
local authority.
24. It should be made explicitly clear that local authority services for home educators are optional and that
no pressure should be brought upon those who choose or refuse those services.
25. The cost of OU modules for home educated children should be brought back to its pre-fees level. To
minimise bureaucracy, this could be done by allowing the OU to claim funding directly from central
government instead of via each individual local authority.
July 2012
References
1. http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/Education/Documents/ElectiveHomeEducationpolicy.doc
2. http://www.newham.gov.uk/educationandlearning/schools/electivehomeeducation/whatshouldyoudoifyou
wanttoeducateyourchildathome.htm
3. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/elective_home_education_informat_2
https://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/public/services/directory/service?rid=/wpccontent/Sites/SCC/Web%20Pa
ges/Services/Services/CYP/Request%20advice%20on%20home%20education
Written evidence submitted by Autism in Mind (AIM)

Executive Summary
1. Autism In Mind (AIM) is an autism support and campaign group that was formed in 2001. AIM supports
parents and carers of children in school and those who educate their children at home
1.1 HE-Special UK is a website and email list which is more than 10 years old that supports parents and
carers who home educate or are considering home educating children and young people who have Special
Educational Needs and Disability SEND. It is run by volunteers who are already home educating their children
with a wide range of SEND—www.he-special.org.uk
2. We work together because AIM and HE-Special UK are the two groups who actively support parents who
are home educating their children who have autism and other disabilities and special needs.
Purpose of the Inquiry

3. We fully understand that this Inquiry is looking for firm evidence about what is taking place between
Local Authorities and Home Educators. However parents who are educating their SEND children at home
often have a difficult or fractured relationship with their Local Authority. Parents who have children with
SEND have often left the school system after a protracted fight for services and provision which they believe
their children need. Some of these parents have spent years fighting to have the needs of their children met. A
protracted fight can leave some parents in a position of conflict with their schools and their Local Authorities.
Because parents who are home educating their SEND children are often in a minority of home educators within
a Local Authority, parents who have responded to our joint call for information to be fed into this Inquiry do
not feel comfortable with us giving the name of their Local Authority to this Inquiry as it could lead to them
being identified. Parents who have children with SEND are often vulnerable themselves. We have therefore
not identified the Local Authorities that parents have referred to. We could possibly do so privately if required.
We believe that the views and opinions of these parents are valid and need to be recorded as all too often
parents who have children with SEND find themselves being pursued by their Local Authority. Some Local
Authorities appear to think that they need to be more watchful of a parent who is home educating a child with
SEND. This includes parents whose children does not have a statement of educational needs.
3.1 As this Inquiry is looking specifically at the support available for home educators, financial or otherwise,
we believe that it is important that the Inquiry understands the difficult relationship that some parents have
with their Local Authority, thus making it difficult for them to approach them for any support that they
may need.
Policy
4. There are still many grey areas within Local Authorities regarding SEND. How a Local Authority reacts
to the reregistration of a child from one of their school is very much a post code lottery. It is also something
of a postcode lottery when it comes to a Local Authority fully understanding what their duties and
responsibilities are towards parents who are home educating their SEND children. Not every child with SEND
has a statement of special educational needs and this means that parents who have children with SEND are
often processed by their Local Authority in two very different ways. Parents who have a child with a statement
can be processed by the SEN team and or Statementing Officer, while parents who have a child with SEND
without a statement are simply processed by the Elective Home Education Team.
Home Education as a Forced Choice.

5. Some parents continue to feel that they were forced into home education as a last resort. For some parents
mainstream and also specialist provision was such a negative experience that felt that they had no choice but
to deregister their child. However these parents then found themselves with little or no support in the education
of their children and with no support financially. Some continue to feel intimidated by their LA.
5.1 Some Local Authorities can react badly when a parent decides to remove their child from one of their
schools. This is despite them being fully aware that the parent believes that the needs of their child are not
being met within school. When this happens the Local Authorities can become intrusive in their endeavours to
ensure that the needs of the child are being met at home. Equally, some Local Authorities are supportive of
the decision by a parent to deregister their child from school supplying the parent with information and the
contact details of groups and others who may be able to support them in their choice.
5.2 Home educators who have fought their Local Authority to have the needs of their children met only to
fail, often mistrust their Local Authority sometimes for valid reasons. Children with SEND and their families
are often misunderstood. Parents often remove their children from school feeling that both the school and the
Local Authority believe that the parents have misrepresented or exaggerated their child’s SEND. Having had
a difficult time in school means that there can be a level of distrust for all officials, and Local Authorities make
it worse by acting over and above the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines. Putting undue pressure on
the families to conform to the Local Authorities idea of what a disability looks like or what an education
should look like. Once the trust between a parent and a Local Authority has been broken building up trust can
take a great deal of time and effort on both parts.
Training
6. More awareness and understanding of Home Education in its many different forms is broadly required by
those who undertake the annual review of a statement when a statement is in place. More SEND specific
training is needed in the Elective Home Education department on how SEND can affect education. Failure to
progress according to some artificial national average is not the same as an education not being provided. More
awareness of the different styles of home education is important as there are still some Local Authorities who
believe that children have to follow a curriculum or structured programme, many of which would be unsuitable
for some children, especially those with Autistic Spectrum Conditions, behavioural difficulties or delayed
development.
6.1 Home education does not have to replicate school; it would make more sense to have home education
officers drawn from areas other than school teachers. Professionals who are members of outreach teams who
support schools maybe a better choice to support families who are educating their SEND child at home. Parents
are telling us that they continue to face difficulties with SEN departments within their Local Authority who
expect their provision to mirror that of the provision a school would provide. This includes those who are
responsible for issuing and upholding statements. A lack of training and understanding of home education is
leaving parents frustrated and often attending two reviews with their child each year when it would make good
sense, and would presumably be more cost effective, for a Local Authority to combine a home education and
statement review.
Outcomes for Children with SEND

7. Parents feel that outcomes and attainment for a child with SEND could be considerably different to
outcomes that are expected for children who conform to what society sees as the norm. Parents who home
educate children with SEND often invest heavily in teaching their children life skills, effective communication
and socialisation skills, all of which will enable their children to live as independently as possible in their adult
lives. These skills are just as important to a child with SEND as academic outcomes and attainments. One
parent feels that curriculums that are rigidly followed are not for many children with autism. They said “It’s
about learning life skills and much, much more. Yes of course we do core subjects but our ‘curriculum’ is far
border than the national curriculum.”
7.1 Parents also believe that socialisation should not be forced upon a child who is struggling to make sense
of the world. “We would not after all expect a child who is deaf to sit through a concert at the Royal Albert
Hall and enjoy it” A child with SEND should not be forced into social situations that they cannot cope with
or are not right for them. Local Authorities often emphasise the importance of socialisation without fully
understanding the disability that the child has.
7.2 Home educators would like to see annual review forms that some Local Authorities send out being
appropriate to them. Looking at levels of attainment that are wrapped wound SATS and P scales are not always
good indicators of the progress that a child with SEND is making. One home educator suggested that they
would like to see “reached a higher level or understanding of skill/knowledge” to help them to measure the
progress that their child has made. One child might be studying quantum physics while another is learning to
hold a spoon. Both are learning and both are increasing their knowledge. For some children they may be
studying quantum physics and learning to hold a spoon at the same time.
Flexi-School
8. Some parents have wanted to flexi-school but because it is at the discretion of the head of the school who
doesn’t necessarily know that flexi-schooling is possible, they were told outright that they cannot. Some
children cannot manage full time school and would benefit more from part time school. Some parents find that
full time home education does not suit them. Sometime it is the Local Authority who makes it difficult for a
parent to flexi-school. They wade in and put a stop to flexi-schooling leaving the parent with no choice but to
home educate their child. There are Local Authorities who operate an unofficial all or nothing policy.
Information about flexi-schooling should be made available to all schools and Home education officers should
be able to help arrange this with the school.
Therapies and Interventions

9. Regardless of where a child is educated they should have the same access to therapies and interventions
as a child who is attending a state school. In the past some Local Authorities have suggested to parents that
their children would no longer be able to access physiotherapy and occupational therapy if they deregister their
child from school. These therapies are available though the NHS which is totally separate to educational
provision. Local Authorities must know this and should not use the removal of a therapy as a threat. Although
this does not appear to be as big an issues as it once was Local Authorities should not use the threat to remove
therapies and interventions from a child as a means of making sure that they remain in a school setting.
9.1 Speech and language therapy (SALT) When this provision is included in part 3 of a statement there is a
legal obligation for the Local Authority to ensure that SALT is provided for that child. If SALT is included in
part 6 of a statement the Local Authority does not have a legal obligation to provide the therapy. Unfortunately
it appears that there are not enough SALT practitioners available which can leave home educators whose
children do not have a statement without any provision.
9.2 Parents are sometimes told that they cannot keep equipment which has been specifically provided for a
child by their Local Authority. We are aware of a case where a family have been told that if they deregister
their child from school they would not be able to take a touch screen computer, which was specifically provided
for the child after an assessment of the child’s needs, home for the child to use. The family were told that they
would only be able to take the touch screen computer home if the child was still registered at school. It is
important that the Local Authorities remember to help arrange for any equipment such as wheelchairs, writing
slopes or communication aids to be available at home, especially if the provision of equipment is written into
the statement.
9.3 Ironically some parents have found it easier to access key professionals in the lives of their children
after deregistering them from school. This is especially true for parents whose child has a statement who have
found that they have had increased access to educational psychologists since removing their child from school.
Exams
10 One area which is often discussed by home educators is exams. Although not all children, especially
those with SEND will want to or be able to take exams, those who wish to do so still find that it is very
difficult to make arrangements for exams. Some Local Authorities produce a list of places where exams are
being sat, but the parents still have to ring each centre to find out if they will take external candidates. Other
Local Authorities are more helpful and help home educators to make arrangements for their children to sit
exams. The cost of exams is beyond what some home educators can afford and despite the guidelines on
drawing down funding for things like exams some Local Authorities are still refusing to fund exams.
Other Support
11. Home Educators have told us of other types of support that they would sometimes welcome. A wide
variety of support has been listed, from just wanting the Local Authorities to accept that Elective Home
Education is a valid method of education, to supplying materials like pencils, books, providing information,
right up to external tutors and access to online learning programmes. One Local Authority had funding for a
programme called Accipio Learning which some families found really useful. It seems that the programme
stopped but the home educators couldn’t understand why more counties as well as their own Local Authority
did not buy more places so that the company could have continued to provide the service.
11.1 One home educator told us that having been made to feel like a criminal when they decided to educate
their child at home there is no way that they would now want any support from their LA. One parent told us
that they felt pressurised into accepting support from her Local Authority and felt that the support was not
something that she could refuse. If a Local Authority has no concerns about the education being provided by
the parent they should not be insisting that the parent accepts support that they do not want. This is not support
it is an intrusion. One parent told us that as soon as they had made the decision to home educate their child
all hell broke loose and that instead of being supported to look at different learning styles that they were
thrown into chaos.
Being Afraid to Ask for Support

12 Some Home Educators are rightly or wrongly afraid that by asking for support from their Local Authority
it will lead to the slippery slope of greater interference with their choice of education. There is also a fear that
Local Authorities will then begin to apply pressure to the parent to get their children back into a school setting.
One parent said “If you invite support in would that mean they then dictate what or how you teach?” One
parent told us that while their Local Authority had confirmed that home educators are under no obligation to
follow the objective they set from the national curriculum. But they are still claiming that they are required to
set objectives and monitor progress towards those objectives for all pupils who have SEND whether they are
home educated of not. Some Local Authorities appear not to know what their duties are and are not where
home education is concerned.
13. Some Home Educators simply do not want support from their Local Authority
Conclusion
14. Support is an issue which continues to divide the home education community. Some parents do not want
support because they are afraid that any offer of support will lead to further legislation and monitoring. Others
do want support but equally do not want further monitoring. Home Educators want the same outcomes; to
supply an education that is suited to their child. The difference is the degree to which people will risk further
involvement with the government. No home educator wishes for unwanted government interference, whether
they ask for support or not.
July 2012
References
“Raising Awareness with One Voice”
http://www.autism-in-mind.co.uk
http://www.actnowforautism.co.uk/index.htm
Written evidence submitted by Nicola Short
In my experience support from LEA officers has not changed since the 2009 report, and financial and other
support for home educating families is inadequate.
I am a home educating parent of children aged 13 and 14 and we have been home educating for eight years.
To provide the education that we feel prepares our children for the adult life ahead of them, in todays society,
we have chosen, as a family, to make changes to our working patterns and both my partner and I now work
part-time to provide the support that we feel our children need. The reduction in working hours has necessitated
a reduction in income.
To date we have received no financial support from the LEA despite both children undertaking GCSE exams
which we have had to fund. This is not helpful in allowing our children to be able to move onto further and
higher education.
It would be extremely helpful for us as a family to have all our exam entry and administration fees met by
the LEA regardless of the age of our children when the sit exams, and for this to include GCSE and equivalent
qualifications, including Open University.
It would be helpful to access GCSE level/equivalent courses run through colleges etc with full funding,
before reaching the age of 16, and without having to register with schools willing to offer flexi-schooling, just
so that we can obtain funding.
Bus passes, enabling free travel for young people could be offered to home educating families, allowing us
to access community resources and home education networks without extreme bus fares which limit both
educational and social opportunities, also encouraging the natural progression of young people towards
independence.
Free, or subsidised, access to LA sporting facilities would help to maintain young persons fitness levels.
Most home educating families do not ask for much support, but a little easing of the additional financial
costs would go a long way towards ensuring that our children and young people are not penalised.
I look forward to receiving information regarding the full report and its outcomes in due course
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Rosemary McGruther

Introduction
1. I am addressing the Select Committee’s question on “the support available for home-educated students’
transition to further education and higher education” specifically with regard to the Open University.
2. I am a home educating parent with two children. My son was educated at home up to the age of 16. Last
fall, when he enrolled at a further education college to do A-levels, he had seven GCSEs/IGCSEs and a
Certificate in French from the Open University. My youngest child is 11.
3. For the past five years I have been an active participant in an online support network organised by and
for parents, aimed at helping home educated children attain recognised exam qualifications ranging from
GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, to Open University certifications. The mutual support of this group allows parents
to benefit from the experiences and resources of other home educators whose children are working to gain
qualifications.
4. The information in this document comes from my own experience, information other home educators
have given me permission to share, and accumulated knowledge derived from the experiences of other parents
participating in the exams support group mentioned above.
Executive Summary
5. The Open University (OU) has been an excellent resource for academically inclined home educated
children. Due to its open access ethos, home educated children have been able to take high quality courses as
a stepping stone to college, to standard Universities, or as part of a full degree with the OU.
6. Home educated children may take Open University courses for a variety of reasons:
— Family financial considerations
— Gifted children
— OU courses may be more relevant to childrens’ interests
— Special Educational Needs
— GCSEs not easily accessible
7. This avenue of support for home educated children will effectively end for new applicants as of September
2012 due to recent changes by the government to funding for part-time University studies.
Overview
The Open University is a well-known and established provider of high-quality distance education and has
consistently been rated by its students as one of the top three universities for student satisfaction. It offers a
variety of awards, from Certificates to post-graduate degrees. It is well respected by employers. Courses are
considered to be well-designed and well-delivered.1
Home educating families choose the OU to provide some or all of their secondary and/or college level
education for a variety of reasons.
Financial Considerations
The costs of taking GCSEs as a private candidate can be prohibitive. My son took seven GCSEs/IGCSEs
during 2010 and 2011 incurring a total cost of £1,766.2 He prepared for some of these solely through studying
textbooks and past papers. For others, he needed additional resources.
Fortunately, I did not pay this all at once. However, we were really at our limit cost-wise, and I was relieved
to find that it was possible to learn a language through the Open University. The only costs for us for this
course were for driving to and parking in Bristol for face-to-face tutor sessions (approximately four per course).
There were no separate arrangements for assessment, as unlike GCSE distance learning, the exams are part of
the OU package.
Here is what family S says about OU language courses:
We chose to study Bon Depart Beginners French with the OU in Wales. It has been a tremendous help to
us. With no funding available for home educators to help with exam costs, it is notoriously difficult to
study languages at home because of the cost of language courses. Not only did the finance help, but the
experience of learning with adults was actually a very positive way to encourage extra maturity and
independence. The course itself requires, of course, exactly the same skills for independent study which a
student would need at University and William’s ability to cope and thrive with the OU is a great confidence
boost to him as well as giving him a real experience of what studying at University involves.
Family J says:
My daughter, now age 16 (school year 11) has used the OU for the Beginners level courses in Spanish
leading to the Certificate in Spanish qualification.
She did this alongside a mixture of IGCSE’s and GCSE’s and is now off to 6th form in September
where they are happy for her to embark on AS Spanish on the strength of what she has done. We chose
this route because neither my husband nor I speak Spanish or have much of a languages background, we
could not afford private tutoring and GCSE Spanish has practical exams which are hard for Home
Educators to access.
As experience providers of distance learning language courses the OU seemed an idea solution and it has
worked very well. My daughter has been able to attend on-line speaking practice tutorials and also some
face to face “real” tutorials. She has been able to talk to other “young applicant” members of the course
to exchange tips and advice with assignments and so has not felt isolated in her studies.
Exam costs are only a small part of the costs of some GCSEs. To learn a language, for instance, paying for
a tutor is almost always necessary. In our family, we realised we did not have the skill sets to help our son
with English Language and Literature GCSE preparation, and so we paid for distance education courses in
addition to the exam fees. Gaining qualifications through the Open University bypasses the need to find and
pay for a tutor, in addition to the cost of exams.
Financial considerations may prevent children from low-income families from taking GCSE exams. Even
middle-income families may find it difficult, especially if more than one child at a time is ready to take exams.
The elimination of the OU as an alternative route to academic qualifications will make it difficult, if not
impossible, for some children to progress to further or higher education.
Child is Gifted
Children who have done GCSEs early, at age 12 to 14, still have two years of compulsory education.
However, children who are gifted academically do not necessarily have the equivalent emotional maturity that
would allow them to begin college early. The OU offers lots of scope for high-ability children, but also allows
them to stretch their minds while remaining at home.
OU Courses Can be More Relevant to Childrens’ Interests

The Open University has a wide variety of course offerings. Often the subject matter in their courses is very
different from that of GCSEs. This means that children may find a course more relevant to their interests than
the equivalent GCSE.
Family J continues:
We were disappointed to come across the changes in funding at the OU for the future because we have a
son, currently age 13, whom we had hoped would be able take a number of OU courses. In his case it
would be because his subject areas of interest are poorly catered for by IGCSE/GCSE syllabi. The OU’s
more specialist and applied approach, especially in the environmental sciences, would have been a great
help and motivation to him.
Special Educational Needs3

Children with special educational needs cause private exam costs to soar. Assessments by educational
psychologists for the purpose of determining exam concessions (extra time, scribe, etc.) cost £300–500. Exam
centres charge more for extra time, scribes, private exam rooms, etc.
With the Open University the price for the course remains the same whether you have special needs or not.
They provide a Disabled Students Allowance, which covers specialist software, equipment, and other support
gauged to the individual student’s needs. Children on the autistic spectrum are able to study at home, without
the pressures of people and institutional environments. Exams can also be taken at home, if necessary.
GCSEs Are Not Always Accessible

Finding an exam centre is not easy in some parts of the country. Even if the parent is lucky and finds a state
school willing to take private candidates at a reasonable price, most state schools offer GCSE exams only, and
often only the ones their students are taking.
Unfortunately, most GCSEs are closed to home educators due to the requirement for supervised coursework.
My son did a maths GCSE that was completely exam based, and an astronomy GCSE, which he completed
the year before supervised coursework became mandatory. (The coursework requirement for the Astronomy
GCSE more than doubled the cost of the GCSE.) The rest of his GCSEs were actually International GCSEs
(IGCSEs), which usually have the option of a 2nd exam in lieu of coursework.
For IGCSEs, parents usually need to search for a suitable private school that offers IGCSEs and is willing
to take external candidates. These venues are usually more costly, and also more difficult to find in some parts
of the country. Distance then becomes a factor, leading to additional costs in terms of travel and, in some
cases, accomodation. (As a generalisation, I would expect a state school to charge the cost of the exam entry
plus an administration fee with a final cost of £35-£75 per exam. Private schools are usually more expensive,
charging £100-£200 per exam.)
Open University courses reduce the hassle, the travel, and the expense. They make it possible for children
who might not be able to access GCSEs to get qualifications.
OU as a Transition to University
Open University courses can be used as a step to a degree, either through the Open University itself or
through a standard University.
Not all Universities will accept points from the Open University, but enquiries by a home educating parent
to the Oxford University admissions department in 2011 found that they will consider applicants with 120
points from the Open University. These points are deemed to be in lieu of A-levels only and are not
transferrable credits.
K, presently studying law at Exeter University:
K came back from a six-month exchange with a German family (with no prior formal study of the
language) and we decided that GCSE German would be pointlessly easy. We therefore looked at the Open
University (OU) German courses and she started Auftakt: intermediate German (L130) at 14 years and
10 months. She went on to do Exploring the English language (U211) (at 15.5 years) and Open
mathematics (MU120, now discontinued) at 16.5 years. She studied Understanding society (Y157, now
discontinued) while waiting to start The arts past and present (AA100).
K applied to bricks-n-mortar universities to study law with German on the basis of having gained 130
OU points and while studying for another 60 Level 1 points. She was offered a place at Exeter University
conditional on gaining at least 70% in AA100. She achieved the conditions of the offer and is studying
LLB European (German)/Magister. A typical offer for this course is AAA or AAB at A level, including an
A in German. The student also receives a telephone interview in German.4
Openplus5 is a formalised scheme that allows students with no prior qualifications to gain a science degree.
They spend two years studying part time at the OU followed by transfer to a partner University for a final
two years.
Entry and Payment for Open University Courses

Admissions to the OU do not depend on formal qualifications. The Open University does however, have a
typical process when an under-16 year old applies. In addition to his application, my son, then age 14, was
asked to write a letter stating why he wanted to take the course. He was also interviewed by telephone. As a
parent, I was asked to write a letter stating how I would support him in writing the course. In some regions
home educated candidates are interviewed in person rather than by telephone.
Openings Courses are usually recommended as starting places by the OU. These are short 10 or 15 point
courses and marks are either pass or fail. They are intended as an introduction to help students determine
whether study at the OU is for them.
Openings courses are not eligible for funding. In 2009, when my son first applied to the OU, he began with
“Start Writing Poetry”. The course cost at the time was approximately £120 and I was able to pay this with
Tesco clubcard vouchers.
Openings courses beginning on 1st June, 2012 cost £195. In September, this will rise to £625. The OU’s
arrangement with Tesco ends on 31 July 2012.
Courses worth 30 points or more and leading to a certification, were eligible for part-time students’ funding.
This was wholly dependent on the student’s income, and as children’s income is usually nil, meant that courses
were fully-funded. Course fees for 30 point courses were approximately £445 each. From September 2012,
they will be £1250 each, putting them beyond the means of many home educators.
Current students at the Open University will continue to be eligible for funding grants under the old system.
New applicants, however, will have to pay. Funding will only be available in the form of student loans, and
this is not available to children under 16. Children over 16 will be cautious about taking student loans to do
Open University courses as a transition to a standard university as this can decrease entitlement to student
loans for undergraduate degrees.
Conclusion
There are numerous high quality educational programs available, from the Khan Academy through to various
Universities online lectures and courses, and the OU’s Open Learn Program, but none of these provide
formal qualifications.
The Open University has not only provided formal qualifications, but has been a tremendous support to
home educators both financially, and in the variety and interest of their courses. Unfortunately, the combination
of lack of funding and massively increasing fees will close their doors to home educated children.
I ask the Select Committee to recommend that the government fund Open University courses for children
under 19.
July 2012
References
1 http://www8.open.ac.uk/employers/
2 My son’s GCSE/IGCSE costs, not counting paper, ink, postage, etc.

