Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive a briefing on Elective Home Education (EHE), including the data showing the number of Children and Young people receiving EHE.

The Sub-Committee considered a paper set out on pages 27 to 50 of the agenda, which provided a briefing on Elective Home Education (EHE) in Croydon, including the data showing the number of Children and Young people receiving EHE. The Head of Access to Education introduced the item and summarised the report.

Members asked whether the Council provided any open days for EHE pupils and heard from the Director of Education that this was not the case due to the small size of the EHE team and the different circumstances of families that were better addressed through individual conversations. The Head of Access to Education added that the Local Authority had to remain neutral in regards to EHE, and could not make a judgement on any family’s decision to take that route. Members heard that historically the EHE team had provided a number of resources to EHE families, and that additional online resources were planned for the future with expansion of the team.

The Sub-Committee asked what the Council could do to address children who fell significantly behind in EHE. The Director for Education explained it was expected that any child with a special need was in a school that could meet their needs, but where families had chosen to EHE, they would be responsible for meeting these needs without resources from the Council. The Corporate Director for Children, Young People & Education explained that there was very little power for the Council to intervene over issues that could not be in the child’s best educational interest, but that forthcoming legislation may change this. The Sub-Committee heard the Council was supportive of this legislation changing. The Sub-Committee asked how many SEN children were being home educated and heard that currently there were seven in Croydon with an EHCP, but some parents may be in the process of applying for EHCP, or have less substantial needs. The Head of Access to Education explained that families were responsible for delivering the EHCP should they chose to EHE.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council knew how many ‘not known’ EHE students were in Croydon, and whether there were any processes to try to identify these children. The Director for Education explained that families did not have to register with the Council to notify of EHE, but the Council would know if the child had previously been on a school roll. The Vice-Chair asked how an EHCP process would be conducted for a child receiving an EHE. The Director of Education explained that a parent or GP could submit an application for an EHCP assessment. Members asked about the increase in parents not providing a reason for EHE and heard that this was not known but that possibly this was because it was the first year that this option had been included as a ‘tick box’ on the notification form.

The Sub-Committee asked about the most common obstacles facing children in receipt of EHE. The Head of Access to Education explained that many families delivering EHE did so very successfully. Challenges were referred on to the ‘Children Missing Education’ team, and referrals for EHE were only accepted when the family wanted to EHE; if this were found not to be the case, then the school would be challenged and this could lead to a referral to Children’s Social Care. Members asked if the Council tried to intervene with students and families who taken the EHE route as a result of bullying. The Head of Access to Education explained that this was the case and that there would be an immediate conversation with the school. It was likely that these cases would not sit under the EHE team for very long and would be passed on to the ‘Children Missing Education’ team to work with the family alongside inclusion officers where a number of options could be considered, including a move to a different school.

The Sub-Committee enquired as to if there was any curriculum that EHE students needed to follow. The Head of Access to Education explained that any EHE curriculum needed to be ‘suitable’ and ‘efficient’, both of which were very low legal tests. Members heard it was not appropriate for the Local Authority to intervene in EHE curriculum at all, unless it was presenting a safeguarding concern, but that many children receiving EHE had a wide and varied curriculum that could include group sessions with other EHE children. Members asked if EHE officers ever talked directly to children and the Head of Access to Education explained that this did happen, but that it was always at the discretion of the parents. Children were regularly involved in reviews for the registered families administering EHE. In response to questions about whether whole families opted to EHE, or if it could just be one child with their siblings in mainstream schools, the Sub-Committee heard that it was a whole range.

Members asked about the philosophical and ideological reasons for families choosing to EHE, and heard from the Head of Access to Education that this may be due to cultural, religious or anti-establishment beliefs (e.g. unschooling or de-schooling). The Sub-Committee asked if there was any common social or economic factors amongst families choosing EHE, and heard that again this was a whole range, but that demographic data was not collected in line with current legislation.

The Vice-Chair asked if there were any indicators that children were likely to go from mainstream schooling into EHE, and whether any data on this was collected. The Director of Education explained that there was going to be a greater national focus on attendance in the future, but that low attendance did not necessarily indicate students would be moving to EHE. Members commented on anecdotal evidence that attendance could often increase before students moved to EHE in an attempt to get as much out of schools as possible before children stopped attending.

The Sub-Committee highlighted families who had wanted to move to EHE who were involved with Children’s Social Care or were on child protection plans. Members noted that the report stated that this had been challenged robustly and asked how it was ensure that these children were still attending school. The Director of Education explained that the Council would monitor attendance for these children in conjunction with Social Care; a social worker would be assigned to each of these families. Members asked if pupils who received EHE disproportionality went on to become ‘Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEETs)’; the Head of Access to Education explained that this was difficult to benchmark for a number of reasons.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee concluded that they should continue to monitor any upcoming legislative changes for Local Authority powers on Elective Home Education.