/ Schools Forum
16 May 2017
Elective Home Education
Tracey Sanders (County Education Manager: Inclusion) / Item 5 /
Contact: Tracey Sanders, County Education Manager Inclusion
Tel: 01962 847123 Email:
1 Summary
1.1 Parents have a right to Electively Home Educate (EHE) their children and the Local Authority has no statutory duty to monitor provision for children although all families are offered a support visit. Currently the Local Authority only has contact with 30% of families who are known to EHE as there is low take up on the offer of a support visit.
1.2 The number of children EHE in Hampshire is over 1328 (April 2017). The growth of numbers has more than doubled in four years and represents a 38% annual growth rate
1.3 This level is of concern to schools and the Local Authority as there is limited view on whether a suitable education is being provided and more importantly whether the children are safeguarded.
1.4 This report has been written to ask schools forum to consider options for supporting EHE children and agreement to allocate funding. It is proposed that some or all of the £148,000 budget that is currently held within the Education Inclusion Service (EIS) could be allocated and would build upon existing Local Authority funding.
1.5 Additional funding will enable Electively Home Educated children to better safeguarded and provide greater assurances about the quality of their education. The £148,000 Education Inclusion Service budget has been used to date, to offer support in exceptional circumstances to schools which have required resources as an interim measure to meet the needs of children with behaviour difficulties as informed by the Primary Behaviour Service.(PBS) Since the introduction of the SENSA, there has been a reduction in the demand for this resource.
1.6 It is suggested that this would be an appropriate use of high needs block funding as a number of EHE children are children with additional needs and if they were in schools may have drawn upon resources from the high needs block.
2 Background
2.1 Parents have a right to EHE and there are no statutory duties for the Local Authority to monitor provision, however the Local Authority does have a duty to make arrangements to identify as far as possible any child who is not receiving a suitable education.
2.2 Currently, oversight of Elective Home Education (EHE) is part of the Education Inclusion Service (EIS) led by two Area Strategic Managers – Alternative Provision (ASMs), with the support of two administrative assistants (PAs). Consultants are employed on a casual basis to conduct home visits. This service offers limited support to EHE families which include the offer of an initial visit and report from a consultant and access to a Local Authority website.
2.3 Parents EHE for a number of reasons. Research by HIEPS Research and Evaluation Unit, conducted in 2016, found that Hampshire parents who choose to home educate are not a homogenous group. Parents reported a range of reasons for choosing to home educate their child with over a third of parents deciding to home educate their child due to problems with their child’s experience of school.
2.4 Other frequently cited reasons included those relating to the specific special educational needs of their child (cited by 30%), bullying from pupils (cited by 29%), and being against school testing (cited by 26%). Bullying from school staff was less frequently cited (cited by 11%). The least frequently chosen reasons were a lack of suitable school places available (cited by 3%) and the school suggesting that home education might be a good option (cited by 4%).
2.5 Ultimately, research has suggested that the majority of parents are seeking a more flexible route to education, with the over-arching aim of improving their child’s wellbeing. Whilst challenges existed, the majority felt that these were outweighed by the overall benefits.
2.6 This number of EHE children is growing at around 20% per year and there are potential safeguarding concerns as Hampshire County Council (HCC) does not have contact with all of the children, and cannot be assured of their safety or that the Prevent agenda is being implemented. At a national level these concerns are shared by OFSTED, The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), Association of Elective Home Education Professionals (AEHEP), NSPCC and cited in reports such as the Wood Report (December 2016).
2.7 Undertaking safeguarding and educational enquiries with parents of EHE children is difficult, as the Department for Education Website - https://www.gov.uk/home-education states that Local Authorities can make “informal enquiries”, however EHE guidance (para 2.8) states “Parents are under no duty to respond to such enquiries”.
2.8 HCC does not systematically monitor the suitability of EHE; if parents do not wish to have any contact with HCC they can opt out. Currently, this is the situation for around 70% of EHE parents in Hampshire. Parents who remove their child from school are contacted and offered a consultant visit. If they decline or more likely do not reply then that is possibly the last contact that Children’s Services has with the family and child.
2.9 HCC does not currently routinely make ‘informal enquires’; in order to do so would require investment in terms of tracking of pupils, communication with parents by letter, email or phone, coupled with recognition that some parents do not wish to be contacted. Arranging and maintaining contacts for vulnerable pupils will require close working with other agencies such as social services and police.
2.10 The budget for EHE is £62,000; £43,000 expenditure is on ASM and PA salaries. The remaining £19,000 expenditure is on consultant fees, travel expenses and examination fees (see Appendix 2). Last year there was an underspend of approximately £2,500; this reflects the level of take up with only 30% of parents accepting a visit and only one visit being offered. The minimal service offer has made it difficult to respond to concerns, such as where a school is clearly of the view that the parent is incapable of EHE, within the existing budgetary and staffing framework. By providing a more comprehensive support offer and being proactive in terms of contacting parents, more families will be able to take up the HCC offer.