Astronomy GCSE
Cost of course including £150
marking of coursework
Cost of textbooks 22
Cost of exam 85
Biology IGCSE
Cost of textbook 25
Cost of exam 100
Economics IGCSE
Cost of textbook 19
Cost of exam 100
English Language IGCSE
Cost of course 250
Cost of exam 100
English Literature IGCSE
Cost of course 230
Cost of exam 100
History IGCSE
Cost of textbooks 123
Cost of tutor for lessons in 120
exam technique
Cost of exam 100
Mathematics GCSE
Cost of textbook 22
Cost of computer course 120
Cost of exam 100
Total £1,766
3 There appears to be a larger proportion of children with special educational needs (SEN) in home education
than in the general population.
Total numbers of home educated children are unknown, so the exact proportion of children with SEN cannot
be more than a guess. The Gloucestershire response to the Badman Review states that of children known to
the Local Authority, 7.5% are statemented for SEN and an estimated 30% have SEN but not a statement. For
a general comparison, The Select Committee on Education and Skills, Third Report, Annex A states that:
In 2005, 18% of all pupils in England were recorded as having some sort of special educational need (SEN)
or disability—around 1.5 million pupils. This was made up of 3% of all pupils with statements of SEN and
15% of all pupils with SEN but without a statement.
Copy of Gloucestershire LA response to the Badman Review here:

http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/gloucestershire-las-response-to-review.html
Select committee report here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/478/47811.htm
4 K studying law at Exeter
http://www.home-education-exams.org.uk/index.php?title=Personal_experiences_of_home_educators#Open_
University:_one_family.27s_experience
5 http://www8.open.ac.uk/choose/openplus/
Written evidence submitted by Buckinghamshire County Council
Executive Summary
The general election in 2010, the concerns of a significant body of MPs and the general public, resulted in
sections of the Children and Families Bill being dropped. These included all items relating to Elective Home
Education (EHE). The law and Local Authority (LA) responsibilities, financial or otherwise, remained as they
were: open to interpretation. EHE processes are informed mainly by the DCSF/DfE EHE Guidance and the
Education Act 1997—which may be reviewed in due course by the DfE. Besides the latter, other areas of
reference include Special Education Needs (SEN) Guidance, The Children’s Act and Safeguarding, Working
Together, EU Law on Human Rights, the Freedom of Information Act and initiatives such as Closing the
(Education) Gap and Fair Access (to Schools).
In response to the Commons Select Committee request for evidence and bearing in mind the specific support
issues which the Committee intends to inquire into, my paper summarises:
— Key points of the law relating to Elective Home Education to demonstrate areas of conflict
when analysing and planning provision.
— The challenges to delivery and therefore to current EHE Services’ practice and therefore to the
support offered to EHE learners.
The issues and challenges to process, delivery and therefore to support, financial or otherwise, can be made
by inference from the summarised references taken from the current DCSF/DfE Guidance which follows below.
(Paragraph 1)
In summary, the current law and formal guidance requires LAs to try and “know” all who are electively
home educated and to take action where it thinks that a suitable and efficient education is not taking place.
Guidance also advises that funding support may be provided by LAs and reclaimed retrospectively via the
Alternate Provision Census. The law does not oblige home educating families to engage with LAs, or oblige
LAs to provide funding support.
Whilst appreciating that no assumptions about education provision at home should/can be made and that it
is the right of families to Elect to Home Educate, under current law, they are not accountable for their provision.
Therefore the position of an LA may be that unclear or unregulated EHE and funding/support should not be
encouraged. Bearing this in mind, EHE Departments try to fulfil the duty placed on them by the DCSF/DfE
Guidance as evidenced below:
1. “..the duties of local authorities with regard to home education..”
These duties summarised below, all with reference to “Elective Home Education Revised Guidance for Local
Authorities” (DCSF/DfE July 2008):
— Identify: Local Authorities have a duty to try and identify children not receiving a suitable
education. Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 “requires all local authorities to make
arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of
children residing in their area who are not receiving a suitable education.”
— Investigate: “LAs have a duty to establish whether a child who is being educated at home
(under section 7 of the Education Act 1997) is not receiving suitable education …..” where
it is known that they are home educated and where the place that they are being educated
is known.
— Suitability: In relation to children by “suitable education” we (DCSF/DfE) mean “efficient
full-time education suitable to her/his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational
needs the child may have.”
Section 437/443 of the Education Act 1996 says that it is: “the LA’s duty to ensure that the
arrangements being made for (your)/(a) child’s education are suitable, and to take certain actions
if it appears that this is not so.”
— Education philosophy: An “efficient” and “suitable” education is not defined in the Education
Act 1996 but “efficient” has been broadly described in case law as an education that “achieves
that which it sets out to achieve” and a “suitable education” is one that “primarily equips a
child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the
country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt
some other form of life if he wishes to do so.”
— Formal action: “If it appears to an LA that a child of compulsory school age in their area is
not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall
serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified
in the notice that the child is receiving such education.”
— SEN Guidance: “If the provision at home falls short of meeting the child’s needs”, then the
parents/guardians are not making “suitable arrangements” and “the Authority could not
conclude that they were absolved of their responsibility to arrange the provision in the
statement. Parents need only provide an efficient, full-time education….as defined in Section 7
of the Education Act 1996.” It is the Authority’s duty to arrange the provision specified in the
Statement, unless the child’s parent has made suitable provision, for as long as a Statement is
maintained. In some cases a combination of provision by parents and LA may best meet the
child’s needs. LAs should consider, for example, providing access to additional resources or
treatments where appropriate. (Ref: current DCSF/DfE SEN Guidance Letter Feb 2010)
The Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice (IPSEA) recently advised Parent
Partnership that therapies in Part 3 of statements, for parents of children who are home
educating, should be provided and that this should be challenged if they are not. It is apparently
no different to a Local Authority providing a separate singleton contract for a therapy to be
provided to a child.
2. “What support (financial and otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
authorities and other bodies.”
The facility for LAs to reclaim funds expended to support EHE Learners to attend college courses has been
available for some time. The existing DCSF/DfE Guidance regarding EHE learners is that they may be funded
through the LA to attend college. There is no formal guidance specifying eligibility criteria to prescribe who
may apply. It is also left up to individual LAs to decide whether they will provide this support and under what
eligibility criteria. This support varies nationally.
Where funds are provided by LAs for EHE learners to attend college courses, these can be re-claimed,
retrospectively, via the Alternate Provision Census (APC) under the Direct Schools Grant. (EHE learners must
be designated as “not a school” on the APC return.)
— SEN Departments may retain the SEN Statement of an EHE learner and have a duty to review
these SEN Statements annually. It is also possible to provide an element of funding towards
provision under SEN Statements. Funds expended can also be reclaimed via the APC under the
Direct Schools Grant. The current guidance about funding support is open to interpretation and
applied differently in each Authority. (Ref. DCSF/DfE SEN Guidance Letter Feb 2010)
3. “…the quality and accessibility of that support.”

LAs struggle to fulfil statutory duties to try and “know” all those who are EHE in their area, or to offer
support financial or otherwise, to safeguard children and young people, or to take formal action if necessary
whilst:
— Registration with LAs, receiving monitoring visits from or engaging with an LA representative
is voluntary. LA representatives only see registered children, with parental permission. LAs can
only “know” those EHE families that register.
— Engaging with LAs and providing information about individual education philosophies and
planning is voluntary.
— It is not necessary to be a teacher, to have qualifications, to be literate, to follow the National
Curriculum or to take exams.
— The parents effectively become the alternate education setting but are not subject to the same
overview and scrutiny as other independent or state education settings.
— Conflicts remain within EHE law: the need to provide undefined evidence of unsuitability or
inefficiency to apply that law.
— Families who move on without informing the LA may not be placed on the “Children Missing
Education” register and cannot be tracked nationally.
— A percentage of potentially vulnerable young people are a cause for concern either because we
do not know about them or because the EHE Consultant may not be able to persuade the family
to engage in order to assess anything or to provide support financial or otherwise.
— Parents of children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs may also elect to Home
Educate with LA agreement and may refuse to engage with the EHE Department so that further
advice and support, financial or otherwise, will not be available to them.
— Closing the (Education) Gap and EHE: the existing DCSF/DfE Guidance regarding young
people at 14+ is that they may be funded through the LA to attend college courses but it is up
to individual LAs to decide their position on this.
GCSEs may not be separately funded as they would not represent a significant amount of
funding from the LA. (Ref. DfE Alternative Provision Census—Pupils receiving Education in
the Alternative Provision Sector in England—Guidance Notes for the 2011 Census).
4. “Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate.”

As evidenced above, with regard to support, financial or otherwise, the current arrangements leave much up
to the interpretation of individual LAs. Thus there is no standardised support and intervention practice
nationally.
5. “..the support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher
education.”
As may be inferred from and evidenced above, under the current Guidance, support remains variable and
dependant on the individual LA interpretation of the Guidance and their duties. Connexions advice is available
in principal to all learners. EHE Services may offer transitions advice too. Vulnerable groups who have elected
to home educate remain hard to reach and therefore difficult to provide support, financial or otherwise.
6. “What improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee?”
Improvements developed in Buckinghamshire by the EHE Service, since the 2009 recommendations of the
Children, Schools and Families Committee include:
— Formal EHE Guidance and Registration.
— Resources, transition and safeguarding advice.
— Targeted and routine home visits and, where appropriate, professionals’ meetings. (The latter
aim to identify “lead professionals” make suitable “return to school,” education support and/or
welfare support plans if appropriate. Intervention priority levels are informed by multi-agency
and multi-professional information sharing.)
— A “One Year Pilot Project for Electively Home Educated Learners to Access 14–16 Alternative
Provision” has been set up to run from 1 August 2012 to the 31 July 2013.
The “EHE Revised Guidance for Las” (DCSF/DfE July 2008) is the guidance available for LAs concerning
their duties in regard to home education. The guidance is open-ended and can be interpreted to justify a broad
and differing range of service provision by each LA. It does not prescribe clearly what is expected by an LA
in support, financial or otherwise, of EHE families and leaves the LA duty open to broad interpretation. As
evidenced under section “the quality and accessibility of support”, paragraph 3, it can be challenging for an
LA to fulfil its statutory duties in support of all children and young people under the present guidance; there
are conflicts and contradictions within the rights described for EHE families and the duties required of an LA
which make it difficult to know clearly what is expected on both sides and to standardise practice.
for home educators
Buckinghamshire EHE Service supports the need to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the
support available for home educators so that rights and expectations on both sides are clear and practice can
therefore be standardised and equitable. For example:
— If it is intended that LAs should make arrangements to support suitable, identified EHE learners,
of all abilities and conditions, by funding them to attend vocational courses to college, the
Guidance to LAs should make that clear.
— If it is intended that education provision at home should be monitored to support EHE learners’
attainment levels for future education transitions, then EHE Registration and monitoring via
your local LA should be compulsory.
— If it is intended that it should be possible to assess education provided at home as “insufficient”
or “unsuitable” or “inefficient” then those terms need to be defined in such a way that they can
be applied in practical, unambiguous terms.
— If it is intended to ensure that EHE families are subject to the same accountabilities as all
other state or independent Education Providers then EHE Registration, Education and Welfare
Monitoring should be compulsory.
— If it is intended that LAs should offer support to EHE learners—for example by providing
funding and/or flexi school packages—then it should be made clear. Currently, state education
providers’ attendance and attainment targets are negatively affected when they endeavour to
collaborate in such part-time reintegration planning. These negative outcomes effectively
legislate against equitable support, “financial or otherwise”, for EHE learners.
It should be born in mind that alterations would impact on budgets. Hearsay evidence from
professional networks and home educators is that there are many more Children and Young
People being educated at home than are registered/“known” to LAs. There would also have to
be consequences in the face of non-compliance.
In the USA, South Africa and Australia, where geography often conspires against regular, or
any, attendance at school, the rules about home education for financial support or otherwise,
are very clear and strictly enforced. It would be useful if a piece of work could be undertaken
to study how they provide.
9. The Committee’s inquiry will not be examining wider issues of home education, such as safeguarding and
curriculum issues, or the impact of home education.
In conclusion, I do not think it is possible to evidence the issues under enquiry by the Commons Select
Committee without referencing the whole guidance and provision picture. Without altering existing policy or
arrangements there can be no clarity about expectations and provision for LAs. Without alterations to existing
policy LAs would be “blindly” supporting EHE families with support financial or otherwise; all other education
providers are accountable for their provision under the Education Act.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Lisa Heath

1. Executive Summary
Current arrangements for the financial support of home educating families are not merely inadequate but
non-existent. Other support is probably sufficient except that provision should be made for flexi-schooling.
2. Brief Introduction to the Submitter

I am a home educating parent of two children aged 7 & 10 who have never been to school. As my husband
works long hours and travels frequently, I must stay at home in order to home educate and am thus unable to
contribute to family income. I am also currently chair of the Isle of Wight Learning Zone, the Isle of Wight
home education support network. In this capacity I witness many families struggling to make ends meet when
home educating, particularly when they are solo parents, often resorting to sending children back to school,
against their better judgement and their children’s wishes, in order that the parent may work.
3. Specific Points the Education Committee Has Asked for Comments on

(a) the duties of local authorities with regard to home education
(i) I think it would be helpful if this information were made freely available to home educators in order to
avoid misunderstandings regarding the LEA’s powers and the rights of home educators.
(b) what support (financial and otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
(i) I am not aware of any financial support that is available.
(ii) As far as the LEA is concerned, I am not registered with them and therefore do not receive any support.
I understand, however, that support consists of a 6–12 monthly meeting with the LEA officer who will also
answer questions by telephone as required.
(c) the quality and accessibility of that support

(i) N/A, see (b) above.
(d) whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

(i) I do not believe the current arrangements for financial support to be adequate. Home educators must
purchase all educational materials out of their own pockets and also pay for any classes the children attend or
tutors they engage. They must pay transport charges in order to take their children to classes or other
educational and social activities. Furthermore, home educators must pay for their children to sit any GCSE
exams if they sit them early, which is clearly discriminatory. I have had it reported to me that families who
receive free school meals and assistance with after school clubs are being prevented from home educating for
financial reasons, since these benefits are removed as soon as the children are removed from school and they
find it difficult to survive without them.
(e) the support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education
(i) I’m afraid I have no experience or knowledge of this as yet and haven’t received any reports from others
on this issue. I don’t think any support is provided, but I may be wrong.
(f) what improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
(i) I’m not sure there have been any changes except that it has been reported to me that our LEA is even
more busy than usual and has less time to support any families who may request such support.
(g) what guidance is available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education, and
(i) Again, whatever guidance is provided would usefully be made freely available to home educators so they
can see clearly (a) what can be expected of the LEA; and (b) whether or not the LEA is acting outside of such
guidance (which I understand often happens in many localities).
(h) whether the Government needs to alter existing policy or arrangements concerning the support available
for home educators
(i) As far as I’m aware, in general, the support provided by the LEAs is adequate and doesn’t need expanding
on except as in item (ii), below. There does appear to be a problem with some LEAs acting outside of their
mandate and creating unnecessary stress for home educators. This needs to be looked into as a matter of priority.
(ii) The existing system whereby schools provide education only to those who are with them full time needs
to be reviewed. All state schools should provide “flexi-schooling” to home educators, free of charge. This
means allowing home educated children to attend specific classes only without having to participate in any
other aspects of school life. Classes such as mathematics, science and foreign languages would be the most
suitable for flexi-schooling at junior school level. At senior school level, any subject offered by the school
could be flexibly offered to home educators. Home educated children should be placed in classes according to
ability, not age.
(iii) As far as financial support is concerned, this is far from adequate, particularly considering the enormous
savings the Government is making when a child is home educated. I would suggest the following be provided:
1. That examination fees for home educators be the same as for state schooled children regardless
of the age of the child.
2. That tax credits or equivalent be provided to those home educating families eligible for free
school meals in lieu of the meals.
3. That tax credits or equivalent be provided to those home educating families eligible for free or
assisted after-school clubs in lieu of the clubs.
4. That vouchers for purchase of educational materials (only) be provided to home educating
families. The amount a state school might typically spend on materials for a child in a year, for
each level of school education, could be first determined to give a guideline for an acceptable
amount. Then, bearing in mind that home educators must usually buy all materials anew and
are unable to re-use them year-on-year, an amount could be awarded to home educating families
according to the number of children being home educated and their school levels.
5. That free bus passes and/or petrol vouchers be provided to home educating families so that
they can more easily access educational and social activities outside the home.
(iv) I would recommend that the above financial provisions be made available ONLY to those home
educating families who choose to be registered with the LEA. At present only those families whose children
have at some stage been to school or have in some other way become known to the LEA are registered.
Families like ours where the children have never been to school remain unregistered. I believe this is essentially
undemocratic and unfair on those families who would prefer not to be registered. Families should be permitted
to choose whether or not to be registered with the LEA, in order to obtain such support as is available, and
should be permitted to de-register as desired.
June 2012
Written evidence submitted by Simon Webb

1. My daughter did not attend school for a single day from the age of five to sixteen. She was taught entirely
by me and sat eight International GCSEs at an examination centre in an independent school when she was in
her teens. She is now studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Hertford College, Oxford.
2. We were unknown to our local authority until my daughter was eight, following which we received
annual monitoring visits. We neither asked for nor received any assistance from Essex County Council, our
local authority.
3. Taking GCSEs is an expensive business which cost me almost £1,000 for the eight which my daughter
took. I think it reasonable that local authorities should help with the taking of examinations.
4. Arranging and paying for GCSEs is complicated and expensive. Local authorities could help with them,
in return for some involvement in the education of home educated children. This might, for example, entail
checking that children were likely to pass any examinations for which they were entered. It would be a waste
of public money for the local authority to pay for children to sit a dozen examinations if the child entering for
them was incapable of passing. At the very least, the local authority would need to assess the child to see
whether to enter him or her for the foundation or higher level.
5. Any sort of initiative of this sort should be voluntary. If parents wish to enter their children for GCSEs,
then the local authority should be able to enquire into the abilities of the children concerned, for the reason
given in paragraph 4.
6. Some parents object to their children taking public examinations. These parents should not be compelled
to enrol in any scheme such as that outlined above.
7. The taking of examinations could easily be financed by central government by the awarding to the local
authority of the Age Weighted Pupil Unit for any home educated child whose parents wish to involved
themselves in this.
8. It is contrary to natural justice that the children of parents who contribute to the country’s educational
system by means of taxes should also have to finance any examinations which their children take from their
own pocket.
9. It would be to the advantage not only of the children, but also society in general, if more of the fifty
thousand or so children being educated at home acquired GCSEs. These qualifications would enable them to
progress into higher and further education and also make them more employable.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Tamsin Palmer

1. Rather than offering support of any kind, Stoke-on-Trent City Council keeps its Elective Home Education
policy not on its main website under Education, but on its safeguarding website here
http://www.safeguardingchildren.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content/safeguarding-children/professionals-folder/
procedure-manuals/f-vulnerable-cyp.en;jsessionid=auEshvD9_Fu8, under the heading “Vulnerable Children
and Young People”, therefore immediately conflating Home Education and welfare, whereas Home education
is not a welfare issue and holds equal status in law to school education as can be seen in Section 7 of the
Education Act 1996.
2. Section 04 (Stoke-on-Trent Procedures) of this document states, “On receiving notification from the
headteacher, the Education at home monitoring officer will register the child as being electively home
educated”, whereas in law the Local Authority has no remit for routine monitoring, and Section 437 (1) of the
Education Act 1996 requires that the LA acts only if something comes to its attention which gives it reason to
suppose that a parent is not fulfilling their duty to cause their child to receive a suitable education.
3. Stoke-on-Trent’s guidance notes continue, “The Education at home monitoring officer will arrange to
carry out a home visit within ten working days”, whereas there is no requirement for a family to submit to a
home visit. Section 436A of the Act (and the subsequent case law) has established that an LA may make
informal enquiries regarding a parent’s educational provision, and it is entirely down to the parents what form
their reply takes.
4. Furthermore they state, “The parent is not obliged to allow the Education at home monitoring officer to
enter their home but given that the purpose of the visit is to ascertain the suitability of the education provided
they will be encouraged to do so.” This is completely disingenuous, as there is no relationship between whether
the Local Authority gain access to a family’s home and whether they can satisfy their informal enquiry as to
whether a child is not receiving a suitable education.
5. Stoke-on-Trent’s notes go on to say, “The schedule of monitoring visits carried out by the Education at
home monitoring officer will depend on individual circumstances but a second visit will take place no later
than three months from the original visit and subsequent visits at no greater interval than every six months.”
This policy is blatantly ultra vires as there is no legal requirement for routine monitoring and inspection.
6. Regarding seeing the Home Educated child, their guidance notes say, “If the Education at home monitoring
officer has concerns for a child’s safety or a child’s wellbeing (or if the child has not been seen during a home
visit) an immediate referral to Children & Young People’s Department Vulnerable Children and Corporate
Parenting Division will be made.” This is a clear indication of the Local Authority’s bias against Home
Education, their insistence on conflating it with welfare, and having a very concerning ultra vires policy of
malicious referral. They have no legal right to see a home educated child purely on the basis that they are
home educated, and are taking resources away from genuinely vulnerable children by referring to Children &
Young People’s Department Vulnerable Children and Corporate Parenting Division if a child is not seen on a
home visit that they had no legal right to carry out in the first place.
7. The local authority in Stoke-on-Trent, as evidenced by their policy and where they have chosen to locate
it, has no understanding of home education, conflates it with welfare, misrepresents its powers, and flouts
government guidance. Appropriate support from government would be preventing local authorities from having
ultra vires policies and from acting in ways that surpass in any way their lawful powers.
8. Furthermore, considering local authorities’ tendency to overstep their powers and insinuate themselves
into the private family lives of law abiding citizens, it would be inappropriate to introduce further duties related
to providing any other kind of support, as this would create more areas in which councils could misrepresent
their powers in order to carry out their own biased agendas.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by London Borough of Wandsworth

