On 25 February, the South Wales Argus ran a report on a Monmouthshire Council People Scrutiny Committee meeting. The article was headed “Concerns over home school regulations.”
The meeting had taken place on 18 February, and Item 4 on their agenda – Inclusion Strategy and Additional Learning Needs policy – covered a wide range of topics.
It was in this context that the matter of home education was raised, with Chair Laura Wright asking if there was a process in place to address the potential for an electively home educated child being in some way vulnerable, at risk or having additional learning needs that might not be being met at home. Agenda, documentation and video of proceedings are available on the Council’s meeting page. [Watch relevant section on YouTube from 54:19 until 1:12:26]
Mixed thinking
Both the question and the press article serve to highlight the extent to which the perception of journalists and local authority personnel have been influenced by the prevailing public narrative conflating so-called ‘home schooling,’ risk and safeguarding. Though the Sharif case was only referred to obliquely in the meeting, it is evident from several councillors’ questions that the ‘official’ narrative had impacted their thinking.
This is unsurprising, given the perennial confusion around “children not in school” that exists amongst the general public and sometimes, unfortunately, within Education Departments and local authorities too.
On this occasion it was good to hear local authority staff recognising more than once that strong networks and community exists amongst home educators, and to hear them acknowledging that in many cases “EHE is a lifestyle choice.”
There were, however, several matters of concern to HE families.
Dr Morwenna Wagstaff (Head of Inclusion) was careful to distinguish between EOTAS and EHE, and Education Officer Jacquelyn Elias addressed specifics around Individual Development Plans, but otherwise the misleading impression was given that the duty of the local authority included monitoring the education provided to EHE children in order to determine its suitability.
The fact that the responsibility for providing a suitable education for a child and for determining what this is rests in law with the parents was conspicuous by its absence.
What a local authority is actually required to do is to identify “as far as possible” any children in their area who are not in receipt of a suitable education. Seeking to oversee the education of all electively home educated children who are quite legitimately “not in school” is not part of that duty.
If parents respond to informal enquiries from an authority telling them they are home educating their child(ren), their word that they are providing full time education suited to their age ability and aptitude should suffice, unless the LA has a genuine reason to believe that not to be the case. A local authority does not need to carry out home visits to confirm that home educated children are being home educated; in the meeting there was too much of an expectation that this was acceptable and therefore normal.
Should an authority have concerns about a child on welfare issues, then this falls within the remit of social services (rather than education services) to make enquiries. Statutory powers to intervene on safeguarding grounds already exist, and these should be used where real concerns are raised. In such situations there are clear processes to follow in order to safeguard children and families, and this distinction should have been pointed out in response to Laura Wright’s initial question.
The terminology used to refer to the “dedicated EHE Officer within the Education Welfare Service” no longer carries the clarity it once did concerning the boundaries of different responsibilities in the workings and thought processes of many local authorities.
Inevitably, personal bias does communicate in statements like this from the Head of Inclusion,
“From our point of view we would love them to be in our schools as part of the community they live in, but that is the right of parents to educate them at home.”
Such pronouncements can also leave an abiding impression that home educators are not “part of the community” – which is of course in direct contrast to the lived experience of the vast majority of them. Secondly, focusing on the “right of parents” can implicitly convey the idea that these are somehow opposed to their children’s rights to a suitable education. Again, home education is actually about the rights of children and families to a suitable education of their choosing.
An unfamiliar concept
Turning to the councillors, the experience and expectation of the average local councillor may well be that ‘education’ takes place in school, and being in receipt of education equates with ‘going to school.’ When they find themselves walking in unfamiliar territory with many unknowns, phrases such as “the Children Missing in Education policy” are confusing to them. They can feel out of their depth and therefore somewhat anxious to make sure things are being done properly on their patch.
Such confusion was particularly evident when there was opportunity for them to raise questions. Going forward, it would be good to see home educators in Monmouthshire following these up and engaging constructively with their local councillors.
This is equally true no matter where you live. The majority of councillors are ordinary people who have never knowingly met a HE child. Engaging with them now will prepare them to be better informed, not just for when the topic arises in meetings of this sort, but also when they engage with their various political party representatives who are Members of Senedd or the Westminster Parliament.
Rising numbers of parents turning to EHE was a concern to one Councillor – though it was explained during the meeting that this was frequently the result of ALN being unmet in schools. The mistaken concept of a perceived lack of opportunity for socialisation was an all too familiar concern to another, though like most people the Councillor may well have construed that word as having friends, rather than the common children’s professional definition of being squeezed into the State’s mould along with most children of their age.
Questions such as these only serve to underline the need for interaction with real-life home educating families in order to dispel myths and stereotypes. Demonstrating to councillors that HE is not a “problem to be solved,” but an educational choice with huge benefits for the whole family will better prepare them for future meetings where topics which concern us as home educators are discussed, as they surely will be.
Looking further afield
Finally, it’s important to take note of the ongoing exchange of thinking between the Welsh and English education departments. This was referenced obliquely during Elias’ response to Cllr Butler’s question. This segment should be listened to very carefully [1:05, 1:11-12] in order to grasp the level of motivation to see the law changed, and the accompanying hope that upcoming legislation in England in the form of the Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill will facilitate this.
“…it’s a challenge for us as an authority, if parents say no [to visits] we have no legal redress to actually do anything about that unless we feel there is a significant safeguarding concern… that is obviously something that at the moment we can’t do anything about until the Law changes to make that a mandatory visit.”
and subsequently from Wagstaff:
“… I believe that there is a review of that legislation – I think that’s in England, so I don’t know how that will play out into Wales, but I would imagine there’ll be a review of that soon.”
Meanwhile, on the other side of the border, occasional allusion is made to collaboration between the two departments. This matter was reported elsewhere in January 2021.
Will McLean (Strategic Director – Learning, Skills and Economy) was brought into the discussion later to answer a query about numbers of EHE children in Monmouthshire, and it was agreed that he would provide a written update for the committee on matters related to home education.
Cllr Simon Howarth had clearly taken on board the point about desirable future changes filtering through from Westminster, and expressed strong views about the importance of the committee
“…urging the Welsh government to be on track soon as the decision’s been made in England about this home education and making sure that our young people who are home educated for whatever reason that we can monitor them.”
The Chair, who “couldn’t agree more,” asked Will Mclean to pick this up along with his written update.
It is common for councillors who sit on such scrutiny committees to have very little if any understanding of home education, and seeing opinions based on such lack of understanding being fed back in an attempt to influence national policy development is extremely concerning.
The association of a high profile case such as Sara Sharif with home education was a classic piece of political opportunism. Launching the Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill in the wake of the trial verdicts shaped the public narrative in such a way as to shift the blame onto a lack of oversight of home educators in general. Few are therefore aware that in this particular case, as in others which have hit the headlines over the years, Sara had been known to statutory services since before she was born, and was tragically failed by the same despite being ‘protected’ because she was in school and ‘visible.’
All of the above serves as a reminder that the best way for Councillors everywhere to gain a good understanding of what HE is really about is for local home educating families to be in contact with them. You may need to remind them that they don’t have your permission to pass your identifying data on to council staff, but don’t allow that to deter you from seeking to help them think outside the classroom box.
NEWS
UPDATES
To keep up to date with information concerning political discussion about home education in Wales, join our mailing list.
or you can