2.11 The table below compares HCC with the Isle of Wight (IOW) for 2015/16
Number of EHE pupils / Budget / Staffing / Home visits / Written reports / telephone contactHCC / 1,147 / £62K /
2 ASMs (10%)
2 PA (50%)6 casual consultants 0.6. / 114 / 114 – written reports
Approx. 900 telephone conversations with parents
IoW / 259 / £70K / Lead Officer for EHE – full time
EHE Officer – 1-2 days per week, term time only
Admin support – 6 hours per week / 106 / 50 written reports
2.12 The budget for the EHE service on the IOW is £67K and this is funded through the high needs black of the DSG.
2.13 There is now an opportunity to reshape the EHE offer in Hampshire following the merging of the two Education and Inclusion Service (EIS) teams, formally east and west. Additionally, by moving budgets within EIS following the introduction of the SENSA, the EIS budget for supporting vulnerable pupils in schools can be switched to supporting potentially vulnerable pupils who are EHE.
2.14 This report has been written to request Schools Forum to consider options for supporting EHE children and agreement to allocate funding from the high needs block. In particular it is proposed that the £148,000 budget that is currently held within the Education Inclusion Service (which has been used to date to offer support in exceptional circumstances to schools which have required resources as an interim measure to meet the needs of children with behaviour difficulties) is allocated to support expansion of the EHE service. Since the introduction of the SENSA, there has been a reduction in the demand for this resource and re-focusing the use of this funding will enhance existing Local Authority resources so that Electively Home Educated children are better safeguarded and there is greater assurances about the quality of their education.
3 Future
3.1 Currently the two PAs split the administrative functions around EHE which is not efficient. Each PA spends around 50% of their working time managing EHE work. It is proposed that one PA role be restructured as an EHE administrator reporting to the EHE co-ordinator, this would be a cost neutral change for a D grade post and would create a county EHE administrative post.
3.2 The new database (Capita One) will significantly improve HCC’s ability to report and keep a better track of EHE children, which offers further opportunities to develop the administrative capacity.
3.3 Some Local Authorities visit every known EHE child at least once a year. Visiting every known child would enable any safeguarding concerns to be more easily identified and passed on to Children’s Services. However, this would require significant resource; this paper proposes a targeted approach.
3.4 Home visit activities vary in different Local Authorities but in many a judgement is made about the quality of the programme of study, advice and guidance offered including post 16 options or possible return to school if thought desirable. If it is considered that the education on offer was inadequate then steps are put in place to issue a school attendance order.
3.5 Currently HCC do not make a judgement about suitable provision or issue school attendance orders (SAOs) to EHE parents. This is in comparison with the IOW who issue one or two SAOs each year and five or six warning letters. The proposals in this paper are that more explicit judgements are made, during visits, about the suitability of educational provision. SAOs could be used as a lever to ensure children are receiving an education. It is anticipated that based on the IOW model, one or two SAOs might be issued per district. These would need to be processed by the Family Support Service (FSS) who already manage the SAO process and it is anticipated that the families who require SAOs would also meet the Early Help (Level 3) criteria.
3.6 In order to fully develop the EHE support offer for Hampshire parents who EHE, it is proposed that a further post be created to co-ordinate matters pertaining to EHE. There would be an emphasis on developing the HCC service and developing a more proactive monitoring strategy with regards to children who are considered vulnerable. This post would be an EHE co-ordinator. The co-ordinator would link closely with the FSS to ensure appropriate early help was provided to the family or link with social workers where children are at Level 4.
3.7 HCC has an excellent reputation with local home education groups such as Home Educators Educating Together (North Hampshire), Fareham and Gosport Home Education Group (FareGos), New Forest Home Education Group and National Home Education groups such as Education Otherwise and Ed Yourself. It is important that these positive relationships are maintained and built upon.
3.8 Enhancing relationships with EHE parent groups will be a core function of the EHE co-ordinator, which will help the Local Authority secure a greater uptake of home visits. It is also proposed that the role enhances the information available to EHE parents so that HCC support is valued amongst this group. Some parents are proud of their work and are keen to receive monitoring visits; parents who have a good relationship with HCC are also more likely to be prepared to raise concerns regarding families in the EHE community where there may be safeguarding issues.
3.9 This post is qualitatively different from the previous co-ordinator post which was deleted in 2012, as this post is about improving the total offer to EHE parents including a degree of home visits, as opposed to the previous co-ordinator post that was largely administrative. It is anticipated that this post will be a grade E.
3.10 Finally, it is proposed that the current use of consultants is reviewed and that the Local Authority directly employs EHE consultants. This will offer an opportunity to use staff time more flexibly and enable closer supervision, quality assurance and performance management.
4 Options
4.1 The following options also provide suggestions regarding increasing the consultant resource so that more home visits can be conducted. These options are differentiated by the level of support that could be offered and associated costs. These options should also be considered against current national lobbying which is asking the Government to consider compulsory registration of families to EHE and provision in law for the monitoring of the education arrangements being made for children. (See Appendix 1 for more details regarding options)
4.2 Option 1
4.2.1 Aim for every child who is EHE to receive a minimum of one consultant visit per year. This option would require an extra administrative assistant in addition to the EHE Co-ordinator. The EHE Administrators would need to keep a track of correspondence, telephone calls and maintain a database.
4.2.2 A much larger home visiting team would need to be employed to have the capacity to meet need. On the basis that one home visit will take three hours, (to include one hour with family, report writing and travel), this would require at least three full time consultants to visit just once a year. If a second visit was required this would require a further three full time consultants. Total costs for this model would be £319,000, £62,000 of funding currently exists and therefore an additional £257,000 is required.