Wandsworth is supportive in principle of the Select Committee’s announcement of an inquiry into the support
available for home educating families and their children.
We note that the inquiry will not be examining the wider issues, such as safeguarding and the curriculum,
however we are concerned that the whole picture may be lost in examining only one aspect of elective home
education.
We believe that if Local Authorities are to be required to provide additional services and support (including
financial) this needs to be balanced by a reciprocal requirement that EHE families work in partnership with
the LA.
We would envisage such an amendment to incorporate and extend the Local Authorities’ duties and powers
to carry out an effective assessment to determine whether home educators are meeting the legal requirements
to provide a suitable education for their children, under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996. We would
welcome clearer guidelines in the legislation that would enable Local Authorities to translate law into practice.
Currently we offer home visits or to meet with home educators at an alternative venue of their choice if they
do not want a visit at their home. We provide advice and support as part of this process. We do not currently
provide financial support or direct services except for children with statements of SEN. We have supported
home educating parents to enable children to sit public exams and routinely provide information about guidance
available for post 16 choices and health issues.
Since 2009 we have updated our policy and procedures and have developed a self evaluation form which
home educating parents can complete to provide information which contributes to our assessment of the
suitability of the education being provided.
Under the terms of the current legislation and guidance, it remains difficult to effectively assess the context
and content of the child’s experience of being educated at home and for the child’s views to be independently
included.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Nisai Virtual Academy

What are the duties of Local Authorities regarding home schooling
Home Education has equal status with schools under section 7 of the 1996 Education Act8 and if a child
has never been to school, the parents do not need to tell their Local Authority about their decision to home
school. However, if a child has been in school at any point the parents need to formally deregister the child,
though this should be automatic on request. If a young person is at a special school then the parents need to
get “permission” though refusals are rare and can be challengeable in court.
With respect to subjects taught to homeschooled children, The National Curriculum only applies to state
schools meaning that the main guideline is that an adult “must provide an education suitable to your child’s
needs”.
What support is available from Local Authorities and other bodies

Local Authorities have few set duties regarding support of home schooling with some authorities having
stricter guidelines than others. For example, some merely specify parents must provide a “broad and balanced”
education whilst others want to discuss the educational provision for home-schooled young people, and for
parents to provide evidence to the Local Authority that would satisfy a “reasonable person” that education is
being offered to the children.
Another complication is that whilst some Local Authorities may use their discretion to follow up with a
School Attendance Order (which will force the child to be returned to school) if they do not deem home
8
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/contents
education is being properly delivered, this may be challenged in court and the Local Authority cannot prescribe
how evidence of education is provided.
When a child is being home schooled, it is possible for them to take exams as external candidates at various
exam centres. However, the parent/carer will need to find a registered centre to take the exams, contact
individual examination boards to discuss the arrangements for private candidates and pay for any exam
registration fees and assessment of coursework, by an accredited person. In addition, it can be more difficult
for home-educated students to manage coursework, because an independent person must mark it.
Each home schooled child will have support regarding careers advice because this is offered through the
Connexions service (where this still exists) for all 13–19 year olds. However, children educated at home have
no entitlement to participate in work experience under arrangements made by the LA. In addition, if a parent
arranges work experience they are entirely responsible for the extent to which the child is covered by, for
example, health and safety, child protection and insurance provision of the work place.
Finally, there are charities that support families that home educate their children. For example, HEAS is
dedicated to giving information to home educators including advice about educational materials, resources,
GCSE examinations, special educational needs, information technology, legal matters and curriculum design.
This is because the charity believes that every parent should receive full information about their children’s
education—including information about the facts of home education, exams, special educational needs and
how to access resources.9
What financial support is currently available for home educators, including from local authorities and other
bodies
There is currently no financial help available for those who home school their children from any source.
This means that there are no grants to cover time, equipment or to cover the costs of a child taking exams.
Some local authorities provide guidance for parents, including free National Curriculum materials and allow
parents to access to local teacher resources meaning some parents may be able to arrange extended borrowing
facilities from local libraries and discounted access to other council run facilities like sports centres. However,
this is not rolled out on a national scale and therefore parents need to investigate locally to find out what their
specific local authority provides.
The quality and accessibility of support

Considering the above, it is easy to assert that there is no quality assurance regarding home schooling. This
is because every council can work independently and there is no central framework of due diligence in order
to ensure quality and accessible education.

No, there is no financial support. This is inadequate.
Support available for home-educated students’ transition to Further Education and Higher Education
Enrolment at a Further Education College
Some colleges may, at the discretion of the Principal, be willing to accept children of school age for full
and part-time courses. This approach has the advantage that all the work and entry for qualifications is organised
by the college, but it does require at least some attendance at classes, which does not appeal to all home-
educating families. If a student enrols at a FE college, their parents will normally be liable to pay all of the
course fees themselves
Correspondence Courses
Correspondence courses are an option for students who prefer to work independently, though they will be
required in most cases to follow a structured curriculum and programme of work. Correspondence courses
offer a wide range of qualifications at different levels and the organisations offering these courses advise about
arrangements which need to be made for registering with an examination centre and for marking and
authenticating coursework. The cost of this option varies depending on the organisation and the qualification
chosen, but can prove expensive and it is down to the parents to pay.
What Improvements have been made to support for home educators since the December 2009
The recommendations were:
— That the Department introduce compulsory annual registration for home educating families in
order to assist local authorities in identifying home educating families; and to provide a basis
for local authority monitoring of home education.
9
http://www.heas.org.uk/
— That a child who is de-registered from school to be home educated should be nominally kept
on his or her school’s roll for 20 school days in order to offer much greater scope for resolving
problems where parents had any unease about the prospect of home educating their child.
— Local authorities take a much more supportive role when a child is home educated to ensure
that where a parent takes the view that a school has failed his or her child and that his or her
only option is to withdraw the child from the school there should be an independent assessment
of why this was so, with the school asked to respond to the findings of that assessment.
In reality, little has been done to achieve these objectives. Indeed, the total number of home-educated
children is still not known.
In addition, it has become obvious from the responses given to the above report that many home educators
and home education organisations are highly critical of the Badman Report and were very resistant to the idea
that local authorities should be given new powers in relation to the regulation and monitoring of home education
and that publication alone of the Badman Report had undermined any goodwill previously in place between
home educating families and local authorities. This is even though a number of local authority officers
suggested to us that, in their experience, the majority of known home educating families welcomed the contact
that they had with their local authority.10
What support can be given to those who home educate

With this in mind it is vital that when dealing with this controversial issue the focus is kept on ensuring that
any support developed helps authorities to achieve the necessary monitoring in order to make sure children are
getting an education, whilst ensuring there is no infringement regarding the flexibility allowed by home
schooling for those who choose to do it.
Online and Distance Education

Online learning is flexible, ensuring that students can be self-paced and instructor-led. In addition, cyber
schools are not limited by location, income level or class size in the way bricks and mortar charter schools
are, meaning they can be flexibly used by those who wish to home school. In addition, where cyber schools
use a virtual classroom, this provides the opportunity for students to receive direct instruction from a qualified
teacher in an interactive environment with other students and enables them to have direct and immediate access
to their instructor for instant feedback and direction.
There are an increasing number of organisations offering open and distance learning courses including:
— Oxford Home Schooling: GCSEs and A-levels offered via correspondence, specifically for
students educated at home. There’s a student advisor, and a personal tutor who marks work and
assists in any way needed. Consultations by phone are available and it can be used by students
abroad, but they usually have to return to the UK to take the actual exams.
— Oxford Open Learning: GCSEs, A-levels and some business courses via distance learning. This
is intended for over-18s who need further qualifications for their careers or college courses.
— Sheffield Online College: GCSE English and psychology, or A-level English, all done online,
with exams centres arranged. For people in the UK only, but students of 16–19 who are not in
full time education do not have to pay any fees.
— National Extension College (NEC): This offers a wide variety of distance learning opportunities,
including iGCSEs, GCSEs and A-levels, with tutors to help with problems and mark
assignments.
— InterHigh: Online tuition in National Curriculum subjects for students aged 11–16, including
iGCSE provision in the final year. Anyone wanting to take GCSE exams would have to find a
centre—either in the UK or their country of residence (this is sometimes possible at ex-pat
schools or British embassies).
— Briteschool: Online virtual classrooms in up to eight subjects to iGCSE level. They also offer
tuition for the European Computer Driving License (EDCL).
— First College UK: Online learning community with live classes for students aged 11 -17.
Prepares them for iGCSE exams (which do not require graded coursework). Classes are held
live four days a week, 09.30–14.00 GMT (UK time) for between five to 15 students.
— Nisai Virtual Academy: Students from all over the UK and abroad can use this to participate in
individually tailored learning programmes and interact with other members as part of a vibrant,
supportive and secure community environment. Programmes on offer include the National
Curriculum—Key Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5 (including GCSEs and A’ levels) together with some
Vocational Qualifications, Wellbeing Programmes and Careers Education, Information, Advice
and Guidance.
10
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/39/39i.pdf
Case Study—The Nisai Virtual Academy

The Nisai Group was formed in 1996 and has produced the revolutionary Nisai Virtual Academy. The Nisai
Virtual Academy (NVA) is an award winning online learning community and real-time teaching
environment that is internationally recognised as a world leader in personalised learning.
For those children that are homeschooled, the Nisai Group specialises in helping all of these students realise
their full potential, flourish and have the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications and improve their
knowledge and skills.
To achieve these aims, the Nisai Virtual Academy uses a unique blend of innovative web based tools and
contemporary teaching expertise to ensure that each young person who enrolls is able to learn in a way that
suits their individual needs through a tailored and personalised programme of study and support that focuses
on the learner.
The NVA is completely interactive, allowing students to move around the online campus, whilst using the
same frameworks, as a student would receive in a traditional school. When logging on to the NVA each student
enters his or her own tailored, personal workspace. From this area students can join lessons, view assignments
and see information relating to them and their courses. Students can also access all other areas in the NVA
community environment. For example:
Frameworks Offered By The NVA Frameworks Offered By A Traditional Educational
Environment
The user logs on Registration at the start of the school day
A highly personalised timetable Some degree of personalised timetabling
Students’ learning is extended and consolidated through Homework and independent study sessions
tasks set by teachers that students complete outside lessons,
supported through NVA online community and technology
Extra curricular activities ie: music and book clubs After school clubs
The NVA offers a range of courses from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 5 (A Level), as well as vocational and
wellbeing programmes and Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance. It also offers students access
to an online wellbeing centre and behavioural management specialists in order that they can get the help they
need to deal with the other issues that might be affecting them, for example anger management, crisis
management or financial management.
Each student is assessed upon enrolment to identify their strengths, goals and areas for development, enabling
them to learn and progress at a level that suits them on an individual basis. Since 2004, the Nisai Virtual
Academy students have consistently achieved better results than they would have achieved in mainstream
schools.
How Does The Nisai Group Fit In With The Governments Plans For Home Schooling?
The Nisai Virtual Academy is sensitive to those parents who feel they should be able to home educate
flexibly and in their own way. This is because the NVA is not seen as part of the system, but a positive guiding
force for each student that allows parents flexibility in educational curriculum whilst also ensuring a wide-
ranging curriculum is available for the student. In addition, it also fits into the Government’s policy direction
to “bring in new ways of teaching and learning to make every child’s education the best it can be”11 for all
students. This is because the Nisai Virtual Academy:
— Enables Local Authorities to provide services whilst helping the Chancellor to reduce the deficit
by making £83 billion savings by 2014–15.12 In the past those children who are home educated
have often had an individual tutor. Using the NVA means students previously learning in
isolation will be able to receive an experience comparable to a mainstream school—if not better
as demonstrated by NVA results—whilst bringing them into a class group of no more than 10
where the cost associated is just the one salary needed to run the class as opposed to the ten
home tutors.13
— Provides learners with access to a much broader curriculum and as importantly, an online
community of other learners and activities to interact with, thus increasing their chances of re-
engaging with mainstream society.
— Ensures that the young people that often slip through the net are identified,14 brought “back
into the system” and can be tracked in order to ensure young people are being educated.
— As the NVA offers a range of courses from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 5 (A Level), as well as
vocational and wellbeing programmes, parents and students can maintain control of the
education provided and ensure that it is at the level and within the comfort zone of the student.
11
Conservative Manifesto: 2010 General Election
12
Budget 2010
13
Figures provided by the Nisai Group: 1st September 2010
14
ZD Net UK News: 26th August 2010
— Local authorities can talk to each other easily through the NVA meaning that it is easy for
Local Authorities to share best practice with other authorities, increasing understanding and
standards overall.
Conclusion
Home schooling is becoming more prevalent in society—though there are no current figures on how many
children are being home schooled. Unfortunately it is proving to be a relatively controversial issue with some
parents not wanting legislation that allows a Local Authority to track the work that a home schooled child does
or have an active role in their education.
However, online learning helps bridge the gap playing both the role of a sensitive and independent
organisation whilst also ensuring that real standards of home schooling are developed and maintained.
It is therefore vital that the Government looks to ensure these providers are brought in as part of their
solution.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by the National Autistic Society and Ambitious About Autism
About us
1. The National Autistic Society (NAS) is the UK’s leading charity for people affected by autism. We were
founded in 1962 by a group of parents who were passionate about ensuring a better future for their children.
Today we have around 20,000 members, over 100 branches and provide a range of services, including:
— An Autism Helpline which receives over 45,000 calls a year, and specialist helplines including
an Education Advice Line and a Tribunal Support Service.
— Parent support programmes.
— A number of Specialist schools and education support services for children with autism.
— Information and training for education and other professionals working with people with autism
and their families.
2. Ambitious about Autism is the national charity for children and young people with autism. We provide
services, raise awareness and understanding, and influence policy. We exist to enable children and young people
with autism to learn, thrive and achieve and through TreeHouse School we provide specialist education. Our
ambition is to make the ordinary possible for more children and young people with autism.
3. The National Autistic Society (NAS) and Ambitious about Autism (AaA) welcome the opportunity to
submit evidence to the Committee Inquiry into the review of elective home education.
What is an autism spectrum disorder?

4. Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects the way a person communicates with, and relates
to, other people. It also affects how they make sense of the world around them. Around one in 100 people
have autism. It is a spectrum condition, which means that, while all people with autism share three main areas
of difficulty, their condition will affect them in different ways. Asperger syndrome is a form of autism.
5. The three main areas of difficulty are:
— Difficulty with social interaction. This includes recognising and understanding other people’s
feelings and managing their own. Not understanding how to interact with other people can
make it hard to form friendships.
— Difficulty with social communication. This includes using and understanding verbal and non-
verbal language, such as gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice.
— Difficulty with social imagination. This includes the ability to understand and predict other
people’s intentions and behaviour and to imagine situations outside of their own routine. This
can be accompanied by a narrow repetitive range of activities.
6. Some people with autism are able to live relatively independent lives but others may need a lifetime of
specialist support. People with autism may also experience some form of sensory sensitivity or under-
sensitivity, for example to sounds touch, tastes, smells, light or colours.
7. Overview
7.1 Many parents of children with autism who home educate do so following the failure of services to meet
their child’s needs and provide appropriate support, or due to bullying. There is a significant lack of educational
provision and support for children with autism. The often costly decision to home educate is taken to protect
the child’s well-being. Many parents subsequently receive very little support from their local authority.
7.2 We do not know how many children who are home educated have special educational needs (SEN)
including autism, but it is likely to be higher than in the wider population.
7.3 There need to be clear and specific duties on local authorities to provide support for families of children
with autism and other SEN who home educate, many of whom are in this position as a result of the failure of
services to effectively support their child.
Home Educated Population and SEN

8. Still very little is known about the population of home-educated children. However, a study quoted in the
Equality Impact Assessment for the Consultation on the Home Education guidelines in 2007 estimated that
children who were known to be home educated were nearly twice as likely to have statements compared with
the wider population (5% compared with 3%).15 Children with autism were highlighted as one of the groups
of children with SEN identified in the study. It is probable that a high proportion of home-educated children
have SEN without the support of a statement, particularly in light of Government policy to reduce reliance on
the use of statements. The NAS believes that because of the difficulties many children with autism face at
school (even with statements), a significant proportion of children who are home educated are likely to be on
the autism spectrum.
9. We are not aware of any research showing that outcomes for children with autism who are home-educated
are either better or worse than for those educated in school settings, but reports from parents suggest that for
some children with autism home education may be more suitable and could help them better achieve outcomes
than in school settings.
10. Experiences of and Reasons for Home Education for People with Autism
There are a range of reasons why families of children with autism choose to home educate.
10.1 Lack of understanding in school
10.1.1 Many parents of children with autism find that their school lacks the knowledge and training
to adequately address the needs of their child. For example, an NUT survey conducted in 2006
found that 44% of teachers surveyed did not feel confident teaching children with autism.16
10.1.2 Some parents tell us that their child’s school strongly disputes the diagnosis, even where a child
has a formal diagnosis, blaming bad behaviour or poor parenting instead.
10.2 Inability to access appropriate support
10.2.1 Many parents still struggle to get the right support for their child within school or from their
local authority. In one survey, 48% of parents report waiting more than a year for support after
raising a concern.17 Around a quarter of cases which go to the SEN First Tier Tribunal concern
children with autism, more than any other SEN, and many parents win all or part of their
case.18 Many local authorities are reducing reliance on statements to provide support and this
may mean that families feel that it is more difficult to access the right support for children
with autism.
10.2.2 Several parents who home educate their children told us that their negative experience of early
years settings had influenced their decision to home educate. A number of children had been
excluded from early years settings aged three or four, due to the lack of support and
understanding of the staff working there. One parent described home education as “not a choice
but a necessity”.
“I was forced into a home education situation isolated from authorities who were keeping a
safe distance. I have now been educating [my son] for five years in total isolation from official
society (but not society in general).”
Single parent of child with autism
10.3 Social interaction and well-being
10.3.1 The school environment can be a very challenging place for children with autism, as a result
of the difficulties they face with social communication and forming relationships, or the sensory
difficulties many children have. Many children with autism also experience bullying. Without
the right support in place, these difficulties can create a significant barrier to children with
autism attending school.
10.4 A disrupted education
10.4.1 Children with autism are more likely to move schools than other children. Bullying can also
seriously disrupt children’s education, as can high rates of exclusion. 27% of children with
15
The Prevalence of Home Education in England: A Feasibility Study (York Consulting for the DfES 2006)
16
NUT, 2006: SEN survey on the provision of training to teachers in relation to pupils with special educational needs—evaluation
17
Reid, B (2011) Great Expectations NAS: London
18
Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal annual report 2009–10: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-
and-tribunals/tribunals/special-educational-needs-and-disability/SEND_AnnualReport_09_10.pdf
autism have been excluded from school.19 Parents frequently report that this is because the
school cannot cope with the child’s needs.
10.4.2 All of these factors can lead to poorer educational outcomes for children with autism, and have
a serious impact on children’s mental health, self-esteem, social skills and behaviour. For these
reasons some parents and carers decide to home educate their children with autism in the
interests of their child’s education and even their emotional and physical well-being.
10.4.3 For some this is a positive and proactive decision, but for many parents of children with autism
it is not an easy choice but it is often a necessary one. It can be a very costly decision, as
parents may give up paid employment and have much reduced social contact as a result, yet
some feel they have no alternative.
11. Recommendations for Support from Local Authorities

11.1 In this context it seems very clear that much more needs to be done to make support available for
families of children with autism who home educate to help them meet their children’s needs. It also clarifies
the need for improved support for children with autism in school, so that parents do not find themselves home
educating simply because their local schools have failed them.
11.2 We urge the inquiry to look at whether local authorities are meeting their statutory responsibilities to
children with SEN who are home educated. Where a child has a statement the local authority is required to
provide the support specified in the statement. Local authorities must continue to make the provision specified
in a statement when a child is home educated, such as speech and language therapy or home-based education
programmes, maintain the statement, review it on an annual basis and plan for transition to adulthood. Local
authorities must meet their legal duties towards all children with SEN and disabilities. Children who are home
educated should have the same access to statutory assessment as any other child.
11.3 It would also be helpful to examine whether a reduction in the availability of statements has led to an
increase in the number of children with SEN who are home educated. Children who do not have the support
of a statement should receive appropriate support from the local authority, for example with planning for
transition to adulthood.
11.4 As changes to the statutory process take place, including the replacement of statements by Education,
Health and Care Plans, the same statutory duties must continue to apply to children educated at home as those
within the school system.
11.5 All families of children with autism who home educate should have access to a key worker who
understands autism and home education. These professionals may be commissioned from existing services such
as autism outreach teams or from local autism voluntary organisations where there is sufficient understanding of
autism and home education.
11.6 It is imperative that those professionals supporting and monitoring home education for children with
autism have a good understanding of the condition and how home education may be differentiated for these
children.
11.7 Local authorities should seek to work in partnership with parents. Positive and constructive contact
with the local authority will be valued by many families of children with autism who home educate and will
help them achieve the best outcomes. Many of the parents who contact us experience no contact or only
negative contact with their local authority. In an NAS’ survey, more than half of the 31 respondents who had
home educated received no support at all from the local authority.20
11.8 Families of children with SEN should have access to generic support for home education such as exam
support. They will also require access to specialist support. This might include speech and language therapy,
occupational therapy, behavioural therapies, social skills support, autism advisory teachers, opportunities for
training and provision of communication aids such as PECS (Picture Exchange Communication Systems).
11.9 The pressures on families caring for a disabled child, and particularly a child with autism, should not
be underestimated. Home educators should be facilitated to access other support and services where appropriate,
such as social care and carers assessments, short breaks or child mental health services. As young people
approach adulthood, there need to be clear mechanisms for effective transition planning.
11.10 There is a clear role for ensuring that support is in place for children with SEN who are home educated
through making sure that all local offers, which will be developed as a result of the SEN reforms, set out the
support that the local authority provides for children who are home educated. Home educating parents should
be specifically involved in the development of local offers to ensure their needs are being met. A number of
parents told us that they struggled to get any information about what support and services they could access
as home educators. The local offer could be a mechanism for improving this information flow.
11.11 Relationships between local authorities and parents sometimes deteriorate, particularly where the
family has to fight to get support. Some families we work with have to go to tribunal three or four times to try
19
Green, H et al. (2005) Mental health of children in Great Britain 2004 ONS: London
20
Batten, A (2006) Make School Make Sense London: NAS
to get the right support for their child, and this inevitably has a detrimental impact on the relationship with the
school and/or local authority. In some cases, local authorities perceive parents as “difficult” when, in reality,
they are trying to get support for their children’s needs which the local authority may be unable or unwilling
to identify. If a home educator is reluctant to engage with the local authority this should not be viewed as a
potential indicator of abuse without additional evidence. We recommend that independent mediation be made
available in these circumstances to try and rebuild relationships.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Helen White

Duties of LAs
1. The relevant Acts, Guidance and Guidelines are set out below. They show that LAs have a duty to:
— Request information about education provision.
— Intervene if there is evidence to suggest that a child is not receiving suitable education.
— Safeguard/promote welfare when carrying out the above duties.
There is no duty to provide “support”.
2. Section 436A Education Act 1996 as quoted in the 2009 CME Statutory Guidance gives an LA a duty to:
make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children
in their area who are of compulsory school age but (a) are not registered pupils at a school, and (b) who
are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at school.
According to paragraph 87 of the same guidance:
The procedures to be followed with respect to such investigations are set out in the 2007 EHE Guidelines
(EHEGLA), 2.7–2.11 and 3.4–3.6.
These paragraphs state:
2.7 Local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on
a routine basis. However, under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, local authorities shall intervene
if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education. This section states that:
If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not
receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice
in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the
child is receiving such education.
2.9 Section 437(3) refers to the serving of school attendance orders: If
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education
authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education, and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school, the authority shall
serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a “school attendance order”), in such form as
may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in
the order.
s175 of Education Act 2002 states:
A local authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that their education functions are exercised with
a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Paragraph 2.12 of EHEGLA states:
Section 175(1) does not extend local authoritieś functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities
elective home education.
EHEGLA paragraph 2.15
As outlined above, local authorities have general duties to make arrangements to safeguard and promote
the welfare of children (section 175 Education Act 2002 in relation to their functions as a local authority
and for other functions in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004). These powers allow local
authorities to insist on seeing children in order to enquire about their welfare where there are grounds
for concern (sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989). However, such powers do not bestow on local
authorities the ability to see and question children subject to elective home education in order to establish
whether they are receiving a suitable education.
Available Support Financial & Otherwise

3.Choosing to educate otherwise is fundamentally equivalent to choosing private education. The financial
burden falls on the parent(s).
4. EHE families are often given access to “educational” rates for museum trips, sports activities etc Some
LAs promote this but far from all. Most concessions are negotiated either by individual home educators or by
our national charities.
5. During the seven years we have educated “otherwise” all the support I have needed has been accessed
through the home educating community. Nationally, there are a number of groups and/or charities to join.
There are Facebook groups and email lists where questions can be asked and issues debated. Frequently, these
signpost people to a wealth of online resources and information, but most importantly knowledge and
experience are shared freely. There are also annual fairs, conferences, shared holidays as well as local support
groups. In some circumstances groups of EHE families can access funding from charitable bodies eg the
Otherwise Club in London has been supported by the Jack Petchey Foundation for a number of years.
6. Some LAs produce information re resources, exam boards and local contacts, but this is usually in areas
where there is a good relationship between EHE community and the LA. Much of the information reproduced
or disseminated by LAs comes initially from within the EHE community.
Quality and Accessibility of Support

7. As stated above, in my experience, the quality and accessibility of support from the EHE community is
excellent. I have not asked for any support from my LA but I have considerable experience of there being
problems.
8. The main “support” which LAs can and should supply is reliable information. Sadly, this is very frequently
lacking. Currently I am part of a team carrying out research for HEAS, looking at the information provided by
LAs, mainly on their websites. HEAS will produce a full report shortly and it would be wrong to pre-empt
that. However, it is worth pointing out that of the 70 LAs I have investigated:
— 6% provide good information.
— 10% give no information.
— 24% make statements which are misleading.
— 30% make statements which do not reflect the current legislative framework.
9. It is very difficult for families to make informed choices if they are being misinformed. It can also be very
stressful if LAs are making unnecessary/unreasonable demands of them, based on their flawed understanding of
their duties. Indeed, the “support” offered by many LAs is of such quality that most EHE families go to great
efforts to avoid contact.
10. Some examples of the information available online:
Where children are home educated the council has a statutory duty to ensure that the education provision
is suitable.
The school will not remove the child from their school roll until 10 working days have elapsed and the
Education Welfare Service has carried out statutory checks…
…an education welfare officer from the inclusion/intervention team will visit the home of the pupil who
has been withdrawn within 10 working days.
Barnsley
11. Barnsley is far from unusual in making such misinformed and exaggerated assertions. The law around
provision for SEN is also often misrepresented.
The LEA will need to be satisfied that a child is receiving suitable education at home…
If you refuse to respond to their informal questions LEAs are permitted under case law to assume that
you are failing to provide any education and ultimately issue a School Attendance Order (which will force
you to return your child to school).
There is no law prohibiting the home education of statemented children provided they are not attending a
special school, in which case you will need the consent of the LEA. However, you need to be able to show
that you can provide for these special needs should the LEA enquire.
Bracknell Forest Borough Council
If your child attends a special school and has a statement of special educational needs, you must get our
consent to withdraw them from school to educate at home.
…where the Local Authority does not have evidence that a suitable education is being provided, it may
issue a Notice requiring the child to attend a named school. Failure to comply could result in prosecution
for failing to ensure attendance.
Durham
12. The tone of the examples above is quite threatening. By contrast Surrey is more factual and supportive.
If your child attends a special school, the agreement of the Local Authority should be sought before
removing him/her from school. This is not intended to hinder you from home educating your child, but to
ensure continuity of education.
Surrey County Council
13. Some examples of how these policies translate into action:
14. A family in Camden, at the end of a home visit asked what support was available. The response
was literally monosyllabic—“Nothing”. The unpleasant tone of voice with which it was delivered made a
lasting impression.
15. A parent in Central Beds withdrew her daughter from school to educate “otherwise” and was told by an
EWO that this was not possible, the child had to go to school. The child then attended a different school which
also failed to acknowledge or accommodate her medical needs despite the fact that she was registered as
disabled. The parent continued to research EHE and eventually successfully de-registered the child.
16. A family in Croydon de-registered their 12 year old and were told that the LA did not have an obligation
find her a school place if she wanted to go back, also that she couldn’t take GCSEs as there was no provision
for this.
17. Kensington & Chelsea made a “routine” contact with a single parent. Being French, she assumed this
was part of her divorce case and complied with their requests which involved submitting her young children
to testing. Her son refused to read to the EWO in English and on the strength of this K&C submitted a report
to the family court that her educational provision was not adequate. I attended two further meetings with the
LA and tried unsuccessfully to negotiate other ways of demonstrating that a suitable education was being
provided. The first of these meetings came to an abrupt end when the 8 year old, who was clearly finding the
testing stressful, vomited. At no point in the process was any reference made to the children being bilingual.
The LA’s clear expectation was that their educational attainment had to be measured against the norms of
attainment at school. Despite the individual EWOs involved in this case clearly wanting to be as supportive as
possible, their lack of understanding of EHE and its legal framework created nothing but negative outcomes
for the family.
18. Families in both Brent and Hillingdon have been subject to unannounced visits. Those in Hillingdon
being told that the children had to be seen to check their welfare. Hillingdon are in the process of rewriting
their EHE policy but have been resistant to working with local families and have ignored legal advice offered
by HEAS. These LAs are not alone in over interpreting their “safeguarding” duties.
Current Arrangements for Financial Support

19. There is no financial support for EHE per se of which I am aware. Funding arrangements for AP were
announced by Diana Johnson during 2009 but left most LAs confused and uncooperative. At the last APPG
Sheffield’s initiative to access funding for AP for EHE children was showcased. Few LAs seem to have taken
up the idea as yet.
Transition to FE/HE
20. This is not a stage we have reached but it is a significant hurdle for all EHE families as access to exams/
exam centres can be problematic and expensive.
21. Within the EHE community there is considerable knowledge and information sharing re the practicalities
of taking exams as well as the expectations/attitudes of FE/HE institutions.
Improvements Since 2009

22. Many LAs seem to have assumed the Badman recommendations were incorporated into statute and have
pushed that agenda on monitoring. This is not considered an improvement by the EHE community!
23. In London the merging of children’s services have caused uncertainty eg Westminster has had a positive
and fruitful relationship with a group of representative EHE families since 2007. This good relationship is not
mirrored in Hammersmith and Fulham nor Kensington and Chelsea, and it is as yet unclear which borough’s
approach to EHE will be adopted.
What Guidance is Available

24. Some LAs have a good understanding of the legal framework regarding EHE, many don’t. Frequently
the staff “on the ground” have very little idea of what the law does and doesn’t allow and all too often there
is prejudice against EHE per se eg
We believe that school education is best for a youngster because education should bring children into
contact with a whole variety of people...
Torbay Council
25. Some LSCBs cite non-attendance of school as a problem, completely ignoring the possibility of EHE eg
Illustrative indicators of a child in need: Pupils not registered with a school
Bath & NE Somerset Council
26. As Barking &Dagenham state in their LSCB document below, CME guidance gives them the duty to
seek out children who are not receiving a suitable education, but few powers. This is problematic for both LAs
and EHE families since LAs frequently resort to misinformation in order to “persuade” families to undergo
“regular monitoring”.
Local Authority’s right to monitor

Guidance issued by the (former) Department for Children, Families and Schools in February 2010 made
it clear that Local Authorities are expected to monitor elective home education. However, the legal position
remains less definite than the guidance might imply…
Local Authorities have powers to act only if something comes to their attention which gives reason to
suppose a breach of the parent’s obligation to provide suitable education. The law gives no power or duty
to investigate any instances of Elective Home Education which come to its attention, unless there are
grounds for suspicion that a suitable education is not taking place. This is clearly an untenable position
in that, without gathering information in a reasonably systematic way, the Local Authority will have little
basis on which to judge.
Barking & Dagenham
27. Despite B&D’s interpretation of the previous administration’s intentions, monitoring is not one of their
duties. It rarely provides useful support for families. Frequently it causes stress and other problems.
28. When an LA is insistent that it should monitor, it is difficult for any individual family to call them to
account. All too often families are intimidated into complying with LA demands, legitimate and otherwise, by
threats and bullying eg:
… lack of co-operation with the EWO and/or Pupil Improvement Officer will be treated as a cause for
concern. Whilst these visits are not mandatory, the LA must have some means of discharging its duty to
determine the suitability of the education provided, and its statutory powers in respect of cases where the
education is not suitable. Refusal to allow access to the home or the child, and/or refusal to produce
evidence of the work being undertaken, may cause the authority to involve other agencies in checking on
the welfare of the child.
Thurrock
Is there a need to alter guidance/support?
29. There is clearly a need for a mechanism to hold LAs to account.
30. It might be helpful to alter guidance so that LAs are in no doubt that they only have to intervene where
there is evidence to suggest that education is not being provided. However, past experience suggests that there
is considerable institutional prejudice which will continue regardless of any guidance and which will not be
easily overcome.
31. Unrealistic expectations of LAs regarding safeguarding rather than child protection have made most
professionals in this sector overly anxious. Since EHE is an area where parents retain their primary
responsibility for their children, the corresponding lack of contact or control for LA officials can become a de
facto source of concern for them. The result is not always, but far too often, a downward spiral of mutual
suspicion.
32. If LAs could offer substantive support, more families would doubtless make themselves known.
However, until the institutional prejudice has been completely eradicated, there will always be families who
choose to shun any contact or support. Their priority is independence and freedom from state intervention and
their unwillingness to engage should not be seen as a cause for concern but rather in its historical context.
33. Even if the current Government attempts to make LAs work within the law, there is no guarantee that
subsequent administrations will be sympathetic, so many EHE families will continue to prefer anonymity to
any form of state “support” even in the form of a large cheque.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Annette Jones

1. The duties of local authorities with regard to home education;
— I feel that the current law is clear and sufficient. However LA’s regularly do not to adhere to
it. As an example, recently, home educators in my local area received letters from the LA which
were aggressive, intimidating and misleading. The correspondence gave the impression that
families had by law to agree to either submit written evidence (using the LA’s own documents)
or agree to a visit, citing a time and date on the original letter. Due to its aggressiveness, many
home educators agreed to visits, despite knowing that the LA were acting clearly outside the
law and had no power to demand this.
— None. Many of us feel that to accept funding from LA’s would then result in contact with them
becoming mandatory, with the LA’s dictating more and more as to how we home educate. I do
not want contact from the LA, nor do I want funding.

— See point 2 above.

— See point 2 above
— I am not aware of any support. My children are not yet of this age.
— I am not aware of any improvements in support. On the contrary, it appears that “support” is
decreasing and ultra vire practices are becoming more common. Many LA’s around the country
routinely give misleading information to home educators and act completely outside their remit.
— The guidance is clear, the problem lays with the LA’s interpretation of that guidance. Measures
need to be put in place, to ensure that LA’s adhere to the law and they also need to be held
accountable when they get it wrong.
for home educators
— Support should be optional. Home educators should be allowed to continue without support
from the LA’s, if they do so with, without experiencing force or fear of repercussions.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Bridgend Home Educators

Summary
— Bridgend local authority and Bridgend Home Educators have developed a new and innovative way to
work in partnership.
— This partnership is formalised via a Service Level Agreement.
— Bridgend local authority devolves financial responsibility and decision making to the home educating
community.
— A large range of services are available to home educators in Bridgend at little cost to the local authority.
— Further services are provided via Bridgend Home Educators.
— Home educators are fully involved and integrated into delivery of services right across statutory provision.
— Bridgend local authority has a high level of engagement with local home educating families.
— Home educators report high levels of satisfaction.
— The Bridgend model is being looked at closely by other local authorities in South Wales with a view
to replication.
July 2012
1. Bridgend Home Educators (BHE) is a support, advice, educational and social group for home educated
children across South Wales. It has grown steadily since its inception in September 2010, and now has a
waiting list for membership.
2. BHE was set up in response to suggestions from the home educating community, and is wholeheartedly
supported by the local authority. Close working, openness and communication between home educators and
the local authority is key to the success of the partnership.
3. Bridgend Local Authority has been extremely supportive of home educators and funds BHE via a Service
Level Agreement, to the value of £5,000 per annum. This money stabilises the organisation by guaranteeing
core funding. BHE also receives grant funding.
4. By providing money to BHE, Bridgend Local Authority devolves decisions about the best use of financial
help to the home educating community. At present, the group spends the majority of the money of renting a
venue for weekly meetings, GCSE classes, and the costs incurred in sitting GCSE exams as external candidates
at a local FE college. Money may also be spent on social, artistic and educational experiences and workshops,
particularly those which are difficult to access at home, such as group music making or dance. BHE’s activities
complement parents’ education and are optional, as well as free at the point of delivery.
5. The local authority respects the fact that some home educating families may choose not to be known to
them. This is an arrangement supported by law. However in practice, because the authority is supportive of
home educators, BHE knows of very few families who are not in contact with the local authority.
6. BHE provides training to the local authority liaison, and to other local authority staff. The local authority
liaison is thus fully aware of the spectrum of approaches to home education that families may choose.
7. When a family notifies the local authority that they are intending to deregister or have deregistered their
child from school, they are offered a visit from the local authority’s elective home education liaison together
with an experienced home educator. Working in tandem is not only an important outward show of unity, but
also allows for transparency. Home educators are able to understand the problems and concerns of local
authorities, while the local authority liaison is also able to learn from the perspective of home educators.
8. If a family chooses to receive a home visit, they are offered a library ticket giving access to 30 books for
half a term. They are told of the discounts available to home educators in the area, given the contact details
for a pass giving free term time access to CADW properties, told of home educators’ days at local museums
and art galleries, and offered access to specialist support from dyslexia teachers, autism outreach teams and
other local authority services where appropriate.
9. The home educator in attendance will also explain that books and resources are available to borrow via
BHE, and will outline the support available at the group. He or she will discuss home education and try to
answer families’ questions and concerns. The family will be given telephone numbers for both BHE and the
local authority liaison, so that support is only a phone call away.
10. Before Bridgend local authority adopted a joint working approach, some families chose not to receive
home visits. By including a home educator in initial contacts with families, we find that families almost always
want to meet. They are always offered the option to meet at a neutral venue if meeting in the home setting
makes them feel uncomfortable. For the tiny minority who refuse a visit, contact is kept to the medium the
family choose. Some families will only have contact with the home educating community, while others choose
to keep in contact with the local authority by email, telephone or letter, and with BHE via email, Facebook or
a yahoo group. Multiple ways to communicate mean that home educating families are well supported and we
are now finding that families who historically chose not to have contact with the local authority will now
communicate happily via email.
11. In some local authorities, home education is the responsibility of the behaviour support service, or is
allocated to staff member with responsibility for special educational needs. This tends to influence the outlook
of local authority personnel, often negatively. In Bridgend, home education is recognised as a valid alternative
to mainstream school and sits within the EOTAS (Education Other Than At School) department.
12. Some families may decide on reflection that home education is not the correct choice. Because the local
authority liaison works closely with the EOTAS department, young people may then be recommended to
alternative provisions that the local authority provides, such as specialist placements for anxious non-attenders.
13. Home educating families are not routinely “monitored”, a word which home educators detest. The local
authority liaison makes yearly contact with families by telephone or letter to offer support and update the
family on any new services being provided. Families may choose to discuss the education they are providing
for their children. In practice, the home education liaison has such a non-judgemental and warm relationship
with families that she knows them all well and an annual telephone call is no more than a paper exercise.
WAG guidelines on this point are also very home educator friendly.
14. 14 to 16 year old home educated children are offered careers advice via a dedicated careers counsellor.
This service was negotiated with Careers Wales and has been rolled out to other local authority areas in South
Wales. This is an easy and low cost way to support home educators. Home educated children may self refer
or may choose to access the careers counsellor at BHE meetings. The careers counsellor is also able to organise
work experience, which home educated children had previously missed out on.
15. 14 to 16 year olds are also able to access Bridge Mentoring, a third sector organisation which provides
one to one learning coaches. These volunteers support young people to reach their full potential.
16. Learn Direct is also available to young people over the age of 14 and provides a useful alternative to
the standard academic route of GCSEs. The local authority liaison makes this service known to the families of
all home educated 14 year olds.
17. GCSE access is provided by a local FE college with whom the local authority has negotiated reduced
fees for invigilation. Costs will be reduced still further next year by having trained home educating parents as
invigilators. This was easily arranged by including home educators in local authority staff training programmes.
18. BHE is an ideal forum whereby statutory agencies and third sector organisations can engage with home
educated children who are not otherwise able to access services. Examples include the Careers Service,
Educational Psychology assessment, dyslexia support, Bridgend Youth Service, the Children’s Commissioner
for Wales and counselling services. Families may access these services confident that their information will
not be passed to the local authority unless they choose (excluding of course any child protection information
which must necessarily be shared).
19. BHE offers access to alternative qualifications where requested by our members. These might include
OCNs (Agored Cymru), Arts Award and other vocational qualifications. Our young people are then in a stronger
position to apply to further education establishments.
20. The local authority liaison and home educators routinely visit statutory and third sector organisations in
Bridgend to raise awareness of home education and persuade organisations to include home educated children
in their service delivery. This means that home education has a high profile in Bridgend and families are less
likely to encounter prejudice and misinformation from professionals. Conversely, professionals are easily able
to refer home educators to sources of support, ie local authority and BHE.
21. BHE committee members are routinely included by the local authority in their own staff training
programmes, for example child protection. The local authority also informs BHE of courses, external providers
and other learning opportunities being used in their own alternative provisions, and facilitates meetings should
BHE wish to take up these opportunities.
22. BHE is also a platform for exchange of information between the local authority and home educating
parents. Information which the local authority wishes to make known to home educators may be given out via
BHE without compromising the anonymity of any family. Similarly, home educating families provide yearly
feedback to the local authority via a survey, which they may choose to keep anonymous.
23. The Bridgend model has been highly successful in terms of home educators’ satisfaction. From the local
authority’s point of view, engagement with families is very high, staff are knowledgeable about the various
approaches home educators have to education and there is a genuine attitude of respect and support. Families
meanwhile report feeling understood and appreciate the willingness of the local authority to offer help where
necessary, while maintaining a “hands off” approach where home education is clearly going well.
24. BHE and Bridgend local authority now organise and host termly meetings with local authority liaisons
from right across South Wales. Attendance is high and all staff that attend are grateful for help, support and
training. Also present at these meetings are home educators from 4 (soon to be 6 and hopefully more) local
authority areas. We are gradually putting LA staff in touch with home educators in their areas via these forums,
and finding that letters and policies have already been reworded as a result of partnership working. Some LAs
are also looking at replicating the service level agreement idea in their areas.
25. In the future, BHE hopes that young people in statutory alternative educational provisions will be able
to access BHE’s services, thus increasing partnership working opportunities and narrowing the gap of
understanding between home education and mainstream provision.
26. BHE’s founder Rachel Milgate has been roundly attacked on internet forums by a vociferous minority
of home educators who view any cooperation with local authorities as a betrayal. BHE begs to differ and
suggests that the model of partnership, co-operative working in Bridgend is the way forward for home education
in the UK.
Written evidence submitted by Education Otherwise Association

1. Executive Summary: This submission by Education Otherwise addresses all the issues raised by the
Education Committee. It briefly considers the duties of local authorities towards home educators and the
support currently available. The bulk of the submission considers the problems that home educators experience
when they try to access support. Although some support is available, the vast majority of home educators have
no access to financial or practical assistance from their local authority. The majority of practical assistance and
advice is provided through informal peer networks of home educators. Financial support for home-educated
young people is largely provided from individual family budgets and the wider family. There is little apparent
improvement since the recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee n December 2009.
This submission ends with recommendations that the government specify policies and strengthen the guidance
to local authorities to improve the support available to home educators.
2. Submitter: This submission has been prepared by the trustees of Education Otherwise (EO), a charity that
supports electively home-educating parents and those contemplating elective home education. EO is supported
by subscriptions from its member families and operates mostly in England and Wales. It provides a telephone
helpline and online information and support groups available to members and non-members; it also provides
local points of contact and business meetings for members. EO has around 3500 member families across the
UK from the far north of Scotland to the tip of Cornwall.
3. The duties of local authorities (LAs) with regard to home education: Section 437 of the Education Act
1996 sets out LAs’ duty to children who appear not to be receiving a suitable education. Although there is no
statutory duty to provide practical or financial assistance in respect of a child who is electively home educated,
some LAs provide assistance. This assistance varies widely between LAs, meaning that families experience a
“postcode lottery” when it comes to support.
4. Support currently available for home educators: Appendix 3 of the Guidance Notes for the 2012
Alternative Provision (AP) Census makes it clear that electively home-educated children who receive significant
financial support from the LA may be included in the census. Children included on the AP Census have their
educational needs funded by the LA from the DSG. In addition, LAs may arrange for home-educated children
with specific educational needs to access services (such as SALT or portage) that are usually provided to
children in school. An LA can also make it more or less easy for home-educated young people to access exam
centres, library services, leisure services, music services, and other services provided to pupils.
5. The quality and accessibility of that support: The problems with all forms of support is that the provision
is at the discretion of the LA. This means that the quality and accessibility are not uniform across the country.
As well as the usual variation in local budget priorities, some LAs seem to resent home-educating families and
to make it as difficult as possible for them to access support. Others are simply apathetic and do not put
sufficient resources or expertise into providing the resources.
(a) Some LAs seem reluctant to draw down DSG funding for alternative provision for home-
educated children. Parents report that other LAs draw down the available DSG funds for home-
educated children but then put a ceiling on the provision that is passed onto the family. The
amount of money retained by the LA is often much greater than could be explained by an
administrative charge.
(b) Some LAs refuse children with SEN access to help unless they attend school but others provide
transport and flexible access that meets the needs of the child’s family.
(c) Some LAs provide a service (such as, music) which is advertised as being for children who
attend LA schools but parents who challenge this have their arguments accepted and their
children are given access; other LAs refuse to budge and insist that extracurricular music and
sport is only provided as a supplement for registered pupils.
(d) Some LAs give home-educated families access to teachers’ resources (books and equipment)
through the library service; other families have to fund all specialist equipment and resources
from the household budget.
(e) Some LAs liaise between schools or colleges and parents to ensure that home-educated young
people have access to national exams; other LAs simply provide a list of schools and colleges
and tell parents that they have to approach them independently.
6. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate: The current arrangements are inadequate
because of the difficulty of access in many areas and because the will of LAs to make provision available
varies so widely across the country.
7. The support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education:
There is very little LA support for the transition to further and higher education.
(a) If a home-educated young person is academically inclined and wishes to access examination
courses through a college when under 16, parents are often asked to bear the whole cost as
colleges claim to be unable to access funding. Some colleges have been able to find funding
for a few young people but cannot do so for larger numbers. Some LAs offer access to PRUs
for young people who have a disability or who have been withdrawn from school because of
bullying or other traumatic circumstances. This may not be acceptable to the family as the
young person would often be working alongside peers with low aspirations and low
expectations of education. It is also not offered to other home-educating families.
(b) Many home-educating families undertake the mammoth task of enabling their teenage children
to achieve level 2 qualifications (often IGCSEs because they do not have the mandatory
coursework elements of GCSEs, which are well-nigh impossible for home-educated young
people to complete). This usually means that each individual family has to locate a centre
willing to allow the young person to sit the exam alongside their own candidates; negotiate any
additional exam requirements; and pay between £35 and £200 per subject—all before helping
the young person prepare the subject material. The cost and difficulty of this process means
that home-educated young people often take only as few level 2 qualifications as they need
(usually five) to gain access to level 3 college courses.
(c) Other families defer any attempt at level 2 qualifications until the young person is 16, when
they can be admitted free to college alongside their age peers from school. This typically means
that they are admitted to “resit” courses in which they cover five GCSEs in an academic year
with schooled young people who failed to achieve the grades they wanted when they took the
exams in school. There are many stories of home-educated young people who have achieved
very good grades or who have been moved onto level 3 courses after a month or two, having
shown the tutors that they are motivated and have the underpinning subject knowledge.
(d) A few families with children who have the potential for university have enrolled young people
from about 13 years old on courses with the Open University (OU). They report that this gives
them an excellent grounding in independent university-level study and writing as well as
providing subject knowledge. Modern foreign languages and sciences are particularly difficult
for home-educated young people to access (because of the practical aspects); the OU system
makes this relatively easy. In addition, the OU’s extensive experience in distance learning and
in teaching independent learners of all ages and with a range of additional needs (disabilities,
caring responsibilities and employment) means that it is well-suited to support home-educated
young people. Sufficient home-educating parents work for the OU to be able to provide peer
support in working through the OU’s admissions process. However, the changes from this
September to align the funding of the OU’s part-time study is expected to effectively close off
this route to home-educated young people who do not want to jeopardise their access to a
student loan for a traditional university course.
8. Improvements made to support for home educators since the December 2009 recommendations of the
Children, Schools and Families Committee: There seems to have been very little improvement in support since
the recommendations of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. According to research carried out by
Fiona Nicholson (http://edyourself.org/articles/FundingReport.php), fewer than 25% of LAs claimed funding
for alternative provision for home-educated young people in 2010–11. Some LAs are making a policy of not
providing such funding. It is unclear why they should simply refuse to draw down funds available from central
government although one LA has said that it cannot afford to pay the costs upfront and then wait to claim the
funding back from central government.
9. Guidance available for local authorities concerning their duties in regard to home education: Home
educators feel that the current guidance on alternative provision and funding through the DSG is clear but are
concerned that LAs do not seem to accept that it means that they may provide practical and financial support
to home-educated young people within existing arrangements.
10. Alterations to existing policy or arrangements for support: EO recommends that government makes it
clear to local authorities that they can access funding and directs them to draw up a policy that specifies the
support they provide for home educators. At a minimum, this should include the following areas:
(a) practical support and provision of equipment for children with SEN commensurate with what
they would receive in school (eg SALT and communication aids) if the parent requests it;
(b) access to local exam centres to sit level 2 and 3 qualifications at no cost to the family, including
access to marking of coursework and practical work;
(c) practical assistance through a local careers service or sixth form with preparing applications to
institutions of higher and further education; and
(d) access to extracurricular activities on the same cost basis as for children registered at school.
11. EO would also recommend that local authorities consider best practice across the country and make
arrangements for home-educating families and groups to have access to the various education services accessed
by schools (eg field trips and outdoor centres). This access should be advertised and the costs should clearly
be similar to those applied to schools, rather than home educators being treated as commercial customers.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Susannah Matthan

1. I am submitting this evidence to the Education Select Committee as a mother and long-term elective home
educator (EHE) with added perspective as a professional with 20 years experience in the field of education with
good standing. I have volunteered my time in several roles, including valuable time spent on telephone support
helplines. I am acutely aware of the anxieties and stresses faced by law abiding home educating families
threatened and pressurised by authorities under the guise of “support and advice”.
2. Since time began, and families were invented, parents have held responsibility for their children. Some
might consider this a sacred responsibility. As a parent I care for my family and consider this responsibility to
be an honour, a privilege and a blessing. Because I take this responsibility very seriously, I will not tolerate
any unnecessary intrusion or enforcement of spurious surveillance upon my family, particularly without any
evidence that I have harmed anyone in any way.
3. The current culture of “safeguarding and surveillance” is crushing families who are simply trying to live
in as natural a way as possible. The government is failing in its responsibility to families by not stopping the
corrupt, deceptive and calculating methods used by Local Authorities (LAs) cunningly disguised as “support”.
4. LAs are the paid servants of the people, to be called upon if and when they are needed and to mind their
own business when not. Nothing less than open, no-strings-attached support is likely to really help families.
5. For my family, I choose to opt out of all the “support and advice” specifically offered by my LA for home
educators. Instead, I find quality alternative sources of up-to-date accurate advice, support and any other
necessary information. In the open world in which we live, the only agencies I find to be lacking in integrity
are those offering “free” advice and support. As I want to raise my family with integrity, I avoid such support.
6. The advice and support put forward by LAs is frequently out of date, ultra vires and poorly written. Home
educators frequently have to provide a free monitoring and policing service to errant LAs by emailing them
and reminding them that they need to abide by the law in all matters. Often, LAs ignore these emails or make
token minor adjustments to their websites while still maintaining their own policies.
7. There is confusion amongst LAs regarding their precise role towards home educating families. This is
because they have been allowed to get away with interpreting the law as they go along. Each LA has their
own version of events. Home educators are generally very clued up on their legal responsibilities and rights.
LAs don’t appear to like this very much and they certainly do not like being reminded by home educators that
their role is limited by law.
8. I have watched the role of LAs change gradually over the last couple of decades, noticing particularly
nasty developments since the unification of the education and welfare roles of LAs. Our current “safeguarding
and surveillance” culture has blinded LAs to the point of being fixated on anyone and everyone who they
believe chooses a different way of life. Not illegal, just different.
9. LAs have created “pathways” and “routes” that they project onto families and children with god-like
prophetic powers that frequently remain unchallenged and scientifically unproven. Every child matters to LAs,
purely because each child has a price on their head and the bounty hunters are out to get it. We, the families,
have information which LAs want. They also want it free whilst being paid to collect this information. I intend
to charge a professional rate to any LA requesting information from me about my provision. This will reflect
the time that is needed to put together such information with added costs for reproducing the evidence required.
We, after all, foot all our educational costs, without government help, whilst LAs are handsomely paid to offer
“support and advice” that we don’t actually need or want.
10. Families who find themselves slipping down the stages of LA parenting pathways are swiftly labelled
and judged to be “hostile and uncooperative” reserving special surveillance for them. LAs have been training
“workers” to use special psychic powers of observation to decide which of these families comply transparently
or in a “disguised” manner. You can find any number of courses being run for LA staff to sharpen and use
these powers. Families are now being judged according to this sort of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. The
assumption is that parents cannot be trusted to raise their children without the all seeing eye of the state.
11. These new attitudes are very significant, driving a wedge between ordinary law-abiding families who
choose to take their freedom to educate their children through the non school centric route, and the LAs who
believe that there is something very suspicious about them. This statist belief system must be challenged.
12. There is no need to re-live the Badman & Balls agenda, but the horrific fallout from their double act
still has echoes. It is reprehensible to suspect families who consider home education as guilty of wrongdoing.
Domestic servitude, child abuse and forced marriage were considered reasonable (unfounded) suspicions.
Questions were asked about the mental health of mothers who wanted to home educate their own children.
13. These beliefs stated above have become confused with facts. No evidence was produced to prove that
EHE families were highly likely to abuse their children. Yet the suspicion continues.
14. The current focus on “targets” rather than “real people” has reached fever pitch. LAs and those contracted
to do their work (private companies, educational trusts etc), have adopted bullying tactics to lasso in families
through any means possible. These include being lured into contributing to “invitation only” EHE focus groups;
offering “free” courses which take children away from their parents (offering childcare while the parents can
have “free time”); tempting them to all sorts of “free” support. Clearly, it isn’t free, as the tax payer is covering
these costs.
15. Ultimately, all support that is offered amounts to almost nothing for the families. What it does amount
to is lots of collected “evidence” and “information” on participants and families, which is used to increase
funds for LAs. Nothing material or of any great significance is offered to families and serves only to increase
the powers of the LA. LAs are using and abusing the trust of families to gather information, giving families
nothing in return but collecting government money claiming that families have been supported. This really is
an amazingly impressive and creative way of raising money for very little work and no resources whatsoever.
16. The new jobs created to support EHE families (EHE Consultants/Advisers) consist largely of ex-teachers
(with a fundamental belief that school is the best place for children) or social services workers who aim to
steer families back onto the school pathway. There is absolutely no impartiality offered whatsoever. These
workers are the mouthpieces of the LA and the only positive outcome, from their perspective, is for bums on
seats. There is very little respect for the entirely legal and very positive choice to home educate.
17. LAs are not at all interested in recruiting qualified and/or experienced home educators to these advisor
posts. This is no different to excluding a disabled person from a role which involves offering experiential
support to people with disabilities. The hidden agenda behind these new roles must be challenged and
transparency restored. Support is best offered by someone with hands-on experience and that is why home
educators have always supported one another. Surveillance, on the other hand, can easily be carried out by
someone trained to do just that. Most, if not all, support that LAs offer is easily available within a few clicks
on the internet. These posts are redundant and wasteful.
18. LA secrecy must be challenged. Some have refused to publish the names of their personnel involved
who may be visiting families. LA personnel have even been known to try and get onto EHE groups and forums
on social media sites. The legalities of such activities and LAs lack of transparency are shockingly underhand
and questionable.
19. The “hostility and lack of cooperation” accusations directed at families can most certainly be seen to be
in evidence in LAs. They shroud themselves behind data protection, privacy, safeguarding policies whilst
flouting all of them themselves.
20. My recommendation would be for the government to issue SIMPLE and CLEAR EHE instructions to
LAs which they must publish on their websites. The law must not be left to be misinterpreted or disguised by
workers who are intent on accessing and procuring families for their databases and records. Yes, we all know
they are still very much in existence.
21. As a law abiding home educator and responsible parent, I am aware that there are already sufficient laws
to protect ALL children from harm. I uphold these laws and expect LAs to do their job. To specifically pick
out and vilify home educating families must surely be illegal.
22. For LAs to attempt to doorstep innocent families claiming that they MUST enter homes and see children
UNSUPERVISED is illegal. Just because an LA interprets the law their own way does not make it legal. They
are not above the law and home educators must be able to make legal challenges against them if they break
the law. Workers must not be allowed to hide behind LA skirts.
23. LAs need to be publically accountable for the way in which they treat ALL families, with named staff
and complaint routes stated in obvious places.
24. The practice of hiding essential information on LA websites must be challenged. All families with
children must be made aware of their rights and responsibilities with regard to education BEFORE their
children reach compulsory education age. This means clearly informing them of their right to choose to send
their child to school or to educate them otherwise. Far too many parents are led to believe that EHE is a second
rate choice reserved for miscreants, truants, religious fanatics or irresponsible parents who let their children
run wild. School does not suit all children, but LAs choose to ignore evidence that demonstrates this, constantly
stressing that “school is the best place for all children”. It is not. Two decades of working with numerous
unhappy children is evidence enough for me.
25. Within the current system, all children wanting to educate themselves and pursue their educational
interests should be offered equal and fair advice. At present, this is simply not the case. Many schools and
colleges operate discriminatory practices by having a corporate monopoly on courses and examinations. Some
young people opt to take exams then find out that they are being charged significantly more than the subsidised
rate that schooled children get. The cost price listed clearly should be made available to EHE children across
the country, not based on profiteering examination centres. As a result of these practices, home educators
can end up travelling far away from home for their children to take exams. Discriminatory practices should
be challenged.
26. Like many other home educators, I do not ask for nor expect financial support to educate my child. Yet,
I continue to pay twice for the privilege of home educating. I am taxed through wages and choose to fully
fund our child’s education. There must be a way of ensuring that this discrimination ends. I have saved The
Treasury over 11 years of annual capitation by funding my child’s education. I do not ask for any special
treatment, just a clarification that my child is not barred from any local facility that all other children have
access to.
27. I appreciate the limited scope of this inquiry but must stress that many LAs have overstepped their mark
by making unreasonable demands on families. They need to be strongly advised to abide by the law, uphold
the law and be explicit regarding their responsibilities towards families and children. While this inquiry is not
interested in safeguarding or any curriculum, LAs need to be able to state clearly their intentions when they
approach families. Families are pressurised into believing that they have broken laws, been negligent or
irresponsible if they do not allow LAs to have their wicked way with them.
28. All LAs approaching families must explicitly state, in writing, the specific reason for their contact,
including the person’s qualifications and experience in the field of home education. Sending different workers
at various times, unannounced and uninvited, to collect different data, can no longer be tolerated. The days of
informal cold calling by LAs and reliance upon the goodwill on the part of home educators must come to
an end.
29. Some LAs treat families as if they have an automatic right of access to their children. They don’t.
Children and families belong together, held together by generational bonds which no LA can supersede.
Families have their unique social and educational circles, meeting people of all walks of life. EHE families
live in the real world of interaction with real people of all ages, from friends to professionals.
30. LAs who model poor practice in the way they treat EHE families need to be held accountable. Thus far,
it has been vigilant home educators with limited means (ie the family budget) who have had to remind LAs of
the law with regard to EHE. The time has come to have a clear accountability pathway where everyone knows
exactly WHO the workers are, WHAT is expected of them and WHY they are doing it. We will accept
nothing less.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Worcestershire Home Education Network

1. The duties of the local authorities (LAs) are laid out by the “Elective Home Education: Guidelines for
LAs” published by the Department of Education in November 2007. The difficulties have been in getting the
LA to abide by them.
2. In Worcestershire, home educators have been working closely with the Home Education Liaison Officer
(HELO) and a number of different managers, to improve the policies on Home Education. Over a number of
years we have met with the LA, and have twice been in a situation, where we thought we had agreed a policy
together with the LA, only to find that it reverted to the previous ultra vires position when put to managers
higher in line, at the council.
3. The situation in Worcs has been complicated by the HELO going on maternity leave, and she was not
replaced for the first six months, and then someone else was bought in for the second six months.
4. In that time, the policy on home education has been reverted to one we thought had been thrown out
several years ago. It has been marked as amended in 2012 http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/cms/early-
intervention-and-support/elective-home-education.aspx
We have been told that as it is merely an amendment of accepted policy, it did not require consultation with
home educators or other interested parties. This is dismaying as this was the ultra vires policy that we have
been working on for over five years. To find it ratified without consultation with local home educators, or even
notice is to say the least disrespectful. Other documents also discarded previously, have been bought back and
all contact details for the local Home Education Group have been removed from the LAs website.
5. The HELO has returned to work now, but has been only on a part time contract with no administrative
support, for the last four months. In the meantime there has been an increase in the number of children being
home educated by approximately 20%. The result of this has been mix ups over which families have been
contacted, and families feeling harassed as they are receiving multiple letters demanding information.
Worcestershire LA continues to insist that it has an obligation to monitor home educating families on a
routine basis.
6. In the past the HELO has been very supportive in investigating ASDAN courses and other support for
home educators wanting to do qualifications. Now it seems she has no time for any of this. Further last year
Worcestershire LA (after much discussion and argument) were persuaded to fund home educated children to
access FE colleges using the Alternative Provision Census. This year we are told they are refusing to do so at
all. Therefore we feel that current arrangements for financial support—where it has been requested by home
educating families, are inadequate. However our group remains firm in our conviction, that any support offered
must not at any time become obligatory.
7. The HELO no longer has time enable support for home-educated students’ transition to further education
and higher education. Families have been advised that they will have to do all of the research themselves and
approach potential places for exams, and further education. Connexions Advisors are no longer visiting
alongside the HELO. As more and more cuts are made to budgets at the LA, home educating families are
concerned that the HELO may be made redundant and instead her role will be filled by people who have no
understanding of home based education-as we have been seeing in neighbouring authorities.
8. We have seen NO improvements locally to support for home educators since the December 2009
Local home educators require the LA and it’s officers to be knowledgeable about home education law and
practice. We would like the Government to make it clear that the EHE Guidelines for LAs are effectively made
statutory by the mention of them in the statutory Children Missing Education Guidelines section 87:
“Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make arrangements to establish (so
far as it is possible to do so) the identities of children who are not pupils at schools and who are not otherwise
receiving suitable education. In order to comply with this duty local authorities need to make arrangements
which will as far as possible enable them to determine whether any children who are not pupils at schools,
such as those being educated at home, are receiving suitable education. In order to do this local authorities
should make inquiries with parents educating children at home about the educational provision being made for
them. The procedures to be followed with respect to such investigations are set out in the EHE Guidelines,
2.7–2.11 and 3.4–3.6.”
9. We are convinced that it is the duty of the parent to ensure an efficient and suitable education, at school
or otherwise. The parent must remain responsible for the form and direction of the education their child
receives. This also means they must be free to choose to accept or decline, without any associated and pejorative
implications, when support is offered by the LA.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Tracy Brind
I am fairly new to home education and have found some difficulties when accessing information.
As my daughter reaches the time for taking GCSE exams it would be useful to be able to have easy access to:
1. Information from our local department on where we can access exam centres
2. A small nominal fee to be charged for attending these centres rather than the large fees which
make taking many exams prohibative
3. Access to be able to sit “mock” exams to become confortable with the exam environment
I have also been dismayed at the lack of financial support for home educators. Subsidised access to:
1. Tutors.
2. Book companies.
3. Internet Cirriculum providers.
would make life easier.

July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Elizabeth Taylor
I am a home educator and have been educating my children at home for six years.
1. The local authorities are fond of labelling their surveillance and monitoring as “support”. While I
understand that they have to be satisfied that children are receiving a suitable education, this is not support,
and should not be described as such.
2. More effort needs to be made to employ people with a full understanding of home education for this task.
3. Actual support appears to be non existent. Any support and advice comes, as it always has done, from
other home educators, For example; recently my son wished to sit GCSE maths. I sought advice as to which
schools had accepted external candidates, how to go about it, deadlines etc from fellow home educators as
usual, and rang round the schools on the list and then in the phone directory. It took some time and I found it
hard to find a place. When I asked my L A for help, they advised me that there was no list of exam centres
and told me to ring round schools myself, which was exactly what I had been doing!
4. The support I would like to see is access at reasonable cost [maybe even free?] to sit GCSE, IGCSE etc
exams, maybe even for a centre to be made available if schools continue to be unhelpful, after all it only needs
a room.
5. Perhaps also access to college courses for teenagers. I yet to try this, but my friends tell me that all sorts
of obstacles are raised, one friend eventually had to pay for two places, one for her, as she was obliged to
accompany her 15 year old on a French course.
E Taylor
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Lisa Dillon
1. The duties of local authorities with regard to home education.
Most LAs, according to their websites, claim to have no duties with regards to financial support of home
education, though some claim to have a duty to monitor and a duty to satisfy themselves that educational
provision is suitable, neither of which is the case in law. LAs claim to have no money for anything useful, eg
to help home educated children access exams, but seem to be able to find money to monitor families. Kent
County Council, while acknowledging that it has no duty to monitor, announced earlier this year that it would
be employing more monitoring staff. At best this is a waste of public money; a diversion of resources to where
they are simply not needed.
2. What support (financial or otherwise) is currently available for home educators, including from local
authorities and other bodies.
As far as I’m aware there is no financial support from local authorities. My LA (Medway) says home
educators must fund their children’s education including exams should they wish to take them. Funding for
groups is available in some cases from private foundations specialising in specific types of educational
provision, eg science, the arts, etc. Other organisations are seemingly becoming more aware of home education
and many now offer school rates for group or family activities. However, recently I have been made aware of
home educated children being purposefully excluded from certain opportunities involving the Olympics simply
because they are not attached to a school. I have also witnessed huge numbers of new home educators who,
having made their LA’s website their first port of call, are woefully misinformed and unnecessarily worried
about outside interference. The home educating community at large, through internet forums and local groups,
is having to educate new home educators because local authority information is incorrect. This could easily be
avoided if LAs stuck to the government guidelines.
3. I’m not sure what other types of support an LA should provide, but below are some examples of things
that might be useful to some, or which have been tried out in the more progressive LAs:
— helping families to access exam centres;
— funding correspondence courses and exams;
— providing local contacts;
— providing accurate legal information so that parents can make informed choices;
— negotiating reduced rates at tourist attractions, educational centres, etc;
— offering reduced rates or even free sessions at local council-owned leisure facilities;
— providing home educator library cards (no late fees, larger book limit, etc);
— negotiating reduced rates with educational providers (websites, etc);
— offering financial support and negotiating entry for college/OU based on ability rather than age;
— arranging trips, events, workshops, etc;
— organising a local forum to discuss issues and work towards solutions to problems faced by
home educating families; and
— at the grand end of the scale, the child’s per pupil funding (or portion of it) could be allocated
to parents (through the LA) for specific purchases (based on points system like clubcard points
or job package)—this could include things like memberships to National Trust or similar,
educational software/website subscriptions, railcards, magazine subs, books, courses, science
equipment, art supplies, sports classes, workshops, etc.
4. One of the things that has really thrown a spanner in the works for home educated children is the changes
to Open University fees. Historically, home educated children have made fantastic use of the OU’s reasonable
fees and have used their achievements with the OU as a way of negotiating their way into college with fewer
than the required GCSEs, but now that the OU has been subjected to the same price fixing as the other
universities, and the once reasonable £500 courses are now £2500, my family, like many others, cannot afford
to use it. We are told that to get on level 2 or level 3 courses at college for free, children must not already
have level 4 qualifications (eg OU certificates). This limits their educational choices to a degree not faced by
schooled children, and is therefore effectively discriminatory.
5. The quality and accessibility of that support.

If there is support available on a local level, and home educators aren’t hearing about it, I’d say accessibility
is a problem. We cannot access what we don’t know about. Likewise we cannot judge its quality if we are not
aware of it. If accurate information qualifies as support, I’d say in the majority of cases that its quality is not
good enough at all. If home visits qualify as support we are on shaky ground indeed. Some EHE advisors
might be genuinely interested in helping home educating families, but some doorstep in pairs, some call
themselves inspectors or assessors. There is no consistency. Provision is a postcode lottery.
6. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate.

On the whole I’d say not. However, it’s important to consider that not everyone wants support as it tends to
come with strings, and some prefer to be completely independent of the state as a matter of principle. We knew
what we signed up for when we started home educating. I didn’t expect any help and I haven’t had any help
(not from the LA at any rate). I am perfectly happy with this arrangement. I can’t imagine wanting their
support, but I am open to their ideas should they ever start providing it. It would need to be impressive indeed
before I’d consider negotiating away my children’s freedoms (on their behalf and with their consent).
7. The support available for home-educated students’ transition to further education and higher education.
I’m not sure this is an issue as at this point many of their peers will have left school and are essentially in
the same position. If they go to college full-time they cease to be home educated. Integration from a social
perspective is rarely a problem, after all home educated children do grow up in the real world, and most tend
to negotiate their way into college based on their personality and achievements (even if those achievements
aren’t quite the same as they would be if the children had been to school). However, there are home educated
children unable to access courses because they are not old enough, and finding themselves able to get funding
for a level 2 course but not the level 3 course that would suit them much better.
With regards to support, I’d say there have been no improvements whatsoever. Most LAs will not act upon
non-statutory guidance unless there is something in it for them. However, this is difficult to answer because
there are a number of LAs who behave as if some of the more unwelcome recommendations from the Badman
Report passed into legislation, and it’s a sad fact that the Localism Act has enabled them to do it without
accountability. For example, those new to home education, who perhaps don’t know the law as well as some
of us do are deliberately hoodwinked by the local authority; by doorstepping educational welfare officers and
outright lies published on their websites. Home visits are imposed, suitability of provision is assessed by those
who have no power to enforce it, who appoint themselves as parent, and disempower the real parent whose
compliance provides the local authority with licence to interfere in the lives of yet more home educators, after
all, if so many accept visits then it must be acceptable behaviour, right? Their compliance is used to put
pressure on those who don’t accept visits; the ripples of such behaviour can be felt in local groups presenting
a classic case of divide and conquer. This is what passes as support in the eyes of many LAs, who will only
throw their hands up and admit they’re telling porkies when you catch them out. If you aren’t savvy enough
to catch them out? Tough!
9. It is essential, I think, to define support. But who should define it? Those who seek it or those who seek
to impose it? I would argue that if the person on the receiving end of it feels harassed, bullied and humiliated
then it has ceased to be support. If I require support, I can get it without judgement from people who know
better. I certainly would not seek support from my local authority who, after all, cannot claim to be experts in
home education. If I require a service, I would go to the local authority if they provided it or elsewhere if they
didn’t. Support from friends. Services from the LA.
10. If the LA wants me to register with them, to fill in their forms, to accept them into my home, to allow
them to meet my children (and ask them potentially leading questions), to see my children’s private, intellectual
property (ie their work), then they will need to provide something that we want, something that we cannot get
for ourselves, something that we consider to be useful. However, I believe that judgement and assessment
should never form part of a support package unless the home educator has specifically asked for it, eg if they
have an ex-partner who is not convinced about home education and “needs” to have it rubber-stamped.
the quality of that guidance.
The guidance is clear enough, most home educators have no trouble understanding it. However, given their
behaviour, I’d conclude that the LAs don’t like it because there isn’t enough control for their liking. This leads
to them using out of date legislation (repealed or old versions of the Education Act), irrelevant legislation and
guidance (specifically that relating to truancy and CME), recommendations that never made it into legislation
(eg Badman Report), and ill-disguised prejudice (eg Stoke’s reference to home educated children as
“vulnerable”) to inform their policies.
for home educators.
LAs ignore the guidance currently available to suit themselves. I have no reason to believe that new guidance
would be adhered to any better than the current guidance. Their ideas of what constitutes support are what I
might call arbitrary interference. Making the provision of support mandatory would not necessarily help home
educators unless LAs knew why they were doing it. Many are still confused about their role and conflate
welfare with education and I can see LAs making up strings to attach as they go along simply because nothing
prevents them from doing so.
13. Ultimately, if new guidance regarding support is issued, parents should be free to accept or decline
support without suspicion, harassment or judgement. Should they wish to accept support, they should be
informed of the strings attached (which should be reasonable) and be prepared to accept those along with the
support. If they don’t accept the strings, they don’t accept the support. It’s simple. If nobody wants to accept
the support on offer, then the support is lacking or the strings are too short.
14. At the moment it is difficult to tell what the real situation is with regards to voluntary take up of support
because local authorities misinform to get their foot in the door (“we have a duty to monitor”) and harass
people into submission (“it is our policy that all local home educators have visits”). They do this while
maintaining that they wish to develop a partnership of mutual respect with parents. They think us fools and
treat us with contempt. They effectively prevent that which they seek, ie control and surveillance, and they
would argue, given the opportunity, that this is not what they seek at all. But ask them this, would they be
satisfied if I said I was home educating and left it at that? No, they would not. They would want proof despite
not being entitled to it (unless they had evidence of non-provision). They would want to see the child (because
they conflate welfare with education). They would want to see “work” (because they only understand the
school model). But why would they want any of this when the responsibility for education rests with the
parents? Because they need to know, they need to satisfy themselves, they think a child unseen by them is a
child unseen by anybody, they need to see my child to check he’s okay, because the bottom line is that if
something happens to my child they believe they will be held accountable by the public. That is their great
fear. Their actions are not driven by concern for my child, but concern for themselves; their jobs, their pensions.
And on this crumbling pile of confusion rests their notion of support. The reason why LAs are so very bad at
supporting home educators is because, with few notable exceptions, they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
15. Please note the above opinions are my own. I claim to speak for nobody but myself. These opinions are
based on experiences related to me over the last year or so by home educators all over the country, evidence
which backs up their experiences (eg letters from their LAs), information on local authority websites and
publications, and my own experiences locally. I am a home educating mother of two.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Alasdair Coles

1. To “support” is defined as to keep from falling, to enable, to supply with necessaries, to fund or to
champion.
2. Currently there is no duty on an LA to support EHE financially or otherwise and many LAs go out of
their way to impress on families that no support will be forthcoming, for example:
Taking control of your child’s education is a big responsibility. Please do not underestimate the amount
of work this will mean for you as the prime educator.
Financial Implications
The cost of books, materials, resources, educational trips etc has to be borne by you because you are
outside the public education system.
Social implications
One of the many benefits of school life is the social interaction between pupils. Therefore, you may well
have to make a determined effort to maintain social networks for your child.
Bristol City Council
3. For families who elect to educate otherwise as a philosophical choice, there is a recognition that this is a
form of “private” education and there will be no state support.
4. However, there are increasing numbers of EHE families who turn to educating otherwise when the state
system does not match their expectations or suit their child. For all of these families the loss of support is
significant. In the case of families with modest means, who have EHE forced upon them because their child
is suicidal as a result of unresolved bullying or inadequate support for SEN, the financial implications can
be devastating.
5. If the state has a role in supporting families in their duty to provide education, it can easily be argued
that the state should offer support to families who take on this responsibility for themselves. In the case of
parents who intended to avail themselves of state education only to discover that this is not “suitable” for their
child, the argument is even stronger.
6. FE, HE and employment are dependant on gaining qualifications and so there is also a case to be made
for Government to facilitate access to exams to prevent EHE children, particularly those from poorer
backgrounds, being disadvantaged in later life.
7. Suggested ways in which Government could support EHE families:
— Provide resources.
— Provide travel concessions.
— Provide educational rates at all sports facilities/museums etc.
— Grants/benefits/tax rebates.
— Access to exam centres.
— Free exams.
8. Offering financial or practical support could be done relatively cheaply and would be inherently more
supportive than the current system which seeks to impose unwanted intervention on families. Some EHE
advisers within a minority of LAs do provide useful support and encouragement. Unfortunately, most
interaction between LAs and families centres on pressure over curriculum approval, testing and assessment,
and is consequently a source of stress for the families concerned, rather than a support.
9. If the Government were to offer some or all of the forms of support listed above, they would still not be
universally welcomed by home educators. The complex reasons for this need to be explored but the
fundamental problem is a cultural dogma that education means schooling.
Legislative Status
10. It is clear from primary legislation that education otherwise is of equal status to education at school.
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time
education suitable
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude; and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
Section 7 of the Education Act 1996
11. Even when it is apparent that the education provided “otherwise” is not adequate, there is no presumption
that the child should automatically attend school. Section 437(3) of the same act refers to the serving of school
attendance orders:
If
(a) a parent on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the local education
authority, within the period specified in the notice, that the child is receiving suitable education; and
(b) in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school, the authority shall
serve on the parent an order (referred to in this Act as a “school attendance order”), in such form as
may be prescribed, requiring him to cause the child to become a registered pupil at a school named in
the order.
12. Despite this legal basis most LAs and the majority of their staff display a hermeneutic of suspicion and
disapproval towards those who elect to educate outside the school system. They frequently work on the
assumption that state education is by default “suitable” for every child and superior to alternatives.
13. This might be the result of:
— a lack of awareness of EHE and its effectiveness;
— political ideology/conviction;
— financial self-interest—service providers do not want families to opt out of their provision; and
— anxiety about safeguarding.
14. Analysing the possible causes of this behaviour may seem unnecessary but unless home education
becomes better understood and seen in a more positive light, there can be little progress in achieving
effective support.
15. I have already outlined possible ways in which education can be supported positively. It should also be
noted that current attitudes and lack of understanding of EHE undermine support in other areas such as access
to healthcare and fairness in divorce cases.
Potential Problems With Providing Support

16. One of the many reasons that EHE families cite for not wanting/accessing support is that nothing comes
without strings attached. How would the Government assess the effectiveness of providing funding? Would the
process of evaluation involve testing? Who or what would be tested?
17. Testing continues to be a contentious issue for all educationalists. Even this committee reported in its
2008 Review of Assessment and Testing that there are many negative aspects of testing, such as narrowing the
curriculum and undue stress.
18. Since testing is such an integral part of our current school system, and state education has become an
unquestioned part of life, it is possibly worth labouring the point that the system is far from perfect and has
never been uncontroversial. As Bertrand Russell commented:
We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to
intelligence and freedom of thought.
19. Or as Winston Churchill put it:
Schools have not necessarily much to do with education ... they are mainly institutions of control …
20. More recently Ivan Illych observed:
The pupil is … “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a
diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new.
21. Families who choose to educate otherwise for philosophical reasons are generally quite aware of the
politics of education, and so will rarely choose to expose their children to more than a bare minimum of testing.
The result of this is that older children sit as few exams as possible to fulfil their aims, be it FE, HE or
employment. This lack of conformity with the “norms” and goals of mainstream education opens the
community to statistical attack from those who are ideologically opposed to EHE.
22. If the Government were to provide better access to exam centres and/or free access to examinations for
all children, I’m sure this would be greatly appreciated by many families, and children from these families
might well choose to take a few more exams. There would also be numerous families who would continue
with an absolute minimum of exams and who would be very concerned that data would be collected and used
against the home educating community in future reviews.
Access to Support
23. Service providers have pushed to make services universal in the hope that people will be encouraged to
access the support they need and not be put off by the fear of being stigmatized. In the process public servants
appear to have forgotten that not everyone needs or wants support. In a bizarre twist of reality, families who
do not feel the need to access support are now seen to be a “cause for concern” rather than being responsible,
competent or independent. By initially not accessing or later rejecting state education, EHE families are usually
viewed and treated as a problem.
24. If not accessing the state education system is already a “cause for concern” in the eyes of many LAs,
families who also choose not to access state support for EHE—should any ever be made available—would
potentially be open to even more suspicion. As already mentioned, this could be particularly problematic with
respect to exams. It is highly likely that minimal exam results could be used as evidence of the “failure”
of EHE.
25. There is another stumbling block regarding access to exams. The perception is that an LA will wish to
satisfy itself that the child is “good enough” to be entered for the exam before sanctioning the expenditure. Is
this logical? Why would a parent enter their child for an exam if there were a considerable risk that the child
would fail? If this sort of thinking were applied to healthcare, parents would only be able to access a medical
examination if they could first prove that they had been supplying a healthy diet and regular exercise.
26. To continue the analogy with healthcare, it is perfectly acceptable for parents to be entirely responsible
for when they access professional help. They also have the choice to access private healthcare or alternative
forms of therapy such as osteopathy, homoeopathy or acupuncture, and then return to the GP whenever they
see fit. Experimenting with alternative education in the form of EHE is often the antithesis of this experience.
Relationships between EHE families and their LA are frequently so antagonistic that people work hard to stay
under the radar of the LA. Sometimes this means foregoing access to health services since many healthcare
professionals seem primed to perceive EHE to be an automatic cause for concern.
27. Looking at the wider picture of Government support, education is a significant anomaly. All mothers
currently receive child benefit. There is no requirement to show how it’s used. Similarly, the winter fuel
allowance. Healthcare is universally available regardless of how irresponsible a person’s lifestyle might be.
28. By contrast opting to educate otherwise removes any financial support but can open the family to
considerable scrutiny, implicit hostility and pressure to conform.
Summary
29. The most important step towards supporting EHE would be to change the attitudes of public servants.
There is a considerable history of suspicion and mistrust which needs to be urgently addressed.
30. To bring education into line with other forms of governmental support, there should be “no strings
attached” support in the form of access to exams and other educational resources as well as general financial
help.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Ruth A Jump
Introduction
I am Ruth A Jump, and I home educate my two young children, currently aged five and seven.
Summary
Many home educators do not need any support; refusal of support should never lead to suspicion of motives;
support which is available to children in school should also be available to home educated children; support
should not be dependent on allowing a professional into the home; external examinations should be made
available.
Important Points
1. Many home educators do not need any support, or do not need any support at this particular time. I am a
home educator. My children are still quite young, they have no particular special educational needs, and I feel
no need for additional help with their education at this time.
2. Home educators who do not require help, support or assistance, should not be expected to seek or accept
it anyway. This is very, very important. Whenever government bodies talk of offering support to families, it
seems to be assumed that, since support is available, any parent not taking up that support is by definitions
negligent. This is not just true of home educators—any family who feels that they do not benefit from
interactions with the Health Visitor, or whose children are so generally healthy that they do not visit the GP,
runs the risk of being considered neglectful. Parents are the people who know their children best, who
understand their needs best, and who can be best trusted to make judgements concerning them. No professional
person likes to think of their engagement with families as being generally detrimental to that family’s well-
being, but since what is detrimental to one family might not be to another, it is imperative that the families
themselves get to make that judgement. No support agency should be able to insist on their involvement with
a family, unless there is clear evidence of abuse or neglect, and the support is part of a child protection plan.
3. Having said all that, it is also imperative that support which is available to children in school should not
be denied to children who are not. There are anecdotal tales of access to CAHMS, Speech and Language
Therapy, wheelchairs, other assistive equipment and vaccinations being denied to children, largely because
referrals usually come through the education system. It seems that this error is generally a bureaucratic one—
since the administrator in question cannot process the child in the usual way, they insist that they cannot be
processed at all. Clearly, this is grossly unfair.
4. In my own experience, access to the School Nurse service was offered, but apparently only by means of
visiting our home. I have no particular need of the services of the School Nurse, and so declined to receive
them. However, if I had wanted to avail myself of their service, it should not be that I have to invite them into
my home to do so—schooled families do not have to accept home visits from the School Nurse, and whilst
the imposition might solve the practical problem related to the School Nurse service having no surgery in
which to receive us, it remains a discriminatory imposition.
5. External examinations could and should be made available to home educated children at relatively small
cost—certainly, much less than the cost to the public purse of educating those children in school. This should
not be difficult. However, it, and any other educational support the Select Committee finds itself considering,
would always cause me to reiterate—the acceptance of support by some families should NEVER, EVER lead
to the assumption that families who choose otherwise are failing in their duty. If it is compulsory, either by
formal regulation, or by creating a framework for prejudice in the judgments of professionals, then it is no
longer support. Any movement towards writing support structures into law MUST come with the explicitly
described allowance for people to choose to reject it.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Essex County Council

1. There is a concern that home educated young people could become NEET. Government could consider
supporting home educated young people to obtain qualifications through, for example, improving access to
examination centres. Currently, it is left to the discretion of the Heads of Centre as to whether an HE student
can actually come in and take exams. If Government were to consider this, then clear Central Government
Guidance would be required. If this entailed additional responsibilities for the Local Education Authority,
adequate resources would be required to enable delivery.
2. Government should consider giving parents of home educated children the responsibility to declare this
to the Local Education Authority.
3. There would be value in exploration of more possible negotiated arrangements for shared school/home
education.
4. Safeguarding is an absolute priority for Essex in all sectors of education. With home education there are
logistical challenges in maintaining the rigorous checks and balances that the authority would expect in
mainstream schools, but this makes the issue no less of a priority.
Stephen Castle
Cabinet Member for Education & the 2012 Games
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Annette and Rebecca Taberner

1. As a former member of the Education Otherwise Government Policy Group I participated in meetings
with Mr Badman and assisted with select committee submissions. I contributed to many consultation responses
on home education and represented the organisation at meetings with a wide range of organisations.
I participated in the 2007 elective home education consultation response and assisted with workshops around
the country which tried to raise awareness of how changes in the legislative framework for children, young
people and families could impact upon home education. The workshops also tried to spread good practice in
liaising with local authorities.
I am a member of a number of online, self organised national and local community support groups.
I co-founded a local support group approximately fourteen years ago in Sheffield for home educating families
and have been supporting families throughout this time.
I have initiated and participated in many meetings with the local authority in the last 14 years in an attempt
to address problems, improve the working relationship between home educators and the local authority and to
access support for the local group and individual families.
I am a home educating parent who has assisted two children with their transition from autonomous home
education into mainstream educational provision.
I am a qualified teacher with experience in primary and secondary settings.
Rebecca Taberner is a home educated young person who has taken part in the local authority pilot study to
extend funding opportunities for college access and examine transition from home education to college based
studies. Rebecca has given her consent to be included in this response and is happy to provide further
information if requested to.
At the National Level.

Overcoming barriers to support.
2. Numerous consultations and reviews have engaged the home education community in time consuming
exercises which have then largely ignored the experiences, expertise, recommendations and input of home
educating families.
It would be a mistake to believe that there is a coherent framework in existence which could easily negotiate
and implement improved support for home educating families
Services and support have to be available on a “take it or leave it” basis rather than being imposed . It is
important that no negative consequences arise if families choose not to engage with provision made available.
It has to be understood that parents are responsible for their children’s education.
Channels of communication with the home education community at all levels are poor;as a result interactions
tend to be prompted by adverse events and are adversarial.
In some areas individuals have gone to great efforts to improve the relationship with the local authority and
to remove bad practice.
There is little clarity or transparency with regard to the role of the Department for Education and resources
allocated within it to home education are unclear. Some officers who have been charged with work in this
areas have a poor understanding of the legal position and of how home education works.
3. Local authority officials, home educators and the organisations representing them have expressed
unhappiness with the Department. Whilst some officers have worked hard to assist with specific enquiries the
relationship between the home education community and Department deteriorated further as a result of the role
played by the Department during the Badman Review.
The home education legislative framework is good but is rarely publicised and is poorly understood. Practice
too frequently ignores the legislation.
Many professionals are unaware that home education is legal and little effort is made to inform parents that
this is a legitimate possibility for their children. Very many parents whose children have struggled with
difficulties in the education system say they wish they had known earlier that they could home educate and
that knowing this would have allowed them to remove their children from harmful and distressing experiences
in school.
4. Many professionals in local authorities, health provision and the law have little or no understanding of
home education and all too often are antipathetic to it. The home education community is well networked and
we all know of cases where home educating families have been treated badly.
It is a matter of concern that home educators may not access services which would benefit their families
because of the insensitive, inappropriate treatment which some families have been subjected to in the past.
Reorganisation of local authority departments for education into large multi agency bodies and legislative
changes which were wrongly interpreted compounded existing difficulties.
Few professionals have any training in this area. This issue has been highlighted many times in the last
decade but little happens to address it.
5. One of the most distressing issues is the treatment of parents and home education in the family courts.
Legal home education experts have sought to address this issue but there is no funding to allow professionals
to access the necessary training.
6. In a 2007 consultation response to which I contributed,it was recommended that in addition to Guidelines
the Department should develop, in association with home educators, a Guide to Practitioners.
The committee may wish to consider how mechanisms could be put in place to encourage and spread good
practice in local authorities.
Unforeseen consequences
7. There are often unfortunate, unforeseen or unintended consequences to changes in policy and practice at
a national level which impact upon the home education community. There are no mechanisms to forestall these
difficulties and home educators have had to exert persistence and initiative to persuade Ministers and
Departments of the existence of difficulties:
The introduction of truancy legislation and lack of awareness of home education amongst local
authority staff and the police service caused problems, particularly for home educated young people
when first introduced.
The first draft of legislation to raise the participation age threatened to make home education illegal upon
young people attaining sixteen years of age
The introduction of controlled assessments in GCSE examinations have added to the difficulties faced by
home educated young people trying to access qualifications
The introduction of the “Fairer Funding Formula” threatened existing access to local authority services for
home educating families in some authorities.
8. The inclusion of an elective home education impact assessment in drafting legislation may assist in
identifying potential difficulties. This would need to extend to a number of Government Departments
Pilot projects and mechanisms to spread good practice have been suggested but there has been no
engagement with these suggestions.
Funding
9. In the 2009 report of the Committee (para 1630) the Department undertook to provide clarification on
funds available to local authorities. I am not aware of the Department being proactive in this regard . Fiona
Nicholson of the Ed Yourself Home Education Consultancy has undertaken extensive work to try to clarify the
guidance and to assist local authorities to access funding from the Department of Education for home educated
14 to 16 year olds . Our daughter has been a beneficiary of this work but it has been an uphill struggle to
access the support which we are told is available and there are still outstanding issues to be addressed.
Local authorities are reluctant to access funding from the Department and to provide support largely it seems
because they have little confidence that they will be able to recover costs and because of the lack of officer
time and resources to put the necessary frameworks in place.
I trust that others will provide the Committee with detailed information about children and young people
with special needs and learning difficulties but wanted to acknowledge here that this is an area requiring
examination and action. The guidance seems to say that funding is available but there is little information
about the take up and use of funding for this area of need.
The Badman Review and Department have been made aware of issues which need to be addressed on
numerous occasions. It is frustrating and dispiriting to keep sharing this information only to see it disappear
into a black hole.
At the Local Level

10. Consideration of support to home educators is normally discussed at the family level. The importance
of self help groups, locally based and on line, should not be underestimated. Many families , including those
who may be reluctant to have any relationship with the authorities ,gain a great deal from being members of
local groups.
The development of the Sheffield group was hugely assisted when the manager of the local adventure
playground allowed the group to meet, for free, during the playgrounds maintenance half day.
In addition the local ranger service agreed to support the group with a monthly activities day with a focus
on the environment.
Cuts in local authority funding have resulted in these services being cut back and/or being charged for. This
in turn has threatened the viability of the group.
It can be particularly difficult to find suitable, affordable insurance for non standard home education groups.
Sheffield council have made the schools library service available to local home educators but the introduction
of devolved budgets to schools threatened to remove this provision.
Further contraction in the central funding of council departments will make it less likely that councils can
provide home educators with support.
There are many areas of local authority education provision from which home educators could benefit at
little cost but there is no funding to support this. Access to PRU facilities ,provision of meeting places, access to
swimming lessons and music ,inclusion-, careers guidance and ASDAN provision, access to college provision.
In addition to offering support and advice to families I have regularly initiated and attended meetings with
the local authority and other local agencies to represent the organisation, to access support and funding and to
challenge and improve the interface between local families and local agencies. Staff turnover and the low
priority of work on home education amongst officer responsibilities mean any progress on addressing issues
and improving support is painfully slow.
The Badman Review was defective and counter productive in many respects and undermined positive
initiatives and working relations in many authorities.
Sources of funding to support home education groups.

11. It is hard to access funding for groups. Funders lack of awareness of home education results in home
educators failing to pass the criteria for eligibility.
Locally available sources of funding accessed in the past now often have a presentation and public voting
component. Home education groups find it hard to compete in this environment.
Young people locally benefited greatly from the Youth Opportunity Fund and Youth Opportunity Programme.
The relatively small amounts of money accessed made a huge difference to young people allowing all group
members to participate in sporting, social, residential and educational opportunities. In many cases young
people were using under used venues and facilities at off peak times benefiting local organisations
The YOF and YOP programmes required young people to participate in the application, planning and
evaluation of programmes of activity. In addition group members became involved in the funding forum and
youth council and gained useful experience in the third sector and in helping to shape local authority policy.
These sources of funding no longer exist but could provide a useful model for extending funding to widemn
the opportunities of home educated young people.
Family level
12. As a family we chose until recently not to have a relationship with the local authority. I would be happy
to provide more information about this if required.
13. We became “known” to the local authority as a consequence of applying for a work permit. Permit
regulations are framed in such a way as to not allow working to interfere with the school day. This can restrict
the opportunities of home educated young people to gain work experience. Local authorities might usefully
assist in signposting work experience and volunteering opportunities and in giving careers advice to young
people who choose to access them.
Examinations and Transition to College

14. I have home educated two children and have assisted them in GCSE examinations and in their transition,
at their request, to further education at Sheffield College.
The introduction of controlled assessments for GCSE qualifications has made the process of gaining
qualifications through home education harder.
A local school has recently allowed home educated young people to sit linear examinations We are fortunate
in beening able to access online GCSE English qualifications via Sheffield College An examination centre has
been established for other GCSE and IGCSE qualifications locally. Many parents have difficulty finding
examination centres willing to let their children to sit exams and then spend many hours travelling over long
distances to take examinations.
In some authorities the local PRU has been able to offer an examination centre.
Home educated young people with dyslexia and dysgraphia may have no formal diagnosis. This can cause
difficulties in negotiating entry to college.
In order to study A levels the college requires five GCSEs. It is, however, impossible to gain these
qualifications through the college in less than three years and the menu of GCSE qualification available is
very limited.
This is a matter of concern not only to home educators but also to anyone wishing to return to academic
study, including young people who left school at the earliest opportunity but later understand the value of
education and try to improve their qualifications. I suspect that in improving the situation for home educated
young people it would become clear that many other people could benefit from improved provision.
In the past many home educating young people have benefited from community and college based education
provision and evening classes to obtain qualifications. As a result of funding regime changes many of these
opportunities no longer exist.
Rebecca has taken part in a locally initiated pilot study examining and improving procedures for the local
authority to draw down funding for 14 to 16 year olds for part time college attendance. Despite the best efforts
of all involved the process has been lengthy, frustrating and complicated.
Non-standard entry to colleges and Universities is possible but parents may have to find ways of
circumventing initial administrative checks which can result in immediate disqualification from consideration.
Summary
15. It would be a mistake to assume that any coherent framework exists within which to advance and
evaluate support to home educating families
Any support offered must be on a “take it or leave it basis”. It is essential that there are no adverse
consequences for families declining offers of support. The responsibility for the education of children lies
with parents.
The role of the Department for Education is unclear. The framework for liaison with the home education
community and local authorities is poor.
16. There are insufficient procedures for sharing good practice or getting redress and change when there is
bad practice.
Much, home educator led work to improve the relationship between home educators and local authorities
was undermined by the Badman Review process.
There are unforeseen consequences to changes in local authority funding, legislation and educational
provisions which impact upon the home education community.
The legislative framework is good but poorly understood.
Whilst a number of studies have identified a need for the training of health, local authority and legal
professionals no progress has been made.
The importance of local and online support groups is not recognised.
Funding streams to assist home education groups have always been limited; some which have proved useful
no longer exist.
Cuts in local authority funding have meant that even the limited support which some authorities have given
has gone or is in danger of going.
Applying for funding for 14 to 16 year olds is problematic for local authorities, some are unaware it is a
possibility, others have decided not to access it.
Sheffield has run a pilot project looking at access to funding for examinations and college entry.
College provision of GCSEs is very poor. This impacts not only on the opportunities of home educated
young people but also on members of the wider community wishing to re- engage in study.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Deirdre Woods

Elective Home Education
1. My name is Deirdre Woods and I am a home educator in the London Borough of Hillingdon. I have two
children Ife Woods aged 16 and Jaden Woods-Chatham, aged 11 years. They have never been to school with
the exception of my eldest child who flexi schooled for one school term. The eldest is now enrolled at Uxbridge
College to continue her education from September 2012. My family has been known to the local authority
since 2000.
2. My experience to date with the London Borough of Hillingdon has not been a positive. My family has
generally been treated with great suspicion even though I have always responded to letters, and engaged in a
dialogue with the Education Welfare Officer, Sharon Hodge.
3. I became known to the local authorities in 2000 following a neighbour reporting me to social services
because my child, Ife, was not going to school. The enquiry was dealt with in a matter of weeks and they were
satisfied that as an elective home educator that my child was not at risk. Our details were passed onto
educational welfare. We were placed on a register, and contacted about our provision.
4. Following the breakdown of my relationship in 2004 due to domestic violence, and continued terrorisation
by my former partner, including a kidnap attempt of my son, and him reporting me to social services, Ife
started running away and our family became involved with social services again. Once again they were satisfied
that my children were not at risk, or were being harmed, and the social worker, Yvonne Bennett, herself a
former teacher was quite supportive of my choice to home educate. I was referred to the EWO, Sharon Hodge
as standard procedure but also to get support.
5. I was contacted in January 2005 by the EWO, Sharon Hodge requesting a home visit. I declined the visit
at the time as I felt that a home visit by the inspectorate would not be appropriate. After the recent visit with
the social worker, Yvonne Bennett, Ife was quite anxious and perturbed. She expressed concerns about being
sent to school. I felt that an inspection would be unduly upsetting to her. I offered to send samples of Ife’s
work to the inspectorate.
6. In 2004 I also had an accident at work and by 2005 my health had deteriorated, and I needed support
with some of my day to day activities. I asked the EWO for support to continue home educating my children
and was told that I could not get any.
7. What followed can only be described as a nightmare. I was assigned to another social worker, who was
intimidating and biased. She insisted that I must have an inspection and that somehow I was not fit or suitable
to educate my children. I succumbed to the pressure, hoping that if I agreed to a home visit that I would be
left alone.
8. I was visited by an independent inspector. The inspector came in and her first question was about the
nearest school. The entire inspection was a farce, as she did not examine my provision but instead proceeded
to continue with a school bias, berated Ife’s creative work that she had shown her and test both my children
and criticise Ife’s literacy skills. Jaden was still four at the time and the education law is very clear about
parental responsibility for education between the ages of five and 16.
9. I replied to the subsequent report with much disgust and refused to have any more visits. I was then
threatened in writing by the EWO to a school order and to report me to social services for neglect. Fortunately
Yvonne Bennett, stepped in with regards to the issue of neglect and said that there were no grounds for this. I
responded with a letter on school bias and case law, with the view of taking the matter to the Ombudsman and
possibly taking legal action. I was left alone for a few years after this. (Please note that I have misplaced some
of these letters and will endeavour to recover this correspondence if they are required as evidence.)
10. During this period Ife suffered an assault by a group of young people and was traumatised for a long
time, impacting on her behaviour. The police were involved, charges were pressed, and Ife had to give evidence
on camera. Social services became involved and were instrumental in referring us to Child, Family and
Adolescent Consultation Service (CFACS). Social services in a bid to support me as my conditioned had
worsened helped arrange flexi schooling for Ife at the local primary school. This only lasted one term and was
a damaging experience for Ife as she was bullied every day. Hillingdon only contacted me with regards to
making a decision about sending her to secondary school. We opted not to and to continue with full time
11. In November 2008 were subjected to our first ad hoc visit. EWO, Sharon Hodge accompanied by
someone from the education and children’s services turned up on my doorstep around 9:00am on Wednesday
5 November demanding to see my children. I told them that they were sleeping as we had been up all night
following the US elections. We then had a short discussion about their education and I offered to send a letter
in due course. A letter was sent on 1st December
12. Once again we were left alone apart from an annual letter and form to complete about the educational
status of my children. This was to maintain a register of elective home educating children in the borough.
13. In September 2010 we were subjected to yet another ad hoc visit. On Thursday 30th at 10:30 I was paid
an unannounced visit by Educational Welfare Officer Sharon Hodge and her colleague. I was told that it was
a “safeguarding” visit and that they wanted to make sure that my children were alive and well as they had not
been “seen”. I queried this firstly in terms of safeguarding as I understand that safeguarding is a child protection
issue. I made it known that I had done Hillingdon’s safeguarding training and that the practise of ad hoc visits
was new to me. I further queried the issue of my children not being seen, and stated that they are seen regularly
in the community by the GP, dentist, optician, local shops. They participate in local activities and various home
education groups. The necessity of the visit was insisted upon because they are not “seen” daily by a teacher
in school. I then proceeded to wake my sleeping children, and asked them to go say hello. My eldest child
went downstairs and said good morning, whilst my youngest child remained at the top of the stairs, holding
on to me, scared, and said hello. I was told that was all, thank you and then they left. I did not have any further
communication with the EWO either verbally or in writing as to the outcome of this visit.
14. Legislation and Guidelines relating to the visit in September 2010
The DCSF Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities, 2007 are very clear about the
responsibilities of the local authority. Sections 2.12 to 2.15 refer specifically to the safeguarding and welfare
of children.
2.12 Local authorities also have a duty under section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children. This section states:
“A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred upon
them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and
promoting the welfare of children.”
Section 175(1) does not extend local authorities’ functions. It does not, for example, give local authorities
2.15 As outlined above, local authorities have general duties to make arrangements to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children (section 175 Education Act 2002 in relation to their functions as a local
authority and for other functions in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004). These powers allow
local authorities to insist on seeing children in order to enquire about their welfare where there are grounds
for concern (sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989). However, such powers do not bestow on local
authorities the ability to see and question children subject to elective home education in order to establish
whether they are receiving a suitable education.
Yet in the 2010 EHE leaflet it stated that the London Borough of Hillingdon will:
“Arrange both ad hoc and planned visits to families that have not been seen or heard from for a
period of time. This is done as a safeguarding action with the child’s welfare being paramount.”
This is an unnecessary extended function. Simple inter agency contact would have revealed that my
children are indeed alive and well, and seen. This is the expected co-operation between the local authority
and partners under the current London Child Protection Procedures (3rd Edition, 2007).
I have also examined the Children Educated at Home LBH Policy (Draft Consultation) that is available
from the local authority website. In particular I looked at the sections Access to the Home (3.17) and Part
4, Developing Relationships #(4.1), Contact with Parents (4.7) and Child Protection (4.10). It is reiterated
throughout that “Parents are not legally required to give Hillingdon EHE teacher access to their home.”
There is also no mention of ad hoc visits or visits being necessary to ensure the safeguarding and welfare
of children educated at home.
Elective Home Education is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to meet the threshold of children being
at significant risk. Nor is a family’s choice not to have a relationship with the local authority. What specific
rules, regulations and statutes give an EWO the right to demand to see children because they are home
educated and “not seen daily by a teacher in school”? The only provision that local authorities have to
see children is if those children are subject to a child protection order or a court order under the provisions
of the Children’s Acts 1989 or 2004.
The Hillingdon practise of ad hoc visits was therefore erroneous and not supported by any legislation.
Furthermore following the general elections, under the current government the Department for Education
had issued a directive that after May 11th 2010 the terminology of Every Child Matters, the five outcomes
and safeguarding should be changed. Safeguarding is no longer the acceptable term, child protection is.
The leaflet needed to be amended, and the practise ceased.
15. Since this time Hillingdon home educators have come together to challenge Hillingdon’s policy and
practices with e support of the Home Education Advisory Service (HEAS) and solicitor Ian Dowty. (See
attached Documents)
16. Ad hoc visits in Hillingdon are supposedly suspended however current leaflet available on their website
still states “Arrange both ad hoc and planned visits to families that have not been seen or heard from for a
period of time. This is done as a safeguarding action with the child’s welfare being paramount”.
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/pdf/9/t/EHE_leaflet.pdf
17. Hillingdon have consulted with home educators on their Draft Policy in April 2012 to which I responded
by email( see attached document Comments re Draft Policy)
18. Support Available and Support I Would Like to See Available

Received a letter in June about contact details for information, advice and guidance on further education,
training and employment. This is rather late and would have appreciated this information a year ago. I have
had to use my own initiative, contacts and resources to research options for my daughter. She is now
successfully enrolled on an NVQ level 1 course at Uxbridge College and is due to start her studies in September.
19. I have had to pay for and arrange privately for my daughter to sit GCSE examinations in North London.
I would like to have local provision and examination fees paid.
20. I do not know what provision is currently available in Hillingdon under Alternative Provision
arrangements
21. I would like financial support for disabled parents whose main source of income is currently incapacity
benefit. I am in receipt of long term incapacity benefit and as such ineligible for financial support where
financial support is offered for those on means tested incomes. As such I am currently struggling to get the
money to buy the uniform, kit and materials my daughter will need for her course. Tuition fees are fully funded.
22. I am unaware of how the benefit changes currently underway will impact on future eligibility.
23. I would like to see the home education community, and home education groups make use of the Extended
Schools Network to access facilities and other resources.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Wigan Council

Exploring the possibility of claiming funding via the Alternative Provision Data Return in order to allow
home educated children to access college placements to enrich their education and support appropriate
applications to FE.
Liaising with the traveller education team to improve educational opportunities for traveler children via
college placements and providing resources.
Provide lists of online resources/sources of help for parents.
Apart from the above, no other resources to support home educators.

Not fully in place yet therefore not able to comment however in terms of accessibility, placements will be
considered on request. We do have some concerns that children who attend school may “opt out” of school
system and “opt in” to this.

Unable to say whether it is adequate as we are not able to determine how funding is available and whether
this would cover the cost of college placements for all of the young people that were interested in it.
In the process of working alongside the Wigan Gateway and Careers Service to offer support to our older
EHE children in preparing them for post 16 as well as ongoing support throughout KS4. Again the option of
funding for a college placement.
We are in the process of setting up regular network meetings with out home educators. We also regularly
consult on the documentation that the LA produces. We have employed an EHE parent to carry out the visits
(non complex).
EHE Guidelines for LA issued in 2007.

Feel that more clarity is needed in relation to roles, responsibilities and expectations.
The guidance needs to be reviewed and amended since initial release in 2007. Feel that registration with the
LA should be compulsory. Clear definition on what is suitable and efficient education. Guidance needs to be
consistent and clear so that there is no variation between how LA’s deal with home education.
It is very difficult to be able to ensure that the children receive a “suitable” education or to ensure that they
are being protected when, without reasonable justification that the child is or is likely to be suffering significant
harm, there are no grounds to insist on entry to the home for a monitoring visit.
for home educators
As above. Also in addition a review of funding available for LA’s and home educators.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Elena de Paris

1. I write to express my interest in the Government’s inquiry into the support that LA’s provide for home
educators.
2. My son is nine and I have been home educating him since he was just over six. He has a diagnosis of
High Functioning Autism and a statement. My local authority, Worcester, awarded the statement after we,
(parents) appealed to SENDIST and went to tribunal. We were awarded some support for 12 months to provide
our son with specialist autism teaching. This was pending reintegration back into school. Worcester Local
Authority offered my son a place in the local autism unit. Following a visit to the school, my husband and I
decided the unit could not meet our son’s needs and indeed I was quite horrified by the approach the school took
in educating young people on the autistic spectrum. We decided instead to continue with education otherwise.
3. We asked the Local Authority for some support towards our son’s special teaching, bearing in mind that
it would have been at a fraction of the cost of supporting him in the local unit. The LA robustly refused.
4. They (LA) then requested that as our son had a statement they would need to carry out a review which
would involve an educational psychologist interviewing our son in private, without parents present and a visit
to our home. We have had previous to this a home visit from the education liaison officer, who concluded that
we were providing our son with a suitable education. It was suggested to me, (mum) that I could ask to have
the statement withdrawn, thereby avoiding, it was further suggested any future interviews, home visits and
involvements from psychologists.
5. I was horrified by the LA’s approach, felt pressured into revoking the statement and concerned that the
Authority are under no obligation to assist a child with a diagnosis and statement. I am further concerned that
through a bullying approach Worcester LA simply wanted to pass off any responsibility.
6. The Local Authority ceased to provide any funding for specialist teaching last July 2011. As parents we
have continued to meet the cost of specialist teaching. We have further had to pay for a consultant clinical
psychologist to diagnose our son, as Worcester (primary care trust) refused to consider any SEN diagnosis. We
paid privately for SALT and also for sensory integration therapy.
7. We do not expect our local authority to meet ALL the costs of our son’s education.... BUT it comes hard
on us as tax paying members of society that we are left footing the bill and our LA will not even consider
supporting us with a partial grant to go a little way towards special autism teaching that enables our son to
function in society.
8. There is no other support available from Worcester LA.
9. Many apologies for the late submission, I have been working with my son this morning.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Peach

About Peach
Peach is a national charity that supports parents of children with autism and their families by providing
advice, information and behavioural services. Peach provides
— A parent helpline.
— A range of information leaflets.
— Assistance with statementing, including preparing cases
— Parent to parent support.
— Training in autism and behaviour to a range of professionals.
— Behavioural programmes for children at home and in school.
About Autism
Children with autism suffer from a triad of impairments. These are:
— Difficulty with social interaction.
— Difficulty with social communication.
— Difficulty with imagination and making sense of the world around them.
Autism is a spectrum disorder which means children vary significantly in how autism manifests itself.
Having a child diagnosed with autism is a very difficult time for most parents. This is only the first of a
series of significant challenges that they and their children must face.
Of the pupils with statements in 2009, autism was the most common type of need for pupils aged between
four and 10 years.
In England it is estimated one in 100 children have autism. However, throughout the country education
authorities use different criteria in the identification, assessment and diagnosis of children and young people
with autism and to determine those children of whom they will make provision.
1. Peach (Parents for the Early Intervention of Autism in Children) is a major provider of home education
for a significant number of young children with autism.
2. Some children with autism, especially in the early years are simply not ready for school. They may have
the potential to go to school, but need help to develop the requisite skills and a carefully planned transition
which may mean that integration into school may begin quite slowly. They may not be toilet trained, need self
help skills to get dressed, they may not be bale to follow instructions nor do s simple things like turn taking.
3. Peach uses Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA), which is a behavioural intervention which gives children
a battery of skills to help them learn in a school environment.
4. The ABA model is standard intervention in the USA, Canada and a number of Scandinavian countries.
In some countries it is a legal right. It is evidenced based. The original studies were done by Dr Ivar Lovaas
in UCLA but the studies have been replicated most recently by Southampton University in the UK.
5. ABA has best results if children are identified early and receive support at the earliest stage possible.
6. Whilst Peach and the parents we support sometimes have good relationships with schools and Local
Authorities, our experience is that in general there appears to be institutionalised hostility towards the parents
and organisations that provide ABA. This often results in aggressive and obstructive behaviour from the
professionals which puts additional stress on the parents who are already very stressed and probably only
recently had a diagnosis for their child.
7. We have found that schools often prompted by Local Authorities often put barriers in the way to ensure
the home education element of the programme does not work. In many cases this seems to be a cynical issue
connected to budgets rather than any attempt to put the children’s needs first.
8. The education system often becomes entrenched if parents want to anything which is not what is normally
done. In addition when transition begins those supporting children at home then work with the school during
the transition phase. In most cases schools do not want to work with outsiders even if they do not have the
detailed knowledge needed.
9. It is common in these cases for a statement of special needs to be in place outlining the provision, despite
this, a significant amount of “game playing” occurs.
10. The issues that commonly arise are:

— The school or Local Authority insist on recruiting the ABA tutors who support the child at
home despite having no knowledge or skills in this area. These tutors often don’t have the skills
or background to be effective
— The school insists on an inappropriate transition into school, quite often insisting it is speeded
up despite the fact the child cannot cope. This often results in huge behavioural deterioration
and a significant breakdown in communication between parents and school.
— The school/Local Authority initiate/bring forward annual and interim reviews and cynically do
not give proper notice to parents so they can make appropriate submissions but write up their
own information well in advance and discuss tactics internally
— The schools apply inappropriate behavioural sanctions to children when they are in school, not
understanding they are provoking their behaviours.
— The schools will not cooperate with the ABA provider over target setting even though the
majority of the programme may be at home.
Quote from parent

“My son was not toilet trained, had no language and was afraid of any sort of machine sound. He went
into frequent meltdowns. I wanted a gradual transition into school. The Local Authority said no, he does
not need support at this stage, let’s see how he gets on.”
Quote from parent

“The head said to me, I will be seen to play the game, but I do not want this.”
Quote from parent

“The head recruited our tutor to work at home with a transition into school. The tutor had no experience
of ABA or autism. The head then sent her on an Early Bird training programme. The tutor was confused
as to her role and who she reported to”
Quote from parent

“The head would not let our tutor deal with our son’s behaviour consistently in school. The result was he
bit another child and got excluded. I felt the head had engineered this situation. He was only five.”
11. In our experience local authorities do not facilitate or help parents home educate even though n our cases
this is usually short term. We refer parents to another charity “education otherwise” who are much more helpful.
12. Parents are actively discouraged from home educating their children even if those children to not have
the prerequisites for school. Staff advising will often intimate in a threatening way that the family will need a
social worker and imply this is a negative development that may result in a stigma. This can be very scary
for parents.
13. In our experience funding is never offered or discussed and the support of specialist involve din home
education is never offered in our experience.
14. In some cases home education also occurs when relationships have broken down and the Local authority
is not viewed by the parents to be meeting their child’s needs.
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by Maire Stafford
Summary
This memorandum notes that rather than increase the support available to Home Educators and their children
the majority of Local Authorities seem to be implementing the rejected Review of Elective Home Education
(the Badman Review) recommendations on registration and monitoring through the back door. I will present
five examples of this then show how government, local and national, fails to provides reliable redress for home
educators or any effective way of restraining the excesses of Local Authorities.
— Local Authority Case Studies
— National and Local Government failure to provide accountability
— Barriers to effective support
Local Authority Case Studies

Example 1 Doncaster
Doncaster’s draft HE policy (released through FOI and available on the Whatdotheyknow.com website)
makes explicit their intention to implement the Review’s proposed “20 day rule” regarding deregistration:
“Schools/Academies on receipt of written notification from a parent/carer that they are considering or
intend to educate their child(ren) at home will:
— Notify the Local Authority Learner Engagement Service within 10 working days of receipt of
that notification.
— School/Academy will in the event of a parent notifying them keep the child on role for a period
of 20 Days using the code Z so as not to affect their attendance as in the coming
recommendation from the DofE March 2011.
— Comply with the Local Authority procedures on deregistration of pupils from roll. Registration
regulation 8 (1d) after the 20 day period.”
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/118049/response/291779/attach/html/5/
Draft%20EHE%20Policy.pdf.html )
This is illegal as schools are required by law to remove the child from the role immediately (CME guidance
88), the recommendations from the DfE were never made. This is in spite of the fact that local home educators
are at the present moment giving time and effort to educate officials on the law and the wishes of the community
they are there to serve.
The rest of this document is almost a case study of how to alienate home educators including this gem:
“The Local Authority has a statutory duty to monitor the education of pupils learning at home. It is the
policy of Doncaster Local Authority to ensure the education provided is one with which the Local
Authority can be satisfied that pupils’ educational needs are being met.”
From my observations post-Review this sort of attitude and approach is becoming pervasive.
Example 2 Leicester City

A further example is provided by Leicester City, which blatantly advertised a position outside its legal remit:
Further information includes
“To assess and monitor and support the quality of education provided for children educated at home
ensuring that the child receives a full time education suitable to their age, ability and special needs they
may have.”
(https://www.eastmidlandsjobs.org.uk/job/Elective_Home_Education_Adviser/109508)
Local authorities have no legal powers to undertake the tasks outlined in the quote—legally the responsibility
rests with the parent.
Example 3 Lincolnshire
Lincolnshire County Council also misrepresent their powers and duties as illustrated in this letter released
under a Freedom of Information request:
“The Education Welfare Officer will bring a Proposal Form that we ask you to fill in after your meeting.
We ask all parents who are educating their children at home for information in order to ascertain whether
a suitable education is being provided. This is because Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act states that:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive
efficient full-time education suitable:
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude; and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
Following contact from the Education Welfare Officer, within approximately three months, an Elective
Home Education Monitoring Adviser will contact you to arrange a meeting to discuss the provision you
are making for your child. The reason for this meeting is because it is your responsibility as a parent to
provide evidence that would, on the balance of probabilities, convince a reasonable person that a suitable
education is being provided.”
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/118052/response/292470/attach/html/5/1.doc.html)
Of course none of this is legally required unless the Local Authority have suspicions that an education is
not being provided and some of it not until a School Attendance Order reaches court. This eagerness to assume
guilt and demand proof of innocence is extremely worrying.
There are other forms provided with this Freedom of Information response assuming a parental duty to meet
the local authorities preferred approach that would catch an unwary parent out. Home educators should not
have to be exceptionally well educated in the law to protect themselves against their local council.
Example 4 Barking and Dagenham

Even more worrying, Barking and Dagenham treat a family as suspicious if they are not given access to the
child (a perfectly legal parental choice):
“Every effort should be made to see the child. If this is not achieved, the fact should be recorded on the
monitoring form. This should, at the earliest opportunity, be drawn to the attention of the Elective Home
Education Manager, who will explore information known to Social Care, Health and other agencies.”
(Barking and Dagenham Home Education policy
(http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/Education/Documents/ElectiveHomeEducationpolicy.doc))
Example 5 Stoke on Trent

Stoke on Trent are explicit about their prejudices with the title of their policy:
“Guidance for children who may be particularly vulnerable: children educated at home”
How can support be suitable when it comes from institutions with such a misguided view, as we know from
the previous inquiry into the Badman Report children educated at home are one third less likely to be at risk
of harm than the general child population (spreadsheet link)
And from the body of the document a perfect example of the sort of compulsory support we neither want
nor need, indeed the sort of “support” that can traumatise a family and disrupt the education of the children
and is totally inappropriate for a family making a law abiding choice of equal value to sending a child to school.
“NB If the education at home monitoring officer has concerns for a child’s safety or a child’s wellbeing
(or if the child has not been seen during a home visit) an immediate referral to Children & Young People’s
Department Vulnerable Children and Corporate Parenting Division will be made and confirmed using the
Safeguarding Children Board Multi-agency Referral Form (see Section K5)).”
(http://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/F11_Children_Educated_At_Home.pdf)
This is despite clear guidelines that Home Education and Welfare functions should not be conflated. That
this should not happen has been recognised by the Prime Minister:
“Of course I am also determined to ensure we have the highest standards of child protection and
safeguarding in this country, but I share your concerns about the way in which issues of home education
and child protection have been conflated in a way which seems to me unfair on so many exceptionally
dedicated, and loving parents.” David Cameron
(http://mum6kids.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/david-cameron-writes-in-support-of-home-education-
freedom/)
Automatic referral to child welfare services is not compatible with the highest standards of child welfare as
it muddies the waters with cases where no reasonable suspicion exists unless one conflates education with
welfare.
(http:/www.home-schooling-uk.com/article/8585 future_of_home_education_mark_field_mp)
Example 6 Exeter
What home educating parent would want to experience up the benefit of registering with Exeter?
“If at the end of this period the advisor still does not believe your child is being suitably educated you
will be advised to enrol your child at a school. At this stage the Education Welfare Service may be brought
in to ensure that your child does enrol. This could involve legal action.”
(http://www.essex.gov.uk/Education-Schools/Schools/Learning/Home%20education/Pages/Benefits-of-
registering-with-the-Essex-Home-Education-Service.aspx)
From their web page:
“The LA has a statutory duty to provide a monitoring service in respect of pupils for whom parents/carers
elect to provide education at home. The role of the Home Education Service is:”
(http://secure.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/si/esi/dis/content/index.jsp?&sectionLink=true&sectionOid=895&oid=
42491)
Are they lying or are they confused?
And it goes on!
National and Local Government failure to provide accountability

Even the DfE when appealed to both selectively quote their own guidelines and abrogate responsibility to
the home educator suggesting as a final resort the Local Ombudsman
“In order to comply with this duty local authorities need to make arrangements which will as far as
possible enable them to determine whether any children who are not pupils at schools, such as those being
educated at home, are receiving suitable education.”
However, CME Guidance refers to EHE guidelines so:
“Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the
Education and Inspections Act 2006, to make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities, so
far as it is possible to do so, of children in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. The duty
applies in relation to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not
receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (for example, at home, privately, or in
alternative provision).”
The guidance issued makes it clear that the duty does not apply to children who are being educated at home.
Could the DfE be unaware of this?
The Local Ombudsman also appears not to understand the law around home education
In a report on a judgement on a complaint from a home educator quoted in the link above, the Ombudsman
says “The council’s role was confined to approving the syllabus and checking that it was followed.” This is
incorrect. How can the ombudsman come to a fair decision regarding a complaint from a home educator being
unfairly treated by a council with such a poor knowledge of the law surrounding home education?
(http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-home-tuition/)
Barriers to effective support

So local authorities may act unlawfully with no sanctions leaving home educators with no redress or access
to support to ensure their legal right to educate as they see fit are protected.
It seems to me that the LAs have legal teams who could reassure them that they do not have a duty to
monitor, it is crystal clear in the guidelines, so they must want control of citizens who have decided not to
take up their services. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they have no right or duty to monitor
home education and that repeated demands for information, visits, sight of work and timetables come under
the umbrella of monitoring and are not acceptable.
So before support from LAs could be trusted to be just that, and not disguised coercion and unnecessary
interference, a level playing field is needed with Councils being required to keep to the law and sanctioned
whenever they do not. A means of home educators reporting malpractice is urgently required; of course
something would need to be seen to happen post report for this to be effective and reassuring. Until this is in
place many home educators will be understandably suspicious and wary of “support” offered by the local
council.
As my home educated daughter says “Why are you always having to do this instead of doing the education.”
Why indeed! (An exaggeration but she feels the impact of these challenges.)
July 2012
Written evidence submitted by S Hodges

1. Introduction
1.1 I have been a home educator for over fifteen years; neither of my children have ever attended school,
though both went to nursery part-time. We decided to try home education for our eldest child from the age of
five because she had already learned so much at home naturally with me (the nursery were constantly surprised
at what she knew and could do). We had no particular expectations or a dislike of schools. Education at home
appeared to work well so we continued, constantly reviewing what we did. We regularly asked both our
children if they would like to go to school (we expected them to enter at secondary age) but they always refused.
1.2 Our younger child has Asperger Syndrome and a physical disability. Home education has worked well
for him because we could accommodate his interests and ways of learning.
1.3 I have also been the Local Contact for Education Otherwise for several years, dealing with home
educators’ queries. We have also been “known” to the Local Authority for about seven years and have preferred
to submit reports, though the children did meet the Home Education Liaison Officer once on neutral territory.
2. Support: Our Experiences

2.1.1 Home Education is personalised and highly individual. What suits one child in a family may not suit
another. One family may therefore accept support of eg: funding for a college place but another may not.
2.1.2 Our Local Authority makes it very clear in all their literature that parents who home educate their
children take on all financial responsibility and can expect no support.
2.2 Exams/Qualifications
2.2.1 We intended our older child should take at least four IGCSEs while educated at home. The first exam
centre we had planned using went out of business some months before she was due to take them. We located
a second centre but their charges were much greater; we paid about £260 for two exams in one subject. This
changed our plans so she then went to the local college at the age of 16 and successfully sat another five GCSEs.
2.2.2 We did not receive any support/help from the Local Authority in finding this second exam centre. We
received no funding at all.
2.2.3 I have been contacted on several occasions by home educators who have been told by the Home
Education Liaison Officer to ask me about exam centres.
2.2.4 In November 2011 the Home Education Liaison Officer contacted parents of Year 11 children with the
offer of a Virtual Learning Environment GCSE course. This was after the academic year had started and the
course was due to begin in January 2012. The seconded Home Education Liaison Officer (maternity
replacement) later rang me to ask where home educators sat exams (it seemed this hadn’t been considered).
2.2.5 Our son agreed to do this course; we heard nothing. When I contacted the Home Education Liaison
Officer a few days before it was due to start in January I was told that it had been cancelled because not
enough families had taken it up within the county. Since it was offered to just one year group and after most
people had already made plans for that year this was not surprising; it left the impression that it had been set
up to fail.
3. Support: Equality in Accessing Services

3.1 It seems that home educated children with additional needs are excluded from services given to those in
Local Authority schools.
3.2 Speech Therapy

3.2.1 Our son began speech therapy when he was three years old. Since he reached school age this has been
withdrawn twice. The first occasion was in 2004, when the speech therapist said he couldn’t see him any more
because he (and his colleagues) would be working in schools in the future. A few years later my husband
complained about this at a public meeting; five days later a speech therapist arranged to visit at home during
school holidays (ie: about six times a year). This lasted for about a year; then the therapist told me that the
Speech and Language service was being reformed and had to concentrate on what it was good at, so she didn’t
believe she could continue seeing us at home.
3.3 Autistic Spectrum Support

3.3.1 When we eventually received a diagnosis of our son’s Asperger Syndrome we asked what support was
available. The educational psychologist replied that any support was usually given in schools so there was
none; we arranged to have annual appointments with her to discuss progress and problems. However, this was
an informal arrangement which we instigated; there was no organised support available for home educators
and, so far as I know, there is still none.
3.3.2 A few years ago the psychologist asked me about home education at one of our annual appointments.
She explained that she knew nothing about it and had recently had a handful of referrals where the children
were educated at home. I gave a concise summary of how we educated our children, the sort of meetings that
take place and what parents might do; she was stunned to learn we received no financial support.
3.3.3 This seemed to illustrate that no thought had been given to any child on the autistic spectrum who was
not in the school system.
3.4 Physical Needs

3.4.1 Our son has mobility problems and uses a wheelchair for moving distances. About three years ago his
Occupational Therapist recommended he should have a powered chair (EPIOC) to get around better. She
accompanied us to the Wheelchair Services assessment; we were told he did not meet the criteria because he
did not use his wheelchair in the house, a rule which the Occupational Therapist was unaware of. However, if
he were in school he would have been given an EPIOC for use there or anywhere else if he wished. The
Occupational Therapist did try to challenge this decision but he was given another manal chair.
3.4.2 In November 2011 Wheelchair Services reassessed our son. The Occupational Therapist had a very
long phone conversation with them beforehand explaining how we go out a great deal for educational purposes
and that an EPIOC would improve his independence; in fact, it would be more use to him as a home educated
child than if he were in school, and that he should go to college the following year. We were again told that
he did not meet the criteria but that Education might be able to provide such a chair. However, they could not
tell me who to contact in Education.
3.4.3 I spent most of the next day ringing the Council trying to find out who could help us with this. I was
“signposted” from one person to another, none of whom had ever come across (or considered the possibilty
of) a child who was educated at home and needed a wheelchair. Eventually a person in the Physical Disabilities
team said she would query this with her boss and get back to me. That was eight months ago and we have
heard nothing.
3.5 Dyslexia
3.5.1 Our son displays symptoms of dyslexia and dysgraphia. I began asking about testing for this some
years ago and was referred to the county’s chief Educational Psychologist. The reason for wanting assistance
with testing was to ensure that any test would be accepted by examination centres/bodies. He had not come
across home educated children before but felt sure he would be able to arrange a test. He rang me some weeks
later to say that the county had decided that its money would be spent on children in the county’s schools so
he was unable to help with testing. He reassured me that if what we were doing seemed to work to continue
doing it. Local Authority Testing/support is still unavailable to home educated families.
3.6 Assistance at College

3.6.1 I have contacted the local college about the possibilty of each child attending while under 16. The
quoted costs varied, but £2,000 (or more) for a revision course of five GCSEs appeared expensive when our
daughter could wait twelve months and take it for free.
3.6.2 Our son would need support for his additional needs at college. I was told by one college employee
that even if we paid for his course they could not guarantee support provision if he were not Year 12 age. This
was most frustrating since he could have done a Level 1 course at the college and then gone on to Level 2.
Since he struggles with time limits and writing a continual assessment/portfolio style course suit him better
than exams; now the college prefer four GCSEs (D or E grades) to do a level 2
4. Transition to College
4.1 When our children reached the age of 13 we were sent a leaflet about Connexions and informed they
were eligible to use their services. Nothing additional was offered for our son who has additional needs, even
though the Local Authority has always known of them.
4.2 In March 2012 I attended a “Transitions” session organised by a Carers’ Association for parents of
youngsters with additional needs of 13 years and above. The Local Authority has recently set up a Transitions
team and I spoke with the new team leader, suggesting that they need to consider home educated children. I
gave him my contact details and offered to help if he would like to meet with home educating parents; I have
not heard anything yet.
4.3 Given that so many children with additional needs are home educated (including many who have
statements while they are in the school system) it is alarming that no support is offered when they approach
the transitions age.
5. Recommendations
5.1 Any support should be offered, not imposed. A family should not be penalised for not accepting support
if it is not wanted; their educational provision should be viewed for its own merits, and not regarded as inferior
if they do not accept support.
5.2 There should be no “strings attached” to any support.
5.3 Local Authorities should ensure all staff are better informed about elective home education, especially—
but not only—those working directly with home educators. This should be done with the involvement of local
home educators, and should strive to remove the ingrained myths about home education being suspicious,
inferior, involving child abuse etc.
5.4 Local Authorities should obey the law and not attempt to present it as they would like it to be (enforced
visits etc).
5.5 Local Authorities should ensure that home educating families are not penalised for their choice of
education. Children and families should have equal access to services as those who use the Local Authority’s
schools. Whenever a facility or service is available to a child in school there should be a process established
to make an equitable service available to a home educated child.
September 2012
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited

12/2012 023879 19585

House of Commons Support For Home Education English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House of Commons Support For Home Education English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House of Commons

Support for Home

Ordered by the House of Commons

Published on 20 December 2012

The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to

Membership at time Report agreed:

Damian Hinds MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) was also a member of the

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Ev w2 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Stephen Keen

Written evidence submitted by Wendy Charles-Warner

2. The quality and accessibility of that support

3. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w3

Written evidence submitted by Mish Pasha

Written evidence submitted by Clare Emerson

2. Response to the Points of the Inquiry

Ev w4 Education Committee: Evidence

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w5

2.3 Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Ev w6 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Kate Jackson

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w7

Written evidence submitted by Louise Kerbiriou

Written evidence submitted by Karen Thirlaway

Ev w8 Education Committee: Evidence

1 The duties of local authorities with regard to home education

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w9

3 The quality and accessibility of that support

Ev w10 Education Committee: Evidence

4 Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w11

Written evidence submitted by Jon Home

Written evidence submitted by Jessica and Nigel Spiers

Ev w12 Education Committee: Evidence

2. The quality and accessibility of that support

3. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w13

— Subscriptions. Including courses, relevant organisation membership, even appropriate magazine/

Written evidence submitted by Red Balloon

Red Balloon Learner Centre Group

Ev w14 Education Committee: Evidence

The quality and accessibility of that support

Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w15

Written evidence submitted by Louise Smart

Ev w16 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Helen Hornby

3. The quality and accessibility of that support

4. Whether current arrangements for financial support are adequate

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w17

Written evidence submitted by Gill Guest

3. Experience of Support Available for Home Educators

4. Recommendations for Action

Written evidence submitted by Neia Glynn

Ev w18 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w19

Written evidence submitted by Mr and Mrs Gibson

Ev w20 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Vanda Alexander

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w21

Written evidence submitted by Janet MacKay